Information & Ethics Committee on April 13th, 2010

[Guy Giorno]

Chairman, I think the member inadvertently is putting words in my mouth. I can speak to what I know. What I know is the policy and the expectation, both of the Prime Minister and of me. Those expectations, those rules, have been communicated and re-communicated. They're very clear. No political staff member has received a delegation of authority under the Access to Information Act; no political staff member has authority to make access to information decisions.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Are you aware of any cases, then, where staff has in fact interfered in either media requests for information or requests under the Access to Information Act?

[Guy Giorno]

Chairman, I've already answered this question. To return, one has to distinguish.... I understand the member in her question may think that media requests are not under the act and requests under the act are to be treated identically, and they are slightly different. As I explained, there is a good reason, Chairman, that requests from the media, just like requests from stakeholders or requests from other people not under the act that relate to government policy or positions, would of course have the involvement of the minister's office and the minister: because ultimately it's not a non-partisan public servant who could be expected to give a reporter or a stakeholder an explanation of the political position of the government on a particular matter.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I guess I'm trying to get some clarification. You look at the Togneri situation. So other than Togneri, which you say now is being investigated by the commissioner, are there any other examples that you're aware of where's there been interference?

[Guy Giorno]

Chairman, I repeat my previous answer, although I invite the member, if she has those examples, to bring them to my attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Go ahead.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

So to the best of your knowledge, at this point in time, there has been no interference by any political staff in any requests for information, whether routinely or under the act.

[Guy Giorno]

Chairman, it's a similar question, in fact the same question, and the same answer. The expectations of the Prime Minister, the expectations of me, are clear and are constantly communicated. If the member has a specific example, I'd be happy to take that up with the minister in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Poilievre, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Giorno, you've had occasion to talk to us about the experience that you've accumulated as a private citizen prior to becoming chief of staff to the Right Honourable Prime Minister. In your role, you've seen the ratings of certain departments experience improvements under the Access to Information Act. I look at the Department of Justice, for example, which went from an F in 2004 to an A in today's 2008-09 rating by institution. What, in your view, has led to these improvements?

[Guy Giorno]

Chairman, I'll be consistent in my answering. Decisions about the Access to Information Act are made by members of the non-partisan public service who have received specific delegations of authority. They do so without taking instructions from political staff members because it's inappropriate for a political staff member to give instructions. It would be a violation of accountable government. And of course no political staff member has received a delegation of authority under the Access to Information Act; therefore no political staff member has authority to make access to information decisions. It therefore follows that any credit for these improvements goes to the credit of the public servants who are making these decisions and their deputy ministers.

On behalf of the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is also the former Secretary to the Treasury Board specifically responsible for access to information, I'll accept your compliment and pass it on. But, really, it's deputy ministers, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the Secretary to the Treasury Board who are responsible for ensuring that those public servants are compliant with the act in discharging their responsibilities.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

In other words, this government has enjoyed a fruitful working relationship with the public service and delivered successes because of that hard work. I think you're quite right to give credit where it is due, with the hard-working public servants who are administering these rules properly.

You commented extensively on the Federal Accountability Act, but you were constrained by time. I want to give you an occasion to highlight other areas that you think deserve to be underlined, given your experience in the area of access.

[Guy Giorno]

I suggest the member might look at the changes to the Lobbying Act. The Lobbyists Registration Act was renamed the Lobbying Act. The former registrar, who was an employee of the Department of Industry, was made an officer of Parliament. So having that protection, independence, and autonomy was an important change. The five-year ban on lobbying by former designated public officers was another key reform.

Changes were made to the Canada Elections Act to remove the influence of big money--no more secret trust funds, big money donations, and corporate and union contributions. There were, of course, complementary changes to the Privacy Act and a number of other statutes in that respect. Changes in the act to procurement practices--advertising, polling, contracting--are all worthy of mention.

On the Federal Accountability Act, a lot of hard work was put in by members of all parties in both houses of Parliament, but it stands on the books as the most comprehensive anti-corruption law in the history of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Madame Freeman, s'il vous plaît.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Good afternoon. As a follow-up to what Mr. Poilievre said, I would like to go back to your numbered document. The Privy Council, which receives access to information requests about the Prime Minister, refuses to reply to one in five requests, when it replies, and takes five times as long as the act requires when it does so. That was my comment.

In reply to the questions asked by my colleague Mrs. Thi Lac and by Ms. Foote, you asked if she could give you a specific example of interference by political staff. I am going to talk about one such case where interference is alleged. The Canadian Press referred to it like that in several papers.

Under the Access to Information Act, The Canadian Press asked for a document on the use of federal buildings when Mr. Paradis was Minister of Public Works. When the document was about to be sent, a member of the political staff, Sébastien Togneri, the parliamentary affairs director, ordered that the document in question be intercepted.

Were you aware of this incident? If so, I would like to know what steps you took, given that Mr. Togneri is still in his position.

Is my question clear this time? This is the third time I have asked it, but you have never...

[Guy Giorno]

First of all, the member has asked many questions. I think each of the sub-questions is clear, but many of them are answered by the same answers as before.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, he is using up my time and my question is very clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'd like to let the witness have an opportunity to respond. You will have some time to ask one last question.

[Guy Giorno]

The member asked a general question about the conduct of the staff members. I can speak to my conduct and my expectations. I refer to my previous answers. My expectations and those of the Prime Minister are clear and constantly communicated.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

[Guy Giorno]

The member referred to the Privy Council Office. Obviously that's something of concern, but the Clerk of the Privy Council could speak to that in more detail.

As to the third question, on Mr. Togneri--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

That is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm going to let him answer. You have time for another question.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Chair, as a member of Parliament, I have a right to a certain number of minutes. It is my time. The witness is refusing to answer my questions clearly. I repeat, my question was quite clear. Mrs. Thi Lac and Ms. Foote asked the same question and he refused to answer them. He wanted a specific example and I gave him one. I asked him whether he was aware of the incident, yes or no. It is simple, he can answer yes or no. If it turns out that he was aware, I would like to know what he did about it.

That is all the time I have, I think. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.