# Hillier, Sr.Officials Muzzled by PMO



## The Bread Guy (16 Apr 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409) .

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/04/16/pf-1536349.html

PM muzzles Canuck military 
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, Sun Media
16 Apr 06

''OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has slapped a muzzle on the Canadian military, forbidding brass from speaking for fear of detracting attention from his government's top priorities. 

A top military officer said the Prime Minister's Office recently reeled in Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier to tell him that all of his speaking engagements had to be approved and his speeches would be vetted by Harper's staff. 

Hillier was also instructed to advise his top generals, admirals and commodores that the order also applies to them. 

A source close to Hillier said the general hauled in military brass to a closed-door meeting and verbally relayed the instructions in an effort to avoid leaving a paper trail on the discussion. 

*The senior military officer who attended the meeting said Hillier told brass they were to clear all media interview requests with the PMO first. So far all requests for interviews have been turned down by the PM's staff. * 

"They don't want anything to detract from their five messages or lead to debate or discussion," the source said, asking for anonymity to avoid repercussions from the PMO. 

*Hillier also told brass that they not only would have to clear any public speaking engagements with the PMO, but also have Conservative staffers vet their speeches, the senior official said. 

The military's senior officers were told they should expect it to take about four weeks for speaking notes to be edited and approved. * 

Harper has kept his government focused strictly on his top five priorities, starting with the tabling last Tuesday of his accountability act meant to clean up the way Ottawa does business.  ''


----------



## Inspir (16 Apr 2006)

Wow, if it were me I would tell the PMO where they can stick it. 

But then again I'm not a General nor a politician (is there really a difference between the two anyway)


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2006)

This is not surprising, certainly not _*shocking*_.  The government’s intent to focus, clearly, on its _big five_ priorities has been clear and public since day 1.  Ditto: the fact that national defence is *not* one of the big five.

General Hillier, and his top level subordinates, have had a fairly loose reign since Paul Martin took office – looser, I think, than the ones held by Chrétien when Henault, Baril and De Chastelain and, especially, John Anderson, were CDS.

Some here on Army.ca will be of the view that the best interests of the CF depend upon a Conservative majority government and my readings of the recent press (e.g. yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060415.wxpoll0415/BNStory/National/home ) indicates that Harper’s five priorities strategy might be the best way to get to that majority.


----------



## Armymedic (16 Apr 2006)

It is minority government politics. And probably a good strategy. Time will tell.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2006)

>


Sooooo!  Any speculation on the PMO muzzling us on Army.ca?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (16 Apr 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> >
> 
> 
> Sooooo!  Any speculation on the PMO muzzling us on Army.ca?



     In all seriousness, it has always been the function of veterans organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion, and Army.ca (for those of us who are retired, anyway) to speak.  In many ways, where General Hiller cannot speak, retired senior officers, like Lew McKenzie have a duty to speak.  Where current service Jr officers and NCO's cannot speak about the realities of the problems they face, it is OUR duty to speak.  When we served, it was the Korean war vets and early UN mission vets who spoke up for us, as the WWII vets spoke for them.  It is for this generation to risk their lives to keep the watch, and for the last to see they are not forsaken.


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2006)

Well, well. This was probably only a matter of time, particularly given the relationship issues we have heard about between CDS and MND. How very ironic that under the dreaded Liberals we enjoyed the most forthright, courageous and free-speaking CDS we have ever had, and under the Tories (supposedly the patron saints of the military...) he and our leadership are muzzled.


A bucket of cold water to remind us that politics is still politics, politicians are still politicians, and we may not be the golden boys we thought we were.

I wonder what effect this will have on all the public speaking that has been encouraged at lower levels, and our open approach to the media, both of which were developed to rty to educate the Canadian public?

Cheers


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Apr 2006)

PBI...

Depending on how much you trust the media,
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/04/16/1536123-sun.html

*''Lower-ranking soldiers can still answer questions on their responsibilities and the programs they work in without having to seek PMO approval. ''*

However, we'll have to see how that plays out at the sharp end.


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2006)

milnewstbay:

Thanks for that. I hope that  our "in your own lane" policy survives, and that in due course the power brokers in the PMO are reeled in a bit to let the CDS and the senior leaders do what they were doing so well. The worst possible thing would be for us to become a silent army again, just when we were gaining traction.

Cheers


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Apr 2006)

I don't see this as being permanent. In the US key military leaders are asked to speak at meeting's of the chamber of commerce, veterans organizations and others. Of course the senior leadership can still address the troops after all that is who their true audience is. The PM may feel that it his purview to sell national defense to the voters and not the military.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Apr 2006)

I don't really like Harper or his team of lackies, but the practical necessity of the situation is driving this. The media is looking for anything to create a scandal and will construe any situation to reveal evidence of the elusive hidden agenda. Presumably this would include any statements by those who hold or have been permitted to continue to hold an office of any sort [such as the CDS, CMS, CAS, CLS etc., and their equivalent office holders right across the government.] Comments from Hillier are like a lightning rod for the MSM and the left,[notice they are always together!!] and he has already set an expectation of what the government has to accomplish to meet military requirements. [i.e. transport helo's by September]. In so doing the CDS has set the benchmark by which the government will fail the military, for his expectation conflicts with the Conservative electoral promises regarding the military - ice breakers and RRF forces throughout the country.     

CDS Hillier has placed the government in an awkward position, and they really had no choice but to muzzle him. Helo's by September would cost money this year, and there will be very little new money, if any, in the defence budget. In theory, the budget could even shrink - anything could happen to engineer a majority government. An increase to defence spending that would be necessary to purchase helicopters for deployment this year or even next year would be political suicide if there is to be any hope to pass a budget and set conditions to win a majority. 

It was a serious mistake for Hillier to communicate those statements when clearly Harper and the MND do not share Hillier's vision of the military. There is a serious ideological purge underway of liberal appointees within the public service, and that purge is going to find its way into the military and especially NDHQ. 

Prediction: look for Hillier to go silent and Ron Buck to retire and go on a public offensive against the MND.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Apr 2006)

> Prediction: look for Hillier to go silent and Ron Buck to retire and go on a public offensive against the MND.



Admiral Buck announced his retirement for this year sometime ago. Too bad-  he spent more time and energy defending Maritime Helicopters than the entire Air Force combined...


----------



## couchcommander (16 Apr 2006)

You know, if I remember correctly, I think it was the year before last, a certain political party was lamenting the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office....in fact, if I remember correctly, they were rather rude about it.... hrm, how the tables turn. Ah well. 

As I said when they put a hold on those rushed contracts:


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2006)

"However, we'll have to see how that plays out at the sharp end."

- Hey Tony, I got to 'model' a TF soldier in full WES gear getting hit by laser beams about five feet from the PM three days ago at CMTC, and I didn't feel muzzled at all!  I even had a speaking part!

As per the SOP, I suspect that if people stay in their arcs, they will be OK.

On a similar (but different) matter, Licia Corbella, writing in today's Edmonton Sun,  states "... proof positive of my theory that if you seek comment from anyone long enough, eventually they will say something really stupid."

Stupid sells newspapers.  Unfortunately, it also gets us soldiers more attention than we like.  Most of the media at the pointy end are hard working and worthy of our respect ( if the CBC gave out tour medals like the CF did, Nalah Ayed would have more than most of us).  As well, although their primary mission is NOT to protect us from our own stupidity once we open our mouths, they have been known to do just that.  Back in the corporate newsroom, however, journalistic and 'other' politics mixed with careerism and professional jealosy (the hallmarks of any bureaucracy) tend to warp the pointy end product and slam it into pre-ordained packaging. 

What other branch of the public service allows it's pointy end to talk to the press about their jobs?  Anybody see Mr. Gagliano's executive assistant on Newsworld?  How about some of Mr. Radwanski's alledgedly 'abused' subordinates? What about the Justice flunky who had to write a letter stating that  the Mini 14 rifle would NOT be Prohibited - yet - after his boss, Irwin Cotler,  had said it would be? Catch the W5 on his feelings on why his boss could not withdraw his own letter?  Me niether.  Hear an interview of any prison guards or immigration board members lately?

Nope.

Tom


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Apr 2006)

Unfortunately even when our soldiers speak, the lower rank of the speakers is given the respect that many politicians in Ottawa believe it deserves - nothing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985

Still, it beats not hearing Tommy Atkins' voice at all.

TBCF is right about most gov't departments being VERY keen on front-liners not being the voice that's heard without context or big picture.  I know, as someone whose bureaucratic day job it is, in part, to make sure the media hears the right messages from the Gov't of Canada.  Now, whether they USE them or not is another story.... ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Apr 2006)

I'm the first to admit that I'm not very politically savvy at all, but, wasn't there a bunch of bluster about Government being, "transparent", I believe was the word used?  Seems to me that we were sold a cat in a bag, and the cone of silence has been lowered over the whole hill.  If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Apr 2006)

> have Conservative staffers vet their speeches



That would be the friggin' day...they'd get my walking papers first.

The military is not the public service and does not exist to prop up this or that Government politically.  For too long, the CF has avoided engaging Canadians because "it might 'embarrass' the Minister", to the detriment of operational effectiveness and to the creation of a profound misunderstanding amongst the public of what we do.  While the military of course has to take direction from the elected leadership, and to be seen to be "soldiering on" once that direction has been issued, this goes beyond the pale - if correct.

Somehow, though, I'm not surprised.  Most of the Conservatives' "ideas" on defence are *profoundly stupid*; they're afraid that someone might actually say so...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Apr 2006)

Quote,
_Somehow, though, I'm not surprised.  Most of the Conservatives' "ideas" on defence are profoundly stupid; they're afraid that someone might actually say so..._

I totally agree, can someone give me one good IDEA that has come out in the last year from the Tories?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2006)

I'll admit I am inclined to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. I did vote the other guys out and these guys in.  So I might be more than usually pollyanna-ish.

One of the problems the "system" generally has had is that the question of to whom the government is accountable and to whom the government should be transparent.  Ultimately it is the people.  That is true enough.  But is the press that is supposed to hold the government accountable or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in Parliament -not to mention all the non-government back-benchers on the government's side of the house.

In the past it was common for an opposition MP to preface his/her questions with "I see today in the Post/Globe/Star....." because the mechanisms in the House available to them to conduct research on government initiatives was so weak. No money. No bodies.  Harper appears to be a parliamentarian, in that he believes/believed that parliament and the MPs are the arbiters of democracy in Canada.  The people there are hired to make policy and question policy on our behalf.

The media can and should act as a further mechanism, and many reporters believe that they are acting from the best possible motives.  But.  Ultimately they are being paid not to save Canada but to sell papers and advertising.

I am not too bothered that the press is bothered.  I am fairly heartened by the Accountability Act which puts power into the hands of the parliamentarians.  We'll have to watch them play by the new rules for a season or two before I decide if the changes have improved "the game".

If things go the way that I would like to see them go the media will be printing headlines like "Opposition MP exposes shocking new scandal using information obtained from Auditor General and the Parliamentary Library...".  (OK so I only want to see that headline if the Liberals or NDP make it into government but I am sure you get the drift  ).

I would like to see parliament (government and opposition) driving the nation's agenda and not the Globe/Post/Star/Macleans/CBC/CTV.

I am going to wait out a while longer before deciding I screwed up by electing these guys.

Cheers.


----------



## FSTO (17 Apr 2006)

I always love the guys named "Un-named". With that word you can say any damn thing you want. But, if the story is true then we shouldn't see any speeches from NDHQ for the next 4 to six weeks, (which co-incides with the tabling of the budget  ), so we'll just have to wait.

As for the reaction from the Directing Staff of Army.ca, you guys should maybe hold-fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Has the government announced the creation of the RRF at Goose Bay? No, all they have announced is the re-establishment of the weather station there and at Gander. 

Now I agree with you that some of the other ideas are fairly out there (Navy Icebreakers, where the Coast Guard would be better employed). But why don't we wait until the budget before you let loose. (Maybe the Tories are in the process of gutting PWGSC, which would decrease procurement time by about 99.9999%)

Now after this rambling response, I hope that I don't get disciplined.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Apr 2006)

> As for the reaction from the Directing Staff of Army.ca, you guys should maybe hold-fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Has the government announced the creation of the RRF at Goose Bay? No, all they have announced is the re-establishment of the weather station there and at Gander.



No, but the Minister said here in Edmonton last month that the four "new" battalions (Airborne, Comox, Bagotville, and Goose Bay) were still part of the overall Tory defence plan.  I agree, though, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating; we'll have to wait and see...


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2006)

"I would like to see parliament (government and opposition) driving the nation's agenda and not the Globe/Post/Star/Macleans/CBC/CTV."

- I don't mind the media - in fact I WANT them to be troublemakers - but good ones, not lazy ones.  Truth to tell, if anyone thinks they are the new royal family, it's the Supreme Court.  Any one joking that "Boys From Brazil" might be happening in a sub-arctic banana republic, rather than a South American country?

"Somehow, though, I'm not surprised.  Most of the Conservatives' "ideas" on defence are profoundly stupid; they're afraid that someone might actually say so..."

- I disagree.  I thought 'Voting out the crooks who were stealing our money so we could actually use that money for DND and other good projects rather than for paying bribes" was - and remains - an excellent idea on defence.

Tom


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The military is not the public service and does not exist to prop up this or that Government politically.



- Which begs the questions: 
1. Does the public service exist to prop up this or that Government politically? 
2. Is DND - with or without the Canadian Armed Forces - part of the public service?
3. What year did the professional officer corps stop becoming a separate 'profession' if you will, and begin to be administered (pay and benefits package, etc) like public servants?

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2006)

Tom - 

I don't mind the media either, nor the fact that they stir up trouble.  I am just inclined to think that Parliament is where the hard work should be being done.

Cheers.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Apr 2006)

Folks
Let's remember whom we serve: the people of Canada, as directed by the government.  It is not our job to create defence policy, but rather to carry it out.  It is as though SH and his gang are the commanders, and we are the staff.  We do not say "no", but rather "Yes we can; however, the effects of doing _x_ are this and that."  So the previous government had loose reign on the CDS and others.  Would that REALLY be correct?  Perhaps it was for them, but not for this government.  
The military is a tool of the government, and like it or not, we go where they say and do what they say, regardless of our opinion.  And for those who don't like it have a few choices: resign and do something else or they soldier on.

Enough for now.

Garvin out


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2006)

As an outsider looking in, the message is getting smudged. There needs to be a focus, not a lot of verbal wishful thinking outloud. I think the PMO reviewing the speeches prior to dissimulating ridiculous, but I think the PM needs to remind the CF that not much is going to happen if the new government cannot stay on message and win a majority in the next election. That means that internal verbalizing needs NOT happen outside. The comment about the media picking up on the "misspoken comment" is dead on. They can and will utilize the comments out of context and the CF will pay the price.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (17 Apr 2006)

One thing I must disagree with Von Garvin on is that the CDS, and the rest of the senior officers of our Land, Sea, and Air forces should shut up and soldier.  Our public, media, and politicians are far beyond pig-ignorant when it comes to the realities of military force.  If our PM is telling Parliament that we can deploy X to do Y, and the CDS and his advisers have already briefed the PMO that deploying force X cannot achieve Y, and in fact endangers force X with no possibility of positively affecting the situation at Y; what are the duties of the CDS?  Do you expect him to vette his replies through the PMO when questioned by the press (as how often does parliament get the chance to question the CDS about these issues before deployment), when you know that he will not be permitted to present the opinion of the professional officer corps that the mission cannot succeed with the assigned forces, but be forced to follow the opinion of the PMO.
     For too long the CF has had its political masters muzzling the senior officers about procurement and deployments. The Canadian govt has been allowed to misslead the Canadian public about the realities of our defence requirements, and capabilities.  We have the legacy of this policy.  Radio's that don't work, a helicopter fleet that best stay in sight of land, no heavy armour, no airlift or sealift capacity, a regular force that burns out its personnel attempting to man the deployments suiting a force twice its size.  We know that no PMO wants any dissenting opinion to get out, but it is the duty of the CDS to serve the Canadian people by answering with the truth, whatever his political masters may wish.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Apr 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> General Hillier, and his top level subordinates, have had a fairly loose reign since Paul Martin took office – looser, I think, than the ones held by Chrétien when Henault, Baril and De Chastelain and, especially, John Anderson, were CDS.



Absolutely. This whole affair seems all the more shocking because suddenly Canadians are actually aware that there _is_ a Chief of Defence Staff...who _is_ sought out for comment. Did Henault even speak? Would Baril have said "crap" if he had a mouthful? (I still hope his Rwanda role comes home to roost). While not CDS under the Liberals, Jean Boyles' only claim to fame was his public video, washing his hands of Somalia by bragging that no one told him anything and so he couldn't have interfered with any investigations.

If one were cynical (    ) it might be suggested that the motivator behind this pronouncement is an inadequate-feeling Minister of Defence, bemoaning his being left in the media shadow by a popular CDS - - - just as well I'm not cynical.   ;D


----------



## DG-41 (17 Apr 2006)

> Some here on Army.ca will be of the view that the best interests of the CF depend upon a Conservative majority government





> I think the PM needs to remind the CF that not much is going to happen if the new government cannot stay on message and win a majority in the next election.



Or maybe... the effectiveness of the Canadian Military is not one of the 5 major priorities for the Reform Party, and they want to silence the CDS to keep the state of the military off the public radar, lest he interfere with their agenda.

I think it is very VERY important for those of us in green to NOT get caught up in party politics (My side rocks and can do no wrong! Your side sucks and can do no right!) and instead remain objective.

Liberals: CDS is free to say what he wants, when he wants.
Reform: CDS must have his speeches vetted and approved by the PMO's office.

DG


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2006)

_My edit_


			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> Or maybe... the effectiveness of the Canadian Military is not one of the 5 major priorities for the Reform Party  :tsktsk: _government of the day_
> 
> DG



Precisely.  Harper laid out his party's five priorities during the campaign.  National defence was *not* on the list.  He has said, time and again, that he plans to stick to those five priorities and that other _priorities_ will be addressed as time, money and events dictate.

So, the problem is: he's doing what he said he was going to do; is that right?  Or, maybe, the problem is: RecceDG doesn't approve of the electors' current choice.


----------



## DG-41 (17 Apr 2006)

> Harper laid out his party's five priorities during the campaign.  National defence was not on the list.



So then - what makes you think that a Reform majority would suddenly push National Defense onto the list of priorities?

DG


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> ...
> For too long the CF has had its political masters muzzling the senior officers about procurement and deployments.
> ...



That's because *defence policy* which addresses, _inter alia_ how many people shall we have in uniform, how many and what types of ships, tanks and bombers shall they have and where shall they go, what shall they do and how shall they use those ships, tanks and bombers, is *not* the business of admirals and generals - most, in fact, being experts at _doing_ military operations rather than deciding on policy matters, are relatively amateurish at policy.

It is the Queen's job to defend her realm; and she relies on two groups to help her:

•	Her Privy Council (_de facto_ the cabinet of the day) advises her on what to do - it helps her set policy and then decide how to implement her policy by tasking her armed forces to do X with Y; and

•	Parliament, the people's parliament, to vote the necessary funds - no money, no operations.

If General Hillier finds the government’s actions unacceptable he ought to resign and speak out.  That’s what Admiral Thomas did about 15 years ago when the government-of-the-day, aided and abetted by a highly political CDS, was misleading the Canadian public.  I guess a whole half dozen reporters came to his press conference; there was a small story on an inside page in a few daily paper the next day – then nothing.  If, on the other hand, General Hillier wants to press on with his improvements then he must:

Make his case, compellingly, supported by facts, to Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council – Gordon O’Connor is, actually, irrelevant in the defence policy business, too – and he must do that in tandem with the DM (Ward Elcock) who, in his turn, must convince Lynch (who, I believe is highly sceptical about DND’s management) that DND can and will _manage_ whatever new resources are provided to accomplish the government’s ends.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> So then - what makes you think that a Reform majority would suddenly push National Defense onto the list of priorities?
> 
> DG



I have never suggested the Conservatives would; National Defence is not high on Canadians' lists of priorities; it makes sense that it will not be high on politicians' lists either.


----------



## pbi (17 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately even when our soldiers speak, the lower rank of the speakers is given the respect that many politicians in Ottawa believe it deserves - nothing.



Centurian: I couldn't disagree more. One of the best things we ever did in the CF was to empower junior soldiers to speak to the media, as long as they "stay in their lane". The soldiers, NCOs and junior officers who make up the majority of faces in uniform we now see on TV or in the paper every day, have turned out to be great spokespeople, simply because they *are* junior.  They are junior, but the public sees that they are also smart, well spoken, and believe in what they are doing. (A big change from the general public perception of soldiers only a few years ago) The public, IMHO, has little trust in senior govt officials, and sadly I think that until very recently that has included Generals. (Although the present CDS has done much to change that). But, most people can identify with the more junior people in an organization when they speak, because most people have been (or are) there themselves. IMHO we should give great credit to our soldiers for whatever public support exists for uor mission in Afghanistan.

Cheers


----------



## Journeyman (17 Apr 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Make his case, compellingly, supported by facts, to Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council – Gordon O’Connor is, actually, irrelevant in the defence policy business, too – and he must do that in tandem with the DM (Ward Elcock) who, in his turn, must convince Lynch (who, I believe is highly sceptical about DND’s management) that DND can and will _manage_ whatever new resources are provided to accomplish the government’s ends.



I personally believe that Ward Elcock is probably one of the best things to happen to DND (and by default, the CF), in recent memory. Smart, capable, and well-respected (although certainly not beloved in some left-of-centre circles    ). I suspect that the Elcock/Hillier combination is terrific, if only because they _do_ understand political realities, and will play the game, within arcs, to the benefit of the troops and the institution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I personally believe that Ward Elcock is probably one of the best things to happen to DND (and by default, the CF), in recent memory ...



I agree, but see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40460.0.html 

DND has, I believe a long, uphill climb before it reaches the level of bureaucratic _competence_ which Lynch probably demands.  I think the last _capable_ DM, before Elcock, was the roundly detested (by many in the military) Bob Fowler.  Nearly 15 years of second and third rate top management is hard to overcome.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Apr 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suspect that the Elcock/Hillier combination is terrific, if only because they _do_ understand political realities, and will play the game, within arcs, to the benefit of the troops and the institution.



Indeed it does appear that the arrival of these two gentlemen coincided with new energy and directions for DND, along with a MND with a head on his shoulders.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2006)

> I think it is very VERY important for those of us in green to NOT get caught up in party politics  (My side rocks and can do no wrong! Your side sucks and can do no right!) and instead remain objective.
> 
> Liberals: CDS is free to say what he wants, when he wants.
> Reform: CDS must have his speeches vetted and approved by the PMO's office.



One is inclined to mention "motes and beams" at this time.


----------



## DG-41 (17 Apr 2006)

One might.

Why do I insist on calling the "Conservatives" "Reform"? Because that is who they are at the core. The "Conservatives" are NOT the same people as the party of Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney (or even of the various provincial Conservative parties) and I think it is important to always keep that in mind. If one is inclined to play party politics, to claim that (say) the Liberals are Always Bad, and the Conservatives Always Good... well then, the current "Conservatives" are not the same people.

The fact that today's Conservatives were yesterday's Reform is actually, as far as I am concerned, value-neutral. I don't care one way or the other; I prefer to evaluate by results, not by the colour of their banners and placards. But I also like to remember who it is I'm dealing with, irrespective of what they are calling themselves.

In fact, I think that Reform isn't connected to Mulroney by anything more concrete than name is a point in their favour.

But anyway, I remain decidedly unconvinced that the Stephen Harper Reformed Conservatives are the de facto saviours of the Canadian Armed Forces. The fact that Harper visited the Show in person gave me hope, the fact that National Defense wasn't on the "list of five" cooled it somewhat, and now we have the muzzling of an outspoken and competent CDS.

It's too soon to be conclusive in any direction... but I don't see any saviour-ing going on.

DG


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2006)

I don't think it is true that Liberals are always bad, nor that Conservatives are always good.  I do think that the Liberals had been in power for too long and that, beyond party politics to the realm of influence, that the system was in need of a shake-up.  I felt much the same way after Brian Mulroney and think that Preston Manning's mantra of "Liberal, Tory same old story." had some merit.

I like the words of the current government.  I like the sounds being made.  I wait to see the actions.

If it helps you organize your thoughts by continuing to use Reform the same way that some other folks use Communist more power to you.  Personally I am more inclined to use the text of party platforms and policy, in the absence of an actual track record, to make my own decisions.

The Liberal Party has always had the ability to believe many things.  This isn't a bad thing.  I believe many things myself and have often been known to change my mind and contradict myself.  Unfortunately for the electorate this made it difficult to hold the party accountable.  In the event it allowed many folks to use the system for personal gain - not all, nor perhaps most, in the Liberal Party.  The New Guys at least offer the taxpayer the advantage of forcing the media and lobbyists to invest the time and effort to find out where the new centres of influence are.  

One of the more intriguing sights I have seen lately is that of Michael Ignatieff confidently declaring he wants to position the party in the Centre-Left.  This from a man that has spent a career arguing against easy labels and defining the nuances of policy.

However we are now seriously OT.  Perhaps this discussion should be pursued on one of the other political threads.

Cheers.


----------



## DG-41 (17 Apr 2006)

Agreed. Cheers.  

DG


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Apr 2006)

>I'm the first to admit that I'm not very politically savvy at all, but, wasn't there a bunch of bluster about Government being, "transparent", I believe was the word used?

There was indeed.  But I'm more interested in the transparency of in-depth investigations and audits into the way government conducts its business than the transparency of flashy sound bites on TV.  The jury's still hearing the evidence on this one.

The problem may simply be that, as mentioned above, someone in DND/CF has made a statement which amounts to a cheque that this minority government is unable or unwilling to cash.  Except to those not paying attention or wanting to hold the Conservatives to the highest possible standards simply because they delight in finding out that the emperor has no clothes, the priorities and intentions of the Conservatives were pretty clear during the election.  All the rest of the CPC and LPC offers and counter-offers were more like Scrooge McDuck in a bidding war with Flintheart Glomgold, and every inch as much a tale of fiction.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2006)

This is from today’s _Globe and Mail_ and it is reproduced here in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060419.wxhillier19/BNStory/National/home 


> Ottawa seeks closer watch on top general
> 
> *Outspoken Chief of the Defence Staff is asked to clear remarks with minister*
> 
> ...



With all respect to Senator Colin Kenney (because I have none, at all, for Ujjal Dosanjh) this is a tempest in a teapot, a story created _inside the greenbelt_ by an aggrieved (and lazy) parliamentary press gallery which demonstrates again that it is still happiest when taking dictation from Liberal spin doctors; Prof. Des Morton is correct.  Harper and O’Connor got elected, Hillier is a servant (_employee_) of the crown who is _“…supposed to go upstairs and check it with the minister ..."_

I think Harper and company are being ass hats, but, like the unnamed _source_ in the story I also think that _’message management’_ is the new watchword of the bright young fanatics who populate all political parties – it is the last refuge of those with a thin policy portfolio.

<yawn>


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2006)

Well, it is quite obvious that Harper has a leak in his office.  As Edward has said, this is a temptest in a teapot.  Being military, Gen Hillier should be used to this type of procedure.  It is common sense and courtesy to vet you Speech or Paper with your superior in the military.  I know I did so when I submitted a Paper to the Armour Bulletin.  My boss made some suggestions, some of which I made, some I didn't, and then I submitted.  The new Min of Defence is Ex-Military, and is quite accustomed to this and probably has reintroduced it to the amazement of some Civilian Staffers who have no idea of how things are done.  Does it mean that Gen Hillier is going to Censored on everything?  Of course not.  The Minister just wants to know what he is going to say in advance, so he doesn't get caught off guard in some media scrum.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2006)

Although General Hillier is probably the most visible person affected by this, I would not be too surprised to discover this is being introduced in all government departments. Over the past decade+, the ship of State has been allowed to drift with virtually no direction, and civil servents have had free reign to do almost anything. I would expect this is part of the larger Harper agenda of taking control of the machinery of government so he can, in fact, govern.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2006)

I suppose you could construe it as him making the gov't more accountable, as he promised. If everyone and everything has to vette or be vetted by the PMO, there is really only one person responsible when the shit hits the fan, n'est pas?  Pretty big burden for one set of shoulders, but no one ever said he was shy. At least he's stepping up to the plate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Apr 2006)

Considering how favourably the unmuzzling of the troops was received by the pre-Martin Liberal governments - those of you in at the time may have an inkling - it's a bit rich for the Liberals to be complaining that the new government doesn't want to be blindsided by mixed messages among the Forces, the Department, and the Minister.  People in charge typically don't like to be surprised, particularly by the efforts of their underlings.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2006)

.....and before we get to over the top about current practices, let's not forget the the unpecedented power afforded to the unelected minions of the Poppa Doc Creten's PMO. :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Apr 2006)

Well how about them apples:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060419/hillier_remarks_060419

Hillier denies he has to clear speeches with feds 
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada's top general is denying a report that he's been asked to submit advance copies of his public statements to the Minister of Defence before delivering them.

The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier has been asked to run his speeches by the new Conservative government -- a practice that did not take place under the Liberals.

But Capt. Vance White, a spokesperson for Hillier, said that's not the case, and that the general's staff were asked only to provide the themes of speeches that Hillier intends to give.

"The (defence) minister's office has asked Hillier's staff to provide info . . . just to know what he's talking about at various events," White told The Canadian press. "So basically the themes or the key points in his speeches.''

But according to Defence Department sources, the blunt-spoken senior general has been asked to run his speeches by the Harper government.

"There's a lot of information that we're providing a lot further in advance, or trying to," a senior DND source told The Globe.

The source also told the newspaper that such requests are typical in transition periods.

Opposition

The Opposition reacted angrily to the report. Bloc Quebecois critic Claude Bachand suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper is turning the general into a "puppet."

Harper rebuffed the allegation. 

"I keep reading these stories about secret memos that I'm vetting this and that, but I'm not aware of any of them," the prime minister told reporters in Winnipeg.

"My understanding is the protocols that are in place are the existing protocols that have been there for some time."

"Generally speaking, senior members of the government and senior officials of the government are obviously supposed to share their views and public statements with other members of the government and I don't think we've changed anything.''

Critics say the report is evidence that Ottawa mistrusts the nation's top soldier.

"I think they should have more confidence in their Chief of Defence Staff," said Senator Colin Kenny, the former head of the Senate defence committee. "By the time you get to be a general or a flag officer, you've developed a fair bit of competence. The system clearly has trust in you and confidence in your ability."

"That is highly inappropriate," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh told The Globe. "(General Hillier) is not a member of the cabinet. His role is to be a strong voice for our military and in that sense he's independent, so he can speak about the needs of the military."

New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said the move raises questions about the relationship between Hillier and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

"Clearly, there are some tensions between the minister and the Chief of Defence Staff," she said.

Dosanjh pointed out that Hillier has recently said that tactical, short-haul aircraft to replace the military's ancient C-130 Hercules transports are his priority.

O'Connor, however, has said that strategic or long-haul lift must come first. 

Meanwhile, the Conservative government plans to launch its largest military recruitment drive in decades.

With the country's armed forces stretched thin with the current 2,200-strong deployment in Afghanistan, a recent advertising blitz by the military seems to have worked, according to O'Connor.

Ads shown on movie theatre and television screens helped bring in 5,800 applications to Canada's Armed Forces in the last fiscal year -- 300 more than the goal of 5,500.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2006)

They've nothing else to get the Conservatives on, so this, along with everything else, is nothing more than fear mongering at it's worse. Trying for the 'death of a thousand (unsubstantiated and made up) cuts'. Look at it from another angle. They're attacking Harper on this, to make political hay. The CDS has said it's not true, but in effect, the Bloc, NDP and the lieberals are calling the CDS a liar. So much for their (un)righteous indignation. These guys remind me of the reformed prostitutes in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, but without the morals.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Apr 2006)

Damn, you mean it's just an innocuous fact blown into a baseless rumour in the best traditions of the Rumour Mill?  Quickly, what can we do to inflate and sustain the overreaction?


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 Apr 2006)

There are always 'secret memos' being put across his desk; very foolish to deny he's ever seen any when every leader of every country in the world does this - its called 'national security'.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> There are always 'secret memos' being put across his desk; very foolish to deny he's ever seen any when every leader of every country in the world does this - its called 'national security'.



The PM's quote was obviously in reference to memos about vetting public statements.....not even an implication he was referring to classified, national security documents. Thanks for coming out, 3 Horse...uh, bbbb ....damn, Centurian

Sorry, some people's postings make them hard to distinguish from other members


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Apr 2006)

> Sorry, some people's postings make them hard to distinguish from other members



 :rofl:


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2006)

Of course, why these stories are being published is a story in itself:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/  April 19, 2006



> *Gotcha, Travers*
> 
> A Jim Travers op-ed in the Star considers the underlying sloth of the Ottawa press gallery;
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Apr 2006)

Found this in THE TELEGRAM from St. John's, NL.  Not sure if this has been posted before.

http://www.thetelegram.com/news.aspx?storyID=48745

Thursday, April 20, 2006
Gagging the general   
 The Telegram

  



Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier used to be a breath of fresh air — but now it looks like the Harper government wants that particular breeze to be a little more predictable. 
Hillier’s refreshingly blunt about saying he feels the Armed Forces is still critically underfunded. 

He’s told his soldiers they all need to be fit enough to pass basic annual physicals, or see promotions and pay raises stop. He’s told the Canadian people to expect casualties in Afghanistan, because casualties are a fact of life in a war zone, and Afghanistan certainly is that. 

He’s even written to Canada’s Defence minister to point out that the Goose Bay air base doesn’t really have a strategic purpose and should be transferred to civilian control — a position that you might not expect a native Newfoundlander to express, but a legitimate one, nonetheless. 

Since he took over as Chief of Defence Staff, he has had a practical and straightforward approach — you ask him what he thinks, and he tells you. 

What a concept.

Now there are signs it’s a concept that the government of Stephen Harper is more than a little uncomfortable with. 

Wednesday, the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s top soldier has been asked to submit copies of any speaking notes in advance to the minister of Defence, a move not out of line with the Harper government’s mantra of full control of government messages.

A spokesman for Hillier told the CBC late Wednesday that the Globe story went too far, and that the government merely wanted to see what sort of themes Hiller would be speaking on.

It’s fair to say that Hillier has been at odds with some of the political promises made by the Conservatives. After all, the party made an election plank out of expanding Goose Bay’s military operations, rather than phasing it out, so it’s easy to see why Hillier’s loose cannon would not be helpful to the debate.

But the fact is that Hillier was only talking about the strategic value of the base, a decision he made based on the military’s current use of the facility. If the government has other plans for the operation — including the plan they announced during the election to locate a rapid-response battalion at the Labrador base — that’s a political decision they get to make regardless of Hillier’s opinions on the matter.

These are early days in the Harper administration — new cabinet ministers are jumpy and untrained, and there may well be good reasons for a prime minister’s office to restrict who can say what, and to keep an eye on what’s being said.

The problem is that this government is going further than most in restricting both legitimate comment and the free flow of information — and it was a government that claimed, in opposition, that it planned to make government more open and accountable. 

Suddenly, that breath of fresh air doesn’t seem as fresh anymore.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Apr 2006)

I'm sure the media would be happier if every MP and senior person in public service were beaking off freely every day.  It would give them plenty of material.  I doubt it's going to happen.  So, the story must be that there are no stories to be had.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Apr 2006)

Ahhhh, the lazy chimps with typewriters have to start thinking and working for a living. Maybe the 4th estate will start coming back to where it used to be, instead of a farm team for the National Enquirer


----------



## couchcommander (20 Apr 2006)

I always find accusations of a pro-liberal bias in the news very amusing. Sure enough Bell Globemedia was not completely anti-Liberal (CTV, Globe and Mail), but they had their more than fair share of attack pieces.

CBC was definately leftist, but almost too much so to blatantly support the Liberals...but did you actually read the stories coming out of CanWest (National Post, Global) or Quebecor (SUN)?

Calling them pro-Liberal makes me start to think one of us has been delusional, and I know I was on my medication.... if you want references go grab a Sun and a National post from the election. 

What this is, in the end however, is Harper getting a taste of his own medicine. Welcome to the real world of responsibility.

Remember all the mole hills Jason Kenny stood up and yelled about in overblown press conference after press conference, trying to turn them into mountains? 

One of the more amusing times (of many)....



> MP Jason Kenney held a news conference in which he complained - incorrectly - that Martin speechwriter Scott Feschuk had insulted ethnic minorities. Feschuk had written a humorous note on the Liberal party website referring to "socially awkward Omni subscribers."
> 
> Kenney thought Feschuk was talking about viewers of Omni TV, a multicultural channel based in Toronto. In fact, he was actually referring to now-defunct Omni magazine, a science and technology publication long cherished by nerds.



http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=113033

I'm personally surprised at the restraint the Liberals are showing in this regard. Had the tables been turned, I'm sure that Martin would be getting called a "dictator" or been accused of being "fascist" by this point.


----------

