Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Why I continue to read parts of section 15, related to the motion in front of us, is that I would like you to consider the point that as a member of Parliament I'm willing to look at documentation that is obtained legally, but I'm not sure how as committee members, with a sworn oath, we can look at illegally obtained information.
I'm not asking you to rule on that, but it's for your information for future discussions.
Paragraph 15(1)(f) reads:
on methods of, and scientific or technical equipment for, collecting, assessing or handling information referred to in paragraph (d) or (e) or on sources of such information
Let's be honest about this. Chances are that the methods or scientific equipment piece are probably not in the report on good governance and democratic development, but I don't know that because I didn't have it.
But I'll concede that this is likely not one of the areas that might have required the ATI staff member to remove that information. This is what that person does in every single department, not since we've come into government in 2006, but since the inception of the act. There have been ATI people in departments looking at the information that's being requested, and they decide whether those exemptions apply, based on the legislation that was duly passed by the House of Commons with all 13 exemptions.
Then there is an appeals process, if you didn't like the answers you received or how the document looked. That's why it goes to the Information Commissioner. They get to look at it in its complete form. They get to decide, and then if you don't like what the commissioner has to say about it, you can take it to Federal Court.
That's what the Liberal Party did with 51 cases, and they lost 49 of them. The commissioner won those 49, to the credit of the person doing the work. Let's be honest, if you look at those cases, they may be changing a sentence or a word. “May”, or “not”, or something was blacked out, but now that word is available. It's not like the whole document becomes completely accessible, but often parts become accessible. Often they work with those organizations that put in the request to make sure they get the information. But it does happen, and we should be waiting for the commissioner to rule on this particular case before going any further.
There is paragraph 15(1)(g):
on the positions adopted or to be adopted by the Government of Canada, governments of foreign states or international organizations of states for the purpose of present or future international negotiations