Harper and Ignatieff’s very different inner circles

By John Geddes - Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

Tibor Kolley/Globe and Mail/ Photograph by Blair Gable

If there were any doubts left about the stark difference between the teams assembled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, two recent top-level recruits to their rival staffs should go a long way toward putting them to rest. Harper reached into the rarified ranks of Toronto’s business elite to find a new chief of staff—Nigel Wright, maker of multi-billion-dollar deals at Onex Corp. Ignatieff raided the foreign service to fill his opening for a principal secretary—Patrick Parisot, who has served as Canadian ambassador to Chile, Portugal and, most recently, Algeria.

Those who know them would quickly protest that “businessman” doesn’t sum up Wright any more than “diplomat” captures Parisot. Both are partisan political creatures, too. As a young lawyer, Wright worked in Brian Mulroney’s PMO during two stints in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. At various times he’s been connected to the circles of Treasury Board President Stockwell Day and former Ontario premier Mike Harris. Parisot served former prime minister Jean Chrétien in senior communications and strategy posts from 1993 until 2001, when Chrétien rewarded him with his first job as an ambassador.

Yet these appointments signal more than the natural tendency of political leaders to tap the talents of devoted partisans. In choosing Wright, Harper has continued his clear pattern of relying almost exclusively on top aides who have never worked inside the federal public service. And in hiring Parisot, Ignatieff has kept up his habit of filling out his staff with precisely the sort of federal public service veterans who aren’t finding employment these days in the PMO.

Continue…

Memo to the new chief of staff, poor sod

By Scott Feschuk - Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

Photo Illustration by Taylor Shute Here's the thing: As a rule, the PM does not wish to be spoken to, looked at, drawn by children or otherwise disturbed. Your job is to make it so.

In the news: Nigel Wright, a prominent Bay Street executive, has been hired to run the Prime Minister’s Office.

Dear Successful Applicant:

Congratulations on being named chief of staff to Stephen Harper. You follow in a line of individuals who have occupied this important position until growing weary of the time commitment and spankings. As a general rule, Mr. Harper does not wish to be spoken to, looked at, thought about, drawn by children or otherwise disturbed—except in the event of a national emergency or the guys from Loverboy wanting to jam.

Before attempting to contact the Prime Minister, therefore, please consult this list of frequently asked questions:

Continue…

Being right v. Sounding right

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 1:17 PM - 0 Comments

Stephen Gordon sees what’s going on here.

A disconcerting trend is establishing itself in Canadian politics. Political parties are showing essentially no interest in the merits of a policy proposal beyond its potential as an element of some shrewd communications strategy … All three parties have now decided that the path to power is paved with stupidity. We won’t have good government, but at least we’ll see cunningly-crafted communications strategies.

Does Stephen Harper have a plan for Canada?

By macleans.ca - Monday, October 4, 2010 at 3:29 PM - 0 Comments

On Oct. 13, Maclean’s will present a round-table discussion on “Canada’s Conservative Government: Radical Change or Drift” at Vancouver’s Norman Rothstein Theatre. The debate will be broadcast live on CPAC, and feature Monte Solberg, Deborah Grey, Michael Byers, and Maclean’s columnists Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne. You can buy your tickets here, but in the meantime, let us know what you think by voting below.

Enough immaturity

By André Pratte - Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 10:40 AM - 0 Comments

Jacques Boissinot/CP

The last issue of Maclean’s magazine had barely arrived on the newsstands when the entire Quebec political class was uttering cries of indignation. Gilles Duceppe spoke about “xenophobia.” Nathalie Normandeau got carried away: “Enough with Quebec bashing!” All because Maclean’s dared to run a cover headline that Quebec is “the most corrupt province in Canada.”

Of course, tenacious prejudices exist about Quebecers in some milieus of English Canada. But the Maclean’s feature is not part of that ilk. Our politicians’ quick and emotional reaction shows how hypersensitive we have remained to any criticism coming from “outside.” This immaturity is unworthy of what Quebec has become.

In an open letter, Mr. Duceppe points out that there have been political scandals in other provinces, a fact that the magazine’s journalist points out clearly. The Bloc leader notes that Canada’s first prime minister, John A. Macdonald (“Johnny Macdonald,” Mr. Duceppe writes), lost power because of the Canadian Pacific scandal; Maclean’s recalls this as well.

<!–more–>

The front cover is sensationalist but the reporting as such respects standard journalistic practices. It does not say that corruption is exclusive to Quebec nor that it is encoded in our genes. The author, journalist Martin Patriquin, points out that Quebec’s political history has been marked by a greater number of scandals than in the rest of Canada; this fact is undeniable.

While the politicians’ indignation is unanimous, Quebec public opinion is divided. Of about 10,000 people who responded on Saturday to the Cyberpresse question of the day, 50 per cent agreed with the magazine. This is food for thought for our elected officials.

Maclean’s puts forward a few hypotheses to explain the phenomenon of corruption in the province. Some of these hypotheses are worth discussing. For example, the everlasting debate on independence. The Québec Solidaire MNA, Amir Khadir, is quoted: “Today’s PQ and the Liberals are the same political class that has governed Quebec for 40 years. The more they stay in power, the more vulnerable to corruption they become. There hasn’t been any sort of renewal in decades. We are caught in the prison of the national question.”

Another possible cause: the omnipresence of the state. Since the Quebec government and its corporations play a determining role in the province’s economy, there is a great temptation for private companies to woo the members of the political class.

Maclean’s columnist Andrew Coyne, a sworn enemy of Quebec nationalism, was surely not surprised at the visceral reaction of Quebec politicians. In his contribution to the report, he attributes part of the problem of corruption in the province to the fact that criticism of the system in place is often very poorly received: “But constructive criticism in Quebec, given the francophone majority’s perception of itself as an embattled minority, all too often leads to a closing of the ranks against what is invariably described as ‘Quebec bashing.’ ”

Those who observe us from the outside are not always wrong . . . The question Maclean’s is asking today, like a cat among the pigeons, is “why are there so many corruption scandals in Quebec?” We should have been asking ourselves this question a long time ago.

André Pratte is the chief editorial writer of Montreal’s French-language daily La Presse. He can be reached at apratte@lapresse.ca
© 2010 La Presse. Reprinted with permission.

Bonhomme strikes back

By Jean-François Lisée - Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 10:20 AM - 0 Comments

JACK PICKETTS/CP; ANDRE PICHETTE/CP

I was more amused than shocked by Maclean’s cover naming Quebec “the most corrupt province in Canada.” It certainly feels that way these days, and Martin Patriquin’s only challenge was to cram in a single story all the strands of allegations and shady shenanigans surrounding Quebec’s current Jean Charest government. All the facts in the story are public knowledge, and for the most part brought to light by an aggressive Quebec media and no less insistent opposition parties.

Granted, the blow—being named most corrupt province—was not as painful for me to take as for most of my brethren, since I am aware of Maclean’s penchant for take-no-prisoners covers. Thanks to the weekly’s headline writers, I have been informed these past few months that Lawyers are Rats, Hitler is Back, Toronto Sucks, New York is a Land of Constant Terror, Hillary Adopted an Alien Baby, and Bush was a new Saddam.

No wait! Maybe one of those titles came from another magazine. No matter. Having been a journalist for a couple of decades, I did try to find in last week’s issue the methodology used to grant Quebec its number one spot on the corruption scale. I was curious to know who was number two, and how wide the margin was—as in Maclean’s yearly university rankings. Did the writers use the number of corruption convictions of elected officials in each province since 2000? The cash amount proven to have changed hands illegally? Or, since no conviction is to be found in Quebec (yet?), the number of police inquiries in play? I was disappointed. Maclean’s has no comparison metrics whatsoever. The whole cover is based on opinion and perception alone. Hopes for a Pulitzer on this one are dim.

So, what is the fuss about? A screaming headline loosely based on facts? They’re a dime a dozen. They sell. And Maclean’s is in the selling business. So all would be forgiven, if it were not for Andrew Coyne’s scoop that Quebecer’s are impervious to “constructive criticism.” Let’s try. Continue…

What to think about where we're going

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 9:38 AM - 0 Comments

Alex Himelfarb contemplates the future of government.

One constant theme was the need to rebuild trust, not blind trust of course, not even deference, but enough trust to enable cooperation and collective action when these are clearly in our interests. Of course, this means reinventing government, closing the gap between civil society and government, developing private-public partnerships, focusing on those things that only governments can do and encouraging non-governmental solutions where possible. In the past, governments have been able to reinvent themselves to suit the times. But how can any of this happen in a climate of anger, cynicism and distrust? How can any of this happen when government doesn’t want it to happen? What are we to think?

A heart that's full up like a landfill

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 17, 2010 at 1:01 PM - 0 Comments

In the future, as we move toward a new era of austerity and small government, the federal administration will occupy itself with only three things: defence of the nation, the protection of citizens through the enforcing of laws, and the handling of media requests.

“MR [media relations] works with the respective regional communications manager, the spokesman and, if required, the sector communications manager, to develop the response which is then sent for appropriate approval by MR [media relations],” says a summary of the new “media relation process” at Natural Resources Canada that went into effect this spring. “Required approvals can include, but are not limited to: appropriate sector director general, director general communications branch — PAPMS [public affairs and portfolio management sector], director of communications — minister’s office, PCO [Privy Council Office].”

The summary stresses in bold type that: “Approval from the minister’s director of communications must always be sought — no exceptions.”

And, on that note, a music video. Continue…

So you want to be a member of Parliament?

By Scott Feschuk - Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 8:34 AM - 0 Comments

ILLUSTRATION BY TAYLOR SHUTE

With a federal election likely to come as early as this fall, a number of Canadians are toying with the idea of running for office. Do you have what it takes to be a member of Parliament? Let’s find out.

Do you like birthdays? Do you like other people’s birthdays? Do you like being obligated to show up at other people’s birthdays, anniversaries, retirement parties, book launches, interventions, seances, hoedowns and circumcisions? As an MP, you’ll get invited to everything and be expected to give a speech paying tribute to the individual/group/penis.

Continue…

The size, scope and purpose of government

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, August 24, 2010 at 11:42 AM - 0 Comments

Alex Himelfarb takes stock of the state and the competing visions of welfare and security.

We have seen in the U.S. today how hard it is to shift the momentum, to provide access to health care for all or to build bridges rather than fortresses. In Canada we should have it easier. We have a better base. But we seem to be vulnerable to those promoting distrust and fear. Perhaps our version of the welfare state has worked too well and we expect too much from it and are too easily disappointed by its failures. It seems too that as we get older, we are more fearful. Perhaps we expect more security from physical harm than is ever possible, especially in a free and democratic society. Leaders who over-promise in either camp do us no service, nor does fueling distrust and false fears or ignoring the evidence. And it is too easy to promise that we can somehow have it all without having to sacrifice anything or pay the taxes.

Is Wyclef Jean what Haiti needs?

By Michael Petrou - Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 9:54 AM - 0 Comments

Ramon Espinosa/AP

Wyclef Jean, the hip-hop singer who last week announced he is running to become president of Haiti, is not the first musician to seek elected office. Nor is he the first aspiring leader to return to his homeland after spending the better part of three decades somewhere else and expect to be welcomed back as its political saviour.

But most political neophytes start with smaller ambitions, or more impressive qualifications. Jean wants to run a country still reeling from an earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people earlier this year, and manage its multi-billion-dollar recovery effort. He has never before held elected office.

Continue…

A know-nothing strain of conservatism

By Andrew Coyne - Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 6:00 AM - 0 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

Every week another Ekos poll comes out, and every week the media hyperventilates over whatever tiny incremental change in federal voting intentions it reveals. But in addition to party preference, Ekos asks Canadians two more questions. One: whether, in their opinion, the country is “moving in the right direction.” And two: whether the government is moving in the right direction.

In every poll, week after week, more than 50 per cent of respondents tell Ekos they think the country is on the right track, as they have for more than a year. Yet since January, nearly as many respondents—in the high 40s, most weeks—have said they think the government is on the wrong track. That’s up from about 40 per cent last year.

Continue…

We get the feeling you’re tuning out, Steve

By Scott Feschuk - Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM - 0 Comments

Dear Steve,

We’re just going to come right out and ask. Are you bored with being Prime Minister? Are you bored with us? After four years, it feels as though the magic is gone from our relationship. You seem about as interested in your job as John Baird is in nuance.

We don’t communicate like we used to, that’s for sure. Despite the turbulent times, you haven’t delivered a major speech to us since the first week of March—and the content of that address, to mark the return of Parliament, could be reduced to two words: “Olympians? Yay!” How are we supposed to understand what you want, or know what you believe in, or remember what you look like?

Continue…

The state adrift

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, August 13, 2010 at 10:52 AM - 0 Comments

Alex Himelfarb considers the state of the Canadian state.

Erosion of the state through drift or design reduces choice and undermines freedom. Letting this happen in barely perceptible increments, without a real debate about the Canada we want and the role of the state,  undermines democracy. Rather than sterile ideological debates about big government or small government, we should be turning our attention to making government work better as measured not just by GDP but by the well-being of all its citizens and the health of the commons.  As Wolf says, the purpose and role of the state – that’s what our politics should be all about.

What goes on here (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 10:15 AM - 16 Comments

Over the last few days, the Canadian Press has published a three-part series (here, here and here) on government message control. Taken together it is perhaps most instructive as documented evidence of how massive and consuming the operation of “communications” has come to be.

The first step is admitting the possibility

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 1:38 PM - 89 Comments

Rob Silver lays out the conditions for a coalition.

Do not rule out a coalition prior to or during an election campaign – if you rule it out, you deligitimize it as an option regardless of “what is allowed” under our system of government. In other words, if it is something you are considering, be honest and clear with the voters. It is ultimately their country and they get to choose the government they want.

How much should we pay and what should we pay for?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM - 20 Comments

The Agenda convenes a panel—including our Andrew Coyne—to discuss the sorts of questions that should probably be dominating our politics.

Idea alert

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM - 14 Comments

The Alberta Liberals offer a tax credit for voting.

“I’m hearing more and more from Albertans that they have disengaged from politics, that they don’t trust anybody, that the political process stinks in Alberta, that they’re tired of the culture of cronyism that we’ve talked about,” Swann told CBC News. ”I think it’s time to say very clearly where we stand and what we’re trying to do to try and improve the credibility and the consistent messages people receive about their government.”

The full program, a 12-step plan for better government, is here.

Day 2, epilogue

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 6:43 PM - 30 Comments

As I was leaving the conference today, Michael Ignatieff was participating in a quick interview with the online audience and, asked for his impressions of the event so far, he ventured an interesting attempt to split the difference between the ideas of big and small government. The segment is not yet online—it will hopefully appear here at some point—but Susan Delacourt has the gist.

“I think the really interesting thing that’s coming out of the conference for me—and I’m still still trying to formulate it—is a different vision of government, that is not command and control,” Ignatieff said in an online interview on Saturday afternoon. “We can’t do it from Ottawa. And an activist government doesn’t mean another big, high-ticket federal program. What it means is getting a network of deciders together to face common problems.”

This was, by his own admission, not yet a fully formed idea. But he is due to deliver remarks to close the conference tomorrow afternoon. And that speech may prove to be an interesting one.

The people of Canada have spoken

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM - 36 Comments

From the Prime Minister’s address to the Conservative caucus this morning.

The message from Canadians, broadly speaking is clear … First, we must stay the course for now.  The Economic Action Plan has been working and we must see it through.  Second, we have been told start planning now for deficit reduction when the recession ends.  And, third, continue the critical work of building Canada, especially building the future for jobs and economic growth in a globally competitive world.

Egyptian women like their niqabs

By Cameron Ainsworth-Vincze - Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 2:31 PM - 9 Comments

Egypt has long championed a moderate interpretation of Islam, but some Egyptian women are rebelling against government-promoted secularism. More and more of them are choosing to wear the niqab—a veil that covers the face—in addition to the traditional hijab, which only covers the hair, spreading fear among government officials that some Egyptians are embracing hardline Islamic values.

The controversy surrounding the niqab boiled over in October when Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, Egypt’s top cleric and head of the Islamic Al-Azhar University, walked into a high school classroom in Cairo and told a female student to remove her veil. Soon after, Tantawi banned niqabs in classrooms and dorms at his campus, on the grounds that it “has nothing to do with Islam” and that it was unnecessary since the university is gender-segregated.

Egypt’s state-run media have backed Tantawi’s ban by encouraging females to show their faces, citing the “damaging” effects of the niqab on society, while the ministry of religious endowments has gone so far as to distribute booklets that suggest the niqab is un-Islamic. But despite the government campaign, analysts say increasing numbers of women have taken to wearing the niqab, which was almost never seen in Egypt just a decade ago.

Some women are wearing the niqab as a form of rebellion against a government that is widely viewed by the masses to be autocratic, corrupt and uncaring—they feel they should be able to choose their own dress. For others, the decision is based on the belief that wearing the niqab will bring them closer to God, a notion inspired by Salafism, an ultra-conservative school of thought practised in Saudi Arabia that places an emphasis on orthodox Muslim doctrines.
Although most followers of Salafism shun politics, the movement has much in common with the ideology of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, giving the government even more ammunition in its quest to quell the movement.

New politics

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM - 10 Comments

Bit late to this, but here is John Manley reflecting on his time in office, the current state of play and the way forward.

Many of the changes in political culture were healthy. We ceased to spend what we could not afford. We no longer assumed that growth was inevitable and learned that we had to have the right mix of public policy and investment if we wanted a strong economy. We demanded results and high ethical conduct from our public officials.

All of this is good. But what I see as the erosion of public space — the declining importance we attach to collective action, and the growing distrust of the state — are dangerous if left unchecked. If the past year and a half of turmoil in the financial markets has taught us anything at all, surely lesson number one is that public policy matters.

The war for workers

By Rachel Mendleson - Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 8:15 AM - 28 Comments

Jacob Gamache never thought he’d end up in the public sector. “There is a stereotype that the government of Canada is very slow,” he says. Seeking a faster-paced, more competitive environment, Gamache used his master’s degree in sports administration to land a job in 2005 with a private, non-profit organization in Ottawa. Though officially the manager of communications and events, Gamache, now 28, says he was somewhat of a “jack of all trades,” creating pamphlets, updating the website, and offering tech support to his co-workers. “I got an opportunity to learn a lot,” he says of the job, which required plenty of overtime. “You come in in the morning at 7:30 or eight, and you’re not too sure when you’ll go home at night. When you do, the laptop comes with you. And the cellphone.”

By the fall of 2007, Gamache was ready for “something a bit more stable.” On a friend’s suggestion, he applied to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), a federal funding agency—and one of Canada’s Top 100 Employers this year. He took a job with the agency in May 2008 and hasn’t looked back. On top of solid benefits, an enviable pension and a higher salary, he says there’s plenty of opportunity to advance. (Despite his misgivings about the limits of bureaucracy, he’s already been promoted to project officer in a little more than a year.) What’s more: while the recent economic downturn has seen hundreds of thousands of Canadians lose their jobs, he’s had “no worries” about holding on to his. When asked whether he would consider returning to the private sector, Gamache says, “It would be a very tough sell.” Continue…

Governing with consent (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 31, 2009 at 2:21 AM - 3 Comments

As he notes in the comments, Mike of the Don Street Blog, looked at these numbers nearly a year ago. And produced a handy line graph so you can more easily understand the decline of our civilization.