JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 6, 1998

• 1637

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We're back. Just before I start, I want to set out for—well, we don't have very many new members, but for people who are interested—what we're doing today. I think there were some who thought we would actually proceed to clause-by-clause today, and that's not the case.

This is, I think, the only standing committee that has a procedure for integrating private members' business into its priorities. This is a procedure we began in the last Parliament, and we did it because members were concerned that, frankly, with the heavy workload this committee has and with the large demands for our attention by private members, we would deep-six private members' business if we didn't have a process for bringing it forward.

Secondly—and this is not something we thought out, but it's a result of that—because there's no department but just a private member who's done a whole bunch of work on something, there's no place to go to get briefed except to that member, and that's not always feasible for each of us. So it's easier for us to have the member here and get briefed in a public session.

First of all, it allows the member an opportunity to see that we're paying attention and that we know their work is on the agenda. Secondly, it allows us some time to think and learn about the subject matter before we decide what witnesses we're going to call and that sort of thing.

And it allows you to suggest to us the names of witnesses, Colleen, today, and I hope you will do that.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Yes.

The Chair: Good.

We know you have a presentation, and we're very happy to hear from you. So no, we will not proceed to clause-by-clause today, but as a result of this, we'll decide how we're going to approach the bill.

Finally, I don't know whether this is the case or not in terms of your bill, but usually in the past, as a matter of priority with private members' business, we've asked the government if they have anything coming on the same subject matter so that we can put the two together and not hold two sets of hearings, but hold one. So you may find that interesting, and we will probably be asking that question shortly.

All right. Go ahead.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Okay. I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be addressing. I know I'm addressing the bill, but....

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Everyone has a copy. I think everyone knows there aren't that many clauses to go through to understand what the bill's all about. When I submitted this bill and appeared before the parliamentary committee to have this bill deemed votable, it fit all of the criteria.

This bill is about accountability—for me to be accountable to my constituents and for everyone who is elected here to be able to be accountable. This bill came about because of the scandal and the horrendous acts of cover-up that resulted in the Krever inquiry and the Somalia inquiry. We have to learn from these mistakes.

• 1640

More important, for the last two annual reports, the information commissioner has repeatedly called for sanctions. I'm going to quote him. He said that when the government first enacted the Access to Information Act in 1983, it most likely:

did not foresee public servants flouting this law. That omission, which seems naive in hindsight...makes vigilance against and exposure of improper record destruction the only existing deterrent.

Canadians generally believe that we're all liars, that we only tell part of the truth. This is a case of trust. When a public inquiry is called, that public inquiry should have access to records that are important to the inquiry. To destroy public documents to cover up or to protect oneself is a violation of the public trust.

This act will at least minimize the power that government staff believe they have over public records. Why do they believe they have this power? Because there's little or virtually no sanction.

Colleagues from my side of the House who got up and spoke on this bill were expressing the department's criticisms of the bill, and I would like to address some of those.

First of all, they said the sentence is too harsh. They said other offences that they believe are more severe get smaller sentencing. One was even mentioned to me: an assault against a police officer. I would like to ask Justice, what is more offensive than being contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C, or women having breast implants that officials knew weren't safe to begin with? What's more important?

The credibility and reputation of a Prime Minister of this country have been smeared because of missing documents. I don't know how you can find an offence much more severe than those that resulted in the destruction of these documents.

Another criticism was that, because it's an indictable offence, it would tie up the courts. Look at the money that has been involved and spent on the Somalia inquiry, the Krever inquiry, and other inquiries where cover-ups have been exposed. We could make a lot more time in courts for the amount of money that has been spend trying to ferret out these cover-ups.

We have food contamination issues. You go back through the records and you see many documents—these are just the most public ones—documents that could have resulted in contamination of our food supply, documents about environmental contamination. This can't be allowed to continue. We have to give serious sanctions.

I'd like to know which part of the sentencing is too high, the “up to”, the “zero”, or the “five years”. Many people believe the sentencing should be a lot higher. I believe there are people in France who are in jail because of their blood cover-up. We can't allow this to continue. It jeopardizes our credibility and it is a violation of public trust.

I believe this act will strengthen democracy in Canada. As I said before, it's about public trust, accountability, and credibility. All parties have supported this. All of us recognize the validity and the need for this legislation. I urge you to support this bill to help ensure the public trust will not be violated again.

The Chair: Thanks.

Jack.

• 1645

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): I would like first of all to commend you for some very straightforward commentary that you have made. We don't often hear that, particularly from members of the government side. Well, we don't hear it often enough.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'm a member from the government side.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I know; that's what I'm saying. We don't often hear that, or certainly we don't hear it often enough.

The Chair: Well, you ought to hang around with Colleen more. Colleen may not want to do that, but....

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, I wonder why I'm not hearing more of it from those I do hang around with.

Anyway, tell me—and I'm playing the devil's advocate—why do you want people charged for destroying government documents? Why?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I think I made that fairly clear. I take a great deal of pride in my job. As much as I hear catcalls about backbenchers from the other side of the House, I feel there's probably no more honourable position you can fill in this country than to represent your constituents honestly, and lacking in cynicism, and I would like to be accountable to my constituents. I can't be accountable if departmental officials are not accountable to me. It's about accountability. The public has a right to know, other than on matters of national security.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So you want to send some poor little clerk to jail for five years if he destroys a document. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, I'm not sure that it's poor little clerks who are really ordering the destruction of these documents. If it is an indictable offence, then some little clerk is not going to risk going to jail because someone above them has ordered her or him to destroy documents. I want the people responsible for the destruction of these documents.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: You sit on the government side. Do you feel that documents have been destroyed on an extensive basis?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I only know what's come out in the Krever report and on Somalia, and the other examples that I cited that Ken Rubin and others whose business it is to get information have given me. It doesn't matter if it's been extensive or not. The fact that it has been done and may continue to happen is what's important. And no, I don't want some little clerk to go to jail. I want them to stop destroying documents.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: And I have to tell you, I'm not any different from any of my colleagues on the government side of the House either. I don't appreciate that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: You know that you have my support for this bill—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes, and I thank you for it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: —and the support of our caucus for this bill. We'll see how far this bill goes. It's going to be very interesting to see whether the sense of honesty and the sense of justice are going to be carried through by the government of this country. It's going to be very interesting to see whether the government will support this bill and how far this bill goes.

It seems obvious that there should be a sanction. Are you aware of any sanction at all for destroying documents?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: It's in the...I'm not sure if it's the summary offence that's punishable by up to two years. There is some sort of fine. Just a minute.

The Chair: Section 126 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you not feel that's sufficient?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, obviously it's not sufficient.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you think adding another three years to it will stop people from destroying documents?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'm not aware of any time that section 126 has ever been enacted. I think making it indictable will—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If there's a penalty there now, why hasn't it been enforced?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I don't know. You'd have to ask Justice about that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Have you made any inquiries as to why the law is not being enforced now, if you feel that documents have been destroyed illegally?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, I have not.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Oh. So there's a penalty there now, but what your testimony is suggesting is that the law is not being enforced under that particular section of the Criminal Code.

• 1650

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, the summary offence is not a very strong sanction.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It is a sanction, nevertheless.

The Chair: There's a six-month limitation, Jack, on summary matters. Six months.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. So that's a problem. What would the limitation of action be on this bill, it being an indictable offence?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'm not aware of that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, perhaps Peter MacKay can tell us. He might have greater knowledge on the limitation of action of indictable offences.

I'll come back, Madam Chair.

An hon. member: You don't get free advice from lawyers.

The Chair: There's no limitation on indictable offences—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, there you go.

The Chair: —or on hybrids, if the crown elects to proceed by indictment.

Let's take a minute to look at section 126, so we can put collective legal minds to work here. If somebody would just hold this across the room so I can read it....

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): The section must have been used to...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...case law in the Criminal Code, where there's a precedent.

The Chair: But not on the statute, and what's interesting is that.... Is there a section somewhere that says it's an offence to destroy documents, though?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): The way it's been quoted to me, and I can quote it, “Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament...”.

The Chair: No; I've got that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Can we read it out to everybody, then? Maybe it would be useful.

The Chair: No, no. The issue that I'm questioning just out loud, which we should address as a group at some point when we deal with this bill, is whether it says somewhere that you can't destroy the documents. If it says in the act that you can't destroy the documents—which it does not, Phil tells me—then it would be an offence. I think it will be interesting to hear from the justice department on that, in any event.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So there doesn't appear to be a sanction at the present time?

The Chair: Just a second. I'm just conferring with the researcher.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Sorry.

The Chair: Okay. Phil's got the idea. The act creates a right of access in section 4. If by destroying documents you frustrate the right of access, you would be contravening the act, and therefore they could use section 126 to charge. Colleen's approach is slightly more direct.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Is that summary conviction, though?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It's an indictable offence?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So there's no limitation of action?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, perhaps when the justice minister appears, we can ask her why action hasn't been taken if there's evidence of a violation of this section of the Criminal Code.

The Chair: It's unlikely the minister will appear on this.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, we could ask. All we can do is ask.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...if there has been the past use of that section. I don't have that information, but it's a good question—whether it's been used in the past.

The Chair: We will ask them to bring that information. Maybe you could do that for us.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Sure.

The Chair: Thanks. Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't have a great deal of questioning. I would like to congratulate the members. I think obviously you have put a great deal of thought into this, and I commend you, because in the same way Mr. Ramsay has indicated, it's a very straightforward amendment that you're bringing.

I think we do need more simplicity at times in our law, so that the people who are applying it and the people who are subject to it are going to understand it. What it appears to me you're seeking to do is to bring about greater accountability and, in simple terms, put teeth into what can result in a very serious situation when somebody contravenes this particular act.

I think you've answered the questions as far as the intent and the reasoning are concerned, and again, I'm supportive of what you're trying to do.

Mr. Colleen Beaumier: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Anyone on this side? Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I just wondered, how did you arrive at five years as the penalty, as opposed to, say, six years or three years?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, I'd be happy to take amendments to increase it. I'm having a problem with five years, so if you'd like to put an amendment to increase it, I'd be more than happy to accommodate that.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So it's an arbitrary term that you thought would be severe enough to have an impact, is it?

• 1655

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: It's a fairly deterrent sentence, I would think, especially if you were to get hit with the fine as well.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Did you do or have you done any research looking at a comparative basis for other offences to see where that would fit within the general scheme of penalties?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, the way I personally feel about it, if I were going to compare it with other offences, in light of the Krever inquiry, is it should be a life sentence with parole after 15 years. I just don't see the problem with five years being too much. I can see the problem with it in some cases not being enough. And besides, it's not five years; it's “up to”.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes, it's a maximum of five years.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Maybe it should be unlimited.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: In your opening comments you said Canadians believe we're all liars. Who are you speaking of when you say that?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I guess maybe “liars” was a—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Maybe you meant lawyers.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Lawyers, that's it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul DeVillers: That's pretty much true on this committee.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: That may have been a little harsh. I know my constituents don't think I am, but they think all the rest of you are.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'm sure you've all heard that, although I don't think you're dishonest, but—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But who is the “we”? You said “we”, meaning what, politicians or bureaucrats or government or...?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Politicians generally. We don't have a particularly good reputation.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So you were referring to politicians?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes. We don't—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And by enacting this legislation, we'd be addressing that perception somehow?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, I don't think it would be addressing this perception, but I think it would make us able to be assured that we could be what we were telling our constituents: that we were more accountable, that it was more accurate, and that we had the facts because somebody hadn't decided to shred them to cover up an error.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes.

I wonder, do you have any memorandums or any research you might have done in preparing that you could share with the committee and that we could consider?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes, I do. I'll get that to the committee.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Good. Thank you.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): May I ask you what your profession was in your previous life?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, I started out as a social worker and then I had a business.

Mr. Ken Epp: So you don't have a legal background?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: You're not a lawyer.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Well, we don't want to pick on them, but I was just wondering, because of the legal aspect of this. I'm sure you got advice on it.

I have a very serious question. Actually, I had two questions, but one has already been answered with respect to the sanctions, either absent or present, and the enforcement of them. That already came up.

My second question has to do with a history of cover-ups at different government departments and even internationally. I'm thinking of the ordering by certain military people of their underlings to do certain things, and then afterwards they get hauled up in court, and we know that some of them in the United States have even served jail sentences for simply doing what they were told. They were following orders.

I wonder whether you had any thoughts at all about having your act include not only the person who destroys, mutilates, or alters a record or a document but also anyone who orders that it be done. The way it is right now, one person could order it and another person could do it, and according to this, you're going to be going after the person who actually follows the orders rather than the one who gives the orders.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Perhaps that is an aspect that could be looked at to tighten it up, but somehow I think the one who shreds the document is the one who commits.... You can order me to fire a gun, but I'm the one who fires the gun, in spite of your order.

We're talking about the Canadian bureaucracy here. We're not talking about people who are having guns held to their heads and being ordered to do things. We're talking about a group of people who I believe are, overall, very responsible and take a great deal of pride in their work. I have a great deal of respect for the civil service, and I do believe that if it becomes an indictable offence, no one is going to follow. I can't imagine a clerk following the orders of someone higher up and destroying a document, which would lead to—

• 1700

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Is this going to cause a problem, though, among our trusty civil servants? I can see an assistant being ordered to take some documents out of a file cabinet, shredding them, and then saying, but sir, I don't think I want to do this, because I don't want to go to jail. It could be that those documents in fact are not yet subject to an access to information request, but they will be in the future. So it's sort of a judgment call.

Do we think there's ever going to be a request on these documents? If the supervisor orders it, and the clerk then proceeds actually to shove them through the shredder, then the clerk becomes responsible for having made the decision to shred, whereas the person who has given the order may not.

I know there's a connection—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I think we're now talking about which documents.... I'd heard this argument before, that there will be an enormous paper trail.

Well, there's already an enormous paper trail. I think that any document.... Which ones can they shred, which ones can't they shred? Anything that was important enough to type up, write up and send, to use as correspondence or information, should be kept. Whether there's going to be an access request or not, these documents should be kept.

I can't believe that those who are running our bureaucracy aren't smart enough to know which pieces are scrap and which are actual documents.

Mr. Ken Epp: If this committee were to enter an amendment into your bill to say that it should be amended to also include any person who orders the shredding of such a document, would you have any objections to that?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: That's all I have at this time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): At the risk of not breaking any new ground, I wanted to touch on a couple of the same areas. I wanted to get from Ms. Beaumier a sense of what she believed to be the core principle of her bill. I would ask that so that we could know what elements might not be considered elements of principle, so that the bill might be massaged a little if it needed it.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, the basic principle of this is accountability.

Mr. Derek Lee: It's the criminalization of an act with intent to deny access to information, coupled with the destruction, falsification or mutilation of a record? Is it more than that, or less than that?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, the bill is exactly...what you see is what you get. But it was prompted by what I believe to be a lack of accountability.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Some of us...some deliberately, others by the mere fact that we need the support to be accountable.

Mr. Derek Lee: To retrace the issue raised by Mr. Epp, a higher-ranking public servant counsels the falsification or destruction to someone in his or department. Then the falsification occurs, or the destruction happens. Where the clerk is not aware of the purpose of the destruction, or does not intend to deny access, but simply executes the order, your section wouldn't catch that. The party doing the counselling would not himself or herself have destroyed, mutilated, or falsified, etc., directly.

So would you consider it accepting and accommodating the principle of your bill if this were amended to patch that up—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: To include that? Absolutely.

Mr. Derek Lee: You would, okay.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: That's absolutely.

Mr. Derek Lee: Then the other area has to do with the sentencing. As a point of reference, I would point out that the House is now considering the DNA bill. The penalty for misusing, releasing or improperly dealing with DNA data, either for forensic analysis or with the DNA profile.... It's a hybrid offence with a two-year penalty.

• 1705

So with that point of reference, would you consider the actual type of sentence or the criminal procedure involved to be essentially core, or would you see it a bit as blowing the whistle?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, I would delete it. Mr. Lee, if the misuse or the violation of DNA was going to lead to the death of tens of thousands of Canadians, then I would argue that it's not a strong enough sentence. We have seen this, and we are dealing with this every day right now. From the Krever inquiry, we are now seeing tens of thousands of Canadians infected because someone didn't tell someone, and there was no accountability in this whole process.

Yes, I would argue that if you knew some DNA information was going to lead to death, then perhaps the DNA act should be a little stronger as well.

Mr. Derek Lee: One of the reasons it's not stronger is that, all things taken together, two years was felt to be in the ballpark. Other MPs, of course, have taken the position that two years was not a severe enough range.

So to sum up, you would accept an alteration in the penalty section of your bill to turn it into a summary indictable hybrid?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, I would not. I mean, I would prefer not to.

Mr. Derek Lee: You would prefer to keep it as indictable?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Absolutely.

An hon. member: Five years or more.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. You're going to communicate this today. If you consider that core and substance, then colleagues may not wish to look at changing it.

Your position on this is important to us. I don't want to put the words in your mouth.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'll accept any recommendations to tighten it up or to increase the severity of the sentence.

I really think this is serious. I think it's extremely serious. I mean, it's not as if you violated the trust of one individual, or the secrecy or anonymity of one individual in this country. This is something that potentially can affect hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, you like the five-year term.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I like the five-year term myself, Mr. Lee. I'm wondering, and it's just a point, and we can maybe get a legal opinion on it.... I would think that if this were to become law as it is, as that bill is now ordered, a superior counselling a subordinate to commit an indictable offence would amount to conspiracy to commit an indictable offence. So we might look at that. If we don't think that's tight enough, then we can make an amendment to include the counselling to commit an indictable offence in this particular area.

That's all I have to recommend, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have no further questions to our witness.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Jack's suggestion is one way of approaching it. At the risk of sounding like a lawyer...if this were criminalized, there's also the section on parties to an offence.

Derek, I just wanted to take the opportunity to remind you that the suggestion of raising it to five years in the DNA bill, Bill C-3, is being debated before the House. That was in the third grouping.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Anyway, that's off topic.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: And as far as sounding like a lawyer goes, don't worry, Peter, nobody is perfect.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter MacKay: I've moved on to a much more honourable profession, of course.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Are you finished, Peter?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): I just have a question. Proposed paragraphs 67.1(1)(a) and 67.1(1)(b) detail acts of commission, so to speak. Proposed paragraph 67.1(1)(c) refers to an act of omission, that is, you fail to keep required records.

Is there an obligation to take notes or to make records? And you're making it an offence to do so?

• 1710

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Certainly there is. It just amazes me. It just boggles my mind that the justice department has decided that....

Is it imperative to keep records? Of course it's important to keep records. It wasn't important to keep records regarding these high-profile cases that I have cited? I will send the committee enormous lists where omissions have.... There aren't omissions made. What happens is the destruction of records, and if they're going to prevent the destruction of records by making omissions, then we have a sad, sad state of affairs.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): It's easy when there's an overt act to destroy or to alter. That's easy to follow, but if I'm going to keep notes, and you think there is an obligation for me to keep notes, I might challenge that.

But how detailed are these notes going to be if I just put down, yes, I met with Colleen Beaumier on this day, and then we discussed this issue.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Chair, on that point, I think the way this bill is drafted, it says “does not keep required records.” That would be required under the Access to Information Act. So you'd have to refer back to the act to see which records one is required to be keep. That's how I would read that proposed paragraph.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): The specific act in question?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes. We can get opinion on that later on, but that's how I would read that. It would be required pursuant to the act, and that's clear. There are sections in the act that set out what records need to be kept.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): I'm not sure about that. Well, we can look into that.

Mr. Colleen Beaumier: I would think this is something the committee can—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Or you can assist us with it.

Thank you. Do you have any more questions? Madam Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you. First, I'd like to thank Mrs. Beaumier for raising a very important issue. What was stated in my statement in the House as the parliamentary secretary to the minister is that we certainly do not oppose the principle of the bill.

I will read what I said:

I view the creation of the penalty for deliberately destroying documents to thwart the Access to Information Act as an important issue to be looked at in the context of a review of the access legislation.

I want to ask Mrs. Beaumier whether she knew there is going to be a thorough review of both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act done by Treasury Board and the Department of Justice.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, I wasn't aware, and I would like to ask you when.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I cannot answer that question, but certainly I have been told that the process has already begun—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, then—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Can I finish, please? Thank you.

The process has already begun, and there has been a suggestion that you raised an important issue. That issue has in fact been considered when the Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office look at those two pieces of legislation. So there will be—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: When?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Let me turn to my second question. I just want to get to the hybrid offences. I think it's very important also to talk about the penalty. That was the issue you raised originally as being frivolous on the part of the government. The plan should be very clearly....

The fact is that some of the hybrid offences are criminal harassment, uttering threats, assault, assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, and sexual assault. These are all considered hybrid offences that...to your penalty.

You made a point of saying that they weren't as serious perhaps as destroying documents. I consider those offences quite serious. But when the judge passes his sentence it allows much more flexibility. In other words, do we want to throw every public servant in jail? That's what's going to happen if you have a five-year sentence. Okay?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: It's more than a five-year sentence.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That may be your position.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: It's up to 5 years, and many would argue that it should be up to 25 years.

I did not say that those weren't serious offences, but I did say that what has happened as a result of the cover-up in the blood scandal is as serious as any offence that has been committed in this country.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Wouldn't you agree that the blood scandal is a unique situation, and not the rule?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, it's a unique situation. What about the breast implants? Unique situations do have a habit of popping up again and again.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The fact that we have no statistics if there has been prosecution under section 126, I think, would have been an important piece of information that you may have wanted to have at your disposal when you were drafting the legislation. I can't believe there have been no convictions, but we will get back to the committee. When the officials come forward to discuss the access legislation—those two pieces of legislation—we will ask if there has been prosecution under section 126 or the other section in the Criminal Code that Mr. MacKay has also raised.

I don't want to argue the seriousness. The point I'm trying to make is that there are other offences that I consider just as serious as sexual assault that can be dealt with as hybrid offences, which allows much more flexibility in terms of sentencing.

But I think that was your point also, and Derek Lee's, that you're not willing to consider lowering the penalty—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'm certainly willing to consider it. As I say, I'm certainly willing to consider anything that is more effective, but not going back down to the two-year summary offence.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): You will recall that when you started the chair asked if you could produce a list of witnesses you might like to make presentations. You may or may not have that now, but could you provide that in the near future?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): There being no further business, we are adjourned. Thank you.