Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Lillian Thomsen]

It depends on the document.

As I indicated in my statement, we advise both the minister's office and the department's communication bureau of the titles of access requests that have been received. Irrespective of the nature, either or both may wish to prepare a House card for use by the minister, or media lines, if they anticipate that once the client, whoever he or she might be, receives the package, he or she will generate an article in the newspaper, a letter-writing campaign to the minister, and queries in committees such as this one.

It's not for every single one, no.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

In the case of both of these requests, both the first one and the second one that came in, was there a communication assessment done?

[Lillian Thomsen]

On the access requests themselves, there was not.

For most issues of high international profile, if there's an access request for them, there are usually media lines or a House card developed. The existing House card for use by the minister in the House, let's say on Sudan, may be updated to take account of the redacted contents of a released package, but not in the case of every single access request. For many of them, the answer is no.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Who is briefed when you decide to do a communication assessment, and when exactly does that happen?

[Lillian Thomsen]

It's at the very end of the process. It's not a question of briefing; it's a question of the communication bureau and/or the minister's office receiving, as I indicated in my statement, the redacted package and saying, oh, we'd better update the minister's House card on whatever the subject of the access is, or, we don't need to change anything, the material we have covers it. It's standard preparation for Parliament. It's the communication bureau that normally does the writing of the media lines.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Was Minister MacKay briefed prior to this release of the first document?

[Lillian Thomsen]

You're talking about the human rights report?

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

No. I mean the first request that came in, which asked that this document be released. Was he briefed that this request had come in?

[Lillian Thomsen]

As I explained in my statement, the minister's office put an alert and indicated that they wished to see the package when it was ready to go out. But, no, he was not briefed that a request had come in. As I explained in my statement, we have, I think, over 500 requests right now.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

He was briefed when the document went out?

[Lillian Thomsen]

Lines were prepared. Quite frankly, lines on Afghanistan are prepared every day.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I just wanted to go over what Mr. Reid brought up just to be sure.

The minister's office, or Minister MacKay, did not ask that any of these lines be excised?

[Lillian Thomsen]

That's correct.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was all I had.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Attaran came to us the last day the committee met and he made a number of statements that, quite frankly, were derogatory toward your office. I don't know whether you had a chance to look at the transcripts, but I'll bet you did.

The most serious one of all, I thought, was an exchange with Chairman Wappel. I'm going to read you the portion and ask you whether you have any comments. I found this the most serious of all. This is the professor speaking:

I would also like to raise the point that there seems to be here, in this set of events as I've just described them, a pattern of concealing the 2006 and earlier Afghan human rights reports, and possibly concealing the U.S. human rights reports. If so, that is a criminal matter under section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act. To conceal a record is a criminal offence. I'm not making an allegation against anyone personally. I do not know who might have been involved in such concealment, although I do believe the circumstances show that it has possibly happened and there is need for a criminal investigation.

I would recommend, as a further step, that the RCMP and the Director of Public Prosecutions be involved at this stage to investigate whether any persons, be they civil servants or political figures, were involved in concealing information arising out of my request. I won't say to include Mr. Esau's request, because that's up to him, but I think the three or four requests together--I've lost count--do show a constellation of facts that indicate concealment went on.

Now, he just thinks this. He doesn't really have any facts, but it's his personal feeling. But it's a serious allegation. Have you had the time to think about those allegations and do you have any response to that? It really is a slam against your office--not necessarily you personally, but against your office.

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

First of all, for the record, I would like to confirm to the committee that there was no pattern of concealment with regard to the Afghan human rights reports. This request came into my office and was examined, we sought the records, we obtained the records, and we processed the records, all in accordance with the provisions of the act. Mind you, we didn't meet the deadline. As I said, I'm very apologetic about the fact that we didn't meet that deadline. Yes, we were dead in the water, but we continued the processing.

At the end of the day, on April 23, we provided him with both a response on the Afghan reports and a response to the effect that the U.S. report did not exist. We did a search, and that particular record does not exist within our department.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Okay.

On a completely different question, Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned that there's an investigation going on by the Information Commissioner. What happens to your office?

My colleague Mr. Martin has raised an issue, that you didn't appear with your files. I expect on the one hand you've got the Access to Information Act and on the other hand you have the Privacy Act, and on the other hand you know you've got comments made that you don't want to prejudice applications that are being investigated by the Information Commissioner.

My question is, when the Information Commissioner begins an investigation, what's the process, from your office to the Information Commissioner?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

Thank you for that question.

What happens is that first we are served notification. My office has received notification. It's a written notification from the Office of the Information Commissioner that there is a complaint. The next thing will be a meeting with the investigator. The investigator will serve the office with a complaint summary that indicates the issues that need to be clarified, from missing records, to the exemptions, to the inclusions, to just about anything about the administration of the act. We've received a notice from that office and we are working with that office to provide all the information from witnesses, files, or paper that the Information Commissioner wishes to review under his powers.

I understand you'll possibly be meeting with that office this week. You may wish to ask for more details from the Information Commissioner, and maybe he'll be at liberty to provide the details.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Are you Ms. Sabourin's supervisor, Ms. Thomsen? Is that why you are watching her in this way? Are you the person in charge of communication with the minister's office? Are you the direct contact with the minister?

[Lillian Thomsen]

I report to the deputy minister. I have dealings on a daily basis with the minister's office, but not on ATIP. I have responsibility as well for the parliamentary unit in the department.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

But you do not discuss access to information, reports or anything of that type with the minister: so what do you talk about: the weather?

[Lillian Thomsen]

No, no. I do not meet with the minister personally. I am involved in meetings from time to time, but I do not have occasion to speak to the minister as part of my day-to-day activities. I assume my responsibilities as director general within the office. I am responsible for access to information, the parliamentary unit, ministerial correspondence—not only that of Mr. MacKay, but also the correspondence of the secretary of state, the parliamentary secretary and the deputy minister—and of a unit that prepares all the briefing books used by the minister when he travels, when he appears before parliamentary committees, and so on. So I'm responsible for not just for access to information, but for a whole range of matters.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I would prefer to concentrate on the report. I would like to know what direct link there is between you and the minister's office. In addition, I am having difficulty understanding that as Ms. Sabourin's supervisor, you do not discuss the files. You say you talk about nothing, that nothing is said.