Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Good morning, colleagues. Welcome to meeting number 49.

Today we're continuing our investigation of the internal report entitled “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights”.

We have with us today, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Lillian Thomsen, director general, executive services bureau; and Jocelyne Sabourin, director, access to information and privacy protection division.

Welcome, to our witnesses.

Before I get to the witnesses, I want to remind members that I received, and you should all have received, a copy of a letter from the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to remind members of the contents of that letter, which I will précis.

Basically, he is advising me as the chair of this committee that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development passed a motion at its meeting at which it requested a full and uncensored version of the document that we are considering. He obviously refused to provide that, and his reasons are that he believes he has to abide by his interpretation of the Access to Information Act.

The reason I bring this to your attention is that we can deal with this at another time, but obviously the witnesses who are before us will be following the advice given by their deputy minister in respect of whether or not they are able to provide us or talk to us about an uncensored version of the report.

I bring this to your attention because members may or may not be wanting to question that way, and they may get frustrated, but given the letter of the deputy minister, either we may have to deal with this through him, or it may be very pertinent questioning for our witnesses on Thursday, who are the Information Commissioner and our general counsel, Rob Walsh. We may want to ask advice from our general counsel, for example, on Thursday about the situation. There are plenty of other things that we can ask our witnesses today.

Mr. Martin, did you want to make a comment before we start?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, on that subject, it really isn't up to the deputy minister to say what questions witnesses will or will not answer. I don't want any senior government bureaucrat dictating what witnesses will answer. If a member of this committee from either side, government or opposition, poses a question to the witnesses, we expect an answer. We can't have them say, “My boss says I shouldn't answer that question.” That's not satisfactory for this tribunal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You misunderstand what I said. The foreign affairs committee had asked for an uncensored version of the report, and the deputy minister has indicated that he's not going to provide that to the foreign affairs committee. Clearly then, he's providing it to me so that as chair of the committee I can advise you that's their position. It has nothing to do with questioning of the witnesses. I'm just telling you that's the position of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Now, for example, if you were to put a question, “What does line 1, which is blacked out, say?”, to the witness, that's a different issue, and that's what I'm getting at. So I'm asking you to be judicious in your questioning.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

When the steering committee met, we had a discussion with our legal advisors as to how our committee could gain access to the uncensored version of this document.

Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to look at the "blues" in order to see exactly what that procedure was? I can't always depend on my memory, but I believe it involves making an official request to the House of Commons.

If so, would it be possible to begin the necessary procedures for obtaining access to that uncensored version?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Well, I guess my answer would be this. We already had a discussion about the fact that the subcommittee report was in camera. We are going to have Mr. Rob Walsh here as a witness on Thursday, and I suggest that committee members ask him that question directly and get his legal advice for us as to how and if we can obtain an uncensored version of the report, and under what circumstances. At that time, we can deal with it. On Thursday, he'll be here in open session, and he can give us whatever advice he wishes to give us.

Oui, madame.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I remember very well that we put that question to him. He replied that an official request had to be made to the House of Commons. If we wait until Thursday, there will be yet another delay and as you know, there is probably very little time left within this parliamentary session. I'm afraid that we might run out of time.

I want to draw your attention to other documents this morning. There is an article in the National Post that states that the Conservatives have a guide to political stalling tactics. This is a secret guide that they use to make us waste our time. I will hand this article around. I would hope this would be an example of what not to do. Furthermore, I would like to speed things up so that we can obtain this report on Thursday, if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I don't think we can do anything else. My recollection is as good as yours, in the sense that I cannot accurately regurgitate word for word what the advice of Mr. Rob Walsh was, and even if I were able to do that after the meeting, I would have no authority from the committee to proceed, because they don't know what he said, and therefore the committee cannot instruct me. So I'm afraid we're going to have to wait until Thursday, hear what he has to say, and then make a decision at that time.

Of course, if the session is adjourned, we certainly can meet if we wish. If this particular session is prorogued, it's a different matter. But that's out of our hands.

Anyway, this is just a little bit of housekeeping.

I'm sorry, witnesses, I just wanted to get things straightened out. I want to welcome you, I want you to relax, I want you to feel you are in our living room here. You've heard what the members have said. It's important that you listen to the questions and answer them to the fullest degree you possibly can. I'll be listening for the questions and the answers. If you have some kind of question or problem or something, you could express it, and then I'll make a ruling, or I'll guide you or offer some advice, or whatever the case may be.

Let's get into it. I believe you have an opening statement, Ms. Thomsen. Is that right?

[Lillian Thomsen, Director General, Executive Services Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

That's correct.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm the director general of the executive services bureau at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which includes the access to information and privacy protection division.

With me today is Madame Jocelyne Sabourin, who has been the director of this division since September 2003. Ms. Sabourin and I welcome the opportunity to provide the standing committee with information and clarification regarding the processing of access to information requests within the department.

After I have provided general background and information on this subject, Ms. Sabourin and I will be pleased to answer questions from members of the committee.

The Access to Information Act and the accompanying regulations set out the legal requirements for processing access requests that the head of each government department or agency is responsible for applying within his or her organization. At the department, the act is administered by the access to information and privacy protection division, and the director, Ms. Sabourin, is the access to information and privacy protection coordinator for the department.

At present, the division consists of 17 access to information and privacy protection analysts, who are also responsible for requests under the Privacy Act, plus support personnel. As of today, the division is processing over 500 access case files, representing over 63,000 pages of information to be reviewed, as well as 200 other files, including requests under the Privacy Act.

Under the Access to Information Act, the overall compliance of the department in meeting its obligations has been consistently substandard in the past years, as determined by the Information Commissioner in his report cards on the department's performance and as reported to Parliament in his annual report. As a result of an action plan implemented in 2006 and with the support of the deputy minister and senior management, the department has doubled the staff of the access to information and privacy protection division and has also obtained and put into use the most up-to-date technology for processing requests.

As a result, there has been a substantial improvement in the department's performance. In March 2006, the department was only able to respond to 39.1% of its access requests under the statutory deadline. By March 31, 2007, the department was responding to 81.3% of the access requests within the timeframe. This has been recognized by the Information Commissioner as a “very significant improvement” in the department's performance under the act, despite the fact that there was a 30% increase in the volume of access requests during the past year.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to say a few words with respect to the processing of access requests.

When a request is received, a file is opened and is reviewed by the team leaders in the Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, who then determine to which analyst the file will be assigned.

As a first step, the analyst prepares and sends a standard letter of acknowledgement to the client. The analyst then determines what information is being requested and canvasses the various offices of primary interest he or she has identified to determine whether and where records are held. When the search for documents proves to be extensive or the number of documents is voluminous, the division will advise the client that an extension to the normal 30-day time period is required and the Office of the Information Commissioner is also advised.

Once documents are collected and input is received from the office of primary interest, the information in the documents is reviewed line-by-line by the analyst who will make a recommendation as to which, if any, information classifies for an exemption or exclusion under the provisions of the act. The redacted document is then reviewed by the team leader, who performs a challenge function on the redactions. Once redactions are agreed upon, a final review is conducted by the director of the division, or in her absence, the deputy director, before the information is released to the client.

The minister's office and the department's Communication Bureau are provided, on a weekly basis, with a list of the titles of new access requests at which time they may indicate an interest in receiving a copy of the final redacted package. If they do indicate an interest in a particular request, they receive a copy of the redacted information at the end of the process so they may prepare the minister and the department for possible questions in the House or media queries on the subject matter. Neither the minister's office nor the department's Communication Bureau are provided with the identity of the requester.

If a client is not pleased with the length of time the department takes to respond to his or her request, with the exemptions taken by the department under the act and redacting the information, or with any other aspect of the administration of his or her file, he or she is entitled to file a complaint with the Office of the Information Commissioner.

The Information Commissioner will then initiate an investigation that will normally include interviewing officials in the access to information and privacy protection division who handled the file, and any other officials who may be able to assist him, including officials from the office of primary interest. Once he has completed his investigation he provides his findings and recommendations to the minister or his delegate. I understand the committee will be hearing from the Information Commissioner at one of its subsequent meetings.

As you are aware, both Mr. Jeff Esau and Professor Amir Attaran submitted access to information requests to the department, and they discussed these requests at length when they appeared before this committee at its last session. One of these requests has been the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner and is under investigation by him.

Ms. Sabourin and I will be pleased to take questions from the members of the committee on the processing of access to information requests by the department. On the requests of Mr. Esau and Professor Attaran, we will be pleased to respond to questions to the extent that we believe we can do so without violating the confidential nature of the investigation now being conducted by the Information Commissioner in the department.

I thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you very much.

The procedure is fairly simple. We'll go from party to party in an opening round. But before we do, I have just a couple of clarifying questions, if you don't mind.

The report we're considering, among other things, is entitled, “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights”. I just want to confirm a few things before we get to the questioning.

It says “Confidential CEO”. Could you tell us what CEO means?

[Lillian Thomsen]

CEO stands for “Canadian eyes only”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

At the end of the document, it says “Prepared by Bloodworth”. Who is Bloodworth?

[Lillian Thomsen]

Bloodworth would be the officer of the department...well, one of the people who wrote the document.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Do you know that person's full name?

[Lillian Thomsen]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Would you get it for us and provide it to us, please?

It says, “Consulted O'Connor/CIDA”. Who's O'Connor?

[Lillian Thomsen]

Again, I don't know. I'm assuming it's an employee of CIDA, but I don't know the full name.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Will you check it out and advise us, please?

Also, it says “Approved by Colvin”. Who's Colvin?

[Lillian Thomsen]

I believe that's another officer of the department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You don't know?

[Lillian Thomsen]

I don't have the first name, no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay, but will you find that out for us, please?

Do you know for whom the document was prepared?

[Lillian Thomsen]

The human rights reports are prepared for the department. I'm not an expert on the preparation of the reports, but I can tell you that on an annual basis a number of our posts abroad are tasked with preparing human rights reports. We don't do human rights reports on every single country in the world. It's a selective process. There are criteria. I'm not the director general of the human rights bureau in the department, so I can't speak to the criteria, and the criteria may very well change on an annual basis. But there is an annual exercise calling for human rights reports from a select number of countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you for that answer, but what I was asking was for whom the document was prepared. If you don't know, can you give me a name of someone we should call who could answer that question?

[Lillian Thomsen]

It's prepared for the department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is that the department in general, or for whose eyes?