OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, June 9, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Mr. George Radwanski (Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Á

1115

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Radwanski

Á

1120

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Á

1125

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Á

1130

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. George Radwanski

Á

1135

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Á

1140

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Á

1145

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. George Radwanski

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Á

1155

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Â

1200

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

Â

1205

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Â

1210

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Â

1215

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Â

1220

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1225

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Â

1230

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Radwanski

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

Mr. George Radwanski

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 048

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): I should begin by welcoming you to meeting 48 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and I thank you for being prompt.

    Mr. Radwanski, I will start by allowing you to make an opening statement, and then we'll get to questions and see where that takes us. I note that Mr. Martin has some time pressures, as I believe a couple of others do, so we'll try to manage this efficiently. I will turn it over to you, sir.

    Mr. George Radwanski (Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I'd like to mention that I very much regret that I wasn't able to be before the committee when the estimates of my office were discussed a few weeks ago, and I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding there was as to why I wasn't here. I certainly would have very much liked to be. We were requested to appear on very short notice, about a week, and we were asked at the outset to send either me or a representative of the office. My office made clear that on the afternoon in question it wouldn't be possible for me because of a commitment I couldn't break. There was also some confusion as to whether I would be here or elsewhere.

    The problem was this: when my office was asked, the member of my staff who dealt with it knew I had a meeting that afternoon, a very important, uncancellable one. It dealt with a court action we're bringing--actually, it's a matter of public record or will be--against Air Canada with regard to their saying that because they're under bankruptcy protection, they're in effect not under our oversight or anybody else's. Since I was travelling the rest of that week to Vancouver for speaking engagements and the case was coming up imminently, there was no other time I could do that.

    Originally that meeting was going to be in Toronto that afternoon, and then it turned out that because some of the key people were here, it was easier to hold it here. The next day I was leaving, but I didn't have any option in terms of rescheduling that.

    I wouldn't want anybody to think, as apparently some people did, that I had a wish not to attend, didn't take the committee seriously enough, or was trying to show some lack of respect. That certainly was not the case.

    The matter on which I was asked to appear here today is the “discrepancies”, as they've been described, between a letter that was provided by my office to the committee and the version of the letter that was sent much earlier to the Deputy Minister of Justice. Now, I wrote to Mr. Bryden and immediately provided copies to Mr. Alcock and to all of the other members of the committee as soon as I became aware of what had happened, and I am more than happy to answer any questions you have about it.

    I'm not happy, obviously, in the sense that I wish this matter hadn't arisen, but I'll be happy to make clear what did take place.

    As I have indicated, this was a completely innocent administrative error that occurred as a result of a miscommunication between me and my staff and that had no substantive effect whatsoever. I assure you that there was no attempt to mislead or deceive anyone, and there was no effect of misleading or deceiving anyone. As soon as I became aware of what had taken place, as I say, I immediately personally informed Mr. Bryden by letter and Mr. Alcock and asked that copies be provided to the whole committee, so I don't know how I could have acted more honourably.

    As to what did occur, I'll explain it again for the record. When I appeared before the committee in March, Mr. Bryden asked me why my office should not be subject to the Access to Information Act. I explained it at that time, but he then asked for an explanation in writing to be provided to the committee. There was no reference to a letter or anything of that nature; it was simply a request for an explanation in writing. Subsequent to my appearance before the committee I was travelling, and the dealings with my office were on the fly and by phone. I wanted to provide everything Mr. Bryden had requested on behalf of the committee as quickly as possible, so we dealt with it on the phone.

    With regard to the explanation in writing, my office asked, what do you want us to do about that? And I said, well, everything we need is in the letter I wrote to Mr. Rosenberg last summer after the Delagrave report, so let's use that. That meant, pull out the relevant paragraphs, turn them into bullet points, and generate a document. This is what we do in many instances on many things. We pull stuff out of briefing notes that way to put into speeches, we pull stuff out of speeches to put into letters, and so forth. It was clear in my mind.

Á  (1110)  

    I now know that my office understood me to say, use the letter, but we were talking about two different things. In a subsequent phone conversation it was pointed out to me that in the last paragraph on page 1, which was read back to me on the phone, it was hard to follow where I was going or what point it was making. It mentioned my being “outside the Westminster model” and then made the key points that I report directly to Parliament on my activities and that I'm accountable to the Auditor General.

    The question was, what does that have to do with why you should or shouldn't be subject to access to information? Thinking we were talking about omitting a bullet point, I said, you're right; you can drop it; we don't need it; it doesn't add much; our other points are much more important.

    Unfortunately, this was a classic miscommunication. My people thought I was talking about the letter, and what they did was drop that paragraph. Now of course I'd like to think that wouldn't happen even in those circumstances and certainly not if the letter were the object of the transmission to the committee, but the thinking was that we were providing reasons in writing and only incidentally was it a letter, so that paragraph was taken out.

    I've read Mr. Bryden's comments in The Hill Times this morning as I'm sure many of you have, and I just want to make it absolutely clear that there was nothing in that paragraph I considered embarrassing. First of all, if we'd considered anything embarrassing, we wouldn't have provided the letter in the first place. We were under no obligation to provide the letter; we hadn't been asked for it. Second, the point that the Privacy Commissioner reports directly to Parliament is not only a statement of the obvious, it's the first sentence on our website under About Us; we're certainly not trying to hide that. And when I appeared before this committee regarding my annual report, I had a certain conversation with Mr. Bryden where I specifically said that I'm accountable to the Auditor General, so we certainly weren't trying to hide that either.

    There you have it. I honestly don't know what more I can add. Obviously, this kind of thing shouldn't happen. It was a consequence, in a sense, of trying to operate too quickly in trying to meet the request of the committee as quickly as possible, not waiting till I got back and personally reviewed everything. There's a lesson in that.

    I regret that this occurred, but I honestly don't know what more I can tell you other than that I believe I acted as honourably as humanly possible in dealing with this matter once I became aware of it. Beyond that, I'm at your disposal.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Radwanski.

    Mr. Forseth has offered his time to Mr. Bryden to start with.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Radwanski.

    I'm very gratified that the letter I received from you on May 29 is indeed the explanation for the missing paragraph.

    My point of view is, I don't know what the earlier discussions of this committee were that led to our calling you, but my own personal reaction was to the fact that the committee received a letter that wasn't a true copy, that was missing a relevant paragraph. It's very important that the committee be confident that any evidence that is presented before it is true and complete evidence as much as possible.

    My concern with respect to learning the Rosenberg letter had been received with a missing paragraph was that the committee had no way of knowing there was a paragraph missing until Mr. Rosenberg released his copy, which showed there was a paragraph missing from the first page.

    I only have a couple of questions to ask you, just to clarify the matter a bit more. One of them is, when did you become aware the Rosenberg letter that was received by this committee had a paragraph missing?

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. George Radwanski: It was very shortly before I communicated with you. The sequence of events was that we were informed by Justice at some point, and then my staff informed me that Justice had called, saying you had requested a copy of the letter I had written to Mr. Rosenberg.

    I had some concerns about that, again, not out of any lack of respect for you or the committee but in that I had a concern about the precedent. If, for example, letters I write to departments in my ombudsman function of trying to address issues, legislation, or what have you were to be readily available, that would mean I'd have to do what I do much more out in the open rather than as an ombudsman, so I was concerned about the precedent. My first reaction was to express some concern about that because they were asking if we had ay objections to releasing it, and I said, well, what kind of precedent are we setting?

    My office then told me--and this was in the period immediately prior to me communicating with you--that when they communicated this to Justice, Justice said that you were saying you already had the letter, that we had provided it to you, and that it was a matter of public record.

    So I said, why is he saying that? They said, well, we gave it to him at the committee as part of that package of stuff you said to send. Then the penny dropped. When I checked what had been sent, I realized that of course, given those conversations, that paragraph had been dropped. I withdrew any objection to providing the letter to you and immediately sent you and the committee the letter describing what had happened.

    In short, this was something I had no idea had occurred because it had gone out while I was travelling and I never saw it.

    Mr. John Bryden: I have to say just as an aside, Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to learn that Mr. Rosenberg felt it incumbent upon himself to notify you that I had requested that letter. If the letter was a public document, then under access to information there would be no reason for Mr. Rosenberg not to release it and no reason for Mr. Rosenberg to contact you.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I don't know whether it was Mr. Rosenberg or other officials in the department. I guessed that because it's relatively unusual for a letter written by an officer of Parliament to be requested. I have no idea, but that's how I found out there was a request, and that's how I then found out we'd provided it to you previously. It's as simple as that.

    Mr. John Bryden: So you didn't know that there was a missing paragraph until you received the notification from the justice department that I'd requested that letter?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Not only did I not know there was a missing paragraph, I did not know you had been provided with the letter. I thought the committee had been provided with a document, a piece of paper, that had bullet points drawn from the letter. In other words, I thought it was a list of reasons the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should not be subject to the Access to Information Act: bullet point, bullet point, bullet point, bullet point. That's what I thought you'd been provided with.

    Mr. John Bryden: Well, I have only one further question, really. Surely the persons in your office who submitted the letter that had been sent to the justice department and who omitted the paragraph should have known it was a wrong thing to do. Have you taken any steps to discipline the person who did that or censure that person in any way? I would have thought it's common knowledge in the bureaucracy that when documents are requested for a standing committee of Parliament, those documents should be presented in their true form and without any omissions unless it's clearly marked that material has been deleted.

    Mr. George Radwanski: First of all, let me be clear. As I said in the letter, I take full responsibility for this having occurred because it was a miscommunication. I'm responsible for making myself clear, so I certainly wouldn't want to pass off the blame onto my officials. That's point number one.

    Point number two, and I'll be very clear, is that this was not a letter requested by a parliamentary committee. There was no request whatsoever for a letter. There was a request for a written explanation, and it's only for this reason that thought wasn't given in the context of.... Well, of course we wouldn't alter a letter that is requested, and of course--I'm speaking about what the thinking was--they wouldn't alter something that was being provided as the document per se. It was being provided as an explanation.

    It shouldn't have been done that way. The answer to your question is, I've certainly made clear that it shouldn't be done that way and that I would not want it done that way. This was an extraordinarily busy period, shortly after my annual report and with a lot of things going on. It was a result of me doing things on the fly, putting pressure on people to do it quickly, being in transit, and therefore doing things in short conversations.

    It shouldn't have been done that way, but I accept full responsibility. I'm not going to do the thing of blaming very hard-working, very dedicated people who serve me very well. Quite frankly, we're all human; we all make mistakes. I wish this one hadn't happened. It was a one-off thing that couldn't have happened but for a peculiar combination of circumstances.

    You can also be sure that nothing will come to this committee again--or to any committee--without me personally seeing it even if that involves some greater delay because I'm travelling or not immediately available. I'll ask everybody's indulgence and understanding, but certainly, lesson learned in that regard.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, and welcome to the committee.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Thank you.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: It's just interesting to note, when I look at the copy of the letter you sent here, that the front page had been readjusted for size to make it look like the paragraph had never existed. You say you had a conversation going over the content of the document and discussing whether certain paragraphs should be in or out. I'm just wondering, what is your recollection of why that paragraph was not useful or was deleted in the first place, and then how did we wind up with a readjusted front page to make it look like it had never existed?

    Mr. George Radwanski: First of all, it didn't look to me like it was readjusted when I looked at it eventually. There's a big space at the bottom of that page, a big space before the page number. I don't know if something was done for aesthetic reasons, for neatness, or whatever; I have no idea. But certainly, if you look at the big gap, to me it doesn't look like there was an attempt to hide anything.

    As for why it was deleted, again, it wasn't in my thinking for it to be deleted from a letter; it was being deleted from a list of bullet points of reasons why we shouldn't be subject to access to information. Quite frankly, given the other points in the letter, which are very substantive and important, I agreed when I was asked where I was going with it that it was confusing and didn't really add much to the argument.

    First of all, that Westminster model of accountability stuff obviously made sense to me when I wrote about it to Mr. Rosenberg in August, but I was having some trouble remembering on the fly what argument I was making with regard to access.

    The other two points were statements of the obvious, information that is on the public record, namely that I'm accountable to Parliament--which of course I am, and I'm glad to be--and that I'm subject to the Auditor General. Why is that an argument against being subject to access? Lots of other government entities report to Parliament one way or another, of course, everybody does, and we're all subject to the Auditor General.

    Bear in mind, I'm an old journalist, an old editor, and my usual reaction when somebody tells me something isn't clear or doesn't make sense is, lose it; drop it. Most documents are too long, and there's no point putting in stuff that's not helpful. I was dealing with this on the fly, as I say, and this was done in a hurried telephone conversation, between catching planes or rushing to a meeting, I think. I was told, that paragraph doesn't make any sense.

    Read it to me, I said, and it was read to me.

    Where are you going with this?

    To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. Drop it.

    End of story; it was as simple as that.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: You were also telling us today that whatever was in the paragraph was really not in any contradiction to any previous testimony you had given to the committee.

    Mr. George Radwanski: That's correct. I saw Mr. Bryden's comments this morning in The Hill Times, and I reread very carefully the transcript of that appearance before the committee. I was certainly at no time or in any way denying that I report directly to Parliament or that I'm accountable to Parliament. My concern--and even there I said I wanted to reflect, and in fact I provided the stuff within two days--was about whether it was setting a dangerous precedent to provide materials that would normally be available under access to information but not otherwise.

    Now, I take Mr. Bryden's point, which I read in The Hill Times this morning, that Parliament can ask for anything and has a right to ask for anything. I don't dispute that for a moment. I've studied constitutional law too much to dispute that. I think it was Dicey who said Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman, and I'm not even sure he wouldn't amend that these days. So I wasn't disputing that; there's no question that I'm accountable to Parliament and to this committee.

    What is, I think, an important subject for discussion--and today's probably not the day to do it, but I'd like to engage this committee in that discussion at some point--is where one strikes the appropriate balance between that accountability and the independence of an officer of Parliament.

    The problem is this, and let's use a practical example, say with a majority on a committee. If we say on one hand that one is independent so one can in a case like mine tackle the government on issues, the difficulty is always that in Parliament or in a committee the majority vote is held by the government side. If through mischief the government is able to use accountability to obtain information that could be used to try to discredit or undermine an officer of Parliament in the exercise of his duties--I won't go into it now, but I think we've seen possible examples of how that could occur--then the independence is altered. Similarly, if a committee or Parliament--that is, the governing majority--can interpret accountability as being able to tell an officer of Parliament how to do his or her job, then of course independence becomes comparatively meaningless.

    Suppose a committee, for instance, could say that an officer of Parliament should communicate less, give fewer speeches, or what have you on one hand or the government could do so through its control of the committee process or of votes in the House. If so, it could just as easily tell the Auditor General to focus on certain areas and not others or not to preoccupy herself with these or those issues, say value for money, or what have you. Then you don't have independence.

    I have the highest respect for parliamentary committees and Parliament. I'm proud to report to Parliament, but I also feel that I have an institutional duty to try to protect the independence of my office as much as humanly possible; otherwise, the process we have doesn't work. That's the balance I was trying to strike.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: So you can at least sympathize with us. If you've studied constitutional law, you also understand the problem we face with the committee that anyone who comes and gives evidence is under oath. Then if someone is a public servant, they have the extra oath of duty of their office. Certainly, as an officer of Parliament you have an even higher threshold for providing things in a context where, if they're wrong or misleading or whatever, they in effect constitute a contempt of Parliament.

    Unfortunately, I was on a committee before where someone in an esteemed position somewhat similar to yours was in contempt of Parliament, and they had to resign because of things they said while they were sitting in your chair at that end of the table. We're in that context as well. You can understand our concern when evidence is laid before us and there are two documents, each purporting to be the same thing; there are some other principles involved as well.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. George Radwanski: I want to be very clear again that I did not in any way deceive or mislead this committee or Parliament. Let me be very clear. First of all, in simplest terms, this was a mistake made as a result of a miscommunication; it was made by officials while I was at the opposite end of the country. I wasn't sitting around somewhere with a can of whiteout taking stuff out, and I wasn't saying, hey, let's fool the committee, let's pretend that I don't report to Parliament, or let's pretend that I'm not accountable to the Auditor General, when these are matters of public record.

    I think we have to be reasonable, I think we have to be fair, and I think we have to start with the premise that an individual, someone in my position, operates with integrity. I pride myself on my integrity. I pride myself on my credibility. I would absolutely never try to lie or mislead; that would be extreme stupidity. Why would I do it in an instance where I didn't need to provide the letter in the first place?

    An instance of someone misleading a committee and therefore being in contempt is one thing, but accidents happen. I'm sorry it happened and I wish it hadn't happened, but you know, what do you say after you say you're sorry?

    If you look at my writings and my work over the years, you'll know that contempt for members of Parliament is the last thing I have. In fact, if you go back as far as my book on Trudeau, I wrote in that book that if we don't treat people who enter public life in Parliament with the greatest respect, make it worth their while, and treat it as a highly honoured profession, we're only going to get the worst elements going into politics. Believe me, undermining the parliamentary process or showing a lack of respect for Parliament is the last thing I'd ever do, whatever spin anyone may wish to put on it--for reasons I don't understand.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Radwanski, this is just a note. Given earlier comments about time, I'm trying to give you as much latitude as I possibly can, given the seriousness of the discussion that's taking place. Shortening some of your answers or being a little more precise, using your editorial skills, would help us get everybody in.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, Mr. Radwanski, when we discussed calling you before the committee, I abstained from voting in favour of the motion. However, I'm pleased today that you are here, because the explanation is simply that an error occurred.

    What disturbs me about the testimony that you have provided today is that you claim the committee requested information in writing, not a letter. However, what I see here is a letter, not just any document. I was expecting to hear an entirely different explanation.

    If there was no wish on you part to send a letter, why in fact use a letter then? I'm trying to compare the two. One would have to say that both bear the same signature. However, the signature on the other document appears to be a copy, or rather a photocopy. I'm not a handwriting expert, but it appears to be the same person's writing, a photocopy of the same letter.

    If you don't wish to send a letter, but rather a document containing the main points of the letter, you don't simply delete a paragraph from letter in question. In law, that's called forgery and that's why I'm surprised by your explanation. I'd appreciate getting an explanation from you.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Alright. I explained the situation earlier on, but I don't mind going over it again.

Á  (1135)  

    The staff in my office misunderstood what I wanted to send out. I was away and I issued instructions over the telephone. I was asked what I meant by providing a written explanation. I told them that everything they needed could be found in the letter that I had written to Mr. Rosenberg last summer and that they could use that information. What I meant by this was that they could use the contents of that letter, extract the paragraphs explaining why our office should not be subject to this legislation and provide details in bullet point form in a new, separate document.

    My staff misunderstood my instructions given over the telephone. When I told them they could use the document, they understood that to mean that I was instructing them to use the letter. Later, while I was still off in British Columbia, I had another telephone conversation with staff and was asked what this particular paragraph had to do with being subject, or not being subject, to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. I told them this made no sense, that they should remove it. At the time, I believed they were referring to a separate document, while they believed I was talking about a letter.

    You're quite right, it's all rather quite ridiculous, but the explanation is as simple as that. Sometimes, we see similar comedies of error played out in the movies as a result of miscommunication. It was a stupid, innocent mistake. I'm to blame for it because I should have been clearer and instructed them to use excerpts from the letter to draft a separate document. Unfortunately, I spoke too quickly. I should have been clear, but I wasn't and I accept responsibility. It's as simple as that. Are you clear on the facts now?

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I understand that it's unlikely. I have to wonder how someone can use a letter this way.

    I'm a lawyer and I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I'm gathering evidence for a court and using a letter a copy of which was sent to me by a client. As a lawyer, I have reason to believe that its a proper copy, but counsel for the opposing party maintains that there's a paragraph missing.

    There two possibilities here. Either Parliament or the committee isn't being taken seriously, or someone... This is serious business. As you said, we're not talking about a written document, but about a letter, which was altered and submitted as evidence to another party. That's the serious issue.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yet, but listen here...

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd like the person who deleted the paragraph to explain to me the reason for her actions. Moreover, there's the matter of Mr. Bryden's request. I believe the situation has much to do with that particular request.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Frankly, I totally disagree with you. It's no secret that I report directly to Parliament. That's the first thing people read on our website, namely that

[English]

    the Privacy Commissioner reports directly to Parliament.

[Translation]

    There's no secret there. It would be ridiculous for me to try and hide anything. Moreover, I agree with you that there shouldn't be any secrets. That's why several weeks ago, when I discovered what had happened, I immediately wrote the letter, which you most likely have a copy of, to Mr. Bryden. I sent a copy of the letter to Mr. Alcock and I asked that all committee members be given a copy, because I too find this whole situation unacceptable and cause for concern. However, I want people to understand that it was nothing more than an innocent mistake. It's as simple as that.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: One final, brief comment. When you mention contempt of Parliament, you say we must take into account our past and everything we have done. However, many lawyers who in the past might have been respectful of the court have been charged with contempt of court because they committed one single mistake. It's not necessary to look to the past to determine if an action is reprehensible or not. I have a problem, therefore, with your explanation. Yet, I'm not here to be vengeful. I didn't mean to get personal. I don't know how other committee members feel, but personally, I'm dissatisfied with your explanations.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. George Radwanski: I have no explanation to give you other than the truth. That's all I have. Again, I assure you that there was no intent whatsoever on our part to hide anything. The error was completely innocent. Yes, I regret it a great deal, but it should not be construed as contempt of any kind. It was simply a mistake. I take my responsibilities, credibility and integrity very seriously. What more can I tell you? You're free to believe me, or not. Unfortunately, it's out of my hands, but nevertheless, you have to be fair about it.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Radwanski.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I guess I have some of the same feelings as my colleague from the Bloc. On the face of it, somebody deliberately cut a paragraph from the letter for a specific reason; any objective person would think that on reading these two letters.

    Some people have raised the point that it may be because that paragraph contradicts some of the testimony given in an exchange with Mr. Bryden--in a rather heated exchange, I understand. I know Mr. Bryden can be very controversial--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Pat Martin: --and even more so to witnesses.

    But on the face of it, Mr. Radwanski, I don't think any staff person would have left this information on the letterhead and with the same salutation addressed to Mr. Morris Rosenberg. I find it hard to believe that any senior staff person in your office who would be dealing with a request like this would consciously do this unless they were directed to do so. I just can't accept that. It looks like there's a deliberate attempt to falsify this document, a deliberate misrepresentation.

    I've tried to be as objective as I can, taking into account what you've told us, but this doesn't look to me like an “innocent administrative error”, which is the way you phrased it at first. Who specifically was it in your office who did this for you?

    Mr. George Radwanski: First of all, let me be clear. You're right that they wouldn't do it unless they were directed to, but as I've said, they understood that this was what I was directing. There's no question.

    Mr. Pat Martin: But why that specific paragraph?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Okay, let me try one more time. I don't mean to sound--

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I understand your idea where you asked them to crib together a series of bullet points to explain why you think your office shouldn't be under the--

    Mr. George Radwanski: That's what I thought I was communicating. They understood I was communicating something different. That's the difficulty.

    Mr. Pat Martin: But of all the bullet points in a five-page letter, they only chose one paragraph, and it's that one paragraph that does seem to be in conflict with what you said in the exchange you had with Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. George Radwanski: First of all, with respect, have you read the exchange with Mr. Bryden?

    Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I have it right here.

    Mr. George Radwanski: In that exchange there was never any question as to whether or not I report to Parliament. That's certainly not something I would ever under any circumstances dispute. It would be absurd to dispute it. In the exchange--and it was not a testy exchange, by the way, it was not heated--I said--

    Mr. Pat Martin: No, you said to Mr. Bryden “If you'll allow me to finish”.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Well, I wanted to finish a point.

    All I'm trying to say is, the exchange was about whether information that would otherwise only be available under access to information should be provided.

    Mr. Pat Martin: But what I'm trying to say is that this is not a true copy of this.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I agree.

    Mr. Pat Martin: And your office said it was. Either you're responsible for that or somebody in your office misled this committee into believing that this was a true copy, and it's not.

    Mr. George Radwanski: No. I repeat again--and it's all I can tell you--it was a miscommunication. It's what happens when you say one thing and somebody else hears another and it leads to a chain of mistakes.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's why we put things in writing.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Exactly.

    But I'm saying that in this instance what happened was, very simply, I was asked on the phone, what do you want to do about providing the explanation in writing? I said, everything we need is in the letter I wrote to Mr. Rosenberg; let's use that. What was clear in my mind was, let's use that as the raw material; let's pull stuff out of it. I didn't realize that what was being heard at the other end of the conversation was, let's use the letter. It's as simple as that.

    This is what happens when you're travelling and you're talking quickly on the phone. I didn't realize that something different was heard. And then--

    Mr. Pat Martin: All they would have had to do was delete the address at the top, and frankly--

    Mr. George Radwanski: I know, but they understood me to say, let's provide the letter. This was all separate things done on the fly between planes, whatever. You ask, why that paragraph? Because all the other paragraphs are pertinent and germane to why we should not be subject to--

    Mr. Pat Martin: Then maybe that should have been blocked out rather than the font being changed in an effort to make it look like it's a full page of text. The fact is, there are two different fonts for that page only.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I wasn't there. I apologize.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, somebody made an extra effort, if you will, to misrepresent this letter as being that letter by stretching it and putting it in a bigger font. I can't accept it.

    I agree with Mr. Marleau, the former clerk of the House of Commons. I don't think this committee has any choice but to report back to the House that there was a deliberate attempt--

    Mr. George Radwanski: There certainly was no attempt by me nor by anybody else to mislead anyone.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Then why would you stretch the font? Now come on, that just begs credibility.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Sir, first of all, I was not here, so I didn't stretch any fonts.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Who in your staff would have?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Maybe someone photocopying it tried to make it look neater, I don't know, but let's be fair here.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I'm trying to be fair.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I appreciate the position you're in, but first of all, there are no circumstances under which I would try to deceive a committee of Parliament. Second, there would be no reason in this instance. We didn't have to provide a letter in the first place. There was no request for a letter. There was a request for an explanation in writing.

    Mr. Pat Martin: We have to be able to trust that what we get delivered to this committee is the real McCoy.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I couldn't agree more.

    Mr. Pat Martin: If there's any question of that now, it forever poisons the well in terms of our being able to trust what we get.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Radwanski, I'll give you an opportunity to respond.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Mr. Martin, all I can tell you is, again, the moment I became aware of what had happened, I immediately informed Mr. Bryden. I immediately copied Mr. Alcock and asked that this be provided to the whole committee.

    You certainly have my assurance first of all that in future no document will come to this committee without me personally seeing it. You have my assurance that you will be able to trust what is provided.

    I must admit that while I understand your position, I am very unhappy to have my integrity questioned, because we all make mistakes.

    This was a mistake of miscommunication. I should have been clearer. I apologize that I was not clear, but obviously there was no attempt to conceal something it makes no sense to conceal. This is the first sentence of our website in About Us: “The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, is an Officer of Parliament who reports directly to the House of Commons and the Senate.”

    In my testimony on that day, I said, of course I'm accountable to the Auditor General. There is no earthly reason other than the sense it was going in a different document and wasn't pertinent that this would have been taken out. I don't think any reasonable person would think that I would be saying, hey, let's fool the committee, let's fool Parliament, and let's pretend that I don't report directly to Parliament or that I'm not accountable to the Auditor General. It simply didn't happen that way.

    I regret there was an error, an innocent error, that turned out that way. I don't know if someone photocopying it thought it was messy and this would make it look nicer, because we try to make things look nicer and maybe somebody didn't know the background of what was being done. I have no idea.

    You point that out to me, but I wasn't even aware of there being a difference in fonts. Again, there was certainly no attempt to deceive anyone.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Radwanski.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Radwanski.

    I told the chair I was somewhat uncomfortable about this meeting and how it might go. I still have a little bit of reservation about this forum, but I'm pleased you came. You've given your explanation and it sounds plausible.

    I would like to ask you this. You referred to being on the phone, and you advised them that the letter to Mr. Rosenberg was the raw material you thought they would use for the bullets. Did you have a copy of the letter with you at the time or did you somehow recall that paragraph?

    Mr. George Radwanski: No, not at the time. It was simply that I knew I had written a letter giving all the reasons, so I said, let's use that.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: When did you say, that doesn't seem to be relevant, you can drop that?

    Mr. George Radwanski: It was during a subsequent conversation, when the letter had been dug out.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: That was when you saw the letter.

    Mr. George Radwanski: No, we were still talking on the phone. I was out west, the letter was dug out, and I remember, we were talking about ten different things in a telephone conversation. The question was, they have the letter, but you know, in that last paragraph on the first page, where are you going there with regard to access? It's hard to understand, they said. And literally without giving it any profound thought because I thought we were talking about bullet points, I said, we'll drop it, then. It was as simple as that.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand what you're saying, but you keep talking about an administrative error. Is the error that they didn't do bullet points but released the letter?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes. It was a miscommunication, and I feel terrible that it happened.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I don't know much about the response, but I do know this letter looks smaller; it doesn't really look like a proper letter. But here's Mr. Rosenberg's copy of the letter, which has all the paragraphs in it. I would believe your staff may have wanted to tidy it up a little bit because it looks a little bit off-centre.

    Is the other one we have, the one with the missing paragraph, a photocopy of the letter in your office?

    Mr. George Radwanski: That was a photocopy of, I guess, the letter we had sent to Mr. Rosenberg; that's what we would have had, photocopies.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, but they either just pasted over or whited out that part there.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I think so, but then Mr. Martin says that somebody else adjusted the font.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No, I don't want to go into fonts.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Maybe just to try to make it look nice they adjusted the font; I don't know.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Whatever, but this letter we have that you sent to the chair and to Mr. Bryden is a photocopy of the letter you sent to Mr. Rosenberg.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Then how do you explain that the space between the date and the name “Mr. Morris” is smaller on the version with the larger font and bigger on the first version? It would appear that this date stamp on the letter you just said is a photocopy of the letter from your office is a copy of the original, but it's clear that the spacing between the date and the addressee is disproportionate. No matter how, you cannot make it that way by photocopying; there's just a bigger space between them in the version with the smaller font.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I have no idea, sir. You're ahead of me. Somebody might have tried to make it look neater or something. I have no idea.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Are you not sure this is a photocopy of the letter you said it was?

    Mr. George Radwanski: I assumed it was. I have no idea, quite honestly. I know what I have and I know what I've seen.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The first page of the letter missing the paragraph clearly has the space available here for something that, I would have assumed, would have been blacked out if you were just leaving it out, which is often seen in terms of transmittal of information you don't feel is appropriate.

    I'm not sure I understand what this is. You're assuming it's a copy of the letter. Are you suggesting that they didn't reprint the letter and put another date stamp on there?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. George Radwanski: I honestly have no idea. Look, it's possible that somebody tried to make it look nicer or something and in the process made a botch if it and tried to fix it. I honestly have no way of knowing. Maybe some assistant, in trying to clean it up, made a mess; I have no idea. Maybe somebody thought it was supposed to be set up to look as if that paragraph hadn't been there. I don't know.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Did you as a consequence of this matter coming forward and in preparation for this hearing, our meeting of government ops, have a meeting with all relevant staff to get the facts straight before you came here?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Well, as soon as I found out about this, as I say, before I wrote to Mr. Bryden, I spoke to my people about what had happened. I was told what had happened in terms of the misunderstanding. Frankly, I don't think anybody registered this as a huge event in their mind at the time.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: And they told you this was the original letter.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I honestly didn't ask that question. I had no reason to think otherwise, quite frankly.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: My last question is, did anyone in your office, any person at any level, express a position to you that they either refused or did not want to delete that paragraph?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Absolutely not. If anybody had said that, I would have said, what are you talking about? It's supposed to be bullet points.

    As I said before, the reason was that the object of the request hadn't been a letter but an explanation in writing. All I can tell you is--and believe me, that kind of thing will never happen again--it was a product of trying to do too much in too little time. Frankly, the focus was on other stuff. To be honest with you, I must say the big concern was a request for job descriptions for every position in my office, which Mr. Bryden had also asked for, because they weren't in French. We only had them in English, and there was a big concern about getting them translated quickly enough.

    This was not something, in all honesty, that was regarded as a major matter or a major issue. If you look at the list of things the committee formally requested, this wasn't even one of them. This was something that happened on the fly and that was done clumsily.

    There are a lot of lessons in it, but there is certainly no lack of integrity in it.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo and Mr. Radwanski.

    I'm going to go to Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    Earlier you said you took full responsibility for the administration of your office.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes, of course.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Just recently you talked about somebody this and somebody that. You don't seem to know who actually prepared the letter or who sent it.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'm responsible. I accept full responsibility for what my office does.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Do you know the chain of command of people who prepared the letter? Do you know who prepared the letter?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Do I know who was responsible for dealing with it? Yes, I do, but I prefer to take responsibility because it's my fault, and I do not--

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: So when you use the word “somebody”, you know who the somebody is.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Oh yes, I do, but it's my fault this happened. I don't want the integrity of anybody else being questioned either because there was an understanding that this was the direction I was giving even though in fact it was not the direction I thought I was giving.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Now, would this be a senior person in your organization?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is it common practice in your office to delete parts of letters and send them to people?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Never.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: So it would have been an unusual event.

    Mr. George Radwanski: It was, but the whole situation was unusual. With all respect, the whole situation was unusual in that, frankly, we were trying to comply very quickly with--

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: But that person with the senior responsibility you talk about did not twig to that and say, isn't it strange that we're deleting information from a letter being sent to a committee?

    Mr. George Radwanski: It's only because it was being thought of--and this was a big mistake--not because of its nature as a letter but because it happened to contain an explanation in writing of the points we were making. So when it was raised to me that the paragraph didn't make much sense as part of an explanation, then I said, lose it.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: But it's not common practice in your office to delete information.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Of course not, and it obviously shouldn't have happened in this instance. I guess the assumption was that I knew what I was doing and that because this wasn't requested as a letter to Mr. Rosenberg, because as a letter to Mr. Rosenberg it had no relevance, because it was only relevant in the context of providing what happened to be in that shell, that is, it happened to provide the reasons we shouldn't be subject to access, nobody gave as much thought as they should have given to the other aspect.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Let's go back to your statement that you take direct responsibility for the office. Continually throughout your submission here today you have talked about the fact that you weren't around, that you were out travelling, and that you didn't have time to deal with this. We're shown here that you've been able to travel in the last year to Madrid; Rome; Seattle; Charleston, South Carolina; New York; Britain; and Ireland. It sounds like a whirlwind travelling trip to me. Is there something wrong with the fact that you're away from your office for so long that this kind of thing happens?

    Mr. George Radwanski: No, sir, I don't think so. All but one of those trips were for speeches at major conferences to which I had been invited to give keynote addresses, and the rest of the travel within Canada was part of my responsibility to raise public awareness of privacy. What was wrong was that in this particular instance I didn't wait until I got back to deal with it personally and review this stuff.

    The reason I didn't do that was precisely because there had been an exchange with Mr. Bryden of a sort where I didn't want my actions to end up being construed as a lack of willingness to cooperate with this committee. I said I would reflect on whether I should provide stuff that would normally be available only under access. I didn't want to get in a fight with this committee, so I said, give it to them as quickly as possible, everything Mr. Bryden asked for, so there's no issue of recalcitrance and there's no issue of the committee having to pass motions or anything of that nature, which Mr. Bryden said would be done.

    That was the mistake I made. I should have waited and I should have said, well, let them pass motions if they must; let whatever happens happen. I can't deal with this kind of stuff when I'm on the road. I didn't do that but I should have.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: On a percentage basis, how much of your time do you actually spend in the office taking care of business?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Oh, it's the overwhelming majority, sir. The overwhelming majority of my time is in my office, and believe me, when I go, I pay the price after in terms of working very late hours on all the case files and stuff. It's not easy balancing all those requirements of the job, but believe me, I'm on the job at all times. When I'm travelling, I'm in constant communication with the office. Usually it doesn't involve this sort of thing, so that kind of problem wouldn't arise, but when I'm travelling, I'm conducting a lot of business even then.

    This was a one-off screw-up that I regret occurred, obviously, but....

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: I expect there's a correlation between how much time you're on the job and whether you have these kinds of screw-ups, as you suggest.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'm on the job, sir, wherever I am.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: You've built your case around explaining why this screw-up occurred by virtue of the fact you weren't in the office.

    Mr. George Radwanski: It is a fact that I was not there and therefore the screw-up occurred, because I dealt with something by phone I should not have dealt with by phone. I agree with you on that point.

    It doesn't mean I shouldn't be exercising the portion of my duties that requires participating in conferences or speaking to Canadians across the country, particularly when we have a new law coming in. We turn down far more invitations than we accept, but what happens is, as you know, the PIPED Act is being phased in. Starting in January it will apply to the whole private sector, except where provinces have passed substantially similar legislation. As of now it appears the great majority of provinces won't have, so this act will apply to most of the private sector in Canada.

    There's a tremendous interest on the part of all sorts of organizations in meeting with the Privacy Commissioner; business groups want to hear me speak so I can explain how the act will work, can answer questions, and so forth. I'm required under section 24 of the PIPED Act to do that, so it's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of striking the best balance.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is that $100,000 that's charged to taxpayers excessive?

    Mr. George Radwanski: No, sir, that was all done in the course of discharging my responsibilities. Travel is expensive, particularly outside Canada with the Canadian dollar, but all of these were for very important, very legitimate conferences. It was very useful from many points of view for me, first, to speak at these conferences, and second, to acquire additional information, meet with people, expand my understanding of what's going on in other jurisdictions, exchange ideas, and learn; this is also a crucial part of my job, which I do any time I have an opportunity.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Radwanski.

    I have Madam Ablonczy and Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Our time is running out; I had agreed for Diane to go ahead, but I wanted to ask you this. You've supplied material to this committee, and during the estimates period you were asked for details on your expenses and you provided some material. Were those details absolutely complete and did your financial officer sign off on those that they were indeed complete?

    Mr. George Radwanski: What I provided you with did not come from the estimates period. This was from when I appeared before the committee regarding my annual report. What we provided were photocopies of the pages of my expense accounts. We removed very openly, in black, the names of people I met with because it would be inappropriate for me to disclose with whom I meet. The photocopies, I believe, have a signature of approval in the first place, but they were photocopies of the top sheet of each return.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, but was what you did supply reflective of what your expenses were?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: And did Mr. Patrick Amyot sign off on those as saying they are correct and complete?

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'd have to review it. This was part of the package that was provided when I was on the same trip. We provided all that stuff. I said, again, provide them with all the expenses but take out the names of anyone I met with. I'd have to review what form--

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Rumour has it that it was something like $45,000 short, and this gentlemen was refusing to sign off because he knew it wasn't accurate.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I don't know anything about that, sir.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: What about other expenses concerning travel? You charge a lot, it's reflected, and not necessarily in your name. Some goes to Ms. Dona Vallières, and I take it she travels with you and is part of this travel. There is some $70,000 charged under her name.

    Mr. George Radwanski: That's correct. On most trips, if not all, I travel with a member of my staff for, I think, obvious reasons, both to participate in meetings and also to be a witness. I'm always in discussions; people ask about various things, I have media meetings, and it would be particularly because I am in a quasi--

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm just trying to find out why those expenses would be placed under her name. It's you travelling, and then you have the expenses of your staff and your support; should it not all be under your name?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Well, no. When two people travel, normally two people provide expense accounts.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: What about a recent trip to Hawaii? Was that related to government business?

    Mr. George Radwanski: There was no trip to Hawaii, sir. There was a stopover in Hawaii en route to two conferences in New Zealand at which I spoke. That was very definitely government business. The Privacy Commissioner of New Zealand asked me to come not only to speak at those two conferences but because he was having very serious difficulty with his own government in a review of his law. He asked me to meet with them and explain how our law worked and why what he was doing was very important.

    There was a stopover in Hawaii to de-lag and to transact, actually, business on the phone with my office, because when I hit New Zealand, I had to hit the ground running and participate in two conferences and some very important meetings. Of course it was on business.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand there's a charge of something like $1,200 a month for a residence. Can you explain that, because normally I would think that you could charge something if it was a commercial establishment, but this is a residence. What's that all about?

    Mr. George Radwanski: That's part of an agreement I arrived at with the Privy Council Office when I took this position. It was that for a time I would get a second-residence allowance and travel arrangements back and forth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: For a time? Well, how long has that been now?

    Mr. George Radwanski: It's been extended. It was extended twice at my request, but this was done--

    Mr. Paul Forseth: So it's been a couple of years or more now?

    Mr. George Radwanski: It will have been three years this summer, and it's ending this summer. It was done that way as a transitional need for me because of my family circumstances. That, I should make clear, is not in the regular expense accounts because that is not an expense related to my job. It is a terms-of-employment matter.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Now, you travel just about every weekend to Toronto and you charge that to your office as well. How does that fit in?

    Mr. George Radwanski: That is under approval from PCO for travel back and forth weekly. I don't go just about every week. Lately, as it's turned out, I've far too much to do. But that is part of the second-residence allowance agreement. It was for $1,200 a month plus travel to and from Toronto.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I've just mentioned a whole variety of expenses, and I take it none of that was really submitted to the committee before to reflect what you were charging.

    Mr. George Radwanski: No. Those, I was advised, are distinct from business expenses. That's a separate approval from PCO, which is under my second-residence allowance agreement. That's under terms and conditions of employment and is a distinct matter; it's certainly not part of the same process.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I have one more issue you may want to tell us about, and that's Groupaction. I take it that you had some dealings with Groupaction, a $1 million charge or something like that. Can you tell me what that was all about?

    Mr. George Radwanski: I had no dealings with Groupaction per se at all. We did run a national ad campaign at one point regarding the new law, and we were told by PWGSC that we had to deal with Groupaction; that was how it was set up. We don't have control over our own purchasing of advertising, and we were told, that's how it is; that's how it works.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: About how big was that contract?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Well, the total thing for advertising was about $1 million, but that didn't go to Groupaction. Most of that money went to the media that carried the ads. I have no idea what portion of it went to Groupaction.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: And you're saying you were told. Do you remember who told you it had to go that way?

    Mr. George Radwanski: I can find out for you. It was PWGSC. I wish we could handle our own matters with regard to advertising, but we were told, that's the process; they have the standing order or whatever it is, and if you want to do it within a reasonable period of time, that's how it's done. At that point, I might add, of course there was no public issue about Groupaction. We had no knowledge of any issues. We were told by PWGSC, that's how you do ads, so that's how we did the ads. I have no idea who it was, but I can find out, I guess.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Bryden, I guess, was the one who asked for further details on expenses. In view of some of the things I brought up, perhaps you can rethink some of the material you did provide to the committee and maybe you could provide further details.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Certainly, I can double-check that everything you should have had was provided. Again, I simply said, provide them with everything. It was pointed out to me that the second-residence stuff was in a whole different category, so that wasn't included. To the best of my knowledge, everything else was, but I'll be happy to double-check.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Forseth and Mr. Radwanski.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Continuing in a similar vein, I'd like to discuss the contracts awarded to the advertising firm of Groupaction. You stated that the Department of Public Works was responsible for signing off on contracts on behalf of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

  (1215)  

    Mr. George Radwanski: I don't know for certain if the Department signed the contract, but I do know that our Office is not authorized to sign these contracts. Our advertising must be handled by the Department.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is said to operate at arm's length from the government. However, you have very close ties with one department in particular, namely Public Works which handles your publicity material.

    Mr. George Radwanski: This has nothing to do with the content of the ads, only with the purchasing of ad space. I dislike the fact that we are not free to handle this ourselves, but we must abide by the government rules in place.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Why wouldn't the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada have its own budget to manage, to safeguard the Office's independence? Then, when you wanted to advertise, you wouldn't need any ties with Public Works or some other department. This situation is akin to one where hypothetically, a Supreme Court judge would have to go through Public Works in order to purchase furniture. Judges have a budget for purchasing furniture and if they incur expenses in connection with the drafting of a decision, they have a budget to cover that as well.

    I'm very disturbed to learn today that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has direct ties with a department, when you maintained earlier that no such ties existed. That's not quite true.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I do not have any such ties. The rules for purchasing advertising were made by the government. I would like it very much if you recommended a change in this policy. We had to act quickly and we were informed that we have no alternative but to proceed as we did. There's a limit to the number of battles I can wage head on. I had no choice and the promotional material had to be published. I would prefer to see the committee recommend a change in this government policy.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: As an ombudsman, how would you feel if one day, you were asked to audit two companies—because you work with the Privacy Act—and Groupaction was one of the two businesses in question? Would you be independent enough to do the work?

    Mr. George Radwanski: I've nothing to do with that. My mandate doesn't extend to such matters. We need to run announcements and this business is handled by one company or another. The fact that the department chose one company over another has no bearing on my role as ombudsman.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do you maintain any direct ties with the company that handles your advertising needs, or is all of this managed by Public Works Canada?

    Mr. George Radwanski: It's strictly a matter of placing advertisements. I can't recall whether the department handles production arrangements or not, but we have the final say as far as content is concerned. There were no practical repercussions in all of this for us.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: However, you stated that if, at some point, you wished to publish an advertisement of some kind, you contacted Groupaction and they handled the matter.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I belive that happened only once, in the case of announcements to be published. I don't recall exactly, but I believe the announcements appeared once in the newspapers and ran once on the radio. One year, one media form was highlighted, and another year, a different one. We instructed Public Works Canada as to our wishes and the department assigned a number, or some such thing. We decide the content of the announcement for the newspapers or the radio, and how much we want to spend. One of the advertising agencies handles the technical details.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do these companies earn a commission on each contract, or a single commission for all of the contracts combined?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Quite frankly, I have no idea.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Would it be possible to obtain that information?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes, I can request it, even though, as I said, this does not come under our jurisdiction.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could you obtain that information and undertake to forward it to the committee?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Lanctôt and Monsieur Radwanski. I'll come back to the matter of the provision of information at the end of the meeting just to clear things up.

    I believe I have Mr. Szabo with a brief question.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    With regard to Mr. Forseth's questions about Groupaction, your office spends a fair bit of money on public education, and there is a lot of information going out using advertising or promotional materials that are produced outside. Are you aware of the policy and procedure the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is under and has to use in terms of public education materials?

    Mr. George Radwanski: First of all, there's not a lot that's produced outside; let me clarify that first of all. We ran two external flights of ads. One was a flight of radio ads--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Please don't go there. I'm just asking, are you familiar with the policies and procedures your office is to follow for advertising services, etc.?

    Mr. George Radwanski: Not in detail. I leave that to my professional staff. I'm aware, obviously, of what we do. I was told these were in broad terms the procedures we had to follow, that is, going through PWGSC. I expressed some dismay about that and I was told, that's how it is.

    Other than of course expecting that things be done according to the rules, I leave operational details to those who are in charge of--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Are you satisfied that it's in accordance with the requirements of your office?

    Mr. George Radwanski: To the best of my knowledge.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: You have pre-qualified suppliers who have already gone through the process and have been put on the authorized lists so you don't have to go through a competition every time you want something done. There's nothing nefarious about it. It happens to be an important service Public Works and Government Services provides, pre-qualifying your suppliers.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'm not suggesting anything nefarious whatsoever. Monsieur Lanctôt was asking if I'm troubled at all by having to go through PWGSC.

    My answer is yes. In the best of all worlds I would prefer we have direct control, because then one wouldn't get into questions like why a given company was chosen or have to say, well, they told us to.

    Obviously, I always ask if we're doing everything by the rules, and I'm assured we're following all appropriate procedures.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, you are.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Good.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Madam Ablonczy.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I'm sure you understand, Mr. Radwanski, why the committee is so concerned about any appearance that the committee did not receive full and complete information. Of course, members of Parliament have an important job to do, and without good information good decisions cannot be made. I commend the committee on its careful examination of the circumstances.

    As you are probably aware, there was a recent instance where a court found that a committee had been misled, not by an officer of Parliament such as yourself but by a minister of the Crown and his department. I had suggested that this kind of examination be made with respect to that court finding that a committee had been misled.

    That has not happened, and I'm hoping members of the House will take it upon themselves to be very anxious in all cases that when a committee appears to have been misled and certainly when a committee has been found by the courts to have been misled, there should be very stringent measures taken to get to the bottom of it and to sanction those who would dare to mislead a parliamentary committee.

    However, I applaud your full and complete explanation of what happened and also the fact that you take responsibility. It's easy to blame a lesser functionary, shall we say, and it is refreshing that you've chosen not to do that.

    With respect to these travel costs, which were a subject of some publicity today, I wonder if you can tell us a little more about what is happening internationally. I'm interested in this and I know other people here in committee are too because of the work you've done with respect to the anti-terrorism bill and with respect to the suggestion of a national ID card, which the citizenship and immigration committee is studying at the present time. Are these issues also top of mind in other countries? What have you been asked to speak about? What are your colleagues who also deal in privacy issues in other countries concerned about at this time?

    I think it would be helpful for parliamentarians to know what's happening internationally with these kinds of issues.

  (1225)  

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'd be very pleased to. Thank you for the question.

    First of all, thank you for your comments on the question of the letter. I'll take the opportunity again just to emphasize that there was neither an attempt nor an effect of misleading anybody. For Parliament or a committee to be misled, it would have to have been led to believe something that was not so or to have some fact hidden from it. Certainly, I don't think this committee could possibly have been led to believe that I don't report to Parliament or that I'm not subject to the Auditor General, nor was there any attempt to do that. I appreciate your comments very much.

    On the question of what's going on internationally, it's a very interesting time. Obviously, September 11 changed the whole international dimension of it. Law enforcement, particularly anti-terrorism security, is becoming globalized, as is the fight against terrorism. That means a lot of countries are coming under the same pressures we are.

    Of course, the United States is taking some very draconian steps, some of which really intrude deeply on privacy and go far beyond what I think can be justified in terms of anti-terrorism. Of course, they put pressure on Canada and other countries.

    One reason it has been important for me to take every opportunity I can to speak in the United States is that to the extent the United States puts pressure on Canada to do things this way, it's first of all useful for the U.S. public and especially decision makers to know that in our system there is someone like a Privacy Commissioner who does have this mandate and who gives the government a hard time if it goes too far. That helps them understand why our government has to be a little less accommodating in some instances, and I have been told by senior people in Justice that this is very helpful from that point of view.

    Also, I think if I'm able to have some substantive impact on what happens in other countries, that comes back and helps Canada as well. For instance, if I meet with privacy advocates in the U.S. at conferences that examine this kind of thing and we talk about the four-part test in Canada and how we approach it, to the extent they then use that in the U.S., it can mitigate somewhat the climate in the U.S.

    It's also important for me of course to understand what the thinking is in other countries, in the U.S. in particular, because I'm always being told by the government that the U.S. is insisting we do this or that. It's important for me to understand where that comes from.

    Internationally, in other countries, they encounter many of the same problems we do with pressures from the United States. They also encounter problems in terms of their own concerns about some of these issues. There's a huge debate in the U.K., for instance, about ID cards, and they're running into a great deal of resistance there. It's very useful for me to speak with people who've been involved in that from various points of view. Video surveillance, as you know, is a huge concern for me. The United Kingdom has more video surveillance cameras than any other free country, so it's very useful for me to talk to people who understand that experience.

    In general, it's first of all important to know what is going on in these areas. Second, there is an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role in international understanding of some of these issues.

    Other jurisdictions are very interested. In the United States, for example, a number of members of Congress--very influential ones, I might add--are starting to be interested in the idea of having a U.S. federal officer with responsibilities similar to those of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and I have some very interesting discussions on that. We do have a chance to have some influence on the broader international debate.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Ablonczy.

    I have a final, brief question from Mr. Bryden, then I have a request, and then we're done.

  (1230)  

    Mr. John Bryden: I'm just coming back to the letter with the missing paragraph. You were saying that you were away at the time the package was prepared in reply to the committee. Can I ask you, then, was that package containing the letter with the missing paragraph signed off by some senior member of your staff? If it went to the committee, obviously your executive director or somebody must have signed off on it.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'd have to check. I presume there was a letter with it from a senior member of my staff. I presume you have that. I honestly couldn't tell you off the top of my head by whom it was--

    Mr. John Bryden: Let me just be clear so there's no confusion. I would have thought the process would normally be--and this is a process question--that when evidence is being provided by any department in the name of the head of the department, then some senior functionary, some senior person, has to take responsibility for the material that is provided to the committee.

    I guess the obvious person would be your executive director. One would have thought that in your absence he would have signed off on this, particularly with respect to this letter we have before us that is missing the paragraph. Did he sign off on that?

    Mr. George Radwanski: I'd honestly have to check. It would be either my executive directly or my chief of staff, who handles a lot of my liaison with Parliament, but I'd have to check. I know the letter would have said that this was the material I'd directed to be provided because I asked that it go with a letter saying that I'd directed that it be provided. Again, I take full responsibility for what's provided.

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you,Mr. Bryden.

    Just for clarity, Mr. Radwanski, Mr. Delisle is your executive director?

    Mr. George Radwanski: That's correct, and Mr. Lamarche is my chief of staff.

    The Chair: I want to make a request here so we are absolutely accurate in what we're dealing with. With respect to this issue Mr. Forseth raised about the additional expense allocations, I think it's the first time it's been raised at the committee. Arrangements like this are not uncommon; I've heard of others. So I'm not certain that this is the basis of the concern.

    However, you yourself made the point earlier in the meeting about the need for the Privacy Commissioner to be independent, yet now we understand there are some private financial arrangements between you and PCO. To give us a sense of clarity and assurance that we understand the nature of this relationship, did you go back and provide us with a complete accounting of your expenses, including the ones that were referenced by Mr. Forseth involving this other officer, and have them signed off by your financial agent and returned to the committee?

    For the second one, Mr. Bryden, I believe Mr. Delisle, the executive director, is the one who signed off on the attestation on that document.

    Mr. George Radwanski: I have a sense it might have been Mr. Lamarche. I'd have to double-check that.

    The Chair: We'll also check; we have that package here. Can you just confirm that Mr. Delisle was the one who signed off on that--or Mr. Lamarche if that's not the case.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Yes, but I take responsibility. I don't want my officials being blamed for something that was a result of my lack of accuracy on the phone.

    The Chair: Oh, I understand and I appreciate that, Mr. Radwanski. Like Madame Ablonczy, I commend you for taking responsibility for this.

    It's a serious issue. The committee wants to make sure that we are dealing with this as fulsomely and as accurately as we possibly can. Perhaps we'll await the arrival of that information, and seeing no further desire to ask questions, I'm going to do two things of a business nature.

    Mr. Radwanski, I thank you for taking the time to come here and for being so open and forthright in your responses, and we will communicate with you in response as quickly as we are able to.

    I just want to remind members that tomorrow morning we had agreed to have an informal meeting with the U.K. select committee at 10:15 in room 269 in the West Block. Also, the estimates subcommittee's draft report will be available for consideration and adoption by the main committee Wednesday afternoon at 3:30, at which time we will also have an in camera session to consider some of the discussion that's taken place today.

    Finally, our regularly scheduled meeting is tomorrow at 3:30 in room 371 West Block. You've all been circulated a package from the clerk of the Privy Council, Alex Himelfarb, who will be present, and we'll be looking at the management accountability framework in the public service code of ethics. It's the first time, I think, a clerk has ever come to a committee in advance to collect the opinion of members of Parliament before going forward. I'm looking forward to it, and I would encourage you to have a look at the documentation and to be there.

    Finally, Mr. Radwanski, once again, thank you so much.

    Mr. George Radwanski: Thank you.

    The Chair: We are adjourned.