Canadian Heritage Committee on May 3rd, 2012

[Mary Shenstone]

I think we're all under lots of pressure. I think that's the way life is. I think it's our job to help with that. We certainly act as subnationals. We recognize that we are subnational and we have jurisdiction over that. When we sign and negotiate international memoranda of understanding, for instance, we always run them by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to make sure they don't contravene any international treaty obligations Canada would have.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Okay.

[Dwight MacAulay]

There are two sides to that. One is our representative and our ambassador or high commissioner in a different country; the other is that we deal with the ambassadors here. If we're going to another country, we'll liaise with the ambassador here. If we're going to China, for example, we might touch base with the ambassador from China to Canada and get some help on that. Most of us have our own people on the ground in many different nations, and they do a lot of groundwork as well.

Dealing with our embassy in another country is just simply one slice of that pie. It's not that everything flows through the embassy. We'll eventually tell them our program, but we do seek advice on different points. We seek advice on different areas as well. For example, if an ambassador from a country visits the Premier of Manitoba, he might say, “Please come to my country.” And the premier might say, “That's a good idea. I'm thinking of going there.” That ambassador will start working on things, and then we will tell our ambassador in that nation, “Heads up, we'd like to come over”, and we'd ask for any advice and so on. Usually all of these missions have a significant trade aspect as well—if we take over companies that are already doing a lot of substantial business in these countries.

[Mary Shenstone]

We find our Canadian ambassadors and consuls general abroad incredibly helpful. They are instrumental in the success of our missions. We very much rely on them, and they are our Canadian officials abroad. So we recognize that they're there to serve us.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I've noticed that. I've noticed that many ambassadors or consuls I've spoken with, generally in Europe, where I travel with Canada-Europe, seem to have a pretty good relationship with provinces. Jurisdictions like the Middle East may be a little dicey, and there are certainly some areas you don't want to go to. Now that you've become more proactive in the international field, it's obviously something that has put added pressure on you. Maybe you can expand to deal with that or be more intertwined with Foreign Affairs.

That's only my opinion, of course.

I think that's it for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Mr. Calandra, you're going to be last. Maybe you could keep it to around four minutes so we have time to go into—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'll ask just one question then. Hopefully it will be just one question.

I keep hearing the word “accommodation” and about making people feel comfortable. That's fine, but I'm wondering why, if that's the ultimate goal of protocol, you call yourself protocol and not simply communications and accommodation experts? What role do you have in helping...or do you feel there is no role? Perhaps this is part of the confusion. Is there no role for protocol officers such as you to actually guarantee that some of the things you're doing fit with the traditions of our founding peoples and are not deviated from, or if they are, that they're deviated from over a very long period of time, so that the ultimate goal should be preservation of historic traditions that helped build this country rather than comfort and accommodation?

If we are looking at protocol, should there be two different versions? Some events are historic and preserved as protocol, but if they are not in that vein, then the communications people should perhaps take over. We don't deviate on how Parliament is opened. It is as it is. We might deviate on whether a person can come into Parliament and feed her newborn baby. That changes. But the ceremonies of opening it don't change.

I got in trouble when I walked between the mace and the Speaker; I didn't know I couldn't do that. I got in trouble when I took a picture in the House; I didn't know I couldn't that. I got in trouble when I took my jacket off in the House; I didn't know I couldn't do that. That was in the first week of Parliament. I didn't know I couldn't do any of that and I missed the session.

Do you not also see yourselves as having a responsibility not only for accommodating but also for protecting some of the traditions the country was built on?

[Dwight MacAulay]

You're absolutely right.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Then how do we do that if we don't write that down and if we're constantly accommodating and looking to appease and comfort people?

[Mary Shenstone]

But we do write things down. We have the tradition of respect for our sovereign. We do write that down. We write down how we will address our sovereign and what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't. So we do write a lot of things down. I wouldn't want to give you the impression that we don't write things down. We write a lot of things down. A lot of things are left to flexibility. It's both at the same time. It's flexible, but also much of it is written down in different ways in different settings.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

What methods do you use to try to guarantee what you're doing follows an accurate tradition?

You mentioned that it might not have been done right before. Can the government help? Can we do more to help bring about better standards for protocol?

Are we doing enough federally? I know you mentioned our presence, but are there other avenues we can use to bring provinces and municipalities together to make it easier for everybody to understand basic guidelines?

[Mary Shenstone]

I think the federal government is doing an excellent job of working with us on these issues. They are sharing with us what is written down, answering questions when we have them, and understanding where it is something that is flexible and something that isn't.

If I were to give you an opinion on where there might be a greater need, I think some very small communities might be interested because they may not know where to turn. I appreciate, as we all have, that faced with different levels of government it can be overwhelming; they're not quite sure whether this is provincial or federal.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

Thank you to our witnesses, Ms. Shenstone, Mr. MacAulay, and Ms. Bowles. We really appreciate your input and your suggestions for us as we're conducting this study.

We will suspend for 30 seconds while we go in camera and then into committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]