Did they break the law? PCO destroyed for using tax $$$ to spread Liberals' partisan propaganda

Added: 2026-05-03

[00:00:04]Here we go. Uh thank you very much. Uh Ms. Barrett, I'm just going to spend a couple quick seconds with you. They are going to be rapid-fire questions, so please forgive me if I seem a little bit abrupt here.

[00:00:13]Um how many employees do you have at the Major Projects Office?

[00:00:16]Currently have about 99. 99, and are you still hiring employees there?

[00:00:21]Uh we have kind of a fluid work structure where people come and go. So, they're there for permanent periods of time. So, as projects ramp up, somebody might go back to their home department, for example, if they're in the public service. And so, it moves around. So, we're at about that, and it's it fluctuates.

[00:00:36]Okay, and uh do you have a a fixed timeline for which your office is is supposed to approve projects?

[00:00:44]Our office actually doesn't approve projects. We help support projects advance through the different things that I mentioned earlier, regulatory approvals, working with other departments, financing structuring, and then any approvals that they have to get through different federal government authorizations. So, those those continue to happen. So, why were projects that already had a final business decision and already had approval, why were they referred to your office?

[00:01:06]>> Yes.

[00:01:07]Some had partial uh approvals or were, you know, partially through an assessment. We helped to get them over the finish line. Okay, and then some have been on the website for ever since pretty much day one, and the status hasn't changed. Why is that?

[00:01:21]Uh I believe I would have to check with our communications people, but I believe there was an update to some of the material on the website uh in March or early April, but I would have to check that. Okay.

[00:01:32]Thank you. Uh I'm just going to switch uh back to uh uh PCO here really quickly. You you mentioned that you guys deal with a little bit of uh advertising and marketing. Is that correct?

[00:01:42]We we deal with coordination of government advertising, yes. Okay, are you aware of the uh Treasury Board guidelines on advertising?

[00:01:49]I'm aware of them. I'm not the one responsible at PCO for it, but I guarantee that our uh communication experts are. Okay, I'm just going to read it quick. Government of Canada communications are non-partisan, effectively managed, well-coordinated, clear, and responsive to the diverse information needs of the public and Government of Canada employees. You mentioned you guys are a non-partisan group. Is that correct?

[00:02:09]>> That is correct. Okay, are you aware that the Liberal campaign tagline, Canada Strong, has been used in Government of Canada communications?

[00:02:18]I'm not personally involved in the government communications, and so I can't comment on individual government communication lines. Okay, but if the coordination goes through through PCO, would somebody have not flagged that you cannot use partisan communication and languages in Government of Canada documents?

[00:02:35]So, I can only comment on uh the fact that we do have a communication group that we give advice on that. I can't speak to what their advice would have been in this particular case, um but they would have given advice, absolutely.

[00:02:46]So, are we not concerned though that uh somebody is breaking the Treasury Board guidance by allowing partisan campaign language to be used in government documents?

[00:02:58]>> Point of order, chair. Point of order.

[00:03:00]Just stop the clock. Um go ahead.

[00:03:02]Uh the term Canada Strong does not is not necessarily a partisan term.

[00:03:09]There and just and to and to just start making these this characterization is is is definitely an overstep. Sure.

[00:03:15]>> Yeah, hold on. It is debate, but I will note that it was the campaign slogan, and the Treasury Board, I think it's 3-1, does specifically state campaign slogans cannot be used in government communications.

[00:03:28]Well, so I will I I I it's debate, but I will correct you on that. Like, literally the Liberal campaign slogan is Canada Strong, and it literally violates the Treasury Board rules on specifically states you cannot use slogans, cuz we brought this up with Treasury Board. You cannot use slogans in government communications or advertising.

[00:03:49]>> Right, but saying >> But I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I >> Thank you very much, and I mean, I can pull up the the Liberal website that says Canada Strong right on it, right there. And then if you look at the budget document, Canada Strong. If you look at the speech from the throne, it said Canada Strong. There are several TV ads that have been been ran all across this country using the tagline Canada Strong in the taglines. Now, again, if PCO is non-partisan, and I mean, okay, I understand that you yourself are not directly responsible for communications and marketing, but you got to tell me, and you got to tell this committee, and you got to tell Canadians, and reassure Canadians that there's somebody in your department that is making sure that partisan language is not being used in government communications. That violates the trust of Canadians, let alone the standards that are set by the Treasury Board.

[00:04:45]>> I meant chair.

[00:04:46]Point of order.

[00:04:49]Point of order, go ahead.

[00:04:50]The witness has answered the question, and so >> uh this is debate. That's the member's time. I Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

[00:04:57]>> I that that that was the point of my question. Like, there's got to be somebody Is there not Is there not like a for lack of a better term, a quality control person in PCO to make sure that the rules are being upheld?

[00:05:09]So, I will say again, um and I will reiterate, we are a non-partisan organization. We do provide non-partisan advice. Our communication team would absolutely provide advice on that. I think to what I've heard from the committee, there may be different interpretations of of that particular issue. I'm more than happy to bring that back to our communication folks if you would like to have something uh back to the committee. Yeah.

[00:05:31]Sure, if you could respond back to this committee with with with that, that would be greatly appreciated if you could follow up with that. I'm just going to read it one more time for everybody at home. It's section 3.1.1 on the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity, quote, Government of Canada communications are non-partisan, effectively managed, well-coordinated, clear, and responsive to the to the diverse information needs of the public and Government of Canada employees. So, if it's effectively managed, and it's supposed to be non-partisan, the fact that it is partisan shows me that there's a coordinated effort, and it's effectively managed to be partisan, and I would strongly advise that that your department, if it's non-partisan, would make sure that that does not happen going forward. Thank you.

[00:06:12]>> unprofessional and inappropriate.

[00:06:14]>> Danko, that's not a point of order.

[00:06:16]Thank you.

[00:06:17]>> Well, it is a point of order.

[00:06:18]>> No, it's not a point of order, Mr. Danko.