Information & Ethics Committee on May 31st, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Both.

We have a saying in the NDP that freedom of information is the oxygen democracy breathes, and if that's the case we're having another smog day under the Conservative Party here, because they don't seem to have any commitment to open government whatsoever. It could be that these are rogue bureaucrats, and that's the Liberals' favourite reason when things go bad, that there's a rogue bureaucrat somewhere who's doing all the bad stuff, but somebody is setting the tone for these rogue bureaucrats to be so obstinate and to be such a barrier to access to information instead of an aid.

I appreciate Mr. Marleau pointing out that it's an integral part of the act, that the ATIP coordinators are actually on the side of the applicant, they're their advocate, they're their gatekeeper to help them get in, not to put up further gates to keep them out. That's what we seem to lose sight of sometimes. It's not the ATIP coordinator's job to prevent the government from being embarrassed by news stories that are in the newspaper.

The final thing I'd say is if Mr. Reid would like me to be led off in handcuffs because I'm trying to help with this investigation, he should get a bunch of tiny little handcuffs for every paper boy for The Globe and Mail who delivered the very same information to every household and doorstep in the country. Honestly, this is a really ham-fisted attempt to try to silence people who are just trying to get down to the truth, and I resent it, for the record, seeing this has become the subject of this particular meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

By sheer coincidence, the next questioner is Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'm just going to guess, Mr. Chairman, you weren't asking the witnesses to respond to any of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There were no questions that I heard.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No. I was thinking we both like good government and open government, and I was hoping there would be time for them to respond to something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

If you would like to ask them to respond to his comments, by all means, it's your time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No, I think I'm going to ask them, Mr. Walsh in particular, to respond to one of my questions.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if I'll take up all the time. If I don't, would it be possible for Mr. Wallace to carry on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Absolutely.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

All right.

I asked you four questions, Mr. Walsh. You were very gracious in getting back to me instantly, just about. You indicated at that time, as you did in committee, that you didn't want to provide me with any advice regarding other members of the committee. They can seek advice on their own.

Let me now, therefore, turn to a specific piece of advice as to how I am permitted to act. This is with further reference to the question four I'd asked you on what further obligations the committee members face with regard to the examination of these documents to ensure that we don't commit new offences under this law--that is to say, the Security of Information Act--in any possible future examination of these documents, those being the documents I'd referenced in the letter.

What I am wondering about here is that you've indicated that we ought not to be using them for any personal use, which would include reading through them. Now, there had been references made in this committee and a quotation made by one of the members of this committee directly from one of the redacted portions of one of the documents at our last meeting. It's been referred to several times in this meeting; that's where the reference to “torture” being blacked out comes from.

It's very difficult, if one complies with the requirement under the law, to turn these things over to the foreign affairs ministry to respond, either to even confirm the accuracy of what's been stated by another member of the committee in a public session or to find any contextual information that might be appropriate, showing that what has been asserted is either out of context or appropriately in context, or that there are other examples....

You can see the kinds of problems we have in dealing with the use of this committee to present a certain argument that we simply cannot comment on. I'm just wondering to what degree I would be permitted to retain these documents for that purpose, should further commentary be made by other members of the committee regarding these documents.

I'm thinking in particular, Mr. Walsh, of when the documents themselves have not been presented to the clerk of the committee as evidence. At that point I assume the circumstance changes somewhat.

[Rob Walsh]

At the risk of making it seem highly technical, it's not simply providing the document to the clerk of the committee. It would require the chair, in fact, to then present the document to the committee in a proceeding. It thereby, in my view, would acquire the protection of the parliamentary proceeding.

As I said earlier, that doesn't necessarily mean you can then take the document and walk off and get into other discussions in other places about the document, with the result that the content of the document is disclosed outside the proceeding.

Until that happens, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe.... And this is assuming the document falls within the prohibitions of the act. And this is an assumption. I haven't seen the document.

You know this, Mr. Reid, but other members of the committee may not have had the pleasure of reading sections 4 or 5 of the act. It's not a short provision. One needs to examine it very closely, with the document in hand, to see whether in fact it applies to that document, to see what the obligations are upon every individual who might himself be in possession of that document. I'm just not prepared to say at the moment what legally that obligation is without closer study of the act, with reference to the document in question.

I might point out that I have an additional problem if all I get is a redacted version. I mean, you have to picture it. If the member or any individual gets hold of a document with a lot of black spaces, well, they can only be responsible for what they can read. If what they can read does not present anything that suggests it's covered by this act, then arguably they're not at risk.

I don't know what the document reads. I need to see what the document is that was in their possession. If the document in the individual's possession is unexpurgated, unredacted, then that may present, of course, a different picture.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Right. Thank you.

That was the only question I had for you, Mr. Walsh.

I think perhaps it suggests, Mr. Chairman, that as one of our next steps as a committee, we ought to find out--and Mr. Martin raised this possibility--if the entire document is at this point now open, in which case we could treat this very differently.

Perhaps we could inquire of the foreign affairs department for a bit more clarification on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Absolutely.

I just want to remind everybody that I ask that we leave half an hour at the end so that we can talk about where we're going.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear: as chairman of this committee, I have received no document of any kind, nor have I seen any document of any kind, other than the redacted version that has been provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs. If I had gotten such a document from anyone, I would have, of course, as Mr. Walsh has advised us, discussed it with the committee and no doubt had him here at that time to give us due legal advice. And that may still yet happen.

You do have some time, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick, as usual.

This is just a procedural question, Mr. Marleau. Can you tell us whether there has been an appeal to your office on the ATI request that was made to the department?

[Robert Marleau]

Do you mean whether there has been a complaint?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's correct.

[Robert Marleau]

We confirmed that at the last meeting when we were here on estimates.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

One thus far, or can you even tell me that?

[Robert Marleau]

Related to this document?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

To this document, yes.

[Robert Marleau]

We've received just one.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Just the one. And is that investigation in process then?

[Robert Marleau]

Yes, sir, it is.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Now, my suggestion was that we wait--not that we don't study it, but we wait until your office makes a decision on whether that was appropriate or not. Could you give us a sense of the timeline on that?

[Robert Marleau]

Our service standard in a case like this one is to try to get a response to the requester within 90 days, and when it's a difficult case, in terms of how it may come on my desk and that sort of thing, it's a maximum of 120 days.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You're expected to meet those guidelines. Is that correct?