In an interesting turn of events, an unnamed senior government official was talking to The Canadian Press yesterday to refute statements that Jason Kenney had made over the weekend about the upcoming budget – more to the point, that there were more cuts on the way, and that indeed the $3 billion contingency reserve wouldn’t be used to balance the books. It’s curious for a number of reasons – that Kenney would apparently be freelancing and undercutting Joe Oliver (not that Oliver has done himself any favours with some of the answers he’s given the past few days), that these officials would go to these lengths to refute Kenney, and that they’re claiming there are no further cuts because we all know that any “surplus” the government was counting on came from a continued austerity programme, so the fact that they’re saying there won’t be further cuts is a bit hard to take – even if it’s technically that there are no cuts on top of those they have already planned. One wonders if it’s a signal as to current dividing lines in the caucus (and cabinet) around Kenney and his leadership ambitions, and any positioning that he’s engaging in before the election, so that if it doesn’t go well and Harper resigns afterward, that Kenney finds himself ready to swoop in. But like I said – it’s just speculation, which odd stories like this tend to generate. Funny that.
Tag Archives: Jason Kenney
Roundup: The more substantial shuffle
On the heels of a tiny cabinet shufflette came a much more substantial shakeup in the government’s senior ranks, particularly as it concerns deputy ministers. The Deputy Minister of Defence (a former head of CSIS) is now the PM’s new National Security Advisor, while the DM of Public Works is now an ambassador to OECD in Paris – two portfolios that very much affect our military procurement, and in particular what is going on with the fighter jet replacement programme. The fact that key players in that process are moving on could easily be interpreted as a curious move if one were the suspicious type. More shuffles occurred at Health, International Trade, Environment, Agriculture, and Shared Services. I would also note with some particular curiosity that these moves happened on a Tuesday afternoon, which is almost unheard of lately. Pretty much every time any of these kinds of announcements are made, it’s on a Friday afternoon, usually around 3:30, so We The Media are left scrambling to report something about it. I’m not sure if this is actually indicative of anything, given Harper’s playing nice on Monday, but it is curious nevertheless.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/552543899257167873
QP: Listing off “real action”
The first day of the final four-week stretch of sitting days for the calendar year, and everyone was a little more fresh-faced and cheerful — something that won’t last too long. None of the leaders were present today, Harper still on his way back from the G20 in Brisbane, Justin Trudeau off to Whitby—Oshawa for the by-election there, and Mulcair similarly absent, even Elizabeth May absent owing to the death of her father. That left David Christopherson to lead off, denouncing the government’s lack of commitment to GHG emissions reductions coming out of the G20 in Brisbane. Leona Aglukkaq stood up to remind him that major emitters like China and the U.S. were finally coming to the table. Christopherson pressed, and Aglukkaq read off a list of “real action” that they have undertaken. Nycole Turmel asked the same question in French and got pretty much the same answers from Aglukkaq, before turning to the topic of the family tax cuts. Joe Oliver praised them and how the measures will help all kinds of families. For the final question, Turmel threw a bunch of budget cut figures hoping to make something stick, and Oliver reiterated how great his family tax cut plan was. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, noting the ways that the government actually raised taxes, be it payroll taxes or tariffs, and brought it all around to income splitting. Oliver read a talking point about how great income splitting was for families. Goodale demanded that the money spent on income splitting be spent instead on incremental infrastructure investments, to which Oliver decried the Liberal plan to raise taxes. Dominic LeBlanc closed off the round with another question of income splitting versus infrastructure investment in French, to which Jason Kenney rose to say that it was sad to watch the Liberals attacking families with children.
Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions
Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.
Roundup: A few more details about the Iraq mission
The Chief of Defence Staff offered a Friday afternoon briefing to give a few more details on the mission in Iraq, which he openly acknowledges will likely take longer than six months, and could mean that our special forces advising Iraqi troops on the ground could come under fire from ISIS militants, and that the danger of IEDs is always present. It also sounds like the mission could become something akin to an Afghanistan-style combat training one, which, you guessed it, the NDP would oppose because slippery slope, mission creep, etcetera. Jean Chrétien took to the op-ed pages to back Justin Trudeau’s position that our military role would be marginal and that we should spend more resources on a humanitarian mission instead, conveniently forgetting that it never happened under his own watch.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/523088036725547010
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/523088463617593344
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/523088686691659776
Roundup: 28 instances, fewer charges
The RCMP say they have disrupted or intervened in 28 instances where people have been involved in high-risk travel, be it people returning after fighting with radicals abroad or when they plan on heading over. No word on how many people have had their passports revoked, and there have apparently been no new names added to the no-fly list, and there have been very few charges under anti-terror legislation. The government will likely try to use this low figure to say that we need even more anti-terror laws, and yet it makes one wonder about the actual scope of the problem. Andrew Coyne wonders about the threat that ISIS poses to Canada directly, and if people should be shrugging it all off. (Spoiler alert: no).
Roundup: Not an imminent threat
The heads of CSIS and the RCMP went to committee to say that while ISIS is not an imminent threat to Canada, we have to be vigilant about domestic terrorism threats. Well, sure. And then Stephen Blaney talked about arresting these people and throwing them behind bars, because you know, due process and stuff. Blaney also said that they won’t be implementing exit controls, because those belong to totalitarian countries – but they do share entry data with the Americans, which is a de facto exit control system because if one enters one country, they had to exit the other. But that’s not totalitarian. Incidentally, the government has also announced funding for a bunch of new studies on finding the root causes of domestic terrorism and radicalization. And here Pierre Poilievre assured us that the root cause of terrorism is terrorists.
Roundup: Concern for the North, but not too much
Day two of the big Northern Tour, and Stephen Harper announced $2 million to help set up a Northern Farm Training Institute campus, along with 300 acres of farmland and greenhouses, to help make produce more readily available in the North. That done, he gave dire warnings about the Russian presence in the Arctic and his concerns about the militarization of the North. With this in mind, the Canadian Forces are looking to set up a network of supply hubs in the Arctic in order to make it easier to stockpile equipment and deploy in the case of an emergency, and hopefully reduce the cost of operating in the North. Mind you, the plans for an expanded deepwater port and an air base have both been dramatically scaled back for cost, so we’ll see how much of this plan actually comes to fruition. Elsewhere on the tour, it has been noted – somewhat pointedly – that Harper is just passing through some of these Northern locations and is not actually sitting down to consult with the local government or people to know what they need. Try to look surprised. Michael Den Tandt notes that Harper is looking more energised on this trip than he has in probably a year-and-a-half, what with all kinds of other unpleasant things that he’s had to deal with.
Roundup: Planning for a quick confirmation
The nominee for Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, will appear before the Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee, as well as the Senate in Committee of the Whole, on Tuesday, in the hopes that they will confirm him shortly thereafter. Why this matters is because the “cyberbullying” bill is under consideration and the privacy commissioner needs to weigh in on it as testimony. The outgoing interim commissioner, Chantal Bernier, had opted for a June 5th appearance as opposed to May 29th in order to have more time to prepare, and to see if a new nominee would be named by then or if her term would be extended. This means that she won’t appear to testify on that bill, though it also remains to be seen if Therrien would appear, days into the position and not fully briefed, or if another official from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner will testify instead. Nevertheless, it does raise problems, and is a reminder to the government why they shouldn’t back-load everything to the last couple of weeks before summer, because these kinds of pile-ups happen frequently and it just becomes a huge mess for everyone.
Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.