The Harper government used a pervasive message-control tool to persuade Canadians their foremost purpose in Afghanistan was building schools and fostering democracy rather than waging a war that was turning bloodier by the day.

An investigation by The Canadian Press shows The Conservatives systematically drafted “Message Event Proposals” as part of a quiet campaign to persuade Canadians their country was primarily engaged in development work to rebuild a shattered nation rather than hunting down and killing an emboldened insurgency.

The government used MEPs to literally script the words it wanted to hear from the mouths of its top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers in 2007-2008 to divert public attention from the soaring double-digit death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

While the message was being massaged in Ottawa, the reconstituted Taliban unleashed a fresh wave of attacks on NATO troops and innocent Kandaharis.

“Desired soundbite: ‘Canada’s mission in Afghanistan is refocusing its mission towards development, reconstruction and diplomatic efforts,’” says an MEP prepared by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing that serves the Prime Minister’s Office.

The document, among hundreds of MEPs obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, was prepared for a 2008 media tour by Arif Lalani, then the Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan.

Other records show the government went so far as to script an identical set of quotes and talking points for two returning aid workers, who were supposed to be giving separate interviews on their “personal perspective” on progress in Afghanistan.

The government also tried to soft-pedal deployment of the first group of Quebec-based troops in 2007 by giving them a “compassionate” send-off that was designed to “showcase the achievements in development.”

“That was clearly what the message was — Afghanistan is about development, CIDA, building schools, building roads, helping Afghans, which is all good stuff ... but not necessarily to the exclusion of reality,” said a senior government official who worked in the PCO but asked not to be named because of fears of career reprisals.

There is nothing new about a wartime government trying to mould public opinion. But for the first time, documents detail how the Harper government attempted to shape perceptions of Canada’s fiercest combat mission since the Korean War.

The Conservatives introduced the MEP, a relatively new information-management tool, that enables Harper’s office to centrally control a wide array of government communication. Federal departments are required to submit proposals to the PCO for public events and responses to media inquiries. The PMO ultimately decides what can occur and what should be said.

A PCO spokeswoman has defended the government’s use of MEPs, saying they are a tool for communication. The Prime Minister’s Office has declined comment.

The strategy doesn’t sit well with Nipa Banerjee, who headed Canada’s aid program in Kabul from 2003 to 2006 before the Canadian Forces moved to Kandahar.

“It bothers me a bit now because I think we were used politically at that time,” said Banerjee, a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa graduate school of public and international affairs.

In May 2008, with 83 soldiers and one diplomat dead, Lalani returned to Canada for a four-day blitz aimed squarely at reshaping the public’s view of the war.

A three-page MEP prepared by the PCO outlined 10 sets of possible interviews that Lalani could give May 26-30 with major television, radio and print organizations across the country.

CTV’s Sunday political talk show Question Period topped the list.

“This appearance would serve to move the national narrative forward beyond the parliamentary arena and refocus Canadians interest in Canada’s civilian efforts in Afghanistan, emphasizing development, reconstruction and diplomacy efforts,” the MEP says.

An interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge was also recommended, noting that because his program “styles itself as a window into the lives of Canadian decision makers and influencers, Ambassador Lalani can leverage this opportunity to stress Canada’s increased civilian focus, emphasizing development, reconstruction and diplomacy efforts.”

CIDA, meanwhile, tried to put forward its returning Kandahar-based employees for interviews to highlight development efforts. “First-hand accounts by Canadians who have lived and worked in Afghanistan add credibility to Canada’s role,” states one MEP.

Helene Kadi, in Kandahar from September 2006 to August 2007, was cleared to do several interviews. “Helene has gained experience and confidence in giving on-air statements,” says a Feb. 5, 2008, MEP.

The document laid out the desired “headline” for a proposed 10-minute interview by Kadi on a CBC Radio morning show in Thunder Bay, Ont.: “Perspective from the ground: Canada makes progress in terms of development and reconstruction in Afghanistan.”

But Kadi’s MEP contained the same key messages — word for word — as one prepared for another CIDA employee, whose own “personal perspective and reflections” were scripted for him.

On Feb. 12, 2008, returning CIDA manager Kevin Rex gave an interview to weekly Alberta newspaper the Airdrie Echo.

The separate MEPs for Kadi and Rex specified the same “key message” for each: “As a returned CIDA field staff, I have seen and experienced first-hand the accomplishments and results achieved in Afghanistan, thanks to Canada’s role in that country.”

Their respective MEPs repeated other messages — verbatim.

One highlights Canada’s polio vaccination campaign as “another example of success I have seen on the ground.”

Another says: “It has been gratifying to be part of that collective effort and to know that if our commitment to governance and development is sustained we can generally make a difference in the lives of Afghans.”

Yet another, scripted for both Kadi and Rex, says: “While the pace of progress may appear to be slow to those on the outside, I can personally attest to the reality of progress and the results of positive advancement in Afghanistan.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

In the Echo’s story, Rex offers little personal reflection. “Rebuilding a nation takes time, but we are saving lives and making a difference every single day,” he told the newspaper.

Banerjee said Canada drifted from true assistance work when the country’s troops moved from Kabul to Kandahar in 2006, and began concentrating on signature projects that focused on making locals admire Canadian soldiers, “not the development of Afghanistan.”

“When we went to Kandahar our intent was winning the hearts and minds of the people for our Canadian Forces, for the Canadian troops,” she explained, “to keep the troops safer, so that the people support the troops.”

Bureaucrats point out there were close to 3,000 troops in theatre versus 50 civilians.

“They had a problem with the narrative. It didn’t jibe with reality,” said another senior government official who spent time in the PCO, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

“There was an awful lot of emperor-has-no-clothes moments.”

Early 2008 was a pivotal time in Canada for the Afghanistan mission. In January, the independent panel on Afghanistan chaired by John Manley criticized the government for not clearly communicating its involvement to the Canadian public. CIDA, meanwhile, was slammed for having a very low profile in Kandahar.

Politically, the Conservatives needed the support of the Liberals to pass a motion that would extend the mission two more years, to 2011. After much backroom jockeying, the two parties agreed in March 2008 on wording that played down the combat role and stressed reconstruction.

Afghanistan exposed the Conservatives’ vulnerability in Quebec, the province where anti-war sentiment runs deepest, and where the Conservatives must make deep electoral gains if they hope to win a majority.

But only a year after winning power, the Conservatives faced a potential political landmine ­— the first Quebec-based troops were to go to Afghanistan in summer 2007.

By June 22, when troops from the Royal 22nd Regiment from CFB Valcartier, Que., were to head overseas, the Conservatives had presided over the deaths of 52 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat in Afghanistan, compared with eight under the previous Liberal government.

The MEP for the Van Doos’ sendoff specified that then-international co-operation minister Josee Verner would represent the government.

The “strategic objectives” were to “create awareness of the development efforts in Afghanistan by Canada” and “showcase the achievements in development by CIDA.”

“Quebec media” and “Quebec general public” were identified as “target groups” ahead of all “Canadians.” The desired tone of the event was to be “compassionate” and “optimistic.”

The political reality today is that with more than 140 soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the war remains unpopular with a large number of Canadians. Harper has vowed there will be no extensions of the combat mission beyond next year’s withdrawal date.

The prime minister maintains Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan after 2011 will focus on development and diplomacy — not fighting. Harper made it clear during a news conference in the Netherlands last month that he is done with debating the mission in Parliament.

“The plan is for the military mission to end next year and we will be pursuing a humanitarian and development and governance mission after that. We’ve been building our civilian capacity in that regard over the past two years to get ourselves prepared for that transition,” Harper said.

“Parliament can debate whatever it wants to debate. Typically in the past we’ve only debated military missions. The government hasn’t proactively debated civilian missions.”

Read more about: