Mediaboss Marketing

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Dec. 11, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

So much for parliamentary reform, and political transparency. Liberal MPs have no time for that stuff.

They voted against giving MPs more power four times on Wednesday, and then tried to keep the whole thing secret.

In their first official caucus meeting of the new Parliament, Liberal MPs held the votes on governance required under the Reform Act of 2014.

Story continues below advertisement

These are questions that define some of the power relationship between backbench MPs and their party leaders. Can the party leader unilaterally expel an MP from caucus? Can MPs remove the party leader? Can they choose an interim leader? Do MPs have the right to elect their own caucus chair?

On each, Liberal MPs voted against giving themselves more authority.

We now know that most Liberal MPs just dont believe they should be entrusted with real authority. They would rather have a leader such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or his staff, tell them what is allowed.

Last spring, when Mr. Trudeau was engulfed in the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Prime Minister unilaterally expelled former cabinet ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. Ms. Wilson-Raybould had testified at committee hearings, embarrassing Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Philpott had resigned her cabinet post, and suggested that the government should be forthright.

But the truth is, when Mr. Trudeau kicked them out, most Liberal MPs felt relieved.

On Wednesday, there was little appetite among Liberal MPs to curb the PMs power.

Maybe we shouldnt be surprised. But this was, after all, a Liberal Party that came to power in 2015 promising a new era of transparency and openness. Mr. Trudeau went around pledging to empower MPs.

Story continues below advertisement

In opposition, Liberal MPs including Mr. Trudeau had voted for the Reform Act, proposed by Conservative MP Michael Chong as a way of shifting influence back to individual members of Parliament.

It was supposed to establish new rules of governance: Each party caucus could choose its own rules, but it had to decide on each one in a recorded vote.

But in 2015, the Liberals didnt even bother to vote.

This time, at least, Liberal MPs voted as the law requires. But they said nothing about it. Caucus chair Francis Scarpaleggia insisted that the results were a secret. Its internal, he said.

This was a pathetic retreat into the political ethos of a previous century.

For some reason, MPs still think that the governance of their caucus is akin to the rules of a private club. It is not. MPs have a responsibility to Canadians for holding the executive to account, and for holding their party leaders to account. The public has every right to know the rules of the relationship between them. That is minimal transparency.

Story continues below advertisement

This is not, as Mr. Scarpaleggia claimed, a matter of caucus confidentiality. MPs from each party invoke that concept to speak freely among themselves. The Reform Act results, on the other hand, are the outcome of a legislatively mandated vote on the governance of parties in Parliament. Yet the Liberal Party still thinks it is none of your business.

But Liberal sources said the partys MPs voted against empowering themselves in each instance. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the sources because party officials do not allow MPs to speak publicly about caucus discussions.

The MPs were generally in consensus, the sources said, with many arguing that the Reform Act was Mr. Chongs bill, and if Liberals want to do caucus reforms, they would do it their way.

Dont hold your breath.

The MPs even voted against giving themselves the power to elect the chair of their caucus, and then voted to elect the chair of their caucus. Liberal MPs didnt like the fact that the Reform Act rules also gave MPs the power to remove the caucus chair, one source said.

Unfortunately, the Reform Act is now a shadow of its original intent. Conservatives adopted some of the rules, but the NDP voted them all down, too. Many MPs worry more about caucus unity than a parliamentarians independence.

Story continues below advertisement

And in the end, MPs have power if they have the guts to exert it. The Reform Act was only supposed to shift the balance a little, and provide some accountability.

Still, it provided a clear signal that all the 2015 campaign rhetoric about MPs empowerment and transparency is now dead-letter politics: The Liberals wouldnt even tell the public how they voted.

Read more:
Liberal MPs still seem to think they operate like a private club - The Globe and Mail

Im glad Premier Jason Kenney is trying to knock some sense into the federal government. His junket to Ottawa this week with key provincial cabinet ministers to wring concessions out of the Trudeau government was a valiant first step to win a fair deal for Alberta in Confederation.

But Im afraid its futile. To help Alberta and the West, you first have to understand the West. And it is just not in Liberal DNA to see the West as anything other than an uncultured hinterland to be robbed and re-educated.

The results of the October election revealed the depths of Albertas and Saskatchewans frustration with the Trudeau government. Since then, the residents of those two provinces have been reassured that Ottawa is now listening. After all, the new federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson is originally from Saskatoon and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland was born in Peace River.

So? Before now, neither Wilkinson (who is an MP from North Vancouver) nor Freeland (who lived in New York before returning to represent downtown Toronto) had displayed much interest in their roots. Now the Liberals reassure us Freeland is a proud daughter of the Peace Country soil.

There are several good examples of the Liberals genetic incompatibility with the Prairie West from just this week.

First, the CBC carried a story with the headline, Unemployment rate among young men in Alberta nears 20 per cent, a level not seen since the early 1980s.

It is no coincidence no coincidence at all that the early 1980s was also the last time a Quebec Liberal named Trudeau was prime minister. Liberals in general and Trudeaus in particular cannot help meddling in the energy sector and, in the process, driving our provinces economy into the ground.

A second example came in an announcement this week from Environment Minister Wilkinson. (Remember, he was born in Saskatoon, so the West can count on him!) The Liberals might not allow liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to be counted even after provinces efforts to control greenhouse emissions.

Before Octobers election, the federal Liberals had promised provinces would receive credit for their LNG exports. Generating electricity by burning natural gas produces far fewer emissions than generation from coal. If Alberta and B.C. can export a lot of LNG to countries that currently burn coal, that would reduce worldwide emissions.

When they were campaigning for office, the Liberals agreed this was a good idea. Now, Wilkinson is saying the Trudeau cabinet have not made up their minds. If the cabinet turns down this idea it will cost businesses in Alberta and B.C. billions in added carbon taxes. And that added cost will drive away even more investment, cost even more jobs and extend the Alberta recession.

On Wednesday, Wilkinson approved a scheme to let New Brunswick adopt a provincial carbon tax instead of accepting the federal version. But N.B. also will be permitted to lower its provincial gas tax so consumers see little difference in the pump price.

This is the same deal Ottawa has with PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador. But it defeats the purpose of a carbon tax, which is intended to lower fossil fuel use by making carbon-based fuels more expensive.

Ottawa is happy, it seems, to make such tradeoffs with Liberal-voting regions such as Atlantic Canada but not with Alberta.

Wilkinson is also currently at the UNs big, annual climate conference in Madrid. There Canada is the only major energy-producing country still deeply committed to net zero emissions by 2050.

That, however, is a goal that can only be achieved by phasing out oil and gas. In other words, the Liberals cannot please international environmentalists and the Kenney government at the same time.

Who do you think theyll choose?

See the rest here:
GUNTER: Federal Liberals incapable of seeing what's best for the West - Edmonton Sun

OTTAWA The Liberals are moving forward with their signature election promise of a broad-based income tax cut, introducing a motion in parliament that will gradually increase the personal income tax exemption for all but the wealthiest Canadians.

It marks their first policy move in the House of Commons since the election and the first test of how theyll negotiate the new minority parliament situation, as the NDP look to redirect some of the money towards dental care.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the move on Monday, giving notice of a motion to raise the Basic Personal Amount the amount of income you can earn before paying taxes to $15,000 by 2023. The benefit will be reduced for those earning more than $150,473, and fully phased out for those in the top bracket (earning above $214,368).

The government estimates 20 million Canadians will benefit from the move, including a further 1.1 million who wont pay any federal income tax. When fully implemented, individuals will save $300 per year on average and families $600 per year. It will cost the federal treasury $3 billion in the 2020/21 fiscal year, rising to $6 billion when fully phased in.

Of course Conservatives always support tax cuts

The change will need to be enshrined in legislation, but for now, the introduction of the ways and means motion allows the Canada Revenue Agency to start administering it effective Jan. 1, 2020.

The Liberals first move after the 2015 election was also to implement a tax-cut campaign promise. But unlike then, this time the Liberals will need help from at least one other party to get it passed in the House of Commons.

We look forward to working with the other parties, Morneau told reporters.

This is the commitment we made to Canadians during the election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau added later in question period. We certainly hope to see support from all sides of the House on this measure.

The most likely ally is the Conservative Party, who had a similar broad-based tax cut in their platform, though the party hasnt yet said how it will vote on this. Asked about the Liberal plan by reporters on Friday, Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre acknowledged his party would find it hard to vote against a measure that reduces taxes.

Of course Conservatives always support tax cuts, he told reporters. Its in our DNA. Its who we are.

New Democrats, meanwhile, decided to use the opportunity to pitch their election platforms promise of dental care.

We have a better idea, NDP finance critic Peter Julian told reporters after Morneau announced the motion. He said the Liberals should cap the tax cut to those making $90,000 or less, and use the resultant savings for dental care for the 4.3 million Canadians who dont currently have a plan.

We know that relieves pressure on the healthcare system, and we know that will make a terrific difference in the lives of those families, he said.

NDP ears perked up last week when the Liberals included a mention of dental care in their throne speech. The government is open to new ideas from all parliamentarians, stakeholders, public servants, and Canadians ideas like universal dental care are worth exploring, and I encourage parliament to look into this, said the speech, written by the Prime Ministers Office.

Don Davies, the NDPs health critic, said he was somewhat heartened by the mention, though would have preferred a stronger commitment.

Parliament sits for the rest of this week and then isnt scheduled to return until Jan. 27, 2020. It isnt yet known whether the motion will be voted on before the break.

Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Follow this link:
Liberals move forward on promised income tax cut, with first phase to start in January - National Post

On December 12, 2019 ABC news reported "Security video confirms that a police shootout in Jersey City, New Jersey, with a pair of rifle-wielding suspects who allegedly killed a detective and three others was part of a rapid series of crimes, including a deliberate attack on a Jewish deli, authorities said."

Rabbi David Niederman, president of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg and North Brooklyn, a Satmar Hasidic group, said that two of the victims killed in the Jersey City Kosher Supermarket were Orthodox Jewish. He identified them as 33-year-old Mindel Ferencz, the wife of the deli owner and mother of five, and 24-year-old Moshe Deutsch, a Yeshiva student...

The suspects were identified as David Anderson, 47, and Francine Graham, 50, Grewel said.

Both Anderson and Graham are believed to be followers of the Black Israelites, a group that espouses hatred toward Jews..."

Dov Hikind, founder or Americans Against Antisemitism wrote "As Jewish bodies were still laying in cold blood after being murdered by terrorists a reporter of Americans Against Antisemitism captured spontaneous anti-Semitic tirades blaming Jews for their own murder and people cheering on!" See video here.

Here are some of the comments from the video:

One bystander says- "I am no blaming nobody / another bystander responds - "I am: I blame the Jews cause we never had a shooting like this until they came. If this had been the other way around they would be kiling us and everybody who is standing right here know that. Cause if this had been the other way around they would be killing us right now. Look how black people act. We can't do it to them? They don't give a f***about us. My children is stuck at school because of Jew Shenanigans. They all the problem because if they ain't come to Jersey City this s***would never go on. People's kids are scared. People's kids are stuck at school. Take that shit somewhere else [referring to dead bodies still there]. [addressing Jewish reporter] It was your kind that did it here right? Yeah, you know. And four you all dead right? Four of your people that were dead right? If they was dead, they got shot dead, that's great! Get the damn Jews the f***out of here. Get these f***Jews, get the Jews out of Jersey City! "

On November 12, 2019 Jweekly.com reported about the rise of African American attacks in New York "On Friday night, surveillance video captured a man throwing a brick through the window of a Hasidic girls school in Crown Heights. On the same night in the Borough Park neighborhood, at least three identifiably Orthodox men were punched by assailants. Also in Borough Park, multiple Orthodox Jews in Borough Park had eggs thrown at them over the weekend.

Antisemitic incidents in the city have increased significantly this year, according to data from the New York Police Department. Through September, there have been 163 reported incidents, up from 108 over the same period last year an increase of 50 percent. Antisemitic incidents make up a majority of reported hate crimes in New York City."

The rise of African American antisemitism is caused by incitement by some important African American community leaders such as Louis Farrakhan. On July 17 1984,Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, a group with tens of thousands of African American followers across America said that "Hitler was a very great man."

On April 16, 2019 Jack Crowe wrote in the National Review "Nation of Islam founder and notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan defended Representative Ilhan Omars glib description of the September 11 attacks Monday by dismissing the attacks as nothing more than a false-flag operation designed to draw the U.S. into Middle Eastern conflicts...The tweet expresses Farrakhans support for Omar, who has received an onslaught of criticism from Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits for using the phrase some people did something to describe the World Trade Center attacks, which killed more than 3,000 Americans.

Farrakhan has previously blamed a cabal of highly placed Jewish government officials for helping to execute the attacks.

There were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks, he said in 2015."

Omar, who has been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks on numerous occasions since taking office, continued to enjoy the support of fellow freshman representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan..."

On March 25, 2018 Karol Markowitz wrote in the NYPost that Women's March Founders Tamika Mallory,Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez defended Farrakhan "Liberals willful blindness to the anti-Semitism raging on the left is a dangerous game. Recently the national co-chair of the Womens March, Tamika Mallory, attended a Nation of Islam event in which Louis Farrakhan called Jews his enemy and held them responsible for this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men. Mallory had previously posted a photo of herself with Farrakhan and praised him as the GOAT or greatest of all time in her caption. When Mallory finally responded to critics, she cast herself as a victim and defended Farrakhan. Fellow Womens March co-chairs Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez also defended Farrakhan..."

Liberal's refusal to condemn or even to admit African American antisemitism shows that today liberal ideology itself has antisemitic nuances. Deborah Lipstadt wrote in Israel Hayom:"Anti-Semitism from the far-Left tends to be the province of (largely white, but also minorities who are) ultra-progressives who demonize Jews as colonialists and oppressors who shapeshift just enough out of their fair Jewish skin to benefit from white privilege."

(ADL statistics)

Ezequiel Doiny is author of "Obama's assault on Jerusalem's Western Wall"

See more here:
Liberals refuse to admit the rise of African American antisemitism - Arutz Sheva

The argument in favor of arbitrarily revoking the Second Amendment rights of college students, as is done in dozens of states, has ostensibly been rooted in safety concerns.

And it just got a lot weaker.

Two anti-gun professors wrote in the Washington Post that campus-carry laws will invite tragedies on college campuses, not end them. Another liberal professor, writing for the New York Times, warned that when there are more guns around, there is more risk its as simple as that.

The trouble with such predictions is that they tend to be tested as time goes by. And as it turns out, they simply werent true. Students just aren't waging the gun battles that anti-gun activists expected. A new report from the College Fix looked into this narrative, and it came up empty.

When a reporter reached out to numerous universities that permit campus carry, all of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place. Responding colleges included Emporia State University, Dixie State University, and Valdosta State University. Separately, the Texas Tribune has reported that after the Lone Star State implemented campus carry at four-year colleges state-wide, it resulted in no sharp increase in violence or intimidation, and in fact, the following year was quiet and uneventful.

These are just a few examples, but even studies cited favorably by gun control advocates admit that results certainly do not prove that campus carry causes more crime. Essentially, it's now clear that conservatives and libertarians had this one right. Allowing American adults aged 18 to 22 to exercise their Second Amendment rights on public college campuses is a no-brainer, as there are few rights more fundamental than the right to self-defense. Plus, the inconsistent nature of current gun-free campus rules already makes little sense.

The current system in many states bans college students from carrying guns but would allow adults of the same age who do not attend college to carry firearms. This is an arbitrary inconsistency that makes little sense, as there's nothing to suggest that college students are more violent or less responsible than their noncollege peers. So, too, guns are often allowed at high-risk off-campus sites such as fraternity houses, yet barred from the actual campus a glaring inconsistency that makes little sense. And now its officially confirmed that arbitrarily revoking college students Second Amendment rights doesnt even make anyone safer.

Its impossible for blue-state legislators and liberal college administrators to keep justifying their harsh anti-gun policies. That is, unless theyre willing to admit that they just hate the idea of gun rights.

Read this article:
Myth busted: Campus carry never caused that increase in violence liberals predicted - Washington Examiner