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

By David Weigel, (c) 2017, The Washington Post

COVENTRY, R.I. At their first town meeting since the Republicans surprise surrender on the Affordable Care Act, progressives in blue America celebrated then asked for more. Rhode Islands two Democratic senators, joined by Rep. Jim Langevin, told several hundred happy constituents that the next step in health reform had to mean expanded coverage, provided by the government.

We have to look harder at a single-payer system, said Langevin, D-R.I., using a term for universal coverage.

The very best market-based solution is to have a public option, said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

Progressives, emboldened by Republicans health-care failure, are trying to shift the political debate even further to the left, toward a longstanding goal that Democrats told them was unrealistic. They see in President Trump a less ideological Republican who has also promised universal coverage, and they see a base of Trump voters who might very well embrace the idea.

The weekend after the implosion of the GOPs American Health Care Act brought that into the open. In several TV interviews, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promised to reintroduce a Medicare for All bill when the Senate returns to work. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., held a town hall in her San Francisco district where she happily egged on protesters demanding a plan like Sanderss.

I supported single payer since before you were born, said Pelosi, who has argued since the passage of the Affordable Care Act that it could be a bridge to European-style universal coverage. (The House passed a bill with the public option jargon to describe a Medicare-style national plan that could work as a competitor against private insurers.)

In the glow of victory, Democrats spent the weekend thanking activists who showed up at Republican town halls, worked congressional phone lines and made the AHCA politically untenable for many Republicans especially moderates. Activists also had succeeded in getting most Senate Democrats on the record against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

In Rhode Island, where Democrats hold every major office, activists have been pushing the local party to the left. Sanders won the states 2016 primary, and the Working Families Party, which endorsed him, has held weekly organizing meetings to find targets for activists. Gov. Gina Raimondo, D-R.I., a former venture capitalist, has pitched a version of the free public college tuition plan Sanders ran on. Whitehouse, who emerged in the Gorsuch hearings as a key critic, was even protested after hed voted for several Trump Cabinet nominees.

That was key, said David Segal, a former Rhode Island legislator and executive director of the progressive group Demand Progress. Fifteen hundred people showed up to demand that a senator whos generally seen as progressive be more progressive.

But health care was the issue with the most apparent running room for the left. Since January, Democrats and activists had held events that promoted the Affordable Care Act which for the first six years since its passage had been a loser in polls by presenting people whod been helped by the law. In the three weeks that the American Health Care Act was debated in public, even some conservative allies of the president argued that it had become politically impossible to scale back health coverage.

The victory of a Republican candidate who promised insurance for everybody, and who once favored universal insurance, made some Democrats ask if an idea once dismissed as socialism might have some bipartisan openings in the post-ideological era of Trump.

Donald Trump staked out the high moral ground by calling for a feasible system of universal healthcare to replace Obamacare, wrote Newsmax publisher Christopher Ruddy, a Trump friend, 11 days before AHCA crashed to earth. He shouldnt retreat from that no matter how much the establishment GOP dislikes it.

In response, elected Democrats have felt freer to make health-care demands, despite controlling no branch of government. The windup often suggests that Republicans are right, and that the health-care system must be tweaked.

We have ideas, they have ideas, to try to improve Obamacare, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a Sunday interview with ABC News. We never said it was perfect. We always said wed work with them to improve it.

On the details, Democrats now argue that Trump should move to the left. Asked where Democrats might work with the president to fix health care, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., suggested expanding Medicaid in states that havent expanded it yet anathema to Republicans and conservative groups that fought against it. (Medicaid expansion is optional-only because of the 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision, which was argued by conservatives and struck down small parts of the ACA.) Sanders, who couldnt get all of his colleagues in the Democratic caucus to endorse a prescription drugs importation bill, said he believes that this Republican president might.

President Trump said a whole lot of stuff on the campaign trail, Sanders said on CNNs State of the Union on Sunday. One of the things he talked about was lowering the cost of prescription drugs. There is wonderful legislation right now in the Senate to do that. President Trump, come on board. Lets work together.

Some Democrats remain skittish about the threat of being tarred by ideological conservatives in tough elections. Saving the Affordable Care Act from repeal united Democrats and healed divisions between the partys base and its politicians. The next health-care debate might not do that. The only Democrats facing elections soon are candidates for open House seats in deep-red districts, and few have endorsed single payer.

Instead, theyve cautiously discussed fixes that might be worked out between the parties. Jim Thompson, a candidate for an open seat in Kansas, said after the AHCAs collapse that parties should sit down and find a plan that expands coverage, lowers costs, and brings us together. Jon Ossoff, whose bid for an open seat in Georgia has become surprisingly competitive, has run TV ads saying he opposes repeal but favors tweaks to the law. Both parties should sit down and deliver more affordable health care choices, he said after Fridays debacle.

That approach reflects how, despite Fridays setback, Republicans have long benefited from attacking a government takeover of health care. And most special-election Democrats arent ready to test whether the landscape has changed.

Obamacares ongoing collapse is a case study in what occurs with a top-down, government centered approach to healthcare, said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Jesse Hunt. Candidates who advocate for a Bernie-style single payer system do so at their own peril.

That hasnt stopped the Democrats base, just as Republicans demanded years of fealty to a repeal message, from seeking more on health care. The Coventry town hall, which filled most of the citys largest high school auditorium, was a target-rich environment for local groups trying to get signatures to support expanded health care. J. Mark Ryan, 49, who led the local chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, walked from row to row with cards that people could sign if they wanted the state to pass a single-payer bill.

Any Republicans who are interested in being re-elected should be interested in this, too, he said.

Michael Fuchs, 55, got Whitehouse to sign a different card, for a campaign simply to get Rhode Island to endorse the essential health benefits that were negotiated away in the final version of the AHCA. Doing so, he pointed out, would protect the states customers even if Republicans made a successful run at the law. But in the long run, he, too, wanted national health insurance.

We could at least lower the buy-in age for Medicare to 55, he said.

Over more than two friendly hours, the elected Democrats got the most applause when they swerved left on health care.

The very best market-based solution is to have a public option, Whitehouse said. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, he said that a government-managed insurer would reveal what games private insurers had been playing. The best way to show that a stick is crooked is to put a straight stick next to it. If you do that, the private sector cant manipulate the market by withdrawing.

But as the town hall went on, activists demanded to know if Whitehouse could go further. After several rounds of questions about the need to investigate Russias involvement in the 2016 election, and the need to filibuster Gorsuch, Ryan, with the physician group, asked the senator if he could get behind universal coverage.

Why not endorse it this year? Ryan asked.

In the spirit of the weekend, Whitehouse didnt rule it out. We already do it for the people we care the most about our veterans and our seniors, he said.

View post:
With AHCA defeat, some Democrats see chance to push for universal coverage - The Mercury News