Mediaboss Marketing

BC Liberal candidate Michael de Jong tried, but not very successfully, to discredit NDP spending plans, writes columnist Vaughn Palmer, who considers the plans more a change in priorities than a massive increase in spending. JONATHAN HAYWARD / THE CANADIAN PRESS

VICTORIA When the New Democrats one-upped the B.C. Liberals by announcing they would phase out bridge tolls this week, the governing party responded with a predictable how are you going to pay for that?

Never mind that the Liberals, through 16 years in office, routinely tapped contingency funds and other discretionary sources to pay for their schemes, half-baked and otherwise.

The Liberals were stung by the New Democrats having upstaging news coverage for their own promise of $30 million worth of relief for commuters in the form of a $500 cap on annual tolling payments.

If the New Democrats were going to eliminate a $200-million-a-year source of revenue for the Port Mann and Golden Ears Bridges, they need to provide a full accounting immediately.

Turned out NDP Leader John Horgan and crew were happy to oblige. And the answer, when it came with the release of the party election platform on Thursday, was diabolically clever.

Horgan would finance the elimination of tolls by liquidating the Liberals vaunted prosperity fund.

Or Christy Clarks LNG Fantasy Fund, as the New Democrats put it, not missing an opportunity to stick in the knife over the Liberal failure to deliver on the biggest promise of the last election campaign.

The fund was the intended repository of the proceeds from the three count em three terminals for exporting liquefied natural gas that Clark promised would be running by the end of this decade.

None have got beyond the promise-making stage to date. But that didnt stop the Liberals from cobbling together $500 million worth of discretionary funds from elsewhere in the budget and booking the total to the prosperity fund as if LNG were already a going concern.

Having contrived the LNG version of a Potemkin Village in the government accounts, the Liberals could scarcely deny the money was there to be used for other purposes if a successor government chose to do so.

Thus the Liberal stunt with the prosperity fund would help the New Democrats pay for a populist gesture to commuters angered by the arbitrary application of bridge tolling in B.C.

The New Democrats did not disclose a permanent financing scheme for the elimination of tolls once the prosperity fund is exhausted, as it would be in a few years.

Nor did their platform fully account for other promises like eliminating medical service plan premiums altogether over four years, stopping a projected 42-per-cent increase in auto insurance rates, and freezing B.C. Hydro rates for a year.

Also notable were a couple of dogs that did not bark in the capital plan. The New Democrats are proposing a five-year $7-billion increase in capital spending, on top of projects already announced, as the platform said.

On that basis, Horgan made no move to defund two of the most controversial projects in the existing capital plan, namely the $9-billion Site C dam or the $3.5-billion replacement bridge for the Massey Tunnel.

The gaps, real and perceived, in the NDP budget plan drew protests from Finance Minister Mike de Jong in a briefing for reporters shortly before noon. The usually-on-top-of-his-game de Jong started late and struggled with the numbers. A sign perhaps of having to rely on Liberal campaign staff as opposed to the able public servants in the Ministry of Finance.

He levelled a broad-brush accusation that NDP spending promises would mean massive increases in taxes and deficits and a downgrade in the provinces Triple A credit rating.

Maybe. But at first read the NDP plan did not represent all that massive a shift from the three-year budget the Liberals themselves tabled in February.

Horgan would increase program spending by 1.4 per cent above what the Liberals were projecting for the current financial year, by 2.5 per cent in fiscal 2018 and threeper cent the next year.

Those increases, for the most part, would finance readily defensible priorities including a long overdue increase in social assistance, elimination of interest on student loans, hiring more park rangers and conservation officers, androlling back ferry fares on the smaller routes.

On the paying-for-it side of the ledger, the New Democrats would restore a higher bracket for folks with taxable income in excess of $150,000 a year, boost the corporate tax by a point and impose a special tax on homes deliberately left vacant for speculative purposes.

Their platform also projects returns of almost $700 million over three years from unspecified elimination of government waste and hoped-for economic growth. On the strength of those numbers, the NDP claims the budget would over the three years havesurpluses in the $100-million range, about half the size of what is projected by the Liberals.

But as noted here Thursday, B.C. budgets include significant contingency funds and allowances against downturns in the economic forecast. Those measures of prudence total almost $2 billion over three years in the Liberal budget and fiscal plan and they are retained in the NDP plan as a hedge against the unexpected.

For all the unanswered questions and potential controversies to come, the NDP passed the first test of building an election platform.

To govern is to choose, as saying goes. On Thursday, John Horgan signalled that it is time for some different choices than the ones the B.C. Liberals have been making for the last 16 years.

vpalmer@postmedia.com

Follow this link:
Vaughn Palmer: Smarting Liberals try to discredit NDP spending plans - Vancouver Sun

Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier, Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jane Philpott, Minister of Health listen as Parliamentary Secretary Bill Blair responds to a question after announcing the legalization of marijuana during a news conference in Ottawa, Thursday April 13, 2017. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

And now, an edited but faithful reproduction of the background documents the Liberals released with their marijuana bill on Thursday:

strictly strictly restrict strict significant penalties strictly zero tolerance dangers restrict strictly restrict stop criminals strictly restrict punish more severely tougher deaths and accidents risk every day dangers punish more severely oral fluid.

This sets a certain tone.

After reporters were given a few minutes to read the bill, federal officials from, mostly, the Health department were ushered into the National Press Theatre to brief us. One began talking. Whats your name? a few reporters asked. The officials eyes bugged out in terror.

My colleagues reassured him that we would not quote him in print, an assurance that is standard practice in these so-called technical briefings. Weve done this before, one said.

Thus reassured, the official and his colleagues began laying out the details of the pot law, which sets a minimum age for marijuana sales (18 years) and allows for provinces to increase that minimum; caps the number of plants per household at four and the legal height at one metre; and radically increase criminal penalties for providing cannabis to children and for driving while impaired.

Then the nameless officials filed out and the cabinet ministers, whom we could feel free to quote, filed in. Jane Philpott from Health, Jody Wilson-Raybould from Justice, Ralph Goodale fromCentral Casting, and Diane Lebouthillier from Unilingual Francophones.

Perhaps you will find that last joke a little harsh, but Lebouthillier was quick to correct anyone who thought she might be there as Minister of Revenue: the bill does not provide for any tax on the sale of cannabis. She was there as a social worker by training, and as a former secondary-school teacher from the Gasp, where, she informed us sadly, it was easier for too many of her students to get their hands on a reefer of the marihuana than on a cigarette.

The ministers proceeded to lament the scourge of pot. They were led by their not-quite-ministerial colleague Bill Blair, the former Toronto Police Chief who has, in his capacity as a parliamentary secretary with special responsibility for not even remotely messing around, criss-crossed the country looking increasingly stern about this whole pot business. Today is an important day, Blair said. All of his career, hes been trying to protect children. Today was another child-protecting day. It is not our intent to promote the use of this drug, he said, sternly. No kidding.

Goodale at one point sputtered as he tried to find a word for cannabis in the context of its potential transport across international borders: This this this he said, making helpless massing gestures with his hands in front of his face. This product, he managed at last.

Blair said the goal of the legislation was to ensure that henceforth, nobody could get marijuana from some gangster in a stairwell. This suggested that the situation has indeed deteriorated since my high-school days, when my more louche classmates were unable to locate a gangster in any stairwell and had to resort to getting their weed from so-and-sos big brother.

The news conference was well-attended and the ministers time finite, so the event ended before I was able to ask my question. It would have been this: If marijuana is so dangerous to children, to road safety, at the border and as a driver of organized crime why is the government seeking to make its recreational use by adults easier?

Put another way: Given the Liberals body language, the plain meaning of their bill, and every single element of their discourse since 2016, the only part of this bill that makes no senseis the legalization part. They could strictly crack down on all the other dangers and everyday risks, with zero tolerance and harsh penalties up the wazoo, without legalizing anything. And since not one of them said anything resembling this is a great day for personal freedom and the right of adults to exercise choice responsibly, I honestly do not understand why they are legalizing anything.

Lets take it a step further. I believe the only reason the Liberals have tabled this bill is that they promised to, and that they are getting a little heavily-subscribed on broken campaign promises in other domains. I believe everything from Blairs appointment on forward is an expression of contrition for ever opening up this mess. I believe this bill, once passed, will radically increase the amount of police time devoted to measuring the height of plants, policing stairwells for gangsters, administering saliva tests at roadsides, and otherwise fretting over the demon weed. And proportionately less time doing other police work.

Which means this is the first time Ive ever seen a government deliver on a campaign promise while flip-flopping on the policy question at hand.

Its usually at about this point that Liberals get all huffy and say, We always campaigned on tighter regulation. We never meant to make it easier for kids to get marijuana. Well, sort of. Heres the policy resolution that made pot legalization Liberal policy in 2013. And indeed it says regulation blah blah blah children blah blah. But it also proposes an amnesty for people previously convicted of simple possessiona sure sign that the goal of the original proposal was to increase freedom, not further limit it.

I think this bill spends so much time apologizing for its own existence that it is not at all clear why anyone wouldseek to operate within its regime of hard-to-procure, weak product, served with a scowl, instead of continuing to operate within the black market. If this bill becomes law, the overwhelming majority of marijuana sold and consumed in Canada will continue to be sold and consumed illegally. Not a great day at the office for rooms full of ministers and public servants. Campaign promises arent cheap, as those who make them eventually figure out.

See the original post here:
Scowly Liberals legalize the demon weed - Macleans.ca

The most intriguing storyon Macquarie Street in recent weeks has been that of the senior government figure allegedly caught in a compromising position in one of Sydney's best known parks.

It's all very NSW politics. Salacious details have travelled like wildfire around media and political circles.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

In October, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull draws laughter from his colleagues after claiming the Liberal Party is not governed by backroom deals. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

Play Video Don't Play

A detainee has told of his fears as a gunfire rings out at the Manus Island detention centre on Friday evening.

Play Video Don't Play

Former foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans is urging Australia to reduce its dependence on the United States alliance and accept China as a legitimate "global rule maker".

Play Video Don't Play

The Women of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia publish a controversial video to Facebook wherein the participants appear to legitimise hitting women that are 'sinful' in the context of their interpretation of Islamic tradition.

Play Video Don't Play

There's dissent in the Coalition ranks over the idea for first homebuyers to access their super to get into the housing market.

Play Video Don't Play

Despite two of their children being born in Australia, a Fijian family has been taken into detention and Immigration minister Peter Dutton says they'll he deported.

Play Video Don't Play

The India trade deal is spiked as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explains why the deal promised by his predecessor isn't going ahead.

Play Video Don't Play

WA Premier Mark McGowan says he is looking at options to deal with the Perth City Council, one of them being dismissing the council.

In October, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull draws laughter from his colleagues after claiming the Liberal Party is not governed by backroom deals. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

Media organisations have made enquiries that havecome to nothing, strongly indicating it is wholly a fabrication.

Yet it persists propelled by some political operatives talking to journalistswith the attendantdamage to the reputation of the person targeted.

Thiswillingness to push such a damagingstory is being seen as symptomatic of a particular brand of poisonous factionalism in the NSW Liberal Party characterised by an win-at-all costs-attitude and little regard for how much internal damage is done.

It's a style of internal politics the party thought was long behind it.

But last weekend's byelections in the blue ribbon Liberal seats of North Shore and Manly, atwhich the government was belted with huge swings, for some provided more evidence it is back.

The candidates Felicity Wilson and James Griffin were both backed by the moderate, or left, faction.

Wilson narrowly defeated the right's Tim James in a tight preselection, while Griffin easily beat the right's choice, Walter Villatora, who was backed by former prime minister Tony Abbott.

Clearly local issues and the government's unpopular forced council mergersplayed into the results, but so did scandals.

There was also strong evidence that rival factional operativestook aim at the endorsed Liberal candidates particularly Wilson, who Fairfax Media revealed had incorrectly signed a statutory declaration about how long she has lived in the area.

The declaration in the shape of a Liberal party nomination form was distributed to about 200 preselectors and made its way to the media.

The story almost derailed Wilson's campaign, leaving senior Liberal moderates appalled at the prospect that, suicide bomber-like, some in the right faction would be willing to blow up the endorsed Liberal candidate simply because she was not their pick.

All of this should be sounding very loud alarm bells for Premier Gladys Berejiklian who, only a few months into the job, is about to confront the issue of factionalism head on.

With the civil war in the NSW Liberalsshowing no signs of abating, a major convention scheduled for late Julylooms as a critical momentforBerejiklian's2019 election campaign.

The meeting will see all party members invited to thrash out a potential solution to an issue that has caused a deep fissure in the NSW Liberals: whether to change how state and federal candidates are preselected.

The right faction of the Liberal partyhas been pushing hard for a plebiscite system giving all branch members a vote.

But the dominant left and centre right factions favour retaining the present system where preselectionsare decidedby branchrepresentativesand some party officials.

There is a lot of self-interest at play here the left and centre-right run the show under the status quo but they warna shift to plebiscites will lead to rampant branch stacking.

Berejiklian, given her closeness to the left faction, has thus far been assumed to be an opponent of plebiscites. Then-premier Mike Baird was in favour, in close alignment with his mate Abbott.

Now Berejiklian is Premier, she says she does not have a position either way and stresses she has never publicly stated one.

It's a telling response, given what is looming as a very public fight over the issue.

The non-binding convention was the agreed-upon circuit breaker advocated by then-premier Baird and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that emerged from last year's NSW Liberal state council at which Abbott and Villatora pushed hard for the party to adopt plebiscites.

When it rolls around, there will be good reason forBerejiklian to push hard for a broadly supported solution.

Theparty will begin preselections for state and federal seats next year otherwise known as peak season for factional warfare.

Avoiding a Felicity Wilson-style outbreak of friendly fire by keeping the factional suicide bombers at bay across key seats could provepivotalto the government's chances of winninga third term in office.

Sean Nicholls is state political editor.

Visit link:
The vicious rumours at the heart of factional warfare for NSW Liberals - The Sydney Morning Herald

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Liberals fume at Democratic establishment for refusing to take more risk McClatchy Washington Bureau Liberal activists are unleashing their fury on the Democratic Party establishment for failing to recognize that rampant disgust with President Donald Trump is now fueling an enthusiasm among voters that could turn even Republican districts blue. No, Centrist Democrats Didn't Tank the Kansas Special Election for LiberalsSlate Magazine Kansas Democrat issues the Liberals a warning about 2020 electionBlasting News Liberal Activists Take Aim at Democrats for Not Taking More RisksNewsmax Chicago Tribune all 1,131 news articles »

Continue reading here:
Liberals fume at Democratic establishment for refusing to take more risk - McClatchy Washington Bureau

MARK BONOKOSKI, Postmedia Network Apr 13, 2017

, Last Updated: 10:22 PM ET

It was a brilliant if not cynical move on the part of the Trudeau Liberals to table their marijuana legislation during the same week they thumped down a 294-page omnibus budget document like those contemptible Harperites were so prone to doing.

After all, if a smokescreen was ever needed for a touchy topic, such as the Liberals breaking a promise to never table the kind of all-encompassing omnibus bill that riled them up during the Conservatives years, then what better way than to hot-box it in the progressive hipsterism of legalizing pot?

The flak over the Liberals omnibus bill, most of it delivered in the low-ratings setting of the Commons Question Period, lasted all of a nanosecond.

Perhaps that was all it deserved. Compared to the 880-page tome the government of Stephen Harper dropped in 2010, Trudeaus budget implementation bill was downright skeletal.

But it was a broken promise nonetheless.

Buried in its pages, for example, were items far removed from financial and economic considerations, including changes to the Judges Act, the Veterans Affairs Act, among others, as well as proposals to limit the reach of the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer in holding government to account.

For all intents and purposes, it met the definition of an omnibus bill, even if less than half the weight of Harpers weightiest.

The public, however, had its attention quickly distracted by the Liberals much-anticipated and long-touted pot legislation.

In other words, rightful criticism of the Liberals omnibus legislation got quickly overrun by weed.

The legislation tabled Thursday, however, is still in diapers. It has to be widely consulted, make its way through the Senate, and see negotiations with the provinces at many levels, and with the U.S. government over border security.

The Trudeau Liberals may lay claim to the baby but it will be the provinces who will be left with the bath water to do the down-and-dirty work of regulation and distribution, pricing and packaging, as well as the policing and enforcement of a nascent pot industry.

The idea that the Liberals can have everything in place for its preferred launch date of Canada Day 2018 Cannabis Day from that day onward? is a long shot at best.

There are still obstacles aplenty.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police urged the Liberals to back off a recommendation from the governments task force on legalization to allow home grows of marijuana of up to four plants, arguing it would run counter to the stated goal of a highly-regulated and controlled system.

The association also raised the issue of the challenges police will face in enforcing impaired driving under the influence of marijuana, saying limits thus far are neither defined nor supported by science.

The chiefs, however, were ignored. And it is still early days.

Yesterday, as an example of more and more critical eyes on the process, the chair of the government task force cited by the chiefs, former Liberal cabinet minister Anne McLellan, was questioned in a Globe and Mail article for being a senior adviser for Bennett Jones LLP, which promotes itself as the go-to advisory firm in the burgeoning marijuana sector.

Health Canada, which struck the task force, responded to the Globe that McLellan, as well as the other eight panellists, declared their interests before assuming their duties and signed confidentiality agreements limiting their use of government documents.

As for the omnibus bill, and the Trudeau Liberals pulling a move more reminiscent of the Harper Conservatives?

It was there one minute, and then it was gone hot-boxed and lost in a marijuana smokescreen.

It was brilliant strategy, cynical but brilliant.

markbonokoski@gmail.com

Read this article:
BONOKOSKI: Liberals' hot-boxing of a marijuana smokescreen - Canoe