Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rules of Parliament met this day at 9:33 a.m. to consider the matter of the government's erroneous statement concerning the proceedings of the Senate, as appeared on its website "actionplan.gc.ca" and, pursuant to rule 86(1)(f)(i), to consider the printing of an updated version of the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.
The first item on the agenda is Senator Cowan's question of privilege about the information posted on the Government of Canada's website "actionplan.gc.ca." Even if you have the relevant portions of the Debates of the Senate at hand, allow me to outline the situation for you.
[English]
On a question of privilege, on March 26, Senator Cowan brought to the attention of the Senate a passage on the website in question, which, in his view, could be interpreted as implying the Senate had not passed Bill C-10, the 2009 budget implementation bill, even though it had done so on March 12, some 14 days earlier. When this matter was brought to the attention of government officials, the offending passage was not taken down until some time later, according to Senator Cowan. In fact, the Speaker determined that the website was updated with the correct information at 2:43 p.m. that afternoon.
On March 31, in ruling on the prima facie issue of whether the question raised was, indeed, a question of privilege, the Speaker looked at the evidence before him and could not determine that there had been a deliberate contempt of the Senate, and therefore ruled that the matter was not, on the face of it, a question of privilege for the purposes of our procedures. His decision was overruled by decision of the Senate, and Senator Cowan was permitted to move the order of reference now before us, which was passed on April 21 and referred to this committee.
The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure met the same day and agreed that the best course of action would be to bring before us an official who could explain how this erroneous information remained on the website for so long after the bill was passed, and why it took so long after it was brought to the attention of the government for the information to be removed.
[Translation]
This is why we have with us today Mr. Laurent Marcoux, the Acting Director General of Operations, Communications and Consultations, in the Privy Council Office. When he has made his opening remarks, you will be able to put your questions to him.
Mr. Marcoux, welcome to our committee. Could you give us some insight into these very important issues?
Laurent Marcoux, Acting Director General of Operations, Communications and Consultations, Privy Council Office: Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to share with you some information and explanation about the posting of an erroneous statement on the Canada's Economic Action Plan website from March 12 to March 26, 2009.
First of all, let me express to all of you my deepest and most sincere regret for this operational error for which I am accountable.
If you will permit me, I would like to provide you with information on three specific topics, namely, the launching of this site and the circumstances that led to this erroneous post, what happened in the period from March 12 to 26, and the measures that have been put in place since to ensure that a similar mistake never happens again.
[English]
The site itself has evolved rapidly over the last few months. It was initially launched by the Department of Finance on February 4, eight days after the tabling of Budget 2009. It was then redesigned and essentially re-launched by the Privy Council Office on March 11, 2009, the date —
The Chair: Can I ask you to go a little more slowly? I am trying to make notes of the dates and so on. I will not cut you off but please take your time and proceed more slowly.
Senator Smith: Can you repeat the date it was launched?
The Chair: Was it February 4?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, the site was initially launched on February 4 by the Department of Finance, eight days after the tabling of Budget 2009. It was then essentially redesigned and launched anew on March 11, which was the date of the tabling of the first report to Canadians on Canada's Economic Action Plan.
In a nutshell, our Web staff at that time worked exceptionally long hours both before and immediately after the re-launch of the site to gather the material for the content of the site, to design the new features and look of the site, and to identify and correct any number of technical problems and errors that had to be addressed for and immediately after the period of the launch.
In other words, an intense developmental and troubleshooting period immediately preceded the launch and for the period thereafter, until March 26. This developmental and troubleshooting work continues to this day as the site continues to evolve, as we seek to add new features, new information and new components, and to further strengthen the governance and management of the site to ensure that as much information as can be is provided to Canadians on this subject.
For us, on an operational basis, we knew that this website would be a big challenge, in terms of both workload and management. We had, at the time, one full-time web staff person. We do not, as a rule, manage thematic horizontal sites such as this one. Usually, a lead department is identified and has the responsibility for managing and maintaining such a site that cuts across many government departments and many subject areas. In this particular case, we knew that we would have a challenge before us, so we immediately sought out additional staff. On March 13, an additional web expert joined our team. A second person joined on March 16, a third person on April 20, and we are expecting a fourth member next week. Of course, as the new staff arrived, they were integrated into the web team and put to work on the development and troubleshooting of the site.
[Translation]
I emphasize these operational challenges, not to make excuses, but to point out that our workload at the time was intense, and to make it clear that, at the end of the day, we always, and I mean always, acted in good faith when dealing with the information on that site.
Despite the fact that the error occurred sometime beforehand and was mentioned in a television news report on March 25, I myself had not it. I was told, on the evening of March 26, that the site was to be immediately updated. This was done during the night. At 7 a.m. the next morning, March 27, I received confirmation that the update had indeed been made.
[English]
Since then, a number of measures have been taken to remedy the situation. That same day, March 27, when the site was updated, a complete page-by-page review of the site was undertaken by our web team to verify all content for accuracy, timeliness, accessibility, et cetera. The next work day, March 30, a new procedure was implemented to ensure a daily review of the content of the site by our web team, both the dynamic and the static pages, both for the renewal and refreshment, that is, the addition of new information, but also for the updating and removal of the information that may be dated.
More recently, we have begun to develop a tool, a map, that identifies all time-sensitive material in any page of the site with a view to identifying both the content and the date for refreshment to ensure that we put into place, frankly, a more efficient and effective means of ensuring that we verify the content for timeliness on an ongoing basis.
As of last week, we have also integrated our content staff into this review to ensure that not only the web team but folks with more knowledge about the economic action plan measures themselves are integrated into part of this review to ensure that the information on the site continues to be timely and relevant.
[Translation]
I will conclude by stressing that I sincerely regret this error. I must point out that it is indeed an error, not an ill-intentioned act on our part. My earnest hope is that the steps that have been taken and that continue to be taken to ensure the proper management of this site will ensure that Canadians have meticulous and up-to-date information about the government's Economic Action Plan.
That was my brief overview; I will be happy to answer committee members' questions to the best of my ability.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for the overview and detailed explanation. I have a list of honourable senators who wish to pose questions, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: I want to refer to the sentence, "Senators must do their part and ensure quick passage of this vital legislation." This is part of that paragraph that starts, "While the House of Commons has passed this legislation . . ."
Senator Corbin: Where are you quoting from?
Senator Smith: That was on the web, is it not?
Senator Corbin: I only wanted to know.
The Chair: An extract was provided to all senators of everything that was said.
Senator Smith: I am quoting from Senator Cowan's speech in Senate Debates:
While the House of Commons has passed this legislation, the Senate must still approve the Act for it to become law. Senators must do their part and ensure quick passage of this vital legislation.
Can you confirm that passage was on the website?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Smith: Who wrote it?
Mr. Marcoux: I cannot tell you who wrote it. I can tell you how we gather the information. It comes from a wide variety of sources. The information that is posted, including the information that went up at that time, is drawn from reports, announcements, speeches, comments from ministers and news releases. It is impossible for me to trace the exact author of that particular piece of work essentially because of the wide range of sources that are used to gather information.
Senator Smith: Is it possible that the information came right from the minister's office?
Mr. Marcoux: It is possible, but I cannot confirm or deny that.
Senator Smith: Of course, there was an error in fact here, but apart from whether there was an error in fact, that passage sounds like a partisan narrative. Forget which party is in office and which party is not. Think of the institution here. It says, "Senators must do their part and ensure quick passage of this vital legislation."
In fact, there was quick passage, but if there had been many problems, even more problems, and due diligence was occurring, do you think that sort of terminology is appropriate as to what senators must do?
Mr. Marcoux: Certainly, it behoved us to ensure that the information was at all times accurate and factual. With the passage of the bill in the Senate, clearly the information was not. That was an oversight, frankly, on my part.
Senator Smith: There is a difference between a fact and an opinion. That sentence is not in the fact category; it is in the opinion category. The statement, "Senators must do their part and ensure quick passage of this vital legislation," is an opinion. Suppose the Senate was performing due diligence and committees were sitting many hours a day, but the bill was so complicated that it was taking time. The point I make here is that I do not think that taxpayer dollars should be expended for the Government of Canada to pay for what essentially are partisan comments on a website paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Do you agree with that comment?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, I do.
Senator Smith: However, you do not know whether that comment came from the minister's office?
Mr. Marcoux: No.
Senator Smith: Let me make a comment here. I am not trying to score little partisan points here. I am really not. However, this passage does offend me. Is this the way that your group running this website intends to continue? I do not know what your budget is. Do you know what your budget is?
Mr. Marcoux: It is evolving all the time.
Senator Smith: Do you mean it is growing all the time?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Smith: If this is what you will be doing, I think it should be chopped and shut down. There is no way that taxpayer dollars should fund a website of the Government of Canada that makes partisan remarks not even based on fact; they are only opinions of a partisan nature. I do not want to take up more time, but that is my point in a nutshell.
I recognize that you apologized and I respect that. The apology is on the record. Regardless of which party is in government, and that will change — hopefully sooner rather than later, but time will tell — but we do not want this sort of thing happening. If it does happen, I will move motions to chop this whole website, frankly.
Do you have any further comment in response?
Mr. Marcoux: No.
The Chair: Senator Smith, you have not acknowledged some of the other things that the witness said, such as that they have made a number of changes since this problem arose. They are developing time-sensitive information: they are hiring new staff and integrating staff to do all that work. There was another part to what he had to say apart from the apology.
Senator Smith: Although they are increasing the budget.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, we all heard what you just said. There is no need for you to repeat it. Now that it has been said, we understand the message.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I have a couple points before I put the question to Mr. Marcoux. First, in connection with your introduction, chair, I think there may have been a misprint in your script. As I heard you — and correct me if I did not hear you correctly — you said that on the famous day of March 26, the speaker had confirmed that as of 2:43 p.m., the website had been corrected. What happened at 2:43 p.m. that day was that the speaker confirmed that the website had not yet been corrected. I wanted to be sure the record had that sequence of events clear because it might influence those studying the proceedings of this committee.
Second, I endorse the position outlined by Senator Smith. I believe that Mr. Marcoux and his staff do what their employers wish them to do to the best of their ability. However, as a senator I find it offensive to think that the Privy Council is telling me what I must and must not do. I also found it offensive when my own party was in power as well. This struggle is a continuing one.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Marcoux. We are pleased to have you here.
[English]
I have a couple questions to try to figure out how things happened here.
You said you were informed on the evening of March 26. That is roughly 24 hours after the CTV report?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Who informed you?
Mr. Marcoux: My boss informed me.
Senator Fraser: That is a good person. Is this person in the Privy Council or is this a minister?
Mr. Marcoux: My boss is the assistant secretary of cabinet.
Senator Fraser: He informed you that changes must be made?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Is that the normal procedure for errors to be signalled?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, if I had not signalled it, flagged it and changed it myself.
Senator Fraser: I am particularly interested in this procedure because although many, probably most, people became aware of the error on the website when CTV broadcast the news on the evening of March 25, the matter had been raised earlier that day in a House of Commons committee. I happened to catch this item on CPAC. It was mentioned more than once that this error was on the website. I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who was one of the people present in the committee room. A flag was sent up before CTV broadcast the item. That means there was an even longer gap in time between the first public notice given of this error, and word reaching you.
I was impressed when you talked about how you now have a daily review system and you are bringing in mechanisms on time-sensitive material, et cetera. Those mechanisms are all wonderful. Do they include following what happens in parliamentary proceedings such as committees? I realize that task is vast.
Mr. Marcoux: They do. The challenge, of course, is making the links between the enormous amounts of information processed before Parliament at any given time and the content on the site. A person in the communications secretariat performs that kind of tracking.
To avoid what occurred here, which is information not being passed on to the website, we try proactively to flag everything that might be remotely time-sensitive. We are trying to seek out where legislation might be, or where a particular announcement or project might be.
Tracking occurs. I do not think, in and of itself, the tracking is sufficient. We are trying to come at this issue from a different perspective. Our intent to involve in the review not simply our web people, but also our communications analysts is for that purpose as well. Communications analysts are the people most up-to-date with events and movements on any particular issue or file with respect to the economic action plan. Again, the idea is to try to ensure that we avoid that kind of gap by having content people look at the site material. We are trying to come at this issue from as many different ways as possible.
I did not mention that, on a daily basis, the communications staff meet together at a round table at which our parliamentary affairs person is present. Since this meeting has occurred, we make a point everyday of flagging any items that might be relevant or important to address on the website. That process is an information sharing one in which we try to avoid that kind of problem.
Senator Fraser: Thank you. If you can put me down for the second round, Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Mr. Marcoux, are you familiar with the legislative role of the Senate in the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Marcoux: I believe so.
Senator Corbin: In simple terms, how do you see the role of the Senate in the process of approval of legislative matters before Parliament?
Mr. Marcoux: A legislative matter cannot become law without the approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and, thereafter, assent from the Governor General.
Senator Corbin: Does the Senate of Canada have a time limit for studying a bill, in your opinion?
Mr. Marcoux: Honestly, I do not know.
Senator Corbin: You do not know?
Mr. Marcoux: No, I could not tell you. I would think that the answer is no, given that the Senate is a legislative chamber in its own right.
Senator Corbin: So what does the following comment mean? I quote: "Senators must do their part and ensure quick passage of this vital legislation."
How do you interpret the word "quick"? Does that not suggest a timeline, in a rather underhanded way?
Mr. Marcoux: I think that it would be inappropriate for a website to impose a limit, general or specific, on the Senate's work.
Senator Corbin: In general, have the people working on this website been well trained in the Senate's role in the process by which a bill becomes law?
Mr. Marcoux: They are aware as I am aware; that is, they have some awareness, the awareness of an average Canadian.
They are people whose main training is technical, in information technology. We are supported by communications experts, not experts in Senate procedures and operations. We have a basic knowledge of that role, as do all Canadians.
Senator Corbin: I will make just one comment: I am not very impressed.
[English]
My second question is, were ministerial-exempt staff from any source involved in the preparation of this text?
[Translation]
Mr. Marcoux: I cannot confirm that, but it would not surprise me.
Senator Corbin: So that means that it is quite possible that staff from the minister's office, staff who are not public servants, could have worked on the drafting of this text.
Mr. Marcoux: For this specific text, as I have already told committee members, I do not know who wrote it or where it came from. As to the content of the site in general, yes, we discuss the strategic objectives of the content of all the information and material on the site with the Prime Minister's Office. This is provided for in the government's communication policy; just like a media release or even a speech, a dialogue with the political level is required. It is the same for websites in general, both this one and the other departmental sites.
Senator Corbin: Those are my questions for the moment.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Marcoux, before you took up your current position, what did you do?
Mr. Marcoux: I was Director General of Public Opinion Research and Advertising Coordination at the Department of Public Works. Prior to that, I worked at Communication Canada and the Canada Information Office.
Senator Joyal: Your professional training and experience should normally allow you to understand the way parliamentary institutions work and, specifically, the particular role of each of both houses of Parliament.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Joyal: In your opinion, should the Senate simply be content to pass bills sent to it by the House of Commons, or should the Senate also undertake its own study of a bill that is as complex as a budget bill of 350 pages and that amends 22 pieces of legislation?
In your opinion, does the Senate simply have to ensure "quick passage" of the bill, as you say in the text, or is it the Senate's role to determine the comments or amendments that it may wish to make to the bill?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes. I would not wish to suggest that the Senate must automatically pass a bill as significant and as complex as this one. In this particular case, finding the appropriate balance in the text required thorough work, but, at the same time, work that was as quick as possible, given the global economic circumstances.
This is my interpretation. I did not write the text. I cannot tell you the intent behind it, but this is what I would suppose.
Senator Joyal: Do you know that, as it examined the bill, the Senate identified clauses dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Act that had extremely significant implications for taxpayers, and that those provisions had not been examined in the House of Commons, nor by the department, nor by the minister, nor by other witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons?
Mr. Marcoux: I know that the matter was raised in the Senate.
Senator Joyal: In order to conduct a serious review of the bill and identify shortcomings, mistakes and important implications for Canadian taxpayers, should the Senate take a reasonable amount of time to study a bill?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, given the overall circumstances.
Senator Joyal: In my opinion, what is really improper in the paragraph at issue is that, even given that the text was removed from the site when the bill passed by the Senate, on March 12, that is, the drafting is reprehensible in itself and should not happen again in the future. We are talking about the Privy Council of Canada, a body representing all Canadians. Using the Privy Council website to post, or hint at, an order to one of the two houses of Parliament is contrary to Canada's Constitution Act.
As you said, the Senate must give its approval before an act can receive assent from the Governor General. The Senate also has complete independence in the way it operates and in the way it studies and reviews bills; essentially, in fact, review can be said to be the Senate's basic role.
I feel that it is your responsibility to make sure that the staff helping you to write and edit texts should not take a text from any source without looking at it closely in order to determine whether it contains erroneous statements that do not accurately reflect the constitutional role of the two houses of Parliament.
I ask you to take the text and read it with me. I feel that if it simply read, and I quote:
While the House of Commons has passed the legislation, the Senate must approve the act for it to become law.
If the text stopped there, there would be no debate and you would not be before us today. But the text contains a veiled order to senators of all parties, not to say the institution, to ensure quick passage of the legislation and to do their part.
In other words, doing their part suggests that they should not fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. That to me is the major problem with the way the text is written. It sets the duty of senators to review legislation against the idea that they should do their part. Doing their part is fulfilling those responsibilities.
As part of your responsibility as director of communications for the Privy Council, as your title indicates, you must make sure that you and your staff understand the role of the Senate perfectly.
Mr. Marcoux: I can assure you that that suggestion will be implemented.
Senator Joyal: My second question is about your responsibility in drawing the line between what I call objective information that you should be putting online at the Privy Council and what you call the "strategic objectives" of the site.
Where do you draw the line between objective information and any partisan nature of a piece of information that could be sent to you with a request to put it online?
Mr. Marcoux: The clearest indication is, I would say, mentioning, criticizing or praising a political party. That is essentially the clearest dividing line as established in various parts of the policy on communications guidelines. That is the basis for analysis, so to speak. I am not sure if that answered your question properly.
Senator Joyal: Let me be more precise. Do you have guidelines that allow you to evaluate texts that you are going to put online, or that you are asked to put online? Guidelines that prevent partisan comments incompatible with a Government of Canada site from slipping into the texts?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, the framework that provides the way in which those issues are managed is found in Treasury Board's communications policy and in the various related guidelines and procedures on public opinion research, advertising, and so on. The "standards," if you like, that deal with those matters are in that document.
Senator Joyal: Could you table those standards, as you apply them to yourself?
Mr. Marcoux: Certainly, I can get a copy and send it to you.
Senator Joyal: As to the staff people that you say you have hired in recent weeks, you are now on the fourth, if I understand your presentation correctly. When you hire a person, do you make them aware of the applicable standards that they must follow when they are dealing with a particularly delicate task, standards that are different from what one might see in the private sector?
Mr. Marcoux: The people we set out to recruit were senior people who already have a good knowledge of the standards that govern website management. In other words, we do not have an orientation procedure in which they are given that document, but they are people who are chosen for their knowledge. Given the extent of the task, we have not recruited people with no knowledge or experience in the area. Indirectly, the answer is yes, the people are aware.
Senator Joyal: You assume that a person who is referred to you knows the appropriate standards that have been issued by Treasury Board on the objective nature of the information normally to be found on a government website. Is that correct?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Joyal: And, as they began their duties with the Privy Council, you did not feel that it was appropriate to remind them of the Council's particularly delicate position vis-à-vis other departments?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, we have that discussion. What is new for these people is not the administrative policy framework; it is the fact of working in the Privy Council Office. We have had that discussion with every new staff member who has joined our team: this is a role that is different from a usual one, precisely because of the relations that have to be managed with a number of departments and subjects that do not affect just one department but the government as a whole. So, yes, we have that discussion.
Senator Joyal: You have the discussion but you do not formally remind them of their responsibility to be particularly vigilant to observe both the spirit, and I would say the letter, of the regulations designed to ensure the objectivity of the information coming out of the Privy Council Office.
Mr. Marcoux: Not in a formal way, as you have described it there, no.
Senator Joyal: And would you not consider it appropriate to do so in the future? Would it not be prudent to do so in the future?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, it certainly would.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Joyal, I have a number other senators who want to ask questions, as well.
Senator Furey: Thank you for coming today. I apologize in advance that some of what I will say might sound a tad repetitive. Your apology and your comments regarding the upgrading of staff and practices to ensure mistakes do not reoccur basically focus on the accuracy, or rather inaccuracy, of the statement.
Let us say for a minute that the statement was accurate; that the bill had not passed. Do you think it is an appropriate statement to appear on a public service website?
Mr. Marcoux: I am sorry, I did not hear very well. Can you repeat your question please?
Senator Furey: Let us say for a moment that the statement was accurate at the time it was posted. Do you think it is an appropriate statement to have on this particular website?
Mr. Marcoux: Do I think the statement was appropriate in and of itself? In retrospect, I likely would have considered it anew, to be frank. We are now a month after the fact. At the time it was posted, it was my responsibility and it was posted as such.
Clearly, with the lesson learned here in hindsight is that I would take a much harder look at the statement.
Senator Furey: I am asking that we take a hard look at it now.
Let us say the statement is accurate; that when it was published, the bill had not passed. Do you think the statement is appropriate coming from Privy Council Office on a government website? In other words, I am asking if it is appropriate for the public service to engage in partisan debate on that website.
Mr. Marcoux: In posting that statement, we had no intent whatsoever to engage in any partisan activity at all.
To the extent that it may convey that, I regret that and, as I indicated earlier, I would be a much more severe editor today than I was then.
Senator Furey: I accept that because, as I said in the beginning, your apology, to me, focused only on the accuracy. I accept that.
Senator Andreychuk: This question is perhaps a follow-up of what has been put to you already. Drawing the line between what is partisan and what is not partisan has been an issue government to government to government. I thank Senator Fraser for putting it in that reasonable context. The issue is one that troubles all of us and I think we may draw the line at different points.
The difference in this case seems to be that it was about the Senate as opposed to party to party or leadership to leadership, which has been the cause of debate and difficulty in the past, where it may be the case that the party of the day is preferring itself as opposed to another party.
Do you need to pay attention to the fact that the Senate is now in an evolving state? Every decade, the Senate is different and you should reconsider to what extent the Senate now is a different place, and look at that difference with regard to whether the statements are partisan, which is something, perhaps, the PCO did not need to do some decades ago.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, I agree.
Senator Andreychuk: The other compounding difficulty here is that we are all grappling with new media. Historically, we had print media and we had press; all those communiqués were going out and the debate of whether the line had been crossed was obviously in your shop, but also elsewhere between the parties. Now, the information is on a website, so it is a learning process for all of us.
Will you reflect on a bit of different training for the staff now? You are blending what was an old practice or old tradition, good practice or otherwise, in a different context. The website is a whole new ball game. You and everyone else using the new technologies, including our own websites — those of us who have them — are struggling with the issues of how to staff the websites, how to be timely and how to clear. We point out from time to time errors on websites and I think it warrants another look at communications in a different way.
Will you now undertake to do that?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, indeed, and it is a tough moment for me here. However, there is a benefit for me: Senator Joyal made the point, and you are making it as well, that I had not heard before: We need to rethink training. There is no doubt whatsoever that we will do that. This lesson learned today is a good one.
Senator Andreychuk: I am sorry that I came in a few minutes late and did not hear your opening. You outlined the website for this economic process, but when did the knowledge and use of websites in PCO start? Can you tell me historically when you dealt with your first website, as opposed to other communications systems?
Mr. Marcoux: I am fairly new at PCO. I cannot tell you offhand. I would be happy to research it.
Senator Andreychuk: Were other websites up and running?
Mr. Marcoux: There is the PCO website, of course, but when there is a thematic site that deals with a great number of departments or issues that cut across departments, PCO does not normally manage those sites. We had to make efforts to hire new staff and to move rapidly on developing and troubleshooting the site because this activity was not a normal one for us. Managing these kinds of sites is something new.
Senator Andreychuk: Was developing the site urgent — as you said, because it was new — because of the economic crisis and situation that this bill was a large bill? What was the genesis of developing this site?
Mr. Marcoux: The desire was to re-launch it so that as the first report to Canadians was put forward, additional information would be made available. There was recognition that it is incumbent on the government to provide as much information to Canadians as possible about the economic situation, the economic action plan and to use the website as one of a number of means to ensure that the information is put forward. That was the thinking at the time.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you for coming to talk to us, Mr. Marcoux. I do not envy you the task of having to explain yourself and especially of having to apologize for the remarks you made. It was a mistake.
When a retraction is issued, is a correction made at the same time? The fact of withdrawing some remarks does not mean that the accuracy of the information provided has been corrected. When the retraction was issued, did anyone suggest attaching a note on the site indicating that the information was not correct, that the Senate had fulfilled its role and so had the bill? Was there a correction?
Mr. Marcoux: No, we were hurrying to update this site and making sure that the comment in question was removed. Was the incorrect information removed? Yes. Was a correction made in the way you described? No.
Senator Robichaud: Do you not think that that would be the right thing to do? The fact that you withdrew the information leaves the impression that we in the Senate are dragging our feet, taking our time and not really doing what we are supposed to do. I think that members of the Senate, on both sides of the chamber, are very sensitive to the kind of information that suggests that we are not too concerned about our role.
Mr. Marcoux: At the time, that was a factor that we could have looked at. Did we look at it? Not to my knowledge. Are you suggesting that it is something that should be done now?
Senator Robichaud: When we deal with a question of privilege, we always look at a remedy. In my opinion, false information was published. Corrected information should have been posted on the same site. In newspapers, when information is published that is discovered to be inaccurate or wrong, a correction is printed. Corrections do not go on the front page; they go in a space that is set aside for the purpose. However you do it, you cover yourself by saying that a correction has been made. So I think that it is necessary to post a correction on this site.
Mr. Marcoux: I will bring it up.
Senator Robichaud: Just assume that you received the exact same information today, that the Senate had not yet passed a bill, could the situation happen again? Without saying that the Senate was not playing its role or that it is not quick enough, would you simply say that the House of Commons or the government had passed a bill? In finance matters, the government prepares the bills and passing them is seen to be a government role. So could it be said that the Senate was preparing to study it and could you distribute that information?
Mr. Marcoux: I did not understand the second part of your question.
Senator Robichaud: You indicated that you were going to check accuracy.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Let us suppose that your information is up-to-date and relevant to the matter at hand. Let us suppose that the process is unfolding as it should, that a bill has passed the three readings in the House of Commons and been sent to the Senate, that we are in the middle of studying it, and that the study is taking more time than the other chamber or the government thinks is appropriate. Would you distribute that kind of information? Everything would be correct at the time. Would you say that the Senate has not finished its study?
Mr. Marcoux: I can assure you that, given the sensitivity of the language, and out of concern at not leaving a false impression, the answer would be no. I would most definitely want to make sure to avoid any lack of communication or miscommunication that such a comment might cause.
Senator Robichaud: Is the final decision on the site content yours?
Mr. Marcoux: As the person accountable, I am certainly involved. Of course, I report to other people too. But I can assure you that, in the light of what occurred, there is increased vigilance, and that will certainly continue.
[English]
Senator Duffy: Mr. Marcoux, thank you for coming today. It is important for us to have some context. If I remember correctly, the economic action plan, sometimes referred to as a budget, was in fact about a month earlier than the traditional budget cycle. When we look at the editing of news releases or other statements by various departments, I gather, from my experience, that in those departments there is a hierarchy of checking and double-checking before any release goes out. Is it fair to assume that, at the Privy Council Office, when you received these thousands of pages that were to be placed on this website, that you were operating under the assumption that these pages had already been proofed, in effect, by the departments that generated them? Were you operating under the assumption that all you were doing was pulling together material from these various sources and putting them on a single site?
Mr. Marcoux: We have to be careful with what goes up on the site. Most of the material that is gathered — most of it but not all — is gathered from announcements, statements, news releases or speeches that have been approved and delivered publically, so yes, the majority of the material is material that either has been pre-approved or is in the public domain.
Senator Duffy: The material has been through the governmental process to make sure it is not partisan or biased?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Duffy: Senator Fraser will be aware, as will some of our other colleagues, that in the news business, we have an editorial editor — in fact, several layers of editors — looking at the material to ensure that something has not slipped through the cracks. I am not intimate with government, but my sense of a lot of the new technology is that in convergence, most of the emphasis of the staff is on technological expertise.
The assumption seems to be that the editorial content has been vetted elsewhere and staff members are only plugging this content into the website.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, that is true. The staff make-up of our web team is the same. One of the reasons for which we recently included our substantive content people is to review the material as well. We recognize that, notwithstanding the approval process and that we have a qualified web team, we want one extra measure of verification in light of the oversight that occurred.
Senator Duffy: We can already see that as a result of this unfortunate mistake, changes have been made.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, very much so. Quite a few changes have been made.
Senator Brown: Mr. Marcoux, I think your apology should be well accepted. I do not see that we can blame one person for one word in this package. I think the word "must" carries a lot of different connotations depending on how loud you say it. If someone says, you must do this; that is one thing. However, if one yells at you saying, you must do this, it sounds like an order. I think some of us understood the word in that context; as an order.
There could have been more diplomatic ways of saying it. We could have said, we hope you do it. We could have said, you are obligated to do it. It would have been worse than "must" to say that the Senate was obligated to do this in a hurry. I think it is a matter of text here. I am a little worried that we are putting too much into one word that you have already apologized for. I think care will be taken not to do it in the future.
Senator Fraser: The line I wanted to pursue has already been taken up by Senator Joyal and Senator Andreychuk. It has to do with the particular requirements in the Privy Council Office for slightly different codes of ethics and training procedures.
I assume that when you bring in people at a senior level from the civil service, there is a tacit assumption that they already understand that public servants are not supposed to be partisan. Is that understanding part of this institutional culture that informs you?
Mr. Marcoux: Very much so, indeed.
Senator Fraser: As you pointed out, the Privy Council Office is different. I believe you undertook to provide us with whatever materials or codes you have.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Can you provide us with your thoughts about ways in which the material should be strengthened to ensure that everyone in that office understands that one cannot, for example, take the editing to which Senator Duffy referred in other departments as adequate for the Privy Council. One cannot take as read that any material that comes to you is appropriate for posting on your website.
Mr. Marcoux: I can share with you what procedures I will implement following these recommendations in terms of the knowledge and information that our staff possess.
If I understood you correctly that you would like my comments on the framework, the policy, those comments would not be appropriate. That policy is set by the Treasury Board and by ministers.
Senator Fraser: Wait a second. The policy to which I refer is the policy of being non-partisan on a taxpayer-funded website.
Mr. Marcoux: Everything to do with communications, including web communications, and the duty of public servants to be non-partisan, is set out in the communications policy of Treasury Board. That policy is what I have undertaken to provide and I will be happy to do that, but my own comments on the policy would not be appropriate. I would be happy to tell you what measures I will take to ensure that everyone on our team is seized of that responsibility.
Senator Fraser: I will rephrase that question. Will you also provide us with your views on whatever extra must be done in light of the particular circumstances of your office, which are not necessarily similar to those of other departments?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: While of course we accept Mr. Marcoux's apology, since he is in a position to apologize on behalf of the Privy Council Office, I think that some of our colleagues have tried to put the events into somewhat of a biased context. Senator Duffy, for example, said, and I quote:
[English]
"People at various levels must ensure something does not slip through the cracks."
[Translation]
I feel that someone ensured something.
[English]
Something did, in fact, slip through the cracks.
[Translation]
We must remember, and, in the remarks I am about to make, I entirely respect Mr. Marcoux's non-partisanship, that the Senate has been attacked day after day, week after week, for a number of years about the lack of speed or perceived lack of speed in the way we study legislation or other government initiatives that come to us. This climate of Senate-bashing has been rampant for months and months. I feel that Mr. Marcoux's office cannot be immune to this kind of partisan attack on the institution of the Senate.
I just want to suggest that you need some kind of filter or firewall to protect you and your texts against practices of that kind.
In party politics, it goes without saying that sometimes we say things that are over the top, even rather stupid on occasion. But Treasury Board must be completely immunized against that kind of remark. While I accept the witness's apology, Mr. Chair, I believe that Treasury Board must make an additional effort to stay removed from that kind of remark. Unfortunately, a remark of that kind slipped into a text. We accept the apology, but we certainly do not want it to happen in the future.
[English]
Senator Smith: I want to say at the outset before I ask my question that I think it is important that there be an emphasis on the difference between a fact and an opinion. I doubt that the words "Senators must do their part," et cetera were written by civil servants. I doubt that. They usually do not write that way and you know that.
I accept your apology but I suspect the real apology should come from someone either among the minister's staff or possibly even from the Prime Minister's Office. I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever receive an apology from the author.
Frankly, my opinion is that the website should be shut down if those kinds of partisan remarks continue on it. The website is paid for by taxpayer dollars and, if something like that occurs again, I suspect a motion to that effect will be moved in the Senate and in the House of Commons.
Do you understand our point and are you in agreement that your group will stop those kinds of comments from happening in the future? First, do you understand my point?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes; I have indicated throughout my testimony in answer to questions that we have put into place, and continue to put into place, additional measures of vigilance to try to ensure that all information posted on the site is factual, correct, timely and objective. We will continue with those measures and will do our best to ensure we will maintain the high standards that must be maintained.
Senator Smith: Do you also understand my point that it is not only a matter of the facts but also the partisan commentary?
Mr. Marcoux: Yes; of course, it is inappropriate for any public servant to be involved in any partisan activity whatsoever in discharge of their functions. To the extent that the language may have been viewed in that light is something that is not appropriate and we will ensure, through the measures we put in place, that we will prevent that situation from happening again.
Senator Duffy: I thought it was clear. I apologize to Senator Corbin if I did not make myself clear enough to him. However, it seems to me this issue is a question of editing. If someone goes back 35 years, I am sure there have been thousands of cases where all kinds of governments have tried to slip things into press releases. The role of the public service is to be professional and to take out those things. I am sure this situation happens every day across the government.
Today, in the case we are discussing, it happened once. I think it is unfair to keep beating Mr. Marcoux when he has already come here admitting an error has occurred and has told us they are putting an editorial structure in place to ensure that, even in a mad rush to pass a budget that is a month early, things do not fall through the cracks.
I take Senator Smith's point that the line is partisan, but the fact of the matter is, we all know that, as long as there are partisans, they will try to slip in their messages. Part of the job of the public service is to take them out, which they have done admirably in all the years I have been here.
They have made one slip and now we have heard from a senior public servant. He apologized in the first five minutes. I think the phrase "beating a dead horse" applies here, if that is not politically incorrect. He has understood the message and they will make changes.
I agree with Senator Smith that we will undoubtedly never know the identity of the nefarious person who wrote the passage. Let us ensure it does not happen again. We all share the same objective, which is to have Canadians informed without partisan influence.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Marcoux, I just want to once more express my support for what you have proposed. As you said in English, "one extra measure of verification for content."
I feel that this is what we expect of you. You told us in your opening statement that you could not identify the source of the text; you could assume that the source could be partisan. At the moment, your responsibility is to make sure that there is a filter at your level, a person in your group responsible for reading all these texts and making sure that they remain objective according to the ethical standards that a service like yours must uphold. That will certainly be one of our recommendations.
Mr. Marcoux: Yes, thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Joyal. Honourable senators, are there further questions you wish to pose to the witness?
Senator Corbin: Arising out of the comments by Senator Duffy, it seems to me that it is clear to everyone that I was not bashing Mr. Marcoux; I was making a point.
The Chair: That is understood.
Senator Corbin: I respect the total independence of the Public Service of Canada with respect to partisan politics and I am not accusing him of anything.
The Chair: I appreciate that, Senator Corbin. If there are no further questions, honourable senators, on your behalf I want to thank Mr. Marcoux for appearing today and answering fully and completely. It is deeply appreciated. With that, Mr. Marcoux, you are free to leave and we thank you again. I know you have undertaken to present certain documents, which should be sent to the Clerk of the Committee, Blair Armitage. Those documents, in turn, will come to the committee.
Honourable senators, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure will meet this afternoon on matters relating to the work of this committee, and this matter will be one of the items on that agenda. Copies of the transcript will also be prepared.
The next item on our agenda for today deals with revised rules.
Senator Andreychuk: On that point, I trust that the steering committee will look at the evidence before us, and not anticipate what might happen in the future. Senator Smith seemed to imply that there could be another slip-up. That may be true, and we will deal with it if there is, but I think the evidence before us is that there was a slip-up. I think it was understandable in many ways and steps are being undertaken to ensure it does not happen again.
I say that because I had my own private information dealt with by another government. I chose not to make it public, and I asked for undertakings. The second time it happened with total disregard to the undertakings, the situation was different. I believe, when people honestly come before us — particularly when it involves the public service, as well as political people — and that we have an honest dialogue with them like we did today, it is important to receive some undertakings so that it is not only "I regret it happened" but rather, "I will undertake to do A, B and C." We should let them do their professional jobs.
If something different comes along, it is a totally different ball game. I do not think we should anticipate there will be a second incident.
I know Senator Smith did not mean it that way, but I wanted to ensure it is not taken that way. We ought to deal with what is before us and the future is the future.
Senator Smith: I will not have an argument with Senator Andreychuk. I guess the point is, if it becomes a pattern, there will be motions to that effect. A pattern has not been established yet but if it is a pattern, one more incident, I would be surprised if strong views were not expressed.
Senator Fraser: On this point, I accept that Mr. Marcoux and his staff have been trying to do a huge job and have untaken a vast endeavour on the web, and in short order. I fully accept his apologies.
I am concerned, in part, by the time lapses. Mr. Marcoux told us he was told on the evening of March 26 but, as I pointed out earlier, this information was brought to public attention, including the relevant political people, well before that — more than 24 hours before that.
If we proceed with this question, I want to see what we can ascertain about why no steps apparently were taken earlier to see that the correction was made. I think, in the end, while technically the error was made by the civil servants, it is their political masters who bear significant responsibility. I want to see if we can explore that element of this unfortunate situation.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We are going to have to discuss this matter again because we have to prepare a report to submit to the Senate, correct? The matter was referred to us and we will have to study it again in order to review the content of our report.
[English]
The Chair: The matter is not over yet. This afternoon, our Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure will deal with this and other matters and the matter will come back to the committee. This is not the end of it.
Senator Joyal: I want to make a quick comment, if I am in order.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Joyal: I think we are all individually involved in the Debates of the Senate. As some senators mentioned, it becomes partisan at a point. Fortunately, in our chamber, it is less partisan than in the other place, but it will never disappear totally; there is no doubt about that. Our system is based on political parties.
However, when there is a rush to broadcast information that is obviously wrong or false, bearing innuendos, that information creates discomfort. We had that experience with a motion about senators who raised the issue of the seal hunt. A press release came immediately from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans attacking the members of the Senate for supporting that.
To me, it seems there are instances where that does happen. I have absolutely no problem that any press release reflect what is happening in the chamber with its partisan overtone. However, when the information is obviously false — that the Senate has not voted or expressed an opinion — we should not cross that limit. We must take measures to prevent recurrences of that kind of precedent.
I wanted to raise that issue at this point. I think most senators will understand which incident I am referring to. That is why I think some of us may have greater sensitivity to broadcasting information from the Senate that is, at first sight, totally wrong.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on the second item on our agenda for today, Charles Robert is before us to explain how he has responded to comments by honourable senators at our last meeting on this subject, respecting the revised draft of the Rules of the Senate.
You will recall that the original package had noted instances where entirely new inclusions to the rules had been inserted. If I am correct, Senator Fraser was the first person to call that situation to our attention.
For example, please refer to rule 17(3), where the drafters have apparently taken current practice and created a rule to codify that practice. Unfortunately, this rule mistakenly implies that all other text was exactly as it was before. However, sections of that text had also been revised but not noted. This situation has led to some confusion when senators compared the original text to the new text. Therefore, we asked Mr. Robert to come back with an answer to this problem, which I will ask him to explain.
Mr. Robert, you have the floor.
Charles Robert, Principal Clerk, Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, the text that is being distributed to you now outlines the extent to which there has been a rewrite. The purpose of the rewrite, as explained earlier, was to render — it was hoped, at any rate — more clear the meaning of the text in the rules.
The intent, at the same time, was not to change what was understood by the team that was working on this project to be the meaning of the rule, but to render it more clear. Because of the fashion in which it was written, we thought that in a more user-friendly way, simplified text would lead to a clearer understanding of the intent — as we saw it, I must confess — behind the rule.
The shading suggests to you what was developed as an improved text. The bracket is an indication of where it is to be found in the version on which we based our work, which is the 2002 version of the rules, not necessarily the 2005 version. For that reason, there may be minor discrepancies.
Since there seems to be a disposition on the part of this committee to proceed with this project, we thought it would be useful to give you an idea of how extensive the work of the team was when it began its work, now more than 10 years ago, on revising the rules. This shading indicates to you where the rewrites were. The bold numbers in square brackets at the end indicate the original placing of the rules, which is close to the situation that you would find now.
You will see what we have rewritten and reorganized. We have also added cross-references and sub-headings. Again, the intent behind everything in this project is to render the rules more clear and user-friendly.
Senator Andreychuk: As a clarification, are you saying the greyed parts are your understanding of a rewrite of rules but not new rules?
Mr. Robert: Except where it says "new." If you look on the first page, for example, at the bottom there is rule 3 and a shaded 3, which is 3 and new. There is an element that is new because there is no part of the rules currently that —
Senator Andreychuk: — that cover that subject?
Mr. Robert: That is right.
Senator Andreychuk: It is fair to say the greyed part can be a change in the rules. It is not only a clarification or a reworking; it can give new intent and new directions from the old rule.
Mr. Robert: Exactly.
Senator Andreychuk: I will read it as saying everything in grey is new, and then something is really new in subject matter. Am I correct? From a lawyer's point of view, once we start changing words, they may have different meanings.
Mr. Robert: There is no doubt. Again, as I tried to explain, the rewrite as it exists, whether it is old or new, is based on the understanding we derived of the rule previously. As you point out, it would be only by inadvertence that there would be a change. It was not our intent to change the rule. We were trying to follow it as faithfully as we could.
Senator Fraser: Let me say again, as I said the last time we contemplated this draft, by and large, I like it a lot. It is clearer. Clarity is to be desired in matters of this nature — in general, but particularly in matters of this nature. I have profound appreciation for the work that has gone into this draft, but no human endeavour is perfect and no human endeavour is exempt from questions.
Mr. Robert, coming back to the question I raised that first time having to do with new rule 6, it would say that "All decisions of the Speaker on points of order, questions of privileges or requests for an emergency debate are subject to an appeal to the Senate." The reference is to present rule 18(4), which says that "all decisions of the Speaker shall be subject to appeal to the Senate."
Can you recall the reasoning that led to the insertion of these limiting words on which decisions of the Speaker are subject to appeal and which are not?
Mr. Robert: Your question generated some discussion amongst us afterward. This wording goes back to when we were working with one of the Speakers who promoted this project. It was an attempt to explain what constitutes a decision. By adding the words "on points of order, questions of privileges or requests," we were trying to define more clearly what constitutes a decision as opposed to a statement. If the question were pushed further, it could be put back as another question: Are all statements made by the Speaker in the Senate a decision? If the Speaker says to a senator, "Your time has expired; the 15 minutes has lapsed," can that be regarded as a decision? Is it subject to appeal?
When we were working on this rule, we were trying to define what we, as a team, thought were appropriate limits or explanations for what should be subject to an appeal by the Speaker. That was why the words were put in, and that is why we did not think it was a rewrite.
Senator Fraser: This point goes to a general sense I have that the table and the Speaker, in their natural desire to create order where frequently, order does not exist, sometimes create new things, with the best of intentions. I do not accuse anyone here of doing anything nefarious. This committee may wish to examine this particular wording of a proposed draft of the rules and, indeed, other events that have recently occurred in that light. I state for the record that I have the highest regard for the work of our table officers, and I know that I could not do what they do.
The Chair: Mr. Robert, because I am new to the committee and I know nothing about the drafter who was working on the rule, are there any senators around the table today who had a hand in this draft, or was it written by the administrative staff and two Speakers, Speaker Hays and a previous Speaker, who were the driving force behind this draft? Has anyone around this table now had a hand in it?
Mr. Robert: I do not believe so. It was largely the inspiration of Speaker Molgat, pursued in part by Speaker Molgat and Speaker Hays, and also a fair number of staff in the Law Clerk's office and elsewhere. All the senior table officers were involved and had some role to play in the work that was done. That is my memory, and again, we are going back now more than 10 years.
The Chair: A group of senators is interested in working on a subcommittee to work on the rules. I am hearing from Senator Fraser and others that the committee that would work on the rules would not want to be bound necessarily to every word, clause and phrase that have been written over the last 10 years, particularly in light of new rules, procedures and other things that are happening. This draft could be a guide, but it is not the Bible to which the subcommittee would be bound. Is that understood?
Mr. Robert: It is not for me to decide what the committee wants to do. This draft is presented as a draft or working model to the extent that the committee feels it would like to follow it. We are here to provide a service. We will do whatever the committee instructs. We believe that a revised draft of the rules or a revision of the rules would be a useful exercise to undertake. Certainly, Speaker Molgat and Speaker Hays thought so, or else we would not have undertaken to do it.
Senator Corbin: Is the group we are talking about here historically the informal group set up by both Speaker Molgat and Speaker Hays around the lunch table from time to time?
Mr. Robert: No, this group was an entirely different one composed of the table officers and the Law Clerk's Office.
Senator Corbin: No parliamentarians were involved.
Mr. Robert: No; We did sometimes meet around the lunch table, but the whips and the other leaders were not involved.
Senator Andreychuk: I was in this committee then, and I do not know if Senator Corbin was a member. The draft was brought to us to determine what do with it. I am not sure whether we put in place a committee to look at the draft. It was not followed up. While we were aware of it and while it was filed, we never took action on it, as I recall. The draft has sat there. What the chair said is of value, in that it is instructive and helpful, but 10 years and more have gone by. If we give a committee a mandate to study the rules, I think they should use this draft as a guide but to feel free to avail themselves of all expertise and issues that they think are important.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I have been approached by some senators interested in working on this project. In the committee, we have heard from others. The indications are that Senator Oliver, Senator Smith, Senator Robichaud, Senator Nolin, Senator Fraser and Senator McCoy have indicated their interest in working on this project. I believe this list provides us with a good representation of the membership and should ensure fairness and linguistic diversity.
Is it agreed, senators, that this working group devise an acceptable work plan with our committee clerk and Mr. Robert to go through this document in detail before bringing back to the full committee a form of draft that they feel reflects our needs? Can we use that motion as a base?
Senator Corbin: Is this the consequence of a motion that Senator Nolin made?
The Chair: No, that matter is separate. Senator McCoy approached me and said she is interested in working on the rules, and Senator Fraser indicated she is interested in working on the rules. That is where these names came from.
Senator Corbin: I am interested too, but I am leaving August 2. Hire me as a consultant.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall we proceed to have this group come up with a work plan and report back to this committee when and how they propose to work on this document? Agreed?
Hon. senators: Agreed.
Are there any other matters to come before the committee at this time?
(The committee adjourned.)