Then explain to me why the word "torture" appeared in the 2003-2004 documents that were provided, while today, in 2007, there is an article in Le Devoir that quotes excerpts from an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail that said:
The first, which was censored, was obtained after the newspaper complained to the Information Commissioner, and a second, uncensored version, that we managed to obtain.
That means there were two versions and the newspaper managed to obtain both. Ms. Sabourin, you said that the existence of this document had never been denied. That is strange, particularly given that the article states:
The newspaper said it inquired first about the existence of a report on human rights in early March. At the time, the Department of Foreign Affairs replied that there was no such report. Two weeks later, the Access to Information Branch specified that Canada did not write reports on this subject, as is done in the United States and the United Kingdom.
It is really very strange, is it not? You have just told me that no one ever denied that such a report existed. So they call your office and the answer is that there is no such report. Who are we supposed to believe? Why did the paper have two versions? There was a reference to torture, but that was censored. Can you explain that for me? Does torture have any impact on subsection 15(1)?