Evidence of meeting #50 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 document.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I'm glad you didn't ask me that question during confirmation hearings.
The essence of the statute is that the head of agency has the responsibility to serve Canadians--
10:25 a.m.
A voice
The minister.
10:25 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Well, the minister and whoever he delegates the authority to has the duty to serve Canadians who are looking for information. That's the spirit of the entire statute.
My role comes in when someone says someone has not exercised proper conduct or has not absolved themselves of the responsibilities of a statute of Canada, so please inquire.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Marleau, as you know, the experience of using the access to information system is the polar opposite of the spirit. Ask anybody who uses the system regularly: It's just a headache from one end to the other, with really crude barriers and obstacles thrown in the way of virtually everybody. Well, I won't go on with that.
I have a question regarding the RCMP. Could I ask you if you have requested the RCMP's cooperation with respect to the complaint filed by Professor Attaran regarding the RCMP?
10:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
As I responded earlier to the other honourable member, that investigation is underway, and I am precluded under the statute from making any comment while it is underway.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Even to answer whether or not you have asked for the cooperation of the RCMP? Do you believe that fits under that category?
10:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think section 62 of the statute is very strong. It says “any information”.
10:30 a.m.
Director, Legal Services, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
May I add something to Mr. Martin?
10:30 a.m.
Director, Legal Services, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
The commissioner does not have jurisdiction to carry on criminal investigations. I hope that is quite clear for everybody. To that extent, he has no authority whatsoever to ask the RCMP to assist in an investigation by the commissioner.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, I have a couple of quick procedural questions, and then just a comment.
In the course of your report, will you be doing a forensic audit of the documents—all of them, following that paper trail? Also, will you be trying to determine who in the minister's office was briefed and when?
10:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I can tell you that in any investigation, the investigators will follow the trail to wherever intervenors on the file are, whether they are in the minister's office or in the Prime Minister's office. We have access to all of that, so if there is an indication that someone intervened at one point or could have added to the rationale in any way, shape, or form, the investigators will go there.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
And will you also be able to determine, in the course of that, whether there was political intervention in the process?
10:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
As I said, the investigator will evaluate the rationale, whether it's under subsection 15(1) or another section, and political intervention as a substantive support to using a section is highly unlikely to be accepted by us.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Glen Pearson Liberal London North Centre, ON
For the sake of time, Mr. Chair, I have just a comment to the commissioner.
You mentioned earlier that you didn't really have the luxury of being emotional about this or having your own emotions involved in it. I don't have the luxury of not doing that. We as a committee are very concerned about this going on, because at the end of the day it is about lives and about torture. If any of this is true, it's very important to us, and we have a responsibility.
So I would only encourage you, sir. You've done a great job, a very professional job, in your time there, but I'd encourage you to act as expeditiously and as professionally as you can. I hope it can come within the 90 days, because there are people at the end of this who are affected by whatever happens here.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10:30 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Thank you.
May 31st, 2007 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The last time I spoke, I had just 30 seconds. I have a little bit more this time.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Oh, wonderful.
Thank you, witnesses, for coming, and I'm glad you had this opportunity to come.
There's an expression, that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. I think we could apply truth, also—that “truth is in the eye of the beholder” many times.
I think that, should you ask for a consensus on this side of the table, you would probably hear a different story. You weren't here when the witnesses were questioned at the last meeting, but most people would agree on this side that they were quite badgered and were treated with great disrespect, as a matter of fact.
We argued at the outset that we should wait, and that you, Mr. Marleau, in your investigation would come to an outcome; that the truth would...that if we have done wrong, then we have to face the music.
Mr. Wallace spoke eloquently, I think, and he's been quoted in the press. The unfortunate thing is that of course this looked like an attempt by us to try to squash the truth, but we tried to convince the committee that your office would come out with a proper outcome. You've told us that the truth will come out.
I know I asked some pointed questions at the very end. I think I had 30 seconds and I asked, “Did a minister ever ask you to change or redact something, and would you do it?” She gave straightforward answers, so that's on the record. That's going to be addressed as well.
But you also tell us—and this concerns me and this is part of my question—that the report cannot be made public unless the requester agrees to making it public—
10:30 a.m.
A voice
Or the government.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Or the government.
So I'm wondering, is there no recourse for the witness? Never mind the government; that's par for the course. We get embarrassed, and oftentimes we argue that we don't need to do this; the opposition says to do it, and it causes some embarrassment.
But if this is never made public, what about these public servants, the public servants who, somebody mentioned, served three governments and I think have 17 years of unblemished record? Is there no vindication, for their good name to be cleared, and from the unfair and inflammatory charges that were made? Is there no recourse for those witnesses? That concerns me. I guess I didn't read your whole book, but is there nothing there for the witnesses, to clear their good name?
10:35 a.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Sir, first, by way of the premise of your question, I cannot guarantee to this committee that an investigation by the Information Commissioner will get to the truth. Mr. Walsh has avoided defining what the truth was in his comment, so I'll avoid commenting on that, but that's not the purpose of our investigation. The purpose of our investigation is to review the application of exemptions on a particular document, to review the rationale that was used in arriving at that conclusion, and in agreeing or disagreeing with that conclusion, and with the express intent of making sure that the requester gets what he is entitled to under the law.
As for the witnesses before the committee, that process is entirely outside my scope either to comment on or review, for that matter. It may well be that through the process of our investigation, its outcome, and if the document is made public by the department, if the document is made public by the requester, that people can draw conclusions on the status of the reputation of the witnesses, if you want, but I will certainly not go there.
The only thing I can do, as we did on page 54 of the annual report, is report a summary of the case...in the Maher Arar case, where our intervention calls for a lot more information to be released. We don't need to revisit that case, but my predecessor feels very strongly that were it not for access to information, Mr. Arar would not be where he is today.
