Evidence of meeting #48 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Yes. The answer is yes. As far as I know, the document is not being provided to us with any provisos. It's being provided to us at our request.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this document is readily available, from the access to information coordinator of Foreign Affairs, to anyone who wants it. I'm surprised the government side MPs would be so slow to avail themselves of it, but once a document has been stamped for release and approved and redacted so that it's in the form the government wants, it is quite readily available. It's a 105-page document, or a 46-megabyte file that can be downloaded with the permission of the DFAIT coordinator.
Even though none of you are cabinet ministers, you're the government side, for God's sake. Surely you have some better access to this document.
People were first made aware of the existence of the document in the Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar. When that report was circulated, it made reference to the “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights” document, on page 237, I think. Researchers from the university and other journalists, I presume, said, that sounds interesting; they're making reference to the state of detainees and the use of torture, and are making a human rights report that's circulated annually. It didn't take a rocket scientist to say they'd like to see that report, so the applications for the release of it went in. I think we'll hear detailed testimony on how that went when we get to hear these witnesses.
What I'd say to Mr. Reid, if he was still interested or was listening, is that we don't really need to analyze the merits of what was censored and what was not censored, or if it should have been or not. Really, today's question, and the reason these witnesses are before us, is that we want to talk about the administration of the Access to Information Act as it pertains to this document. Why did they deny the existence of a document that was referenced in the Maher Arar report? Why did they deny the existence of a document that had been published and given to government in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006? That was the first reaction of the ATIP coordinator: to deny that any such documents exist. Frankly, I believe that is enough for this committee to be satisfied that it's a justifiable matter to investigate, even without the report.
I argue that the report would be freely available to Mr. Reid if he goes down and gets it from his own government officials. But even if it weren't, there's valuable work that this committee could be doing in questioning these witnesses on their experience in dealing with our freedom of information laws, the frustrations they encountered, and what drove them and motivated them to file complaints to the Information Commissioner on those grounds.
Whatever we're debating in terms of amendment now, dealing with the distribution of the document, should be voted down and we should vote in favour of the main motion, which is concurrence in the fourth report of the subcommittee, the planning committee of the access to information committee.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to what Mr. Martin just commented on, about how anyone can get the document. Whether I produce the document, whether Mr. Martin produces the document, or whether a witness produces the document, quite frankly, if the committee is being responsible, it should receive it from one source and one source alone. The clerk has been asked to get the report, and that's where the report should come from. It shouldn't come from me, it shouldn't come from Mr. Martin, and it shouldn't come from a witness.
I just wanted to comment on that. It may or may not be available to everyone. It may or may not be the report. It may be something else. Quite frankly, if this committee is doing its job, it should rely.... And I'm not casting aspersions on anyone. Let me make that clear. I'm simply saying the report should come from the clerk's office.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
I call the question on the amendment moved by Mr. Van Kesteren.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
We are now discussing the fourth report. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Reid, if there is further discussion, what I'm going to do, in the interest.... I don't want to relinquish the chair to anyone else, given the excitement in the meeting. I have to be cognizant of the people on the panel, in translation, everywhere. I'm going to suspend the meeting, for five minutes exactly, for relief of whatever people need to relieve.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The meeting has resumed, and we are discussing the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
I had recognized Mr. Reid.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we're now discussing the actual report itself. I think it's no secret by now that I have reservations about this, for a variety of reasons. I don't intend to go through them all over again. Indeed, I don't propose to make any further amendments. I do think this was not handled by a process that I would have approved of in advance had I known it was going to be this way. I don't think we've had a proper opportunity to prepare ourselves. I don't think we'll be nearly as fulsome as we could be in our discussion with the witnesses. I don't think we have adequate documentation at our disposal.
Having said that, however, my colleagues and I have tried several times to introduce proposals that would bring some order to this, that would, as I indicated, not turn this into a court of star chamber, which is what I am afraid it might become. Those are my objections.
I've seen no evidence that anything we say is going to change that. It would simply mean we'd come to the same wrong conclusion at a later point in time. That would be disrespectful to everybody here. Therefore, I am not proposing any further changes to the report. I would encourage my colleagues on this side to do the same and allow us simply to go directly to a vote on the motion.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you for those reasoned comments, Mr. Reid.
Having no one else on the list, I call the question, which is to concur in the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I call the question because Mr. Wallace had wanted a recorded division at some point.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6, nays 4)
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure is concurred in.
Consequently, we move to the second item on the orders of the day. That item is the witnesses that we have here, so I would invite Messrs. Esau and Attaran to come to the witness area.
While they're doing so, I'll make this comment. Given today's experience, I think what we'll try to do from here on in, when we're discussing further items of committee business, etc.—unless I'm overruled—is not go to a subcommittee, but deal with these matters in full committee. We can then decide whether we want to go in camera or not. Everybody will have their kick at the cat, and then, whatever the decision of the committee is for future business, it will be that way. We'll give that a try and see if it works. If it doesn't, we can always go back to the subcommittee and we can be creative as well.
How are you doing there, Mr. Esau? Are you ready to go?
May 17th, 2007 / 2:05 p.m.
Jeff Esau As an Individual
Very well, thank you. I appreciate the time here.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Professor, we don't want to hold up the committee, so when you're ready, you can just come right up. We'll get Mr. Esau going.
Mr. Martin.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to recommend that we treat the time as if it were nine o'clock and a normal starting time, and that we give the witnesses the two hours that we had scheduled and had contemplated with the original motion.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
That's how I was proposing to proceed, and if indeed the questions evaporate before that time, so be it. I don't think there's any need to unduly lengthen the meeting, but we do want to hear what the witnesses have to say.
Mr. Esau, this has been perhaps mildly entertaining for you, and mildly frustrating. Just as a comment, welcome, number one. Number two, the committee is investigating the report, as you've heard. We're looking for your commentary on it, since you were one of the original people involved in it. We'll give you about ten minutes. We'll then go to the professor for about ten minutes, and then we'll go to questions.
I presume you do not have any written remarks.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
In that case, what we would like to hear is how it is that you are involved in this matter. Perhaps you could start with that in a logical, chronological way.
2:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I will. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Yes, it has been mildly entertaining.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I know there has been a lot of interest in just who I am. I can assure the committee that I have written an article since November 12 or whatever date was cited earlier. The thing I need to make clear is that I'm a freelance writer. That means two things.
The first thing is that I am not an employee of or affiliated with any particular news outlet or journal. The word “freelance” means just that: I work on an article-to-article basis.
The second thing about being freelance is that I'm probably the only person in the room today who is not being paid to be here, so I'm not beholden to anybody. I have no political affiliations. I have no other organizational affiliations. I'm a journalist.
I came to journalism partly out of necessity. I was a serving officer in the Canadian Forces for 16 years. I retired at the rank of major and had to leave the military as the result of a service-related injury.
The reason I feel that's relevant is that for three years while I was serving in the military, I was the policy and training officer for National Defence, for access to information and privacy matters. In other words, I was one of the main advisers to the associate deputy minister, the director of access to information and privacy, and people with stars on their shoulders about access to information and privacy matters. For three years running, I was the one who prepared the annual report that comes to Parliament from National Defence, so I have a little bit of background in access to information and privacy. I've given lectures on it. I know it at a very good expert level, I would say, and I have used the act in my journalistic endeavours in order to obtain source documents that I feel are relevant to stories I'm writing.
My particular interest is in military and foreign affairs, partly because I feel the Canadian public is woefully uninformed about those important public policy areas. I feel it's appropriate that I tell that story, or be one of the people who tell that story. In order to do that, I need source documents from the government, and the only legal recourse I have to do that is the Access to Information Act.
So that's a little bit about my background.
My relationship with The Globe and Mail is not an employer–employee relationship. The Globe and Mail has retained me for a fee to conduct, on their behalf, research into matters they feel are germane and within my expertise. In the case of detainees, torture, and Afghanistan, those areas are consistent with my background and expertise, and that's why I agreed to take them on.
That's pretty well all I need to say about myself. I'm certainly willing to answer any questions people may have about my qualifications, my past writing, or my military service. I'd be happy to take those questions or any other questions you have.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Did you want to make any comments with respect to your involvement with the document, “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights”, if you had any such involvement?
2:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. One of the things I'd like to make clear is that I have never seen the redacted version of that document. I have never received anything from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I have not received it from anybody in the room or outside the room. And I have never seen a copy of the uncensored report.
I just want to make it clear that I'm not coming here with any preconceptions about what may be in the report. When I get if officially, I will analyze it and I will report back to the people who have retained me.
My involvement in this particular series of events started when I was asked to inquire within Foreign Affairs about a specific report that was produced--allegedly produced at that time, because I take nothing at face value. And I was going to explore whether or not that document existed, and if it existed, get hold of it and basically do an analysis of it and write a story about it or contribute to stories about that document and the larger context in which it involved the Canadian Forces and the three-D approach that's being used in Afghanistan.
This is one of the misconceptions that I've heard today. I made two requests, and I'm going to read the wording of the requests into the record so that there's no ambiguity about that. In my first request that I sent in, which was received by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on March 14, 2007, I requested “A copy of DFAIT's 2005-06 annual or semi-annual report or the 2006-07, if it's been drafted, on human rights performance in countries around the world.” That was the request.
One week later, approximately a week later, I received a letter--on March 22. It was not signed by Jocelyne Sabourin; it was signed on her behalf by somebody, and I was told in the letter, “Please be advised that Canada does not produce an annual human rights report analogous to reports produced by, for example, the United States or the United Kingdom. Therefore no such report on human rights performance in other countries exists.”
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Would you be prepared to provide us with copies of both of the documents that you're referring to?