Month: April 2006

It was certainly a banner day for Stephen Harper’s new Conservative government. Today, the centrepiece legislation (essentially the foreseeable legacy of this new government) was tabled in the House of Commons by Minister John Baird, the President of the Treasury Board.

However, this anticipated legislation, which is unequivocally at the centre of Stephen Harper’s mandate in Parliament, was overshadowed in the following CBC clip (linked below) by sarcasm and anger at PMO communications by CBC reporter Keith Boag.

(UPDATE: The first 1:08 minutes of) Keith Boag’s report on the Federal Accountability Act the media’s frustration
(Firefox users, right click and save as…)

The clip is marked with numbers which refer to the notes below:

1. Keith Boag remarks (or complains) that Stephen Harper made them “jam” into a small room for a press conference. (Perhaps a larger venue such as the lobby outside of the HoC would be more appropriate for large crowds of reporters and their technical crews? However, I hear that reporters would prefer to “jam” themselves in the narrow hallway outside of the Prime Minister’s office and cabinet meeting room)
2. More than 300 clauses in the FAA? Not bad. Too bad the FAA’s merits do not strike Boag enough to underscore them first in his report. This report instead begins with his anger towards cabinet accessibility.
3. “Reporters had dozens of questions about [the FAA]”, Boag remarks as he sets up the video which includes an irate reporter complaining, “Are you going to ignore everyone (the queued reporters) in the lineup?”. Boag then edits to qualify the reporter by explaining that Harper only allowed one question in each official language. CBC’s chief political correspondent continues sarcastically, “Then he left, to champion public accountability, transparency and openness elsewhere.”

It’s always interesting when reporters make themselves the topic of the news. Stephen Harper and his communications team have done their best to control messaging and the PMO’s position (that is, after all, what a communications team gets paid for). So, as we see with Keith Boag’s report, the battle continues between the PMO and the PPG. A couple of sincere questions that I ask are: How much access to the PM and cabinet are reporters entitled to? Does the PM allow/deny access for his own benefit/peril?

In this modern era of 24 hour cable news, reporters are certainly under more pressure to get the report filed quickly (and often live) and get it with full picture, sound and comment.

The Prime Minster’s office, in contrast, is not under the same pressures and really hasn’t changed to a significant degree in its need to satiate the media since print reporters that made telephone calls for comment were the primary report filers. Modern media demands the sound bite and live video and these demands are at odds with a body (the PMO) that’s strategy has never really changed: control messaging and information flow.

If I found myself in Ottawa as a reporter for the modern news industry I would very rightly be frustrated with Stephen Harper’s communications approach that finds itself directly incongruent with the demands of my job. However, I don’t believe that I’d be justified in laying blame on the PMO for its strategy. Overall, the media’s gripe, however, is not an issue of accountability upon which the Conservatives campaigned (and subsequently received a mandate). Stephen Harper is not accountable to the Keith Boag (as a reporter) by any legal or constitutional measure. Boag may certainly vote against the Conservatives when the next election is held, but Harper’s communications strategy is certainly not part of any accountability requirement in the context of the Federal Accountability Act.

Many of those that watch Ottawa will remember the days of Jean Chretien when the former PM went on a golf vacation. The PMO would only tell the press gallery that their boss was on “personal business”.

Boag tries to link the frustrations of his job with “government accountability”. Canadians voted for change in the way that government contracts are awarded, lobbying is conducted, and the way that whistleblowers are protected. They voted for accountability in the way government works. Canadians did not vote for the Boag’s easy access to the most sought-after video and sound bite.

UPDATE: For the sake of clarity for some readers out there, I agree that the PPG/Boag certainly has the right to be frustrated. However, facile and on-demand media access is not an issue of government accountability (in the context of the FAA, or the election/mandate that was fought/received on the issue). My complaint is that it was selfish for Boag to complain about his frustration when it was unrelated to the story.

UPDATE (bonus video): The CBC scores again for biased reporting on the same night. Check out the clip below which is from a report about Access to Information:

CBC reports on Access to Information
(Firefox users, right click and save as…)

“Ottawa may not be a ‘culture of entitlement’ as the Conservatives claim. But it is a culture of secrecy.”

Err… wasn’t it Justice Gomery that called Ottawa a “culture of entitlement”.

Yes it was

Seriously… come on CBC. I just reality checked your “Reality Check”.

By the way, Crown Corporations (including the CBC) will be subject to reformed (and stricter) Access to Information legislation tabled by the Conservative government.

UPDATE: Much to my surprise (and likely hers as well), Zerb agrees with me.

UPDATE: Well, that was short-lived and too good to be true. Apparently Zerb misinterpreted the video and thought that the clip represented the entire report (even though it doesn’t end with “Keith Boag, CBC. Ottawa”) She focuses on her misinterpretation rather than in the fault that lies with the state-run media.

Today, Belinda Stronach announced that she will not be seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party. CTV News cited that her reason for not running was because of the way the Liberal Party picks their leader.

“I would rather see a Liberal party with millions of members where each and every individual has a direct vote. We have the technology. I would rather spend my energies working towards the goal, that goal, than running in a system that still values political deals for delegates over the free-market of ideas.” — Belinda Stronach, today at her press conference

“When we’re looking at renewal, what better way to renew the party than to sign up millions of members and be able to give each of those members a direct say who their leader should be?”, Stronach asked rhetorically on today’s early installment of Mike Duffy Live. Mike Duffy responded, “One person, one vote”. Stronach confirmed, “One person, one vote”.

Now, let’s rewind to Belinda’s leadership aspirations in the then-newly formed Conservative Party of Canada. Stronach had a two pronged strategy for tipping the race in her favour: youth politics and the 100 point ridings.

Under the terms of the Alliance-PC merger, the youth wing issue was to be decided at a future policy convention. During former PC and Liberal leadership races, the number of campus clubs would skyrocket under the aspirations of leadership contenders. Each campus club (sometimes only existing on paper instead of in practice) would be allotted a number of delegates to vote during a leadership contest. While the baseline national number of campus clubs would usually hover around the 40-50 mark, during a leadership contest, this number would easily surpass a couple of hundred. This would allow leadership candidates to secure a number of delegates.

Currently, the Liberal Party has a number of quota delegates from groups such as the National Women’s Liberal Commission and the Aboriginal People’s Commission. The validity of this practice is debatable and is the subject of discussion for another time.

Today, however, Belinda wishes to shut down this system of quota politics as she advocates for “one-person, one vote”.

Yet, when Belinda was running to be leader of the Conservative Party, she vigourously defended the practice of equal riding representation. In equal riding representation, if a riding in Quebec had 10 members it should be equal to a riding in Alberta with 8,000 members. She argued that each riding should be allotted 100 points (the points represented the % of the membership vote in that riding for each candidate) and that the leadership contest should be added up riding-by-riding, 100 points at a time. The strategy for Belinda was to buy up memberships in Conservative-poor Quebec ridings to muscle against Stephen Harper’s solid base of tens-of-thousands of singular members in Western Canada.

The Montreal policy convention witnessed a lot of maneuvering by Stronach. She argued for quota delegates as she lobbied for a Conservative Youth Wing. Therefore, when she was a Conservative, Stronach was against the “one-member one-vote” system. At the time, another youth wing advocate and then-boyfriend Peter MacKay caused Harper to famously kick a chair when he went up against Harper’s friend MP Scott Reid on the one-member one vote issue.

But most of the headlines from the weekend meeting – intended to draw the strands of the party together – were focused on the convention-floor showdown between Mr. MacKay and Ontario MP Scott Reid.

Mr. MacKay won the battle Saturday afternoon, when delegates voted down a rule change that would have limited the number of delegates from small eastern riding associations.

But to win that victory, the Central Nova MP had to take his dispute public, telling reporters he felt betrayed by the motion, which, he said, put the future of the party in jeopardy.

His public display of pique worked, and his message appeared to get through to the delegates gathered in Montreal for a weekend of policy debates.

When Mr. Reid, a close ally of Mr. Harper, stood at a convention floor microphone to urge members to support his motion, he was greeted by a mix of boos and cheers.

Mr. MacKay had complained about Mr. Reid, who helped broker the merger of the PCs and the Alliance, saying he was disappointed that Mr. Reid would try to renegotiate the terms of the union.

The Alliance had a one-member, one-vote rule at national conventions, but the parties agreed to use the Progressive Conservative rules: the same number of votes for every riding, regardless of size.

Now, the Reid proposal was just as valid as the Stronach/MacKay suggestion as a method for selecting a leader (and voting at other conventions). In fact, MacKay likely still believes in the Youth Wing / Equal riding method for selecting future Conservative leaders. That, of course is his strategy and belief and he’ll have a lot of support in the party. There are certainly arguments to be made in favour and against both methods. Peter MacKay certainly deserves a lot of credit for what he has brought to this party that he co-formed with Stephen Harper.

Belinda Stronach, on the other hand, has made a complete 180-degree-turn and is showing significant ideological inconsistency regarding how she believes party leaders should be elected.

She once advocated so very strongly against the one-member, one-vote proposal in favour of the Youth Wing / Equal riding proposal. Today, it is her support of this method — which the Liberal Party doesn’t practice — that has her bowing out of the race for that party’s leadership.

It doesn’t add up. What’s the difference between Belinda’s principles when she ran for the Conservative leadership and now when she was until recently considering a run for the Liberal leadership? Is principle a factor? The Liberal Party of today, Adscam notwithstanding, has considerable party structure and organization in Quebec. There aren’t any 10 member ridings for her to buy up. It can be argued that the Liberals even have a better Western Canadian organization than the Conservatives did in Quebec when Stronach was urging Conservatives to Start. Right. Now. Belinda is also playing catchup on youth politics in the Liberal party. Youth politics is an establishment in the Liberal Party and it doesn’t favour a new Liberal face.

So why advocate for a one-member one-vote system? Belinda can sell. Given an even playing field of candidates (one that she didn’t have against the obvious early favourite Stephen Harper), Belinda is a bigger draw for events in which one can sell memberships. If you were selling Liberal memberships (or anything, frankly), who’d be a better salesperson, Belinda Stronach or Bob Rae? Belinda can go to large urban areas in Western Canada which have a deficit of Liberal memberships (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Regina etc.) and sell memberships by the hundreds to those who wouldn’t otherwise care about the Liberal brand.

Belinda doesn’t have a deeply held democratic belief about how leadership contests should be held. She used to advocate quota politics and riding equality. However, now that this strategy can’t benefit her, she’s promoting a system against which she used to lobby in order to find at least part of an advantage.

Belinda isn’t defending a principle here, she’s playing politics.

It seems that Stephen Harper is treating the 39th session of Parliament more like a multi-partite congregation than his predecessor ever did.

Today, with a conciliatory gesture, the PMO announced that there will be a Take Note debate on Afghanistan on April 10th. Both the Liberal Party and NDP have been asking to ‘discuss’ the current Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Contrast the attitude of the current minority government with that held by Paul Martin’s. It seems that Harper is reaching out constructively (as he did with the NDP in pre-throne speech consultations) rather than manipulating Parliamentary procedure and opposition days while making unprincipled budget re-writes in order to extend the slow death of a Gomery-damned government.

Of course, we may yet see some creative Parliamentary acrobatics, yet Stephen Harper’s olive branch to those who’d like to discuss the mission is certainly showing good faith.

I’ve learned that Rob Nicholson, the Conservative House leader initiated discussions with the other House leaders on setting up the take note debate.

There will not be a vote on the Canadian mission. The debate will allow Canadians to evaluate the opinions and statements of their Parliamentarians on the issue of Afghanistan. For example, former NDP leader Alexa McDonough supports the mission adamantly. However, there is a minority yet significant number of Canadians that do not support the mission in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see which MPs take up this position and how they do so.

The Conservative Party is certainly supportive of our men and women in uniform and the Liberal Party, even in its new opposition role, should support the mission since it was their government which sent Canadians to secure that troubled country.

From what I understand, a vote will only occur on new mission instead of ongoing deployments. This take note debate allows a discussion and the results will hopefully preserve the morale of our soldiers. Will the mere debating (or rather ‘discussion’) of the mission phase our troops?

I hope not. They should know that there are certainly many of us in Canada that support what they do.

UPDATE: BBS calls Jack Layton on his record. It’s quite shameful when you realize that Harper’s extension of the olive branch to the NDP may be more about Jack’s partisan hackery than a need to inform Canadians about the mission.