PMO: Engaging citizens fosters trust

When Stephen Harper told us that Canada will host a summit on saving the lives of vulnerable women and children, I thought, good idea.

What would the obvious next question be that immediately springs to mind: Who will be attending the summit?

In other words, who are the "Canadian stakeholders, experts" and "global leaders from developed and developing countries, international organizations, civil society, the private sector, and foundations to take stock of the progress made to date and discuss the way forward" mentioned in the press release?

So I asked the Prime Minister's office this question. And in the interest of transparency--as I assume the summit will be funded by taxpayers--I thought I'd get some kind of substantive answer from the PMO.

What I was told was that:

"The list of participants of the summit will be made available in due course—all of the latest information will be updated immediately to www.pm.gc.ca  where you can access it."

Which prompted me to ask two more questions:

1) I'd also like to obtain information on the process that is being used for selecting invitees. How is that being accomplished? And what is the criteria for choosing an organization?

2) Also, what if I'd like to submit a name of an organization to be included in the summit? How can I go about doing that?

After a couple of more emails and phone calls to the PMO, I finally received my response from Carl Vallée. Short and sweet:

"We don't discuss internal process."

Don't we, as Canadian Citizens have a right to know who is being invited to discuss something as important as this summit obviously will be? After all, it is our money that will be funding the summit itself, never mind the actual aid to this initiative: a total of $7.3 billion from G8 and non-G8 countries, which includes Canada.

I think my questions are completely fair and reasonable and deserve an answer. In fact why would the PMO even tell us about this initiative, if they have no intention of answering questions about it, or giving us any additional information?

What about openness and transparency?

Command and control by the Great Helmsman

John Ivison's article in today's National Post is a must read. Ivison discusses the current implosion going on within the Conservative Caucus.

I've cut and pasted some of his comments.  

"...Senior figures in the Conservative movement are warning that unless Stephen Harper moves his House Leader, Peter Van Loan, and the Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor, more MPs will follow the unlikely rebel, Brent Rathgeber, out of the caucus door.

The changes must be accompanied by reforms to the way the Prime Minister’s Office treats backbenchers, according to one former Cabinet minister. And the Prime Minister needs to draw into his inner circle people who are prepared to tell him things he may not want to hear.

...This is not a battle over ideology or policy. Rather, according to both current and former members of caucus, the backbench is a cauldron of seething resentment because of sheer, bloody mismanagement – “a growing, dictatorial ‘PMO knows best’ attitude.”

...But they [Private Member's Bills] have an importance beyond their success rate because they help push the public agenda – they sometimes find their way into subsequent government legislation; they can encourage government departments to adjust their behaviour; and, they offer the oxygen of publicity for interest groups.

As such they are guarded jealously by MPs. It is considered “unparliamentary” for the House, far less the MP’s own party to amend legislation without the approval of the sponsoring MP.

Members can be told before caucus that their party doesn’t support the proposed legislation and, if they persist, that the leadership will urge its backbenchers to vote against it. But a number of Conservative MPs say they are mortified at the unprecedented step of malleable Conservatives in the Ethics Committee amending Mr. Rathgeber’s bill against his wishes.

The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Peter Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.”. The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Mr. O’Connor, a former brigadier-general used to his orders being obeyed without question, and Mr. Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.” But they are merely the enablers of a command and control structure where the word is written by the Great Helmsman and interpreted by the cadre of youthful Blue Guards in his office.

For Conservatives who joined a party founded on “the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions,” recent developments have proven shocking.

...The caucus is not feeling the love from the Prime Minister, who now seems to believe a good number of his MPs are on his enemies list because they won’t give him their unconditional support in all circumstances.

...Mr. Harper doesn’t like being pushed into anything but such a course of action would send the message that if the party is going to go over the cliff, he intends to be in the driving seat, Thelma and Louise-style.

"I do not work for the Prime Minister's Office"

Tory MP seeks more freedom on the Hill

Edmonton's Brent Rathgeber gives us a back bench primer on democracy.

He is one of the 10 Conservatives who has asked the Speaker to look at the recent democratic lock-down on Parliament Hill.

Here is some of what he said as reported by the Ottawa Citizen:

Q. What's the role of an MP, and how do you balance that role with the responsibilities to party?

The role of the MP is to represent his or her constituents in the Parliament of Canada. However, we are elected under party banners. So you owe a significant loyalty with respect to the party and the party leader under whose banner you ran. It's a difficult compromise.

Q. Does that necessarily mean that caucus always has to speak with one voice?

I don't believe so. It's a moving line and a constant struggle of tug of war. I'm elected as a Conservative member of Parliament. My constituents expect me to support the prime minister and the cabinet. I don't have a problem doing that. Confidence motions, budgets, throne speeches - anything that could compromise the ability of the government to have the confidence of the House and therefore govern, I have an absolute obligation to support the government.

With respect to private members' business, I think it's a very different set of considerations.

Q. You've written that the last thing a government needs is sycophants and yes-men.

Well, absolutely. Different members of Parliament view their role here differently. There are those who believe an appropriate role for a backbench member of the government caucus is to be part of the communication machinery of the government. To use the talking points.

Q. When you write in your blog, have you ever had the PMO come down on you?

In the early days, individuals from Langevin (the building that houses PMO staff) - very, very junior individuals - would call me and suggest that they should become the editor of my writing. And although I was flattered that they wanted to become involved in my project, I was not convinced that that was going to be a workable relationship.

Q. How polite were you in telling them it was none of their business?

I was diplomatic. I think anybody who understands the Canadian Constitution knows that I do not work for the Prime Minister's Office. I am not a member of the prime minister's staff. I am a member of Parliament.

Q. Do you consider yourself a rogue member?

Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I don't believe I am the rogue at all. I am standing up and acting the way parliamentarians have acted for 800 years. They represent their constituents and they hold government to account. Loyal to this government, but not a simple yes-man.

I absolutely dispute the notion that constructive criticism of the government is somehow equivalent of rogueism.

Being a constructive critic of the government leads to better legislation, whereas a yes-man or a sycophant will continue to cheer blindly on the advent of imminent policy derailment.

Q. Is Parliament turning into bad theatre?

With more and more reliance on talking points and speeches written by someone else, you are seeing bad theatre where people are just reading their lines as opposed to actually debating.

It's no different than a play or a movie. You have a series of writers who write the lines and a series of actors who go into the House and read the lines. All parties are doing it. And that's not what Parliament was intended to be.

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Are you paying attention? What's happening is not the way Parliament is supposed to be. Our Honourable Members do not work for you. They work for us. It's not really that difficult to understand. Okay?

Thanks for listening and looking forward to the necessary changes soon. How about tomorrow? Does that work for you?

Sincerely...