Evidence of meeting #46 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'd like to take the floor to address a couple of issues, and then I will put the question.
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to try to leave the record a little more balanced than it was with some of the information put forward by Mr. Wallace and now Mr. Tilson.
It's clear to me that the government has been pulling out all the stops to try to avoid having this information come out, because they're embarrassed that they've been caught in a conspiracy to defraud the Canadian public about the existence of the human rights report on Afghanistan, and then about the contents of that report--in other words, why they blacked out sensitive information, which we now know was really not that sensitive. Much of what Mr. Wallace said was true, that there are justifiable reasons to black out a document, and they're listed very clearly. In fact, he was kind enough to read them all to us, point by point, or virtually all of them. But we now know they're using subsection 15(1) extensively in the blacked-out documents, but they're also using paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b), which deal, as Mr. Wallace pointed out, with cabinet confidences, ministerial briefing notes, etc. Much of what was blacked out did not need to be, because I have copies of that particular document for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005—just like the 2006 document exists—where the blacked-out sections have been taken out and we can read what's underneath them.
So the main thing that we have to answer today, or that we will engage in when we vote to undertake this study, is why did the ATIP coordinator, Jocelyne Sabourin, say no such documents existed, when they've existed from 2002 right through 2006 and been published annually? And then, when they changed their minds and did release the documents, why were sections blacked out that any objective outside or third party clearly would agree should not have been blacked out?
We have freedom of information laws in this country. The law itself might be called the Access to Information Act, but what this really is about is freedom of information, that the people of Canada have a right to know what their government is doing and why.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I do want to set the record straight, because we had a disproportionate amount of argument on the one side that this study wasn't necessary.
In actual fact, the government has taken extraordinary steps to deny, first of all, they had any knowledge of prisoners being tortured. Well, I have documents from 2002 stating clearly that there was a very great concern that torture was going on, and illegal arrests, etc. These are government documents under the same title, the good governance and human rights document, published annually—and every year the same allegation is repeated. So for any minister of the Crown, either in the Liberal government of 2002 to 2006 or the current government today, to stand up and say they had no knowledge of Afghan prisoners being mistreated, they're covering their ass by blocking it out, frankly, Mr. Chairman.
It's a rare opportunity for us to be able to see what's actually underneath that black felt pen. Well, now we know. Now we know what they were blacking out year after year after year after year, and we know that the public had a right to know, and Canadian soldiers had a right to know they were putting lives at risk. Most Canadians would not support knowingly handing over prisoners when there was full knowledge they were about to be tortured.
So this is the most serious breach—
2:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Well, because we've read reports from 2002 and 2003. I have seen them.
2:05 p.m.
An hon. member
You've read the reports?
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, I have seen the reports. I have a copy with me, in fact. I'd be willing to show it to you, if you'd like.
So the question has been put on Ms. Lavallée's motion.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Martin, the question has not been put. You have the floor on the motion.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have the floor on the motion. Then I would like to call the question on the motion, so that the question is put.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I have a point of order. I don't think you can do that once you start speaking. You have to do it right away. It's not debatable, I believe.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
First of all, Mr. Martin, you were speaking to the motion. That's the first point.
Is that correct?
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Okay. Now you've concluded that and you were going to do what? To move something?
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, now I'd like to call the question so that we can vote on Ms. Lavallée's motion.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
If we have no further speakers, then we'll call the question.
Mr. Wallace.
