UPDATED - CEA!PWatch: The Curious Case of the Compliancy-Challenged Website

Anyway, in the interest of keeping possibly equally suddenly once again relevant past testimony all in one place, here's a brief history -- with, as noted above, salient extracts from the official record -- of OGGO's investigation into the CEA!P website, circa November 2009. 

Just to set the scene, the first meeting came just weeks after the kerfuffle over that embedded Youtube clip of the PM playing piano at the NAC, which didn't seem entirely appropriate for an ostensibly nonpartisan government website, and vanished abruptly after its existence made the news.

Not surprisingly, that wasn't enough to persuade NDP MP Pat Martin to let the matter 404 out, as demonstrated in the following exchange:

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
[...]Can anybody tell me who actually created the action plan website and maintains it?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    The website was originally created by, I believe, the Department of Finance. It's now managed by the Privy Council Office.


Mr. Pat Martin:
    How does the Privy Council Office feel about that?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    Well, it's part and parcel of our role in coordinating government communications. In fact, we had agreed to take on the management of the website because the material on the site does not come from PCO; it actually comes from the departments who are participating in the action plan.


Mr. Pat Martin:
    So who would have put the link onto the Prime Minister playing the piano and all the multiple pictures of him in friendly poses that you connect to through that website? Who would have done that?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    The government is the one that decides what it wishes to communicate, and wanted to have the links to the social media--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    But doesn't the PCO run the government's wishes through sort of an ethical filter?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    We give advice. As both the secretary and the clerk mentioned, we ensure that the communications are done within the confines of the policy.


Mr. Pat Martin:
    Did you advise them that it would be a really, really bad idea to put a link to the Prime Minister playing the piano on the Canada action plan website?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    Well, I think the intention of having the social media links--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    Just yes or no.

    In the process of the advice that you give government departments, did anybody say, "That really crosses the line"? Did anybody say, "That offends the sensibility of every Canadian who's going to see that who has half a brain"?

    We're getting government propaganda shoved down.... That website's not supposed to be a cheerleader booster for the ruling party. It's supposed to be an information vehicle.

    Didn't somebody who is...?

    You're new to this job, Mr. Wouters. I respect your career as a deputy minister before, and even before that in the Government of Saskatchewan. Didn't you see something wrong with that?


Mr. Wayne Wouters:
    Madam Chair, we're into a new world here with websites. In fact, the policy has not contemplated moving to the new media that we've now seen.

    So the government made the decision to include some social media, because it did provide information on the economic action plan--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    No, it didn't, sir.


Mr. Wayne Wouters:
    There was information on the economic action plan.


Mr. Pat Martin:
    "I'll get by with a little help from my friends" has nothing to do with economic recovery.


Mr. Wayne Wouters:
    You know, in some ways, many young people in this country--who are difficult to reach, too, in terms of newspapers and sometimes ads--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    Oh, sir, with all due respect--


Mr. Wayne Wouters:
    --are on the social media. Therefore, I think the government's decision....

    I mean, I'm not here to defend the government's decision. They decided that was in their interest--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    But you're here to provide an ethical screen for the government's decision. The PCO is supposed to filter that stuff out before it gets to--


Mr. Wayne Wouters:
    Can I respond to the question?


The Chair:
    Go ahead, Mr. Holder.


Mr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC):
    On a point of order, Madam Chair, we're trying to have a thoughtful dialogue on this.

    I know we're trying to bring clarity, but it strikes me that if my colleague Mr. Martin has the wonderful courtesy to ask a question, he should offer the same courtesy to allow them to respond.

[NOTE: Not-overly-relevant-or-interesting back and forth between Martin, Holder and the chair redacted to spare you all the pain, the pain of it all.]

Mr. Pat Martin:
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to let the witnesses answer.

    Were you aware, Mr. Wouters, that the links that are connected to the action plan of Canada are in fact links to the Conservative Party of Canada's website, that the social media clips are exactly the same in content as the Conservative view, because they are effectively overseeing a website for the Conservative Party of Canada?


Mr. Wayne Wouters:
    I think it's fair to say, Madam Chair, that when these issues were raised with the government, the government removed the connections to those social sites at that time. As a result, the government is now looking at ensuring, in fact, that the information available is for the economic action plan only.


Ms. Michelle d'Auray:
    If I may talk about the social networking sites, Madam Chair, what we are finding--and this is where the current policy is silent because they were not prevalent at the time at which the policy was last updated--is that linking to social network sites is actually quite useful in certain instances.

    The problem with the social network sites is that they're actually driven by the popularity of the images that happen to be on the site. If we link to a particular set of images, a whole bunch of other images can come in, depending on the popularity. That's why we're now rethinking our approach to linking to social network sites, because in fact we do not control at that point--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    With all due respect, I think it's being rethought because of the public outrage at the room for abuse that's going on. This is not new technology. YouTube is not new. Twitter is not new. Facebook is not new.


Ms. Michelle d'Auray:
     Perhaps it may not be new, but it is not something that the Government of Canada has envisaged in its official communications activities.

     We have tried it. We have looked at it in a number of ways, and we're trying to come to grips with what it means when other people feed into a social network site that we link up to. That's all. At this point, given that the communications policy is silent on these issues, we have started to examine how best we can make use of those social networking tools in the Government of Canada communications--


Mr. Pat Martin:
    Without being cheerleaders for the ruling party, I would hope. [...]

Martin also brought up the site's appearance, which, he noted, was seemingly at irreconcilable odds with existing Treasury Board guidelines regarding a common look and feel for government websites, which elicited the first official confirmation that an exemption to the rules had been sought -- and received, although the witness left out the bit about how it took the minister overruling his own department for that to happen:

Mr. Pat Martin:
[...]

The website doesn't comply with your own common look and feel standards. We've investigated this. In fact, part 3 of your common look and feel standards of the Treasury Board Secretariat, sections 3 and 4, says that you don't conform to the guidelines with the word mark, the banner, and so on. That's a concern.

Mr. Simon Kennedy:

[...]

With regard to the website, as the honourable member said, it's absolutely true that there are elements of the site that were not compliant with the common look and feel standard. That relates primarily to the technology being used for the site, such as Google Maps.

We had been working for some time with the Treasury Board to get an exemption from those elements of the common look and feel standards. If you're using new technology or if there's some facet to the website that may not be compliant, there's a procedure to seek an exemption, and we did obtain that. So we are compliant with the exemption in place.

Mr. Pat Martin:
It's sort of like Animal Farm. No, I'm sorry, that's a cheap shot.

Fast forward a few weeks to Kennedy's next appearance, during which he faced a few follow-up questions on both the exemption and the "branding exercise". Kennedy, incidentally, is no longer with PCO, but is now an senior associate deputy minister at Industry:

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
You mentioned the look and feel. Mr. Kennedy, the last time you were here, you talked about the request for an exemption from the standard look and feel. In that testimony, you mentioned the use of Google Maps. Could you tell us the details of the exemption? Can you tell us the actual text of what was requested in the exemption?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
Well, Mr. Chair, there are two different kinds of exemptions. One is, broadly speaking, the communications policy for the government.

I must open a parenthesis here. I am not the lead for that; that would be the Treasury Board, if we speak in detail.

Generally speaking, the communications policy sets out the graphic standards that the government follows when it communicates: the Canada wordmark, the signature of a given department. If you're International Trade or if you're Transport, there's a very standard signature that you're all familiar with. The standards basically say those are what are to be used.

There have been occasions in the past, and now is a good example, when the government for a variety of reasons has wanted to use a different logo or brand because there is a particular initiative or set of initiatives that the government is undertaking, and they want to make sure Canadians can see that they're all part of this one measure. The way the policy works is that, generally speaking, the graphics standards are the ones set out in the policy. If the government wants to add an additional logo, they get an exemption so that they can introduce an additional logo. That's one piece.

There's another piece that relates to the graphic standards for the Internet. To be quite honest, those are very technical. It's a question of the number of pixels and so on. I don't have the document handy, but I can say that the technical standards are quite precise in terms of the number of pixels used. It literally is that detailed. Google Maps and some of this technology are actually newer than some of those technical standards, so we seek an exemption from the technical standards around what the home pages are to look like.

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
Is it possible to get detail of what the exemption, as it was requested, actually consisted of?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
I'll have to get back to the committee, but I certainly think it would be possible to describe what it was that we had sought an exemption for.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
That would be very--


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
Mr. Chair, I'm just not sure whether the specific documents are actually cabinet documents or Treasury Board documents, but I think we could certainly get back with more detail on this issue and what it was we needed to make adjustments for.

[...]

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay: [...]

    Very quickly, you mentioned branding. I have just a couple of quick questions. Did you hire an outside company to help establish the brand? If so, can you identify that company or companies? Third, would you be willing to share with us or perhaps table the policy directions or the requirements that you were looking for in a branding exercise for the overall communications of the economic action plan?
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    Thank you for the question.

    We certainly engaged a graphic design firm to produce the brand.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    No, to develop the actual...not just to design it, but with the look and feel, and the reasons you wanted a brand, and the type of branding that you wanted. Did you engage somebody else?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    I would have to get back to the committee with a more formal response on that.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    Okay.

    Can you tell us what company you engaged to help with that?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    Again, I would have to get back to the committee.

    Over the course of the last number of years, there have been a number of firms engaged in various capacities. I don't have the information handy, but I'd be happy to get back with a response.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    If you could, that would be great. Specifically, a firm that might have been engaged to understand the policy direction for a new brand would be very helpful.

    And the third is information on what that policy direction might have been--what the government was looking for in a brand. I know from business that when you want to market something, you give direction to the people--we want to accomplish A, B, and C. It would be very helpful if we could have the details on what was being looked for in that branding exercise.


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    Mr. Chair, I could certainly get back to the committee on the question.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    When would we be able to expect that?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    I would endeavour to get back as quickly as possible.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    Would next week be too soon to be able to get that?


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    Mr. Chair, I'd be reluctant to commit to next week, but I think within the next two to three weeks, certainly.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    Let's hold you to two. If that's okay, that would be wonderful.


Mr. Simon Kennedy:
    I will certainly make best efforts to come back within two weeks.


Ms. Martha Hall Findlay:
    Three at the outset? We'll accept the best efforts.

As noted above, it's unclear whether or not Kennedy was able to deliver on his tentative but seemingly well-intended commitment to provide the requested material; I've asked OLO to find out whether Martha Hall Findlay remembers receiving it, and I'll update this post as soon as I find out. Somehow, I suspect that if she didn't, the request may be reissued -- perhaps this time as a formal order of production.

Finally, as a treat for those of you have made it to the very end of this post, an artifact from the time capsule that is my inbox: the September 2009 email exchange between myself and then-PCO communications manager Myriam Massabki over -- yes, you guessed it, CLF. Spoiler alert: She doesn't mention the battle with TBS over the exemption either, although at that point, they hadn't yet won the war, which makes me wonder what would have happened if the minister hadn't overruled the advice from his department:

Subject: EAP web site
------------------------

From: Massabki, Myriam
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:50 PM
To: Kady O'Malley

Ms. O'Malley,

The EAP Web site is administered by PCO. It is managed in-house by Government of Canada employees, not by an outside contractor.

Regards,
Myriam Massabki

----------
From: Kady O'Malley
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM
To: "Massabki, Myriam"


Hi Myriam,

Sorry for the delay in responding; I had actually updated my post to reflect that information after it was confirmed by Finance. Now that I've gotten that straight, I'm hoping you can answer my next question: Why doesn't the actionplan.gc.ca website comply with the standards for common look and feel, as outlined by Treasury Board?

Thanks,

Kady O'Malley

----------
From: Kady O'Malley
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
To: "Massabki, Myriam"


Hi again Myriam,

While waiting for your response, I was able to confirm with TBS that, as far as they know, the site does not have an exemption from the common look and feel standards. Will PCO be revising it to ensure that it meets the guidelines?

Thanks!

Kady O'Malley

From: "Massabki, Myriam"
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:50:48 -0400
To:
Subject: EAP web site

----------
From: Massabki, Myriam
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:43 PM
To: kady O'Malley


Hi Kady,

Just to confirm that I received your e-mail, and the other one earlier. I will get back to you as soon as I get an answer to your questions.

Thanks,

Myriam

----------
From: Massabki, Myriam
Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
To: Kady O'Malley

Hi Kady,

Below are PCO's answers to your questions.


Q1. Why doesn't the actionplan.gc.ca website comply with the standards for common look and feel, as outlined by Treasury Board?

Q2. I was able to confirm with TBS that, as far as they know, the site does not have an exemption from the common look and feel standards. Will PCO be revising it to ensure that it meets the guidelines?

Answers:

• The actionplan.gc.ca web site was developed to help the Government of Canada provide timely and transparent information on projects and initiatives under the Economic Action Plan.

• The website complies with the Treasury Board rules as specified in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca).

• The website features state-of-the-art technology - such as project mapping - to ensure that Canadians can access information about programs and services that are available in their communities to assist them during the recession.

• Some of these technologies are relatively new and are not yet fully consistent with common look and feel standards. From the initial days of developing the site, we consulted with Treasury Board and are working with them to meet the standards. Where we are not yet fully consistent, we have asked for an exemption.