Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.
I want to begin by congratulating you on your re-election last month, and by congratulating Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Siksay on their respective elections as vice-chairs. I'd also like to thank the committee for inviting me here today and for accommodating my request to appear at the earliest possible opportunity.
As you and I just discussed, Chairman--I'll share this with the committee members--we met 30 years ago during the 1980 federal election campaign at an all-candidates debate in the riding of Etobicoke Centre, sponsored by my high school, Michael Power. The chair was present as an alumnus candidate. He was running in the neighbouring riding of Mississauga South. I was working my 14-year-old tail off for a candidate named Joe Cruden.
On election night, despite the majority victory for my then party, I was sorely disappointed that both Joe and the chair had lost very close races. But I guess history shows that my support was pretty irrelevant or insignificant, because by the time the chairman had started to rack up his six consecutive victories I had already moved on to the other party. I don't think either of us would have imagined 30 years ago that we'd be meeting again, each of us in our respective roles.
Nonetheless, I am happy to be here today. I'm very pleased and look forward to responding to questions of committee members, particularly those related to my responsibility.
Committee members will appreciate that as an unelected government employee hired under section 128 of the Public Service Employment Act, it's not my place to speak for the entire government. As I often repeat--and some of the committee members will have heard me say this--though I bear the title of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, I'm still merely part of the staff.
The supremacy of Parliament is ensured by the principle of ministerial responsibility, and that is the cornerstone of responsible government. The principle requires that those who exercise the constitutional authority of the crown must be part of Parliament and responsible to Parliament. It is ministers, not officials, who exercise constitutional authority; then it's ministers, not officials, who are responsible to Parliament.
When a government employee appears before a committee to answer questions, as I do today, those answers do not alter the fact that it is ministers, not officials, who are constitutionally responsible for the exercise of authority, and who are responsible to Parliament. Expressed differently, the presence of an official like me and the answers I give can assist in the answerability of ministers to Parliament, but do not sever the responsibility of ministers to Parliament.
On January 23, 2006, Canadians voted for change. They sent a message to all politicians that it was time to turn over a new leaf and change the way business is done in the federal government forever.
The first legislative reform introduced by this government was the Federal Accountability Act, the most sweeping and most comprehensive anti-corruption law in Canadian history. It signalled the government's determination to clean up Ottawa after the sponsorship program. It changed the way federal political parties are financed, with no more big money, no more secret trust funds, and no more corporate and union donations. It cleaned up Ottawa's contracting, advertising, polling, and procurement practices, to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. It gave real iron-clad protection to whistle-blowers who come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. It ended the revolving door among ministers' offices, the bureaucracy, and hired-gun lobby firms, and it strengthened the access to information law by nearly doubling the number of entities that are subject to access to information.
As Prime Minister Harper said when the Federal Accountability Act was introduced, and I quote, “We are creating a new culture of accountability that will change the way business is done in Ottawa forever”. The objective was to replace the old culture of entitlement with good clean government, because that's what Canadians voted for on January 23, 2006.
A centrepiece of our anti-corruption law was strengthening access to information. The Honourable John Baird explained thusly on April 25, 2006: “Canadians deserve better access to government information. The Government of Canada belongs to the people and the government should not unnecessarily obstruct access to information”. Access to information is the public's right. Subject to the Access to Information Act, every Canadian citizen and every permanent resident “has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution”.
All ministers have delegated their responsibilities under the Access to Information Act to specifically named public servants, and it is those specifically named public servants, pursuant to delegations of authority, who are responsible for all decisions under the act. No political staff member has received a delegation of authority under the act, and therefore no political staff member has authority to make access to information decisions.
The new Treasury Board policy on access to information, which replaced the weaker policy of the previous government, provides as follows, and refers to a delegation order, in section 6.1.2: “Once an order is signed, the powers, duties or functions that have been delegated may only be exercised or performed by the head of the institution or by the named officer(s) or employee(s)”.
So to repeat, no political staff member has received a delegation of authority under the act, and therefore no political staff member has authority to make access to information decisions. Political staff members are subject to the instructions issued under the authority of the Prime Minister in a book called Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State. That book states,
in section 6.1, on page 37:
Exempt staff do not have the authority to give direction to public servants, but they can ask for information or transmit the minister's instructions, normally through the deputy minister.
Adherence to accountable government is a condition of continued employment for members of the political staff. In each department, it is public servants, not political staff members, who compile the records in response to an access request, who decide on and give notice of time extensions, who decide which mandatory and discretionary exemptions apply to any records, and who decide whether or not to invoke or apply a discretionary exemption.
I cannot speak for the practice of all departments, but in the Prime Minister's department—that is, the Privy Council Office—after an access decision is made and prior to release, the minister's office—that is, the PMO—is informed of the fact that an access decision has been made and there will be release. The legitimate purposes of this advance notice, which in our case I understand usually occurs approximately four days prior to release, include: to brief our minister on the content, to prepare to respond to questions in question period or from the news media, and to explain the content to anyone who might ask.
The purposes of this advance notice do not include, and must not include: to alter the decision, to vet the content, or to delay, deny, or withhold access. However, this advance notice is entirely consistent with the constitutional responsibility of each minister for the operation of his or her department. An advance notice does not alter the fact that decisions about release, time extensions, and invoking exemptions are made by non-partisan public servants pursuant to delegations of authority.
I'll simply close by pointing out that staff training has covered these points. It covered these points prior to my arrival. After my arrival in 2008, Accountable Government, which covers these points, has been reissued. More recently, I've taken specific steps to reinforce these rules, including the rule that the Access to Information Act must be upheld and the rule that it's improper for a political staff member to instruct public servants in the exercise of their authority. Those rules were confirmed and re-communicated as recently as this year. They've been reissued and re-communicated, so there can be no possibility of confusion.
Chairman, I thank you and members of the committee for your indulgence. I now look forward to answering any questions that members may have.
