Evidence of meeting #49 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 request.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
You'll have to speed it up, madam. I get only a few brief minutes.
Who else did you consult on the exemptions, all the names?
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No one.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Can you explain, then? Seeing it was you who did the redaction, let me read a paragraph that was not redacted, a paragraph that was allowed free and clear, in 2002.
It says, in 2002:...a number of extrajudicial and summary executions continue to be carried out with impunity. [...] Arbitrary detention, beatings and the use of torture to extract expressions of guilt continue to be wide spread. The Human Rights Watch report on intimidation, arbitrary arrest and torture in the western region of Herat is believed to be applicable equally to other areas of Afghanistan....
That's a quote from the “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights” report.
Yet in the 2005 report—and I believe the exact same language exists in the 2006 report—it says that “extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common”. That was blacked out.
So why was it okay to tell the previous government that torture was being used, but now it seems, arbitrarily, almost the identical language is now not allowed under national security reasons?
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The records, again, were looked at line by line with regard to the possible exemptive provisions, and the decisions were made that these paragraphs were going to be released and the other ones would be protected under the provision of exemption.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
That just seems to be very, very generously applied. But you also use exemptions 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) to delete sections of not only the 2006 report but the 2004 report that I have here. Under whose guidance do you invoke the ministerial protection clauses?
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
There's a provision under the act, as advice and recommendation. That is not guided by anyone, but it's the legal framework that has this particular provision, and we felt that exemption met the criteria.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
This is a very good point. The law did not change between 2002, 2004, or 2006. In fact, the law hasn't been reviewed in 23 years, which has been a bone of contention with this committee.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Both provisions, I believe, are based on injury. The test that we use, in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines, is an injury test.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Who would be injured if we knew that Afghans were torturing Afghan prisoners? Other than perhaps saving the injury of Afghan prisoners from being tortured...who would be injured by knowing that? The public has a right to know these things. It's not up to you to arbitrarily deny people their right to know these things.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It's up to me to make decisions within the legally based framework, which is the Access to Information Act, and I do this all the time.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I would argue that it's arbitrarily based, not legally based.
You've seen the unredacted, uncensored version, and obviously we all have the censored version. Can I ask you, in the one last minute I have remaining, will you verify that this is the language that you blacked out? It's too bad you don't have your files with you or you could actually look at them: “Extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture, and detention without trial are all too common and the freedom of expression is still not widely observed.”
Did you blank that out, in paragraph 1 of page 1 of the document, “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights”? Did you black out those words or not?
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
First of all—
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Don't start your stunts. Is that in your manual? What page in your manual is it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Come on, Mr. Martin. It's a point of order and I'll hear it.
Mr. Tilson.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, my point of order is, with this question, are we inadverently asking the witnesses to violate the law? If we're asking them to quote what has been redacted, are we inadverently asking them to violate the legislation?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I don't know about inadvertence and violating. Madame Sabourin has indicated numerous times that she is dealing with things in accordance with the law. That phrase has been used many times, so I'm sure that she'll either decline to answer or answer the question.
The question was a proper, so either you answer it or decline to do so.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The redactions were done in accordance with the act.
I wonder what you're reading from.You seem to have a copy of a document that you can see through, or whatever. It's certainly not my office that provided you with that copy, because I don't know what document you have.
And yes, I will decline on that basis. We collected the information, and we made decisions on disclosure, which came from my office.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
So that we're clear, because this question has now been asked by two questioners, can you give us any explanation for the logic of allowing the word “torture” in one report and taking it out of another? Presumably you were the head of the section in both cases.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The documents were reviewed line by line.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Numerous times. Can you give the committee an explanation as to why the word “torture” is used in one report and taken out of the other?
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Not at this time. But I can take it on notice to provide you with an explanation, if you wish.
Liberal
Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The other thing is that this explanation is provided in the context of this investigation to the Information Commissioner, and he will have full access to—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
We understand that, but we're not the Information Commissioner. You will give us whatever answer you give us, and then the committee will decide what its next step is, based on whatever legal rights it has.
Mr. Dhaliwal.