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.
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, I'll probably end up repeating myself as well.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Could you answer in as short a time as you can? I'm getting flashbacks—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Can you tell us who directed it? Was it one person or was there a chain?
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The thing is, it's the word you're using: “directed”. That sounds as though somebody said, “Thou shalt take out these items”. The process is much more iterative than that. The process is one through which the document is sent to the office of principal interest. In that office they look through it and they say which items would be okay to have in the public domain and which parts should not be in the public domain, for the reasons set out—
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
But that came back on March 13. The officer of primary concern got back on March 13 and told your staff that, yes, those documents do exist. Right? So that much we know. That took place.
But Jocelyne Sabourin was taken off the case—
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
You asked me a question—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
There was no admission of any documents at that time. In fact, there was a denial of documents on March 13, i.e., that there was no global report.
But let's not get caught up in that. The witness was explaining to us that the GHH takes a look at it and decides, in their opinion, what parts of the report can be made public.
Then it goes to whom?
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Then it goes back to the ATIP section and they—different officers there, and you're aware of who they are in these individual cases—challenge the officers in the GHH as to what they have recommended to ensure that they have good sound reasons for eliminating them.
At that point, the document then goes to Ms. Sabourin, as the delegated authority, and she signs off.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
She's not the one, though, who answered. It was taken out of her hands by the time of these other negotiations. So who took over the file when Ms. Sabourin was—
Liberal
NDP
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That was one of her staff.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
One of the letters was signed by her, but not directly by her. It said, “for”, and I gather she wasn't in the office at the time.
Anyway, that's it.
Mr. Dhaliwal, if you have anything new, maybe you could make it shorter, please. And then we'll have Mr. Pearson, and that's it.
Thank you.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Certainly, Mr. Chair.
Just following up on what you said, that we should not use those words, “torture”, “killings”, and all that stuff, I have a question to the deputy minister. I'm going through this Globe and Mail article of April 26, 2007. Have you looked at this story on this particular day, which says, “Ottawa denies allegation of a cover-up”? Have you read this story in the paper?
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I'm sure I read it at the time, but I haven't read it since. I'm not familiar with its contents.
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I might have read it.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Okay. So if you might have read it, would you, being a deputy minister, being the top bureaucrat responsible for the department, being a responsible public servant certainly, go back to your office and see if the facts of this report were factual or just done arbitrarily?
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
When there are news articles and stories and so forth in the media that impact upon the department, of course they are immediately looked at and we investigate. By “we”, I mean the department officials look into it to see what the truth of the matter is. Then we prepare media responses and so forth. So in that sense, yes, I would have gone back to my office to see what our response was and to check into the facts of the matter.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
So did you check that this report...? What was blacked out was reported on by the Globe and Mail. Have you gone back and checked whether what the Globe and Mail reported on that day was correct?
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
What I went back and determined for myself was that what we have been discussing here is an apparent misunderstanding between the requester and the ATIP officers as to what Mr. Esau was requesting. The chairman has discussed this case already, and in fact the ATIP officers thought he was asking for a global report.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I'm not even going there, Mr. Chair. All I'm asking you is a yes or no question. The thing is, I'm looking at it as if I'm running the department, as you are right now, and you are advising your minister, who is, as Mr. Martin said, hanging out to dry in the House of Commons. We have the Globe and Mail reporting this, all the killings, tortures, and the Canadian reputation on the international scene at risk. I'm simply wondering if you have verified that whatever article appeared in the Globe and Mail is true, or were there some contradictions?