CFN

Actually what was shocking was that someone put that requirement in writing, but at least they can say they were being open and transparent.

It is unlikely that any government regardless of political stripe will appoint people to key positions if they know that they are opposed to that government’s policies. That is a recipe for political disaster and constant infighting and a dysfunctional working relationship. That helps no one including the taxpayer who foots the bill for the salaries and any legal costs that might arise.

One would hope that any individual who is appointed to a board or commission or any other Order-in-Council appointment would be the best qualified person and not just a party hack. It is beneficial for a board to include a mixture of backgrounds and opinions and the government and the taxpayer are best served when boards are staffed by qualified individuals who provide honest advice to a minister. Today, some of those appointees may very well have ties to the Conservatives.

When I read that some Liberals were shocked at Moore’s requirements I couldn’t help but think back to the thousands of appointments they made from 1993-2006. It was roughly 2700 positions that came up for renewal each year and as an opposition researcher for the PC Party, I would go through them, especially if one of the appointees got into trouble and ended up in the media. To aid me I had a huge document that had been compiled by a previous researcher and it showed the many different connections that many of the appointees had to the Liberal Party. Today’s Liberal complaints seem to be more of the pot calling the kettle black.

Whenever questions about an appointee arose in the House, the standard Liberal answer (you can substitute Conservative here too) was that these were the best qualified people for the job.  In fact in many cases that might have been true, both then and now.

For all the whining from the NDP over the appointment process, does anyone think for a moment that they would do things differently? Thomas Mulcair has been a cabinet minister in Quebec; he understands the process and the type of working relationship a minister needs with key members of commissions and boards etc. If Mulcair was Prime Minister today do the NDP critics or NDP backbenchers honestly think that he would be appointing people to key government positions if he knew that they were opposed to the very NDP policies Mulcair was promoting?

Unfortunately in 2006, an opportunity was lost to clean up the appointment process when Prime Minister Harper suggested Gwyn Morgan take over as head of the process. Instead of using that opportunity to vet and question an appointee in a rational manner (as MPs have done with the appointment of judges) the meeting was a circus.

It was a partisan side show of the worse type and it pretty well sealed the fate of that process. How could any Prime Minister ask another appointee to endure the same fate? Who would accept to be an appointee knowing what they would be subjected too? An excellent opportunity was lost to clean up our appointment process.

Opposition parties love to criticize and seek out that 10 second TV clip or earn that one sentence in the written press. But they need to remember that when they obtain power some of their comments will come back to bite them.

Should the NDP ever come to power, it will be interesting to see how quickly they establish a Parliamentary Appointments Office and how clean and nonpartisan their suggested appointees will be. Somehow I don’t think they will be any different from the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

CFN

With roughly a month to go, there doesn’t seem to be much interest from the public in what they do or for that matter, what they decide. This isn’t unusual, as public attention is focused on Tom Mulcair and the NDP. Clearly at this point in time the NDP offers voters the biggest contrast with the governing Conservatives, the Liberals still don’t seem to fit in anywhere.

It is always tough for a third party to define itself and being in the mushy middle isn’t necessarily a good thing at this point in time. This is partially due to the fact that the voters haven’t turned on the Conservatives yet and the NDP is finally starting to get its act together. My guess is those opposing the Harper government will park their interest and their vote with the NDP for now.  Better to give a strong opposition leader a shot at dealing with Harper than switch back to the mushy Liberals with unknown leadership prospects waiting in the wings.

To date, even the potential candidates don’t have the profile to generate a lot of interest amongst the general public, even though inside the Queensway it will be a hot topic of conversation and speculation. But with BBQ season finally arriving, will ordinary Canadians being paying attention?

Martha Hall Findlay, Gerard Kennedy, Scot Brison, Marc Garneau, David McGuinty, Dominic LeBlanc, Denis Coderre and Justin Trudeau and of course Bob Rae are mentioned as potential leadership candidates, but how do Canadians see them? Do they see them as reasonably competent MPs or as a giant slayer who can defeat both Harper and Mulcair? Based on their track record I don’t see any of them in that position just yet.

Hanging over all of the potential candidates will be the question of how they will deal with a merger or coalition with the NDP. We can expect most if not all to deny any hint of a merger and they will probably dodge the question of a coalition arrangement with the NDP after the next election. But with their thirst for power, do we honestly think the Liberals, no matter who they are led by would walk away from a coalition deal that gave them a few seats around the cabinet table?

Gerard  Kennedy was honest enough to say recently that “I don’t think the coalition itself was particularly well handled in the end, but I think that was a matter of politics as opposed to whether or not it was the right thing to do. We’ll see how things are.”

You can bet the Conservatives won’t let him forget that one and it is a key question to put to every leadership candidate. Today, Canadian voters have been exposed to coalition governments more frequently than in the past, the UK being an example. Conservative scare tactics may not be as successful this time around and the bogeyman of a coalition government may have played itself out especially as the Bloc will have no role to play. It is therefore a legitimate question for potential Liberal leaders. Would they join an NDP led coalition or come to a working arrangement if it meant the defeat of the Conservatives?

At this point in time even that question is a long way away. For now the media and pundits will be looking at who might throw their hat into the ring? Can they raise the necessary funds? Which potential candidates will be seating MPs or defeated candidates?

Canadians will be asking themselves do I care and if I do is there a giant slayer amongst them?

CFN

I am not about to defend these expenses, all government expenses deserve scrutiny and some of these do seem excessive, but the story does raise a few additional questions.

Peter MacKay, Julian Fantino and former minister Jean Pierre Blackburn have their drivers listed as exempt staff and therefore no overtime is paid out. Sounds like a smart move. As exempt or political staff their hours are allocated by the Chief of Staff and it is the Chief of Staff who reviews their expenses and signs off on them. In other words, as both the drivers salary and expenses are coming out of the minister’s office budget there is direct oversight.

Some of the questions I have centre around what happens when the driver is a departmental employee and not a member of the minister’s exempt staff?

1. Who does the driver submit their hours and expenses to? Is it the minister’s office or the department?
2. Does the Chief of Staff still sign off on the worksheets submitted by the driver?
3. Does the driver submit the worksheet directly to a departmental supervisor?
4. Why must it be overtime pay as opposed to time off?
5. If the department didn’t red flag driver overtime to the minister’s office, who is responsible, the department or the minister?
6. Another related issue of course is the number of drivers and cars? Do junior ministers of state need one? If the junior minister falls under a senior minister couldn’t they use the same driver?
7. What about cars and drivers allocated to senior departmental officials such as deputy ministers and PCO officials. Let us see their numbers too so that we can compare.

One way or another, someone needs to review the expenses and the system needs an overhaul.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

CFN

The real battle begins today with Mulcair’s chosen team in place. Mulcair has had time now to sort out his team, reward caucus colleagues for their support and performance during the leadership race and at the same time cushion the egos of some of those who ran against him. With new caucus critics in place, there will be a lot of NDP MPs anxious to make their mark in their new portfolios.

Mulcair will have from now until the mid-June to demonstrate to Canadians that his team under his leadership is a match for the Harper Conservatives. Let us not forget the NDP are supposed to be the government-in-waiting and it will be interesting to see how Mulcair’s shadow cabinet performs in a head to head match up with Conservative ministers.

Mulcair laid out his initial attack plan when he said “our focus is to start showing Canadians that the Conservatives, despite their branding, are lousy managers of the public purse.”

It’s a solid strategy that won’t result in a big win today, but over time can chip away at the Conservatives perceived strength.  The Conservatives can expect weeks of attacks along this line with the F-35 still fresh and on the minds of Canadians. The NDP will also have new ammunition with the costs of Bev Oda’s trip to London coming to light.

It doesn’t matter that the trip and her expenses followed Treasury Board guidelines; the NDP will try to convince Canadians that the expenses were extravagant and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. In politics perception is everything and Mulcair’s team will have fresh ammunition with Oda expensing limousines at an average daily cost of $1000 ($2850 for three days). This won’t sit well with Canadians struggling to get by in the present economy.

It is these examples that are often the most damaging to a government. It is hard for someone to imagine what $10 billion dollars looks like, but everyone out there can look at that $1000 dollars a day for a car and relate it to their own pay cheque. These examples hurt governments.

We can expect the government to counter with their usual line that the NDP would raise taxes if they were in power, but it is a well-worn line that has been used so often it has lost its impact.

For the Liberals, it will be a real wake-up call as they will be lost in the battle. The best quips from Bob Rae will be drowned out by the fire from the NDP benches. The real battle is about to begin for the hearts and minds of Canadians and that battle is between the Mulcair NDP and the Harper Conservatives.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

Keith Beardsley

CFN – Wisely the NDP have launched their own ad campaign to introduce their new leader to Canadian voters. While expensive, it will help to define him before the Conservatives launch their own series of attacks.

This ad campaign is important as it signals that the NDP is becoming much more professional in how it conducts itself. After a dismal and boring leadership campaign, the NDP are finally getting back into the game. This is welcome news to that large body of Canadian voters who voted against the Conservatives in the last election.

The English ad is pretty straight forward. Mulcair is seen as calm, conservatively dressed and appears to be in a boardroom. In other words prime ministerial. A reassuring image to voters concerned about the economy and in particular reassuring to Liberal voters who tend to park their vote in the centre of the political spectrum.

The NDP will have to be careful that they don’t go too far in trying to change Mulcair’s public image. I say that because doing so rarely works. A leader’s personality will always come through. If they try and portrait him as someone he is not, people will begin to question the honesty of the “new” Mulcair. Your leader’s public personality is what it is and it is best to work with what you have instead of trying to change them into something they are not.

For example, Harper was never comfortable asking the attack dog type of question. When he presented one, this showed and the question often fell flat. It was far better to let him ask a question in the manner that he preferred. Attack style questions were left for others to ask, Jason Kenney being one of the best.

While the English ad offers up “normal” citizens making positive comments about Mulcair, there is nothing unusual in that, after all it is a political ad and while expected, voters won’t be fooled by the quotes or the individuals they are representing. A political ad is a political ad.

The French ad shows a more aggressive Mulcair, in my opinion a more honest portrayal of the man. Quebec voters know Mulcair, they know his personality, they know he is a scrapper and that is both what they like and want to see in him.

The Conservatives won’t have too much to fear from either ad. They don’t have much of a chance in Quebec at this time and their core support will ignore an ad about a new and refined Mulcair. It is a different story for the Liberals.

These ads are aimed squarely at their voters. They offer Liberal voters the opportunity to be introduced to a professional leader of the Official Opposition. For those who have lost confidence in the Liberal party, for those who are discouraged and for those dismayed by their third party status, these ads will have impact.

The NDP were smart to get these ads out as quickly as they did. If nothing else, the Liberals now know they are in for the fight of their life. There is a new opposition sheriff in town and it’s Thomas Mulcair.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

CFN

Needless to say the headlines are all about how the Tories mishandled things with Bob Rae going so far as to demand the Prime Minister resign.  I guess you say such things when you are the leader of a third party desperate to get into the news cycle and you have Justin Trudeau getting top headlines over the weekend. But let’s not kid ourselves, if the Conservatives were in opposition, you can bet they would be pulling out all of the stops too. Question Period would be like a war zone.

That too is the way it should be as it is up to the opposition parties to thoroughly question the government on behalf of those footing the bill for this aircraft- namely Canadian taxpayers.

Ministers who did due diligence on a file will rarely accept blame for screw-ups in departments.  Nor will a Prime Minister ask for a minister’s resignation simply because the opposition is demanding one. The first question should become how diligent were they? Did they question what they had been told by officials? If they did either verbally or in writing, what answers were they given? It is one thing if they had been given the correct information and refused to use it, quite another if they were briefed with misleading or wrong information.

To be fair, ministers can only report on what they have been told by departmental officials.  It would be rare in any government, never mind this one, to find a minister or staffer who is an expert on the intricacies surrounding the procurement of military equipment. The end result is they are briefed by departmental officials on the need for the equipment, they are briefed on expected costs, and they are briefed on anticipated problems and delays and on potential industrial benefits to Canada.

The second question becomes how well did DND fulfill their obligation to give the minister and the government the most up-to-date and accurate information? Anyone who has been involved in the bureaucracy in Ottawa knows that the preparation of a memo for a minister can be a long and arduous process. The original draft will be amended and signed off by several layers in the chain of command. Numerous individuals will have a say in the approval process and the draft memo will undergo considerable change from its original form. Somewhere there is a sign off sheet for every briefing memo and every written response prepared for a minister or ministerial staffer on the F-35 issue.

For example, the Auditor- General found that some briefing notes that were prepared for ministers were inadequate. He noted that the department failed to adequately provide an accurate range of what to expect from the industrial benefits package and they did not explain how most of the department’s assumptions were based on Canadian companies competing on a worldwide basis with other competitors. The net result was a briefing document that did not give the minister a true picture of the industrial benefits to Canada. Did no one involved in the above departmental approval or sign off process question the accuracy of the briefing notes?

Much the same process is followed when the Privy Council Office (PCO) prepares a briefing note for the Prime Minister. Once again was accurate information put into those notes? Who signed off on the information that went to the Prime Minister?

The department also released information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the total cost of the program but failed to include billions of dollars in long term costs, a significant item when costing the program. Who made the decision to release inadequate information? Did no one object internally? When the minister used these released figures, did no one in the department red flag it for the minister to say the number was not completely accurate?

Ministerial talk points and answers for Question Period will be worked on with departmental officials. If a minister provides an incorrect detail in an answer, or gives an incorrect answer to a question or uses an incorrect fact in a speech, the department will red flag it for the minister. Did they this time? If they did, why wasn’t a correction made? If the department chose not to correct the minister then that again is a serious issue and begs the question, why?

The Auditor General’s office would have sent a preliminary copy of the report to the departments some months ago so that they would have time to respond to the criticism. As the department knew in a general way what to expect when this report became public, did they tell the minister they needed to adjust their facts? Is this why we have seen the government recently backing away from their unqualified support for the F-35?

There are lots of questions and few answers and none of them will be answered quickly. This issue will have lots of turns and twists in the days ahead. Tempting as it is, at this moment in time it is too soon to decide whose head should roll. Let the games begin, somewhere out there or buried in departmental sign off sheets is the truth.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

CFN

One would think that they would have held their fire until the new NDP leader was chosen and then started their ritual carpet bombing to frame the new leader before they really got established in the House of Commons and in the minds of voters. Instead they have chosen to focus on Bob Rae as their target and that tells you some interesting things as well.

For one thing Bob Rae should be patting himself on the back for being the Conservatives latest target. Liberal MPs should be applauding their leader for a job well done. It is not as though the Conservatives would waste money on ads attacking the leader of a third party unless they were concerned about his success. Clearly Rae has dominated Question Period since the passing of Jack Layton. During the recent robocall affair he was passionate and garnered considerable press, ample reason for the Conservatives to see him as a threat, but he is still just the leader of a much reduced third party. Why pick on Rae at this time?

Have the Conservatives decided that they can contain whoever wins the NDP leadership race? Have they decided that Rae is the bigger threat regardless of who wins the NDP leadership? Do they have internal polling numbers or are they seeing trends in their polling results that show Bob Rae is on the rise? Certainly during Rae’s leadership run in 2006 we regarded him as the biggest threat should he win, fortunately he didn’t. Have the Conservatives now decided that he is once again their biggest threat?

I wasn’t overly impressed with the ad, oh I get the dark somber tone and mood, but I am not sure if harping back to events that took place some 17 plus years ago will work on modern voters. And yes I get that it is about the economy. And the public record is the public record and free to be used by all politicians. Certainly there is a core group of Ontario voters who will remember “Rae Days” and the job loses (possibly their own), but I would suspect they are already the converted.

Bob Rae was premier of Ontario from Oct 1, 1990 to June 26, 1995 and a great many of our younger voters weren’t even born then and many others would only be able to recall those events from their history books. It doesn’t have much meaning for them, nor for many who live outside of Ontario nor the new Canadians who have arrived since then.

I have nothing against throwing a leader’s words and events they were involved in back at them for the simple reason that it works. But it loses something when it becomes so dated. A fresh quote or a mistake from the recent past is always better than reaching back a couple of decades to attack someone. The Liberals tried that with their decade old Harper quotes and after a while the attacks became pretty stale. Voters preferred to think for themselves and evaluate the man they saw in front of them, not the man portrayed in Liberal attack ads.

The ad would imply that the Conservatives don’t believe politicians can change, but we all know they do. Even Prime Minister Harper has evolved over the years, he is not the same politician he was in the 1990’s either. Remember Harper’s position on bilingualism, Quebec and building firewalls around Alberta?

Perhaps that gives us the answer for why this ad at this time. Just like voters, the Conservatives realize that Bob Rae like Stephen Harper has evolved and that he is no longer the same politician as in the 1990’s. Perhaps as in 2006 they realize he is still the real threat and they feel compelled to try once again to frame Rae as incompetent. This is an interesting move on their part.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

CFN

There is no doubt that the way politics is practiced now is much different than it was in the past. Today it is meaner and nastier and you are either on side and “right” or opposed and “wrong”. You are my brother or my enemy. There is no room for compromise and no middle ground exists.

Ignatieff commented that “We’ve blurred opponent with enemy.” That is a fairly accurate comment. Today it is winner take all, not just during an election, but every single day. Whether it is Question Period, committee work or even rebuttals in speeches, no quarter is given. Today it is all out war between political opponents.

I can remember when from time to time an opposition critic (both NDP and Liberal) would call up to ask if my minister would be in Question Period that day and if so here was the question they were going to ask. We in turn would make sure we had an answer ready. It was win-win, they asked about something important to their riding and we got our message out in our response. Given the current atmosphere in the House of Commons can you imagine an opposition critic giving a heads up to a minister about a question they were going ask today? And even if it did happen, could a minister get permission to answer it? A minister would have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get an answer ready and that answer would have to be signed off by PMO.

Even at the committee level and in Private Members Business, MPs have little if any freedom. Orders come from on high as to how they should act, questions are prepared for them and MPS dutifully ask them or vote as they have been ordered by their respective Leader’s Office. Dissent is treated as opposition, not healthy debate.

Ignatieff also commented that today “it is more like war, with words as weapons.” He should know as we used his against him so often no one could ever keep count. From the moment a new leader is chosen, he is carpet bombed with his own words or images through various attack ads.

Today everything is scripted. Ministers stand and read from prepared answers, never deviating from the script that has been approved by PMO. And while it might look ridiculous to an outside observer, it would take a brave minister to stand and give their own answer as opposed to that of the thought police in Langevin.

Focus groups are used to get the exact phrase that gives you an advantage, modern marketing tools are used to press home that advantage and of course you never admit you are wrong and never give your opponent a positive comment because after all they are no longer parliamentary colleagues, they are “the enemy”. Ignatieff raised some valid points and such is the practice of modern day Canadian politics.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

Dr. Evil - Keith Beardsley

CFN – In the latest NDP leadership debate serious divides were evident and some of the internal tensions between candidates started to show.

Thomas Mulcair as the perceived front-runner was the target of a number of barbs thrown his way, all of which imply he isn’t a true believer in the NDP. The question now becomes where do the candidates go from here if Mulcair wins?

Brian Topp charged that Mulcair would take the NDP ”backwards into a divisive and distracting debate about ourselves.” If Mulcair wins, will Topp fight him every step of the way in effect creating the divisions that he is forecasting?

Paul Dewar questioned Mulcair’s ability to win an election when Dewar tried to convince party members that Mulcair was down on the party as it presently stands and questioned how Mulcair could ”inspire people to vote for our party when you don’t seem to be inspired by our party.”

Will Dewar stay in caucus with an uninspiring leader that he feels can’t win? Will he join Topp in fighting a rear guard action to oppose Mulcair’s leadership in an attempt to preserve the values of the NDP as they see them? Or does Dewar resign?

At the very least this means that there are two senior NDP members and leadership contenders who disagree strongly with Mulcair’s position that the party has to change and modernize. How they react to a Mulcair victory will impact on the future direction of the party and on Mulcair’s chance for electoral success.

In addition, if Mulcair doesn’t control the party apparatus he will be pressed on a number of sides and could find himself in the divisive situation Topp is predicting. If he moves to put his supporters into key party positions he will also risk creating a backlash. All in all some interesting times ahead for the NDP if Mulcair wins.

Questioning Mulcair’s NDP credentials makes for an interesting attack point in a debate, but what happens if your pseudo NDPer wins? Perhaps Nathan Cullen had it right when he said that the notion that “some New Democrats are good New Democrats and others need to pass some kind of test is offensive to me. I think it’s wedge politics, only done within the family – I reject any offensive notion that there be some loyalty test.”

Perhaps the real loyalty test will come if Mulcair is declared the winner.

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.

CFN

Rae said the real blame for any election trickery rests with the political culture Harper has created in the party. ”The prime minister has created a Nixonian culture,” Rae said. “This stuff doesn’t happen unless the boss lets it happen. He has allowed to seep into his party and into his organization a culture of attack and, frankly, a culture of deception and dirty tricks, where almost anything goes.” (Aaron Wherry, Mclean’s)

If we take Rae at face value, then his comment that “This stuff doesn’t happen unless the boss lets it happen” implies that Chretien must have known everything that various Liberal operatives were up to in what became known as the sponsorship scandal. Even with my tory leanings I somehow doubt that is true.

As for a culture of attacks, that has been a part of politics since time immemorial. In this country it is the attacks that get major news coverage with very little coverage of items where political parties agree with the government. As for Harper being the one to bring a “culture of attack” into politics, Rae had turned to provincial politics by 1984, admittedly for another party, and while he was absent from the House of Commons the Liberals introduced the “Rat Pack.” To their credit or discredit depending on your point of view, they were one of the most formidable attack machines Question Period has seen. In fact, we based a lot of our Question Period techniques on their tactics. The Rat Pack even took their antics outside of the chamber. Does Mr. Rae forget Shelia Copps (who just ran unsuccessfully for the presidency of the Liberal Party) crawling across a table to get at then Conservative cabinet minister Sinc Stevens?

Neither were the Liberals any slouch when it came to ministers attacking opposition members. They were always quick to play the racist card when Reform or Canadian Alliance members would question Alphonso Gagliano.

Again using Rae’s logic, Liberals lying about cutting the GST or breaking their promise several times to introduce a national child care program means that then Liberal leaders Jean Chretien and Paul Martin must have decided that their party and politicians in general could lie with impunity. Again I doubt that is true as there are often economic reasons why platform items get put aside, but it does make great political rhetoric to attack them for breaking a promise.

Rae’s attack probably served its purpose. It got him and the Liberals some media coverage which is always difficult for a third party to achieve. Unfortunately no one called him out on some of his assertions. The new civility in parliament is a wonderful thing to behold!

Keith Beardsley is a senior strategist for True North Public Affairs in Ottawa, as well as a blogger and political analyst. He can often be found running or cycling on his favorite bike trails.