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.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Giorno, I'd like to refer to a number of memos you've sent to staff about their need to comply with the legislation. Would you be willing to provide copies of those memos to this committee?
12:45 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I'd be pleased to do so, in both official languages.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Giorno.
Are there any other cases that are not now publicly known, neither reported in the press nor otherwise, where any political staff has been interfering in an access to information request?
12:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, it's a similar question. I think I've already answered that. I can speak to my conduct, to the extent of my knowledge. I can speak to the expectations I have and how they've been communicated. They are also the expectations, standards, and rules of the Prime Minister.
12:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I can speak to my knowledge. The rules are very clear. Ministers have delegated their authority under the Access of Information Act to specifically named public servants. Those public servants are the ones who are responsible for making access to information decisions. No member of the political staff has received a delegation under the act, and therefore no political staff member has authority to make an access to information decision.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
So none have then. You're telling me that none have.
I know the rules. I want to hear you say, yes or no, “none have”.
12:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I think that has been asked many times, Chairman. I think I've answered it many times. I'm here. I can speak to my conduct and my knowledge. My conduct, my knowledge, my expectations are quite clear. They have been communicated many times. They're also the expectations of the Prime Minister.
No political staff member has authority to make access to information decisions, and it is a breach of the rules in Accountable Government for a political staff member to purport to give instructions to a political staff member related to an access to information decision.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Are you aware of anyone breaking those rules? Yes or no. I'm looking for a simple answer.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Point of order, Mr. Chair. Under the rules of O'Brien and Bosc--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a minute. First of all we have to turn off his mike and get him to stop talking, and I want him to stop the clock so he doesn't lose the rest of his time. And then I'll recognize Mr. Bezan on a point of order.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Thank you, and this is a point of order.
As I described earlier, in chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc, starting on page 1068 and going on to 1069, public servants can decline an answer to specific questions.
Mr. Valeriote is badgering the witness and trying to get him to answer a legal opinion, something the witness has already said is not in his knowledge and is outside his area of responsibility. The common practice, and the one that's described in our rules of procedure, is that we excuse the witness from having to answer.
We have a member who is badgering a witness. I don't believe that is in line, and I think you need to call him to order on it.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Bezan, you're quite right. When a witness appears before a committee, refusal to answer is not applicable. However, if a witness cannot answer because the question is beyond their responsibilities or scope, and there's a good reason, the witness would then raise that with the chair and the chair will determine whether or not the witness will be permitted not to hazard....
It's not for us to make that decision for the witness; that is the essence of the rules. But it is ultimately up to the witness to determine whether or not they're going to stray beyond their knowledge or expertise.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
In that case, Mr. Chair, if we read the rules the way they're drafted, if we want him to go beyond that it's actually the committee's decision. If they want to get confidential type of information, then at the committee's discretion we have to allow the witness to testify in camera. If that's the desire, then that's the way to go. Otherwise, it's out of order.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Let's put it this way: he can ask any question he wants, but if the witness is unable to answer because it violates some other proscription, he can say so and the chair will rule on that. But it's not for us to make the decision for the witness. We had this in the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings several times, and we respected that rule.
I think everybody understands. Mr. Giorno is quite familiar with what he can and cannot deal with.
Do you have any more to say on the last little question of Mr. Valeriote? There is one minute left to ask one more question.
12:50 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Thank you, Chairman.
I think I've answered the question already. I can't comment on the specific Togneri matter. I told committee members when I became aware of it. I referred to the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources has communicated what has been taken. Other than that, I'm not going to comment about discipline or potential discipline, because it's a personal matter. And I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation by the information commissioner, although I will add that I am, as I expect all members of the committee are, looking forward to receiving her findings.
As to--
12:55 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
As to my conduct, my practice, my expectations--I have answered that many times--they're clear. In fact I was pleased to appear before the committee for that reason, because my expectations are clear, and my conduct has been clear since I came here on July 1.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Giorno, thank you, on my behalf, for appearing and for responding to the members' questions.
There's only one issue that I would like to raise with you. It's something that has come up and that I think you may be able to assist with. It has to do with the fact that the position of information commissioner has been vacant for nine months. It's a significant delay. I know that there were a number of candidates. I don't know who they are. I do know that the current acting commissioner is one of the candidates. But I do know that with a seven-year appointment, a new appointee, once they get that appointment, can root themselves into a seven-year plan to do a good job on behalf of Canadians. The delay is causing some concern. So if there's anything you could possibly do to encourage those responsible to complete that process, please do so. I think you understand what I'm asking, and I hope that we would be able to see that position filled within a reasonable time.
12:55 p.m.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I thank you, Chairman, for those comments, and I will take them back.
I'll simply say two things. Obviously, as you're aware, and you've alluded to this, the appointment of officers of Parliament is something that involves all parties in the House. That's known. But the second point, and it's implicit in your remarks, is the fact that the Parliament of Canada has decided to make the position that of an officer of Parliament actually does indicate the significance and importance to the country and to Parliament of that position. Therefore your comments about the importance of that position are very well taken.
