"Certainly the level of control is higher even from when I was there," said Keith Beardsley in an interview with The Hill Times.
“The other issue is, yes, it’s people coming in who have far less experience than many of the MPs that they’re talking to. You look at someone like Leon Benoit. He’s been here since 1993. If he’s dealing with someone who is relatively fresh on the job—who knows more about politics in Ottawa? So I think you’re getting that resentment,” he said.
He added a common term among MPs for PMO staffers is “boys in short pants” alluding to their relative youth and inexperience.
“It’s not so much an issue of you’re dealing with someone who is young, it’s whether or not you can have a dialogue with them. I think that’s part of the problem. I think a lot of the time it just comes out as orders—‘You’re going to do this’—without really asking MPs for an opinion,” he explained.
Mr. Beardsley, now a partner and political strategist at True North Public Affairs, has been active in politics for more than 30 years. He ran the Progressive Conservative research branch and war rooms, and was a senior adviser to Mr. Harper while he was opposition leader. Mr. Beardsley also served as Mr. Harper's deputy chief of staff for issues management between 2003 and 2008.
MPs’ lack of freedom under the PMO thumb was the subject of a secret meeting that took place in Ottawa last week of about 20 Conservative Members of Parliament who are upset with their lack of autonomy on the job, especially in the wake of Tory MP Mark Warawa’s (Langley, B.C.) motion and member’s statement on sex selective abortion, according to media reports.
Talk of a mini-caucus revolt was apparently somewhat subdued after a long Conservative caucus on Wednesday on the Hill after Prime Minister Harper spoke to caucus members.
But the Prime Minister does not want to reopen the abortion debate.
“I think it was a good meeting. The media have reported, and I think accurately, that many members who were upset for a variety of reasons, seem to be satisfied that the issues have either been resolved or the issues are not worth resolving,” said Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.).
Mr. Beardsley said he doesn’t think this issue will pose a long-term problem for the PM.
“I don’t think he’s got an issue. It’s one that will percolate for a while, but he is the boss, and he is in charge,” he said.
He said that tensions could be eased by making sure that PMO staffers build relationships with MPs and listen to their concerns.
“It’s not hard to solve. It’s a matter of putting the right personalities in,” said Mr. Beardsley, who was in charge of issues management when he was in the PMO.
On March 20, Mr. Warawa’s allotted time for a pre-QP member’s statement, commonly referred to as an SO31, was revoked at the last minute because the government didn’t approve of his topic, he told the House on March 26 in a question of privilege.
He said he was planning on speaking about his motion condemning sex selective abortion, which was deemed non-votable by a Conservative-led subcommittee of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.
Since then, Conservatives Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright, Alta.), Mr. Rathgeber, Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, Alta.), Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, Ont.), Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, Ont.) and former PMO-communications-director-turned-MP John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, N.B.) have risen in support of Mr. Warawa’s question of privilege.
Mr. Warawa, Mr. Benoit, Mr. Rathgeber, Mr. Bruinooge and Mr. Williamson each voted in favour of Mr. Woodworth’s motion to have a Parliamentary committee study when life begins last fall. The vote on that motion was not whipped, and it lost 91 to 203 on Sept. 26.
“I too feel that my rights have been infringed on by members of the party because I am not allowed to speak on certain topics in SO31s. I have had SO31s removed, and I have been told that if I have one on a certain topic, I simply will not be given an SO31. I believe this is infringing on my right as an MP to freedom of speech and to represent my constituents freely,” said Mr. Benoit in the House March 26.
Mr. Beardsley said the public is “making a bit too much” of the MPs’ public statements.
“The party is a coalition of individuals,” he said. “Everybody is not of one mindset.”
He also questioned how many MPs actually attended the secret strategy meeting in Ottawa last week.
“It’s hard to get any number of MPs together on a Monday, to start with,” Mr. Beardsley said. “To have that type of gathering where you’re supposedly plotting some type of strategy, it just doesn’t jive.”
But he acknowledged that “a core group” exists, and its numbers likely fluctuate depending on what’s going on in Parliament.
Toronto Star columnists Chantal Hébert and Tim Harper have both stated that while last week’s caucus backlash might not amount to much, it could be a precursor to larger leadership challenges.
“Members of Parliament have to be able to speak, and be able to speak freely,” said Mr. Rathgeber. “When that’s compromised, that’s a concern to me, and I would suggest it’s a concern of all members, particularly private members.”
Mr. Rathgeber, who said he doesn’t have a strong opinion either way on abortion issues, said he understands why party leadership would be reluctant to reopen a debate on the topic, but said Mr. Warawa’s motions should have been allowed to proceed under freedom of speech.
“If the government does not support something, it’s unlikely to get passed … but that shouldn’t, in my view, prevent members from having these matters brought forward, having them debated, and ultimately being determined by a vote in the House,” he said.
Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) is “boxed in on this one,” said Mr. Beardsley.
The flipside of micro-managing MPs, ministers’ offices and the other aspects of Parliament is “everything that happens gets blamed on him,” he explained.
“If he had let that go forward, the way the media responds—the attacks from the Niki Ashtons of the world and so on—would be that Harper’s direction is going back on abortion, he’s breaking his word,” he said.
On March 27, Mr. Warawa appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to plead his case for his motion to be presented in the House. Standing behind him as he presented his arguments was Conservative MP Rob Anders (Calgary West, Alta.). Supporting him from the packed sidelines of the committee room were Tory MPs David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands, Sask.), Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, Alta.) and Harold Albrecht (Kitchener-Conestoga, Ont.). Each also supported Mr. Woodworth’s earlier motion.
After seven minutes of deliberation the committee decided in camera to uphold the original decision not to let Mr. Warawa’s motion go to the House, though Parliamentary analysts have stated the motion meets the criteria to be introduced. Mr. Warawa can now appeal the decision to the whole of the House, or he could decide to draft another motion or private member’s bill. Mr. Warawa said he will announce on April 15 his next step.
“To ignore the criteria, it concerns me, because what do we base what is votable, and what is not votable? Is it based on the whim of members, or interpretation from members on this committee? Everything changes if they deem this non-votable when the analysts are saying it should be, then we don’t know what is votable and not,” Mr. Warawa told reporters March 27.
Mr. Rathgeber said the infringement on Mr. Warawa’s rights as an MP would have “absolutely” caused more of an outrage amongst Parliamentarians if his statement wasn’t about abortion.
“Freedom of speech is a hollow freedom if it’s not used to protect controversial statements and opinions,” he said.
He would like House Speaker Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) to uphold existing rules about members’ statements, where an MP’s right to speak can only be curtailed by the Speaker.
The precedent that Mr. Warawa’s treatment set is concerning, he said.
“Private members have very few tools in the toolbox, very few mechanisms in the tool box to bring forward matters that are important to us, or are important to their constituencies. I can name them on one hand: SO31s, private members’ bills, private members’ motions and tabling of petitions,” he said.
Last week Mr. Warawa stopped short of blaming Mr. Harper for censoring him, stating it was a “mystery” as to who was behind it.
“I have great respect for him. He has my loyalty. I’ve worked hard for him since I was elected in ’04,” he said. “There’s no muzzling and no intimidation.”
He added that all parties vet members’ statements.
Mr. Beardsley said that in the PMO he would use speakers’ lists for Question Period “all the time … where you hand pick who is going to ask what question, in what order.”
He also said the issue of Mr. Warawa’s freedom of speech would have garnered more support had his statement not been related to abortion.
As to why Conservative caucus members chose now to speak out, Mr. Beardsley said there are a number of factors.
“I think people getting restless, that’s probably one. Some of them have been there for a long time,” he said, and they have realized they’re never going to be in Cabinet, so they’ve begun working on issues they care about to create a legacy for themselves.
For those who plan on running again, there’s also nomination races to think about.
“Somewhere down the road, there will be nomination meetings being held. If you were nominated originally by a hardcore social conservative group that wants you to push this issue and you’re going to be up for nomination again, then that’s going to be a concern to you as an MP. You want to be seen to be doing something for them, even if you don’t get anywhere,” he said.
As for the MPs who have spoken out about PMO control, Mr. Beardsley said the office will keep a closer eye on them, but there likely won’t be any consequences at this stage.
He also said he doesn’t see much of a lengthening in MPs’ leashes coming out of their protests.
It’s important that Parliament’s role as a place of debate is respected, said Mr. Rathgeber.
“Parliament exists not just to promote the agenda of the government, Parliament exists to allow for speech and debate of issues that are important to Canadians,” he said.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: Jessica Bruno
No comments:
Post a Comment