The Globe and Mail¹ (6 June 2010) reported on even Conservatives questioning this method of communication.

“The MEP is the crucial communication instrument for a minority government that values staying on message above all else — a transformation that federal officials and public-policy analysts say is undermining democracy.

While all governments try to control the message, the ambitious sweep of MEPs is unprecedented in federal politics. Critics say it contradicts the core campaign promise that brought Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power — introducing a new era of transparency and accountability in government.

“We discussed every single issue and micromanaged every news release — everything,” said one former Harper-era PCO official.”

The Canadian Press reportedly has about a thousand of these MEPs and they extend into all sorts of realms of discourse, including foreign relations and events. The Star² (8 June 2010) also reported on MEPs saying

“There’s no question it has a bit of a chilling effect on people, because they know that they have to avoid being off-message at all — and that’s what the government wants,” said one currently serving diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of career reprisals.

The central direction of foreign service officers is unparalleled, says retired diplomat Gordon Smith, who served Conservative and Liberal prime ministers as Canada’s ambassador to NATO and the European Union, was a former deputy minister of Foreign Affairs and a senior official at PCO.

“What other conclusion can one draw? But it reflects a very considerable concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office,” said Smith, who left government to join the University of Victoria in 1997.”

When the Conservatives don’t want information spread they simply disappear a MEP. When they do want to manage how it’s spread, they approve the MEP and control its content. That way they can be prepared to respond to and test public perceptions. Furthermore it gives them the opportunity to always shape public perspective in favour of Conservative doctrine.

The CBC³ reported (7 June 2010) on one example of the use and effect of MEPs with respect to Canadian ivnolvement in Afganistan.

“The government used MEPs to script the words it wanted to hear from the mouths of its top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers in 2007-08 to divert public attention from the soaring double-digit death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.”

This is a frightening extension of control. It’s reminiscent of the propaganda techniques used in totalitarian regimes. In a democratic society we should not have a government exhibiting this degree of control over the context and content of information regarding our country and goings-ons.

“The government has increased its spending on the promotion of the January, 2009, Economic Action Plan by $5-million – on top of the initial allotment of $34-million – for a 15-per-cent increase.”

It’s problematic that the amount being spent on these ads is so massive. Surely there are a multitude of ways to spread this information that would not cost an outrageous $40 million of taxpayer money, which could otherwise be spent on the actual action.

Conservative spokespeople justify the ad spending as a form of educating the public on what is available to help, which seems like a good idea in principle. Interesting that much of the actual help provided, for example assistance to the unemployed, is available against the Conservative’s wishes. They were largely forced into that one by the NDP.

The tone of the ads tends toward optimistic and uplifting, suggesting lots of government help is available and things will be better. Again, this seems good in principle, but the frequent intentional public linkage of Conservatives with these ads, ties that strong, action-bound feeling in the ads with one party in particular–the Conservatives. It’s not too hard to find images in the press featuring Conservatives against the backdrop of the EAP imagery. And that’s no accident. Stephen Harper’s iron-fisted control of information and imagery is notorious (there are often press reports of not being allowed the normal freedoms in the photos it takes of him, and pre-made shots are provided instead).

The photograph in this CBC article³ (9 November 2009) on the subject of the American company contracted to produce the EAP signs. I don’t know who took that picture or under what conditions. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it–just the PM seeming to give a talk about the EAP. But when these images pop up frequently and are positioned so that that’s what is maintained in the public eye, something starts to feel wrong–like we, the public, are being propagandized for one party’s message.

A Canadian Press² article (10 October 2009) had an in-depth article on the subject, mentioning:

“The Privy Council Office, the non-partisan bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister’s Office, has never been comfortable administering the website for the Economic Action Plan – and informed Harper of its misgivings at the time of last January’s federal budget. . . . While the story is being denied by both PCO and PMO, the extraordinary claim originates from several sources within the famously discreet Privy Council Office.”

Notice the screenshot on that page laden with Conservative imagery and photos. Rather than being a useful non-partisan service about what the government is engaged in, it appears to be serving as ads that help guide public sentiment toward the Tories.

Rick Mercer pokes fun at the controversy in this clip

Notice the images in the background–they cycle through various Conservative publicity pics involving the EAP. Mercer’s bit manages to call attention to all three controversies. The Tory tie-in, the amount being spent on the ads, and the not-to-be-missed irony, that the EAP signs themselves weren’t even produced in Canada (tax payer money paid to a foreign company rather than helping a Canadian one, all for the sake of promoting the idea that the EAP is here to help).

“Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper’s election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a “fog over information” has crept across the government’s activities. Marleau said complaints to the commissioner’s office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year.

. . . public servants, ambassadors, as well as cabinet ministers and Conservative MPs are muzzled or kept on a short leash. Canwest News Service revealed last week that Environment Canada’s scientists, once among the most media-accessible specialists, have been slapped with orders to refer all journalists’ queries to the government where communications officers will help them respond with “approved lines.”"

It’s not a good sign when the information comissioner complains that the government is putting a fog over information.

Getting information out to the public is one issue, how it’s presented is another and Harper’s Conservatives have a machine for that too. The Toronto Star² reported (26 May 2008) about the Con machine (first part of a good series they wrote on the topic).

“Questions on the hot issues of the day all get funnelled through this office, the “communications and consultations” unit of the Privy Council Office. . . Public appearances by cabinet ministers – whether it’s a speech or an interview – are carefully staged, starting with a “message event proposal” vetted by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

And in a marked change from previous governments, now even basic demands for information from reporters, once easily fielded by department spokespersons, are sent to this office for review – and often heavy editing – before they are okayed for public release, government insiders say.”

It shows how contolled the information we receive from the government is, everything is crafted for the spin the Conservatives desire.

It goes further than information and messaging though, government appointed watchdogs that were supposed to ensure more accountability also get silenced when their message isn’t helpful to the Conservative cause. There are a number of examples, I won’t try to point them all out but consider what the National Post³ (18 June 2009) said of budget watchdog, Kevin Page (PBO).

“the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (OPBO) provides authoritative, non-partisan financial and economic analysis to support Parliament and parliamentarians in exercising their oversight role over the government’s stewardship of public funds and in ensuring budget transparency.

Kevin Page was appointed as the first budget officer in March of 2008. It was a move intended to create more transparency in government by explaining to Canadians about fiscal planning and scrutiny of budget estimates. In government there is so much spending that goes unaccounted for, unexamined, and unexplained that I had high hopes for Mr.Page. Unfortunately, it appears his job has been hampered by a plague of budget cuts.

Mr. Page has said a lack of consistent reporting and transparency from the government has made estimating difficult, but he has still projected far larger deficits than the government. From reworking the estimates, to revising corporate revenue projections, he has angered the Conservative government by challenging its forecasts. For essentially doing his job. For holding to account Mr.Flaherty when he makes predictions like this. Part of being “accountable” is having an authority which is able to hold the government to their projections.”

The Globe and Mail⁴ (26 June 2009) corroborates this issue. Kevin Page was supposed to more or less say what the Conservatives liked and when he didn’t, they implied they wouldn’t fund his office anymore. That threat would essentially have shut him down, but instead they offered this.

“Mr. Page has been offered the $2.8-million budget he was promised more than a year ago. But the condition is that he no longer report on “the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy” directly to the House of Commons and the public.”

So he gets to keep doing what he was supposed to do, just so long as it doesn’t get easily released to the public, without presumably going through the Conservative stamp of approval machine.

Finally, the Toronto Star⁵ (24 December 2009) reported on the muzzling phenomenon, as I mentioned, it extends well beyond Page.

“Three essential oversight agencies will begin 2010 without leadership and wearing government-issued blinkers. By hook and crook, Harper Conservatives have gutted the effectiveness of the Military Complaints Commission, the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP and the Office of the Information Commissioner.

All three top posts are now empty. Not one was vacated quietly.

Peter Tinsley is howling that pushing him out of the job will effectively kneecap the already crippled inquiry into claims that Afghans tortured prisoners. Paul Kennedy is furious not to be staying to bring fully independent investigations and civilian oversight to the RCMP. Robert Marleau retired as information commissioner in June, a few months after issuing a set of failing-grade report cards that blamed those “at the very top” for systematically denying Canadians information about what the government is doing in their name.”

For a party that spoke a lot about accountability and claimed not to have secret agendas, the actions they’ve taken while in office give every impression that they’re anything but accountable or open.

For more information about Canadian access to information take a look at Stanley Tromp’s site⁶, where he’s published an extensive report on the issue. It’s a very long report, several hundred pages, but you can focus in on the issue of the Conservative minority government’s secrecy with the brief and informative postcript⁷ (PDF).

Informative read from the University of Alberta’s Centre for Constitutional studies, regarding Freedom of the Press and Harper’s Media Policy.

“A Conservative official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the mailing lists the Prime Minister’s Office uses are drawn from community directories, free publications available to the general public or word of mouth from friends and relatives, but not government records.”

I can’t help but think that it’s a bit creepy to imagine Conservatives getting names and addresses via “word of mouth from friends and relatives.” How exactly would a conversation go in which someone from the Conservative Party asks people to divulge contact information about their relatives and friends? In spite of the types of sources the official mentioned were used, a number of people that received these cards were not practicing Jews and did not have their names or contact information available in such sources to begin with. It casts doubt on how this list was developed.

A year later (10 September 2008), The Ottawa Citizen² followed up its report with another. The Conservatives repeated their weird greeting card campaign, with much the same sort of response. Many people in Jewish communities did not like receiving the blatant grab for votes delivered under the guise of goodwill. Indeed, the article quotes one person’s sentiments

“‘I was a little alarmed at the idea that the government might have some list of Canadian Jews, whether or not they’re using that for benevolent or malevolent or cynical reasons,” Mr. Terkel said. “It doesn’t seem my religion should be the business of any federal government.’”

Although the statement ought to apply to any religion, I would have thought the Conservatives might have given a little extra consideration to the issue not just because of the outcry the prior year but in the context of history, they should know better than to present themselves organizing lists of Jews. Bad form.

Finally they changed tactics as the Canadian Press reported³ (19 November 2009)

“Conservative MPs have distributed taxpayer-funded pamphlets that suggest the Grits are anti-Semitic.”

It goes on to quote Montreal Liberal MP Irwin Cotler

“‘To intentionally misrepresent the facts and to drive a wedge and to seek to associate the Liberals somehow with fuelling anti-Semitic polices or being associated with terrorism, that, I have to say, is something that I have not seen (before),’ said Cotler.”

It wasn’t just the Liberals that were outraged, even though they were the target of the attack. Both the NDP and the Bloc stood against it as well, derided it as a low point in the attack propaganda the Conservative Party distributes.

And finally, The Star reported⁴ (27 November 2009) that the Tories got officially rebuked by the Peter Milliken (the Commons Speaker).

“Agreeing that former justice minister Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) had been dealt a ‘direct and personal’ blow with the circulation of the flyers, Commons Speaker Peter Milliken said ‘the mailing constitutes interference with (Cotler’s) ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and his credibility.’”

It also pointed out that after receiving the propaganda, some people in Cotler’s riding wanted him to leave parliament as well as the Jewish community. Cotler “…is an internationally recognized expert on human rights, especially surrounding Israel, and whose daughter has served in the Israeli military.” So the Tory attack campaign seems to have accomplished significant damage to Cotler’s reputation.

Will the official rebuke, shaming as it is, be enough to stop the Conservatives from their propaganda campaigns targeting Jews? I doubt it, the reports linked above seem to show that the Conservative Party is unable to see anything wrong with its actions.