Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Gary Switzer]

Do you mean when I finish working on the file and then send them for processing? I sent them to my manager at the time—his name is Chuck Melvin—for his review of the information, making sure that the letter was appropriate and that I had done everything I was supposed to do in the file.

It's my understanding that from there it goes to the director. She is the sign-off authority. She's the delegated authority to sign off on all ATIP requests. When she's not in the office, the deputy director does it. But she is the delegated authority for signing off, whether she agrees or disagrees with my—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

So then, Ms. Kutz was the individual who signed off on the file. Correct?

[Gary Switzer]

No, that would be Ms. Sabourin.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Once you finish your work and make your recommendations, do you always track the files that you process? Did you in fact see the final version of the report released on April 23 last? I am talking here about the file turned over to the requester on April 23 at 3 p.m. Between April 13 and April 23 of this year, did you in fact see the censored version of the file, before either the media or Mr. Attaran did, a file that you had in fact commented on?

[Gary Switzer]

No, that's not my place.

Once the delegated authority, the director, signs off on the file, I don't see the file again. It's my presumption at the time that if she signs the file and delivers it to the requester, she has agreed with my recommendations under the access act to protect the information. If she doesn't, before it ever gets to the requester she would come back. She might come back and say, “You might want to look at something else in this file.” That's when that might happen. But once it goes to her for final review and she signs off on the letter, that's the end of it. I don't see it again--unless there's a complaint filed.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

When you examined this file, did you know that a MINA alert was on the file? How did you react when you discovered this fact? In terms of analysing the file, how did this change your perception or alter you view of what should be changed, or kept, in the file?

[Gary Switzer]

That doesn't change my perception in the analysis of the document whatsoever. When the MINA alert is on a file, what that says to me is that ministerial correspondence would like to see this file before the information is given to the requester. For whatever reasons that happens—and some, I believe, are questions and answers, but I don't work there, so I'm not sure—it means nothing to me until the end of the file, before I give it to my manager or Madame Sabourin. It has no effect on how I process the file whatsoever. It's just at the end. It just means I have one more step I have to take at the end of the file.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Could you explain to me what this final step entails?

[Gary Switzer]

Excuse me, I didn't get that.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You mentioned a final step. When a file is flagged with a MINA ALERT, once your job is completed, there is one final step to be taken, or so you say. What is this final step?

[Gary Switzer]

What I would do is finish the file, take it down for review, prepare an e-mail to MINA that says this file is being sent out. At the time the director is looking at it, that MINA has probably gone forward, because she approves the fact that the MINA should go forward. Then she signs off on the file. There is no other step for me to take until the date we have told them it's going to be sent out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Monsieur Vincent.

Just so we're clear, Mr. Switzer, it's pretty simple, I guess. If there's no MINA, then you don't have to send a letter to the minister's office. If there is a MINA, then you have to send a letter to the minister's office, and that's what you're talking about as the extra step.

[Gary Switzer]

Yes. You basically have to notify them that this is ready to go for disclosure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Good.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for appearing in front of us today and for doing an absolutely fabulous job.

We've been criticized on our side of the bench here a little bit on a couple of issues, and I think you've done a very good job of clarifying some of the things.

Ms. Kutz, what was news to me, or new to me--and maybe I should have known about it--is when you said that you had correspondence from an individual making a request that he wanted a report on something to do with the state of the world. Was that what he actually said, “state of the world”? Can you read it again for me?

[Gwyn Kutz]

Just to clarify, the office of primary interest is never in direct contact with the requester. The requests are always channelled through the ATIP office. So the requester is anonymous to the persons who are processing the file.

However, I note that in the chronology that has been provided and in the letter that was sent by Mr. Esau to the ATIP office in his follow-up request on the report, it says, “I am assuming that every year there is some kind of “state-of-the-world” summary....”

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that.

We heard earlier today from the chair, actually, who indicated that maybe we—not we but the staff—should have been more aggressive in making the call saying, “Do you really mean this instead of what's in front of us?” I think you've been very clear that, in black and white, it asks for a “state-of-the-world”....

Would you like an opportunity to comment on that, whether you've learned anything from this experience? Would you have done anything different, or have you put anything in process that's any different from that, based on the information you have in front of you?

[Gwyn Kutz]

Certainly, Mr. Wallace. This has been an interesting learning experience I think for all of us. I would say that in future situations where I am not able to find a report, even if it is what I believe to be a very specific report, I would ask the ATIP person with whom I'm in contact to perhaps probe a little bit more to find out whether I was wrong in my assumption of what the requester was asking.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So on the comments about us denying there was a report, that certainly didn't happen at your level, at the director level. The information that you were provided of what the person wanted just actually does not exist, and that's why it was denied, because you can't support something that doesn't exist. Would that be an accurate statement, then?

[Gwyn Kutz]

That is correct. The department never denied the existence of the Afghan reports and was in fact in the process of processing a couple of requests at the time the information that no global report exists was provided to the second requester.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It is a very busy department, obviously, in all areas but particularly in this area, with subsection 15(1) likely applying to a lot of things that happen in the Department of Foreign Affairs. But the Information Commissioner has a complaint, and they will rule on those complaints.

I don't want to talk to you about this specific complaint, but I'm sure there have been other complaints that have happened. What happens? With the Information Commissioner, the process—and I think appropriately set up—is that a third party comes in and looks at all the information that has been available, has been provided, what's been blacked out, what hasn't, and where we've gone wrong. We have a letter here saying it may have been a bit slow but you did the right thing, that the department wasn't trying to do anything to stop that information. It was a bit slow, but they've resolved that issue.

What do you do? Do you as a director look at what happens and what the Information Commissioner may report on? What happens to that information? Do you try to implement that? Do you have any history of what happens with that information once the Information Commissioner rules on something?

[Gwyn Kutz]

This falls outside my area of immediate expertise. It might be better directed to the delegated authority.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So it would be further up the authority ladder that this would happen.

[Gwyn Kutz]

The delegated authority for access to information requests or the deputy minister would be a better place to answer that. It's outside my area of expertise.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

What does delegated authority mean to a staff member, then? I asked this previously.