Hillier, Sr.Officials Muzzled by PMO

[Kirkhill]

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]

Agreed. Cheers. 

DG

 

[Brad Sallows]

>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]

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

MICHAEL DEN TANDT

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier has been asked to submit advance copies of his public speeches for vetting by the Harper government, a move critics say shows mistrust of the country's blunt-spoken senior general.

"That is highly inappropriate," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said yesterday. "[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."

Defence Department sources confirmed yesterday that Gen. Hillier, a voluble and at times controversial speaker, was asked to run his public remarks by the Minister of Defence before delivering them — a practice that did not occur under the Martin government.

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

The source said requests for greater central oversight are typical in transition periods, and have occurred in every change of government dating back to the Mulroney years.

"Where I saw it the most was in 1984," the source said. "..... Where you have a group of people who haven't had their hands on the levers of government before, and it takes a while."

The source played down the importance of the practice. "People are just trying to get used to the flow and the pattern and the rhythm and the content," the source said.

Others in Ottawa were less sanguine.

"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 and an outspoken critic of the previous Liberal government's military policies. "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."

Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's senior spokeswoman, referred questions to the PMO media line in Ottawa. A call to communications director Sandra Buckler was not returned.

Opposition reaction was ferocious, signalling that the Harper regime's at times autocratic style is wearing thin in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dosanjh, and the defence critics of the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party — Claude Bachand and Dawn Black — said the policy makes a mockery of Mr. Harper's promises of greater openness in government.

"I think it's kind of a dictatorship going on," Mr. Bachand said. "I think that is not what Quebeckers expected from Prime Minister Harper. And I think it's bad for democracy. You have to keep a certain distance, especially in national defence ... this guy is nominated by cabinet. If he becomes a puppet for the Prime Minister ... this is not looking good."

Mr. Harper has made it clear that he mistrusts the senior bureaucracy and Parliament itself, Mr. Bachand said. "He didn't permit a vote in the House for the deployment in Afghanistan. He would have won the vote, so it's only stubbornness."

Ms. Black said the vetting of Gen. Hillier's remarks is of a piece with earlier restrictions on cabinet ministers and MPs.

She added that it also raises questions about the relationship between Gen. Hillier and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. "Clearly, there are some tensions between the minister and the Chief of Defence Staff," she said.

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

Mr. O'Connor, by contrast, has said frequently that strategic or long-haul lift must come first. The Tories have also promised three new icebreakers for the Arctic.

According to a source familiar with the situation, Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have discussed procurement, but nothing has been resolved.

"They are polite to each other, they are very courteous, but they don't like each other," the source said. "They have completely different visions of the Forces."

McGill University historian Desmond Morton, an expert on Canadian military history, said that until relatively recently, prime ministers have always kept their defence chiefs on a tight leash.

"Certainly you were supposed to go upstairs and check it with the minister," he said.

Gen. Hillier became the exception to that rule, Prof. Morton said. "His predecessors were noted for their caution, their careerism and their absolute refusal to stick their necks out on anything. ... Hillier was the bluff [Newfoundlander] who was going to set a difference. And he did, for a while."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.....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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

:rofl:

 

[a_majoor]

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;

    In diminishing the effectiveness of his press interactions, the Prime Minister is indirectly encouraging reporters to fan out to look elsewhere for news, a radical notion that's not in his interest and will lead to scrutiny no administration can sustain.


Reporters actually going out to get the news? This cannot stand!

So, there we have it - tacit admission by a leading Ottawa journalist that the majority of his peers have behaved as lazy, spoon-fed agents of the Liberal party. One would think that such a revelation would be worthy of a column of journalistic self-examination, or at least a direct acknowledgment that accusations of pro-Liberal bias have foundation. Instead, he predictably issues yet another "warning" from media to the Harper government.

When we speak of "newspaper recycling", Mr. Travers, we're really thinking of the paper, not the ink.

Let's get the real reason for this little squabble out into the open. The shrill cries from the press gallery for "accountability", the invocation of "American-style" motives in keeping cabinet ministers and government officials on a short leash, the faux alarm about "secrecy" are complete and utter hogwash. What we are witnessing is a media suffering through loss. Harper's changes mean the opportunity to practice the bread-and-butter of modern political reporting - the fine art of "gotcha journalism" - has been cruelly snatched from them.

At the moment, most seem to stuck somewhere between "anger" and "bargaining", May they move to the stage of "acceptance" soon, and get back to the real business of reporting.

Postscript::
I can't let the column in question go by without drawing attention to how Travers signals his personal viewpoint on a different score. (And I don't mean just the predictable cheap shot attempts to paint Harper as " reading from the George W. Bush script".)

    ...a social shift away from universal programs and toward what is euphemistically called "choice."


The word "choice" is not considered a "euphanism" when it comes to the question of abortion policy - so, why does Travers attempt to discredit choice when the issue is child care or health care?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

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]

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]

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]

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.