Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal government is prepared to adopt some of the Senate's proposed amendments to its citizenship bill, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Friday.

Bill C-6 is designed to repeal many of the previous Conservative government's changes to how people become citizens and how they can lose that status.

Among other things, the legislation would repeal a provision that strips dual citizens of their Canadian status if convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage. It has been applied to one person: Zakaria Amara, convicted for his role in a 2006 terror plot in Toronto.

Far more people lose their citizenship because it was obtained fraudulently, and the Senate wants to amend the bill in order to give those people a chance at a court hearing before their status is stripped away.

Hussen said the government will accept that proposal, albeit with some modifications of its own, including giving the minister the authority to make decisions when an individual requests it.

Hussen's hand was partially forced by a recent Federal Court decision that said people have a right to challenge the revocation of their citizenship, although predecessor John McCallum had earlier suggested he would support the amendment.

"This amendment recognizes the government's commitment to enhancing the citizenship revocation process to strengthen procedural fairness, while ensuring that the integrity of our citizenship program is maintained," Hussen said in a statement.

The government will also accept a Senate recommendation that would make it easier for children to obtain citizenship without a Canadian parent.

But they are rejecting efforts to raise the upper age for citizenship language and knowledge requirements from 54 to 59, saying it's out of step with the goal of making citizenship easier to obtain. The current law requires those between the ages of 14 to 64 to pass those tests; the Liberals want it changed to 18 to 54.

Hussen thanked the Senate for its work making the bill "even stronger and for providing an example of productive collaboration on strengthening important legislation."

The Senate has the choice of accepting the government's decision, rejecting it, or proposing further amendments of its own, which could further delay the legislation.

The bill was originally introduced by former immigration minister John McCallum in 2016 as a follow-through to a Liberal campaign promise to repeal elements of the Conservative law, which in their view created two tiers of citizenship.

The government is also seeking to shorten the length of time someone must be physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship, and to allow time spent in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident to count towards that requirement.

Read the original post:
Liberals' citizenship bill to proceed with some Senate amendments - CBC.ca

Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland is congratulated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and party members after delivering a speech in the House of Commons on Canada's Foreign Policy in Ottawa on Tuesday. Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Having been a teacher, Justin Trudeau knows that when a student has little to say they take twice as long to say it, hoping verbosity will cover their lack of substance.

Politicians are the same. And so it is for Trudeaus government, which, short of significant legislative successes, has been speaking at considerable length this week about its views, values and plans.

Weve had the prime minister and his environment minister up on climate change, the global affairs minister up to talk Canadas role in the world, the defence minister reviewing defence plans, and the justice minister announcing plans to clean up the Criminal Code.

With so much talk, you can be sure nothing has actually happened in Ottawa. A quick check of the Parliamentary register confirms as much.

Were now into month twenty of Liberal majority government and, to date, there have been only 19 bills passed, despite closure being invoked 23 times. This is Parliamentary peanuts, even if a few more sneak into the basket of Royal Assent before the House breaks for the summer.

And so, the endless blah blah from the government.

Why are the Liberals doing this? There are two possibly complementary reasons: Liberal MPs need something to say on the summer BBQ circuit; and the decks are being cleared for the Parliamentary enema called prorogation.

Coming back to a clean slate and maybe even a rebuilt Cabinet (gender-balanced surely) would give the Liberals a chance to recapture the imagination of Canadians. Were only two years out from the next election; it wont be long until voters start looking at what Trudeau has actually accomplished with his governments time in office.

The what it all means speechifying also gives the Parliamentary pundits something to chew on before they embark on their own vacations. Hacks live for this stuff in a way normal Canadians beavering away at their jobs dont.

Which isnt to say some of it hasnt been interesting. How the world copes post-Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement on climate change is a huge question. Fortunately, the rest of the world, and the vast majority of businesses too, have decided the answer is to keep calm and carry on.

The broader question of global leadership is also worth a good chin wag. The world needs to agree to a plan to cope while the United States is temporarily held hostage by the vulgar tweeting toddler with skin so thin its amazing hes not a pestilent puddle under the Oval Office desk. The stakes are high: Canada will undoubtedly bear the brunt of Trumps ignorance, insolence and insouciance, sitting as we do right on top of him, dominating him with our virtue and universally loved leader. This weeks bromance revival between Trudeau and Barack Obama in Montreal was but the cherry on top.

(And, while were at it, yes, Canada should spend more on its armed forces, too. )

But heres the thing: All of the jaw-jaw wont matter without an engaged United States on board when the time comes to fight the war-war, whether thats on trade, peace and security or, to a lesser extent, climate. The world wont be as the West wishes it without an engaged United States of America. There isnt a speech that can fix the current mess to our south, or the time for a new global architecture to be built from scratch, Bretton Woods-style.

The Trudeau government knows this, which is why its doing the critically important work of reaching out to sub-national U.S. governments and maintaining strong relationships in Congress. This is what, if anything, will shield us from the worst of Trump; our relationship needs to be kept alive until the cancer is rooted out. And its also important that Trudeau move in lock-step with leaders such as Angela Merkel, who lives in an even more complicated and dangerous neighbourhood that Canada without the American umbrella. The upcoming G20 in Germany is sure to be a riot, what with Trump likely to be suffering from fresh tales of Russian woe.

(You see how the Liberal gambit works? I could talk about this all day.)

Returning home, this weeks speeches buy time but they dont obviate the need for answers. The Liberals will undoubtedly work on solutions, but they will not be as solid as those of the last 70 years.

A smart move/cunning ploy would be for Liberals to socialize the Trump problem and publicly draft in the Conservatives to suggest answers. Here, the Liberals could draw on existing Conservative networks, both in Congress and outside. For example, Stephen Harper met this week with former U.S. president George W. Bush, and Rona Ambrose is set to take up a role in Washington, D.C., with the Wilson Center.

This isnt the time for classroom tricks. Canadians will be grading on deeds, not words.

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based communications consultant and was director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Read the original:
MacDougall: No matter how much Trudeau and Liberals yammer on, they can't solve Trump - Ottawa Citizen

The Liberal government is launching an international assistance policy that aims to position Canada as a gender equality leader on the world stage.

The plan, called the Feminist International Assistance Policy, will invest $150 million over five years to help local organizations in developing countries that are working to promote women's rights. The money is part of the existing budget.

By 2021-22, at least 80 per centof Canada's international assistance will target the advancement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.

Bibeau said the government's vision is to reduce global poverty through the lens of measures that empower women and girls.

"We will not break the back of poverty if we leave half of humanity at the sidelines," she said during a news conference in Ottawa. "We will not break the vicious cycle of poverty and violence without stepping up efforts to give women and girls a voice, and the opportunities to choose their own future and fully contribute to their community."

The plan will promote better education and training, social inclusion, access to financing, inclusive governance, improved nutrition, and access to contraception and safe abortion for women and girls.

Bibeau said that right now, too many countries have laws and cultural practices that discriminate against women.

The policy was first announced by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland on Tuesday during her foreign policy speech in the House of Commons.

It comes after a review that included 300 consultations in 65 countries.

The government's aid plan will direct at least 50 per centof bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan African countries.

Friday's announcement was welcomed by several development organizations.

In a statement, Michael Messenger, President and CEO of World Vision Canada called it an "ambitious new agenda."

"It will help make the world a better place to live for everyone, everywhere," he said."Empowering women and girls is in Canada's best interest, and ensuring equal opportunity is much more than a bold commitment to feminism. It's about basic human rights and basic common sense."

The MATCH International Women's Fund and Nobel Women's Initiative said the investment in women's organizations makes Canada a global leader in empowering women.

"This is a game changer," Nobel laureate Leymah Gbowee said in a news release. "From Syria and Yemen to Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, it is the grassroots women's groups that are doing the heavy lifting to help communities respond to crisis, build peace and bring about gender equality."

ButONE Campaign, the international organization co-founded by U2 lead singer Bono, expressed disappointment the policy shift did not come with more money attached.

Stuart Hickox, ONE's Canada director, praised the commitment to gender equality but said the policy moves money around without increasing the overall spending envelope.

"The juxtaposition of a recommended 70-per-cent increase to [Canada's] defence budget with a recommended 0 per cent increase to the development budget is simply stunning," Hickox said in a statement.

See the original post here:
Liberals launch feminist-focused foreign aid policy - CBC.ca

Conservative Review

Things I learned from liberals Conservative Review Liberals opened up a can of worms with their boycott tactics that they are probably starting to regret. By teaching conservatives how to marshal small groups of Twitter users into fighters fighting above their weight class, we have collected a number ...

Originally posted here:
Things I learned from liberals - Conservative Review

When, on April 18, British Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election for June 8, the expectation was that she would romp to victory over the opposition. Crush the saboteurs! cried the right-wing Daily Mail. Whether it was called to strengthen her Brexit negotiating position with the European Unionand members of her own Conservative Party, or to bolt the armor of popularityto her image, May and almost every political observer believed that June 8 would end with a massive Conservative majority over the Labour Party and its supposedly hapless leader Jeremy Corbyn.

But events have played out differently. A 16 percent lead for the Conservatives on April 18 has shrunk to 7 percent in less than two months.Because of the strength of third parties in Britain, Corbyn only needs to overperform by a few percentage points(an average polling error, to borrow from Nate Silver) for May to fallshort of a majority. Regardless, the dream of the Conservative landslide looks to be dead and the circumstances of Laboursrecovery can bea lesson for progressives elsewhere, including the United States.

Most of Labours recovery has taken place since the start of May (the month, not the politician), coinciding with two developments. Britains general election broadcast rules, which requireTV outlets to maintain due impartiality during campaigning, kicked in early May. From whenCorbyn became party leader until very recently, the vast majority of major media outlets including Labour-leaning publications such as the Guardian were critical of him. During the campaign though, while newspapers and tabloids have remained partisan, the broadcast rules have freed Corbyn to make his case to the publicdirectly on television. Surprise, surprise: Corbyn has performed well in pre-election appearances, while May (the politician, not the month) has refused to debate other candidates directly and has looked shaky answering questions.

Were unlikely to see similarly restrictive broadcast rules in the United States, but progressives here can learn from the second development: the release of the parties manifestos the equivalent of a party platform in the United States, albeitcarrying somewhat more weight. The Conservative manifestobroadly avoided specifics, including how muchproposals on housing and other issues would cost. Its imprecision magnified Mays struggles in talking with voters. Nor did it help May that the program originally included cuts to in-home care for the elderly, a key Conservative constituency. May reversed on that idea, but not before damage was done.

On the other side, for years, Labour manifestos were incrementalist, offering small changes and tweaks to existing programs. The 2017 version is far bolder: free university tuition, more money for the National Health Services and other major initiatives,paid for by taxes on corporations and the wealthiest. The platforms clarity and detail contrasted favorably with the Conservatives vagueness, while energizing the Labour base, especially young voters. (Of course, getting them to vote is another matter.) Corbyns Labour recognizes that when votersthink the system is broken and major change is required, parties need to go big with their ideas. If your opponent is stumbling, as May has, newly persuadable voters want solutions not pandering.

To be clear, Labour policies cannot be replicated unchanged in the United States.Corbyns Labour is much further left-of-center than even the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. But as liberals and progressives in the United Statesdebate what kind of policies to offer in 2018 and beyond, Corbyns recovery and Mays difficulties again show that boldness doesnt backfire; voters reward it.

See more here:
What American liberals can learn from Jeremy Corbyn's campaign - Washington Post (blog)