Evidence of meeting #51 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 policy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Of course I have questions for the witnesses, but I also have some for you. I thought we had decided to subpoena the employees from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Did I dream that?
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
We did not agree. We did discuss it; we did not agree. Those conversations were in camera, so let's leave them there at that time. But you've said what you've said.
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I would like to go back to the famous subsection 15(1). We were interrupted by the chair, but it is true that my time was up.
While my colleagues were speaking to you, I got the covering letter included with the department's internal report. Actually, I see that this is not the covering letter that was sent to Mr. Attaran. It is the letter that was sent here, to the chair. It states that some parts of the text were protected in accordance with certain provisions of the Access to Information Act.
I'm not sure that Mr. Attaran received the same letter, but we can assume that he did. This letter refers to subsection 13(1) and was signed by Leonard J. Edwards. The letter states that subsection 15(1) reads as follows:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs...
I cannot assume, particularly now that I know that this letter was sent to Mr. Wappel, that this was one of the three reasons Ms. Sabourin gave Mr. Attaran for not disclosing the passages of subsection 15(1). Even though there is no reference to the conduct of international affairs, the passage was taken from the beginning of subsection 15(1).
If I understand correctly, Mr. Kratchanov—and I do not know whether Ms. Sabourin is the person who signed the letter, the person responsible for access to information must provide one of the three points you spoke about and that are mentioned at the beginning of subsection 15(1) when he or she sends out a document. Is that correct?
10:55 a.m.
Director / General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
The court has decided that providing one of the three items was adequate and that it was not necessary to include all of the remaining paragraphs in the section.
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Do you not think it would be advisable to amend the Access to Information Act in this regard? It needs to be strengthened and modernized. We have called on your minister to bring forward a draft bill on a number of occasions. We even set a deadline—December 15, 2007, but we never heard back from him. He did not even bother to reply to our letters.
Do you not think that the act should be amended in this way?
10:55 a.m.
Director / General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
I do not think it is up to me to say what should or should not be amended in the act at this point. I would just point out that given the way the act is structured at the moment, since the paragraphs are merely illustrations, it is possible that the exception may apply but that it is not included in any of the paragraphs.
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
When the Information Commissioner does his investigation, do you think he will go to see the employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs and talk to them about the specific sentences that mention torture and tell them how that could be injurious? Is that what he is going to do with the employees who wielded the marking pen?
10:55 a.m.
Director / General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
From my experience, I would say that the commissioner asks this type of questions. I do not know whether he will do it in this way in this case.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Kratchanov, if you are aware of any cases that the courts have decided from 2000 to the present giving guidance to the departments as to what criteria they use in deciding which sections they quote for purposes of not providing access to those particular documents or particular sections of documents, would you please provide them to the committee?
Thank you.
10:55 a.m.
Director / General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
Okay.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
Thank you very much, witnesses. It's nice to see you again. We appreciate the two hours. As usual, it goes by quickly. Thank you very much.
We'll see the committee members on Thursday.
The meeting is adjourned.