Category Archives: Liberal

The argument in favor of arbitrarily revoking the Second Amendment rights of college students, as is done in dozens of states, has ostensibly been rooted in safety concerns.

And it just got a lot weaker.

Two anti-gun professors wrote in the Washington Post that campus-carry laws will invite tragedies on college campuses, not end them. Another liberal professor, writing for the New York Times, warned that when there are more guns around, there is more risk its as simple as that.

The trouble with such predictions is that they tend to be tested as time goes by. And as it turns out, they simply werent true. Students just aren't waging the gun battles that anti-gun activists expected. A new report from the College Fix looked into this narrative, and it came up empty.

When a reporter reached out to numerous universities that permit campus carry, all of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place. Responding colleges included Emporia State University, Dixie State University, and Valdosta State University. Separately, the Texas Tribune has reported that after the Lone Star State implemented campus carry at four-year colleges state-wide, it resulted in no sharp increase in violence or intimidation, and in fact, the following year was quiet and uneventful.

These are just a few examples, but even studies cited favorably by gun control advocates admit that results certainly do not prove that campus carry causes more crime. Essentially, it's now clear that conservatives and libertarians had this one right. Allowing American adults aged 18 to 22 to exercise their Second Amendment rights on public college campuses is a no-brainer, as there are few rights more fundamental than the right to self-defense. Plus, the inconsistent nature of current gun-free campus rules already makes little sense.

The current system in many states bans college students from carrying guns but would allow adults of the same age who do not attend college to carry firearms. This is an arbitrary inconsistency that makes little sense, as there's nothing to suggest that college students are more violent or less responsible than their noncollege peers. So, too, guns are often allowed at high-risk off-campus sites such as fraternity houses, yet barred from the actual campus a glaring inconsistency that makes little sense. And now its officially confirmed that arbitrarily revoking college students Second Amendment rights doesnt even make anyone safer.

Its impossible for blue-state legislators and liberal college administrators to keep justifying their harsh anti-gun policies. That is, unless theyre willing to admit that they just hate the idea of gun rights.

See the original post here:

Myth busted: Campus carry never caused that increase in violence liberals predicted - Washington Examiner

There are few as skilled at whipping the liberal media into a frenzy for their own benefit as President Trump. Now, famed actor and director Clint Eastwood is following the presidents lead and hoping to reap the rewards at the box office.

Trump has repeatedly placed himself in direct opposition to the left-leaning national press, which he has dubbed the enemy of the people. More often than not, liberal media figures are all too happy to play along and feign outrage at the president's criticisms, only deepening the resentment many Americans have for our self-appointed guardians of truth.

Eastwood has a new movie out, and hes using a similar tactic to play the liberal media and promote it.

The film, Richard Jewell, focuses on the case of its namesake, Richard Jewell, an innocent man railroaded by the FBI and media as the prime suspect for the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Jewell found the bomb and alerted authorities to its existence, undoubtedly saving lives in the process. His reward? The security guard was named a suspect and subjected to weeks of torment and scrutiny before his name was finally cleared.

The movie portrays two villains: the FBI and the media. Both institutions were all too happy to destroy an innocent mans life. One of the subplots of the movie shows Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs portrayed sleeping with FBI sources for scoops. Its a sexist and fictional storyline, as well as one Scruggs is unable to rebut, given her death in 2001. Eastwood may have specifically chosen a reporter from the Journal to play the vixen for a reason after all, the paper never apologized for its unfair coverage of Jewell.

In response to the storyline, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is demanding a disclaimer about the fictional nature of the storyline and is considering legal action.

Why did Eastwood bend the truth and add the storyline in? I suspect hes taken a page out of the presidents media handbook. The villain of his story is quite plainly the press, and Eastwood has manipulated the movies narrative to give the press an opportunity to claim for themselves the role of the victim. He laid out the bait, and the liberal media took it hook, line, and sinker.

Weve come to learn that there are two things liberal reporters cant help but do: play the victim and pat themselves on the back for their crucial role in society.

Conservative commentators have noted with disdain how, as always, the liberal media have managed to make the story about how they were victimized even when it was their outlets that were in the wrong after leading a witch hunt for an innocent man, no, a hero.

Eastwood didnt just make a movie about Jewells story for its cinematic potential. No, the very origins of public distrust and disdain for the liberal media can be traced in part to Jewells plight. Did Eastwood include the fictional storyline about a Journal reporter to see if any lessons were learned? If so, we now know the answer is a resounding no.

Eastwood set a trap for the liberal media, and they couldnt help but fall for it. In the process, a movie few may have otherwise noticed is receiving gallons of free publicity. This is all working out well for Eastwood, who may be the first public figure to successfully manipulate the liberal media as well as Trump did during his journey to the White House.

Bethany Mandel (@bethanyshondark) is a stay-at-home and homeschooling mother of four and a freelance writer. She is an editor at Ricochet.com, a columnist at the Forward, and a contributor to the Washington Examiners Beltway Confidential blog.

Read the original here:

Clint Eastwood using Trump tactics to play the liberal media - Washington Examiner

The Liberal government is taking steps to deliver on its campaign promise to lower taxes for Canadians as itstop priority for the parliamentary agenda.

Today, Finance Minister Bill Morneau tabled a notice of a motion in the House of Commons that proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to boostthe Basic Personal Amount (BPA) exemption the amount you can earn before you start paying taxes by almost $2,000, which means the first $15,000 earned will be tax free.

The tax cuts will be phased in over four years beginning in 2020.

Calling it a "very significant measure," Morneau said the move will lower taxes for about 20 million people.

"We know this is going to have a very important impact on those 20 million Canadians," he said.

The government would phase out the benefits of the increased BPA for wealthy Canadians, gradually reducing the benefit for those with annual net incomes above $150,473.

When fully implemented in 2023, single individuals would save close to $300 in taxes every year, and families would save nearly $600 every year. According to the government's estimates, that would mean that nearly 1.1 million more Canadians would no longer pay any federal income tax.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had promised during the election campaign that the tax cut would be the government's top order of business if re-elected.

Asked during a news conference on Parliament Hillif the tax cuts are big enough to havea noticeable impact, new Minister of Middle Class Prosperity Mona Fortier said it will help Canadians pay for their children's activities and camp, or help them save for retirement.

Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, supports the tax cut, but would have preferred to see reducedtax rates instead.

"Nonetheless, we're glad that the government has recognized a lot of Canadians could use more money in their pockets by raising the Basic Personal Amount," he said in an email.

"The real concern that remains is spending. If they keep cutting taxes without getting a handle on the deficit, it's simply trading relief today for pain tomorrow."

Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre called today's announcement "too little and too late," because taxpayers will need to wait four years for the full benefit, and because most of the increase will be taken up by inflation.

"To restart Canada's weak economy, we need bigger and faster tax cuts," he said in a statement.

"Conservatives love tax cuts. They reward workers with more money to save, pay down mortgages or support local business and charities. However, the last time Liberals promised to cut taxes, they raised them. We'll read their latest proposal to ensure their deeds match their words. We'll also urge the government to consider bigger and faster tax cuts."

The Conservatives will review the motion and discuss in caucus before taking a formal position.

When fully implemented, the tax cuts will cost $6 billion in foregone revenues a year, the Finance Department said.

NDP finance critic Peter Julian proposed capping the tax changes at $90,000and using the money to provide basic dental care for low income Canadians.

"We know that relieves pressure on the health-care systemand we know would make a terrific difference in the lives of those families," he said.

Last week,the Liberal government's throne speech said Parliament should explore the feasibility of a national dental care program.

Follow this link:

Liberals move to deliver tax cut they say will help 20 million Canadians - CBC.ca

Im glad Premier Jason Kenney is trying to knock some sense into the federal government. His junket to Ottawa this week with key provincial cabinet ministers to wring concessions out of the Trudeau government was a valiant first step to win a fair deal for Alberta in Confederation.

But Im afraid its futile. To help Alberta and the West, you first have to understand the West. And it is just not in Liberal DNA to see the West as anything other than an uncultured hinterland to be robbed and re-educated.

The results of the October election revealed the depths of Albertas and Saskatchewans frustration with the Trudeau government. Since then, the residents of those two provinces have been reassured that Ottawa is now listening. After all, the new federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson is originally from Saskatoon and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland was born in Peace River.

So? Before now, neither Wilkinson (who is an MP from North Vancouver) nor Freeland (who lived in New York before returning to represent downtown Toronto) had displayed much interest in their roots. Now the Liberals reassure us Freeland is a proud daughter of the Peace Country soil.

There are several good examples of the Liberals genetic incompatibility with the Prairie West from just this week.

First, the CBC carried a story with the headline, Unemployment rate among young men in Alberta nears 20 per cent, a level not seen since the early 1980s.

It is no coincidence no coincidence at all that the early 1980s was also the last time a Quebec Liberal named Trudeau was prime minister. Liberals in general and Trudeaus in particular cannot help meddling in the energy sector and, in the process, driving our provinces economy into the ground.

A second example came in an announcement this week from Environment Minister Wilkinson. (Remember, he was born in Saskatoon, so the West can count on him!) The Liberals might not allow liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to be counted even after provinces efforts to control greenhouse emissions.

Before Octobers election, the federal Liberals had promised provinces would receive credit for their LNG exports. Generating electricity by burning natural gas produces far fewer emissions than generation from coal. If Alberta and B.C. can export a lot of LNG to countries that currently burn coal, that would reduce worldwide emissions.

When they were campaigning for office, the Liberals agreed this was a good idea. Now, Wilkinson is saying the Trudeau cabinet have not made up their minds. If the cabinet turns down this idea it will cost businesses in Alberta and B.C. billions in added carbon taxes. And that added cost will drive away even more investment, cost even more jobs and extend the Alberta recession.

On Wednesday, Wilkinson approved a scheme to let New Brunswick adopt a provincial carbon tax instead of accepting the federal version. But N.B. also will be permitted to lower its provincial gas tax so consumers see little difference in the pump price.

This is the same deal Ottawa has with PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador. But it defeats the purpose of a carbon tax, which is intended to lower fossil fuel use by making carbon-based fuels more expensive.

Ottawa is happy, it seems, to make such tradeoffs with Liberal-voting regions such as Atlantic Canada but not with Alberta.

Wilkinson is also currently at the UNs big, annual climate conference in Madrid. There Canada is the only major energy-producing country still deeply committed to net zero emissions by 2050.

That, however, is a goal that can only be achieved by phasing out oil and gas. In other words, the Liberals cannot please international environmentalists and the Kenney government at the same time.

Who do you think theyll choose?

Read this article:

GUNTER: Federal Liberals incapable of seeing what's best for the West - Edmonton Sun

THE Liberal Democrats held on to the Westmorland and Lonsdale seat as Tim Farron was re-elected as MP with an increased majority.

The results were as follows:

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrats): 25,795

James Airey (Conservatives): 23,861

Phillip Black (Labour): 2,293

Steven Bolton (Brexit Party): 763

Tim Farron, who increased his majority from 777 (2017) to 1,934, said: On a night where some results may go for us and some against us - its very clear that the Conservatives have won a huge majority that for us to win here against that backdrop is not very much short of a miracle, but it is a miracle that has been engineered by a team of volunteers, hundreds of them right across our community, working every village and every town, listening to people and working on their behalf.

Conservative James Airey, who received 22,909 votes, said: Can I just wish Tim well. Hes got the best job I think in the country and I wish him every success for the future.

Read more from the original source:

Liberal Democrats re-elected to Westmorland and Lonsdale seat as Tim Farron gains increased majority - The Westmorland Gazette

Editors note: Our friend Danna Young is a scholar of, among other things, the intersection of entertainment and information particularly humors use within the political landscape and the ways in which its messages reach and affect audiences.

She has a terrific new book out this week from Oxford University Press: Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States. In this piece, she describes how conservative and liberal media differ not only in content, but also in form in ways that exacerbate polarization.

1996 was a banner year for Americas polarized media ecosystem.

In October, a new 24-hour news channel was introduced to American audiences. I figure there are 18 shows for freaks, the former Republican strategist and Rush Limbaugh producer Roger Ailes told the Associated Press in 1995. If theres one network for normal people itll balance out. As CEO of the new Fox News Channel, working alongside founder Rupert Murdoch, Ailes would have his chance to create that network for normal people, packed with analysis and opinion programming, with a dash of news for good measure. Among those analysis and opinion shows was The OReilly Report (later rebranded as The OReilly Factor), a conservative opinion talk show hosted by former Inside Edition entertainment talk show host Bill OReilly.

From its inception, The Factor defined the conservative television talk genre. It also exemplified a genre that Tufts Universitys Jeffrey Berry and Sarah Sobieraj refer to as outrage.

But what some people may have missed is that just three months earlier, in July 1996, another non-traditional form of news-ish programming launched also as a response to mainstream media. It was a news parody and satire program called The Daily Show, on Comedy Central. Created by Lizz Winstead and Madeleine Smithberg, The Daily Show featured headlines from the days pop culture news and introduced fictional news correspondents in pretend field segments.

Winstead and Smithberg set out to create a parody program that commented, not just on the politics of the day, but also on the emerging cable news landscape that produced politics as entertainment. In an interview with The Cut, Winstead recalled sitting in a bar, watching Gulf War coverage on CNN: We were all watching the Gulf War unfold and it felt like we were watching a made-for-TV show about the war. It changed my comedy I started writing about how we are served by the media. Their framing from the start: to do a news satire where the genre itself was a character in the show.

The twin births of The Daily Show and The OReilly Factor in 1996 were not a coincidence. Both programs were the result of changes in the economic and regulatory underpinnings of the media industry and the development of new cable and digital technologies. Both presented politically relevant information that offered an alternative (in form and function) to mainstream news. Both were reactions to a news environment being transformed by pressures stemming from media deregulation throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Both were positioned as reactions to problematic aspects of mainstream journalism. Both tapped into an increasingly polarized political electorate. And both reflected the economics of media fragmentation that replaced large, heterogeneous, mass audiences with small, homogenous, niche audiences homogeneous in demographic, psychographic, and even political characteristics.

When scholars and journalists discuss conservative outlets like Fox News, they typically position the cable network MSNBC as its closest functional equivalent on the left. While its fair to say that the MSNBC of 2019 is a liberal-leaning cable news outlet that features liberal political analysis programming, this iteration of the network is relatively recent. When MSNBC was introduced in 1996, the network featured talk shows and news analysis shows from across the political spectrum. In fact, several conservative political talk personalities (including Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter) started their cable news careers at MSNBC. It wasnt until the mid-2000s that the network, failing in the ratings war, pivoted to the left and positioned itself as a liberal alternative to Fox.

But from the moment The Daily Show launched during that fateful summer of 1996, it did reflect an overwhelming liberal ideology. Im not referring to its targets or political point of view Im referring to the ideological leaning of the packaging and aesthetics of satire: packaging and aesthetics that run counter to those of conservative opinion talk.

Thats right: What if satire actually has a liberal bias, not due to its targets and arguments, but due to its playful aesthetic, layered and ironic rhetorical structures, and rampant self-deprecation? And what if political talk actually has a conservative bias, not due to its targets and arguments, but due to its constant threat-monitoring, didactic rhetorical structures, and moral seriousness?

Yes, the content, effects, and aesthetics of liberal satire and conservative opinion talk are completely different. So it can seem counterintuitive to conceptualize satire as any kind of liberal equivalent to conservative opinion talk. But we know that the two genres serve parallel functions for their audiences: highlighting important issues and events, setting their audiences agendas, framing the terms of debate, informing them on ideologically resonant issues, and even mobilizing them. And we know that the audiences of both liberal satire and conservative outrage show low trust in news, low trust in institutions, and enormous political efficacy (meaning confidence that they are equipped to participate politically). And both showed up in Americas living rooms within three months of each other in 1996 each framed as a response to problematic aspects of television news.

In my book Irony and Outrage, I argue that the modern birth of these genres can be traced to the same set of political and technological changes in the political and news ecosystem in the 1980s and 1990s. I also argue that the distinct look and feel of these genres can be traced to underlying differences in the psychological profiles of people on the left and the right differences that shape how we orient to the worlds around us and the kinds of content we are most likely to create and consume.

Decades of research from political psychology points to important psychological and physiological differences between liberals and conservatives that hinge on how we monitor our environments for and engage with threat. Conservatives, who are more prone to threat monitoring, have a lower tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity a trait that correlates with various lifestyle, occupational, and even artistic preferences. Liberals, who are less cognizant of threats in their environments, are less likely than conservatives to rely on emotional shortcuts or heuristics, instead thinking more carefully and evaluating information as it comes in.

Conservatives (especially social and cultural conservatives) tend to value efficiency and clarity. They prefer order, boundaries, and instinct. I find that that these inclinations shape their political information preferences preferences for didactic, morally serious, threat-oriented content that leaves very little doubt about what viewers should be worried about and who is to blame. Content like we find on Hannity or The Ingraham Angle.

Liberals, on the other hand, are more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. With a lower threat salience, they are more open to play and experimentation. These inclinations shape their political information preferences for layered, ironic, complex arguments that often never really say exactly what they mean. Content like we find on The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

While these genres have shared roots and may even serve parallel purposes for their viewers, the symbiotic relationship between each sides preferred aesthetic and the psychology of their viewers renders their impact quite asymmetrical.

The underlying logic and aesthetic of conservative outrage make it an ideal mechanism for tactical, goal-driven political mobilization. With its use of emotional language and focus on threats, it constitutes what philosopher Jacques Ellul refers to as agitation propaganda. Writing in 1962, Ellul described hate as the most profitable resource of agitation propaganda:

It is extremely easy to launch a revolutionary movement based on hatred of a particular enemy. Hatred is probably the most spontaneous and common sentiment; it consists of attributing ones misfortunes and sins to another

Importantly, it is not only the content of conservative outrage that renders it powerful. Rather, its the symbiosis between the threat-oriented content and the unique psychology of the conservative audience that facilitates its political impact. These conservative audience members, psychologically oriented towards protection and the maintenance of a stable society, are poised to respond to the people, groups, and institutions that have been identified as threats. The fact that these are the very characteristics of outrage content that have been harnessed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party should not come as a surprise.

In contrast, satire is a genre that remains in a state of play, downplays its own moral certainty and issues judgments through implication rather than proclamation. As a result, liberal political elites ability to harness satire and use it to their own ends is compromised. While the symbiosis between outrage and conservatism lends itself to strategic persuasion and mobilization, the symbiosis between the aesthetic of irony and the underlying psychology of liberalism render satire fruitful as a forum for exploration and rumination, but not for mobilization.

Consider one of the most critically acclaimed and influential pieces of satire of the past decade: Colberts 2011 creation of an actual super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.

Colberts coverage of super PACs and Citizens United influenced public opinion and knowledge of the topic. But, according to Colbert, he didnt create his super PAC with political or persuasive intentions at all. He didnt push the limits of campaign finance in an effort to fuel activism on the issue of campaign finance reform. Rather, the whole thing came about by accident.

After having mentioned a fictional super PAC at the end of a political parody on The Colbert Report, Comedy Central expressed resistance to the idea of an actual Colbert super PAC. Are you really going to get a PAC? a network representative asked Colbert. Because if you actually get a PAC, that could be trouble. To which Colbert replied: Well, then, Im definitely doing to do it.

And so began the largely organic and experimental process of launching and raising funds for an actual super PAC and learning about the (nearly nonexistent) limits of campaign financing. As Colbert explained: [At] every stage of it, I didnt know what was going to happen next. It was just an act of discovery. It was purely improvisational. And, you know, people would say, What is your plan? My plan is to see what I can and cannot do with it.

When The Daily Show and Fox News both appeared in 1996, it would have seemed ridiculous to suggest they had much in common. But I say that they do, especially in terms of the technological, political, journalistic, and regulatory changes that gave rise to both. Ironic satire and political outrage programming look and feel different because of the unique values, needs, and aesthetic preferences of the kinds of people who create and consume each one. But the potential for these two genres to be used strategically towards partisan mobilization is absolutely not the same.

If outrage is a well-trained attack dog that operates on command, satire is a raccoon hard to domesticate and capable of turning on anyone at any time.

Does satire have a liberal bias? Sure. Satire has a liberal psychological bias. But the only person who can successfully harness the power of satire is the satirist. Not political strategists. Not a political party. Not a presidential candidate. Outrage is the tool of conservative elites. But ironic satire is the tool of the liberal satirist alone.

Excerpt from:

Why liberal satire and conservative outrage are both responses to mainstream media but with very different powers - Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard

If you loved the first round of impeachment hearings, do Democrats have a treat for you: Liberal college professors yelling!

You wonder if House Democrats do not watch CNN or MSNBC. If voters wanted to watch a group of experts scream their disapproval of President Trump, they could just turn on cable news or go online to watch reruns of Morning Joe from any day in the past three years.

Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan ruptured eardrums when she bellowed out her conclusion that in Trumps dealing with Ukraine, the president had attempted to strong-arm a foreign leader and that his conduct was a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power.

Karlan was the only woman on the stand, which naturally meant heavy praise from the national liberal media. Susan Glasser of The New Yorker tweeted that the professor was quickly emerging as the star of todays hearing on the constitutional basis for impeachment.

Quite the accomplishment, considering the Hollywood A-listers sitting next to her.

Noah Feldman of Harvard at least had hair straight out of central casting. But his line readings sounded a bit rote. Like Karlan, he wasnt there to offer staid legal context and analysis on the purpose and standard for impeachment. He was there to regurgitate the Democrats case.

The president, he said, abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.

Put that on a bumper sticker and call it a day.

Two were not enough, so Democrats invited University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt to serve as yet the third parrot, but with a jolt of caffeine. Trumps actions with Ukraine, he said, are worse than the misconduct of any prior president.

The misconduct of any prior president presumably includes President Richard Nixon lying about his knowledge of Watergate and President Bill Clinton lying under oath about an extramarital affair. And wait until he gets to the late 1800s.

That was all apparently childs play when compared to Trumps concern about Ukraines actions in the 2016 election and his questions about Joe Biden.

The sole voice of reason was provided by legal scholar and George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who took great liberty to criticize Trump and his posture toward Ukraine but who nonetheless said it didnt rise to the level of impeachment.

I get it, Turley said in his opening remarks. Youre mad.

Eddie Scarry is an author and columnist at the Washington Examiner.

Read this article:

Impeachment hearing: Nothing is more convincing than liberal professors yelling at you - New York Post

Canada's political parties are preparing to start a new session of Parliament and run the daily gauntlet of question period, when opposition MPs fire out questions and hold the government to account.

Each opposition party leaderhas enlisted a team of critics to shadow the Liberal cabinet ministers, scrutinizetheir policies and keepthem on their toesin the House of Commons.

Here's a look at some of the personalities Canadians will see battling over key ministerial files.

(For the purpose of these comparisons, CBCNews looked mostly at the three main national political parties. Whilethe Bloc Qubcois will have more time than the NDP to grill ministers because it has a higher seat count,the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec and its MPs tend to ask questions solely onissues related to Quebec.)

It will be a differentdynamic in the House this time for the re-elected Liberals, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau returnsto Parliament with a minority government and Conservative Leader Andrew Scheerworks to throw his toughest political punches while dealing with internal party critics and a push for a new leader.

After a nasty election campaign, many observers will be watching to see if that tone carries over to the House of Commons, or if the daily duels are more civil. After losing 15 seats, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is now relegated to fourth spot behind BQ LeaderYves-FranoisBlanchet, who will take his seat in the Commons for the first time. That means Singh will have lower priority when it comes to asking questions in question period, and less speaking time in the House of Commons.

Trudeau namedChrystia Freeland deputy prime minister the first deputy PM since Anne McLellan in Paul Martin's government. (Stephen Harper never appointed one.)She's also in charge of the challengingintergovernmental affairs file, tasked with strengthening national unity and leading talks with the provinces and territories on complexissues like health care, pipelines andclimate change at a time of deep political dissatisfaction in the West.

Conservative MP Leona Alleslev, a former Liberal who crossed the floor, will serve as Scheer'sdeputy leader. Alexandre Boulerice will act as Singh's right hand.

Losing their majority government means the Liberals no longer get to call all the shots. Instead, they must engage in tough negotiations with opposition caucuses to advance their legislative agenda. The House leaders for each party are in charge of parliamentary procedure andday-to-day business in the House, including negotiating the timing of debates and votes.

Government House Leader Pablo Rodriguez will be thrashing things out withConservative House Leader Candice Bergen,NDP House Leader Peter Julian and Bloc Quebecois House Leader Alain Therrien.

Perhaps no portfolio is more important than finance. The department decides how Canadians' tax dollars are spent and could be tasked with steering the economy through rough times ahead.

Finance Minister Bill Morneauis one of a handful of ministers Trudeau has kept on the same file since 2015. He'll be grilled by the same opposition critics he faced in the 43rd Parliament:Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre and NDP financecritic Peter Julian.

The next budget will be Morneau's most important yet, as it must win the confidence of the House to ensure the minority government survives though no party likely has an appetite for a snap election right now.

Public Safety is one of the biggest, most important government portfolios; it was presided over by one of Trudeau's most trusted ministers, Ralph Goodale, until he was defeated in the election. Former Toronto Police chief Bill Blair is stepping up to stickhandlesome important files: national security andborder control, and overseeing organizations such as theRCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Correctional Service Canada.

Delivering on the government's controversial promise to ban semi-automatic rifles and empower cities to ban handguns is likely to be a top priority for Blair. Monitoring his every move will be Conservative public safety critic Pierre Paul-Hus and NDP public safety critic Jack Harris.

Freeland remains the lead minister on the crucial Canada-U.S. relations file, dealing with the Trump administration on key projects such as getting the trilateral trade deal with the U.S. and Mexico approved in all three countries.

But new Foreign Affairs MinisterFranois-Philippe Champagne will still be kept busygiving voice to the Canadian government's positions on international matters, fromglobal conflicts to consular cases. The tense bilateral relationshipwith Chinais a pressing priority; Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavorare still being held inChinese prison cellsa year after their initial detention. Conservative MP Erin O'Tooleand the NDP's Jack Harris will be Champagne's critics.

David Lamettihas a dual role as minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, overseeing Canada's justice system and providing legal services to the government. He is tasked with ensuring all government legislation is constitutional.

Lamettican expect a lot of opposition interest in the matter of whether he intends to provide a remediation agreement to SNC-Lavalin, which could effectively halt criminal proceedings against the Quebec-based engineering company. Lametti has described deferred prosecution agreements a "legitimate legal option" but has said he will not make any decision because of ongoing litigation involving the company. (SNC-Lavalin's legal situation was, of course, at the heart of the political scandal that consumed much of Trudeau's first term and cost him two cabinet ministers.)

Lametti will face questions in the House of Commons from Conservative justice critic Rob Moore and NDP justice critic Randall Garrison.

Trudeau has stated that reconciliation and improving relations with Indigenous persons is a top priority for the government, and improving access to services for First Nations, Inuit and Mtisis critical to fulfilling that promise. Among the pressing tasks facing the governmentare working out a compensation program for First Nations children affected by the on-reserve child welfare system and providing clean water on reserves. Conservative MP Gary Vidal will serve as his party's Indigenous services critic.NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh appointed himself to the critic's role.

Marco Mendicino will step into the hot seat as the new minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, overseeing the complex system that sets immigration levels,grants citizenship and manages the refugee intake. It also handles Canadians'travel documents, such as passports.

One of the most pressing problems for the government on this file is managing the flow of asylum seekers entering Canada outside official border points a trend that has generated considerable criticism for the Liberals. Conservative MP Peter Kent is his party's new immigration critic, while Jenny Kwan returns to the critic's role for the NDP.

Addressing climate change emerged as a top election issue, and it will continue to be a priority debate in the coming Parliament. Expect Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to be on his feet a lot,explaining howthe Liberal government will deliver on a plan to cut emissions while it proceeds with plans to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Some critics say the Liberal environmental plan is not robust enough, while others insist a central component of it, afederal carbon tax, will cost Canadian families and harm the economy.Kerry-Lynne Findlay will serve as the Conservative critic she succeeds Ed Fast, a former cabinet minister who declined a critic's post over concerns about Scheer's leadership. Laura Collins, a former city councillor and instructor at the University of Victoria, is the NDP's critic.

New Health Minister Patty Hajdu will be kept busy with issues ranging from the opioid crisis to taking the first steps toward a national pharmacare program. She also willbe tasked with working on a new health funding formulawith provincial and territorial leaders, who are pushing for a significant increase in federal transfers. Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu will keep her on her toes, along with NDP critic Don Davies.

The natural resources file comes with built-in controversy, as the battle rages over reconciling the need to protectthe environment with oil and gas development and transport. The portfolio also is responsible for promoting new energy sources (such as nuclear) and other sectors like forestry and mining.

But job number one for new Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan will be to get a pipeline built to ease political tensions in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the Liberals were shut out in the last election. O'Regan can expect a daily grilling from Conservative natural resources critic Shannon Stubbs and NDP critic Richard Cannings.

Rosemary Barton hosts special coverage of the Speech from the Throne beginning at 2 p.m.ET on CBC News Network, CBCnews.ca and Facebook. Tune in to CBC Radio One for coverage of the speech starting just before3:30p.m. ET. And find analysis and reaction on CBC News Network's Power & Politics at 5 p.m. ET, World at 6 on CBC Radio One and on CBC TV's The National at 10 p.m.

See the article here:

Ready to rumble: Liberal ministers brace for critics' grilling in the House of Commons - CBC.ca

"It's something that has been on my radar," says Christopher Skeete, the CAQ point man on anglo affairs.Pierre Obendrauf / Montreal Gazette

QUEBEC An anglophone MNAs bill to make free French language training available to all Quebecers makes sense and will be studied, Premier Franois Legault said Wednesday.

Liberal Gregory Kelleys proposed legislation, Bill 590, seemed to spark a turf war for anglophone votes with the Coalition Avenir Qubec government saying it was already working on the idea as part of its own outreach to the community.

Im very open the the idea, Legault told reporters as he arrived for question period at the legislature.

He said Christopher Skeete, the CAQ point man on anglo affairs, met many anglophone groups in the last year all through Quebec. The main suggestion that was coming, again and again, was ensuring that French lessons were offered to anglophones and not only immigrants.

So were really looking at that. It makes sense.

Kelley, the MNA for Jacques-Cartier, rose in the legislature Wednesday to table his one page bill, which proposes to amend the Charter of the French Language to establish free French instruction services for every person in Quebec.

Opposition MNAs are not allowed to table bills that commit the governing party to spending, so the bill leaves the actual application details to the government.Nobody has costed out the idea beyond the preliminary stage.

The first response came from the minister responsible for the French language, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who told Kelley in the legislature that the government welcomes his suggestion.

He said Skeete already had this idea following his recent tour of Quebec to meet anglophone groups.

He said Kelleys idea will be considered and allowed to percolate as the government prepares its own action plan on the French Language Charter, due in the winter of 2020.

Undaunted, Kelley said there is no real reason to wait.

Lets not just look at the bill lets adopt it, Kelley said. Its time to be bold.

Later, at a news conference, Kelley said the governments own Secretariat for Relations with English-speaking Quebecers where he worked before being elected already has the needed data on the issue from a similar tour of anglophone groups conducted by the Liberals before they lost power to the CAQ.

Theyve had a year to do something, to table something that is concrete, and they have not, Kelley said. This is something Ive been thinking about for a while. This is something people are asking for.

But in the battle for anglophone affections, Skeete had a response at the ready.

Its something we have been focus-grouping to see what the reception would be, Skeete told reporters. Its not new; its not novel, but its a good idea.

The biggest concern I had was: Are people going to think were trying to assimilate the English-community? So I wanted to speak with various groups before proposing the idea. Its something that has been on my radar and I have been saying it for weeks with you guys.

pauthier@postmedia.com

twitter.com/philipauthier

Read this article:

Good idea, CAQ says of Liberal proposal but we thought of it first - Montreal Gazette

Jolle Boutin, with Premier Franois Legault in October, came out well ahead of the Liberals' Gertrude Bourdon.Jacques Boissinot / THE CANADIAN PRESS

QUEBEC In another blow to the struggling Quebec Liberals, voters in the Quebec City riding of Jean-Talon have hopped aboard the governing Coalition Avenir Qubecs bandwagon.

After voting Liberal in every election since 1966, Jean-Talon flipped to the CAQ following a hard-fought byelection Monday to replace former cabinet minister Sbastien Proulx.

Not only does the CAQ gain a 76th MNA in the legislature, but the crushing defeat means the Liberals take a big symbolic hit politically. Jean-Talon, which had voted Liberal 18 consecutive times, was the only seat the party still held east of Montreal following the 2018 election debacle.

Proulx clung to the riding by 1,363 votes then as the CAQ swept the province, but this time it was not to be. The CAQ wields virtually all the power in the provincial capital.

As of 10:30 p.m. Monday, with 150 of 158 polls reporting, CAQ candidate Jolle Boutin, 40, a chief of staff to CAQ minister ric Caire, had bagged 43.35 per cent of the vote with 8,740 votes and was declared the winner.

That result put her well ahead of former nurse and hospital administrator Gertrude Bourdon, 64, the Liberal candidate, who was making her second attempt to get elected to the legislature. Bourdons score was 23.79 per cent of the vote, with a total of 4,796 votes.

In fact, the Liberals were even struggling to hold second place at various points of the evening, as Qubec solidaire candidate Olivier Bolduc, a 32-year-old court stenographer, came on strong. He ended up in third place with 17.98 per cent of the vote, or 3,625 votes.

The Parti Qubcois candidate, Sylvain Barrette, 61, who campaigned on a hardline independence platform, was a distant fourth with only 9.4 per cent of the vote, or 1,895 votes.

The participation rate was 51.29 per cent.

The CAQs win cast a shadow over the mood in the Ste-Foy brasserie where Liberals had gathered to watch the results roll in.

Many arrived with doubts they could hold the riding in the face of the CAQs rock-solid support in the polls. While the CAQ dropped six percentage points provincially in a Lger poll last week, it is still the hands-down leader in its political base of Quebec City.

The Liberals conceded early, with interim leader Pierre Arcand trying to look on the bright side.

We knew from the start of the campaign that this would be a difficult fight, Arcand told the small band of Liberals in a short speech. But we fought well in this campaign.

The Liberal Party of Quebec will continue working hard to regain the affection of Quebecers. In the history of political parties, it is completely normal that there be periods of reconstruction. Redefining ourselves is completely normal.

In 152 years of history, the Liberal Party has experienced difficult periods. What we need to retain is that our party is the only one to have crossed through them all.

Brushing aside a few tears, Bourdon added: To all of you, I say: until the next time.

Later, Arcand said it was clear voters opted to cast ballots for the government.

Across town, Premier Franois Legault was basking in the CAQs victory.

Jolle has managed to bring down the last Liberal fortress east of Montreal, he told a packed hall of CAQ supporters. Quebec is free of the Liberals.

Mondays loss hurts the Liberals even more because it comes as the party struggles to rebuild its image in ridings outside Montreal, which are dominated by francophone voters.

They now have no seats outside Montreal or the Outaouais region.

The party has just launched a leadership campaign to replace Philippe Couillard and could have used the bounce produced by a win in Jean-Talon.

With the stakes so high, the four main parties tossed everything in their arsenals at the byelection.

While the CAQs Boutin benefited from the support of the CAQ caucus, Bourdon arrived in the race with her load of political baggage. After flirting with both the CAQ and the Liberals in the 2018 campaign, she was accused of being opportunistic and without principles.

Mondays results do not significantly alter the composition of the legislature. Before the vote, the CAQ held 75 seats, the Liberals 28, QS 10 and the PQ nine. There are two independents.

pauthier@postmedia.com

twitter.com/philipauthier

Read the rest here:

Liberals lose their only seat east of Montreal - Montreal Gazette