Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Leonard Edwards]

You put your finger on a very important factor, and that is that our ATIP officials, and all our officers, try to use their very best judgment. I think that's the case right across government. The legislation gives authority to officials to exercise discretion with respect to exemptions under the act. You have the office of principal interest that is providing some advice. You have the ATIP people on the other side who are doing a challenge function. There's a certain amount of creative discretion-making going on there with these two. The ATIP people are there representing the interests of the legislation and are challenging the requests that come from the other offices.

At the end of the day, it's always a judgment. We have in our department ATIP officers, many of whom have had a long time in the department, and I trust their judgment. That's what they are there to do, that's what they do, and they do it well. Would you have the same answer from two different officers at two different times? The answer might be yes. It does come down to judgment and discretion. So it's not a perfect system.

As I recall, you had some testimony from a Mr. Kratchanov, of the Department of Justice, who talked about it not being a scientific process; it's more art than science. I think that really puts one's finger on the issue when you describe it that way.

We can go back to the question asked earlier by Mr. Martin, and that is why some things were redacted in earlier reports that aren't redacted in current reports. Time has changed, the context has changed, and the individuals have changed. There is a discretionary element there as well.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That testimony is....

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Tilson, we're over time.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Edwards, just for clarification, the office of principal interest in this particular investigation, if I am correct, is the GHH in your department.

[Leonard Edwards]

Yes, that's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I don't know what it stands for; I just remember GHH.

[Leonard Edwards]

Yes, that's right, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We'll go to Mr. Pearson, please, for five minutes.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Minister, thank you for coming in. We appreciate it.

There are always political dynamics going on in this place, but we're also trying to figure out the process and what happened here with these requests. It does seem to me that there have been some failures. I think it was helpful that Ms. Sabourin said she felt the guidelines should be updated in light of more recent court cases and other things—legal precedents. And you referred to that, again, just a few minutes ago.

I would like to know, for future cases when this happens, how you will go through that process of updating. And what is the timeline for that?

[Leonard Edwards]

I can't answer your question because I don't know. Maybe one of the officials who comes before you a little later can answer that question. What I'll do is get back to you on that, if I might. I know there has been some discussion about it, but I'm not sure there is yet a process, and I would like to be able to satisfy myself to get you the correct answer.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

As a senior person in charge of it, though, we would like to ask you to move on that post-haste, because it does reflect on future cases that might come up.

[Leonard Edwards]

Okay.

When you talk about guidelines, these are guidelines for the government as a whole.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That's correct, yes. Thank you.

When Professor Attaran and Mr. Esau were here, they felt there was what they termed a “chill” going through major departments on the issue of torture and detainees in Afghanistan. That was their sense because of the delay in getting things they wanted. Can you comment on that?

[Leonard Edwards]

I don't know where they would have gotten the impression that there was a chill, because the handling of their requests was still consistent with the handling of all our requests. That could well have been their interpretation of the material when they got it, but I can assure you that there has not been any change of attitude inside my department with respect to handling these requests.

I can't speak for them, of course. They may have other evidence on the matter that they feel is important, and I wouldn't wish to presume anything about that.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I understand.

Mr. Edwards, would you agree with the statement that there was too much delay in getting back to them on their request for information and that that perhaps led to the impression they had?

[Leonard Edwards]

Yes, there certainly was a delay with respect to the request from Professor Attaran, which, you will recall, Madam Sabourin apologized for on May 29 and which I again referred to in my opening statement.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

All right.

As somebody who's interested in human rights work, my final question concerns a criterion that is chosen by your department. Indeed, we had Lillian Thomsen from the Department of Foreign Affairs before us and she talked about how certain criteria were used to select these countries that are to go into the human rights report. May I ask you how that criteria is determined?

[Leonard Edwards]

That criteria will be set more or less on an annual basis. The human rights people will get together with different of our geographic units and others and discuss what the current issues of the day are, where have there been reports of particular difficulties, and where do we need to know more about certain conditions in certain countries because of instability in the region. We may have to deal with a crisis in that area. Usually, these things are well known. The developments globally are public. By that I mean that everyone will understand that, say, there is a heating up of a situation in Africa—

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I don't have much time. Would they be selected in part on the basis not only of what's happening in Africa, or wherever, but on how they impact the present government? For instance, if we're involved in a conflict situation such as Afghanistan, would that be part of the criteria upon which an accurate report would be produced?

[Leonard Edwards]

Yes, absolutely.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Deputy Minister, for coming.

First of all, I'd like to start by saying something in opposition, I guess, to what Mr. Martin said. I do appreciate that the senior staff member...maybe the tone of the letter could have been a little bit different, but the fact that you wanted to be here to represent your department and to take responsibility I think says a great deal about your managerial abilities, and I actually appreciate it when management steps up to the plate to represent the staff.

The question I have for you is regarding the information that was provided by a letter from the Information Commissioner. There is another complaint, I believe, in front of the Information Commissioner. Do you know if that's accurate or not, or what else is outstanding on this particular issue?

[Leonard Edwards]

The same request has another complaint against it from Mr. Attaran, having to do with the information that was provided; in other words, that the redactions themselves were improper.