First of all, Mr. Edwards, thank you for coming here. It is really very nice of you to join us. Last week, 33 people were waiting on you. Following that meeting, a Canadian Press wire reported —these are not my words or those of any committee member—that committee members had been “brushed off by Leonard Edwards”. I am not exactly sure of what “brushed off” means here, but I am fairly certain that it is not very good. CP also reported that some committee members likened the experience to “a slap in the face”. I know what that means. I was not the one who made these comments last week. The fact remains, however, that this is what is written in a CP wire story. I have not checked to see if these comments were published. The reporter goes on to say that you apparently said the decision to appear or not before the committee was yours to make. I was rather surprised to read this wire story.
As I said, 33 people were waiting for you to put in an appearance last week. Many felt that your absence showed a lack of courtesy. When I receive a letter from the minister—a letter that the chairman makes an effort to read to us—advising us to be nice to the people he is sending to appear before us, I have to believe that he is projecting his feelings . Do you know what projection is in psychology? It means accusing someone else of actions that oneself is guilty of. That said, as you know, not only did the main witness who testified on May 27 fail to bring along documents, she had not prepared her testimony either. Rather, it seemed she was prepared to tell us that she had nothing to say. Moreover, she has already promised— and I refer you to t pages 14 to 16 of the transcripts of the May 27 meeting—to explain why the word “torture” was censored. I am waiting for a written explanation. I just want you to know that I have yet to receive one. I have checked with the chairman and an explanation has not been provided yet.
In your opening statement, you indicated that last year the department had received a total of 648 requests under the Access to Information Act. According to page 29 of the Information Commissioner's 2006-2007 report, 600 is not an excessively high number of requests. He mentions a relatively low number of requests for consultation, fewer than 600 per year. He also noted that decision-makers are not inclined to really show transparency and that too much discussion within offices delays the processing of the requests.
If we look at the chronology of events associated with Professor Attaran's request as set out by Ms. Sabourin, we see that on April 17, the release package was forwarded to Alain Latulippe in the Minister's office for review before April 20, 2007. On April 23, a full six days later, a response was provided to the requester. That means that the Minister's office had six days to examine the file. In French, the word “examiner” can mean criticize or discuss. What I am saying here is that one could indeed be inclined to think that there was some kind of political interference. You can contrast my statement with that of Ms. Lilian Thomsen who testified to the committee that the Minister's office was informed at the very end of the process. I do not think that six days before providing a response qualifies as the end of the process.
My question for you, sir— because you are the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs— is as follows: did you read, or see the report drafted by a certain Mr. Bloodworth before it became public? This report contained references to torture. We read in the Globe and Mail how Afghan prisoners were treated. On closer examination, one might be inclined to think that Canada was violating the Geneva Convention. Did you set eyes on this document before it was released to the public?