As is the usual order of business these days, a carefully managed pre-budget “leak” was released yesterday in the form of a private letter to caucus – the “private” being a full wink-wink-nudge-nudge, of course. This is what we call building the narrative and managing the message. In said letter, Jim Flaherty signalled that his priorities will be skills training, infrastructure and “value-added” manufacturing jobs (never mind that “value added” is a misnomer term, as “value-added” is simply labour input + capital input). Maclean’s has produced a preview guide to the budget coming down this week. Michael Den Tandt believes it’s going to be a “stay the course” budget without any transformational change.
Tag Archives: Jim Flaherty
QP: Quotas and downshifting
It’s an awful, wet day out in the Nation’s Capital, the precipitation an ugly mix of fluffy wet snow and needle-like ice pellets. Inside the Commons, QP kicked off with Thomas Mulcair reading a question about cuts to services for First Nations including policing. Harper responded that there were no cuts, and that new funds would be announced in due course. Mulcair’s second question was about Flaherty’s letter to the CRTC, to which Harper reminded him that he already answered the question the day before. Mulcair then asked a question about those Senators who have not yet responded to the CBC about their residency. Harper assured him that all Senators respect their residency requirement (though I suppose that remains to be seen). Nycole Turmel was up next to ask a pair of EI “quota” questions, speciously tying in the Senate, to which Diane Finley assured her that there were no quotas or bonuses for achieving cuts. Rae pressed on the issue of bonuses for cuts, to which Harper talked about how they wanted to ensure that EI funds were there for those who paid into them. Rae carried on about how this move was simply downshifting the unemployed onto provincial welfare rolls, but Harper insisted there was no such plan.
QP: Getting Harper on the record, scattershot style
With all leaders on deck on a lovely Tuesday afternoon in the Nation’s Capital, QP got underway with Thomas Mulcair reading a question on why John Duncan was dropped from cabinet over an improper letter, but not Jim Flaherty. Harper responded that in Flaherty’s case, it was an administrative error. Mulcair moved on to the topic of EI “quotas,” to which Harper insisted that they were merely performance audit. Mulcair then moved onto the “scandals” in the Senate, to which Harper somehow turned it into a paean for an elected Senate — not that it would actually address the current issues. For his final question, Mulcair demanded that Harper stay away from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka, and Harper started off by carrying on his elected Senate paean before saying that he would not attend the meeting. For the Liberals, Bob Rae asked about the house calls that EI recipients are receiving as part of the effort to stamp out fraud. Harper responded by saying that EI was paid into by honest Canadians and they want to ensure that the money is there for honest recipients. For his final question, Rae asked about the Estimates tabled yesterday and the increase in advertising budgets while front-line services are being cut. Harper insisted that said front-line services were not being cut.
Roundup: Farewell Canadian Crown, hello Crown colony status
The government did something well-meaning yesterday, but in the process, ended up doing something very, very bad. In what was no doubt a somewhat thoughtless attempt to circumvent the rules around constitutional amendments, they tabled their act to change the laws of succession for the Canadian Monarchy yesterday that evoked a moot section of the Statute of Westminster that basically said “whatever the Mother Country decides, we’re cool with.” And with that one fell swoop, the government of Canada has undone eighty-two years of Canada having an independent Crown, and has once again relegated us to the status of a Crown colony of Britain – and no, I’m really not being dramatic. (See the bill and the government’s nonsensical backgrounder here). You see, that section of the Statute of Westminster that they’re evoking – was repealed with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Oops. And by simply assenting to the UK change, it means that the Crown of Canada is not a separate corporate sole from the Crown of the United Kingdom – which means that Canada is not a sovereign country. And because the Office of the Queen – which the rules of succession are a Very Big Deal regarding – falls under s.41(a) of the Constitution – that means a constitutional amendment requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces. Yes, it’s a little messier and will take a little more time, but we’ve got at least two generations of heirs in order to get it right, and there is little reason that any of the provinces would object to such common sense changes. But hey, for the sake of expediency, let’s treat the constitution like it doesn’t matter! Which seems to be the modus operandi of the entire political discourse of this country of late – between this, the NDP’s “Unity bill,” and Bob Rae thinking that the Governor General should be involved in political meetings with the First Nations and denying royal assent on the Wheat Board bill, we have pretty much proven that civic literacy in this country is in complete and utter shambles. How many other mature democracies treat their constitutions like they’re relative documents that you can project your own interpretations onto as they suit your agenda? Unbelievable.
Roundup: Returning to untenable demands
The AFN is apparently back to their demands that Harper and the GG be at the table together at their next meeting – which is untenable. That a number of chiefs think that the GG can force Harper to deal with their issues is a gross misconception that they need to abandon. It’s even worse when one of them comes on Power & Politics and declares that the Queen got it wrong. Because you know, it’s not like she’s been on the job for the past 60 years or anything. Meanwhile, Tim Harper has a very disturbing tale of threats and intimidation going on in the internal politics of the AFN, which includes threats being made against National Chief Shawn Atleo and other regional chiefs. Paul Wells writes about Stephen Harper’s choice between cooperation and confrontation with First Nations.
Roundup post: Buckingham Palace says no
Buckingham Palace has written back someone who wrote to appeal to the Queen on Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s behalf. The message? That the Queen, by way of the GG, acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and cabinet, so go bug them. Which is the way it should be, seeing as we have Responsible Government and everything, and the fact that the Queen isn’t magic. And the Spence supporter who wrote her? Is going to write back to complain that his letter to Harper hasn’t been responded to yet, even though it’s only been days, and responses from PMO take something on the order of six months (given the constant deluge of mail they get daily). Oh, but I’m sure his letter was of such high priority that the PMO felt compelled to drop everything and ensure he jumped to the front of the response queue. And I’m quite sure that Buckingham Palace has nothing better to do than order the PMO to ensure that his letter is priority, because he’s special.
Roundup: Leadership versus grassroots
So that #IdleNoMore protest is getting more interesting as internal divisions become evident. Chiefs are talking about making “breach of treaty” declarations and cross-country economic disruptions, while the founders of the movement are distancing themselves from the chiefs, as part of the protest is to get around the established power relationships and keep the movement at the grassroots level. These founders have even distanced themselves from Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, calling her hunger strike as being in support of the movement, but that the movement is about Aboriginal people and not the chiefs. Spence is trying to get said grassroots to unite with the chiefs rather than shame them for past mistakes, and says that the chiefs are ready to “humble themselves.” But the founders point out that the movement is about the people taking the lead, and not the established leadership. (And if you’re still not sure what it’s all about Pamela Palmeter, who ran for the leadership of the AFN last year, breaks it down for you here).
Remember those reports of the new polymer dollar bills melting? The Bank of Canada insists that it’s not actually possible – but won’t release their internal data about it under the exemptions for national security and international relations. Also of note is that the number of complaints of mutilated bills declined sharply with the new polymer banknotes, for what it’s worth.
Roundup: Flaherty wants to stay put
Newsflash: Jim Flaherty says he wants to keep his job as Finance Minister until the budget is balanced, which likely means spring of 2015, in advance of a new election. While it’s unlikely that Harper will shuffle him out before he does his promised major re-shuffle a little closer to the next election, there have been some questions as to how long Flaherty will be sticking around as he’s been looking pretty tired and acting downright cranky the past couple of months.
Peter Kent is patting himself on the back for cancelling a proposed shallow gas infill project in Alberta, despite the fact that this was a decision that took seven years. Even more laughably, Kent is claiming the Orwellian-named “Responsible Resource Development” legislation from earlier this year as the reason for the cancellation – despite, as we mentioned, the fact that this has been a seven-year process.
As the government and the military continue to back away from the F-35s, General Tom Lawson now says the term “Fifth-generation” is unhelpful. Or should I say Fifth Generation™, since it’s a trademarked marketing term and not an actual description of capabilities.
Roundup: What Flaherty and his pals discuss
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is off on his summer retreat with business and policy leaders, talking about finance stuff all candidly and off-the-record like. But just what are they talking about? Well, some rather intrepid ATIPing by the Globe and Mail shows that last year, they talked about things like raising the retirement age, lowering wages, anti-union “right-to-work” legislation and two-tier healthcare. You know, all kinds of imported American Republican ideology that’s served that country so well.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel concluded her visit to Canada. The take-away message: “Yay trade!” Duly noted.
What’s that? The government is likely under “enormous pressure” from the US to buy the F-35 fighters? You don’t say!