As the Quebec elections approach, some fifteen groups are uniting their voices to ask political parties to commit to reforming the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies if they come to power. This law, which will celebrate its 40th anniversary on Wednesday, is obsolete according to them, and constitutes, in its current form, a brake on a healthy democracy.
“At a time when the possibility of introducing a bill is behind us, [nous demandons] all parties to make a formal commitment to present a reform bill […] within the first 100 days of their accession to government,” they wrote in a letter whose The duty got a copy.
Among the 18 signatories are the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec, the Interprofessional Health Federation of Quebec, the FADOQ Network, the Central Trade Unions of Quebec, the Coalition of Consumer Associations and the Association of Directors and Directors of Quebec.
Adopted on June 22, 1982 by the Lévesque government, the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information aims to promote access to public order documents held by the State. Quebec was then the first government in North America to adopt such a law.
The idea of a major overhaul of the Act is not new, but it has never been a political priority. The Couillard government had tabled a bill to this effect in 2018, but no law had time to be adopted before the end of the parliamentary session.
Within the Legault government, the Minister responsible for Access to Information, Éric Caire, for his part, showed little desire to reform the Act, relying instead on greater disclosure of certain public data on the Internet.
In-depth overhaul
In the eyes of the signatory groups, this proposal is insufficient. In their letter, they set out their specific expectations with regard to this long-awaited reform.
To begin with, it is necessary, according to them, to review the definition of the documents to which citizens should have access at all times and to draw up “a precise list” of the documents and information that would be excluded from the Act. At present, a vagueness remains, which allows for diverse and varied interpretations from one institution to another, they note.
The calculation of the harm that could result from the disclosure of a public document should systematically always take precedence in the processing of requests for access to information. Organizations and institutions should also be required to present a justification in the event of refusal, which is not always the case at present.
The signatories also call for an end to dubious practices to delay or even deny the dissemination of information. Among them: abusive redaction, abusive billing or arbitrary processing of requests depending on who the requester is. Not to mention the processing times, which are getting longer and longer.
And for this reform to work, they plead for “substantial sanctions” in the event of non-compliance with deadlines, absence of acknowledgment of receipt, non-processing of the request or even non-justification of a refusal. treatment.
Necessary transparency
By uniting their voices, these groups belonging to different backgrounds also wanted to show that this issue is everyone’s business.
This is also what the author and journalist Marie-Ève Martel highlighted in her essay Meaningless. Advocacy for better access to informationpublished last November.
“Any member of a community should have the right to consult any document or information that concerns the population and […] his own person. This includes the accountability of individuals elected by the majority to manage public affairs on their behalf, such as how public funds are administered, decisions made on many issues, and the duty to properly represent the interests of the population rather than individual ones,” she writes in her book.
By demonstrating transparency, institutions foster public confidence in their representatives, which is the basis of “sound governance”. The problem, she underlines with many examples in support, is that many organizations see information rather as a “valuable resource that should not be made accessible to everyone”, or at least with a filter to protect their own image.