Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Won't you please feel sorry for Jason Kenney?

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, March 7, 2011 12:51pm - 135 Comments

The Immigration Minister is saddened by the tone of Parliament.

He dismissed opposition calls for his resignation, saying the scale of the error does not justify it. “The value of the letterhead involved here is probably a couple of dollars … The fact that this is even a question demonstrates how hyper-partisan the current environment has become.”

A check of Open Parliament’s records shows that Kenney, during his time as an opposition MP, demanded the resignation or dismissal of five cabinet ministers, one senator and one member of the Prime Minister’s staff.

Tags: house of commons, Jason Kenney, Parliament, Question Period

More by Aaron Wherry

Mike T.

The dollar value of the letterhead is his defence? NOW I want him to resign.
Anonymous

get used to him. He is the next leader of the conservative party of canada.

BCL

Not unless he grows a beard he isn't.

sapphireandsteel

Who was the last bearded prime minister?

ringo2

I heartily endorse his running. Let's just make it the official party for chubby white guys…

TimesArrow

"The value of the letterhead involved here is probably a couple of dollars …"

But the implication that he may have been using the resources of his office to further the electoral propects of the CPC are priceless.

auntie-em-m

resources including parliamentary aides paid by taxpayers dollars…
SunshineCoaster

This ethnic targeting incident wasn't simply a ministerial aid using government resources for partisan efforts. This was an Immigration Minister with a detailed plan for shaking down the ethnic communities for votes for the Harper Party and for the funds to pay for advertising to convince them to voate that way. Implicitly the Immigration Minister was announcing to the immigrant communities that they better vote for the Harper Party if they want ANY consideration in the immigration process. In other words vote for me and pay for my ads or your family will never join you in Canada.

This issue is a lot bigger than partisan use of Parliamentary letterhead, like Jason Kenney would have us believe.

madeyoulook

Implicitly the Immigration Minister was announcing to the immigrant communities that they better vote for the Harper Party if they want ANY consideration in the immigration process.

Neat! SC repeats an unreality-based charge in this thread, too! http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/07/the-commons-le…

tobyornotoby

If this is a sample of the thoughts running through his head then I guess I do "feel sorry for Jason Kenney."
http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

CPoC: Crybaby Party of Canada.
Crit_Reasoning

A check of Open Parliament’s records shows that Kenney, during his time as an opposition MP, demanded the resignation or dismissal of five cabinet ministers, one senator and one member of the Prime Minister’s staff.

OK, but were his calls for resignation frivolous or justified? One of those examples is Kenney calling in 2004 for Immigration Minister Judy Sgro to be fired, and as it happens she really did become the first member of Cabinet to be fired from Paul Martin's government, due to various scandals including "Strippergate".

Leo

Thanks for the reminder – had forgotten "strippergate", lol!!

"Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. The minister's right-hand man for years and years goes and meets with the owner of strip clubs to give preferential treatment to people trying to get exotic dancers into the country while 600,000 legal immigrants are in line trying to get into this country.

The minister has made a disgrace of her office by breaking the rules and by not answering questions in the House. If she thinks what her chief of staff did was wrong, then has she fired him? If not, why not? Why will she not take responsibility instead of having him take the bullet?"
john g

You beat me to it CR. Somehow Wherry seems to suggest with this post that because Kenney refuses to resign over misuse of a $2 piece of letterhead, it means that Jason Kenney was never justified as an opposition MP to demand anybody's resignation for anything, no matter how serious the offence.

Unreal Aaron. I've got 5 words for you. Water Skis. Leather Jacket. Shark.

Mike T.

What does Stock Day's press stunt have to do with Kenney :)

john g

LOL. I think Kenney was his chief of staff at the time or something.

Crit_Reasoning

Unreal Aaron. I've got 5 words for you. Water Skis. Leather Jacket. Shark.

I have to agree that this was one of Wherry's weaker efforts. If he'd made an effort to establish that Kenney made frivolous resignation demands, he might have something approaching a point.

tedbetts

Which in fact turned out to be entirely frivolous and unjustified.

Thanks for reminding us of that one CR.

Crit_Reasoning

So why did she resign?

Amateur Hour

Frog, she accepted her Ministerial Responsibility (whether it was forced on her by Martin is irrelevant to the act of contrition by a Minister of the Crown).

When a Minister or a Minister's office does something untoward or unlawful, especially something blatantly partisan involving money and in violation of well-established rules, the Minister steps down to show accountability (see 1867-2006) to the public and to Parliament. Said minister, having duly genuflected to Parliament and demonstrated government accountability, often returns to cabinet later with a different file.

Kenney has been spearheading the Conservative PARTY's ethnic fundraising efforts for several years. His office and staff are in charge of this — and they blew it on the GOVERNMENT's time. He should resign.

Aside:

Kenney quoted by CTV: "I was on a plane to Pakistan and if I had been in town it wouldn't have happened because I always insist on signing my own correspondence and if a mistake like that was made I would have corrected it."

Bev Oda: "My robot pen did it!"

ConBot excuses are getting pretty thin.

Leo

Even more good news, Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro exonerated Sgro for granting a special ministerial permit to a Romanian stripper who’d done a few days of work – envelope stuffing, we presume – in Sgro’s campaign office. Sgro, Shapiro found, knew nothing about the stripper’s work for her. So, it was her staff that was to blame for putting her in a compromising position. Just can’t get good help these days. I’d feel more comfortable with Shapiro’s generous findings, if Sgro had reacted angrily and fired the staffer in question and revoked the stripper’s permit. But, no, in Liberal Ottawa no politician is ever really held responsible.
Lucky

Your point is?
Lucky

Stop wasting your breath with these nonentities. They are so set in their ways that no sensible explanation will do. They believe in telling people to do what they say and not what they do. I will trust a used car salesman before i trust a Conservative politician, especially from Alberta. Have you ever seen them vote for another party even when there are mountains of evidence against their Reform/Cons. govts. This Govt. will go down in history of this Country as the most morally bankrupt Govt. ever in Canadian history.

Cam

Robert above refers to the "Crybaby" party and he has a point. Back in Reagan's day a Conservative was supposed to be tough, but now folks like Kenney and Fantino just seem like whiners. What adds to it is that it's usually their own words coming back to bite them, like in this case.
Stewart_Smith

I don't think Jason or Julian need to worry so much about attention from the opposition. My guess is that the Harper-Ouimet affair and subsequent financial payout for her nice southern vacation following the breakup is going to provide most of the entertainment for the next bit.

Claudia Lemire

Agreed, I am waiting for the explanation for that one!!

Keith in Brampton

There won't be one; that's the whole point of the confidentiality agreement – to drop the "cone of silence" over the whole thing.

Though we're all dying to find out why she was paid off, I don't think anything short of evidence of wrongdoing sufficient to lead to an RCMP investigation wil get us answers.

Thwim

And with the "cone of silence" in effect, such evidence is not forthcoming.

Stewart_Smith

It is almost like an office should be created. With a valiant officer with impeccable integrity to protect whistleblowers who bring such evidence forward while investigating the validity of that evidence. Just a thought…

LdKitchenersOwn

Wait a second, does Kenney think that the problem here is the COST of the letterhead??? Seriously?

I don't care if the letterhead costs five cents or a million dollars a sheet, you don't use government letterhead for party activities, ESPECIALLY not to solicit donations, and the reason you don't do that has nothing to do with how much the letterhead costs or who pays for it. The difference between the MP for Calgary Southwest soliciting partisan donations and the MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION soliciting partisan donations is an important one well beyond who paid for the letterhead. By Kenney's apparent logic it would be no big deal for the Attorney General to send out partisan attack letters on letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General, as long as the CPC paid to reimburse the office for the cost of the paper and printing. It's ludicrous.

If Kenney thinks this is about how much the letterhead costs I think THAT might be a reason for him to resign, because he apparently doesn't understand WHY using the letterhead was wrong, even after having fired somebody for doing it. Back when we had a "Government of Canada" it used to be obvious that the activities of the government need to be kept strictly separate from the activities of the party, but maybe that's not the case for the Harper Government (TM).

bennji1977

I am with you, it is not a question of the cost of letterhead – it is the fact that Mr. Kenny was using his office, and his staff for partisan purposes. I would love to know:

1) Was the staff member instructed to send the package out by a party official, or was he instructed by the Minister?
2) Who developed that PPT deck. Was it a party operative, or was it the same staff member?
3) Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I haven't been able to find, anywhere in the public domain, the population projections that the PPT referenced. Is this information available to all parties, or was this developed for the internal use of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Unfortunately, I don't think that we will ever find the answers to the above, b/c we now have Kenny's word………and I will wager 100 bucks that the staffer in questions signed a nice "gag order" as part of his termination agreement.
madeyoulook

Kenny must have had SOME clue that it was wrong, because the transgressing staffer got the boot for it. And even THAT might have been overkill in my mind, if it was a first-time offense by the new guy who plugged his laptop into the wrong network printer and didn't quite grasp the significance of the error. "Strike one, rookie!" would have been enough for me.

Bringing up the price of the actual piece of paper was a dumb rhetorical attempt. Not a firing offense, either, IMO, but certainly worthy of consideration by the voters in his riding in the future.

LdKitchenersOwn

To be fair, I think that Kenney knows why it's wrong, and the money line is just a misdirection. Get the public thinking that the opposition is complaining about $2. It's like with Oda. How many times did we hear that the Minister had a right to deny the funding? And NO ONE EVER QUESTIONED THAT SHE DID. It was misdirection to try to make it seem like people were questioning the decision, when people were actually questioning the process that led to the decision.

I don't actually think the mistake in this instance is necessarily too much more serious than you do. However it ain't about $2 either, and if Kenney does think that's the issue, well, that doesn't speak well of him.

madeyoulook

(Please forgive the Kenn[e]y typo…)

I don't actually think the mistake in this instance is necessarily too much more serious than you do.

Shall we then sign a JOINT letter to our opposition parties?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/07/the-commons-le…

LdKitchenersOwn

My only word of caution there is that I feel like Kenney's attempt to explain this away may actually be WORSE, and if Kenney really BELIEVES his ex post-facto rationalizations for why this isn't that big of a deal, that in and of itself could be construed as a pretty big deal.

filturk

It's your classical example of a red herring.

EeeOar

… the new guy who plugged his laptop into the wrong network printer…

Your sequence of events sounds very probable…..or selected the wrong paper tray or forgot to physically walk over to the printer to remove the MP letterhead and insert the CPC letterhead, followed by simply overlooking the error.

I'm sure that it can be very difficult to avoid straying over the line between MP business and party business…they are obviously intertwined to a large extent.

However, since it probably is very hard to avoid straying back and forth, it kind of surprises me that there aren't better rules and/or procedures in place to prevent this type of error from happening in the first place, and to also help "focus the mind" as to which role is in play.

Ie is it actually allowed to have party letterhead in an MPs office? If so, maybe that should be banned. And what about time? Are there any rules in place regarding when an MP can and cannot conduct party business? If not, should there? Some of these things would be hard to enforce, but keeping party letterhead out of the MP's office and that type of thing shouldn't be that hard and would help to "set the tone".

madeyoulook

it kind of surprises me that there aren't better rules and/or procedures in place to prevent this type of error from happening in the first place, and to also help "focus the mind" as to which role is in play.

Firing the guy after a first offence goes a long way towards mind-focus, methinks…
Mike T.

If your too dumb to do it, how about not keeping the party stuff in the government office. IN fact, that's a pretty good rule anyways.
madeyoulook

I suspect that it would go waay too far to "set the tone" at the level of purity you are suggesting. For it might include, say, a banning of any discussion of upcoming campaign strategy during a caucus meeting. We do have a party-based parliamentary system, after all.

On the other hand, I agree that even "the other paper tray" is a problem. If it's a government printer (and toner cartridge, etc.), what is it doing printing up party stuff? It would not have killed this (or any) staffer to email a file over to party HQ for handling…

tedbetts

It's not the letterhead. The letterhead just gave it away.

Just what the heck was anyone in his office doing partisan fundraising for at all in the first place? It is our Ministry, not the Conservative Party's.

He is the Minister of Immigration and he is using his office to target immigrants for fundraisign and votes. What other partisan games and work are his staff doing on our dime when they are supposed to be working for us???

There is a bigger context here. Harper and his government have gone to unprecedented lengths to blur and even ignore the line between OUR government and the Conservative Party. As you point out, it's not just the letterhead, but what the heck was he doing partisan work at the office for in the first place!! Then there are press releases as partisan attack propaganda, Economic Action Plan ads, stimulus funding locations, G20 spending, re-branding the government, the House photo gallery (removing photos of all prior leaders and replacing them with Harper photos), Raitt using her office to organize a fundraiser for her re-election campaign, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe this one is a bit more minor than the others. But it didn't happen in a vaccuum.

E_B_

It's the new math…

Government of Canada = Harper Government = Conservative Party of Canada

All terms are interchangeable. They are blurring the lines, so we won't be able to tell the difference.

gottabesaid

"The value of the letterhead involved here is probably a couple of dollars … The fact that this is even a question demonstrates how hyper-partisan the current environment has become.”

I don't think he should have to resign. That said, he knows — we all know — this is about more than just a couple of dollars worth of letterhead. It's the use of government resources for partisan purposes. Is it a one-off event? I'd like to think so. However, if this is a case of business-as-usual and you just happened to get caught — as many suspect — I hope it's a wake-up call. Do your electioneering on your own time, with your own staff, and your own office supplies.

tedbetts

I think there is a problem with the typewriters and computers at the PMO. There is recurring problem with the letter "Y".

For example, you type "on your own time, with your own staff, and your own office supplies"

.. but inside the PMO, it comes out as "on your own time, with your own staff, and your own office supplies" for some reason.

Mike T.

The HTML tagging necessary to create that post must be epic!

ThinkingMan

Does anyone really believe Kenney doesn't understand why this is such a big deal? Can there really be that many suckers in Canada?

Thwim

I guess we'll just have to wait til the next election to see.
Thinkingwoman

Well, Trudeau was in power from 1968 to 1984, so are there really that many suckers in Canada? Obviously, yes.

sapphireandsteel

And look how long we had Mulroney! Guess you can say we're non partisan suckers eh Thinkingwoman. We're going on 5 years now!

Selena

Waht happens when the CRAP runs out of "aides" to fire? Open a new can or will Ministers actually have to take responsibility for their departments?
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

Wasn't the mere whiff of a scent that Rahim Jaffer used his wifes office floor to store some boxes enough send her packing?

Stewart_Smith

Really doug, if you are NOT willing to pay (attention), I can NOT see you following the Ins & Outs of this.

Halo_Override

I haven't read every comment on this thread, and I'm not going to, so forgive me if this has already been stated. But I will take a moment to defend Kenney on one point.

The value of the letterhead involved here is probably a couple of dollars … The fact that this is even a question demonstrates how hyper-partisan the current environment has become.

I don't believe he's trying to defend the cost in any way. I believe he's trying to say "sending this out from my ministry office instead of from the CPC would result in a minimally-increased fundraising result, if any at all".

I still think this event is ten flavors of arrogant entitlement in a cup, but I also think his reaction was stated imprecisely and has largely been misinterpreted.
Trudeau lover

Don't get me wrong, this is a great "scandal" (ha,ha), and it will help the Liberal theme going into the election we are about to force, but I sure hope the Liberal war room has some more equally vapid, faux 'scandals" the media can parrot and blow out of all proportion in the coming weeks. We Liberals need to invent more "scandals" or else we'll be left with running on the 1993 "Red-Book " again.
BobbyB

Crit_reasoning – you really do have your head stuck where the sun don't shine! Let me try and simplify it for you…..You have a business. You get in the mail on CRA LETTERHEAD that they want you to call them and set a meeting to discuss your tax filing. You also get in the mail on Non-CRA LETTERHEAD that someone wants to meet with you to talk about business taxes. Which one is taken more seriously!

Now what if you are an IMMIGRANT and on Parliamentary LETTERHEAD there are voting directives and analysis of voting patterns about immigrant voting. In your riding there are also discussions from the existing immigrant community about voting. You are a new immigrant and want to bring other non-Canadians into Canada (e.g., parents, brothers, sisters). Do you focus on the Parliamentary LETTERHEAD or on discussions within your community that may or may not have an impact on you bringing family members into Canada?

Crit_reasoning – are you really that stupid that you cannot discern the import the Minister of Immigration has on immigrants? Are you so cranially challenged that you think there isn't some conflict of interest in the Minister of Immigration directing immigration voting policies within the immigrant community that has them dependent on the Minister of Immigration policies and approvals to bring their loved ones to Canada? Hello, Crit-reasoning, anybody home?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

You're a minister of the Crown, not a Three-card Monty swindler.

It is misuse of public office. We don't care about the printing cost of your office's letterhead, we care about the misuse of your office.
WDM

Kenny shouldn't resign over this. It was a mistake, but it was rectified quickly. Type of thing that should be used more as a part of a 'theme' attack against the government. Manufactured outrage on this doesn't help the Opposition.
LoveMusic

This country is turning into an effing joke — and to think that Kenneyis considered to the best of the best in the CPC flock of sheep.
Mike T.

Before he used this insulting defence I would have thought he should feign contrition but not resign – NOW I think he has to go.

And what makes us think its' a mistake? That he fired a staffer?
SunshineCoaster

This ethnic targeting incident wasn't simply a ministerial aid using government resources for partisan efforts. This was an Immigration Minister with a detailed plan for shaking down the ethnic communities for votes for the Harper Party and for the funds to pay for advertising to convince them to voate that way. Implicitly the Immigration Minister was announcing to the immigrant communities that they better vote for the Harper Party if they want ANY consideration in the immigration process. In other words vote for me and pay for my ads or your family will never join you in Canada.

This issue is a lot bigger than partisan use of Parliamentary letterhead, like you and Jason Kenney would have us believe.
burlivespipe

Ah… but who mastered these 'theme attacks', anyways? Can dish it but can't take it, is that what you're saying? I don't think John Howard's speech writer would concur…
Leo

The Sponsorship Program provided many opportunities for "resignations", lol!!!

"Mr. Speaker, this is all about the Liberal Party putting itself ahead of the country. Does he not understand that? These are not allegations, sir. These are admissions by senior people who ran the Liberal Party and who are admitting to the dirty money.

"The Prime Minister last year said, “Anyone who knew about that and did nothing should resign immediately”. Now we know that there are parliamentary secretaries, MPs and senior staff who received dirty money. The testimony and the evidence is there.

Will they be held accountable or not? Will the Prime Minister keep his word and fire those who had knowledge about the scandal?"
Geiseric

"The value of the letterhead involved here is probably a couple of dollars "

The voice of office is only worth a couple of dollars?

Maybe on his shift.
MostlyCivil

Ssh. The courts HAVE decided that this was an administrative manner. No appeals coming, either.
brooster2

I think you must have wandered onto the wrong comment board. The one you're looking for was about 5 or 6 years back in time.
Crit_Reasoning

Speaking of "manufactured outrage"…
WDM

He apologized and fired a staffer. I don't know what else people expect him to do. I know there are people who aren't fans of this government, hell I'm one of them, but realistically does anyone think or expect a Minister to resign or be fired because of this?
brooster2

Um…I can't presume to speak for others but I don't think the outrage over this incident is "manufactured" – I think it's quite authentic.
Mike T.

hey, I was exercising restraint until he refused to own up to it!
tedbetts

Is "outrage" the only response we're allowed here CR?

Seems to me this is minor in the grand scheme of things, but in the grand scheme of things, this is more of the same thing from this government. Not just blurring the lines between our government and their party, but erasing them. And his response is insulting and arrogant.

Don't forget, Raitt using her office to organize a fundraiser for her re-election campaign, the Ministry of Fisheries issuing press releases attacking the Liberals (for which the minister was forced to apologize and repay our government), let alone the offensive and yes outrageous re-branding of our government as The Harper Government.

Put it all together and we should all be outraged. But as for this particular example of Conservative-style government, I'm not "outraged". How about disgusted? Am I allowed that?
Crit_Reasoning

How did he refuse to own up for it? By not resigning?
Crit_Reasoning

You seriously think the "outrage" over Letterhead-Gate is authentic? Well, sure, it's authentic in that some partisans can work themselves into a frothing frenzy of "outrage" at the slightest provocation. Who am I to tell someone how they feel?

It's actually amusing to watch people pretend (or not pretend, as the case may be) that something this minor makes their blood boil.
Crit_Reasoning

Excellent column by Don Martin about the Liberals' frivolous resignation demands.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/08/do…
Mike T.

He shouldn't have made light of it in a stupid way which shows he doesn't understand the importance of what he did.
tobyornotoby

It would be good if he would apologize for the actual problem, rather than pretending we were counting the reams of letterhead. The issue is the appearance when a Minister of Immigration is seen to be involved in soliciting donations from an identifiable group of people who have a reason to need favours from him. That's what he should apologize for, and take pains to correct.

It would be the same problem if the Minister of Public Works was seen to be raising funds from contractors who were involved in bidding on contracts he had the power to influence. But apparently we've already been there and done that.
brooster2

WDM: "He apologized and fired a staffer. I don't know what else people expect him to do. I know there are people who aren't fans of this government, hell I'm one of them, but realistically does anyone think or expect a Minister to resign or be fired because of this?"

What, then, got Helena Guergis kicked, not only out of cabinet, but out of the caucus? Are there two different codes of conduct operating within this government: one that says pursuit of personal business (Jaffer) using government resources is unacceptable but pursuit of party activities using government resources is just fine?

Put another way, how can Con apologists "behead" a cabinet minister for one transgression while dismissing the other as a "faux" scandal? I'm not suggesting you are one of those Con apologists but you seem comfortable with the subtle nuances of their code of conduct as it applies to Kenney-boy.
Thwim

Showing some actual contrition might be appropriate. Defending the action based on the cost of the resources is anything but.
Loraine Lamontagne

A couple of dollars is more than $1.29 for a pack of gum.
Gary

Like the the "In and Out" thing?
Oh, that's right! It's the Conservatives, so no problem, carry on!
Leo

Excuse me? Perhaps you did not read AW's comment correctly " Kenney, during his time as an opposition MP"
Mike T.

I can't fill in the blanks for you THAT much….
brooster2

Focus on the letterhead is disingenuous, IMO, in that the stationery is merely a symbol of the fact that it's now difficult to differentiate between party apparatus and government infrastructure within the context of a prominent minister's office. That should be disturbing to everyone, regardless of the political party involved.

Speaking for myself, it does elicit outrage.
Mike T.

And it turns out Kenney wasn't entitled to this entitlement!
Crit_Reasoning

Are you sure that your outrage isn't symbolic outrage? After all, you're outraged not by the incident itself, but by what you believe that it symbolizes.

Aside from the letterhead thing, what makes you think that "it's now difficult to differentiate between party apparatus and government infrastructure within the context of a prominent minister's office"?
Crit_Reasoning

Please try. You claim: "he refused to own up for it". How so? What should he have done that would have satisfied you?
tedbetts

It's not the letterhead, CR. The letterhead just gave it away.

Just what the heck was anyone in his office doing partisan fundraising for at all in the first place? It is our Ministry, not the Conservative Party's.

He is the Minister of Immigration and he is using his office to target immigrants for fundraisign and votes. What other partisan games and work are his staff doing on our dime when they are supposed to be working for us???
brooster2

"you're outraged not by the incident itself, but by what you believe that it symbolizes."

Really? Where did I say I wasn't outraged by the incident itself?
E_B_

I'm pretty sure it is about what it symbolizes. It is just one more prick of an endless series of needles from a government that is more intent on politicking than governing.

Perhaps, people would be more tolerant and believe it was an accident, if it just didn't happen so often.

There is a pattern to this…
burlivespipe

At least we know the frog's defence is manufactured. Just like felt and gum drops. I'm sure the CON talking points will alert us to more of our foibles, and another CON subservant will be tossed to the Election Gods before the week is through…
Mike T.

Troop hater.
Crit_Reasoning

From what I gather, party members who are employed by a minister are allowed to do party stuff as long as they don't use government resources. That's the whole issue here – the letterhead is a government resource. Party stuff and ministry stuff have to be kept separate.

Are you suggesting that Kenney did something wrong here beyond the fact that a party missive was printed on the wrong letterhead? If so, why hasn't anyone reported on this?
brooster2

Small diff: The "In & Out" thing is still before the courts.
Mike T.

So often the Harper government does craven things when it doesn't even have to. Even after they've done this, the best (heck the ONLY) response is "it was thoroughly inappropriate to use Ministerial letterhead in such a manner, I am embarrassed, I accept personal responsibility, and I shall do my utmost to make sure it doesn't occur again." Can't they even see that's a better response than "look I fired an underling and it's not that much extra $".
brooster2

Fair enough. I am duly chastened.
Out There

As you point out, it's not just the letterhead, but what the heck was he doing partisan work at the office for in the first place!!

My first (perhaps excessively cynical) thought was this: has Kenney been doing anything other than partisan work at his office? It would not surprise me if Kenney were spending all his time fundraising and campaigning in immigrant communities.
Reverend_Blair

He blamed a staffer. He fired that staffer. This is the same government that wouldn't let staffer's testify at committee because, they claimed, the ministers were responsible. So he needs to take real responsibility not just for the actions of his staffer, but for his own conflict of interest. Kenney needs to resign.
tedbetts

He didn't own up to the problem. He dismissed it as frivolous. And there is a kilometer of gradations between frivolous and throw-the-bums-out-now-over-this-one-incident type corruption.

On a scale of 1 to 10? On its own as an isolated event, I'd put it at a 3 (with a 6 requiring a resignation). In the context of this government, I'd put it at a 5 though.
Mike T.

There's also a tangible benefit to asserting the letter comes from the government office, moving it beyond the realm of symbolic.
Mike T.

I for one would be willing to subsitute "disgusted" for "outraged" if it would make certain commenters feel better.
Crit_Reasoning

Is "outrage" the only response we're allowed here CR?

That's a silly question. Ted, I'm pretty sure you're allowed any response you want.

I never heard of those other examples you cited, and frankly I'm too bored by the whole thing to even look them up. Please feel free to be "outraged" and "disgusted" by whatever you like.
tedbetts

And the Conservatives have blocked every attempt at investigation and not complied with Election Canada or court orders to disclose documents. By contrast, the Liberals asked the RCMP to investigate and launched a self-defeating public inquiry into their own actions.
Crit_Reasoning

Yes, there's nothing at all frivolous about suggesting that the minister should resign because his staffer sent a party document to the wrong printer tray while the minister was in Pakistan. It's not enough that the staffer was fired. The minister must resign! So must the Prime Minister, because the buck stops with him, after all!

What a joke.
tedbetts

I'm not sure where you get that employees of the Minister are allowed to do party stuff during the work day in the Minister's office while they are being paid by us. They are not.

Remember when a couple of people in the PMO announced the launch of the first series of the personal smear campaign against Ignatieff? They laughably took a "2 hour leave of absence" from their employment to make the announcement and answer questions.

This government really doesn't care. They think all that matters is staying in government and beating the Liberals to a pulp. Whereas Canadians expect them to government for US. It is OUR government, not Harper's.
WDM

That's a fair point. His quote above is pretty disengenious given his own partisan rhetoric.
tedbetts

I have no doubt you are quite familiar with the offensive and unprecedented re-branding of OUR government as "The Harper Government". It is a clear breach of Treasury Board rules and in fact it is expressly not permitted in the House of Commons.

Lisa Raitt used her office to organize a fundraiser for her reelection campaign and even sent out one batch of flyers referring to the Minister of whatever it was she was at the time. Two serious breaches of protocol.

Back when Europe was considering taking actions against Canada for the seal hunt, the Minister of Fisheries issed a couple of press releases attacking the Liberals – that was the entire content of the press releases – for being anti-Canadian and not supporting the seal hunt. Not only was it 100% false – it stemmed from the introduction of a pro-seal beal by one senator that no one would even second, so it was not even allowed to be tabled, let alone voted on – but it was a serious breach of protocol. The minister apologized and the party reimbursed the government for several thousand dollars.

And on and on and on and on with this government.
Thwim

That'd be the "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" defense.

And why not? Worked just great in Beverly Hills Cop
A_logician

Not any more. Now it's the Harper government – and that's official.
Crit_Reasoning

Are you suggesting that these ministerial employees aren't doing the jobs that the taxpayers pay them to do? What time of day are they allowed to do "party" stuff?

Also, if it's so outrageous that a staffer in Kenney's office was doing political stuff, why hasn't the media raised this as an issue? Is any of this against the rules? Isn't it common in Ottawa to have ministerial staffers who volunteer for the governing party in their spare time? Hasn't this always been the way, going back to Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, and beyond?
Reverend_Blair

The joke is that that Conservative partisans refuse to understand that there's much more to this than a little ministerial letterhead. Kenney is Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the contents of the document in question indicate a serious conflict of interest.

Did the staffer write the entire slideshow and send it out without Kenney signing off on it? Do you really anybody is naive enough to believe that?

You know, the one thing I thought this government would get right was the ethics thing. When they got elected I thought they'd be transparent and clean. Instead they very much remind of the Devine government in Saskatchewan.
Keith in Brampton

"sent a party document to the wrong printer tray " – the printer, the toner… all GOVERNMENT property, NOT CPC property. The work should not be carried out in government offices with government staff on government time / supplies. Period.
Crit_Reasoning

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put it at a "1". I'd even put it at 0.5 if the scale allowed it. Demands for ministerial resignation don't get much sillier or more frivolous than this. (Well, there was that demand for Poilevre to resign because he got impatient and pushed a button to open a gate.)
filturk

6, not 5
Crit_Reasoning

Did the staffer write the entire slideshow and send it out without Kenney signing off on it? Do you really anybody is naive enough to believe that?

Dude, Kenney was in Pakistan at the time. If you read the article, he said that normally he does sign off on such things, and if he'd been in his office he would have made sure the recently hired staffer printed the cover letter on the private, non-government stationary that he uses for CPC stuff.
Mike T.

Manufactured feelings, indeed!
tedbetts

What part of "6" requires a resignation and 3 and 5 are less than 6 did you not understand?

In the history of minor controversies, using government resources and letterheads and office staff for pure partisan fundraising has always been a big no-no. If memory serves, it has also gotten Ministers fired. And justifiably.

(Not sure that anyone asked Poilievre to resign for his breaching security rules and arrogance in berating security officers for not letting him breach security rules, did they? What would he have resigned from?)
Reverend_Blair

Dude, you still don't get it. The letterhead is a minor transgression. The larger transgression is that the contents of the document…the slide show…indicates that Kenney is in a clear conflict of interest between his duties as minister and his duties as partisan hack.
tedbetts

I didn't say it was outrageous. But it is not allowed. They are not allowed to do party work during working hours, at the ministry office, with government phones, with government letterhead, even with government emails.

Whacko Blogging Tory Steve Janke (Angry in the Great White North) went berserk the other year when an NDP or Liberals sent out a response to a constituent from his MP email. I care even less than you do about what Whacko Steve Janke has to say but he did cite all sorts of sources that I can't be bothered to find right now. More recently, here is Blogging Tory Sandra Crux explaining how wrong this is (Sandra worked as a staffer and knows of what she speaks).

So: yes it's against the rules; yes it's ok to do whatever you want in your spare time as long as you don't use government resources; yes it has always been an occasional issue, a line that government's trip over occasionally and apologize for (as Kenney almost did here).
Keith in Brampton

"What time of day are they allowed to do "party" stuff? "

One would think, after they are off the government clock and off the premises. If it's CPC work, then the CPC should be footing the bill – or they should be volunteering.
EeeOar

In the big scheme of things this incident is not all that serious.

But this is a nice opportunity that all parties might want to take advantage of to (re-)examine how and where and when they do party work (and by whom). taking advantage of this opportunity might save someone a much, much larger headache at some future date.

There are at least a few fairly simple rules that could be followed that would make this type of slip-up much less likely. In lieu of payment for this idea, political parties should make a donation to a food banks across the country.
Crit_Reasoning

Dude, I'm pretty sure you misunderstand the concept of "conflict of interest" if you think that government ministers aren't allowed to fundraise for their party, or if you think that it's inappropriate for a minister to produce a slideshow on election strategy for his party.

The "conflict" was the misuse of the ministerial letterhead for non-ministerial stuff like political fundraising.
burlivespipe

Ah, but Rev, the letterhead IS the talking point. You must buy into the puppet's velvety excuse-making, or else we'll all end up wearing blown-up sock puppet entrails…
Reverend_Blair

Dude, I understand the concept of conflict of interest well enough. I also understand the political tactic of narrowing the discussion down to a meaningless concept and then making an argument from pedantry.

The conflict was using ministerial resources…staff, letterhead, influence, information, and access for partisan advantage.

As someone of Ukrainian descent…one of the targeted ethnic groups…I am doubly offended because I understand all too well the challenges that group faces.
TimesArrow

"…if you think that government ministers aren't allowed to fundraise for their party, or if you think that it's inappropriate for a minister to produce a slideshow on election strategy for his party"

That would clearly be a conflict of interest for a minister of immigration to fundraise for his party, particularly when it involves of the very core or his responsibilities as minister – namely looking out for the interests of Canadians first and foremost. I'm suprised you're simply not arguing that one letter doesn't make a case – which is possible. But given the letters contents highly suspect.
Jenn_

Crit, why on earth is Minister Kenny fundraising in his Ministry office? Why does he even have Conservative Party of Canada letterhead there? Why would a taxpayer paid Ministry staffer EVER have need to use Conservative Party of Canada letterhead?
brooster2

…and on and on and on. But these are all just "faux" scandals. Only adscam is ever a "real" scandal.
Crit_Reasoning

making an argument from pedantry

Dude, you're arguing that there's a broader conflict of interest, and I'm saying "Really? Show me the conflict". That's not pedantic.

The conflict was using ministerial resources…staff, letterhead, influence, information, and access for partisan advantage.

The only "conflict" was with the letterhead. Ministerial staff often volunteer for their parties on their own time, and it has been common practice for generations.

If you're suggesting that that there is another conflict here, why hasn't anyone reported on this? What other rules were broken? Do you know something the media doesn't?

Why on earth is it wrong for ministers to use "influence, information, and access for partisan advantage"? You seriously think there's a problem with a minister trying to find ways for his party to reach out to more voters?

That's cool that you're of Ukranian descent. I'm more of a Heinz 57, myself. That said, I'm not sure why our ethnicity is relevant to this discussion.
Reverend_Blair

Obviously you weren't watching Question Period today. Obviously you haven't been reading the larger commentary on this subject. Either that or you are making an argument from pedantry.
Crit_Reasoning

What part of "6" requires a resignation and 3 and 5 are less than 6 did you not understand?

Um, I wasn't disagreeing with you about that, Ted. Not sure why you thought I was.

Not sure that anyone asked Poilievre to resign for his breaching security rules and arrogance in berating security officers for not letting him breach security rules, did they?

“Mr. Poilievre must step aside until the RCMP completes their investigation,” fumed Liberal MP Todd Russell. “He apparently tore through the security barrier, flouting the safeguards meant to protect the thousands of people who visit and work on Parliament Hill each day.” http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/08/do…
Crit_Reasoning

No, I wasn't watching QP today. If you have some commentary you want to share, please link to it.
Keith in Brampton

You nailed it – a transgression of the rules for the benefit of the party is encouraged; for one's own gain, howerver, it becomes the kiss of death. Party above all.
Reverend_Blair

Watch the replay tonight then. I comes on CPAC. Kenney was asked several questions and, despite his disingenuous answers, those questions were about far more than the letterhead.

Perhaps after you watch it, you can answer this question: Is Kenney a simpleton incapable of understanding a question, or was he being evasive and trying to hide something?
Claudia Lemire

Sorry but I disagree, those are very serious allegations, are you sure you can back them up?
D.D.S

I get a feeling that THAT might be what actually pisses people off in the end….just a feeling
elvislives

Hey, I've got an idea — why doesn't the member in charge of our fighting forces send out 'encouraging' letters to the industrialists who supply our men and women in uniform. Wouldn't that be a great idea, and certainly well within the ethical realm of a man who gave his thumb's up on trying to bribe a dying MP…
Trudeau lover

i know, right!? When will these Cons just go away, and let us have our Trudeauvian cult of a country back? This is really getting silly. I wish Pierre was here to bring in the War measures Act again, that was effing cool, and no joke.