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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment.
Our practice has always been proportionality. To ask for a yes and a no in some cases requires some explanation, and we give that latitude to the witness.
Madame, I stopped the clock to make sure you have another question. There were three elements to your first intervention. He was giving an answer to the third one. In fairness, I have to give him an opportunity to complete the answer to the third element. Then I'll go back to you for one more question, if you wish. That is about splitting the time evenly between questioner--
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but there were not three parts to my question. There was only one part. He needed an example.
Liberal
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I've appeared before committees before, but this is the first time I've appeared in my current role. Sometimes witnesses have difficulty distinguishing between preambles and questions.
In response to the third element of the question related to Mr. Togneri, I first learned about the situation sometime in the afternoon of Sunday, February 7, when the media story ran. I think it ran between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. Whether I looked at my BlackBerry between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m or later that evening, I was first aware of that.
Obviously this is something that is being investigated by the information commissioner, so I don't want to go too far into drawing conclusions. I will say that the current Minister of Natural Resources has talked about the changes that have been made within his immediate office in response to this. Other than that, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any disciplinary action that may be taken, because that's sort of personal information. But the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources are clear and I believe are on the public record.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
If I understand correctly, you were informed of the matter, you took it under advisement, but you did not get involved because it is the minister's responsibility to do that.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
The term I used was a legal one. You are a lawyer and so am I. You cannot pretend to not understand the term I am using or the question I am asking.
Liberal
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, the member shouldn't mistake my disagreement with her premise for lack of understanding. I was made aware of the situation by a news report that came out on Sunday, February 7, so that was after the events. I became aware of it then, and it was after that that action was taken.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Chair, on the point of order that was raised, I believe it's the responsibility of the chair to accept those points of order, but I'm going to make use of my time judiciously.
I want to thank Mr. Giorno for appearing before our committee today, for showing that his knowledge is very well founded in access to information and privacy legislation. He has been very clear in his answers and has provided clarity to the discussion taking place here today. Also, I appreciate his personal convictions to ensure that not only the act as it stands today under the Federal Accountability Act but also the spirit of the act is respected by ministers. So I do appreciate that.
I also want to congratulate him for his role in being diligent in ensuring that he trains staff, goes over those rules, and explains to them their fiduciary duty in providing access to information on behalf of Canadians. I think that's a very important role, and I do want to congratulate him for taking that on.
As we know, you're not only the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, but you described your involvement as a lawyer in access to information legislation and that you were previously employed at the provincial level as well. So I wonder whether you'd be able to have any discussion on any personal experiences you might have had to deal with in the past with political interference in trying to obtain access to information.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, I referred to the four-year battle with the City of Toronto involving six separate decisions related to the sale of the street lights. It was certainly our belief that a large part of the stonewalling or the obstruction there was the result of political interference. So as I said, I didn't leave private practice and expect to come here, having championed openness and transparency and having fought political interference, to allow anything different here. That's why I was pleased that the rules on accountable government were clear in the expectation that the Access to Information Act would be upheld, the act already having been strengthened by the Federal Accountability Act. The rule against not instructing public servants is very clear in Accountable Government, so I have continued to communicate those expectations and to make very clear where I stand and where the Prime Minister stands on these matters.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Giorno, earlier you were referring to the rules the Treasury Board has brought in, which clearly describe the prohibition of political staff leaking ATI determinations. Those rules are binding on all staff employed through ministers' offices?
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, to be clear, I think the governing authority is accountable to government. Compliance with that is a condition of continued employment for all political staff members. The Treasury Board policy on access to information is inspired by that and it's also binding, but I would say the more important document is Accountable Government. Section 6.1.2 of the Treasury Board policy states that “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).” But that's not as clear a prohibition as in section 6.1 of Accountable Government, which I've read for members of the committee.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Giorno, as much as I like a good tennis match, it would seem the Conservatives and Liberals go back and forth about who was bad and who was worse. I look forward to the day when maybe it's who was bad and who was better on this issue. Certainly we're not there yet.
I also have to say that I always enjoy a very partisan guy struggling to be non-partisan. It's been interesting to watch you in that role this morning.
I have to say the Liberal government isn't the standard around access to information. I think the standard around access to information is easily the Conservative Party's own platform in the 2006 election. Anyone who has any interest in access to information would agree it was a well-thought-out and comprehensive platform. I suspect, given your own personal interests in access to information that we heard about this morning, you're well aware of that platform.
The platform had eight points. When I look at that and when I've questioned witnesses since I've been on this committee, it appears the Conservatives have only done one—the Federal Accountability Act and the expansion to all crown corporations. We haven't seen an introduction of the information commissioner's proposed changes or reforms to the Access to Information Act. We haven't seen the commissioner get the power to order release of information. We haven't seen cabinet confidences that are excluded reviewed by the information commissioner. We haven't seen public officials obliged to create records necessary. We haven't seen a public interest override for all exemptions. We haven't ensured that exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm that would result from that disclosure. We haven't ensured that disclosure requirements for access to information can't be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts.
It strikes me that by that standard, you're not doing as well as you'd like us to believe. What's your comment on that? What's the plan? Is there a significant commitment, or have the Conservatives forgotten what it was like to be in opposition and how important access to information is to the functioning of Parliament and to our democracy?
Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister
Chairman, if the question's asking me to rate the improvements, I don't think it's my place to do that. I know that members of the committee have been discussing this for a long while. I accept at least this part of the premise to the question: that there have been improvements. I know that members of the committee on all sides have been debating for many years whether there's more to do and what to do.
I think the specific answer to the specific question is that the Minister of Justice has responsibility for the government's access to information policy. I'm referring to the policy of what the legislation ought to say and ought to read. I would invite members of the committee to address those specific questions to him, although I note the member correctly identifies that I do follow this issue, and I know it has been an ongoing debate among members of the committee for many years.