Mediaboss Marketing

When opposition MPs used procedural tactics to delay last Wednesdays budget for half an hour, it was the parliamentary way of jumping up and down and screaming to get attention. They did it because they want people to notice that the Liberal government might be trying to take away the tools they use to scream for attention.

The nitty-gritty details of the workings of Parliament are eye-glazingly dull, so most people quite rightly ignore them most of the time. But this is one occasion when Canadians should keep watch. The Liberal government has signalled they want to change the rules, extensively, quickly, and possibly without the consent of the other political parties in the House of Commons.

This is no small thing: Its the way laws are made, governments scrutinized, and how much time and capacity will be given over to dissent, or to highlighting mistakes governments make. It is the rush, and the suggestion the Liberals will act unilaterally, that has the oppositions backs up.

When Stephen Harpers Conservative government changed election laws unilaterally with its Fair Elections Act, the Liberals and NDP screamed. Now the Liberals appear intent on changing Parliaments rules in a matter of months.

Related: Liberals new parliamentary reform plan angers Tories, NDP

How would the Liberals have reacted if Mr. Harper had done this? NDP House Leader Murray Rankin asked Friday.

The this in question is changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the written rules of procedure. Parliamentary rules can be arcane, and there are things that could be updated: The Liberals proposals include some things opposition MPs might eventually support, like electronic voting. The Liberals insist its just a discussion paper but then Liberal MP Scott Simms proposed that a committee report by June 2 on which proposals should be adopted.

Theres a reason to be careful about fixing the Standing Orders. They allow the Commons to more or less work so the majority can pass legislation but the minority have an opportunity to question and point to things they think are wrong often in inconvenient ways, like Wednesdays move to delay the budget.

Theres always a tension. And young governments like Mr. Trudeaus, now 17 months old, get frustrated. The rules give the government most of the power to decide when things will be debated, but the opposition can slow the progress to passage of legislation it doesnt like. Majority governments can force bills to votes, using procedures like time allocation or closure to curtail debate, but they dont like to do it too often, because then they are accused of dictatorial behaviour the Liberals and NDP called Mr. Harper an autocrat when he used those methods.

The Liberals dont want to use those blunt instruments,. And they also promised to make Parliament less about partisan squabbles. So theyve put forward proposals to make the Commons more efficient, including programming, where the Commons sets aside time in advance for debate on each bill.

But its the majority, usually the government, that gets the final say on programming. The opposition fears that that, along with other proposals like eliminating filibusters at committees, would diminish their main parliamentary tool: procedures they can use to occasionally jump up and down and scream for attention. Once in a while, if you have to pull the fire alarm, you want the fire alarm to be there, Mr. Rankin said.

Of course, governments find that annoying. The Liberal government wants to adopt its agenda. Mr. Trudeaus government has a lot of folks focused on policy and politics, but few influential advisors who care deeply about the eye-glazing work of Parliament. Such sages might have warned that seeking rapid changes in Parliaments rules wont lower partisanship, and will create a precedent that might one day be turned on the Liberals.

The Liberals once had such wise heads: the late Jerry Yanover, the partys parliamentary expert, advised government and opposition leaders for decades on outwitting the other side with tactics and when it was unwise to try. Once, when Paul Martin was in power, he confided that he wasnt sure his advice would be taken. Sometimes governments are like teenagers, he said. Theyre physically large, so they think theyre smart, too.

When it comes to reforming the rules, the Liberals should act with more maturity. And on this occasion, Canadians should keep watch on how they do things in Parliament.

Follow Campbell Clark on Twitter: @camrclark

See more here:
Hidden dangers lie in Liberals' proposed parliamentary rule changes - The Globe and Mail

TORONTOOntarios government learned from its own polling that the rising cost of hydro was peoples top concern 10 months before the Liberals publicly acknowledged it and announced an eight-per-cent reduction on electricity bills.

The government-commissioned polling from 2013 to 2016 examined by The Canadian Press tells a tale of increasing distress about hydro rates over months, even years before across-the-board relief was introduced.

Monthly tracking shows that in December 2013, the cost of electricity became the worst-ranked issue based on performance, with 70 per cent of respondents saying the government was on the wrong track.

Read more:

Reducing hydro bills the fairer way forward: Wynne

Then in November 2015, electricity and the privatization of Hydro One surged to become a top issue of concern in the province, with 13 per cent of respondents saying it should be the governments top priority, over perennial concerns such as health, jobs, the economy and education.

In just one month, the percentage of respondents who rated the governments performance on controlling electricity prices as poor jumped from 38 per cent in October to 47 per cent in November.

By January 2016, jobs, the economy and health took over as areas of greater concern for the next few months, but the Gandalf Group polling told the government that controlling electricity prices was among its main perceived weaknesses and communications should focus on it.

Government responses to opposition questions about rising hydro bills over much of the 2013 to 2016 time frame focused on defending the cost of hydro as the result of building a clean and reliable system, while highlighting measures the government had already taken to lower consumer costs, such as a low-income support program and removing the debt retirement charge.

It wasnt until a September 1 byelection loss that the governments tune changed.

We heard at the door that hydro rates are increasingly challenging for people, Premier Kathleen Wynne said in a statement that night. I understand, as do my ministers, that the government needs to focus on helping people with their everyday expenses.

The inclusion of the eight-per-cent rebate in the governments throne speech less than two weeks later suggests the plan was already well developed by Sept. 1. But the premier has acknowledged she should have acted sooner, a spokesperson said.

In saying that, we have been making changes to reduce costs in the electricity system over the past number of years, Jennifer Beaudry said in a statement.

Changes she cited that were enacted before that eight-per-cent rebate include removing the debt retirement charge, reducing feed-in-tariff prices, renegotiating a green energy deal with Samsung, deferring new nuclear construction and delaying the start of other nuclear refurbishment, all of which saves the system billions.

While Wynnes eight-per-cent rebate was welcomed almost 90 per cent of respondents in October supported it it didnt resonate quite as widely as the government likely hoped. Still only 36 per cent said the government was doing a good job of controlling electricity prices.

Of utmost importance to Ontarians for governments attention is electricity costs, the polling research said.

And, evaluations of the governments performance at controlling electricity prices are worsening. Those who report being more familiar with governments recent eight-per-cent reduction of electricity prices are also more likely to evaluate the government poorly on this issue. Essentially, the solution is not proportionate to the perceived magnitude of the problem.

Fast-forward to March 2017 and the premier announced a further 17-per-cent average reduction on bills, holding increases to the rate of inflation for four years, cuts to delivery charges for some rural customers, eliminating the delivery charge for on-reserve First Nations customers, expanding a low-income support program and establishing a new home energy efficiency improvement fund.

Angus Reid polling conducted after that announcement found that Wynnes popularity continued to plummet to record lows, but 62 per cent of respondents said the reduction in hydro bills would be an important factor in deciding how theyll vote in next years election.

The polling was conducted until October 2015 by Pollara, and from then on by the Gandalf Group.

Read more from the original source:
Hydro was top concern in Ontario long before Liberals announced relief - Toronto Star

Two and a half decades after the end of the Cold War, nine countries together continue to possess around 15,000 nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons pose a significant threat to global security as they risk becoming available to more state and non-state entities. A single nuclear warhead could kill millions of people, with the effects lasting decades.

With the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has pledged to increase the American nuclear arsenal, and troubling recent actions by North Korea, it is more urgent than ever that the international community work together to ban nuclear weapons.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, March 21, 2017. (Photo: Chris Wattie/Reuters)

One might assume, given the lofty rhetoric of Prime Minister Trudeau that "Canada is back" on the international scene, that Canada would be leading this effort. After all, the Canadian Parliament unanimously voted in favour of nuclear disarmament in 2010. And at their policy convention in 2016, members of the Liberal party followed the NDP's lead and voted in favour of efforts for a nuclear-free world. So it would make sense that Trudeau's government would be a strong supporter of a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

If only that were true.

Not only did Canada vote against starting negotiations for a nuclear weapons ban treaty this fall, but now that the international community is moving ahead with the negotiations beginning March 27, Canada is boycotting them.

This is a travesty and a massive failure in Justin Trudeau's foreign policy.

I have asked the Canadian government to participate fully in the nuclear weapons ban negotiations no less than five times in Question Period since September, and I still don't understand their reasoning behind their position. The Liberals have given three different excuses, but none of them make much sense.

First, the Liberal response has consistently been to hide behind the fissile material cut-off treaty. It is fine that Canada is working towards an FMCT. But how dare the government use this to distract from the very serious issue of working with others towards a treaty that would ban nuclear weapons for good.

Second, it appears that the Liberals are hiding behind Canada's NATO membership and succumbing to pressure from the United States, who have told their NATO allies to oppose the negotiations. There is no excuse for Canada to be following President Trump's lead on this issue. Nor does Canada's membership in NATO mean we should only vote with nuclear states, most of which are not NATO members. Canada should take a lesson from the Netherlands, also a NATO member, who are attending the negotiations.

Third, the Liberal government seems to think there is no point to the negotiations. As a spokesperson from Global Affairs told the Globe and Mail, "The negotiation of a nuclear-weapon ban without the participation of states that possess nuclear weapons is certain to be ineffective and will not eliminate any nuclear weapons."

This last point may be the most ridiculous of them all. All international negotiations worth their salt are difficult. The Ottawa Treaty on landmines took political will. The creation of the International Criminal Court took political will. Work on the Kimberley Process, which I participated in while a Canadian diplomat, took political will. Not all states participated in these negotiations, but we got results. And in those cases, Canada adopted an ambitious approach and took the lead on the international stage. What on earth has happened to us?

I am ashamed of the Liberal position on nuclear disarmament. We need to be working towards a comprehensive nuclear weapons treaty if we want to achieve significant progress.

A government with ethics would participate in this week's historic negotiations for a nuclear weapons ban treaty. If we truly want nuclear disarmament, we have to work hard for it, along with over 120 countries that are committed to banning the bomb. It's time the Liberals grow a backbone and do what's right. They should get to work and attend the nuclear weapons ban treaty negotiations.

Also on HuffPost:

More here:
I Am Ashamed Of The Liberals' Position On Nuclear Disarmament - Huffington Post Canada

OK, lets rid the country of liberals! I read a convincing article that said liberalism is a disease. It was made clear liberals are destroying America and they are stupid and dont live in reality.

So, lets deport them. That seems to be a popular directive for undesirables these days. I know Im sealing my own fate as the scarlet L emblazoned across my chest will surely reveal me, but I am willing to accept this exile. If we are, in fact, sick, stupid and diseased, I dont want to be part of what is bringing America down. I love this country that much.

Lets not worry about where the liberals will be sent. They (we) will be confused without government handouts, but theres enough Hollywood money to buy Australia after that continent was determined to be a terrorist way station.

Suffice to say America will be populated entirely by the conservatives who, after all, have always been the true patriots. I mean, unless, of course, you are considering the original conservatives who wanted to reconcile with King George. But I digress.

What will America look like? Whos left?

Not too many actors, except for Chuck Norris, Jon Voight and that Baldwin brother no one knows. Not too many dancers will be left, or musicians, for that matter. Trace Adkins, I suppose, but, even Garth Brooks, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill and the Dixie Chicks will be headlining in the Outback.

And of course Ted Nugent stays (Please!).

Comedy is looking a little thin, too. Outside of Dennis Miller, theres give me a moment.

About half of the literary community might remain, and most of the elected politicians. At least well get rid of Saturday Night Live! No more Trump satires! Now Donald Trump can be the sole satirist of Donald Trump.

Surely mainstream media will be exiled. I dont think theyll want to leave, but with no one left to watch them, theyll have little choice.

It will be glorious for America! No more work weeks limited to 40 hours and no profit-inhibiting labor laws to slow America down. No more CDC, FDA, FAA, EPA and all those tax consuming protection agencies. Rivers and streams can become natures cheap disposal system once again.

No more tree-hugging, climate-whining, science-insisting liberals to impede the oil-consuming, public education-draining and war-mongering conservatism that will make America great!

Well, Ive got to pack. Australia is a two-day journey, and I want catch the show Tuesday night at Ayers Rock. In fact, its called Rock Ayers and will feature Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, Stevie Wonder, Pearl Jam, Beyonce, Jay Z, James Taylor, John Legend, Green Day, Neil Young and Snoop Dog, with surprise appearances by Garth Brooks, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill and the Dixie Chicks.

Jon Stewart will be the host, so there should be a few laughs.

(End of satire and beginning of pitch for us all to look past the biases that narrow our perspective. No one wins.)

Gary Kroeger is an advertising executive in Cedar Falls and a former Iowa legislative candidate.

The rest is here:
If liberals abandon America - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

Liberal MPs stuck around Ottawa on a rareSaturdayto hammer out a plan to sell their recent budget to the public in the coming weeks, but the government also will have to move past the bruising experienced during the health accord negotiations to get the premiers onboard.

To deliveron some of the touchstone pledges of their financial plan, including social housing and child care spaces,Prime Minister Justin Trudeauand Finance MinisterBill Morneau will need provincial and territorial support.

Whenasked if the federal-provincial relationshipwas marred by the Liberal's approach of making individual deals with the provinces on health,MorneautoldCBC'sThe Housethe collaboration is never going to be simple.

"It's always going to be a challenge to work togetherbecause we're not going to have exactly the same view on every single issue," he said.

"They're working to provide really positivesituations for people in their provinces;we're working towards the same goal."

Already some established irritants for the federal government have led to less-than-stellar reviews of the budget.

Quebec came out swinging on Wednesday, saying theLiberals failed to show that they would supportseveral major infrastructure projects.

"We are extremely disappointed and concerned that there's no clear signal in this budget regardingthe great infrastructure projects that are the rapid bus system in Quebec City, the Blue Line of the Montreal Metro and the electric train in Montreal," said Quebec Treasury Board President Pierre Moreauin astatement in French.

Quebec Treasury Board President Pierre Moreau, right, said the 39 Quebec MPs in the Liberal caucus should be speaking in favour of the three major infrastructure projects in Quebec and Montreal not mentioned in the budget. (Radio-Canada)

"If there's a failure, it's on the federal part. They should have been there...but they were not."

Heading into his second day of caucus meetings, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi responded, saying he has avery strong relationship with Quebec ministers.

"We understand these are their priorities and those are the priorities of our government as well. And we are working closely with them," he said.

"I think Ottawa is the last place you want to have dictating local governments how they make their decisions."

Manitoba PremierBrianPallister, who still hasn't signed a health deal with the federal government, said hewas "not displeased" by the budget's commitment to funding for Indigenous health but said he was disappointed with no additional money to deal with asylum seekers coming to his province.

"Talk of continuing previously announced programs is not recognition of the growing concerns I think many Canadians have about the need for better partnership to protect asylum seekers," he said.

Pallisterhas also repeatedly said he will not continue negotiations with Ottawa until he sees in writing that the threat to remove the $60 million earmarked for the Factory of the Future project is off the table.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leave the Prime Minister's office holding copies of the federal budget on Wednesday. (The Canadian Press / Sean Kilpatrick)

A spokesperson for the premier said most files between Ottawa and Manitoba are positive. But, "there are a few more challenging files like health and asylum seekers," wroteOliviaBaldwin-Valainisin anemail.

"On health, we are making progress and look forward to getting back to the negotiating table once we have received formal, written confirmation that the unfortunate linkage to an economic and advanced manufacturing project has been withdrawn," she said.

Manitoba MP Jim Carr had an optimistic interpretation of Pallister's budget review.

"I hear he said what were the words 'not a bad budget.' So I would say that's praise of a kind," he said, heading into caucus.

The budget providedmore details about the government's previously announced $81.2-billion infrastructure plan, including $7 billion over 10 years to create new child-care spaces across the country.The government predicts there could be up to 40,000 new subsidized child-care spaces in the first three years of its national program.

Wednesday's budget included $7 billion over 10 years to create new child-care spaces. (Manitoba Theatre for Young People)

Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Jean-Yves DuclossaidOttawa expects to sign bilateral agreements on child-care with the provinces and territories by the summer.

"Those conversations are now going faster and we look forward to further announcements," he said.

"This is a very collaborative exercise. All provinces and all territories are supportive of the principles that we believe to be important in investments in early learning and child care, principles of quality, principles of affordability, inclusiveness so that all children, wherever they may be, and however they may be living, have the same fair and equal chance of living well and doing well. And the same thing for parents."

The two-day national caucus meeting was the first time all Liberal MPs have met together since more than 100 backbenchers turned against their cabinet colleagues and voted in favour of now-retired Liberal senator Jim Cowan'santi-genetic discrimination bill, a piece of legislation the prime minister himself said was unconstitutional.

On Saturday Trudeausaid his caucus is more united than ever.

"One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians."

Read the original here:
Liberals must sell budget to premiers after 'challenging' health talks - CBC.ca