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

[Louise Baird]

Again, I wasn't involved at the time when the issue first came about. In hindsight, I'd say if you look at that description, because of the confusion and the misinformation, it probably was not factual—to use one of the words from that requirement.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Turning to the directive on the management of communications, section 6.10 provides that heads of communications are responsible for ensuring that communications products and activities are “clear, timely, accurate” as indicated.

In your opinion, was this complied with?

[Louise Baird]

From the discussions at this committee and what the RCMP talked about, I think there was some confusion—a lack of clarity.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Finally, section 8.1.2 of the directive states that the Privy Council Office is responsible for providing “leadership, challenge, strategic direction, and coordination” of departmental communications.

In your opinion, was there a failure here in respect of the RCMP documents?

[Louise Baird]

I think what should have been a fairly routine web posting would probably not have been shared with PCO.

[Stephanie Kusie]

In your opinion, do you think it's necessary that something as simple as “respect Parliament” shouldn't need to be written down in a policy manual for public servants, or something similar to that nature?

[Louise Baird]

I alluded to the values and ethics in my opening remarks. I think public servants are guided by that, and that includes something like respect for Parliament and democracy.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Finally, what do you think needs to occur so that a contempt such as this never occurs again?

[Louise Baird]

There is definitely room for reminders. Through our well-established channels, we are certainly happy to go out and remind people about their responsibilities in this area.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you very much, Madam Baird.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Ms. Kusie.

Now we'll go on to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I come at this conversation, not unlike other conversations, with a healthy dose of ignorance of the topic.

This question of privilege is where we're at. I assume that's not part of the training across departments.

We were just talking about it with the security services. When we hire new security members to the Hill, that is part of the training. The interaction between security outside of a parliamentary precinct would be very different here because of this notion of privilege, which has been long guarded by this Parliament and others.

Regarding this question of privilege that was breached—and I suspect breached here—is that in the training for communications staff across the federal government? I assume they wouldn't understand—unless they had a real nerd effect for parliamentary privilege—what it is and why it would affect their day-to-day work.

[Louise Baird]

I'm not aware of any training as part of communications training. PCO, among their responsibilities, may or may not have something like that. I don't know.

In my area, for example, I have responsibility for both parliamentary affairs and communications, and the groups work very closely together. We have the experts there to get advice from, and we do training sessions within our department and appearances at committee, understanding the parliamentary procedures.

System-wide, though, that wouldn't be under the communications policy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The communications people working for some federal department or agency, including the RCMP, wouldn't understand why this might be important and why this is seen as a problem by Parliament.

If I understand this correctly, what was released was as if the legislation had been passed and was now law. That's a problem for Parliament. It gives the public—correct me if I'm wrong—an impression that is not factually correct and can lead to other unintended consequences. For instance, with MPs voting on legislation that our constituents think is already law, we might get “Why did you vote against this when it's already...?”

You can understand where that misunderstanding gives us grief as parliamentarians. Is that fair?

[Louise Baird]

From what I understand of this specific situation, there was a process mistake. A head of communications is responsible for the web content. Heads of communications around town would definitely understand the appropriate language to use in terms of parliamentary privilege.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is “proposed”. This is...

[Louise Baird]

Yes, absolutely. “If passed”, “proposed changes”, and all those sorts of things.

My understanding of this specific RCMP situation is that it didn't go through the appropriate level of approval.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As my friend Mr. Simms pointed out, this sticks on both the timeliness and non-partisan nature of the communications.

I would also raise a similar bill where we have departments, in that case, Elections Canada, already acting as if legislation had passed in order to prepare. You seem to concur that this is a good practice.

The problem comes when that legislation is still being debated, especially over contentious things: gun control, gun classification, the election rules. These are not casual things for Canadians. It can create an environment in which the federal agency starts to be perceived as biased and in favour of these changes rather than the one that enacts the changes.

Do you follow my logic?

[Louise Baird]

I do. I think it's important to be open and transparent.

There should be communications about bills, but they need to be very clearly positioned as “bills with proposed changes”, “if passed”, with all of that very clear language within them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We guard this jealously. This idea that Parliament is just an afterthought.... Sometimes in majority governments it can be perceived as, “Oh, that legislation is proposed by government. They have a majority. It's going to be law.” That eliminates all of the due process we are supposed to be engaged in here on behalf of Canadians.

I have a last question. Have there been any consequences for this mistake?

[Louise Baird]

Not from us. No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

From within the RCMP that you're aware of...?

[Louise Baird]

I don't know the details.

I know they have changed their processes. They have ratcheted up what the approval levels have to be. I assume there have been—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sorry, by “ratcheted up”, do you mean it's going to a higher level before it's signed off?

[Louise Baird]

A higher level of approvals, yes.