Justin Trudeau put on his penitent face yesterday and made his apology for making a quip about Russia intervening in Ukraine because of a hockey loss. He apologised to the ambassador, and signed the book of condolences there for the dead protesters – and everyone pointed out that none of the other leaders had done so, nor had they spoken to the ambassador. Because we need to play cheap politics over the situation there, and try and drag their ambassador into our domestic political mud fights. Way to show that any party leader in Canada is statesmanlike! Meanwhile, Stephen Harper is sending John Baird to Ukraine with a Canadian delegation in order to meet with the interim government to see if Canada can help out in any way (and it’ll likely involve being part of a bailout package, since much of what started this whole revolt was the $15 billion that the former president accepted from the Russian government).
Tag Archives: Jim Flaherty
Roundup: Hysteria over a difference of opinion
All of the tongues were wagging yesterday as it appeared that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty started backing away from the government’s promise to implement income splitting for families once the budget gets balanced. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a number of hyperbolic lines of copy, with things like “split in the caucus,” because there can’t be disagreement without it being a major issue, which in turn makes the tendency for rigid message control all the more prevalent (although, it is a bigger issue when it’s the PM and finance minister who can’t agree, but let’s keep things within reason). Or all the musings about Flaherty “being in the doghouse” because Harper himself was answering questions in QP – which people started complaining about. Seriously – Harper was answering questions! Like a Prime Minister! This is a good thing, people! John Geddes puts Flaherty’s musings in with the context of his broader freelancing from the party line of late, while Kevin Milligan offers an overview on the research into income splitting. Andrew Coyne writes that the rift between Harper and Flaherty on clear party policy shows that perhaps Flaherty should think about stepping down.
Roundup: Budget date set
Jim Flaherty has announced that the budget will be delivered on February 11th, in the midst of the Olympics. Because remember that Canadians would be too distracted by the last Olympic games to even have Parliament sitting? Apparently that’s no longer a concern, and Flaherty is confident that Canadians can pay attention to both the games and the budget at the same time. Well, that and he apparently has a few measures that are important to pass sooner than later. John Geddes notes that Flaherty’s tone has changed lately to one of striking informality of late, where he seems to be freelancing some opinions and hinting that others may be to blame if there is added spending in the upcoming budget.
Roundup: No plan B
The country needs a new computer programme to deal with Employment Insurance claims, and Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Developmemnt have until 2016 to do it – leaving almost no time to address any inevitable problems once they procure and install said new system, and more ominously, their presentation says, “there is no Plan B.” Missing that deadline means an escalation of costs, and I’m sure a whole host of other problems with the EI programme as a whole. But hey, it’s not like this government has ever had problems with procurements, and there has never been a boondoggle around new software before, right? Oh, wait…
Roundup: Strongly-worded letters toward progress
AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo is optimistic and sees progress after sending a strongly worded letter to Aboriginal Affairs minister Bernard Valcourt over the proposed First Nations Education Act, and Valcourt has been willing to consult further in order to get the bill right. (Strongly-worded letters – so very Canadian). Atleo nevertheless wants education funding boosted in the next budget, before the bill passes, which has been one of the sticking points of their negotiations.
Roundup: Moore denies poverty comments
There was some amount of Twitter outrage yesterday after James Moore was asked about child poverty in a radio scrum, and he responded that he didn’t want to usurp the jurisdiction of the provinces, that Canada was at its wealthiest, and that as the government, it wasn’t his job “to feed his neighbour’s child.” And he’s more or less right about the aspect of jurisdiction, for better or worse, though one could argue about transfer payments and so on. But when Moore stated it was all taken out of context and the headline was wrong, the reporter posted the raw audio and what do you know, it’s all in there. Oops?
As the finance ministers get set to meet about the pension issue later today, Jim Flaherty sounds like he may be bringing his own proposal to the table, which is all about being “more targeted” and not “a bazooka.”
Roundup: And Hyer makes two
As was widely guessed, NDP-turned-Independent MP Bruce Hyer joined the Green Party – not that this was any big surprise. I look a look at how the NDP botched their outraged reaction here. Interestingly, Hyer went on TV later in the day and let it be known that Thomas Mulcair is one of the reasons that he would never return to the NDP, and that the culture of whipping and control is getting worse under Mulcair than it would have been with almost any other leadership candidate. (Hyer backed Nathan Cullen, for the record). Mulcair went on to imply that Hyer didn’t have any values, which just makes the whole bitter act look all the more petty.
Roundup: A claim without evidence
John Baird and Leona Aglukkaq made the announcement yesterday that said that we made our submission to the UN regarding our Arctic sea floor claims. Apparently we have claimed the North Pole – but we don’t yet have evidence to support that claim. Um, okay. And yet this is the same party who is standing up in the House to ridicule Justin Trudeau for saying that he was going to listen to the advice of scientists before he determines if we do indeed have a claim on the North Pole or not. Because politics.
QP: Backhanded allegations about Mulcair
With Harper off at Newmarket doing pre-budget consultations, but with the news cycle being consumed by the Conservatives on the Senate Internal Economy committee’s reluctance to call that senior partner from Deloitte before them to testify, it was likely to be a day full of non sequiturs delivered by Paul Calandra. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking why the government asked their senators to block the appearance of Michael Runia before them. Paul Calandra responded that they learned that the audit was done without interference. When Mulcair pressed, Calandra immediately turned to the “You sat on a bribe allegation for 17 years!” talking point. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about the report that CSE was conducting intelligence during the G20 in Toronto. Rob Nicholson reminded him that CSE doesn’t have the authorisation to spy on Canadians. When Mulcair asked if they did it anyway, Nicholson reminded him that they couldn’t even ask allies to spy on Canadians. Mulcair tried to tie this in with the ClusterDuff allegations, but Nicholson reminded him that CSE has judicial oversight. Joyce Murray led off for the Liberals, and asked about the suicide of two soldiers connected CFB Shilo and asked what action the minister was taking to address the issue. Nicholson offered the families his condolences and assured her that the Canadian Forces were investigating. Ralph Goodale was up next, and returned to the issue of Runia and Gerstein being blocked from testifying at committee, but Calandra tried to insist that the Liberals defended those three suspended senators. Goodale demanded to know why Gerstein remained chair of the Senate a banking committee, but Calandra continued to insist that the Liberals fought against holding those senators to account.
Roundup: Politics played with political documents
The partisan frothing at the mouth over Justin Trudeau’s hope and fear comments continues to roll along, with the NDP lashing out for its use – never mind that Jack Layton’s final letter was itself a political document and that the NDP have used it to make political hay. They also point to “Angry Mulcair” flyers that were sent out in Toronto Centre, though I’m not exactly sure that those quite added up to some of the same attacks that the NDP were using in both Toronto Centre and Bourassa – that Chrystia Freeland was not from there and shouldn’t be allowed to run (despite a caucus full of Quebec MPs who had never set foot in their ridings before being elected), or that Dubourg collected a severance allowance that Mulcair himself collected when he resigned as an MNA, not to mention the flyers with Dubourg, who is black, surrounded by bling, which one American expat commenter said would be considered a racist slur in the States. Make of this what you will. Pundit’s Guide considers the remarks a strategic over-reach that damages any prospect of cooperation between the two parties anytime soon.