Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA The Liberals are torn. Theyd like to live up to their own lofty rhetoric about building a shining beacon on Parliament Hill.

But theyd prefer not to be constrained in any way by the inconvenient logistics of Parliament.

The governments latest attempt to circumvent the scrutiny of the House of Commons is a streamlining of the budgetary process that would limit Parliament to vote just once on all the spending measures in the recent budget.

Its the budgetary equivalent of the kind of omnibus bill the Liberals said they would never introduce.

The vote would give Treasury Board president Scott Brison unprecedented discretion over $7 billion, on the promise that the House will be informed about all the messy details at a later date.

Brison has promised to overhaul the estimates process to align it with the federal budget, with the aim of speeding up spending approvals and improving scrutiny.

But while the move may achieve the first goal, the ability of MPs to question government spending will be much reduced.

Pierre Poilivre is the classic example of a political poacher turned game-keeper the Conservative finance critic knows every artful dodge in the book because he was part of a government that pioneered most of them.

If this becomes nothing more than a $7-billion slush fund that a board of politicians can play with in an election year, then therell be hell to pay in Parliament, Poilivre predicted.

He knows of what he speaks.

The Conservatives introduced a $3-billion emergency fund in 2009 in order to dole out money at the governments discretion to tackle the recession.

The circumstances then were precarious enough to justify drastic measures, and the Conservatives argued the fund was crucial to ensure money flowed quickly into the economy.

But, even then, parliamentarians were on guard in defence of the public finances.

The NDPs Tom Mulcair accused the Conservatives of using the same methods the Liberals used in the sponsorship scandal creating a slush fund that was exempt from parliamentary oversight.

Those fears were not entirely misplaced. While no laws were broken, there were instances of pork-barrelling, most notoriously the gazebo built in the conspicuously inland Muskoka riding of then-Treasury Board president Tony Clement, using funds earmarked for border infrastructure.

There would appear to be a less pressing need to reduce parliamentary oversight in the current case.

Jean-Luc Ferland, Brisons senior communications adviser, said the new initiative is designed to speed up the process and provide Canadians with more timely access to the programs they need.

Maybe so, but Brison is likely to face a united opposition when he goes to the House to gain approval for the $7 billion.

The government says the money will be used exclusively for the initiatives announced in an annex of last Februarys budget.

For greater transparency, allocations and remaining balances will be reported online monthly and in the next available estimates, said Ferland. By establishing this clear link between the budget and the Main Estimates, the government is making it easier for parliamentarians and Canadians to follow the money.

The Liberals are saying, in essence, trust us well behave ourselves this time.

That is unlikely to wash with the opposition.

Daniel Blaikie, the NDPs Treasury Board critic, said the Liberal proposal is a step backward.

Despite all the talk, the Liberals see Parliament as a real nuisance, he said. There have been several motions designed to circumvent Parliament and this is another instance of that.

The Liberals are saying, in essence, 'trust us we'll behave ourselves this time'

To be fair to Brison, there is a problem here that is crying out for a solution. Items announced in the budget traditionally take months to go through Treasury Boards approval process. The theory is that by harmonizing the budget and the estimates, that process can be expedited.

But the price is likely to be a reduced flow of information to MPs. A Parliamentary Budget Office study released last year found nearly one third of all budget measures need more or less funding in reality than was indicated in the budget document.

So MPs will be asked to vote based on a single line explanation in the budget document for example, $1.9 billion over the next five years on enabling digital services to Canadians secure in the knowledge that there is a good chance that number bears no resemblance to reality.

The basis of the Westminster system is ministers seeking the prior sanction of Parliament by outlining to legislators what they intend to spend the money on. Its a slow process, and its not always done well. It is, for example, absurd that the governments spending plans sometimes come out before the budget. That disconnect means it is difficult for legislators to hold the government to account.

Most MPs would require a Sherpa guide, four men of stout heart and the blessing of the Almighty to mount an expedition required to comprehend these figures, said former NDP MP Pat Martin and he was chair of the Government Operations committee.

But at least in days past, ministers were obliged to provide Parliament with details on operating and capital budgets, program plans and targets, before gaining its approval.

There was a legal obligation that is entirely absent from Brisons new procedure, whatever its good intentions.

It is the most important job of any MP to make sure taxpayers are getting value for money from their government. The governments budget implementation vote will make that more difficult.

I predict another ignominious government climb-down in the coming weeks.

With files from Marie Danielle Smith

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter:

See the rest here:
John Ivison: Expect another humiliating climb-down by ...

When Mr. Obama remarked, behind closed doors, during the presidential campaign in 2008, that Rust Belt voters get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who arent like them, it mattered not so much because he said it but because so many listeners figured that he was only saying what liberals were really thinking.

These are the sorts of events conservatives think of when they sometimes say, Obama caused Trump. Many liberals might interpret that phrase to mean that Americas first black president brought out the worst in some people. In this view, not only might liberals be unable to avoid provoking bigots, its not clear they should even try. After all, should they not have nominated and elected Mr. Obama? Should they regret doing the right thing just because it provoked the worst instincts in some people?

This is a limited view of the situation. Even if liberals think their opponents are backward, they dont have to gratuitously drive people away, including voters who cast ballots once or even twice for Mr. Obama before supporting Mr. Trump in 2016.

Champions of inclusion can watch what they say and explain what theyre doing without presuming to regulate what words come out of other peoples mouths. Campus activists can allow invited visitors to speak and then, after that event, hold a teach-in discussing what they disagree with. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that states had to allow same-sex marriage, the fight, in some quarters, turned to pizza places unwilling to cater such weddings. Maybe dont pick that fight?

People determined to stand against racism can raise concerns about groups that espouse hate and problems like the racial achievement gap in schools without smearing huge numbers of Americans, many of whom might otherwise be Democrats by temperament.

Liberals can act as if theyre not so certain and maybe actually not be so certain that bigotry motivates people who disagree with them on issues like immigration. Without sacrificing their principles, liberals can come across as more respectful of others. Self-righteousness is rarely attractive, and even more rarely rewarded.

Self-righteousness can also get things wrong. Especially with the possibility of Mr. Trumps re-election, many liberals seem primed to write off nearly half the country as irredeemable. Admittedly, the president doesnt make it easy. As a candidate, Mr. Trump made derogatory comments about Mexicans, and as president described some African countries with a vulgar epithet. But it is an unjustified leap to conclude that anyone who supports him in any way is racist, just as it would be a leap to say that anyone who supported Hillary Clinton was racist because she once made veiled references to superpredators.

Read more:
Opinion | Liberals, Youre Not as Smart as You Think - The ...

Lets imagine the following statements were part of a public opinion poll. How many people would agree to these assertions:

1. Were concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

2. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories stories that just arent true, without checking facts first.

3. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people thinkThis is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

This is precisely what the left-wing media would say about Fox News. But these statements arent part of a poll. They are part of a script that Sinclair Broadcasting sent to its stations across America. In a 60-second promo, the local anchors in each market read the script, and the Trump-hating media gave birth to a large cow. Clearly, Fox News wasnt the target. They were.

Lets add some more Sinclair copy, and wonder why this is offensive to liberals: At [station], its our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever. But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair, please reach out to us...

The Left would certainly embrace factual reporting as the foundation of our credibility, and yada yada. What they found offensive is that a new entity not as enlightened as they could profess this belief.

What of the second part, about Sinclair inviting criticism from their audience? No wonder the Left doesnt like it. Virtually all of them have cancelled their ombudsmen. Networks arent in the habit of offering corrections. Accountability is not their bag.

Sinclair has long aired conservative commentary on its local stations, and the liberal media hate that, too. MSNBCs Joe Scarborough shamelessly lectured it was like the days of Pravda in the Soviet Union: A national broadcasting system that is shoving propaganda down local anchor's throats, he stated hysterically, straight from the pen of somebody whos a Trump acolyte is really, really chilling.

Chilling? This man appears daily on a national broadcasting system pushing propaganda. A network whose motto in the Obama years was Lean Forward (which sounded like Mao Zedongs Great Leap Forward) passing judgment on propaganda is why networks like Sinclair have emerged.

On HBO, John Oliver denounced Sinclair anchors reading a script as sounding like members of a brainwashed cult. So exactly how do anchors of news or entertainment shows across the country deliver their reports? Oliver doesnt have a script? The HBO denunciations of a brainwashed cult are especially hilarious, since they produce Democratic propaganda films like last years fly-on-the-wall documentary on Obamas supposed foreign-policy geniuses called The Final Year.

Now remember that most of these Sinclair stations are affiliates of ABC, CBS, and NBC. So liberals object to a 60-second promo but see nothing wrong with 60 Minutes promoting Trumps alleged porn-star lover or the forthcoming prime-time George Stephanopoulos interview hour with James Comey on these very same stations. One-sided news is the best kind of news for most of the broadcast day....as long as your news skews to the left

Read the rest here:
Bozell & Graham Column: The Knee-Jerk Liberals Spit at ...

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, here arriving for the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, will set off a brutal campaign over his successor if he retires this spring.(Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON There is no vacancy atthe Supreme Court, but liberal and conservative activists are ready to do battle overone.

The potential retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy the deciding vote on dozens of controversial cases over a 30-year careerhas energized both sides for what likely would be the most divisive confirmation battle in decades.

Strategy sessions are being held with increasingfrequency. Commercial messages are being crafted in favor and against any potential nominee. Moderate senators on both sides of the political aisle whose votes will be critical already have targets on their backs.

Unlike last year, when Justice Neil Gorsuch of Colorado was confirmed to the seat of the late JusticeAntonin Scalia, a fellow conservative, any nominee chosen by President Trump would push the court further to the right. That has liberal interest groups on high alert.

"Its hard to fathom something more important to our rights and freedoms,and especially at this critical time for our democracy," says Kristine Lucius, executive vice president for policy at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200organizations. "I think you would see engagement larger than you've seen in recent memory."

Conservative groups that came together in the $17 million campaign leading to Gorsuch's confirmation a year ago are prepared for a similar effort to unify Republicans around the next nominee.

We have a policy of always being ready," says Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Crisis Network, which ran television ads in key states aimed at pressuring wavering Republicans and Democrats. "We are prepared for a vacancy, whenever that might be.

Both sides are ready for a reason. The last justices to retire, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, announced their plans in April 2009 and 2010. Their successors, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were nominated in May, confirmed in August and hearing cases byOctober.

The court concluded the term's oral arguments Wednesday with another high-profile case towhich Kennedy likely holds the key Trump's immigration travel ban on five predominantly Muslim countries. Kennedy's wife, Mary, watched from a special guest seat.

The preparation, however, may be for naught. Kennedy, 81, has been tight-lipped about his plans, and his cloutas the court's swing vote is at its zenith. With Senate Republicans holding only a 51-49 edge and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seriously ill with brain cancer, Kennedy nominated to the court in 1987by President Reagan maydecide now is not the time to drop the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

If he calls it quits, attention swiftly will turn to those believed to be atopTrump's list of 25 potential replacements. They include federal appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh of the District of Columbia, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan,Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana and Amul Thapar of Kentucky.

"Our goalwill be to humanize that person by telling their story right away," says Ron Bonjean, a former top adviser to House and Senate Republican leaders who helped with Gorsuch's confirmation. "And television advertising is going to be a big part of that.

A conservative nominee could create what Supreme Court expert Lee Epstein at Washington University School of Law has saidwould be the most conservative court in 80 years. For that reason, liberals would do their best to defeat the nomination.

Says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice:It would be malpractice on our part not to be ready.

President Barack Obama's nomination of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland was doomed in 2016.(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

Trump's opportunity to replace Kennedy, if it comes, would motivate Democrats in much the same way that President Obama's attempt to replace Scalia in 2016 moved Republicans. That's because Kennedy, while conservative on business cases and others, has been a liberal and decisive voiceon social issues such as abortion andgay rights.

It will make everything that has happened previously look small, says Anita Dunn, a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker, the strategic communications firm at the fulcrumof opposition to Gorsuch last year.

While that ended in defeat, liberals hope improved planning, marketing and particularly fundraising will be more effective the second time around. They planto model the effort on the successful "Protect Our Care" campaign to stop Republicans in Congress from repealing Obamacare.

Expect to hear a lot about abortion rights, which Kennedy helped to protect in a 2016 case from Texas, and gay rights, three years after Kennedy wrote the 5-4 opinion legalizing same-sex marriage. Pro-choice Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would be prime targets.

"The easiest way to lose one of them is abortion," says Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice.

Liberals also hope to use public support for gun control, as well asthe court's potential role in cases involving Trump as president, candidate or businessman, as reasons to oppose his nominee.

Their effort would be concentrated in places such as Maine, Alaska,Arizona and Tennessee, focusing on moderateas well as retiring senators. Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia, where Democratic senators are running for re-election in Trump strongholds, also would be targets.

To succeed, liberals may need to catch up to conservatives financially. They are hoping to collect donations from groups such as George Soros's Open Society Foundations to match what conservatives expect from the likes of Charles and David Koch. But they also wouldtap supporters of gay rights, women's rights, environmental protection and other popular left-wing causes.

We have fewer billionaires than they do, and we have fewer millionaires than they do," says Ian Millhiser, a legal analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress. "We have less money to go around.

Any battle to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy will focus on key senators such as Maine's Susan Collins, here with high court nominee Neil Gorsuch before his confirmation last year.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Conservative groups had to defend Scalia's seatin 2016-17 by opposing Obama's nominee, federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, and championing Gorsuch. This time, they wouldbe on offense, seeking to pick up a fifth solidly conservative justice.

Fortunately for Republicans, they control the White House and Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider Garland in 2016, then cleared the way for Gorsuch by abolishing the 60-vote requirement needed to bring Supreme Court nominations to the floor.

"Success follows success," Bonjean says. "I think donors are going to be more emboldened to provide the necessaryresources for television advertising and for grass-roots.

White House counsel Don McGahn and outside adviser Leonard Leo,executive vice president of the Federalist Society, wouldplay key roles along with the Judicial Crisis Network and the Kochs' grass-roots organization, fronted by Americans for Prosperity.

If and when there is an announcement about the Supreme Court, our activists will understand the significance, says Rebecca Coffman, spokeswoman for the Koch network, which is heavily involved in the effort to name conservatives to lower federal courts."This is an issue that were going to permanently engage on, and were going to scale up our efforts.

Other outside groups, such as the National Rifle Association, Family Research Counciland Heritage Actionalso wouldbe active in the effort.

Its more of a federation, a loosely connected coalition," says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "Everybody doing their own thing, but in a coordinated fashion.

For now, both sides are waiting for Kennedy to tip his hand and possibly tip the balance on the Supreme Court for years to come.

Were playing for a generation," Aron says. "Whoever his successor is could well cement the right half on the court and the country for the next 40 years.

Gorsuch: Justice Gorsuch confirms conservatives' hopes, liberals' fears in first year on Supreme Court

Ginsburg: 'Feeling fine' at 85: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fends off retirement

Roberts: Chief Justice Roberts: Will he be Trump's friend or foe?

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2HEG04V

Originally posted here:
Liberals, conservatives prepare for possible Supreme Court ...

By requiring applicants for federal summer jobs grants to attest that their core mandate respects abortion rights, Justin Trudeaus Liberals may have hoped to lead by example.

Instead they have opened a new front in a culture war they may yet come to regret.

Earlier this year, the Halton Catholic District School board passed a motion that bans funds raised through its schools from being donated to charities and organizations that publicly support, either directly or indirectly, abortion, contraception, sterilization, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

Read more:

Faith-based groups in limbo after Trudeau governments changes to summer-job funding applications

Part of the impetus for the policy is the quest for a tit-for-tat response to the federal decision to attach an abortion rights clause to summer job funding applications.

But discomfort over the Liberals attestation extends beyond faith-based groups and the anti-abortion lobby.

On Monday in the House of Commons, veteran NDP MP David Christopherson broke ranks with his caucus to support a Conservative motion denouncing the attestation. He believes it is an affront to the right to lawful dissent. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May also feels the government overreached.

When it comes to issues such as reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, Christopherson needs no lessons from the Liberals.

He was an advocate for both causes long before the Liberals developed their recent passion for proactively championing them.

As a member of Bob Raes NDP government at Queens Park in the mid-1990s, Christopherson supported a bill that would have extended the same rights to same-sex couples as those enjoyed by heterosexual ones. All but a handful of Ontarios Liberal MPPs voted against that bill.

A few years later, in 1999, a majority of Jean Chrtiens Liberal caucus joined the Reform party in adopting a motion that reaffirmed that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Christopherson had moved on to the House of Commons by the time a group of Liberals joined with the Conservatives to defeat a 2010 motion designed to ensure that Stephen Harpers maternal health care initiative did not exclude from funding, organizations that help third-world women procure safe abortions.

The current Liberal militancy in affirming both abortion and same-sex marriage rights stands in stark contrast with that partys past reluctance in government as in opposition to embrace either fully.

But in their zeal to showcase the depth of their conversion, the Liberals are missing a major point. Public opinion is quite capable of evolving without the intervention of an overbearing government.

The sea change in societal attitudes towards same-sex marriage is a token of that.

For the record, that sea change took place over the tenure of a federal government that was not ideologically predisposed to support a more inclusive marriage institution.

If anything, government efforts to force-march the electorate to a pre-ordained vision of society have a high potential of achieving the opposite.

On Wednesday, Radio-Canada revealed that Service Canada employees had been instructed to stop using terms like mother or father and to avoid using gender-based honorifics such as Mr. or Mrs. in their interaction with the public.

The immediate reaction was overwhelmingly derisive, including from people otherwise supportive of efforts to normalize gender diversity. Some program hosts took to calling each other comrade. The Quebec government quickly shot down the notion that it might follow the federal example.

On a more substantial front, the Trudeau government plans to soon hold national consultations on systemic racism.

If the Quebec experience with a commission on the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities has shown anything it is that when governments come up with a solution in search of a problem they risk aggravating whatever they are attempting to fix.

Based on the still unresolved Quebec debate on the securalism issue, attempts at codifying the day-to-day interactions of a society are at least as likely to further polarize it as to make more people feel at home under a government-built inclusive tent.

In closing, many of the voters who supported the Liberals in the last election did so in the belief that they were getting rid of a Conservative government that let its ideological compass dictate its every move.

Almost three years into the Trudeau mandate, more than a few of them are starting to wonder whether they have actually traded up to an even more ideologically driven government.

Correction - March 22, 2018: This article was edited from a previous version that misstated the day on which Radio-Canada revealed that Service Canada employees had been instructed to avoid using gender-based honorifics in their interactions with the public.

Chantal Hbert is a columnist based in Ottawa covering politics. Follow her on Twitter: @ChantalHbert

See the rest here:
By linking abortion rights to jobs funding the Liberals ...