Justin Trudeaus Liberals looking increasingly un-liberal
Justin Trudeau #39;s response to the Tories #39; Bill C-51 is the latest in a long line of Liberal moves that look to be much more about politics than principle.
By: Toronto Star
Read this article:
Justin Trudeaus Liberals looking increasingly un-liberal - Video
Dale Smith, Special to QMI Agency Mar 26, 2015
, Last Updated: 4:57 PM ET
OTTAWA The Liberals might be reluctantly on board to support the Conservatives' controversial anti-terror bill, C-51, but they still want some changes made.
A pair of Liberal MPs released a list of 10 changes their party want to see before the bill, currently before a Commons committee, is made law.
Most of those amendments deal with the concerns being raised by critics, who say Bill C-51 compromises privacy and allows too much freedom to Canada's spy network without oversight.
"There's no question that Canadians have concerns about this bill, and that is why we are presenting these 10 amendments," Liberal public safety critic Wayne Easter said.
Easter, a former solicitor general, said the amendments do not throw up roadblocks to the bill, but simply raise the party's biggest concerns, and echo what Liberals have heard from the majority of witnesses at committee.
The main amendment would put in place a parliamentary oversight committee, similar to those in allied countries.
The previous Liberal government proposed something similar in 2005 but didn't get to pass it before they were defeated.
Another amendment would force Parliament to review the law in three years to judge its effectiveness.
Continued here:
Liberals, NDP call for amendments, more debate on terror bill
No matter what you do, modern liberals will tell you youre wrong.
For decades, liberals complained that American society is segregated because rich, white people dont want to live in ethnically mixed neighborhoods. Sometimes, liberals had a point.
From the 1930s to 1960s, as rich white people moved into New York City, urban planner Robert Moses got city bureaucrats to condemn and destroy busy black neighborhoods. The city called the neighborhoods blighted and moved many of the poor into rent-subsidized apartment complexes called projects. Many quickly became slums.
Now times have changed. Some rich, white people want to move into poorer, non-white neighborhoods because they like diversity (and cheaper real estate). So today the newcomers are attacked by liberals because they cause gentrification.
Movie director Spike Lee, who lives in Brooklyn, said gentrifiers behave almost like Columbus and kill off the Native Americans. Of course, the new gentrifiers dont actually kill anyone, but because their arrival often leads to rising real estate values, critics complain that they drive poor people out of the neighborhood.
Two women in Brooklyn got so angry about it, they pulled out a gun, forced two white people out of an apartment and moved in (they were later arrested).
Columbia urban planning professor Stacey Sutton calls gentrification a manifestation of inequality that may fundamentally alter the culture and character of the neighborhood in ways that hurt the poor.
Yet her own school did something worse. Columbia colluded with politicians to use eminent domain law to take pieces of the Harlem neighborhood that surrounds Columbia. In court, the school argued that it had the right to take neighbors land because it would benefit West Harlem.
Who owns the land is something that ought to be decided not by government but by free people making their own decisions about where they wish to live. When gentrification happens that way, spontaneously, price rises are often accompanied by drops in crime, new job opportunities and better connections to the rest of the culture. What the left calls gentrification is often called improvement by people who live there.
Another Columbia urban planning professor, Lance Freeman, found to his surprise that gentrification didnt even mean significant displacement of the previous population. In his book There Goes the Hood, Freeman writes, poor residents and those without a college education were actually less likely to move if they resided in gentrifying neighborhoods.
Read the rest here:
John Stossel Hey, liberals, stop fighting gentrification
Liberals promise Quebec's 2015 budget, tabled today, will help to "better deliver services at a better price," with balanced books and no tax hike.
But it's a plan that will only work if the economy continues to grow and the government can continue its tight control over public spending.
Spending cuts are at the heart of the $100-billion budget delivered by Finance MinisterCarlosLeitaothis afternoon in the National Assembly.
The reduction in spending won't come from direct program slashing, but rather in anticipated and aggressive belt-tightening in some of the government's largest departments: health, social services and education.
"This control of spending, confirmed in recent months, is the result of a collective effortof allQuebecers," saidLeitao.
"The return to a balanced budget is not the end. Quite the opposite, in fact, it is a point of departure and gives new momentum to Quebec."
For months, the provincial government has pushed forward with its zero deficit mission by targeting what it called inefficiencies in the way the government administers and delivers services, and handles other expenses including the cost of the public sector payroll.
Today,Quebecerslearned just what that will look like financially.
Overall, spending growth will be capped at 1.5 per cent in 2015-16, a low ceiling the likes of which hasnt been seen since LucienBouchardwas in power in 1998.
Education will see an increase of only 0.2 per cent, which, after inflation is factored in, essentially amounts to a cut.
Go here to read the rest:
Quebec Liberals unveil tight on spending budget
OTTAWA The Liberals might be reluctantly on board to support the Conservatives' controversial anti-terror bill, C-51, but they still want some changes made.
A pair of Liberal MPs released a list of 10 changes their party want to see before the bill, currently before a Commons committee, is made law.
Most of those amendments deal with the concerns being raised by critics, who say Bill C-51 compromises privacy and allows too much freedom to Canada's spy network without oversight.
"There's no question that Canadians have concerns about this bill, and that is why we are presenting these 10 amendments," Liberal public safety critic Wayne Easter said.
Easter, a former solicitor general, said the amendments do not throw up roadblocks to the bill, but simply raise the party's biggest concerns, and echo what Liberals have heard from the majority of witnesses at committee.
The main amendment would put in place a parliamentary oversight committee, similar to those in allied countries.
The previous Liberal government proposed something similar in 2005 but didn't get to pass it before they were defeated.
Another amendment would force Parliament to review the law in three years to judge its effectiveness.
In question period Thursday, NDP MP Rosane Dore Lefebvre said her party was tabling a motion to expand the debate on Bill C-51, and asked if the Conservative government would support that motion.
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney replied that the NDP was "well behind the ball" in the fight against terrorism and claimed the government was seeing great support for the bill.
Visit link:
Liberals want amendments to anti-terror bill