Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But when your minister is being hung out to dry in the House of Commons day after day on this very question, and you're sitting on a pile of annual reports, five in a row, that all made specific reference to the condition of detainees, wouldn't you advise your minister, “By the way, Minister, that thing that happened in question period today, well, in fact, we do have information about that”, and brief him on it? Did you ever have that conversation with the minister?

[Leonard Edwards]

Well, I didn't have to have that conversation because the information in these reports is fed into all of the advice and everything that is provided.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, then, he's not being truthful when he stands up in the House and says he has no knowledge of it, if you've been providing that information to him year after year.

[Leonard Edwards]

As I recall, your question had to do with detainees. The general conditions with respect to human rights in different countries are a bit of a different matter.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No. Afghanistan is one country. If you're producing these reports on countries starting from A to Z, well, one of the very first countries you would do would be Afghanistan. And you didn't redact the word “torture”; you didn't censor “torture” out of the 2002, 2003, and 2004 reports. The word is clearly there. You only started crossing it out in 2005 and 2006. So you've been sitting on that information and not even censoring it, and circulating it, but without advising either of your ministers? Somebody's not doing their job very well if they're not briefing their ministers on the facts, letting them be embarrassed day after day in question period and maybe being caught up in a colossal cover-up.

[Leonard Edwards]

Let me start by saying there's no colossal cover-up. I wouldn't want to let any allegation like that not be responded to.

The advice we give the government is based on the information we have that comes in through these reports and other reports. That information then informs various communications we have with the minister and so on.

I am not at liberty to provide you with the advice the minister has been given on this issue; it's privileged information. In any event, in this particular case, I think what we're talking about—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We think the minister must have known, or should have known, what his own departmental officials, you, must have known, that five years in a row these very common human rights reports that you denied the existence of, or your staff did on your behalf, said specifically that these detainees were being tortured, that there were extrajudicial killings, etc. The human rights situation in Afghanistan, which has been very publicly talked about in the United States, for instance, was being hushed here.

Maybe it's because I'm going to run out of time, Mr. Edwards, but can you answer a question? Why is it that when we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry, Mr. Martin. You interrupted Mr. Edwards in the middle of his answer.

He's not at liberty to talk about the advice given, and we don't know what's in the minister's head, but please let him finish his answer to your first question.

[Leonard Edwards]

Perhaps the member wouldn't mind repeating the first question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It was about giving advice to the minister that you get—not you but the department, as it filters through—and Mr. Martin's incredulity that five years' worth of documentation that mentions torture apparently did not come to the attention of the minister.

[Leonard Edwards]

In this particular case, I guess I would have to resort to a question of timelines on this. I'm not exactly sure what we're talking about when you talk about the minister denying in the House that he had any access to such information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I don't think he was denying access; I think he was denying knowledge.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Denying any knowledge, and also saying that we've sent over Corrections officers. No knowledge exists, essentially, of this treatment of detainees. But—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You're at eight minutes now, believe it or not, even with my intervention. But there will be another round.

We now go to Mr. Tilson.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in two issues, which I've expressed in the past. One is with respect to improving the system, and the other is the topic of discretion of officials.

This whole thing started because of allegations that records were being concealed, there was obstruction of access, political interference—and there's no evidence of that. There's no evidence of that in this committee, and that's been confirmed by you, sir, by Ms. Sabourin, and other officials, and finally, it's been confirmed by Commissioner Marleau.

So I'm on to something else. The opposition is having a lot of fun trying to suggest bad things, but I'm interested in a couple of issues.

Ms. Sabourin has acknowledged, and, as you've said, indeed she apologized for, the delay to two of the witnesses. She explained that this is complicated stuff. You have to have trained officials. I think she used a signal as to how thick the regulations were. You have to have people who are knowledgeable to understand those regulations, or guidelines, I guess they are.

Having received that acknowledgement, my question to you is, have you got any advice for this committee as to recommendations it can make to Parliament as to how this delay issue can be dealt with?

[Leonard Edwards]

I think as previous witnesses have testified, if we want to adhere to the act, meet the deadlines and so forth—which we all do, as that is our objective—with the huge increase in the number of requests for access to information or action on privacy, the problem, frankly, is finding trained resources to deal with them. As I think my officials have explained on previous occasions, there's a huge problem in finding trained people. Every other government department is facing the same major increase. The delays are caused by processing. It's a simple fact that you cannot process this number of requests within the timeframes allowed in the act, even with the best will.

There's another issue, of course, and it's related. Not only do you have the 17 or so officials in my department responsible for the handling of the ATIP requests, but there are also all of those people who are working in the offices of principal interest who have to put aside their daily work to deal with a request for a document that they are responsible for. They do their very best as well. They are called in many different directions during the course of the day. It's not their primary job. I emphasize in meetings with my senior managers that ATIP requests are to be given top priority, but even with the best of will there are delays.

It certainly is my intention, which I was able to do as deputy of agriculture, to get the ATIP requests back into line with what I would call an A grade from the Information Commissioner. That's my objective—an A grade from the Information Commissioner. With continuing work, much of which has already begun by my ATIP section, I'm hopeful we can get there in the next year or so.

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

Mr. Edwards, I seem to recall one of the people who works with you saying there doesn't seem to be any process to review the guidelines. I could be mistaken, but I think someone said that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It was Treasury Board.

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

Treasury Board said that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is that an issue? You get one of these applications in, you look at it, and decide if something should be redacted or not. You look at the guidelines; you look at the knowledge in your head, I suppose. There's a certain amount of discretion in all of these things, but if you're looking at a stack of guidelines this thick, maybe we need to simplify it somehow.

[Leonard Edwards]

Yes, you're probably right.

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

Have you started that process?

[Leonard Edwards]

Again, these are Treasury Board guidelines.

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

You're asked to enforce these things. You can make recommendations.

[Leonard Edwards]

That's right, we can, and I think we should. I agree with you entirely. I agree with those who have said that these guidelines could use a look. It's up to me and to my other deputy colleagues around town to take a look at these guidelines and see whether they continue to fit the context in which we're now working.

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

Mr. Chairman, on the topic of discretion, I'm still not clear. Again, if one of your officials gets an application for information in, my assumption is that they look at the guidelines and the act—and section 15 was referred to a lot—but I expect there's a certain amount of discretion. I don't know whether there is or not. Maybe there's no discretion. In other words, it's always alleged that things are blacked out and that maybe they shouldn't be blacked out, whether it's for this or any other type of information.

My question is whether you and your staff ever talk about the topic of discretion—personal discretion, individual discretion.