Sebastien Togneri is the director of parliamentary affairs to Christian Paradis, the minister of natural resources and, last week, won “most wanted” status by two House of Commons committees.
The House of Commons Government Operations and Estimates committee wants him to testify about how he urged meetings between Rahim Jaffer and departmental bureaucrats when his boss, Paradis, was minister of public works and goverment services. Meanwhile, the House of Commons Access to Information, Ethics, and Privacy committee had to compel him to testify last week via a subpoena about his role in trying to “unrelease” some records bureaucrats in PWGSC were about to give to a reporter who had made a request under the Access to Information act.
My experience with political aides is that, generally speaking, this is way too much spotlight for a staffer.
Thrust into the spotlight, Togneri did his best last week to scramble back into the shadows by providing singularly unhelpful answers to the questions put to him by opposition MPs. ( I suppose those MPs should have expected that to happen). Meanwhile, Togneri was very pleased to answer questions put to him by the Conservative MPs on the ethics committee most of which were along the lines of “Are you committed to accountability and transparency?”
But there was one question which made Togneri and other Conservatives squirm: Who paid for the lawyer which first advised Togneri not to testify and then sat beside throughout his testimony, whispering occasional advice to him?
BQ MP Eve-Mary Thai Thi Lac asked that question of Togneri. At first Togneri challenged the MP as to its relevance. That, of course, is not something witnesses do. As a witness, you answer the question. The committee and its chair will decide on the relevance of the answer. (Speaking of which, one spectacularly irrelevant exchange occurred when Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre spent 7 minutes or so asking Togneri about his career as a Parliamentary tour guide) Then, after consulting with his lawyer, Togneri said he did not have to answer Thi Lac's question because of solicitor-client privilege. I hope that wasn't legal advice he paid for because any law student will tell you that the privilege belongs to the client — i.e. Togneri — and as a result the client is free to say anything he wants about his relationship with his lawyer.
Now before I continue, I should note at this point that when Togneri was asked by several Conservative MPs if we was committed to transparency and accountability, he said he “Yes.”
Except, I guess, when it comes to answering “The taxpayers of Canada” when an MP asks him several times at a House of Commons committee who paid for his lawyer.
Finding out that it was, indeed, not Togneri but you and I paying for his lawyer took a long time. I asked Togneri myself after the meeting had concluded but he declined to say anything. One of his colleagues also refused to say but promised to get back to me later that day with an answer. And so, later that day, good to their word, Paradis' communications director Margaux Stastny called to say I would have to get the answer I was looking for from the media relations people at the Treasury Board and that, no, she could not give me the “yes or no” answer I was seeking to the question: Are taxpayers paying Togneri's legal bills?
So I phoned up and e-mailed Pierre-Alain Bujold, the media relations spokesperson, at Treasury Board.
Bujold responded promptly by providing me with a link to Treasury Board's Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification which was all very good and interesting but, as I replied to him, that really wasn't the answer to the question: Is the government paying Togneri's legal bills? To which Bujold replied: “The policy clearly sets forth the conditions under which legal assistance can be provided.” And so I was back to Stastny …
She called late in the day to apologize for the runaround and to tell me that, yes, Togneri's bills for the services of lawyer Jean-François Lecours were being paid by taxpayers.
Why is this such an important point?
Togneri has hired Lecours because Togneri is the subject of an investigation by Parliament's Information Commissioner who is investigating allegations that Togneri violated the Access to Information Act by interfering with the release of records requested under the Act. Opposition MPs — and the information commissioner, presumably — wanted to know why he did that? Was he acting independently? Was he acting on orders from Paradis or political aides in the PMO? In other words, will he try to take the fall for someone?
And so the question about who is paying for his lawyer is really a way of asking whose interests is that lawyer protecting? Is the lawyer acting in the best interests of Togneri or is the lawyer acting in the best interests of the government?
“Was he acting independently? Was he acting on orders from Paradis or political aides in the PMO? In other words, will he try to take the fall for someone?
And so the question about who is paying for his lawyer is really a way of asking whose interests is that lawyer protecting? Is the lawyer acting in the best interests of Togneri or is the lawyer acting in the best interests of the government?”
I think you need to take a valium here, David. Most people who find themselves in a situation where they require the services of a lawyer because of a workplace incident would expect the employer to pay for those services.
If you as a journalist, for instance, in pursuit of a story got yourself in a situation where you got hauled before a parliamentary committee to answer for your actions, I imagine you would expect Canwest to provide you with legal counsel. Would that guy be acting in your best interests or those of the newspaper ? It couldn't possibly be that those interests are somewhat aligned, could it ?
As for not wanting to admit the taxpayer was footing the bill here, well just how long have you been on Parliament Hill ?