Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Gwyn Kutz, Director, Human Rights, Gender Equality, Health and Population Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Gwyneth Kutz. I am a career foreign service officer. I joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 1988. I am currently the director of the human rights, gender equality, health and population division in the global issues branch of DFAIT, and I have held this position since August 2006.

The responsibilities of this division include the advancement of rights and well-being of people through policy development and advice advocacy, standards setting, and other actions. The human rights section has a responsibility and an overall mandate for promotion and protection of human rights internationally. My division is responsible, amongst other things, for coordinating the annual human rights reporting process.

Upon receipt of an access to information request, my division searches for and conducts a review of the relevant documents that have been requested. As the director, I make the recommendations to the delegated ATIP authority on any exemptions that should be made under the Access to Information Act. My division was the office of primary interest for three of the requests: files A-2006-00466, A-2006-00604, and A-2006-00605.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Ms. Nixon.

[Jennifer Nixon, ATIP Team Leader, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you.

My name is Jennifer Nixon, and I am a team leader with the access to information and privacy protection division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I've been working in the access to information area for approximately five years and at Foreign Affairs since October 2006. I worked on access file numbers A-2006-00466 and A-2006-00605.

For file A-2006-00466, I prepared and signed the letter acknowledging the request. I tasked the request to GHH, as well as two other divisions. I granted a five-day extension to GHH to gather the records. I assigned the file to Gary Switzer and received and returned voice mails and e-mails from the requester concerning the status of his request.

With regard to file A-2006-00605, I reviewed the file from a quality control perspective before it was signed off on by the deputy director.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Madame Archambault.

[Francine Archambault, Senior ATIP Analyst, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you.

My name is Francine Archambault, and I'm a senior analyst with the access to information and privacy protection division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I've been working in the access to information area for the last 15 years and at DFAIT itself since December 6, 1976.

I've worked on the access file A-2006-00605. I was responsible for identifying the relevant offices of primary interests, which would be Ms. Kutz and another division. I asked them to provide any responsive documents to the ATI requests. They advised me that there were none to the specific request. I advised the director that neither OPI identified any existing responsive records.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Mr. Switzer.

[Gary Switzer, ATIP Consultant, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Gary Switzer. I'm an analyst in the access to information and privacy protection division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I've been working in the access field for seven years, but I just started with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on January 2, 2007.

I worked on access files 466, 604, and 649. On 466 I was responsible for collecting the documents from the office of primary interest, for accessing their recommendations for the exemptions applied under the act, and for preparing the resulting recommendations for the director's approval. On files 604 and 605, the division had determined that the information being requested was already being produced or looked at in file 466, so I prepared a duplicate of that file and gave it to the director for her approval. And for 649, I believe it was, we told the individual requester that we would be giving him the information he was requesting in 466.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

All right. Well, you were in the room, I believe, most of you, if not all of you, so you know the procedure. You know how the questioning goes.

We'll start, then, with the seven-minute round and Mr. Dhaliwal. Again, I'll remind people to, if possible, ask some questions.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome all the public servants who are here today and who are appearing to clear up some of the questions we have. Welcome.

My first question is to Ms. Kutz. You said you are responsible for preparing the reports on human rights on the international scene. Is that true?

[Gwyn Kutz]

If I could clarify, Mr. Dhaliwal, my division is responsible for coordinating the process, the global process, for the annual human rights report.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I'm not clear about what the process is. When you say you coordinate the process, could you explain in 30 seconds what that means?

[Gwyn Kutz]

Certainly. Every year my division issues a call to posts around the world that we believe should send a human rights report back to the department. The list of the countries from which we are requesting reports is determined through a consultation process with the geographic areas of the department and with the posts themselves.

The call normally goes out in the fall of every year with the request that the reports be returned to the department by the end of the calendar year.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

So you were very well aware that there were human rights situations and torture in Afghanistan.

[Gwyn Kutz]

I am aware that we have reports on the human rights situation in Afghanistan.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When we talk about this report, who does this blackout stuff? Is it you who decides, when you issue the reports?

[Gwyn Kutz]

When my division receives a request from the ATIP office for documents, we conduct a review of the document requested, we apply the provisions of the Access to Information Act, and we make recommendations. I sign off on specific recommendations to the delegated departmental authority, who in this case is the ATIP director, who you've already spoken with.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Are you the one who made the decision for subsection 15(1)?

[Gwyn Kutz]

I authorized the recommendations under subsection 15(1), yes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Could you tell me why that would be any different from the year 2004 to 2006, when you made those decisions, when it came to torture and the human rights situation?

[Gwyn Kutz]

Mr. Dhaliwal, our officers apply the provisions of the Access to Information Act in a consistent manner. They look at what exemptions are allowable under the act and they apply them consistently.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When we look at consistency, to me, to the committee, and to Canadians, it's pretty clear that we were not consistent when we look at the reports from 2001 all the way to 2006. Would you like to comment on that inconsistency?

[Gwyn Kutz]

When we review a report we look at it under section 15 in the context of whether release of the information could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs. This evaluation is done in context and with reference to the information provided within the reports. It is not a simple process where the automatic appearance of a single word means that something stays in or goes out. The process is very carefully looked at to ensure that it is allowable under the act and justifiable when challenged under the law.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Why would that injury test have been any different when the Liberals were in power than when the Conservatives took over? It's very coincidental.

[Gwyn Kutz]

There was no difference in that injury test.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

My next question is to Ms. Archambault.

When those ATIP requests come in, how do you identify them as being of timely interest?