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.