Stephen Maher (Postmedia News) – Last week, Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star received a brown envelope containing a leaked copy of the new Communications Protocol Between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Public Safety Canada.
The two-page document outlines a new, closer relationship between the Mounties and the government, and raises the worrying possibility that the Tories will rebrand the force as the Royal Conservative Mounted Police.
The Conservatives are trying to change Canada’s brand, because the Liberals had been so effective at manipulating the country’s image in their bilingual, multicultural, red-tie-wearing ways that the Tories always seemed somehow un-Canadian.
Canada was the only country in the world where the conservative party wasn’t the party associated with patriotism, so Stephen Harper’s people have worked hard to link the Conservative brand with the flag, the military, the police and the monarchy.
The Liberals did something similar. It’s no coincidence that two governors general in a row were visible minority women from the CBC.
It’s one thing to hang pictures of the Queen all over the place. It’s another thing to order the RCMP to do “integrated government of Canada messaging.”
I don’t want the RCMP to deliver “integrated government of Canada messaging.” I want them to serve the people and tell the truth.
I also don’t think they should busy themselves “flagging communications opportunities for consideration and upon request from Public Safety Canada, drafting a ministerial event proposal [MEP] within established timelines.”
As Jeff Davis of the Hill Times reported last year, MEPs are documents that public servants have to create for their political masters.
Bureaucrats must outline a “desired headline,” “desired sound bite,” “key questions and answers,” and “official talking points.”
I don’t think RCMP officers ought to do that kind of political work, not only because they’ve got better things to do, but because they shouldn’t be thinking about how to make their political masters look good.
We don’t need puppets in red serge mouthing government talking points, but that’s what we’re going to get.
Traditionally, the Mounties have had some independence in communications, since they possess specialized information that they have a duty to give to the public without political spin.
This government doesn’t seem to like that.
Last year, Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak, director general of the Canadian Firearms Program, was sent to French training — a kind of bureaucratic limbo — after he arranged to release a positive report on the long-gun registry to a meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Cheliak, who had been considered a possible future commissioner, passed his French course in June — which should be helpful when he retires in 2014 — and has spent six months waiting for his next assignment.
The Firearms Act requires that the RCMP present a report to the government “as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year,” at which point the minister has 15 days to table it.
Last year, it was released in August, after the government was accused of sitting on it because it contradicted their message about the “ineffective, wasteful” registry.
The RCMP report said: “Overall, the Canadian Firearms Program is cost-effective in reducing firearms-related crime and promoting public safety.”
This year, the RCMP has yet to finish the report. That means they are either incompetent boobs or they are sitting on it so that it doesn’t come out before the Conservatives vote to abolish the registry.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that the outgoing commissioner, William Elliott, a former Tory staffer, may have been helping Harper, who gave him his job and arranged for his post-Mountie gig, a three-year stint as Special Representative of INTERPOL to the United Nations. For some reason, the government of Canada is paying his salary.
See how it works? Write a report that praises the gun registry and you can spend the rest of your career brushing up on the subjonctif. This is one of the ways that politicians exert their will over nominally arm’s-length bodies like the RCMP, and it hasn’t changed since the days of the pharaohs.
But this new level of co-operation that the government is demanding of the horsemen is new.
Stephanie Durand, the director general of communications for Public Safety Canada, whose signature is at the bottom of the new protocol, was, of course, too busy on Monday to explain the new policy, so I called Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association.
Stamatakis, a Vancouver constable, says we should be watchful, but there’s no reason to be paranoid about the government turning the Mounties into their mouthpieces.
“It’s not possible,” he said. “With social media now, the sort of real time reporting of what will happen, I don’t know if it’s possible for any government now to control messaging, because there are still people, like me for example, who will speak out if the government is getting involved in what should be operational policing decisions. And there are people like you that will continue to receive brown envelopes or tips.”
[Source]
Calvin, I have said it here before that the masters of the RCMP want sheep for employees. People who can’t critically think and that are just smart enough to do the paperwork and patrol the neighborhoods and just dumb to accept the passively crappier working conditions and whatever else that isn’t good for them as well as other nonsense they want to shove down members throats. This isn’t to imply that all members are like this, but I really feel this is their aim- complete and utter subservience. And when people get out of line by saying to much about what the problems are, the wagons get circled and they shoot inward.
Monty your message, reminds me of a conversation I had with a former S/Sgt. who back in 04 (before the scandal and dysfunction hit the airwaves) prophetically told me that the force was “riding the coat tails of the Red Serge” and in a few years everyone is going to know truth on what the organization is really all about. What he stated back then was a theory, what you stated has now become a proven fact!
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
6
Police Recruiting:
if recruiting is done only at the lowest level, which is the case within the RCMP; all top officials have to work themselves upward through the hierarchy, presumably by repeatedly pleasing their superiors.
Superiors usually approve continuous development of their policies, rather than sharp breaks with tradition.
Therefore, the screening process of upward movement tends to reject radicals and promote a relatively homogeneous group.
The danger that we all face is not the consequences of a person unbound from the restraints of society.
It is the surrender of independent and critical
judgement by people who work in large organization.
If the right people are promoted in policing then the rest of the police officers will follow the leader.
Good RCMP Commissioner/Good Members
Bad RCMP Commissioner/ Bad Members
Calvin Lawrence
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
11
0
For an organization that says it is committed to change, this is change in the wrong direction. We are already deemed a broken and dysfunctional organization, so what is our next glowing characterization going to be, as we slide further into a more closed and silenced organization.
The RCMP has routinely been mocked as just a political branch of the government, and now it may best be described as just a puppet to the government.
Many describe the RCMP as so far behind, they think we are in first place. We have been lapped in so many aspects in the world of policing, that it is embarrassing. We have been likened to the IBM of policing. IBM at one time was a household name and a world leader. They went around telling the world, including themselves how good they are, that they lost their competitive edge and lost sight of what got them there. We in the RCMP are no different, we rely on our once proud and respected traditions to continually pull ourselves out of the never ending “gong shows” our organization finds itself in.
The hole which we are currently in, may at times seem inconceivable to get out of, but when you have lost your bearing and start digging in the opposite direction, instead of trying to just climb out, we all know where this takes us.
We need to start creating instead of altering to begin to solve our problems.
We cannot be a consensus driven organization. The top brass of the RCMP may like consensus, but consensus lulls everyone into a false sense of success, because there are no dissenting viewpoints or any critical examination of ideas. Silence should not be assumed to be success.
I read a quote the other day, “If you do good, you were well managed, and if you didn’t it was your fault”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
6