Drive on, nothing to see here

Wondering where the dirty-tricks controversy will go, now that the Commons  Speaker has declared it reprehensible? Chances are it will dissipate, through  what's become a tried-and-true method for getting past political trouble. 

Macleans' columnist Paul Wells has recently given us a little glimpse into the PMO's media-management techniques, telling us the existence of a "media barometer." 

 "The Prime Minister’s Office distributes a daily “media barometer” that lists the stories getting the widest coverage and generating the most buzz on blogs and talk radio....Standard PMO procedure is to do what it takes to get a story off the top of the barometer." 

How do you lower the barometer reading? Allow me, as a public service, to set out the five  steps (and thus save someone from spending a lot of money on fancy advice.) 

It is this simple: 

1. Acknowledge the error in as vague, general  a fashion as you can: 

"I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate." -- Bev Oda (doctored-document controversy) 

 

2. Thank the error finder for  good work.  

"We thank the Auditor General for her recommendations. We are working on and streamlining the processes for procurement. In fact, we have, as a result of our current efforts, on average been able to reduce the time to get a contract award from 107 months to 48 months." -- Peter MacKay (cost overruns on Chinook helicopters.) 

3. You know how parenting experts talk about distinguishing between bad child and bad behaviour? When you are a politico  trying to get out of a jam, you don't talk about specific behaviour -- you talk instead, tangentially, about what a good person you are. 

"It's the government's policy that departments are to respond in the timeframes contained in the act or extend time in accordance with the act, subject to the right of a requester to go to the information commissioner and ultimately to the Federal Court." -- former PMO chief of staff Guy Giorno, testifying about political interference in access-to-information requests.

(Actually, the entire testimony is a textbook case of how to answer a specific question in the abstract. Read it if you have the time/interest.) 

 

4. Say it of course won't happen again. 

“I don’t think there will be any more use of suggestions that a byelection might happen." John Williamson, re: Cotler calls. 

5. When  further questions arise, say it's old news. Time has marched on. Insinuate that the person who keeps bringing it up is holding a grudge or has an axe to grind. 

 

Mr. Speaker, the same old, same old. There is nothing new here whatsoever.

The Auditor General came forward with her report and we thank her for her work. She came forward with specific recommendations on how we could be even more transparent to Parliament, specific recommendations on improving program administration. (John Baird: G8/G20 spending.) 

And that's it! As they say on the shampoo bottles: lather, rinse, repeat. Or, in this case: Admit, Thank, Boast, Repent, Move On. 

 

The current government did not invent this. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the current Prime Minister watched Jean Chretien employ this technique over and over again through his tenure, and learned something. In politics, it's better to bury a controversy than to give it a full airing. (The Gomery commission, into the Liberal sponsorship scandal, is now seen as Paul Martin's greatest PR error, for instance.) 

As you've noticed, we're at Stage Four in the Cotler-call controversy. Error admitted, Speaker thanked, principles stated, never-again vow has been made. By the end of the week, it'll be called old news. 

 

Comments

[Catherine]

The technique is a parenting tool. Meant to diffuse a crisis and let cooler heads prevail.

Therein lies the problem. There are no cooler heads. And there is no mutual respect between the govt and the opposition.

So, the technique is being over-used. And there will be a venting of steam in some form.

[hollinm]

What would you have the PM do Susan? Lie prostrate with grief on the floor of the House of Commons. He probably didn't even know this was going on. He has a few other things on his mind these days. However, whatever the party does I guess Harper should know and apologize for it. After all we know that he runs the government single handedly.

While I agree this is no way to do politics the fact remains it was done, Cotler had his say and the Speaker ruled. What more do you want done?

[Aongasha]

Agreed Catherine. The Liberals and the NDP continue this scandal a day cycle that got the Harper government elected to a majority. This tactic only proved they had nothing policy-wise to offer the electorate except this and when compared to the sponsership scandal etc. - the public yawned and went on.
As for the gotcha! journalsim crowd - the public became inured to that during the Mulroney years when the press saw themselves as the official opposition.
Today mainstream Canada has little time or trust in the media, particular the inside baseball offerings of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. They've all seen the Terry Milewski types in action and heard about John Ibbotsen's famous 'hate Harper' screed - thus no credibility. Some might like to make Cotler a saint, but he's a politician - no worse, no better than any of them.

[Gabe]

While the current government didn't invent this, it has spent more time and effort perfecting it. So many Canadians have sleepwalked into acquiescing to the harper ideology when there are people who are protesting, suffering, and dying around the globe for the freedoms these Canadians take for granted, until they're gone, by which time it will be too late to protest.

[Unofficial]

holimnmn: Fire the b*asturds who did this. Especially if the PM ordered it, which he probably did.

[Darwin O'Connor]

"What would you have the PM do?"

Admit they where wrong, admit that they had impeded the member's privileges and say the people responsible had been sacked.

I expect the opposition parties do have policies and will have even more once they have elected their leaders. The problem is that well thought out policies generally aren't rewarded with media coverage.

Besides, being nothing but critical isn't as bad as repeatedly undermining democracy.

[JustCanadian]

What I find amazing is that Harper managed to find, and get elected, 165
spineless cowards who are willing to be his puppets. There does not appear to be a single Con that has a modicum of intelligence or integrity. They seem to revel in their ignorance. They have found their enemy and it is us. The fact that 76% of Canadians did not support them seems only to encourage their undemocratic, nasty and spiteful behaviour.

They are successfully twisting our democracy into a dictatorship. They have been able to do this because our form of Parliament presumes the person who attains the highest office in the country would have a certain degree of honesty and integrity and be willing to temper their own personal beliefs for the overall good of the country. When they don't possess these qualities we end up with what we have now. Extreme right-wing idelogues intent on ignoring the vast majority of Canadians and pushing an agenda that is not in the best interest of Canada. They do not represent all Canadians and they don't care what Canadians want their country to look like. They have their agenda and if they continue to get their way we certainly won't recognize Canada when they're done.

[Darwin O'Connor]

"What I find amazing is that Harper managed to find, and get elected, 165
spineless cowards who are willing to be his puppets."

I have found this remarkable too. This is the kind of thing that a political reporter could investigate.

[Gabby in QC]

This comment also posted at David Akin’s slighttly revised, although not yet published (Dec.17 @ 12:30 pm)
Let me begin by saying: my gut feeling is that Mr. Cotler is beginning to mount a campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party.

Now … when I first heard about this story, my reaction was ugh! Why is my party engaging in such dirty tricks? I jumped to that conclusion because I read / heard that people in the Mount Royal riding had received calls actually telling them Mr. Cotler WAS retiring and that there WAS an imminent by-election.
However, in the real call (from the video Mr. Akin posted) I notice the caller says: “Some people are suggesting that the current MP may retire … if you would consider supporting the Conservative party if there’s a by-election.”

• Mr. Cotler’s name is NOT mentioned, so he is not being personally targeted. Given some people’s lack of interest in politics, they may not even know who their MP is.

• “the current MP MAY retire” is not the same as “the current MP IS retiring.”

• “IF you would consider supporting” and “IF there’s a by-election” are hypotheticals, not statements of fact.

So, sorry to say, the reports about the calls were inaccurate. If there have been untruths, it is the way in which some media have portrayed the calls.

Furthermore, the media themselves often engage in rumours, using unnamed sources to lend credence to their articles. In November 2010, Chantal Hebert, Jane Taber, and John Ibbitson all wrote columns about the imminent departure of Peter Mackay to a Bay St. law firm. Did Peter Mackay raise that as a question of privilege? No.
In 2008, Mia Rabson “discovered” Vic Toews was about to be appointed to a Court of Queen’s Bench judgeship. Did Vic Toews raise that rumour as a question of privilege in the House? No.

And who can forget the infamous “wafergate” accusations? Did the PM ask the House to look into it? No.

Some may argue that those rumours were not started by a political party so the Cotler issue is not the same.

BUT Mr. Cotler’s main argument is that his job as an MP was hindered by those rumours. Regardless of the source, the rumour was the aggravating factor supposedly hindering his work. Would Mr. Cotler have felt less aggrieved if the calls had been placed by the NDP? Would his work as an MP have suffered less or not at all?

Finally, Andrew Cohen in a column entitled “The smearing of Irwin Cotler” wrote:
“It is true that Cotler has had doubts about remaining in Parliament, which isn’t unusual for a politician of his age, experience and interests, who now finds himself a backbencher. Even before the Liberals became the third party, Michael Ignatieff had to persuade him to run again this year.”
SO, the rumour that Mr. Cotler was considering leaving politics did not necessarily originate with the Conservatives. Why is Mr. Cotler now making such a big deal out of it? And why are media people like Susan Delacourt, Jennifer Ditchburn, Greg Weston, Evan Solomon, and even the usually fair Bruce Anderson trying to keep this issue alive?

[Darwin O'Connor]

There are reports that people where told there IS going to be a by-election. Perhaps that was just people going off script.

"BUT Mr. Cotler’s main argument is that his job as an MP was hindered by those rumours."

There are many reasons why what this was wrong. Cotler focused on this aspect because that was under the jurisdiction of the speaker. He could also sue, but he has suggested that he wasn't going to. Also, an investigation has started by the Marketing Research Intelligence Association.