Peter Kent dismisses himself

With a written statement of the minister in her possession, Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan again confronted Peter Kent yesterday about cuts to ozone monitoring.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has twice denigrated reporters when his position is challenged. But clearly the real problem is the news reader across the way. I have the briefing note which says there is no duplication in Canada’s ozone monitoring networks, which means they cannot be optimized and streamlined, only cut. Answers to an order paper question signed by the minister also says there is no duplication. Will the government finally admit there will be cuts to the ozone program?

Mr. Kent stood here and dismissed Ms. Duncan’s premise entirely.

Mr. Speaker, I reject all of the assumptions of my honourable colleague yet once again. I would also again suggest that she use more reliable research than that to which she has made a practice of using.

Mike De Souza, who has been doggedly pursuing this story over the last few months (see hereherehereherehere and here), explains the order paper response in context of recent revelations




Browse

Peter Kent dismisses himself

  1. Is this the new Conservative slogan now?

    “We reject your reality and substitute our own.”

    • It’s actually worse than that.  The post above suggests that Kent is actually saying “I reject my own previous reality, and substitute my own new reality”.  

      It seems to me that Kent is no longer arguing with Kirsty Duncan and Justin Trudeau’s understanding of the facts, now he’s arguing with PETER KENT’s understanding of  the facts!

      • To be fair, Kent’s understanding is more suspect than Duncan’s or Trudeau’s, so his argument is finally well-placed.

  2. It’s hard to think of a “star candidate” so ill suited to label as Peter Kent has been.

    • I dunno: Fantino is giving him a run for his money…and Chris Alexander hasn’t exactly lived up to his hype yet either.

      • I have to say I’m heartily disappointed by Chris Alexander.  I absolutely thought he was better than that.

    • We could probably throw Kellie.Leitch into that hopper, while we’re at it.

  3. C’mon. Give him a break. His response sounds like something any government minister could regurgitate in a pinch to answer any ‘gotcha’ question hurled his or her way. And he was in a pinch. What, was he supposed to say the program was being cut? ‘Cut’ is such an ugly, unhelpful word.

    Mr. Wherry, I reject all your assumptions and suggest that you use more reliable research than that to which you have made a practice of using. (I gotta remember that one. Very handy.)

    • It would be even more persuasive if you corrected the grammar.

      • I reject all your assumptions and suggest that you use more reliable research than that to which you have made a practice of using.

        • OK, if sloppy grammar works for an allegedly erudite and articulate public figure like Kent, I guess you can use it, too. Carry on ;-)

          • Offer canned response, questioner/commenter shrugs shoulders and moves on. If this works on my wife I think I’m onto something.

  4. What the Hell is going on here?

    Forget getting Peter Kent to explain the difference in the effects of ozone at ground level, as opposed to at altitude!  I think someone has to ask if Peter Kent realizes that he’s Peter Kent!!!

    • I utterly reject your premise. Only i, me, Peter Kent can reliably speak to the question of who i, me, am, or am not – so there. I suggest you find a more reliable source of research about i and myself then me. Er…what was your question again? There’s way too much ozone on this blog.

  5. Other than my feverish imagination, I don’t know what I am talking about, but my impression is that our MPs are controlled by Comms people. Comms types are similar to members of cadres or shock troops and they try to manipulate reality. Sir Humphry types control government now, MPs are just there for show. 

    Kent looks like maroon because he knows perfectly well that he’s waffling but he has to stick to message that nothing is being cut while programs are being cut. 

    Hill Times ~ In all, there are currently around 1,500 communications staffers working in government offices and departments across Canada, including 87 in the PMO and PCO

    Ronald Reagan ~ It’s been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

  6. What a blowhard windbag – can’t even admit a mistake when presented with evidence from his own mouth. Stay on him Kirsty. Next make him explain why the cuts he says aren’t happening are necessary.

  7. sigh. What’s the point?

    This majority will do whatever it wants while whining how the opposition is preventing them from exactly that. While the true believers will continue to believe, vote, and donate no matter what evidence of hypocricy or corruption is placed in front of them, so long as a single member of their chosen party has said, “Nope. Didn’t happen that way,” even if the facts show that person is bald-facedly lying.

    The tactics of voter suppression will continue because they work.

    And in a few years from now, everybody will be going, “How did things get this bad?” and to be honest I don’t see a way out. 

    I ask the supporters for what good this gov’t has done, not only because I want to know why they keep voting the way they do, but because I want a bit of hope that maybe things won’t get as bad as they look to me, but the answers I get are always pathetically thin where they’re not simply “The other guys suck worse!”

    • I feel the very same way.  Often.  I try to tell myself that one can only do what one can do, but it is one’s duty to do it.  For if you give up, when your grandchildren ask you “How could you have let it get this bad/get to this/fall apart” you will have no answer.  And even though, “I tried every single day” isn’t much of an answer, it is better than a dopey silence.

      • Fortunately.. no kids.

        Unfortunately, I tend to believe that wasting energy attempting to stop the inevitable means you have less available to prepare and adapt for it.

        Of course, I’m a bit of a hypocrite in that I guess, because if I really followed it, I’d be attempting to suck up to Obhrai so that I’d be in good position once government by corruption really gets rolling. Still, there’s some things for my own well-being that even I can’t stomach.

        • “sigh. What’s the point?”

          Basically because we can’t/don’t know what the future holds, thank goodness. We may fear the worst, indeed it may even get much worse then we fear it might, but we have to hope and work for change. Anything is possible. Who would have believed in 88 when Mulroney seemed unassailable that Meech could be stopped, or  that he would take his party to virtually death’s door – or that they would come back? Granted it looks bleak right now, and the opposition rarely looked so weak.
          In any case those who went before us battled much tougher odds in their struggle for a better Canada then we face in stopping Harper. He will fall. When it does it will likely happen in away none of us dreamed of – or perhaps he will be made to choose to become a much better PM?

Sign in to comment.