Government "Communications"

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen is an aritcle that highlights what I think has been going wrong with government, including DND, communications for nearly 45 years:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Public+service+government+need+moral+contract+stop+partisan/5842683/story.html

Public service, government need “moral contract” to stop partisan exploitation of bureaucracy

By KATHRYN MAY, The Ottawa Citizen

December 10, 2011

OTTAWA — Canada needs to set ground rules for a new “moral contract” between ministers, public servants and Parliament because the existing rules are too weak to stop the partisan exploitation of the bureaucracy, says a former senior bureaucrat who helped write some of those rules.

Ralph Heintzman, a research professor at the University of Ottawa, is calling for a new charter for the public service to set boundaries for a bureaucracy operating under a powerful prime minister’s office that’s obsessed with communications control — what’s known in academic circles as new political governance.

He argues the Conservatives’ centralized communications command is riding “roughshod” over the federal communications policy, breaches ethics guidelines and risks turning the independent and non-partisan public service into a propaganda arm of the government. He said the deputy ministers, including the country’s top bureaucrat, who aren’t stopping it are also violating the codes.

“Communications is the most vulnerable now and it is in a very serious and difficult mess. … Public servants shouldn’t be drawn into roles they shouldn’t be playing,” he said.

“We need new instruments to set the political boundaries between elected and non-elected officials. They aren’t the same. They have different institutional values … but the boundaries are being blurred and a new approach is needed”.

The former senior Treasury Board executive oversaw and helped rewrite a version of the government’s communications policy. He was a key player in the landmark study, known as the Tait report, into values and ethics, and then went on to head Treasury Board’s office of values and ethics. He was given the Vanier Medal, the highest honour for public administration, for his work in 2006. He recently presented his concerns at a conference for political scientist Donald Savoie, known for his work on the concentration of power in the prime minister’s office or what Savoie calls “court government.”

The line that separate politicians and bureaucrats has been blurring for years, but more are sounding the alarm that the Conservative government’s seeming indifference about conscripting public servants for partisan communications is setting Canada on a course that will erase that line and forever change the role and independence of the public service.

This grey zone between politicians and bureaucrats was at the heart of everything that went wrong and led to the sponsorship scandal and Heintzman argues the public service is paying the price for not fixing the problem then. Justice John Gomery, who headed the sponsorship inquiry, also recommended a legislated charter — along with a slew of other proposals — to set boundaries between public servants and politicians that were never implemented. The Tait report made the same recommendation a decade earlier.

“We have seen a sea change when this current government took office, especially in communications. I think people are right to say it’s a change in degree, not direction,” said Heintzman. There was slippage and errors by other governments, but not the wholesale disregard for conventions of the public service.

It started off with public servants having to change “Government of Canada” websites with the slogan “Canada’s New Government,” or using government websites to promote the Tories’ Economic Action Plan, including photos of Conservative MPs presenting giant cheques for projects in their ridings.

Today, public servants find themselves drawn into partisan communications, directives, events, activities and maintaining websites to promote the Conservative brand.

The Conservatives got the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic arm of the executive, to centrally manage an unprecedented vetting of all communications and events known as the Message Event Proposal (MEP). Everything is scripted and the centre decides who speaks, when, where, and what they say.

Documents obtained under access to information law recently proved the government told departments to use “The Harper Government” instead of the more neutral “government of Canada.” Until then, the government denied doing this.

In departments, directors of communications joined the executive table about a decade ago and played key role in shaping communications strategies and plans. That’s all changed. The strategy is done by the PMO and the directors of communications are at the executive table to take directions and pass them onto staff.

There is still plenty of routine, day-to-day, government communications within departments on programs that never hit the political radar, but with strategy coming from PMO, the departments’ role has diminished. Many worry this leaves the more than 3,800 communications jobs vulnerable to cuts.

The management of the G-8 Legacy Fund raised questions about improper procedures and whether public servants were inappropriately directed or pressured. Heintzman argued it was “outrageous” public servants went along with any kind of decision-making process that wasn’t documented. Such behaviour goes against all federal policies.

Heintzman said the existing rules and conventions are clearly not enough. The big question is why public servants aren’t refusing when they are being asked to “cross the line.”

No one knows whether the PCO clerk, Wayne Wouters, the head of the public service and deputy minister to Prime Minister Harper, or other deputy ministers are duking it out behind closed doors with their political masters about protecting the impartiality of the public service. In the face of attacks on public servants, Wouters counterpart in Britain, Sir Gus O’Donnell, sent a letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron asking him to rein in government “spin doctors” and special advisors.

“Would Wayne Wouters write a similar letter?” asked Paul Thomas, a University of Manitoba professor emertitus, who is studying communications and prime ministerial power.

“I am prepared to give the clerk the benefit of the doubt that he hasn’t mandated (these changes), but if he isn’t taking steps to stop them, then there is a problem,” said Heintzman. He is not fulfilling his responsibility as deputy minister, who is obliged to uphold the spirit and letter of the ethics code and the communications policy, said Heintzman.

Heintzman said the newly-released trail of emails of public servants questioning the use o f“Harper Government” in government communications shows they know where the line should be drawn but did what PCO told them to do.

“People learn behaviour from the behaviour. We can see in email exchanges that public servants have it right saying, ‘We shouldn’t be doing this,’ but it’s PCO saying so,” said Heintzman. This changes culture … these behaviours creeping in are deeply corrupting of the understanding of government. Over time, the culture of the public service will change and public servants won’t have the instincts. They will wither. We need to strengthen those instincts.”

Heintzman said public servants could be lodging complaints about actions they feel breach the communications and ethics policies with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner where they are protected and given anonymity.

The values and ethics code, introduced in 2003, is long, dense and few bureaucrats have probably read it. The auditor general warned years ago it would end up on the “bookshelf to collect dust” if it didn’t do a better job explaining public service values and how to put them into practice.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which was adopted by the previous Liberal government and proclaimed under the Conservatives, calls for a new values-and-ethics code that has yet to materialize. The act also “commits” to a new charter but nothing has been done.

He said the existing values and ethics code is a “one-way” document that only deals with public servants. A charter, which would be approved by Parliament and ministers, would set boundaries for the “three-way” relationship between public servants, ministers and Parliament.

The charter should include changes to the Conservatives Federal Accountability Act to give deputy ministers the tools to be effective “accounting officers.” It would amend the Public Service Employment Act to take the appointment of the deputy ministers away from the clerk and prime minister and give it to the Public Service Commission. The charter should also spell out rules for government communications, forbidding public servants from “activities with a partisan character.”

These are the kind of major changes the government has little appetite for, but some argue they are critical to restoring Canadians trust in government.

Without change, Thomas argues the lines will continue to blur because governments are in “permanent campaign” mode. The “frenzied headline-grabbing” and campaign tactics of elections have carried over into governing. At the same time, the personal and leadership style of the prime minister becomes “fused with the governing process,” says Thomas.

When the political game is to win at all costs, Thomas said that culture seeps into the public service and the way it is managed. He argued the rapid turnovers of deputy ministers, who think their main job is to protect ministers at all cost, have also left them less committed to the values of previous generations of public servants.

Savoie said all governments are obsessed with “blame avoidance” in today’s world of 24-hour news and “gotcha journalism.” He agreed public servants get drawn into partisan communications because the rules are “too loosey-goosey” and “when there’s no line in the sand they will push public servants as far as they can to manage blame and generate the best image they can.”

Whatever the rules, it’s all about culture, said Thomas.

“The fish rots from the head,” he said.

“If he wanted, (the prime minister) could give a speech about the impartiality of the public service or introduce a values and ethics code for political staff like Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. did. ... Something like that coming from Harper would be a meaningful message about how power is exercised in Ottawa.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Professor Ralph Heintzman is so full of sh!t his eyes are brown. There is no need at all for anything like a "new “moral contract” between ministers, public servants and Parliament because the existing rules are too weak to stop the partisan exploitation of the bureaucracy." All there is a need for is a clear understanding who who does what communicating and why - and that sense, is, in my opinion lacking in government and academe and, above all, in the communications community.

The government communicates with the people for three broad reasons:

1. To inform;

2. To explain; and

3. To persuade.

The first job, public information is the domain of civil servants and military officers - even junior ones. Information is all about facts. For example, I might ask Industry Canada how to go about getting a radio licence and I might ask DND how many hours are logged by Hercs flying "stuff" for civilians. Both questions seek and deserve clear, simple, accurate answers and public servants, technical experts and communications people alike, are well equipped to give them. In fact, the technical experts in Industry Canada have been asked so often "how do I get a radio licence?" that they, aided by their communications professionals, have put together a booklet which gets mailed out whenever the question is asked.

The second job, explaining things is a bit more complex and it may, often does, need fairly high level bureaucratic and political inputs. For example, if I ask DFAIT to explain our trade policies with certain countries I do not expect a normal civil servant to haul out a prepared booklet, although that does happen now. I expect that my question will have gone, the first time, to an executive (a director) who, probably working from some prepared scripts, will draft a reply that will be seen and "signed off" by one or two other directors and someone from the Trade MInister's political staff.

The third job, persuading, is largely, but not exclusively, political.

Every government department needs three distinct communications staffs:

1. Public information specialist who help technical/line people (civilians and military) to answer, correctly, questions about facts;

2. A departmental communications staff that helps managers and executives and, sometimes, politicians, address e.g. explanatory matters; and

3. A ministerial communications unit that helps ministers and their deputies and other very senior public servants persuade Canadians about issues.

Of course the three units, while distinct, need not be totally separate (we don't want an Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Information) and and ADM (Communications) after all) and their work will often require cooperation to deal with overlaps, but a clear understanding of what it, or ought to be, a simple process is needed to counter Prof. Heintzman's nonsense.

There are a couple of places where special rules are needed: Statistics Canada and the National Research Council, for example. Both may provide information that might be very controversial - but unless there is an expert statistician or an astro-physicist at the cabinet table then the "government" has no business interfering when e.g. the NRC tells a Canadian that "so, the universe was most likely not created by some old man 'up there'."

 

[RangerRay]

In BC, government communications has gotten quite Orwellian.

After Gordon Campbell criticized the NDP government of the 90's for using government communications to "propagandize" for the NDP, he set up the Public Affairs Bureau (PAB).  This centralised ALL government communications and advertising, effectively blurring the lines between information, explanation and persuasion, and government communications and BC Liberal communications.  If the provincial parks service wants to create a sign to warn visitors to the danger to bears, it must be vetted by PAB before they can be produced.  Government advertisements, press releases, websites and signage has a strange feeling to political advertising for the governing party.  PAB also has significant power to issue advertising contracts to newspapers and television networks.  PAB in BC has become synonymous with the "Ministry of Truth".

In my opinion, the feds have nothing on BC...yet.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More, in a slightly different sense, about how and why government political communications matters so much, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/telling-the-naked-truth-is-good-politics/article2274630/

Telling the naked truth is good politics

ALLAN GREGG

From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Dec. 19, 2011

Even someone with only a passing interest in current affairs would know our political leaders are in big trouble. Each night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart runs a clip of a politician speaking and, without the benefit of any backstory or punchline, merely arches an eyebrow in response, and the audience erupts in gales of laughter.

For most of my adult life, I’ve worked with political leaders and marvelled at how otherwise funny, thoughtful men and women can be transformed at the podium into blustering B.S. machines. They pillory opponents with hyperventilated allegations, feign outrage at modest grievances and take exaggerated credit for shared accomplishments. Especially painful is their complete lack of appreciation of the public’s incredulous response.

Polling backs this up: Most Canadians no longer believe their leaders speak the truth; they expect little of government and feel disengaged from the whole political process. Asked this year how often a typical politician would tell the absolute truth when making public statements, four out of 10 claimed less than 50 per cent of the time. Put another way, almost half believe that, any time politicians speak, there’s only a 50/50 chance they’ll be told the truth.

Yet, it’s the truth and authenticity we crave, more than anything. Citizens have become saturated with authenticity in their day-to-day lives. Consider the explosion of technologies and the freedom and control they provide: We’re no longer limited to “banker’s hours,” can access video on demand and get breaking news in real time. TripAdvisor and Chowhound have replaced travel agents and restaurant critics, while Facebook and Twitter have increased the intimacy and immediacy of our connections with one another.

Feeling more knowledgeable, connected and in control of our personal lives has also directly reduced our reliance on authority. As a result, we have little incentive to uncritically swallow the claims of political leaders who don’t seem to understand our concerns, share our experiences or speak in a way we find authentic. Our political leaders have not only failed to adjust to this new reality, they also avoid honestly and directly engaging on our most pressing issues. And that’s what we desperately need.

What if someone stood up and said: “Because our treasured health-care system is not sustainable in its present form, we need to offer more services through the private sector.” Or: “Although we must invest in green technologies and alternative energy, for the foreseeable future, our responsibility to the planet and future generations requires us to monetize and tax carbon.” Or: “New Canadians are falling behind; their sense of ‘belonging as Canadians’ is shrinking and cracks are beginning to show in our multicultural fabric.”

Based on experience, I think I can safely predict that such statements would be roundly pilloried by journalists and opponents alike – even though those very critics also know that current approaches are unsustainable.

And yet I believe that, in today’s environment, telling the naked truth can be good politics. How else do you explain a socially progressive Muslim being elected the mayor of Cowtown, and a leather-lunged know-nothing capturing the imagination of Canada’s cultural and intellectual epicentre?

It was the unapologetic uniqueness of Naheed Nenshi and Rob Ford that made them seem more authentic and believable. Even more remarkably, in both Calgary and Toronto, the percentage of eligible voters who went to the polls increased by almost two-thirds over the previous municipal election. In fact, low turnout is a rational voter response to choices that matter little. If politicians stand for nothing and avoid the truth, why would you bother voting? When politics is made to matter by politicians who represent an authentic alternative to the other available choices, the evidence suggests that voters engage.

We could do worse than to echo the prescription offered by Rex Murphy during the last federal election. In a vintage rant, he exhorted politicians to throw out the scripts and really talk to people. End the ads and deal with the three most important issues at length. And tell us why your party is right, not why the others are wrong and evil.

We all have the right to our own opinions, but we don’t have the right to our own facts. The idea that you can no longer speak the truth with impunity, that government doesn’t matter, or that repairing trust in our public figures and institutions is an impossible task is just plain wrong. And those who suggest otherwise must be challenged.

Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris/Decima, delivered the 2011 Gordon Osbaldeston Lecture at the Public Policy Forum’s dinner in Ottawa last month.

This advice should be taken to heart by Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty as Canada enters another round of "how do we pay for the unaffordable? health care cost sharing negotiations. But maybe they should preface each remark with, "This is going to get me crucified by most of the media but please, my fellow Canadians, remember that journalists, by and large, are ignorant of economics, know nothing about public finances and care even less about your and your children's futures, so, with that caveat ..."

 

[dapaterson]

More, in a slightly different sense, about how and why government political communications matters so much, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/telling-the-naked-truth-is-good-politics/article2274630/

This advice should be taken to heart by Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty as Canada enters another round of "how do we pay for the unaffordable? health care cost sharing negotiations. But maybe they should preface each remark with, "This is going to get me crucified by most of the media but please, my fellow Canadians, remember that journalists, by and large, are ignorant of economics, know nothing about public finances and care even less about your and your children's futures, so, with that caveat ..."

I will disagree on tactics.

A number of years ago I took a few courses on improvisational comedy.  I didn't quit my day job.  However, there was one key message driven home again and again: to successfully create a memorable scene, you have to build on what you are offered by the other performers. Or, in short form, your approach should always be "Yes, and..."

The current government has taken a largely confrontational approach to the media.  In a time where fiscal restraint is the buzzword (and will be for the foreseeable future) there are ways to embrace and redierct the media.

Rather than "The media are know-nothings", a stance guaranteed to attract only further strained relations and continued media efforts to focus on minor transgressions (real or imagined), imagine a government that, instead, says "The media serve an important role in oversight.  For example, The Star recently exposed how the air ambulance services in Ontario have been privatized on the sly, with its directors attempting to hide their salaries."  Suddenly, the media is a partner working with, not against the government in revealing poor spending patterns and habits (and John Honderich's bow tie will spin at an accelerated rate as he realizes that the Conservatives are speaking of him in glowing terms).

Constant confrontation doesn't work well or play well to the population writ large.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Rather than "The media are know-nothings", a stance guaranteed to attract only further strained relations and continued media efforts to focus on minor transgressions (real or imagined), imagine a government that, instead, says "The media serve an important role in oversight.  For example, The Star recently exposed how the air ambulance services in Ontario have been privatized on the sly, with its directors attempting to hide their salaries."  Suddenly, the media is a partner working with, not against the government in revealing poor spending patterns and habits (and John Honderich's bow tie will spin at an accelerated rate as he realizes that the Conservatives are speaking of him in glowing terms).

Constant confrontation doesn't work well or play well to the population writ large.

While E.R.'s approach may be too harsh, your approach may be a bit difficult to do when the "constant confrontation" is also seen/read/heard by the public by the media's approach as the unelected opposition, no matter who the government is.

 

[dapaterson]

While E.R.'s approach may be too harsh, your approach may be a bit difficult to do when the "constant confrontation" is also seen/read/heard by the public by the media's approach as the unelected opposition, no matter who the government is.

Certainly; my glasses are not rose-coloured enough to suggest otherwise.

But even a slight embrace of the emdia can pay dividends.  The current approach of mutual demonization does nothing to contribute to civil discourse.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Certainly; my glasses are not rose-coloured enough to suggest otherwise.

But even a slight embrace of the emdia can pay dividends.  The current approach of mutual demonization does nothing to contribute to civil discourse.

True - and even a bit of positive is better than nothing but negative.

 

[dapaterson]

True - and even a bit of positive is better than nothing but negative.

Besides, there's the obvious propaganda benefit of being able to say "Look, we tried to play nice."

..or you could just petulantly order your staff to refuse contact with media outlets you don't like - even refusing to send them media releases.  I'm sure that would work out well.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Besides, there's the obvious propaganda benefit of being able to say "Look, we tried to play nice."

..or you could just petulantly order your staff to refuse contact with media outlets you don't like - even refusing to send them media releases.  I'm sure that would work out well.

And I think that's where the exercise would end up.

No matter what the government tries to do to be civil or play nice, the majority of MSM in this country is so rabidly anti CPC that the whole thing would be a waste of time. There is no placating the columnists that shill for the Liberals under the guise of journalism.

Sure, the CPC could try take the moral high ground and offer the olive branch but the MSM would decipher that as a sign of weakness and attack even harder, likely by stating the CPC has a hidden agenda for their actions.

That's just my  :2c: though.

 

[observor 69]

..or you could just petulantly order your staff to refuse contact with media outlets you don't like - even refusing to send them media releases.  I'm sure that would work out well.

You mean like this?

"The Toronto Star has filed a formal complaint with the city’s integrity commissioner about Mayor Rob Ford’s exclusion of the newspaper from the email list his office uses to notify the media of his appearances and public statements."

See more at LINK

 

[quadrapiper]

3. A ministerial communications unit that helps ministers and their deputies and other very senior public servants persuade Canadians about issues.

I'd go a bit further, and suggest that, in a perfect world, you would hardly ever hear from the minister; rather, the "persuasion" role should be pushed down as far as possible, to the person with the greatest understanding of the facts relating to "X." It seems incredibly rare to get ministers with experience in an area close to their ministry's area of operations that's even close to that held by someone five or six steps down from the Cabinet level - Paul Martin and that retired BGen who was MND for a while are the only ones that come to mind.

The moment a politician touches "X," it acquires partisan overtones; far better, I think, for persuasion to come from someone who can speak directly to the subject, and bring in a depth of knowledge exceeding whatever the minister got briefed in on.

There are a couple of places where special rules are needed: Statistics Canada and the National Research Council, for example. Both may provide information that might be very controversial - but unless there is an expert statistician or an astro-physicist at the cabinet table then the "government" has no business interfering when e.g. the NRC tells a Canadian that "so, the universe was most likely not created by some old man 'up there'."

I'd go farther, and suggest that such a rule should apply to all civil servants speaking within their lanes: something along the lines of whistleblower protection. Say the MND makes decision A, and something goes horribly wrong. While it might be inappropriate for DND/CF pers to offer an opinion, it seems entirely fitting to provide all relevant raw data and background information, without the extraordinary hassle of an FOI request, even if all that data shows the Minister failed miserably. The duty of the civil service is to the people and the Crown of Canada, not to keep the government of the day in power and looking good.

recceguy, I think one of the things that unnerves a number of Canadians about the CPC (and the NDP, for that matter) is that they have an agenda at all, rather than the stay-the-course approach of the Liberals. I think there's a strong desire on the part of Canadians for quiet, transparent, good governance, rather than active national "leadership," especially on social and moral issues; this desire is likely fed, in part, by the ever-more-ridiculous object lesson that is the American political scene.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'd go a bit further, and suggest that, in a perfect world, you would hardly ever hear from the minister; rather, the "persuasion" role should be pushed down as far as possible, to the person with the greatest understanding of the facts relating to "X." It seems incredibly rare to get ministers with experience in an area close to their ministry's area of operations that's even close to that held by someone five or six steps down from the Cabinet level - Paul Martin and that retired BGen who was MND for a while are the only ones that come to mind.

The moment a politician touches "X," it acquires partisan overtones; far better, I think, for persuasion to come from someone who can speak directly to the subject, and bring in a depth of knowledge exceeding whatever the minister got briefed in on.

And how about when the politicians get a major change of course in a department?  You don't think it would sound partisan if officials made arguments contrary to the ones they made under an earlier government?  If politicians are going to decide to do the "right things" (as opposed to the officials "doing things the right way"), it makes sense for the politicians to explain the "why" those particular "right things" were chosen to be done.  If you "hardly ever hear" from Ministers, it looks like they don't like having to say some of the things that need to be said.

Also, how do you think political machines of any stripe would feel about officials getting all the media coverage for, say, announcing nodal points of major ongoing work?  Not a new initiative or change in policy, but an update in an ongoing process.  I'm guessing they'll want the elected official to take credit, not the bureaucrats?

Say the MND makes decision A, and something goes horribly wrong. While it might be inappropriate for DND/CF pers to offer an opinion, it seems entirely fitting to provide all relevant raw data and background information, without the extraordinary hassle of an FOI request, even if all that data shows the Minister failed miserably. The duty of the civil service is to the people and the Crown of Canada, not to keep the government of the day in power and looking good.

Correct on the red bit.  With the green bit, it is the civil service's job to 1)  give its best advice to the politicians to get the job the politicians want done within the the rules/laws/frameworks of the system, and 2)  to make things happen within said rules/laws/frameworks once the politicians decide which way the ship is to go.  Is delivering a service desired by the politicians in a way that's legal and efficient "making the government look good"?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'd go a bit further, and suggest that, in a perfect world, you would hardly ever hear from the minister; rather, the "persuasion" role should be pushed down as far as possible, to the person with the greatest understanding of the facts relating to "X." It seems incredibly rare to get ministers with experience in an area close to their ministry's area of operations that's even close to that held by someone five or six steps down from the Cabinet level - Paul Martin and that retired BGen who was MND for a while are the only ones that come to mind.

The moment a politician touches "X," it acquires partisan overtones; far better, I think, for persuasion to come from someone who can speak directly to the subject, and bring in a depth of knowledge exceeding whatever the minister got briefed in on. I'd go farther, and suggest that such a rule should apply to all civil servants speaking within their lanes: something along the lines of whistleblower protection. Say the MND makes decision A, and something goes horribly wrong. While it might be inappropriate for DND/CF pers to offer an opinion, it seems entirely fitting to provide all relevant raw data and background information, without the extraordinary hassle of an FOI request, even if all that data shows the Minister failed miserably. The duty of the civil service is to the people and the Crown of Canada, not to keep the government of the day in power and looking good.

recceguy, I think one of the things that unnerves a number of Canadians about the CPC (and the NDP, for that matter) is that they have an agenda at all, rather than the stay-the-course approach of the Liberals. I think there's a strong desire on the part of Canadians for quiet, transparent, good governance, rather than active national "leadership," especially on social and moral issues; this desire is likely fed, in part, by the ever-more-ridiculous object lesson that is the American political scene.

While I agree with both the fact and the sentiment I suspect you might be stretching things. First: the people and the crown are, indeed, one, but in terms of the formulation and implementation of policy the prime minister (the head of government) and the crown are also one - Constitutionally the crown is bound to accept the advice of the prime minister even when that advice is self serving. But it's not clear to me serving the people/crown brings with it any obligation or right or even privilege to speak about the government's business except under some fairly specific and, I would suggest, constrained circumstances.

Second: I believe in a free society and a transparent one - that means one where I can ask for and receive information and where I can judge for myself the merits of persuasion (commercial and political). I know that the media believes that it should be allowed to be a "gatekeeper" and should be allowed to feed you whatever information it thinks is important, and some pretty good journalists like David Akin of Sun media and James Cudmore of the CBC have made the case for free access to information for journalists  - I do not agree. I agree they, like me, can ask but I reiterate that some information is, rightfully and properly classified and, despite abuses which have occurred, occur today and will occur in the future that system works fairly well. I also believe that discussions about policy options are, properly, private even before they get to be "advice to cabinet." In other words, senior bureaucrats need not explain their analyses to journalists - it is not the public's business.

Essentially, I believe in a quiet public service, including a quiet military. If journalists want to know and report let 'em dig for the information; if public servants improperly release (leak) information then let them and the journalists who, equally improperly receive it spend a few years in jail.

 

[a_majoor]

The fact that people are empowered to get their own information via the Internet and other "narrowcast" outlets has several possible consequences.

Number one is the shattering of the "Narrative" and a forecast of post progressive society in general. It will be far easier to link up with like minded people and do your own research or promote your own opinions. "Mass" communications and propaganda will simply be less and less effective. The US Legacy Media is already feeling the bite as viewership and readership declines. The other consequence of post progressiveism is local issues will become much more important as time passes, and people will simply tune out or even reject attempts by higher levels of government or bureaucracies to dictate rules, regulations or allocate resources.

Number two is politicians will need to find ways of getting into these communication channels in order to inform and persuade. Steven Harper did this on a medium scale while rebuilding the CPC and moving from opposition to minority by appearing on local call in radio shows. The summer Barbecue circuit may become much more important in the future, and of course we will see attempts by politicians to co opt the tools of Social Media and Web 2.0 as well.

Number three is that local politicians may become more powerful again, as they are best placed to deal with local issues and communicate directly to their constituents. Higher levels of government wil be rolled back by a combination of debt (havng no monetary resources to bring to the table anymore) and ineffectiveness (as remote deparments and bureaucracies run into the "Local Knowledge Problem")

 

[Edward Campbell]

Carbon, writ large, is an issue which the government's communications has muddled. We, Canadians, have been told and, currently, are being told a horrid mish-mash of fact, fiction, hopes and dreams. Now Jeffrey Simpson decides to further muddy the water, and to tell some whoppers to boot, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/case-of-the-conservatives-carbon-amnesia/article4557581/

Case of the Conservatives’ carbon amnesia

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Sep. 21 2012

The Conservative Party’s attack machine, with its television ads, canned speeches and pre-written scripts, has always been constructed on exaggeration tinged with mendacity. To this, since Parliament resumed, can now be added flagrant hypocrisy, since the machine and its mouthpieces, Conservative MPs, are attacking with customary vehemence the very policy on which they once campaigned.

In 2008, the Conservative platform promised to “develop and implement a North American-wide cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015.” Now, however, the Conservative attack machine denounces a cap-and-trade system, as conceptually proposed by the NDP, as a “carbon tax,” a job killer “that will increase the price on everything.”

It was a heady time after Barack Obama’s election, when doing something about climate change seemed possible. Mr. Obama had campaigned on a cap-and-trade system. Those who wanted action against greenhouse-gas emissions believed that something useful would emerge from Washington, and that the Harper Conservatives would follow along, however grudgingly.

The Conservatives were never keen on attacking greenhouse-gas emissions, to understate the case. But with the Obama administration’s apparent determination to get something serious done, the Harper Conservatives signed on to the possibility of a cap-and-trade system for North America. Had they considered cap and trade to be a “job killer,” presumably they would’ve opposed any scheme for North America.

Maybe the Harper government reasoned that any Obama plan would be wrecked in Congress, and that, of course, is what happened. But that outcome couldn’t have been definitively assumed when the Conservatives committed themselves to a cap-and-trade system. They accepted the idea philosophically, or so their campaign documents suggested, and would work, along with the Americans, to give the idea practical life.

Cap and trade does put a price on carbon. Putting a price on carbon by whatever means is the indispensable method of any serious plan for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The essence of cap and trade is that limits are set on emissions. Companies falling above or below the limit buy and sell credits, thereby establishing a price. As the limits are lowered, the price shifts. Clearly, companies that have to buy credits will pay the price. It’s this price that the Conservatives scream constitutes a “tax.”

With a carbon tax, you know what the carbon price will be, as with British Columbia’s carbon tax. You don’t know by how much emissions will be reduced. With cap and trade, governments know the limits of emissions but don’t know what the price will be.

Call the price what you want, it’s a cost. Contrary to what NDP proponents would have us believe, that price will be passed on to consumers, who will adjust their buying behaviour and energy consumption. The NDP argument is wrong in fact that only “big polluters” will pay whereas the mythical “ordinary Canadian” won’t.

Just as wrong is the unstated assumption underlying what the Conservatives are now doing. Having opposed a carbon tax and switched positions on cap and trade, the Conservatives dropped market mechanisms for dealing with emissions and opted for detailed regulations on industry – a rather strange choice for a government that decries the “heavy hand of regulations.”

These regulations, it’s assumed, won’t burden the “hard-working Canadian taxpayer” (another favourite attack machine cliché), whereas, in fact, the costs of complying with the regulations constitute a new cost of production or operation for companies that will eventually be passed on to suppliers and consumers. As most economists (as opposed to politicians) would understand, regulations are much less efficient in getting low-cost outcomes than market or tax mechanisms.

Cap and trade, in principle, would let the market work to establish a price for carbon in a more efficient way than government regulation – and a much more efficient way than pouring huge sums of public money into carbon sequestration experiments and ethanol subsidies.

The selective amnesia of the attack machine, however, has now whitewashed from the record what the Conservatives once favoured and for which they now denounce the NDP for supporting.

First, Jefferey: If you want a good example of "exaggeration tinged with mendacity and flagrant hypocrisy" then think back to your hero, Saint Pierre Trudeau who pooh-poohed Bob Stanfield's wage and price control promises in the 1974 election campaign and then, early in 1975 implemented them ~ that was exaggeration, in fact it was a bald faced lie, that was mendacious, that was hypocritical: in fact Jeffrey, if you really care about why politics and politicians are held in such low esteem then you need look  no farther than Pierre Trudeau: his "Zap! You're frozen" BS started Canadians wondering about why we elect cheats and liars to our highest office.

Second: Simpson says of the US Congress well known intention to wreck any proposal for Cap & Trade that "that outcome couldn’t have been definitively assumed;" perhaps not but it was as close to a sure thing as the sun rising the next morning. If you want a good example of mendacity then that, Simpson's statement, is it.

Third: Simpson says, "Cap and trade, in principle, would let the market work to establish a price for carbon in a more efficient way than government regulation – and a much more efficient way than pouring huge sums of public money into carbon sequestration experiments and ethanol subsidies." Nonsense! Capt and trade invites, indeed requires a new, intrusive bureaucracy to manage it. It is a bureaucratic not a market mechanism.

If we desire to change behavior - to make my neighbour (who is an office worker who has never been "off road" in his life) trade his 5.7 litre Dodge Hemi for a Prius, for example - then the sijplest way to do is to make the cost of operation more and more expensive. The easiest and simplest way to do that, and to make me turn off the kitchen lights and so on, is to tax carbon consumption just as we tax the consumption of most other goods and services. There is almost no extra bureaucracy required and the tax rate can be set, fairly simply, to bring in $n Billion/year.

The government has not explained why carbon matters nor has it communicated its views re: what, if anything, to do about it.

In my opinion the government should refocus on pollution, of all sorts, including excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The AIM should be to protect the health of Canadians by reducing pollution of the land, water and air. Carbon is part of the problem (or, at least and absent an imminent ice age, I have yet to hear about a problem for which pumping more carbon into the air is a solution) but so are heavy metals and many other things. The environment is a fairly popular topic and people can understand dirty water better than they can understand climate change. Communicate a plan for a cleaner, healthier environment; it's an easy "sell." Leave carbon alone unless a new revenue source is needed in which case make it a villain and tax it like we tax other "sinful" products like tobacco and alcohol.

 

[bridges]

Communicate a plan for a cleaner, healthier environment; it's an easy "sell."

An easy sell for most, but perhaps not for those who have a lot to gain (financially, in the short term) from polluting, and doing so with few regulatory impediments.

As for communicating... well, that's just crazy talk!     

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The centralizing of media control and comms started under the Liberals and the tightening of the grasp was speeded up under the Conservatives. I think it was driven by a great deal of mistrust in the PS by the new government.

It was common a few years ago to receive a call from a MP or MLA office to get the facts on a local issue. We would provide the background on the issue so the politican could determine if the issue was real or worth pursuing. In fact I had several conversations with Nathen Cullen on local issues in his riding. Now we have to turn the call over to our comms office, who spend a great deal of time ‘massaging an answer” and get the OK to send it. Sometimes the back and forth from our comms people in the region and our HQ is mind boggling.

It’s frustrating for all concerned and even if there is no intent to hide something, the optics make it look like we are. Not to mention the average response from a minister office is often diluted to a thin layer of polite BS. Feeding the beast and avoiding risk seems to be the primary concern of 95% of Ottawa.