CFN – With the House of Commons returning today we can expect a raucous session. Already the battle lines are forming as the opposition party’s line up to take shots at the Prime Minister over pension reform. Not since 1985 when Brian Mulroney stated that he would de-index Old Age Security (OAS) have we seen such a feeding frenzy around pension issues.

The Prime Minister’s office is in full damage control mode with talk points that insist there are no immediate plans to make changes and they are pushing back on media reports that the government plans to extend the age from 65-67 (before you can receive the benefit), insisting that no final decision has been made. They even had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister on TV discussing the issue and the Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies was also giving interviews. All of this point to the fact that they see the potential damage this can do to Conservative prospects down the road.

With so many baby boomers near retirement age (myself included), this issue strikes close to home for many of us facing imminent retirement. Many of these baby boomers live in those hard fought for suburban ridings that the Conservatives needed to win to obtain their majority. There are political consequences for this government if they cannot turn this story around to their advantage.

This issue is a gift for the opposition and tailor-made for Question Period. The issue of extending the age from 65 to 67 is the figure that is out there. With the House recessed there was only limited opportunity for the government to shut down this line of attack. This story and those figures percolated along over the weekend, you still see it mentioned in numerous stories, it already has legs and the opposition attack will most likely focus on that point.

Whether or not that number is accurate and whether or not the Conservatives intended to act quickly on OAS will be buried in the opposition attack. The task facing both the Liberals and the NDP will be to convince the public that the Conservatives really do intend to change the OAS to the detriment of all of those retiring baby boomers. With all of us watching what has been happening to pensions in Europe as governments there fight their fiscal problems, it is not a stretch to think that quite a few Canadians will believe the opposition attacks.

The Conservative platform in the last election did address pension issues, but said nothing about making changes to the OAS. How long do you think it will take for the Liberals to resurrect their old attack points from the 2004, 2005-2006 elections and bring up the well-worn phrase “hidden agenda”?

Adding additional fuel to the fire in Question Period will be Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s comments on revamping the immigration process. His comments will be unsettling news to many of the multicultural communities who supported the Conservatives in the last election. Combine that with the pension issue and the opposition parties will see a golden opportunity to snatch back voters that moved to the Conservatives. For the NDP it will be an opportunity to entrench their hold on Official Opposition status; for the Liberals it will provide a chance to resurrect their brand, especially in vote rich Ontario.

With so much at stake, these two issues combined with pre-budget maneuvering will guarantee that this session will be loud, noisy and full of over the top rhetoric as the three parties use Question Period to fight for the minds and future votes of Canadians.

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.

Share on Facebook

CFN – Most reports indicate some progress was made at the Crown-First Nations Gathering yesterday. This is positive news and a sign that both sides are inching forward and making progress. While there was speculation that Harper would only attend for a few minutes, he surprised observers by committing much of his day to the proceedings.

While we can concentrate on the differences between the sides right down to what symbolism was used IE Harper referred to a tree and Atleo referred to a rock, there are other positive signs. Clearly Atleo and Harper get along and can communicate with each other. I get the sense that there is a mutual respect for each other and this comes across in public. This bodes well for any private discussions they might have.

Another significant feature of yesterday’s meeting was the amount of time the Prime Minister committed to the event. Anyone who has worked with a Prime Minister knows the intense pressure their schedule is under. This holds true at the ministerial level as well. Meetings and time commitments are measured in minutes, not hours. The fact that Harper set aside his agenda to spend a significant amount of his day at the conference sends a signal to both ministers and departmental officials that the Prime Minister has now taken a keen interest in these files. That translates into there had better be results.

Clearly the Indian Act will be overhauled. While Atleo suggested doing away with it, in effect that is what will happen by the time it is updated, amended and changed. This will be a significant step forward providing of course both sides cooperate, show good faith and agree on the necessary changes.

Some of the items announced in the joint statement are important to First Nations as they try to manage their affairs. Moving to a multi-year funding arrangement is crucial. No longer will Chiefs have to go cap in hand to the minister and department each year.

The same holds true for educational reforms and developing an action plan for economic development for First Nations. Both sides are inching forward. If the constructive tone on display at the Gathering continues there is a possibility of real progress. Long overdue progress, maybe measured in inches, but at least things are moving in the right direction.

I was disappointed to see former Prime Minister Paul Martin come out and attack Harper on the conference. I think this was a missed opportunity. Martin has built up considerable experience working with First Nations. His foundation and its success in working to advance education and training opportunities offer one model, although not the only one, on ways to move educational issues forward. He has also had success in attracting corporate donations and investment to encourage aboriginal business development. I would have preferred to see him offer to work with the present Prime Minister, rather than refight old battles. In the same way I hope the present government will not ignore Martin’s work or expertise simply because he is a former political opponent and Liberal Prime Minister. First Nations issues should cross party lines, solutions not scoring political points should be the end game.

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.

Share on Facebook

CFN – Mounting opposition to the Keystone XL project shouldn’t have come as a surprise. In this day and age of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other forms of social media, any government (both politicians and bureaucrats) is at a disadvantage when they promote a policy or back a decision.

Every government decision (not just environmental ones) impacts on someone. Every decision will have both supporters and detractors. In the past a government could fight back on a fairly level playing field. Press releases, statements or interviews with ministers guaranteed them a place in the news cycle of the day. The opposing side, for example environmentalists, was limited to the same news outlets. With the general public relying on print, radio or TV news for their information, government officials could counter opposition claims made in the same news sources.

Governments are generally limited to making fairly factual commentary. They talk about jobs created and the importance of a decision to the economy. This is pretty dry stuff and they are not appealing to the emotional side of an issue. Whenever they try to appeal on a more emotional level and ramp up their language to talk about “foreign money”, or “radical groups” or Hollywood stars interfering in Canadian affairs there is a media and public backlash.

Those opposing a government decision now have many more tools at their disposal than existed 10 years ago. Opposition groups can organize and protest much more quickly. Any delay in an approval process allows them to use their resources and expand their base of support in unprecedented volume. Nor in this day and age of instant worldwide communication should any government or party in power, be surprised at how quickly opposition can mount to a government decision. Equally there should be no surprise that such opposition extends beyond their borders and that fundraising becomes international and is no longer dependent on local resources.

Social media allows opponents to get their message out with a few clicks of a mouse. No longer is it necessary to mail out petitions or letters asking for people’s support. Instead thousands of emails can go out in an instant. Groups appeal to the emotional side of an issue and this is the side that people respond too. While a government argues facts, figures and economic benefits, groups argue on an emotional level. In political terms we used to refer to this as appealing to the head or heart, with the heart usually winning. Election campaigns and how political parties craft their messaging are a good example of this in action.

We saw this in Obama’s 2008 election campaign. Every speech he gave appealed to the emotional side of his audience. Plus as demonstrated at the recent Liberal convention, his team made extensive use of the social media resources at their disposal for engaging voters, recruiting and fundraising. Obama more than most politicians understands the power of that emotional appeal on the electorate.

Today groups send their message out to not just their own members, but to a worldwide audience. This can result in support and action on a scale unseen in the past. Appeals for funds to fight a government decision or asking supporters to contact elected officials can generate a huge response with elected officials being swamped with protest notes. Merkel’s decision last year to cancel support for nuclear energy in Germany would be one example as is the present SOPA protest sweeping the internet. Obama’s decision on Keystone XL should therefore not be a surprise and I would bet with this being an election year that the pressure brought on through social media campaigns had quite an impact on sitting Democrats.

With government being limited with what it can say and with the long sign off procedures that departments must use, government bureaucrats and politicians are at a disadvantage when confronting the fast moving messaging in the world of social media. This is not just a Canadian phenomenon but a worldwide one. The internet and modern communication tools have given a sense of empowerment to people and they are not afraid to let governments know about their displeasure.

Eventually government will become much more nimble and make better use of the resources social media offers, but for now the pendulum has swung towards the people. In a democracy that is not a bad thing.

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.

Share on Facebook

CFN - The Liberals held their biennial convention this past weekend in Ottawa. For the most part a good show and I am sure the delegates went home with a warm and fuzzy feeling. While it was billed as the convention to reinvent the Liberal Party, I didn’t see much of that. In fact it looked like they were going down the same path that the former Progressive Conservatives trod back in the 1990s and up to 2003.

There was one very interesting aspect though to this convention and the policy resolutions that were put forward. This was their attempt to radically overhaul how we do our politics in Canada and if all of the motions had been approved we would have seen the Americanization of our politics on a scale not seen to date.

Now keep in mind that the Liberals often attack the Conservatives for practicing an American style of politics, using American style attack ads, being in permanent campaign mode etc. Some of that is accurate, but never have the Conservatives advocated adopting the American political culture in how they pick leaders etc.

What did the Liberals try to do at this convention? It comes down to three key resolutions. If all had been passed it would have meant a radical change to how we do politics here. I say that because invariably other parties whether through internal pressure or media pressure would have felt a need to go in the same direction as the Liberals.

As an initial step, the Liberals brought in a couple of President Obama’s top operatives to teach them (based on their US model) how to win campaigns.  They gave a good presentation, especially for a Presidential style leadership race with some excellent points for a federal election.

Now back that up with a few motions that would have resulted in a fundamental change to party politics in the Great White North.

First there was a motion to adopt American style primaries for Liberal leadership elections. The hope being to generate the same type of daily we hype we see in the American leadership system, similar to what the Republicans are going through now.

The Liberals also proposed a new “supporter” membership category which is taken right out of the Obama playbook and his successful campaign for the US Presidency. Add in another motion that would have created a republic after severing ties with the Queen and if all had passed we would have seen the greatest Americanization of Canadian politics in memory. And the Liberals are the party that always accused the Conservatives of using American style politics. I can almost write the Conservative attack ads on this one. With this attempt to Americanize us I am surprised that they didn’t include a motion to make us the 51^st state!

Fortunately for the Liberals the motion for primaries and severing ties with the Queen were defeated. But they did create a new supporter membership category. I am not sure how they will resolve this issue in the future. This category works best with a primary system which they voted down. “Supporters” can only vote in leadership races, not in nomination races at the local level. How do they now incorporate these new supporters into a leadership campaign, especially the one the Liberals will be facing in the near future?

If you don’t have a primary system, where do they vote? Can they attend a leadership convention if the party holds one? Will the party be forced to set up regional voting sessions? What will be the cost to the party to allow these supporters to participate keeping mind that this new category is not required to pay a membership fee?

Lots of Interesting ideas.  American ideas, but as of now not yet fully implemented.

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.

Share on Facebook

CFN – In my previous post I looked at some steps that could be implemented to improve Question Period and at the same time help to fix our dysfunctional parliament. These included allowing the Speaker to skip over disruptive MPs whose names are on his list of questioners for that day and extending Question Period beyond 3PM when the government side wastes time with disruptive behavior or standing ovations for ministers.

Today I will suggest a few other Question Period remedies. Again, these don’t require public consultations as was suggested for Michael Chong’s major overhaul of Question Period. These are much easier to work out between the Speaker and opposition House Leaders.

It has long been a practice that the use of props is not permitted. The most recent example although not part of Question Period itself, was Jason Kenney’s use of a backdrop when appearing at a standing committee. These were ordered taking down when opposition members wisely protested.

To improve the flow in Question Period as well as cut back on some of the negative attacks each side inflicts on the other, I would suggest that the reading of notes when asking a question or reading from notes or a Question Period briefing book (on the government side) be treated the same as the use of props.

This would force MPs and cabinet ministers to ask and answer questions without reading them. It will also cut down on a lot of the fancy attack questions we see and stop a lot of the scripted answers we get from ministers. Both of these increase the temperature and bad blood between the opposing sides in the House. The government side resents the carefully worded insults hurled at ministers and the opposition is frustrated when answers are read from a carefully prepared script that often ignores the question.

Gone would be a lot of the over the top attack questions that MPs or their staffs have spent hours writing to get that perfect 10 second clip on TV. Gone too will be most of the pushback quotes the government side likes to use on opposition questioners.

It is a small step, but a lot of the negativity in Question Period comes from the use of these carefully worded questions and answers. It would be up to the House Leaders and the Speaker to agree on when exceptions might be allowed. For instance quoting from media reports, quoting statistics etc.

It would also be a small step to improving public perception of our MPs and ministers. Nothing is more boring than watching a minister stand and read the answer word for word. Especially when they read the same answer if asked several questions in a row. The public is left with the perception that the minister doesn’t know the file when in reality they most likely do.

Are our MPs incapable of asking a 35 second question without reading it word for word? Are our minister’s so poorly briefed that they can’t respond to a question within 35 seconds without reading a scripted answer word for word?

The answer is that they are quite capable of doing so. Wouldn’t it be nice to see MPs and ministers think on their feet for a change? At the same time this would highlight those MPs and ministers that are really good and flag for all to see those on both sides who don’t measure up.

None of these suggestions by themselves will cure the ills of Question Period or eliminate the caustic atmosphere in the House, but when added together they will make a difference.

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.

Share on Facebook

CFN – Unfortunately our parliament often reflects what we would expect to see in a school yard. We have the bullies, the name callers, those that shout and disrupt and some pretty decent kids who work hard and who for the most part don’t get the same attention or recognition as the others.

Part of the problem is the control the various leader’s offices (including PMO) have over their MPs. This is done in a variety of ways, through promotion to a critic’s portfolio or to cabinet or key positions on committees. The leader’s office picks MPs to ask questions in Question Period, often tells them what to ask and the topic of the day. Compulsory talk points are issued that MPs are expected to follow, MPs are told how to vote on virtually every piece of legislation or motion in the House and Private Member’s Business is no longer the domain of the backbencher, but controlled from the leader’s office. This control also extends to the Standing Committees where MPs are told how to vote on motions or amendments. Essentially the respective party leader’s office or PMO sets the tone for much of what goes on in the House.

In a parliament where caustic behavior has become the norm, bad behavior gets the spotlight (Justin Trudeau as an example), rudeness is rewarded and low-key dedicated MPs who are the backbone of our system are ignored and overlooked by the voting public.  The net result is an electorate disgusted with the behavior that they see on the news and voters are left with a negative view of our politicians and politics in general.

But does it have to be this way? With so much control resting in the hands of the various leaders’ offices, they have the power to clean up the bad behavior, but they don’t have the motivation to do so. Until Michael Chong MP, the media and Jack Layton began talking about a new civility; those in charge had no need to pay attention as the misbehavior often suited them. It is the leader’s office through the House Leader that both sets the tone in the House and who has the power to improve civility if it really wants too. The present situation though doesn’t encourage any intervention by a leader’s office.

Over the top questions are rewarded by a 10 second media clip or mention in the press the next day. For an MP this national media coverage is a reward for bad behavior. Why would they want to change? For opposition MPs this is often the only media coverage they will get.  When in opposition, “feigned indignation” was one term we used when preparing our MPs for Question Period and question slots were set aside for MPs who could ask an over the top question and skewer a minister. We knew that we most likely would get media coverage on that question and get rewarded for bad behavior.

Rude behavior and heckling also serve to shut down the other side’s attempts to ask or answer a question. Yelling, cheering and phony time-wasting standing ovations on the government side help to run out the clock on Question Period.  Other than public pressure there isn’t any reason for those in charge to want to change their behavior. Look at how quickly the NDP’s promise of a new civility in the House has worn off? Did you see any of this new civility on display during December’s Question Periods?

In October 2010, Michael Chong made some interesting suggestions on how to reform Question Period. While he earned bipartisan support from all parties it was largely backbench support. The leaders made the obligatory comments and said his ideas were interesting, yet in the end little was done and with the last election his motion has died. If the leaders were serious, they could have pushed his agenda for change. Obviously they weren’t all that serious or the public hearings that were promised would have been over and a report made long before the last election took place. Perhaps Chong’s suggestions were too radical for the entrenched interests in the various leaders’ offices. Here then are a couple of suggestions to improve behavior in Question Period and they don’t require public hearings, but simply agreement between the Speaker and the House Leaders.

Begin with how you conduct Question Period. If poor behavior is seen as a reward, penalize MPs for it.

1. Allow the Speaker to ignore the question list. Few people know that before Question Period starts, each opposition House Leader hands the Speaker a list of who will be asking questions from their party and their speaking order. Long gone are the days when MPs would stand and be recognized by the Speaker, today he looks at his list and calls out a name. No matter how disruptive you are or how much you heckle, if your name is on the list you will get to ask your question.

The Speaker should be allowed to skip over disruptive MPs. If they misbehave or disrupt other MPs who have the floor, the Speaker should simply ignore that MP in the rotation. The MPs will quickly learn that asking a question is no longer guaranteed, but is based on earned behavior.  The House Leader’s office will also learn that their question period strategy will fall apart if key questions don’t get asked.

2. There is nothing a cabinet minister or PMO dislikes more than watching the clock move past 3 PM. It means any one of the ministers might get hit with another question, perhaps one from left field for which they don’t have a scripted answer sitting on their desk. If it is the government side (whether cabinet ministers or backbenchers that are disruptive), or if there are too many standing ovations, let the Speaker add on additional time to equal that which was wasted by the government side.  It won’t take long for the government side to realize that it is in their own best interests to be civil and get Question Period over as quickly as possible.

Question Period needs to be reformed, but while we wait for a major overhaul, let’s start with a few small changes that will help to tone down the bad behavior that is on display every day.

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.

Share on Facebook

CFN – As we move forward from the Christmas/New Year’s season and face another year of political warfare in Canada, it is time to reflect on what awaits us.

Fortunately, this time of the year provides plenty of opportunity to discuss politics, be it at family gatherings, neighbourhood parties or an evening out with friends. In other words time to meet folks who don’t live and breathe politics on a daily basis and who don’t suffer from the tunnel vision that so many connected to political life do.

Harper has earned grudging support because of his work on the economy, but once you move away from that he is on thin ice. Canadians are watching his management style and the excessive use of closure to ram bills through last December has been noticed by the voting public. While the Conservatives have explained this away as honouring election promises, that messaging hasn’t worked, nor have they  convinced the general public that it was the right thing to do. Instead it is being seen as arrogance and bullying, something the opposition parties will be able to capitalize on if it continues when the House returns. That being said, capitalizing on Conservative missteps requires an effective opposition presence in the House and that has not emerged at this point.

The NDP remain in limbo, semi-leaderless and missing some of their best stars. Is anyone other than media types and political junkies following their leadership race? It has to be the most invisible one in recent memory, worse even than our PC Party ones in 1998 and 2003. So far name recognition of the leadership contenders remains very low and this doesn’t auger well for their next leader.  Should anyone other than Brian Topp or Thomas Mulcair win, they will be faced with the difficult task of raising their profile with the public and getting it to the point where voters see them as future Prime Ministerial material.

Add in the NDP’s dismal performance in the House and you get a sense that public support is temporarily parked. Voter support was Jack Layton support. Unless things change for the NDP their support could bleed away. Nycole Turmel’s leadership has been a disaster. She was absolutely the wrong choice at a time when the party needed a strong presence to counter the Conservatives and pounce on their missteps. Someone like Peter Julian who delivers focused questions with passion would have been a better choice.

Question Period has always been the key moment in the day when an opposition party can shine, grab the headlines and pounce on government mistakes and weaknesses. Yet, most Question Period sessions have been “sleepers” and featured disorganized and scattered NDP attacks which lack any type of focus. While this hasn’t been a stellar time for the Official Opposition, I expect this will change once a new leader is in place. Critics will be reappointed, some of the NDP stars will return and the continuous distraction that any leadership race entails will be over. Providing they return united after the leadership race ends the NDP will have a chance to improve their performance and solidify voter support.

The Liberals are far from dead. Bob Rae has done a commendable job of keeping them alive and he remains one of the best performers in the House. They are still pretty demoralized, but if the NDP stumble and pick the wrong leader or return divided, the Liberals are well positioned to strengthen their position in the public’s mind. We can’t forget that for most of the modern period the Liberals had very strong popular support. To assume that one election means they are dead is a bit of a stretch.

One of the tasks facing the Liberals will be to figure out what they stand for, and get that message out to Canadian voters. It is not good enough for them to wander all over the political map. That plays to the Conservative and NDP advantage. Defining their position and matching that with a superior Question Period presence would give them an opportunity to attract back voters and supporters who have recently moved to the NDP or Conservatives. Like the NDP, the Liberals have tough choices to make this spring. If Rae can keep their profile high and encourage good staff to stick around, they can rebuild.

The next three to four months will be interesting ones. Uncertain economic times that could either strengthen or weaken Conservative support; two opposition parties in flux, fighting for influence and voter support; a new leader for the NDP and the Conservative political machine waiting to pounce at every opportunity. Canadian political life in 2012 will be anything but dull.

Share on Facebook

Keith Beardsley

CFN -Speaker Andrew Scheer has delivered his ruling on the Conservative Party’s attempts to undermine Irwin Cotler in his riding of Mont Royal. The ruling Scheer presented today referred to the organized telephone contact program conducted on behalf of the Conservatives in Cotler’s riding. The questions in this survey left the impression that Cotler might be leaving politics in the near future. This ruling certainly highlights the fine line between right and wrong in modern Canadian politics.

The problem with this type of ruling is that they are very narrow and focus on legal interpretations and precedents as opposed to common sense.  The Speaker is left little room to manouvre and this was noted by the Speaker himself when he stated “the Speaker’s powers in these matters are limited, as my predecessors have repeatedly stated.”

Common sense tells Canadians that what the Conservatives did was wrong. Common sense says that they had an opportunity to admit the wrong and move on, but they blew that opportunity.

No one except perhaps Peter Van loan believes the Conservative defensive talk point that this is about free speech.

There isn’t much in this story that would allow one to link this campaign directly back to the Prime Minister’s Office, or even the Conservative Research Group, as Scheer noted that “… it does not matter that the resources of the House of Commons itself were not used to carry out this particular campaign.”

I can’t see any staff member in PMO signing off on something like this as part of your job is to protect the interests of the Prime Minister. Getting involved in a risky activity which common sense should tell you could blow up in your face would be a career limiting move and certainly expose the Prime Minister to attack.

Were the questions torqued or asked incorrectly by those making the calls? We don’t know the answer to that point as the Conservatives but up their usual stone wall defense.

Interesting questions will remain unanswered such as what was their sign off procedure for this polling? Who gave the order to carry it out? Who wrote the questions? My experience with polling companies is limited but I have found they don’t make up questions on their own, but either use those supplied by the client or work to come up with a question that their client agrees too.

 When this story broke the Conservative’s had three options.

1. Admit someone did it without authorization and throw that person under the bus.
2. Admit someone did it and that it was wrong and a dumb thing to do.
3. Stand and defend the undefendable

Needless to say they chose number three and a story that might have been over fairly quickly has dragged on for weeks now. And with each passing week the Conservatives look worse in the public eye and voters have another reason to be more cynical about Canadian politics.

While today’s ruling means that the Conservatives didn’t break the rules of the House of Commons, perhaps Speaker Scheer said it best when he stated:

“I am sure that all reasonable people would agree that attempting to sow confusion in the minds of voters as to whether or not their Member is about to resign is a reprehensible tactic…”

Share on Facebook

CFN - As I predicted a few days ago, the situation in Attawapiskat has deteriorated into a blame game with politics becoming the most important exercise… lost in this are the people who need help.

It became a political issue as soon as the Chief stood with a provincial and federal NDP member on each side of her and it has escalated ever since to the point where the Chief and band council have turfed the federal appointee who was assigned to administer the funds in Attawapiskat out of the reserve. We are now into a classic game of political standoff. Each side will dig in to stick up for their principles, each side will insist that they have the authority to act as they have done and in the meantime winter gets worse and the likelihood of there being any successful resolution to improving living conditions on the reserve waits.

The public doesn’t see much progress. We don’t see or read about any attempts at constructive solutions. What we read about is the political maneuvering of each side. Offers of help are coming in, but it seems the priority is the blame game.  The Chief blames Ottawa, Ottawa looks at administration of funds, the province blames the federal government and the opposition seize on the issue as though they didn’t know these conditions have existed for decades. And while offers of help come in, the people wait for the opposing sides to find a solution.  Incidentally, one such offer to help came from John Tory, who to his credit, is acting, trying to recruit carpenters and other donated services to help make repairs now, not after some long drawn out political test of wills.

The NDP will milk the crisis for all they can, as will the Liberals, but what will it achieve? Will the bombast in Question Period build a new home for a family in desperate need of a livable shelter this winter? Will blaming Aboriginal Affairs minister Duncan for every problem, solve them? A  Minister is told what a department feel is necessary for them to know. Unless someone tips staff or a minister off to a developing problem, they won’t be aware of them. It is a department’s responsibility to monitor the situation and make recommendations on a course of action to the minister. If Duncan was not properly briefed on the urgent situation at Attawapiskat, why wasn’t he?

Many will argue that the federal government’s decision to appoint an administrator and ask for an audit is punishing Attawapiskat for speaking out about their issues and the urgent situation there. But political rhetoric aside, why wouldn’t the government want to look at the books? If Attawapiskat wants the continued support of the public over an extended period of time it has to show that they are managing funds effectively.  There are media reports that irregularities although no wrong doings were found in a recent audit, while a heavy handed and paternalistic approach from the department, one should not be surprised if the government wanted an up to date audit. But in the meantime who is helping the people who need housing now. Fight it out in court and do your audits after you take care of the emergency.

There are nine sitting days left before the House of Commons breaks for the Christmas holidays. After that our MPs won’t return until January 30^th. The political rhetoric and posturing will die down over this period and if we do not act now, help for the people in Attawapiskat will be lost in the seasonal activities that occupy so much of our attention.  By the time the House returns there will have been a Crown-First Nations meeting which will hopefully look at long term solutions to the situation in all of our aboriginal communities.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo had it right when he said today in reference to the on-going relationship with Ottawa, “We will encourage this to become an all-party movement, avoiding blaming, finger pointing and certainly not using the plight of our people to score political points …We need the energy, we need ideas and most importantly, we need the commitment of all parties to achieve this change right now.”

In the meantime though, as temperatures plunge in Attawapiskat, can’t all sides put aside their differences, stop the posturing and work on what is really necessary… putting the people of Attawapiskat first. The blame game can wait until the New Year.

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.

Share on Facebook

Keith Beardsley

CFN - Yesterday, Bob Rae stood in the House of Commons and delivered a thundering attack aimed at the Conservative government’s lack of action and compassion for the families living in third world conditions in Attawapiskat. Along with the other attacks from the NDP it is clear that the finger pointing has begun in earnest.

Where should we pointing our finger? Whom should we blame?

According to the opposition parties it is all the fault of the Conservatives. Bob Rae’s passionate attack was good television, undoubtedly reflecting his personal feelings, but it neglected the fact that the Conservatives have only been in power since 2006 and it is impossible to fix the neglect of many decades, some could argue a neglect that extends back to the foundation of these reserves. Rae’s attack also ignores the fact that the previous Liberal governments didn’t solve these problems either and in the last century they had been in power much longer than the Conservatives. We can certainly point a finger at the Liberal Party as well.

If the Conservatives want a “True North Strong and Free” then they have to look beyond infrastructure and military exercises to the needs of people throughout the north and on reserves across Canada. This means improving health care, social services, education, housing and running water. These are basic needs that most of us take for granted. Until conditions improve we can point a finger at them too.

I have had the opportunity to work in one capacity or another with all of the Conservative Aboriginal (INAC) ministers and the Prime Minister and I know that based on my experience, all are compassionate individuals who would deplore the conditions that exist in Attawapiskat and on other reserves across the country. While steps have been taken to improve conditions since the Conservatives came to power with some $2.5 billion spent so far to improve water quality and water systems and some $9.2 million in Attawapiskat including schooling costs, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Duncan said yesterday “We are not getting the results that we thought we should get.” All very true and in need of a follow-up, but in the meantime, families in Attawapiskat and on other reserves are in desperate need of assistance now. Has the department provided the minister with an audit of the number of families in emergency need and an action plan to deal with this crisis in the short term while longer term issues are being taken care of?

What about MPS from all parties? Should we point a finger at them too? MPs are quick to hop on the latest junket and travel abroad at taxpayers’ expense. How many of them have made a point of traveling to these reserves to see firsthand the living conditions? How many will travel north this winter to some of these isolated reserves as opposed to somewhere sunny and warm?

What about the Aboriginal Affairs Department. They deserve a finger pointing at them. How can a bureaucracy allow these conditions to develop? This didn’t happen overnight? Why were they unaware that these families were at risk? And if they were aware why didn’t they take action before it became a media spectacle? Where is their compassion?

The department will send their minister coast to coast to meetings that they designate as important. All well and good but how many times have they asked the minister to visit the isolated communities like Attawapiskat? How many times have they taken a minister inside a mold infecting home and shown them the lack of toilets and living conditions? How much time does the department spend on red tape items and procedures and being worried about jurisdictional issues instead of simply helping out families in need?

What about the First Nations themselves? Were there not others in wealthier reserves across the country that could step in and help a family in need? It is not good enough to say it’s the government responsibility, let them do it. Compassion should be the key word, not responsibility.

What about the AFN? We can point a finger there too. How many meetings focus on rights, jurisdiction, sharing of powers with the government versus how much time is spent on a rescue plan to help families in need? Have they conducted an audit of individual family needs? Has the chief of a reserve in trouble brought these needs to the AFN or to other reserves to ask for help? If so, tell us so that Canadians can get a better understanding of the issue. And if not, why hasn’t this been done?

What about our NGO’s? At this time of the year we are shown lots of television commercials asking us to support a child in a third world country… very valid and very necessary, but what about our children here, on reserves many of them are living in third world conditions too? Should we point a finger at the NGOs too?

Church congregations from coast to coast send aid packages around the world to those in need. Why don’t some of them work through the AFN or directly with a reserve to get emergency supplies to families in need as winter approaches?

Each and every one of us can stand with an arm outstretched and finger pointing outward and make a complete 360 degree turn. There will be lots of individuals and government officials or departments that we can point to and blame for the third world living conditions on our reserves. But in the end we need to turn our finger inward and point at ourselves because each and every one of us by our inaction shares some responsibility for allowing those living conditions to continue.

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.

Share on Facebook