Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Charles Robert]

That's a determination that's really made by you as parliamentarians.

Looking at it historically, in the United Kingdom, in the four studies that have been made since the Second World War—in 1967, 1977, 1999, and I think 2013 was the last—you can see that there is a greater sensitivity to public participation and a retrenchment of the notion of privilege to those aspects that parliamentarians believe are still fundamental and crucial to how they conduct their business, and also, from the public perspective, how Parliament retains its authority and dignity.

For contempt, previously, newspapers were hauled before Parliament regularly for any sort of untoward criticism of parliamentarians or Parliament itself. Here we're talking about something that's quite different. We're talking about a partner in the system of government. We're talking about the executive, and historically, in Canada, there has been some sensitivity to how governments might make statements that make assumptions about the work that Parliament is undertaking, and that is where this issue has come up and it's not the first time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 30 seconds.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Hopefully we'll get another round. Will we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll try.

Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Madame Baird and Madame Headley.

Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, notwithstanding its independence in respect of specific law enforcement operations, governed by the policy on communications and federal identity, and the directive on the management of communications?

[Louise Baird]

Yes, it is.

[Stephanie Kusie]

What consequences follow an episode of non-compliance with those documents?

[Louise Baird]

Generally...?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Yes, generally, please.

[Louise Baird]

There is a range of things that can be done in cases of non-compliance. Typically, our starting point, depending on the seriousness of the nature of the infraction, would be to work with the department to correct it, to fix it. We would then make sure that the department was aware, maybe give a bit of a training session with their staff so that they were clearly aware of the rules under the communications policy and the directive.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Would the two RCMP online publications that led to this study have been subject to those two policy instruments?

[Louise Baird]

Yes, the RCMP does fall under that.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Do you believe that the RCMP publications complied with the policy and the directive?

[Louise Baird]

The issue was never brought to us at the Treasury Board Secretariat as a compliance issue. We obviously have learned about it since then. The accountabilities—what I spoke about a bit at the beginning—are clear for the deputy and the head of communications.

In this case, the head of communications has responsibility for the content on their websites. It sounds like there were process problems in terms of who was approving that web content. I understand the RCMP is now looking at or has modified their processes to ensure they have the appropriate level of approvals in place.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Of course, policies are usually meant to cover general matters, but I believe there are times when specific issues get addressed. One example is that the directive on the management of communications has specific rules on pre-election communications. In fact, Treasury Board ministers amended that specific element just last month after Conservatives insisted that the government had made the playing field far too uneven with its Bill C-76 proposals.

Back to the specific study, is there any guidance in any of the federal government's communication policies concerning communications about parliamentary business?

[Louise Baird]

There's nothing in the policy that talks about communications generally around parliamentary business. There is one very specific requirement to do with advertising, which says that you can't advertise anything if it requires parliamentary approval, before that approval is secured.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Do you have any insight as to why there might be nothing?

[Louise Baird]

Do I know why there might be nothing in the policy? I think it's that the policy, as you mentioned, is not at that level of granularity.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Do you believe that we need to make a recommendation in our report that says that you should amend these policy instruments to add a reminder to respect Parliament?

[Louise Baird]

I think that's up to the committee and what they would like to recommend. I do think that there are some tools at our disposal that guide communications officials in the government that may be better placed to provide this type of guidance. We have a well-used document called the “Canada.ca Content Style Guide”, which prescribes how text should be written specifically for the web. We can share the link with the committee if you're interested. It does have that level of granularity and detail on the written word. It might be an appropriate place to include some of that guidance.

[Stephanie Kusie]

It's unfortunate that PCO officials couldn't be here with us today. With regard to that, I'll ask you these questions about coordination and approvals, given your role with regard to the ministerial aspect of your position.

What types of communications products need to be sent to the Privy Council Office for review and/or approvals by the centre?

[Louise Baird]

There's not a black and white rule around that. There's daily discussion with PCO between communications groups. It's usually the higher profile announcement, or something maybe with a very high dollar value, or if there are some sensitivities, then there's more of a coordination role for the PCO in that.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you.

Given that PCO has more officials who are immediately aware of Parliament's rights and privileges, should draft communications about parliamentary business be referred to them, either as a requirement of policy or simply a suggestion to avoid problems, so that problems like these RCMP documents can be caught and prevented?

[Louise Baird]

The PCO certainly has the expertise within their area. Maybe not in the communications group, but in the legislative and House planning area, they have the expertise on parliamentary procedure.

[Stephanie Kusie]

I'm going back to the document. Section 6.3.1 of the policy says that deputy heads are responsible for ensuring that their department provides “objective, factual and non-partisan information”.

In your opinion, was that requirement satisfied by the RCMP documents?