Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2007

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The question has been raised that the timeframe wasn't met in some cases, in the cases that we're discussing and in other cases. I understand that; piles of paper occur on all our desks.

Have you any recommendations to make to the committee as to how that issue can be rectified, either by more staff, by extending the time, or something else?

[Lillian Thomsen]

Extending the time is not within our purview, because that's in the act and the regulations.

We have worked very assiduously in the department to try to improve what was a pretty appalling performance. We're sharing best practices with other colleagues. More people would help, but there's a very simple fact: there's a shortage in the labour market right now of qualified people at the mid-level. We can recruit and grow our own—and we're establishing a developmental program to do just that—but bilingual, security-cleared employees with enough experience that they can be what we call a team leader, responsible for a team of more junior analysts, are in very short supply. It's not only a problem that other departments are facing, but it's a problem that the Information Commissioner acknowledged in his last report to Parliament. So there's a labour market problem as well.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The final question I have is this. Of the 500 access case files that are existing, and you mentioned 200 other files, can you estimate—maybe it's impossible to do—what percentage of those applications are (a) the press, (b) politicians, and (c) other members of the public?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

It's about a third media, a third public, and a third others--that is, academia, organizations, and businesses.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Monsieur Vincent.

Madame Lavallée.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Sabourin, the Access to Information Act is very important legislation for consumers, for the population, for citizens and for voters. The act was created for them and it is an act that is intended to ensure government transparency.

For the last little while, you have said repeatedly that you have restricted your criteria, that you have drafted your own guidelines in order to impose limits on yourselves. You also say that in 2006, you eliminated the word "torture" because it would have been illegal to disclose the fact that there had been torture in Afghanistan. On the other hand, in 2004, you kept that word. Was it in 2004 or in 2006 that you were yourselves in an illegal position?

Then, you boast about the fact that 81.3% of the requests you receive were dealt with on time, whereas the legislation demands 100%. That is another form of illegality. You arrived here without files; I cannot believe it. You do not even have a copy of the legislation in hand. It seems incredible to me. I do not know who advised you before your appearance, Ms. Sabourin, but I must tell you that I am very disappointed.

Moreover, you told Mr. Attaran that this kind of a report does not exist whereas you know that these reports are produced by country, and he asked for a global human rights report. You did not even tell him that such country-by-country reports exist. That is the worst response that a citizen could get. You know and yet you did not tell him. You were waiting for the precise question, as if this were a quiz. That is unacceptable.

What is really bizarre in your case, Ms. Sabourin, is that you are drawing all of the blame upon yourself. It is as if you are preparing to experience a very difficult, even dramatic, I would say, final stretch in your career. It seems that for the last little while, you have been attempting to show us that you are incompetent. Mr. Wallace's congratulations would be the Judas kiss of the Conservatives. I'm telling you that they are not real congratulations.

I cannot believe that you are whipping yourself like this in public and that you have decided to end your career on the issue of the Department of Foreign Affairs' internal report on the prisoners tortured in Afghanistan. I cannot believe that. I imagine that you must have received marching orders from someone. It is not possible. When did you or someone on your team decide to review your guidelines in order to delete the word "torture"? When did you decide to do that? Do you have a document or some e-mail to submit to us on the issue? Do you have the minutes of a meeting, perhaps, that it would be in your best interest to send us? Can you swear to me—because you are under oath—that the people who participated in this decision did not speak to anyone in cabinet directly or indirectly? Are you absolutely sure that throughout the whole process, there was no political interference of any kind?

In subsection 15(1)—I know that you do not have a copy of the legislation with you, as you go to war without a gun—there are exactly 10 paragraphs, from (a) to (i). The first deals with military tactics or strategy. Could torture fit into that definition? Is it part of defence materiel? No. Is it part of the characteristics, capabilities, performance, potential, deployment, functions or role of any defence establishments? No. Could we find the reason in paragraph (d): information obtained or prepared for the purpose of intelligence relating to the defence of Canada? No. Is it part of the information for the purpose of intelligence respecting foreign states? No. I could read them all. There is no reason.

The only reason I can imagine is that some political person said that it would not be very good if Canada and our ministers were aware of the fact that Afghan prisoners had been sent to Afghan prisons and were tortured with the full knowledge of this country, because that goes against the Geneva Convention. That is the only reason why we might believe, Ms. Sabourin, that you or someone on your team would have suddenly decided... If you are the one who did it, I can assure you that it was not very bright.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry Ms. Lavallé, you have used up your five minutes.

I'll give Madame Sabourin an opportunity to answer.

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

First of all, for the benefit of the committee, I would like to say that I have been working in the area of access to information for 16 years. I deal with thousands of requests and I'm proud to tell you that I take those responsibilities very seriously. I'm aware of the implications of these requests and of the right to access that these people have and exercise. I comply fully with the legislative framework that is in place. Furthermore, I'm very proud to have helped provide Canadians with the information they have requested. However, the act is clear: there are exceptions. That is when a decision concerning disclosure arises, because there are exceptions that are invoked pursuant to the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Madame Sabourin.

We're very close to the end of our meeting, colleagues. As you can see, there is another committee pushing us already.

Mr. Van Kesteren, you've been very patient. If you have a very short question, please go ahead.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming. It has been a difficult morning; I can see that.

One of the things that have to be brought out is the fact that your responses have reached 80%, but there has also been a 30% increase in requests. I want to give you a chance to answer a few questions, yes or no, because I think you may have been attacked somewhat unfairly.

Are you duty bound by the act, the law, to make your decisions? Let me ask you this. Would you knowingly comply with the wishes of a minister if he were ever to ask you to break those laws or to do something that wasn't right?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

I make decisions with regard to the act.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Have you ever been asked by a minister to black out sections?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

I make decisions under the act.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Have you ever been asked by a minister to block out sections of a report?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

If you did, and this is hypothetical, would this come out in an investigation by the Information Commissioner?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

I would presume so, because my files are well documented. We have a tracking system; it's well documented.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I think that's all. I just want to thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you very much.

We did ask you a number of questions for which you undertook to provide us with answers. We would appreciate it if you would review your notes after the meeting and respond as quickly as reasonably possible.

Committee members, on Thursday we have the Information Commissioner and the legal counsel to the House of Commons. I would urge you to allow about half an hour at the end of the meeting to discuss future witnesses. I'd like to report to the committee on some of the efforts we have made on some of the witnesses. There may be other people we wish to hear on this matter. I'd like to try to deal with that so we can line them up for Tuesday and Thursday of next week. I know we'll have questions for the Information Commissioner and Mr. Walsh, but perhaps we could be very focused so we leave some time at the end, so we can make a work plan for next week.

I thank our witnesses very much--under interesting circumstances. As you say, it's unusual. We look forward to your written responses.

I adjourn the meeting.