political reporter/parliamentary correspondent at large. proud target of partisan vitriol from all sides of political spectrum. if twitterjailed check
@altkady
Okay, let's see if I can actually make the move (or at least set up a semi-furnished pied a terre) to the *current* most likely successor to Twitter. Find me at
@kadyo
.bsky.social -- and once you do (or even if you don't), let me know how I can follow you back.
The House of Commons protocol office does not report to the prime minister. The parliamentary protective service does not report to the prime minister. The RCMP does not report to the prime minister. Just how micromanaged WAS the former PMO?
Apparently controversial opinion: I think if you've dedicated your life to working in the public service, sounding an alert over what you see as a pervasive threat to public confidence in government as an institution shouldn't automatically be dismissed/denounced as 'partisan'.
One good line from Angus re: the oft-repeated claim that this was a 'peaceful' protest: Yeah, "peaceful if you're a white guy with an upside down Canadian flag on your back."
Finally, can we please not refer to MPs debating or voting on "the Emergencies Act"? The Act is already the law of the land. MPs and senators will be debating and voting on a motion to confirm the declaration of an emergency. (For brevity/flow, I'm going with 'emergency order'.)
It's weird how so many Conservatives who were saying such nice things about the NDP and Jagmeet Singh last week are now so down on the idea of them having a role in a coalition government.
Let's take a moment to appreciate the true heroes of the current House vote-a-thon: The Table officers, pages, interpreters, security and other Commons staffers who keep the Chamber up and running each and every day (and occasionally through the night)!
While I am always interested in what opposition parties have to say on a particular issue/controversy, can we please dispense with the fiction that, short of resigning on the spot, there is anything at all the PM can say/do on SNC-Lavalin that would satisfy them?
I wonder if anyone will ask Scheer if it was equally bullying and wrong for his party's former party leader to threaten to sue Stephane Dion, two other Liberal MPs and the Liberal Party itself over the Cadman bribery allegations.
I also have to say that it is very difficult for anyone who covered committees in the previous government to listen to Conservative MPs go on at length about the outrage of in camera meetings.
So Poilievre really doesn't have a good answer to the (entirely reasonable) question: If this government is so very corrupt and this prime minister so utterly incompetent, why isn't your party vowing to trigger a non-confidence vote at the earliest possible opportunity?
It would be great if people would maybe stop attempting to draw parallels between differing accounts of interactions on the SNC-Lavalin case with sexual assault.
I mean, there's obviously nothing wrong with being a dual citizen -- even if you do become prime minister, imo -- but given the ruckus over Dion and Mulcair, it just seems like he might have mentioned it (and started the paperwork) before now.
From my colleagues
@salimah_shivji
and
@janycemcgregor
travelling on the Conservative campaign bus — Leader Andrew Scheer holds dual Canada-US citizenship:
I'm not sure there's any way the still unfolding SNC-Lavalin scandal can possibly live up to the levels of rhetoric being deployed by the Conservatives. It would have to be worse than Waterrgate plus sponsorship times Shawinigate.
So she allegedly wanted the new AG ordered not to consider overriding the DPP on a remediation deal for SNC-Lavalin? Sounds a bit like political pressure.
Oh no, it appears the Leader of the Official Opposition has confused this pro forma nonpartisan congratulatory speech following the election of a speaker with a partisan rally.
Okay, for the record, I am extremely opposed to striking the ghastly error from the parliamentary record, and even MORE so from "all multimedia recordings," as Gould suggested just now.
Generally speaking, if someone is trying to sell you on a little-known legal trick to oust a sitting government without an election (or your own army), it's worth doublechecking. (Same goes for loopholes that make income tax illegal.)
Score one for Scheer: After leading his caucus out of the Chamber to protest the outrageous etcetera, his post-exit scrum is airing live on CBCNN instead of the budget speech.
I think what baffles me the most about the 'Fauxilibuster' that the Conservatives launched against the omnibus budget bill is how ineffective it was. Using the most generous interpretation of events possible, they *may* have delayed its passage by a day.
Okay, I know I'm not the first to point this out, but seriously, media outlet that shall remain nameless: STOP SAYING A PARTY "WINS MINORITY GOVERNMENT." They've *probably* won the first crack at forming government. That's as far as you can go at this point.
Honestly, it's hard to think of a more perfect example of the House of Commons -- and parliamentary democracy -- working as intended than what we've seen over the last 18 hours or so. Well done, all! Now get some sleep.
Man, Poilievre is getting a LOT of mileage out of this Philpott interview, although he keeps not mentioning the bit where she doesn't want Andrew Scheer to become prime minister. Weirdly.
I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh if the government accidentally falls because of a sloppy vote-a-thon shift change and we end up with an election.
This is really just stating the painfully obvious, but one of, if not THE big question for the eventual inquiry, will be: Why did it take three weeks for police to take this step, and was the Emergencies Act required to do so? (Neither rhetorical, to be clear.)
UPDATE: The Conservative leader is now "demanding" that the prime minister "cancel the budget" and "cancel (his) summer vacation" so that Parliament can "rewrite" the budget. Oh, and they're going to move the budget filibuster to the Senate.
Am I the only one who didn't realize the justice committee actually did take a quick peek the proposed new framework for deferred prosecution agreements? (Which I learned via Neil Macdonald's latest for : )
May as well get this prediction on the Twitter record: Whatever Jody WIlson-Raybould ultimately says re: pressure will be sufficiently ambiguous/open to interpretation that it will be seized upon by everyone with an opinion on what happened as proof they were right all along.
So on the very same day that they've got a motion before the House to hold a committee probe into the alleged murder of a QC sex worker by someone on day parole, the Conservatives deny consent to fast track a bill to require sexual assault training for judges?
So, to take Scheer's logic re: vote share a step further, it's fair to say that significantly more Canadians supported the platforms of the Liberals and the New Democrats than the Conservatives.
So at the risk of being a bit of a stick in the mud over the boundless exuberance of modern electioneering, does it seem a wee bit untoward for a party to surreptitiously hire an outside operative explicitly to block one of their competitors from a leaders' debate?
So, at the very least, we can say that Jagmeet Singh managed to come up with the most politically on-brand way to get out of four hours of estimates review in recent memory.
Okay, *enough* with the pointless 'campaign-style' modifier. A speech introducing a candidate is a campaign speech, period. "Campaign-style" means nothing, and is a plague upon the headlineverse.
I'm admittedly not an econ wonk, but isn't it a bit contradictory to openly warn the Bank of Canada against funding duly authorized government spending plans while simultaneously advising it to avoid 'ideological' debates?
The Conservatives caution the Bank of Canada against financing Justin Trudeau’s spending plans beyond immediate pandemic emergency measures,
@theoargitis
@kbolongaro
report
#cdnpoli
#cdnecon
NDP Leader Peter Julian says “There was absolutely no alternative for Speaker Rota stepping down”
“It’s not a happy day for us, it’s a sad day but the reality is, it’s the right decision”
#cdnpoli
If you truly believe that a government is so reckless and untrustworthy, parliamentary protocols dictate that you attempt to oust them to protect the country from their malfeasance, not demand endless committee investigations into alleged wrongdoings.
(This goes along with my similarly controversial belief that an independent officer charged with overseeing elections is justified in raising concerns over changes to the electoral law that could disenfranchise voters.)
Keeping one eye on the emergency debate, and
@CharlieAngusNDP
is delivering a Saturday morning barnburner over how everything got to this point and wants a full inquiry into what went wrong on so many levels. Sounds like the government may be on side.
Oh wow, Elizabeth May wound up voting to confirm. I believe her fellow Green MP, Mike Morrice, will be voting nay, thus preserving the Green tradition of seeing both sides of every issue!
Are the Conservatives actually going to try to call in a progressively less senior series of political advisors? They had their shot at the prime minister. You usually save that for the end, not as the teaser for the assistant policy advisor.
@kady
This is turning into a very expensive 2019 campaign for the Canadian taxpayers. I am a French Canadian and sufferd being called a French frog when can I expect my millions?
Incidentally, that in no way means anyone is obliged to *agree* with such views. But one can disagree without attacking the motivation/character of the source.
So, we want the government to decide who can enter the parliamentary precinct? Watch debates in the House of Commons? Appear as a witness at committee?
It actually really bugs me when politicians (or anyone) deliberately misrepresent how the parliamentary system works to bolster their chosen narrative. Poetic licence is one thing, but don't just flat out make stuff up. There's enough confusion out there already.
Addendum: If I were leader of this party, and my staff suggested I go out and deploy the phrase "contracts that may or may not exist" to actual live humans on camera, I would sit down on the floor and refuse to move until they gave me a less ridiculous response.
I have to say the Canadian public is really failing to meet media/political expectations for mass panic and pandemonium at the prospect of imminent pot legalization.
I have just been informed by the Prime Minister of Canada that I am removed from the Liberal caucus and as the confirmed Vancouver Granville candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2019 federal election. More to come...
Very grateful to
@CBCQueensPark
for dredging up this quote:
'The late New Democrat MPP Peter Kormos quipped that the logo looked like "three men in a hot tub."'
Ford government redesigning Ontario's trillium logo, CBC News has learned
#onpoli
I'd be really curious to know how many MPs would actually do a background check on a constituent in a scenario like this. (Or, as Andrew Scheer repeatedly put it, a simple Google search.)
Speaker’s office says Yaroslav Hunka’s son “contacted Rota’s constituency office and asked if it would be possible for Mr. Hunka to attend the address in the House of Commons by Mr. Zelensky. This request was accepted by the Speaker’s Office."
So, both the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have now moved on to what I think is a much more responsible/relevant/factually accurate argument: Okay, this happened. What, specifically, will the PM do NOW to make it right? Call Zelenskyy? Meet with Jewish groups? What else?
Have we ever even *had* a brown/black/etc face scandal in Canadian politics before? I know we've definitely had dressed-up-as-a-Nazi ones, but I can't recall anything like this.
And yes, it matters. No, you can't get away with it just because it's a tidier headline. It's misleading and inaccurate and wrong so just STOP DOING IT. (Fin.)
I have to say this one really does baffle me. Lots of people are horrible to each other on twitter, and by those standards, this is pretty middle of the road. No threats of death/violence etc. Just uses a word we still get weirdly pearlclutchy about.
FINALLY someone (Wernick) explains what "national economic interest" means in this context: You can't let a company off the hook because it helps your country over another. It doesn't mean economic factors are off the table vis a vis a DPA.
Bit of a Royal We being employed here, as Scheer doesn't seem to be in the House at the moment. Not sure when he clocked out. And no, neither is the prime minister, but as it was Scheer's party that triggered this vote-a-thon, you'd think he'd stick it out for the duration.
Can we at least come together across party/competing media lines and call them "wallets", not "pocketbooks," a phrase no one has used outside of election/budget coverage in decades?
Alright, if prorogation is, indeed, effective immediately, the opposition parties have every right to be extremely annoyed that their committee work has been suspended for a month.
Okay, I don't mean to be overly picky here, but can we please not start using 'mandate' as shorthand for 'election victory'? Canadian party leaders don't win 'mandates'. Their party wins a sufficient number of seats to form government, either majority or minority, depending.
Time for round two of the scrum, featuring
@niknanos
. He says the "one killer number" is Liberals among women voters, Nanos says it's slipped considerably during SNC-Lavalin affair, and this could put their mandate in jeopardy.
#cdnpoli
#ctvqp
Well, this has been an excellent reminder of why one should never, ever attempt to predict what a minority House will do. Especially via secret ballot! Congratulations to Greg Fergus, the new occupant of the best seat in the room.
Which is fine! Let it pass! But -- don't have your leader hold not one but TWO press conferences in which he pledges to block it until the budget is balanced.