Cabinet Office general counsel William Bromm continued to testify at the gas plants trial on Monday, where he defended the actions of senior civil servants responding to unprecedented decisions brought on by the lack of gas plants records. The Cabinet Office's lawyer faced sometimes testy cross-examination by the defence counsel, who also sought to undermine his independence by highlighting his working relationship with Cabinet Secretary Peter Wallace.
Bromm and Wallace had independently testified that co-defendant David Livingston, the former chief of staff to Dalton McGuinty, expressed ignorance or contempt of parliament's powers. In his role as general counsel, Bromm helped Wallace prepare for his testimony to the gas plants committee. The defence team noted occurrences where Wallace and Bromm used the same or similar language, seemingly in an effort to undermine their credibility.
Livingston and former McGuinty deputy chief of staff Laura Miller have pleaded not guilty to three charges related to deleting computer records in the aftermath of the gas plants cancellations.
The strategy by the defence follows testimony by both Wallace and Bromm that was critical of Livingston's behaviour and attitudes when it came to a request from parliament to produce gas plants records. Wallace testified last week that Livingston characterized the opposition's request for gas plants documents as "political bullshit," and in Bromm's testimony he said Livingston described the request as "ridiculous."
Bromm also testified to how senior civil servants tried to make the province's records retention policies clear to political staff. "Based on everything that had transpired, there would have been no question... [the rules behind] having records and keeping records was something that no one would need to write down," he testified in response to a follow-up question by the Crown. But Bromm conceded to the defence counsel that in the absence of a "<a href="https://www.ipc.on.ca/newsrelease/information-commissioners-call-on-governments-to-create-a-duty-to-document/">duty to document</a>" law in Ontario, some potential documents may not have existed in the first place.
Like the cross-examination of Wallace, the questioning of Bromm turned hostile at times. At one point, defence counsel Scott Hutchison asked Bromm whether a memo he wrote about records retention specifically said that only IT staff could delete computer records. The cabinet officer lawyer said when he wrote the memo the idea that this would occur would not have entered his mind, but given past events, he would write different instructions today. When Hutchison tried again to get him to admit that the memo did not forbid an outsider wiping computers, Bromm said he was trying to apply the memo to its appropriate context. "You are not giving me the same courtesy," the civil servant said.
Bromm also spoke to an ongoing effect of the gas plants computer records scandal; since it broke in 2013, very few emails are now being deleted by civil servants or political staff, he said.

Cabinet Office lawyer defends actions in gas plants email testimony

Read this for free.