Evidence of meeting #6 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was staff.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good morning, sir. Thank you for testifying here today.
Earlier, you quoted the act to us, even though we already know it. Can you tell us with certainty that no procedure was breached at any time and that there has been no political interference, no less than transparent behaviour? How can you make that claim? Have you investigated allegations of interference by ministers, yes or no?
Noon
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I can state what I know. I know that the rules are clear, the expectations are clear, and they are constantly reinforced and re-communicated.
Noon
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
My question was: have you already investigated allegations of interference by ministers, yes or no?
Noon
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I don't understand the premise of the question, or I guess I disagree with the premise of the question. Where there are specific circumstances that require addressing or being looked into, they are looked into. But if the member is asking me whether I've taken steps as the result of anonymous commentary in The Hill Times, the answer is no. I don't think the member would expect me to do that.
Noon
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Chair, that was not what I asked.
Have there been actual investigations, yes or no? It is a simple, factual question.
Noon
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Thank you, Chairman.
The member may think it's a simple question, but the premise is flawed. There's nothing to investigate. Where there are specifics, obviously they would be looked into. If the member has specifics she wants to bring to my attention, I'd be happy to take them back. But the only thing we've heard today is reference to anonymous commentary in The Hill Times.
If the member is asking whether I have launched an investigation on the basis on anonymous commentary in The Hill Times, my answer is no--nor do I expect any member would expect me to.
Noon
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
So you are denying that there is a problem and you are doing nothing to correct it.
When there are allegations and information that keep coming back, it would be your duty to check the information. We are giving you the chance to clean the house that you say you have wanted to clean for four years. You could pick up this ball and take this opportunity to conduct an investigation and shed light on the matter.
But you said clearly that you have no intention to follow up on journalists' allegations. But journalists base their articles on something...That is what I wanted to know.
12:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, I thank the member now, because I understand the premise of her question. She was asking me whether I intended to follow up on anonymous news tips, and my answer is no.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
We are going in circles.
You say that ministers are responsible for making sure that the rules in the accountability guide are followed. How do ministers ensure that they are followed?
12:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Sorry, Chairman. I'm not sure I understood the question.
Each minister is responsible for the duties that have been entrusted to him or her. Subsection 2.1 of section 4 of the Access to Information Act makes the head of a department--that is, the minister--responsible for ensuring that access requests are dealt with accurately, completely, and in a timely fashion. Each minister has signed a delegation of his or her authority to named public servants. I think I said earlier, in my opening statement, that obviously the cornerstone of ministerial responsibility is the minister's responsibility to Parliament. So ultimately ministers are responsible to Parliament to answer for or speak to how the duties that have been entrusted to them under the statute are being discharged.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Does each minister have discretion in following up or is there a single rule of conduct for all ministers?
12:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
No, Chairman, I think the member misunderstands or misperceives what the act provides. There are very clear principles in the statute: there are mandatory exemptions; there are discretionary exemptions. Where discretionary exemptions might apply, those decisions are made by public servants to whom ministers have delegated specific authorities under the statute, and once delegated, it's those public servants who are making the decisions to apply discretionary exemption. However, I think the member and I would both embrace the principle of the supremacy of Parliament and would realize that despite the delegation of authority, ultimately it is the minister who is responsible to Parliament to answer for how delegated authority is being discharged. In that respect, the Access to Information Act is no different from any of the statutes enacted by the Parliament of Canada.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I join my colleagues in welcoming you here this morning, Mr. Giorno. It's good to have you here.
I appreciate the history you gave us in terms of what our government has done with the Federal Accountability Act in pursuing the creation of a unique cultural accountability by strengthening access to information. I also appreciate the fact that my colleague reflected on the improvements we have made in the last number of years. I think it's always important to take a look at a report within the context of other reports that have gone before it, so I appreciate knowing that we have had tremendous success in the areas of access to information.
Another thing I appreciated hearing from you was that you've experienced these issues on both sides, both from the perspective of a requester as well as someone who is now responsible for ensuring that our government is complying with legislation.
Could you tell me a little more about your previous law practice, and what if any relevant experience you had with respect to lobbying laws?
12:05 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, I think the member has asked an interesting question. She touched on my experience under access to information or freedom of information. Before coming here as legal counsel dealing with these access to information matters, I or my client and I have been at the receiving end of political interference, and I had no intention of coming here and allowing it to continue. So my record there is very clear.
As for lobbying law, the law governing lobbyists, I said I have always been a champion of tough, rigorous, stringent rules governing the conduct of lobbyists. For some reason the House committee didn't have any interest in what I had to say, but I appeared before the Senate committee holding hearings into Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, and spoke specifically on lobbying law and talked about strengthening it. It was already a very strong bill, mind you.
I appeared by teleconference before the legislative committee of the province of Alberta that was considering the introduction of that province's first lobbying act. I have appeared before the city of Toronto's council, and I also made representations to the legislative committee in the province of Ontario, urging the strengthening of lobbyist regulation at the municipal level. I've been consulted internationally by the Republic of Ireland, for example, and other OECD countries that are interested in adopting their own lobbying law regimes. I have extensive experience.
I wouldn't necessarily say this of me, but someone said I was one of the leading experts, at least leading experts outside government, on the law and the regulation on the business of lobbying. It's something that before coming here I believed in quite passionately, for the reason I've identified, and that is, whether we're talking about government resources, taxpayers' dollars, government information, government records, the networks a public servant or a political staff member accumulate, none of that information, none of that money, none of those networks belong to individual politicians, staff members, or bureaucrats; they belong to Canadians. That's why it's important to have a strong lobbying law regime, strong access to information regime, and strong accountability rules generally.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Giorno, you've noted you had to write a number of times in February and March to political staff to remind them to uphold their obligations to the Access to Information Act. Is it a usual thing that you have to contact political staff to remind them of their obligations under the law?
12:10 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Mr. Chairman, I won't say it's usual or unusual; it's something that is done. Obviously as one communicates rules and expectations, one is always mindful of the context. Therefore, as circumstances arise that make it advisable to refresh, re-communicate, someone in my position does that.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Why did you have to do it so many times in recent months on access to information?
12:10 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Obviously this is a topic of interest to the committee, and it's a topic of interest to me. Just as the committee has seen this as a priority, something that's relevant and on the committee's mind for obvious reasons, in early 2010 it was also on my mind for probably the same reasons, and that's why I felt the need to reissue those communications.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Giorno, you still insist you weren't taking those actions in light of news reports that have appeared in the media exposing problems with access to information. Weren't they exactly the stimulus that caused you to have to remind political staff of the government's commitments and their obligations under access to information?
12:10 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, the member's question allows me to repeat but clarify a previous answer. I was referring to anonymous commentary in media stories, and my position on anonymous commentary remains the same. If the member is referring to non-anonymous commentary--that is, reports of facts--I, like everybody else in this city, take cognizance of what is happening and act accordingly. The committee has renewed an interest in this topic because of recent events. My communication was renewed in light of circumstances.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
It would be interesting to see the timing of your reminders and the news stories that came out.
Can you explain to me the role of the issues management wing of the PMO?
