Mad Man (and Woman): Liveblogging Michael Ignatieff and Martha Hall Findlay on partisan political advertising

by kadyomalley on Friday, September 25, 2009 9:00am - 42 Comments

Hey, remember that $34 million in Economic Action! Plan-related ad spending that Canadian Press wrote about earlier this week? Well, the Liberals are finally getting around to holding a press conference to denounce it — like Dirk Gently, five days late but moving fast – and ITQ will be there to liveblog the festivities, starting at 10am, so be sure to check back for full coverage.

Oh, and speaking of possibly partisan advertising, an ITQ mini-challenge to commenters, just to keep y’all busy while waiting for this morning’s antics to get underway: How many ways does the Action! plan website — a Privy Council Office production that was the object of its very own traffic-driving ad campaign, which included over $1 million for the most recent spot, which warns viewers that, although the plan is working, “we’ve got to stay on track” — violate Treasury Board standards for common look and feel?

Post your count in the comments, and ITQ will meet you back here at10am.


9:42:50 AM
Greetings, members of the Whatever Happened To Party of Accountability Club! ITQ is installed in her usual seat in the second row of the Charles Lynch Press Theatre, waiting patiently for what is now being teasered by bright-eyed Liberal research operatives as an announcement. What could it be? ITQ would put her money — her *own* money, not cabinet-approved and signed off on by Treasury Board, for the record — on a proposal to create some sort of gimlet-eyed independent commissioner to monitor all government ad spending for illicit partisan messaging — maybe even a new Officer of Parliament! It could be called — the Federal Accountability Act. (What do you mean, ‘that’s been taken’?)

9:54:26 AM
As the Wall of Cameras angling for the best shot of the Ignatieff/Hall Findlay powerwalk down the hall, the room is filling up with media:CanWest, Sun News, the Toronto Star, Canadian Press, of course – after all, it was Bruce Cheadle who broke the story – a surprisingly good turnout for a Friday morning presser, but then again, it’s not like there’s much else happening on the Hill today.
9:57:48 AM
Two minute warning! Whee!

9:58:59 AM
And here he is! He *and* she – Martha Hall in moonstone yellow, the leader in a jaunty pink tie — and without further ado, the latter gets down to business: he’s here to talk about a scandal. A scandal! He also seems to be taking credit for Cheadle’s story — “as soon as we pointed this out,” he says, the prime minister’s photos disappeared from the website. Bad form, sir. This one belongs to CP. Anyway, it’s a “flagrant” abuse of taxpayer dollars, which is why he’s proposing — drum roll — an independent assessment body, like the one in Ontario, to make sure that “the Government of Canada” advertises on behalf of the government of Canada, and not the party in power.

Shoulda been an independent officer of parliament, in ITQ’s view, but still: frankly, it’s a pretty good idea.

10:03:53 AM
After giving the same speech in French, and even tying today’s announcement to both Gerard Kennedy’s investigation into infrastructure funding and the Toronto Star piece on how he was “airbrushed” (poetic licence, I guess) out of the photos of the ostensibly nonpartisan pork barbeque that was held last year to show support for the industry and allay the fears of border closure, he turns the microphone over to Hall Findlay, who gives us a quick lesson in — hey, common look and feel! No, ITQ did not get advance warning that she’d be highlighting that particular aspect of government communications policy.

10:07:04 AM
Martha Hall Findlay notes that even though the PM may *wish* that his image was, in fact, an official symbol of the Government of Canada, it isn’t — which means that its use on so many websites may well violate the Federal Identity Program.

10:08:02 AM
And with that, he’s happy to turn the floor over reporters for questions, and the first one goes to Brian Lilley of whatever CFRB is now known, who asks about — a Bloc Quebecois ad campaign against Ignatieff, which suggests that he and Harper are virtually identical, as far their policies go. How does he respond? Actually, fairly thoroughly — he manages to stick to the topic of the press conference in his opening line, noting that one difference is that *he* wouldn’t spend millions of dollars on partisan advertising. Oh, that’s what they all say.

Martha Hall Findlay points out that they’d *change the rules* on that advertising, but Lilley dismisses that — it’s a minor policy, and Canadians aren’t about to “rally around” a proposal to change the way the government advertises. MHF gets a little tetchy in response, but Ignatieff moves in, calling it a “perfectly fair question”, and then gives a twitter-friendly recap of his vision for a goverment that works *with* the market, as opposed to that laissez faire view that the current PM has taken.

10:13:29 AM
Asked whether he thinks the “attacks” on himself and his character are working, Ignatieff once again tries to go back to what he, at least, sees as the main issue — the advertising — but the reporter tells him that “we’ve got that”, as far as messages go — he wants to hear Ignatieff’s thoughts on the effectiveness of those ads.

10:15:29 AM
A question on the Cauchon/Coderre contretemps in Quebec (and try saying that seven times fast) elicits lavish praise for the former — “we want him to run for us,” Ignatieff insists. Just not, as Colleague Wells so succinctly pointed out earlier this week, in the only riding he’s ever held.

10:17:06 AM
Onto Iran — yes, this has turned into an ad hoc bearpit session — and Ignatieff calls on the world to ‘stand together’ to let Iran know that this ‘gameplaying’ won’t be tolerated — and yes, “of course” he supports sanctions.

10:18:01 AM
Another Cauchon question, in French — what will he do if he refuses the riding he’s been offered — and Ignatieff steadfastly refuses to anticipate his response.

10:18:58 AM
CTV’s Roger Smith wants to know if he – and MHF – are saying that the government is breaking the rules, and if so, what they’re going to do about it. Unfortunately, there’s not much they *can* do about it, as far as ITQ can tell: TBS sets the guidelines; they don’t enforce them.

MHF, however, has a better answer: the website – and possibly the ads as well – may violate the Code of Conduct for membes, as well as the Canada Elections Act rules on financing. They’re looking at several sorts of official complaints that they can make.

10:21:19 AM
And that’s all for today’s show!

Bookmark and Share
  • Loyal Subject

    What can one say? Government advertising is a long-standing tradition in Canada, and reached a high degree of refinement under Jean Chretien. Of course when Tories have the temerity to engage in the practice it is manifestly an outrage.

    • Scott M.

      Sorry, are you saying that the practice is inappropriate, but you're OK with the current government doing it because past governments did?

      Wouldn't it be more consistent to be outraged by inappropriate actions by the government regardless of who is in power?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      I agree. It's becoming a rather boring routine. Governments use public money for poorly disguised partisan ads. Opposition parties yell and scream about it vowing never to do it themselves. Those that get a chance to do it themselves do it themselves. And on and on it goes.

      • http://twitter.com/ChrisInKW @ChrisInKW

        When do we end the cycle and get laws like in Ontario to prevent such abuses? At some point we have to put our collective foot down, wouldn't you agree?

        • Michael

          Iggy just proposed it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      If "Chretien did it too and look how bad they were" is the best defence they can come up with…

    • Ted

      OK. I'm game. What massive surge of public advertising for a program that did not need advertising just after an election suddenly became a possibility that says pretty explicitly "the government is on the right path, we can't afford to stop" did Chretien or Martin launch?

      It's not the fact that Harper is using taxpayer money to support his re-election, we expect that kind of partisan behaviour from him. What is galling is (1) the massive size of it, (2) the timing of it (right after Iggy says he won't support them, the "we can't afford to stop" line was added to the ad), (3) the brazen marketing of the website and the "Harper government" which even had Tory die-hards shaking their heads.

      • wilson

        rule 1. When reporting on issues that shine a positive light on the Harper Government…..no use of Harper nor Conservative as prefix, thems the rules.
        rule 2. At no time shall the Harper Government refer to it's self as the Harper Government, that right is reserved for the media, bloggers and opposition parties.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

          Harper's party can refer to itself as the Harper Government when they're discussing policy proposals.

          Anything that's enacted is enacted by the government of Canada, which happens to include 170 other MPs.

          • wilson

            Which of the 170 MPs voted to BOTH pass the budget AND the implimentation of it?
            none. They were against it, then for it; or they were for it and then against it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            Which changes nothing. It was enacted by the government of Canada.

    • ramon

      Never been anything like this before. The Harperites are from a planet of their own where they have perfected the art of hypocrisy and the infantile use of the reverse blame game…. Lets send the Harperite worms back into the woodwork where they belong

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    It can be stopped. Has been, actually. If the provinces can do it, so can the feds.

    http://www.gov.on.ca/mgs/en/News/052979.html

    "The new advertising law will, upon proclamation, require the Office of the Auditor General to pre-screen proposed government advertising as well as printed material for distribution to Ontario households by bulk delivery.

    Under the act all government advertising must not foster a positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of any group critical of the government.

    As well, the name, image or voice of any government member cannot appear in advertising directed at an Ontario audience.

    In addition, the Auditor General will issue an annual report detailing the cost of government advertising and report any breach of the new advertising law."

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      I'm actually surprised the Conservatives didn't enact similar rules. If nothing else, it would let them get about their business without the cloud of partisan suspicions hanging about them.

      • Ted

        But if they did that, then they would not be allowed to get about their business which is clouding matters with partisan politics.

        • Whiskey

          Hear, hear.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

          You mean like how a fixed election date law stopped Mr. Harper from calling an election early? Or perhaps you mean how an accountability act has made this government more transparent and accountable.

        • Anon

          Nah, they still would. Then when they are caught, they will yell that the Liberals did it first and 30 something per cent of the voters still vote for them and then go around complaining how all politicians cannot be trusted and that is why they are so disinterested in politics.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      I'm pretty sure McGuinty has run his share of partisan advertising on the public dime. I guess it depends on what you consider partisan. But running ads promoting government programs is nothing new, and everyone does it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

        Link to one. Or name a subject.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

          Seriously, Dennis? If you'd like to challenge the Auditor General of Ontario on his definition of impartial, I'd suggest you bring facts, not "I'm pretty sure".

          As to "I guess that depends on what you consider partisan", I'd love to know your definition.

          And the wait for actual evidence begins…

  • oppo guy

    I can distinctly recall Conservative MPs accusing the former Liberal government of using taxpayers dollars to fund partisan ads.

    Conservative MPs like these dudes:

    “Another member mentioned the advertisements that are on television right now. They are funded by taxpayers, not by members of the Liberal Party … It is disgusting that they would use taxpayer money to fund partisan ads saying what a great job they are doing.” – Leon Benoit, Hansard, 17 October 2000

    “The government currently uses its advertising to an unfair advantage. It uses unbridled partisan activities. I could come up with numerous examples but I do not think I need to. The population of the country knows them well.” – Rob Anders, Hansard, 19 October 1999

    Conservatives used to accuse Liberals of it, now Liberals accuse Conservatives of it. When it comes to partisanship in government advertising, the old jingle is still as catchy as ever: “Liberal or Tory: same old story”.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Interesting to note though that the Conservatives made the accusation without any reference to actual ads or violations, just an implication that they could be found.

  • wilson

    'I'm actually surprised the Conservatives didn't enact similar rules.'

    hmmm, did anyone fact check to see if the Cons did try to get something thru, say in the Accountability Act, but like so many other proposals in the AAC the Opps voted it down?

    • Ted

      Nothing in the Accountability Act was voted down. The Cons threatened a confidence vote on it and everyone backed down. It took the senate to say "hey, wait a second here, some of these provisions don't even make grammatical sense, refer to sections that don't even exist, actually require the disclosure of personal information which is against the PIPEDA rules, etc.". The senate did their sober second thought job (more like sober first thought, in many cases) and it was passed without any substantive changes.

      The only substantive change I can think of is to the lobbying rules. Former Tory staffers were upset about how much time they had to sit out of politics and weren't allowed to lobby, so Harper softened these a bit, but I can't think of any other change. And certainly nothing from the opposition.

      • wilson

        'Nothing in the Accountability Act was voted down.'
        Ok, amended. By the time the Accountability Act got thru, the Opps and the Senate had 150 amendments.
        I recall the Opps joining forces to amend First Nations accountability, and the AGs powers.
        Just saying.

        • Ted

          Like I said, the Conservatives did a real shoddy job of basic drafting. The senate found a ton of errors and, even though the Conservatives tried to force it through anyway, they held their ground and did their constitutional job.

          But none of those were terribly substantial and all improved the legislation as far as I'm aware. Unless you have any evidence for us?

          Just saying.

        • Tiamat

          No, you're not "just saying" – you are making a baseless accusation without a wiff of evidence, and relying on a fundamental misunderstanding of the institution and proceedures of government.

  • Stan L

    To me it's not the picture of the website…but the claims made on it, they are overinflated and dubious at best. To me that is a low that government has never reached before…..

    • http://twitter.com/ChrisInKW @ChrisInKW

      Such extravagant claims are one of the hallmarks of partisan advertising, in my opinion.

    • tobyornottoby

      Yes, and empty claims at that … lots of folderol about how good everything is but without a frickin list of projects. Telling us what to think but without disclosing the actual information so we can evaluate it for ourselves is the definition of propaganda.

  • http://kathleenw@execulink.com mark

    there is a mailout going out of a jar of germ removal hand wash going out to all taxpayers with stevies picture on it and’ from the steve harper government’ written on it.

  • jad

    I can't get too excited over pictures on a website. Stephen Harper has been PM for almost four years now, so how many Canadians are unaware of this and don't know he's a Conservative ? How many Canadians actually think the PM might be someone else – Chretien/Martin/the current member of the revolving door club? How many Canadians really think the Liberals are still running the country ?

    If the answers to all of the above are essentially "hardly any", why then do photographs of Stephen Harper on a government website matter ? Or he is supposed to put a brown paper bag over his head all the time ?

    • Ted

      Because the website, paid for by our tax dollars, is supposed to be providing a service for us, not for Harper's re-election campaign.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/auntie_em_m auntie_em_m

    Why not a photo on those body bags?

  • AnnieS

    Check out Star (if I'm allowed to write that name on this blog) article about pork producers barbecue on parliament hill. Talk about form over substance.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Why would I as a taxpayer want to pay taxes for photos of Harper? Give me George Clooney photos instead please.

    You know, Harper has photos everywhere and anywhere – that's what the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Kim Junk Il, Sadam Hussein, etc. do – NO I'm not calling Harper a dictator – but he really should stop acting like one.

  • Calgary Junkie

    This looks like a continuation of the Lib strategy to keep on nitpicking, showing faux outrage, pointing out hypocries, incompetence and the like.

    From the PPG questions, it looks like most of the media isn't much interested in following up on these Liberal outrages du jour. Hardly surprising, as the media tend to have the same disdain for whatever message is in a Tory press conference.

    Here's a suggestion for the Libs: instead of reacting to everything Harper does or doesn't do, try being proactive with a few interesting, substantial and unique LIBERAL policies.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

      This kind of stuff isn't hypocrisy, not is it incompetence.
      What it is is bad government, plain and simple.
      Every party in power has used this trick. It's time it stopped.

      In my dream world, every province and the feds would adopt the same rules as Ontario on this. And then, we could spend time discussing more important stuff.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Imagine! An opposition party pointing out hypocrisies and incompetence in the governing party. I've never heard of such vile behaviour.

      Oh, wait, isn't that an opposition party's job?

  • even flow

    Martha Hall Findlay points out that they’d *change the rules* on that advertising, but Lilley dismisses that — it’s a minor policy, and Canadians aren’t about to “rally around” a proposal to change the way the government advertises.

    Asked whether he thinks the “attacks” on himself and his character are working, Ignatieff once again tries to go back to what he, at least, sees as the main issue — the advertising — but the reporter tells him that “we’ve got that”, as far as messages go — he wants to hear Ignatieff’s thoughts on the effectiveness of those ads.

    ————————————————————————————

    The msm sure are a strange beast. Bitch and moan about lack of policy and proposals and when they do get some they dismiss them and would rather ask about attack ads.

    Maybe the media is the problem with our democracy.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CanadianSense CanadianSense

    How does this rank as a priority for the Canadian voter? I understand the opposition and their apologists are very upset because the same resources they used for 13 years to hold power are now being used against you.

    The good news is the Liberals showed up in the right press room vs the wrong field yesterday. Did those Liberal MP's outside Tim's return the UN posters yet?

    [youtube A9r0ADWdrhc&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9r0ADWdrhc&fe... youtube]

Previous

From Macleans