Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Lillian Thomsen]

In the first instance, it's prepared for the people who have tasked the preparation of the document, which is the division responsible for human rights in the department and the director general responsible for that division. So it's tasked, and the response goes back to the person who tasked it, or the group that tasked it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Mr. Peterson.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Who in DFAIT decided which lines should be blacked out? Can I get an answer to that, please, Mr. Chair?

[Jocelyne Sabourin, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Yes, I will be answering this.

I, as Mrs. Thomsen rightly said, am the delegated authority for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Did you make the decision as to what was blacked out?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

Yes, I did. I have the authority to do so.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have before me the report on Afghanistan for 2005. Paragraph 1 says: “Extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture, and detention without trial are all too common”. That was blacked out. Under what grounds would you black that out?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

The process is that we go to the program, once we get a request. We ask the program to find relevant documentation. In this case, we found these documents. I have a team of analysts who review the information based on their expertise. In this case they did a line-by-line review and made the determination, along with—

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Was it done under subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

I don't know if that was the section. I don't have the—

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That's what it says here, subsection 15(1).

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

If it says that I used subsection 15(1) for that paragraph, then that's—

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Subsection 15(1) has been used for every one of these, and subsection 15(1) reads, for the record, something “which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs”. Why would the revelation of torture, executions, detention without trial be injurious to international affairs or the conduct thereof?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

The process is that my team needs to review the information, and of course we follow the principles of access as the driving force. We look at the limitations, the 13 exemptions—

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'm asking you a very specific question. Why would subsection 15(1) apply to extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture, and detention without trial? Why is revelation of that fact with respect to Afghanistan going to hurt our international relations?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

The provision of section 15 is a discretionary exemption that is based on an injury test, and it states that it “could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs”.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

With whom?

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

The officials look at this information, look at the provisions of the act, and make a match with--

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I understand the process. Would you explain to me why a revelation of torture is injurious to international relations? Amnesty International talks about it all the time.

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

I make the final decision about the exemptions based on the recommendations the officials send, that in our view there's information in there that needs to be protected under the provision.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Why? You have to do so within the confines of the law.

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

That's what we use, sir. We use the confines of the law.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Well, will you explain to me why a revelation of torture and extrajudicial killings is harmful or injurious to the conduct of international affairs? Surely Canadians have a right to know what is going on there.

[Jocelyne Sabourin]

Canadians have a right to seek information under the provisions of this legislation, and rightly do so. We look at the information. I have a legal obligation to ensure that the documents do not contain information that could be subject to an exemption. In this particular case, the decision was made that this information was to be protected.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Why? Explain why it would be injurious to international affairs.