Frustrated their questions were not answered, opposition members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics say they are prepared to hold a Tory staffer in contempt if he refuses to answer questions this week.

A much-anticipated witness, Sébastien Togneri testified last Thursday as part of the committee's study on allegations of interference in Access to Information Act requests process.

Little substantive information was gleaned during two hours of testimony, much of that time being taken up by time-consuming points of order raised by the committee's Tory members.

The committee's chairman, Liberal Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Ont.), said the Tories fought tooth and nail to stop Mr. Togneri from testifying.

"I think the posture of the witness and the arguments of the government members seems to indicate they really don't want this matter discussed in committee," he said. "If he refuses to answer [questions at Tuesday's meeting], then he is subject to possibly being in contempt of committee."

Mr. Togneri is currently under investigation by the information commissioner for alleged interference in Access to Information requests. This stems from a Feb. 7 news article by The Canadian Press which revealed Mr. Togneri, who at the time was a staffer to then minister of Public Works Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L'Érable, Que.), ordered bureaucrats to "unrelease" a sensitive report on the government's real estate portfolio that was about to be released under ATI. Later, after Mr. Togneri examined the documents, only 30 of the original 137 pages in the package were released to CP.

The commissioner is also conducting a wider investigation into allegations by the NDP that the interference in ATI requests by Tory staffers violates Sec. 67 of the Access to Information Act, "including but not limited to concealing records and directing, proposing, counselling or causing concealment of records."

Before the questioning began last Thursday, Mr. Szabo addressed the fact that Mr. Togneri is subject to an investigation, and is therefore subject to a 'confidentiality order' preventing him from speaking about issues discussed with the commissioner until she finishes her investigation.

He then read to the committee a written legal opinion on this by House Law Clark Rob Clark, which said the committee's questions supersede the gag order on Mr. Togneri.

"Simply put, no proceeding elsewhere prevents anyone, a member, a minister or a private citizen, from appearing before a Parliamentary committee," the House's top legal authority wrote.

Mr. Szabo then explained that he received a call that morning from Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, who said "she understands fully and appreciates and agrees with the opinion advised to us by the Law Clerk."

At the request of Liberal Wayne Easter (Malpeque, P.E.I.) the witness was sworn in, and Mr. Togneri pledged to tell the committee "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

In committee meetings in previous weeks, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton, Ont.) attempted to prevent Mr. Togneri and other staff from appearing and giving testimony. He has argued at length that only ministers should be asked to testify, but this was overridden in a vote at the committee, which is one of the few with an opposition member as chair.

Mr. Poilievre continued in a similar vein last week.

Even before the witness gave his statement, Mr. Poilievre produced the confidentiality order imposed on Mr. Togneri. He then dismissed the call the chair received from the Information Commissioner that morning because Mr. Szabo did not have a documents to table detailing the commissioner's stance on the issue.

Mr. Poilievre and Tory MP James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake, Man.) used much of the two allotted hours moving points of order. They cited extended passages of House of Commons procedure and practice, edited by Audrey O'Brien and Marc Bosc.

At one point, the chair ordered officials to switch off Mr. Poilievre's microphone.

Opposition members of the committee peppered Mr. Togneri with questions about how the governments handles Access to Information requests, probing particularly into the role of political staff in blocking or delaying the release of documents.

Few substantive answers were provided, "I'm put in a very difficult position," Mr. Togneri said, in a variation of a response given multiple times. "I have a confidentiality order...not to repeat the questions during my examination under oath before the council to the Information Commissioner."

He did, however, admit and take responsibility for ordering the "unrelease" of documents back in February.

"I did send in a hurry a stupid e-mail," he said. "It was a mistake on my part. That's all I have to say."

At the end of the committee's allotted time, the chairman instructed Mr. Togneri to return to the committee on Tuesday, May 11 prepared to answer the members' questions.

Committee members from all three opposition parties said they were unsatisfied with the lack of disclosure at the meeting, and that they are not letting Mr. Togneri off the hook yet.

"He didn't answer my questions, so he will have to come back, and he will have to answer all the questions," said Bloc MP Carole Freeman (Châteauguay-Saint-Constant, Que.). "He will stay there as long as he doesn't answer...We won't give up."

Mr. Easter said he walked away from the meeting "more suspicious than when I went in."

"Yesterday's performance at the committee suggests to me [the Tories] were trying to prevent testimony," he said. "I wasn't satisfied by the answers I was given. I was dismayed by the efforts of government members, including the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, to basically prevent a hearing on a very serious issue under the Access to Information Act."

NDP committee member Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas, B.C.) was more forgiving, saying that "in terms of my own questions, I felt there was some effort made to answer them."

He said he was struck by Mr. Togneri's apparent lack of familiarity with the ATI Act, particularly Sec. 67's anti-interference provisions. He added that the testimony revealed a degree of confusion or ignorance surrounding the ATI Act itself, as well as a lack of clarity among staffers on what role they play with relation to ATI requests.

Just before Question Period Thursday, Tory MP Chris Warkentin (Peace River, Alta.) made a statement on the floor of the Commons attacking the committee's chair and the "ethical bankruptcy of the Liberal Party."

Mr. Warkentin, who sits on the Ethics Committee, took issue with the fact that Mr. Szabo spoke with Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault that morning, before Mr. Togneri's testimony.

"He had a private conversation with the interim Information Commissioner about an ongoing investigation," Mr. Warkentin said. "No member of the House should be engaged in a private conversation with a legal authority about an ongoing investigation in the middle of that investigation.

"Yet, the member for Mississauga South threw due process and respect for the independent authority of that officer completely out the window by attempting to influence, interfere or direct that independent officer of Parliament," he continued. "This is highly inappropriate, grossly unethical, and shows yet again why the Liberal Party cannot be trusted."

jdavis@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times