Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal government is moving to break a month-old deadlock over parliamentary reform, dropping some proposals that had raised opposition concerns, but nonetheless seeming readyto make changes to the way the House of Commons works, with or without oppositionsupport.

The government's intention is outlined in a letter from Government House leaderBardishChaggerto her Conservative and New Democrat counterparts that was delivered on Sunday.

In the letter, Chagger says the government will introduce amotion in the House that includes a set of reforms that were promised in the last Liberal campaign platform, including changes to question period,the consideration of omnibus legislation,and the process through which MPs approve government spending.

Other proposals, some of them controversial, will be dropped and a committee study, which was being filibustered by the opposition, will be abandoned.

The new motion is to be introduced before the House adjourns for the summer in June.

The Liberals, with a majority of seats in the House, would be able to approve the changes without the support of MPs in other parties, a possibility that has been at the heart of a messy dispute between the government and opposition.

"In the last election, Canadians were tired of how Stephen Harper's Conservatives had abused Parliament, so we really offered them real change and that's where some of our campaign commitments came from," Chagger said in an interview on Sunday.

"We have a mandate to really advance those changes and we really do want to deliver on the commitments that we've made to Canadians."

Repeating an argument the government has made on this issue, she said the Liberals "will not give the Conservatives a veto over any of our campaign commitments."

Chagger says she is interested in a "meaningful debate" and argues that the changes included in the motion will make the government more accountable to Parliament. But she suggests the government is committed to delivering on its promises of reform, regardless of opposition support.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen said the motion will not be warmly received.

"I think what's happened is the Liberals have been hearing ... from Canadians that Canadians are not impressed with the arrogance of this government, the arrogance of this prime minister, that he thinks he can ram these changes through. And so they are scrambling and trying to do something," Bergen said in an interview on Sunday.

They are doing exactly the same thing though and it's not going to work. It's certainly not going to be a positive reception from us and the NDP, and I don't think overall Canadians will be receptive."

Bergen maintains that the rules of Parliament should only be changed with all-party consensus.

NDP House leader Murray Rankin was similarly unimpressed.

"For the past few weeks, the Liberals have tried to claim that all they've wanted was a discussion," Rankin said in a statement. "Well, they have just announced that they will be unilaterally forcing through changes to the way our Parliament works, largely just to suit themselves. Discussion was always just a pretence it just took them a while to admit it. It's clear now that the emperor has no clothes."

The parties have been at odds for more than a month, since the Liberals released a discussion paper on reform and proposed that the House committee on procedure take up a study of possible changes.

Conservatives and New Democrats expressed concerns about some of the ideas raised by the Liberals, including a new procedure to schedule debate in the House and limits onthe ability of MPs to delay committee business.

The opposition alsoalleged that the government was preparing to force the changes on MPs anddemanded that the government agree in advance to only implement reforms if all-party agreement could be found.

The Liberals refused and Conservatives and New Democrats responded by filibustering the proceedings at the committee, preventing a study from starting.

That protest spread to the House of Commons, where Conservatives used procedural maneuvres to delay business. Two weeks ago, an unrelated debate in the House became a filibuster that tied up the chamber and could continue when the House resumes sitting on Monday.

In deciding to move a motion that puts their platform commitments to a vote, the Liberals will drop their pursuit of a larger committee study.

The new government motion has not yet been tabled, but the Liberal platform proposed:

The Liberals also said they would not abuse prorogation and have since proposed a new procedure for proroguing Parliament.

On Sunday, Bergen said the Conservatives are concerned that changing question period could result in the prime minister appearing only once per week. The Liberals have said that that is not their intention.

The Conservatives are also concerned that changes to the estimates process for reviewing spending could make it harder for the opposition to scrutinize the government.

Liberal MPs are generally expected to support the government on votes in the House that relate to platform commitments.

The government isabandoning itssuggestion of a new mechanism for scheduling House business (known as "programming.")But Chagger warns that, instead, the government will be relying more often on a procedure known as time allocation, which allows the government to cap the time for debate.

"We believe in the role Parliament plays to have constructive debate of legislation and I will always strive to find out from the opposition how much time is needed for debate," Chagger says. "But if there is no agreement, we will have to use time allocation more often."

The Liberal motion will also not include a proposal to eliminate the abbreviated sittings of the House that take place on Fridays and reapportionthat time to other days, a suggestion that opposition parties have criticized.

The Liberals believe it would be better for MPs to be able to be in their ridings on Friday. Opposition MPs have complained that doing away with the Friday sitting would deprive the opposition of a day to question the government (though sparsely attended, a session of question period is conducted on Friday mornings).

The Liberals say they will discuss the proposal within their caucus and ask that the Conservatives and New Democrats do likewise.

Read the original here:
Liberals drop some proposals, but seem ready to move ahead with reform to Parliament - CBC.ca

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Letter to the editor: As a Democrat, I agree with Republicans who've sued UC Berkeley over Ann Coulter's planned speech.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Jo Schwenckert 9:26 p.m. MT April 30, 2017

After several days of back-and-forth between Ann Coulter and UC Berkeley, the conservative speaker just canceled her planned April 27 speech. USA TODAY

FILE - In this Friday, April 21, 2017, file photo, a leaflet is seen stapled to a message board near Sproul Hall on the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif. The University of California, Berkeley says it's preparing for possible violence on campus whether Ann Coulter comes to speak or not.(Photo: Ben Margot, AP)

As a die-hard liberal and Democrat, it might seem strange to some that I agree with conservatives that Ann Coulter, with whom I passionately disagree, has a constitutional right to speak at UC Berkeley.

Two conservative groups, UC Berkeley College Republicans and the national Young Americas Foundation, have rightly filed a lawsuit against the university.

I am saddened that these so-called liberal students have no concept of what true liberals understand: freedom of speech must be defended, even the speech we hate.

Jo Schwenckert, Scottsdale

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2pyxsCb

1:28

0:35

1:12

1:04

1:16

0:53

0:46

1:20

2:45

3:08

0:35

1:40

0:41

0:54

1:08

1:11

0:55

0:30

0:14

1:01

0:38

1:02

0:29

0:34

0:59

0:30

1:01

1:27

2:33

1:45

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the original post here:
Liberals don't understand freedom of speech - AZCentral.com (satire)

Let it never be said Stephen McNeil was afraid to stand up to unions.

Protesters circling Province House, chanting "Steee-vannn" and waving signs, were one of the hallmarks of the Liberal leader's first term as premier. More often than not, labour-related legislation was the source of that protest.

McNeil repeatedly stuck to a position that his government had a certain amount of money it could spend on contracts and it would not deviate from that "fiscal envelope," a position that would keep the Liberals from reaching a collective agreement with any of the province's three major unions.

How the public views thatapproach and the Liberals'motives could well determine the outcome of the upcoming election.

But for his most recent scuffle with teachers, McNeil and the Liberals saw bumps in the polls whenever there was a union-related fracas.

Jason Foster, a professor who studies labour relations at Athabasca University in Alberta, said the combative approach from the Liberals during the last 3 years is a trend for many governments as they try to negotiate contracts.

"It's a pretty common tactic for government especially governments who are feeling some fiscal pressure to target their public sector unions," he said.

The approach here is measured compared to some provinces and states, said Foster, where wages are being rolled back and workers are being laid off. In McNeil's own words, the approach in Nova Scotia was about"slowing down growth" of public sector contracts.

NSGEU president Jason MacLean says unions are trying to maintain what they've already earned through previous bargaining. His members will campaign against the Liberals. (CBC)

The Liberals enter the election campaign having imposed a contract on teachers and having yet to sign deals with the other two major public sector groups: health-care workers and civil servants. The Nova Scotia Government andGeneral Employees Union represents the latter and a good chunk of the former.

NSGEU president Jason MacLean described labour relations in the province as "strained."

MacLean said he sees the Liberals'track record of labour-related bills as anti-union and,in some cases, unconstitutional. It's why the NSGEU is putting on a push with its 30,800 members to try to help defeat the Grits, he said.

"They feel that they know everything and that they can dictate everything to Nova Scotians. However, the ones that they're dictating to are the ones that are serving Nova Scotians."

MacLean said he sees Liberal legislation thatmerged the district health authorities, designated workers as essential services and reserved the right to impose a wage packageas designed so the government could avoidactual negotiations.

Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil says he didn't relish confrontation with unions during his first term as premier, but it was what was necessary to bring order to provincial finances. (CBC)

McNeil, not surprisingly, doesn't see it that way.

His focus in negotiations as premier was on "what was the amount that we could afford that was fair and, at the same time, leaving capacity for government to invest in infrastructure and programs," he said.

McNeil sits across the table from union leaders tasked with doing what's best for their members. But it's his job, he said, to think of the whole province. In many cases that's put him at odds with thousands of workers, something he said he does worry about.

"It's not always a good place to be where you're in confrontation. It's not where I like to be, but it's part of what I have to do.It's part of the job to say, 'This is all I can afford.'"

When the Liberals tabled their latestbudget, McNeilmade the case that many of the investments in the document were possible only because his government took the position it did when negotiating contracts.

Foster said the challenge for governments is that wages make up the largest line item in a budget.

But a confrontational approach can be as much of a challenge because it can lead to people feeling alienated, not working to their full potential, or leaving the public sector altogether, he said.

"And that's a long-term consequence that [governments] don't think about because they're thinking about short-term votes and they're thinking of short-term public opinion."

Read more:
'Strained' labour relations a hallmark of Liberals' first term - CBC.ca

To the editor:

I recently received an email from a friend with an obvious liberal bent. He was replying to an email that I had sent. Among other things, he stated that he had always been much more broadminded than me. I had a general idea what broadminded meant but had to look up the dictionary definition so that I could respond to him. I also looked up the definition of narrow minded, which I assumed he was implying is what I am.

Story continues below video

This is what I found: Broadminded (adjective) 1. tolerant or liberal in one's views and reactions; not easily offended: a broadminded approach to religion. synonyms: liberal, tolerant, open minded, free thinking, progressive, permissive, unprejudiced, unbiased, unbigoted. Now for narrow minded: Narrow-minded (adjective) 1. not willing to listen to or tolerate other people's views, prejudiced. synonyms: intolerant, illiberal, reactionary, conservative, parochial, provincial, insular, small minded, petty, blinkered, inward looking, narrow, hidebound, prejudiced, bigoted, redneck. Example: our school has no place for such narrow minded teaching.

I found the definitions a little baffling in light of what I see going on in today's world. For example, when I see what's going on up at Berkley, arguably the most liberal, broadminded university in the USA, I have to wonder about those definitions. And Berkley is not alone among the so-called liberal universities condoning such illiberal activities. "Almost" laughable when one thinks about it. If that type of activity is what broadminded and liberalism is all about, I don't want any part of it. Which definition do you feel best fits the activities we are seeing at these "liberal" campuses?

David Cresine

Avon

Link:
And liberals claim to be 'broadminded' - The Herald Journal

Les Knoll

I saw a study recently by Media Research Center where 89% of the news on TV networks was negative toward our President Donald Trump. Liberal media raises its ugly head trashing Trump non-stop. When Obama became president, the percentages were in reverse proof there is bias and those percentages on both sides are totally unrealistic.

Dont expect me to apologize for again criticizing liberals as with my previous letters. For every one writing critical of the left like mine, there are 10 critical of the right. There is no shortage of Trump haters, even in local media.

Rush Limbaugh has been claiming recently its not media that is an arm of the Democrat Party. No, it is the Democrat Party that is an arm of liberal media. Media, in other words, puts out the narrative that the Dems need to run with. Liberal media controls the Dem Party apparently.

Liberals dont live in the real world. Their master is like the Pied Piper and chooses what they are to believe. Most is fake news. Most is not reality, lacking in facts, logic and even common sense at times. Those Obama lovers and never Trumpers live in a bubble.

Take Trumps collusion with Russia to win the election for example. There is no evidence to support that claim, but it is impossible to debate most liberals on this issue. There are no facts to back up collusion but that makes no difference.

Try telling a liberal Obamas eight years of failed agendas led to Democrats losing some 1,200 elections nationally and in states. Obama was a failure, but to a liberal, he was one of the best presidents ever in spite of increased poverty, racial animus, people out of work, international disaster, etc. And, lets not forget the top 1% got richer during his presidency. No intellectually nonpartisan historian can possibly give the man positive marks.

Obamas marquee legislation called Obamacare is imploding, yet liberals claim it is as popular as ever. Facts dont matter to those on the left.

Hands up, dont shoot of Black Lives Matter did not happen. Period. However, law enforcement throughout the country was given a black eye on just another liberal false narrative. Pun intended.

How in the world can anybody justify harboring illegals in what are called sanctuary cities. Defying federal law by these cities is insanity. At the expense of endangering their constituents, the powers to be, prefer harboring illegals (criminals included) as do most liberals. Common sense takes a hike.

How do open borders make us better as a country? The negatives (drugs, crime, jobs, dependency, etc.) far outweigh positives. Liberals claim we need to have compassion but in reality its to transform America having little or nothing to do with compassion. Just another example of losing touch with reality.

Try telling a liberal the massive migration of Muslim refugees is not good for this country. Muslims dont assimilate and prefer Sharia law to our Constitution. Invasion within is their goal politically, culturally and religiously.

What about the disastrous Iranian nuclear treaty? Socialism versus capitalism? An overreaching government versus a less invasive one? Handouts versus a hand up? More versus fewer taxes? Man causes climate change. Please!

Who in their right mind believes liberals when they consistently call Republicans racists, bigots, homophobes, islamophobes and misogynists?

The height of liberal delusion was a recent column in which Leonard Pitts says: The 12 weeks since Jan. 20 have seen more scandal, international incidents, incompetence, instability, lies and jaw-dropping embarrassments than the previous 12 years combined. Pitts needs to see a shrink. Hes lost it and proves the whole point of my letter to the editor.

The list of pie in the sky and off the wall liberal untruths is endless and the differences between the left and grassroots Americans (especially rural Americans) are as big as it can possibly get. Never, since the Civil War, have we been this divided.

Personally, I maintain we cant possibly make America great again with make-believe liberalism back in control of our government, and its clear why.

Les Knoll lives in Victoria and Gilbert, Ariz.

Continue reading here:
KNOLL: Do liberals live in a make-believe world? - hays Post