Mediaboss Marketing

VANCOUVER Federal Liberals are supporting the Conservatives controversial anti-terrorism bill because they dont want the government to make political hay of national security issues in an election year, party leader Justin Trudeau suggested last week.

Speaking at the University of British Columbia Wednesday, Trudeau encountered a student audience that was vocally critical of the Grits support for the sweeping legislation. The Liberal leader told the crowd he sympathizes with the many Canadians who have concerns about Bill C-51.

My hope, he said, is that this government actually realizes from public pressure that it is going to have to make significant amendments to this bill.

But we know that, tactically, this government would be perfectly happy if the opposition completely voted against this bill because it fits into their fear narrative and [their desire to] bash people on security.

Trudeau said he didnt want to discourage the Tories from making amendments to the bill. But, he suggested, the Conservatives might try to score political points by preventing any amendments if they thought Liberal party support was dependent on them.

I do not want this government making political hay out of an issue or trying to, out of an issue as important as security for Canadians, Trudeau said.

This conversation might be different if we werent months from an election campaign, but we are, he added.

The Conservatives anti-terrorism legislation would greatly expand the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), giving it the ability to break the law including a Canadians Charter rights, as long as a judge agreed to it. CSIS would also be able to disrupt or undermine various activities such as illegal protests by environmentalists or diaspora groups denouncing activities back home.

The definition of what constitutes an activity that undermines the security of Canada is so broad that it includes not just terrorism and the territorial integrity and security of the country but also critical infrastructure, border operations, the administration of justice, the financial stability of the country, activities that could cause serious harm to a person or property because of their association with Canada, or an activity in Canada that undermines the security of another state.

Trudeau told the approximately 800 people in attendance that he understands concerns from aboriginal groups, environmental organizations and anyone who happens to disagree with the Conservative government that they could be targeted by the legislation.

Follow this link:
Liberals Are Supporting Bill C-51 So Tories Can't Make 'Political Hay,' Trudeau Says

Andrea Janus, CTVNews.ca Published Monday, March 9, 2015 9:37AM EDT Last Updated Monday, March 9, 2015 3:38PM EDT

The federal Liberals say a new benefit to provide financial support for Canadas most severely injured veterans in their later years is borne of public pressure and not concern for wounded vets.

The new Retirement Income Security Benefit will provide a monthly income support payment for moderately to severely injured veterans after the age of 65.

Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole unveiled the proposed new benefit at a press conference in Toronto Monday morning.

In response to the new measure, the Liberals accused the government of taking "years" to offer financial support to severely wounded veterans.

"This action was provoked by public pressure, not concern for those who have served, and only comes after the Prime Minister rejected the sacred obligation to our veterans," Liberal Veterans Affairs critic, Frank Valeriote, said in a statement.

"As the Veterans Ombudsman made clear today, numerous, pressing gaps remain in the benefits and services provided to veterans. Unfortunately, the Conservatives still fail to present a plan that will offer the best of care and support to our veterans and their families."

The new benefit would ensure that, after turning 65, the total annual income of a veteran permanently incapacitated in the line of duty will be at least 70 per cent of what he or she received in benefits prior to age 65, O'Toole said.

Monthly payments will be calculated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account what each veteran received prior to age 65 and other sources of income the veteran may have.

Veterans Affairs estimates that the "immediate cash cost" will be more than $10 million, with only a few hundred veterans being over age 65 within the next five years.

View post:
Liberals slam feds over new benefit for severely wounded veterans

The Ontario Liberals appear to have broken the rules of the Election Act in the leadup to the recent Sudbury byelection, the chief of Elections Ontario wrote in a letter released on Thursday.

Greg Essensa, the chief electoral officer of Ontario, says there were "apparent contraventions" to the act in the Liberals offering a former candidate incentives to not run in the election.

Essensa said since Elections Ontario has no mandate to conduct prosecutions, he has referred the matter to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

"Having reviewed the evidence and findings from this regulatory investigation, I am of the opinion that the actions of Gerry Lougheed Jr. and Patricia Sorbara amount to apparent contraventions of subsection 96.1(e) of the Election Act," wrote Essensa. "Consequently, I have reported this matter to the attorney general of Ontario."

He said these are "unprecedented circumstances" as no chief electoral officer has ever conducted an investigation into bribery allegations or reported an apparent contravention of the Election Act before.

The report appears to clear Premier Kathleen Wynne and newly elected Sudbury MP Glenn Thibeault amid uproar at Queen's Park over why a candidate in the Sudbury race stepped aside.

Andrew Olivier has alleged that a job or appointment was offered to him in exchange for not seeking the Liberal nomination. He had previously run for the Liberals and intended to run again in the Feb. 5 byelection.

Olivier released recordings of the discussion he had with Lougheed and Sobara, as he records all conversations due to a disability. He publicly released those, but said he did not make a complaint to Elections Ontario.

"Don't forget that I wasn't the one who brought it forth, so I kind of got pulled into this so to speak," said Olivier. "But, at this point, seeing the news today, it just shows that the process is going along how it should be."

The allegation of wrongdoing was refuted by the premier, but is the subject of an OPP investigation.

Read the original:
Liberals contravened bribery rules: Elections Ontario

Former senior Conservative Party adviser Dimitri Soudas will join the Liberals with partner Eve Adams, who crossed the floor Monday morning, CTV News has learned.

Adams announced Monday morning that she would be leaving the Conservative caucus, where she most recently served as parliamentary secretary to health, to join the Liberal party.

It is not clear in what capacity Soudas will be working with the Liberals. According to CTV Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief Laurie Graham, Soudas will at least work with the Liberals leading into the next election.

Soudas has worked closely with the Conservative party and Prime Minister Stephen Harper as his director of communications. Last year, he was forced out as executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada over allegations about his involvement in Adams Conservative nomination bid for the riding of Oakville-North Burlington. The relationship between Soudas and the Conservatives soured after the split, said Graham.

Dimitri Soudas arrives with a handful, maybe perhaps boxes full, of information, Graham told CTV News Channel. Soudas has a lot of secrets. He tells people that. He knows a lot. He knows what went on in the Prime Ministers Office. He knows a lot more about Stephen Harper than perhaps many around him.

In an interview with CTVs Question Period last May, Soudas described Harper as a father figure.

The news about Soudas comes hours after Adams announced she would be joining the Liberals. She made the announcement alongside Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau in Ottawa.

"I no longer feel at home in the Conservative party either politically or intellectually," she said.

Adams said her decision was a "difficult" one, following a hard year with a controversial nomination battle in her riding of Mississauga-Brampton South and health issues. She said she can no longer support the Conservatives, a party she has supported for more than 25 years.

"I can no longer support mean-spirited leadership that divides people instead of bringing them together.

View original post here:
Former Conservative advisor Dimitri Soudas to join Liberals with Eve Adams

Sorry to break the bad news to all you dreamy-eyed liberals, but it's time to stop wishin' and hopin': Elizabeth Warren isn't running for president. Really and truly.

Progressive Democrats have bombarded her office with postcards, signed online petitions and stood in the snow waving signs to get the junior senator from Massachusetts to run.

Warren didn't do much to encourage all this attention. Last fall when People magazine asked whether she would run, the senator wrinkled her nose, the magazine reported, and said, nondefinitively: I don't think so.... She then added, If there's any lesson I've learned in the last five years, it's don't be so sure about what lies ahead.... There are amazing doors that could open.

Since then, though, Warren repeatedly has slammed one door shut. I am not running for president, she's said over and over. She's pledged to serve her full term in the Senate through 2018. Of course, hardly anybody believes what a politician says, especially on the subject of career ambition. When Barack Obama arrived in the Senate in 2005, he too said he had no plans to run for president.

But over the last few months, Democrats who do politics for a living have concluded Warren really means it based not on what she's said, but on what she's done or, more precisely, left undone. She isn't traveling to Iowa or New Hampshire, Democratic strategist Tad Devine noted. She isn't putting together a team of people to build an organization. This is a case where no means no.

Why won't Warren run?

A challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a grueling battle against tall odds. In national polls, Clinton wins the support of about 60% of Democrats, against only 11% for Warren. A face-off also would pit the Democrats' two most prominent women against each other. It would be a bad day for Emily's List, said one Democratic operative.

Warren is fiery about her favorite causes such as reducing the influence of Wall Street banks and yet that's not the same fire in the belly required to run for president. She describes herself as an outside agitator, not a deal-maker, and you can't be an outsider in the Oval Office.

Last year she fought the Obama administration and her own party's Senate leadership to block the nomination of a former investment banker as undersecretary of the Treasury, and won although the nominee, Antonio Weiss, got a job that didn't require Senate confirmation. She's already signaled her opposition to President Obama's desired trade agreement with 11 countries around the Pacific.

That's why Warren is not running. But why has she been less than definitive? I suspect it's because being considered a potential presidential candidate is a surefire way to get attention from the media for her causes and ideas. When Warren gave a speech to the AFL-CIO last month demanding legislation to break up the Wall Street banks, it won far more coverage because she might some day run for president.

More:
Forget it, liberals: Elizabeth Warren is not running for president