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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
We're out of time. If we want to continue with these witnesses, we can continue for a half hour. I'm thinking that we can deal with the third item on the agenda on another day.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
He will do that only if there is consensus among the committee members to continue. If there is consensus among the committee members to continue, we'll continue for a half hour, and I'll recognize Mr. Alghabra. At the end of the half hour, I'll ask again. If we run out of questions, I'm afraid the meeting is over.
Madame Lavallée.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I would like to move a motion asking that the next meeting be televised. In order to comply with procedure, I wonder at what time I should move this motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
You can ask us to do that now. We'll ask the clerk to take a look to see if there's a room that has television available on our usual Tuesday slot.
Do I hear a consensus to proceed for half an hour?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
We'll break for five minutes for a refreshment break, then we'll proceed for one half hour after that, at which time we'll see how we're going.
Five minutes, please. That will be just slightly after 4:10.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
We'll call the meeting to order.
At this point I only have Mr. Alghabra on the list. If there's anyone who wishes to ask any questions, please get the clerk's attention.
I now have Mr. Stanton, Mr. Tilson, and Mr. Dhaliwal.
We are in round three, and I'll follow the list as we normally follow it, with the time. I'll try to be slightly stricter on the time so we get everybody who wants to ask a question in.
Mr. Martin, do you have a question?
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
My recommendation, Mr. Chairman, is that we just do one complete round, which should take 25 minutes.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
It's just that I noticed you mentioned everyone's name but mine in terms of the list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Well, you're the only NDPer, and the NDP have a spot on the list, so you don't have to worry about yourself there.
Mr. Alghabra, away you go. You have five minutes, and I'm going to be very strict on time.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to be here today.
Thank you to both witnesses.
Professor, I've been watching the questions, especially coming from the Conservative side, and all that appears to be coming forward is their just trying to create some distraction or diversion from the real issue here. It doesn't matter, really, what technicalities we're talking about; the issue here is that we have a human rights report that was blacked out, or parts of it were blacked out, and once we saw what was underneath that blacked-out section, we didn't really see any reason for it to be blacked out. That is really the gist of the matter here, and we're trying to understand why that happened. Having you both here has been very helpful for us to understand that. Regardless of all the noise, the bottom line is that we're still not sure, and we're trying to figure out why they were blacked out.
I really think this has to do with a lot more than just the detainee issue, for political reasons. There's the issue of the handling of the Afghanistan mission. Especially over the last year or so, things appear to be worsening.
So do you think, in your opinion, from what you've been observing...? I know you've alluded to it, but I want you to tell me your opinion about political interference, or the Conservatives' attempt to deny Canadians access to information that tells the whole story about what's going on Afghanistan.
Prof. Amir Attaran
I think there is certainly a pattern of concealing evidence about detainees and their treatment that runs up to concealing torture. It is true outside the access to information context. I don't want to get into it at length, because of the legitimate restraint that our chair has.
But outside this context, it is true that in the Federal Court judicial review filed by Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, I have seen the government assert more national security exemptions than in any other litigation I have ever been close to. It is unparalleled, in my experience. And that is certainly true because a lot of what is being called national security before the courts process isn't at all national security; it's national embarrassment, for which section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act is being pressed into rough and inappropriate service.
So there is a pattern of concealment, I think, that goes beyond the access to information context.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I don't know if this is a point of order, but....
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Okay. We're hearing testimony--and we appreciate these people being here--but shouldn't testimony be just that: testimony? When we get “I think”, isn't it no longer testimony but just opinion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you for the query. The questioner did ask for the professor's opinion, and the professor is giving an opinion. It's for anyone to listen to that opinion to accept it or reject it or challenge it or whatever the case may be. The questioner specifically asked for an opinion, and the question, I think, is in order. The witness today can give an answer to that question.
Go ahead.
Prof. Amir Attaran
I appreciate the point of order that was raised. Let me be clear that I am giving an opinion, but to put the opinion in a bright light, the sort of thing that has been claimed to fall within a national security exemption, whether under section 15 of the access act or section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, for the purposes of the Amnesty lawsuit, is something like this: despite positive developments, the overall human rights situation in Afghanistan deteriorated in 2006.
I don't for the life of me see how words like those could possibly implicate the national security of Canada. It is obvious that the national security exemption--whether out of the Access to Information Act or the Canada Evidence Act, whether before the Information Commissioner or the Federal Court--is being utterly abused to construe a sentence like that one as a national security matter.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Professor, I'm sure you've heard this before, and there was evidence of it here today. We want to give you the opportunity to respond to people who accuse you, by raising these questions, of attempting to undermine the work of our troops. How do you respond to these ridiculous accusations?
Prof. Amir Attaran
I'd rather say less rather than more on that point. I think the accusations are so totally lacking in dignity that I don't actually want to credit them.
I will say that the Canadian Forces are professionals. We all know that. I know that. My soldiers representing my country are professionals. Professionals obey human rights law. They do not break human rights law. Part of professionalism is to obey human rights law and to show appropriate concern for incidents like torture.
When civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, without--in my opinion--legal excuse and possibly in contravention of the criminal law, withhold evidence they have of torture, they are not behaving professionally. They are behaving beneath the standard appropriate to the ethics of the public service.
Liberal