Evidence of meeting #55 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
ATIP Team Leader, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I think the two analysts are better equipped to answer that.
Senior ATIP Analyst, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I would say that we are. Because we are so short-staffed, we have to. If we were staffed ideally, then there would be certain administrative processes that I wouldn't be doing; I would be doing a strict review of the documents. But because we are short-staffed and we have so many requests, it's a matter of having to do it in order to try to get the requests responded to as quickly as possible.
ATIP Consultant, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I might make the point that I don't believe everybody speed reads. You can only read so many pages in a day. Every time you do something else, clerical or whatever, it takes away from that time you can look at a document. These documents have to be read word for word, line by line. I think there's an idea out there that you can do 150, 250 pages in a day, but it depends on what the information is. If it's very, very serious, very sensitive, then it's going to take you longer. That's part of the problem as well.
I usually say to people, “I'm not R2-D2. I can only read so much in a day, and I can only do so much in a day.”
That does have an effect on the timeframes you're talking about.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
It surprises me that if we look at the sequence of events surrounding the requests of Mr. Attaran and Mr. Esau, we see that even though a MINA ALERT was placed on both files, only Mr. Attaran's request was forwarded to the minister's office on April 17 last. I was not able to find any evidence that the same was done with request 604 from Mr. Esau. Therefore, I assume that file was not sent to the minister's office.
On April 17, six days before the documents were released to the public, the file was sent to the minister for review—the French version refers to a review, not to an approval process, so I think the two versions are different—as if they were waiting on the minister's approval, going on the assumption that if no comments were forthcoming, then he approved the matter.
My question is for Ms. Kutz. When exactly did the minister's office request the uncensored version from you?
Director, Human Rights, Gender Equality, Health and Population Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The minister's office did not ask me for the non-censored report. I do not recall--
Director, Human Rights, Gender Equality, Health and Population Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I do not recall receiving a request from the minister's office for that report, no.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Are you saying the minister never saw the uncensored version of the report?
Director, Human Rights, Gender Equality, Health and Population Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I cannot confirm that, because he could have received it from other offices within the department. I do not specifically recall a request from the minister's office for the full report. I can check my records and go back and verify that.
Normally the reports are used as raw material and data that are used by officers and their supervisors to feed relevant information up to the minister in the context of policy recommendations and formation.
The reports can be quite long. A volume of 100 reports would be very daunting. The department uses the information contained within those reports to provide context and to improve their recommendations and advice to the minister to shape the programs and the policy. They're not usually read by the minister.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you.
Madam Kutz, thank you very much. We would appreciate it if you could do as you said and let us know in due course.
So that I'm clear for the committee's evidence, when a minister's office flags a particular request, the material that is to be sent to the requester is the same material that is sent to the minister's office a few days before it is sent out to the requester. Is that correct?
ATIP Team Leader, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes, that's correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
There is no difference between the material given to the minister's office and to the requester. Is that correct?
ATIP Team Leader, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That's correct.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, and before I do that, I want to state for the record that Mr. Dhaliwal took some liberties in his first line of questioning to suggest that all the members of the committee are somehow unanimous in their sense of dismay about the handling of these ATIP requests. I can tell you, from my point of view, and certainly I think it's shared by our members, that in fact what we see here is the handling of a very intricate and complex set of issues that's been handled very well under a serious workload. That's essentially the context of my question.
Perhaps this to the analyst. You're dealing with a situation here where you have to review and consider redactions to intricate information, sensitive information. You're asked, in fact charged, under the act to apply certain redactions and you've got to weigh the importance of not only providing information to requesters but at the same time protecting certain sensitive information that's allowed to you under the act. How do you come at the question of being able to make that kind of important and, as has been expressed here, in some cases, life-involving redactions, comments, in helping the government make these kinds of determinations? How do you keep yourself prepared to make those kinds of determinations so that the information going to requesters, and in this case ultimately when these reports are provided as advice...? How do you prepare for that type of very delicate preparation of these documents?
Liberal
Senior ATIP Analyst, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The way I do it is...because I work for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I try to keep abreast of what's happening globally. Therefore, if I see something where an office of primary interest will try to protect something when I know it's factual, it's already in the public domain because the government has released it, I can make the argument that it can't be protected.
However, as you say, my job is to look at the recommendations from the OPI. Do they match with the exemptions under the act? If I'm not satisfied that they do, I will go back to directors like Gwyn and ask for rationale, to give me something to show me why I can't release this.
