{"id":190488,"date":"2017-04-30T22:51:00","date_gmt":"2017-05-01T02:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/liberals-drop-some-proposals-but-seem-ready-to-move-ahead-with-reform-to-parliament-cbc-ca\/"},"modified":"2017-04-30T22:51:00","modified_gmt":"2017-05-01T02:51:00","slug":"liberals-drop-some-proposals-but-seem-ready-to-move-ahead-with-reform-to-parliament-cbc-ca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/liberal\/liberals-drop-some-proposals-but-seem-ready-to-move-ahead-with-reform-to-parliament-cbc-ca\/","title":{"rendered":"Liberals drop some proposals, but seem ready to move ahead with reform to Parliament &#8211; CBC.ca"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The Liberal government is moving to break a     month-old deadlock over parliamentary reform, dropping some    proposals that had raised opposition concerns, but nonetheless    seeming readyto make changes to the way the House of    Commons works, with or without oppositionsupport.  <\/p>\n<p>    The government's intention is outlined in a letter from    Government House leaderBardishChaggerto her    Conservative and New Democrat counterparts that was delivered    on Sunday.  <\/p>\n<p>    In the letter, Chagger says the government will introduce    amotion in the House that includes a set of reforms that    were promised in the last Liberal campaign platform, including    changes to question period,the consideration of omnibus    legislation,and the process through which MPs approve    government spending.  <\/p>\n<p>    Other proposals, some of them controversial, will be dropped    and a committee study, which was being filibustered by the    opposition, will be abandoned.  <\/p>\n<p>    The new motion is to be introduced before the House adjourns    for the summer in June.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Liberals, with a majority of seats in the House, would be    able to approve the changes without the support of MPs in other    parties, a possibility that has been at the heart of a     messy dispute between the government and opposition.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"In the last election, Canadians were tired of how Stephen    Harper's Conservatives had abused Parliament, so we really    offered them real change and that's where some of our campaign    commitments came from,\" Chagger said in an interview on Sunday.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"We have a mandate to really advance those changes and we    really do want to deliver on the commitments that we've made to    Canadians.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Repeating an argument the government has made on this issue,    she said the Liberals \"will not give the Conservatives a veto    over any of our campaign commitments.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Chagger says she is interested in a \"meaningful debate\" and    argues that the changes included in the motion will make the    government more accountable to Parliament. But she suggests the    government is committed to delivering on its promises of    reform, regardless of opposition support.  <\/p>\n<p>    Conservative House leader Candice Bergen said the motion will    not be warmly received.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"I think what's happened is the Liberals have been hearing ...    from Canadians that Canadians are not impressed with the    arrogance of this government, the arrogance of this prime    minister, that he thinks he can ram these changes through. And    so they are scrambling and trying to do something,\" Bergen said    in an interview on Sunday.  <\/p>\n<p>    They are doing exactly the same thing though and it's not going    to work. It's certainly not going to be a positive reception    from us and the NDP, and I don't think overall Canadians will    be receptive.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Bergen maintains that the rules of Parliament should only be    changed with all-party consensus.  <\/p>\n<p>    NDP House leader Murray Rankin was similarly unimpressed.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"For the past few weeks, the Liberals have tried to claim that    all they've wanted was a discussion,\" Rankin said in a    statement. \"Well, they have just announced that they will be    unilaterally forcing through changes to the way our Parliament    works, largely just to suit themselves. Discussion was always    just a pretence  it just took them a while to admit it. It's    clear now that the emperor has no clothes.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    The parties have been at odds for more than a month, since the        Liberals released a discussion paper on reform and proposed    that the House committee on procedure take up a study of    possible changes.  <\/p>\n<p>    Conservatives and New Democrats expressed concerns about some    of the ideas raised by the Liberals, including a new procedure    to schedule debate in the House and limits onthe ability    of MPs to delay committee business.  <\/p>\n<p>    The opposition alsoalleged that the government was    preparing to force the changes on MPs anddemanded that    the government agree in advance to only implement reforms if    all-party agreement could be found.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Liberals refused and Conservatives and New Democrats    responded by     filibustering the proceedings at the committee, preventing    a study from starting.  <\/p>\n<p>    That protest spread to the House of Commons, where    Conservatives used procedural maneuvres to delay business. Two    weeks ago, an unrelated debate in the House became a filibuster    that tied up the chamber and could continue when the House    resumes sitting on Monday.  <\/p>\n<p>    In deciding to move a motion that puts their platform    commitments to a vote, the Liberals will drop their pursuit of    a larger committee study.  <\/p>\n<p>    The new government motion has not yet been tabled, but the    Liberal platform proposed:  <\/p>\n<p>    The Liberals also said they would not abuse prorogation and    have since proposed a new procedure for proroguing Parliament.  <\/p>\n<p>    On Sunday, Bergen said the Conservatives are concerned that    changing question period could result in the prime minister    appearing only once per week. The Liberals have said that that    is not their intention.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Conservatives are also concerned that changes to the    estimates process for reviewing spending could make it harder    for the opposition to scrutinize the government.  <\/p>\n<p>    Liberal MPs are generally expected to support the government on    votes in the House that relate to platform commitments.  <\/p>\n<p>    The government isabandoning itssuggestion of    a new mechanism for scheduling House business (known as    \"programming.\")But Chagger warns that, instead, the    government will be relying more often on a procedure known as    time allocation, which allows the government to cap the time    for debate.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"We believe in the role Parliament plays to have constructive    debate of legislation and I will always strive to find out from    the opposition how much time is needed for debate,\" Chagger    says. \"But if there is no agreement, we will have to use time    allocation more often.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    The Liberal motion will also not include a proposal to    eliminate the abbreviated sittings of the House that take place    on Fridays and reapportionthat time to other days, a    suggestion that opposition parties have criticized.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Liberals believe it would be better for MPs to be able to    be in their ridings on Friday. Opposition MPs have complained    that doing away with the Friday sitting would deprive the    opposition of a day to question the government (though sparsely    attended, a session of question period is conducted on Friday    mornings).  <\/p>\n<p>    The Liberals say they will discuss the proposal within their    caucus and ask that the Conservatives and New Democrats do    likewise.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>The rest is here:<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/news\/politics\/wherry-liberals-parliament-reform-1.4092596\" title=\"Liberals drop some proposals, but seem ready to move ahead with reform to Parliament - CBC.ca\">Liberals drop some proposals, but seem ready to move ahead with reform to Parliament - CBC.ca<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The Liberal government is moving to break a month-old deadlock over parliamentary reform, dropping some proposals that had raised opposition concerns, but nonetheless seeming readyto make changes to the way the House of Commons works, with or without oppositionsupport. The government's intention is outlined in a letter from Government House leaderBardishChaggerto her Conservative and New Democrat counterparts that was delivered on Sunday. In the letter, Chagger says the government will introduce amotion in the House that includes a set of reforms that were promised in the last Liberal campaign platform, including changes to question period,the consideration of omnibus legislation,and the process through which MPs approve government spending <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/liberal\/liberals-drop-some-proposals-but-seem-ready-to-move-ahead-with-reform-to-parliament-cbc-ca\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187824],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-liberal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190488"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}