G&M has opined on Govt's refusal to present unredacted documents called for by the House of Commons and now the subject of a privilege debate used to filibuster the work of Govt in HoC. But they and others don't get the parliamentary privilege to send for papers #cdnpoli 1/n quite right So far I've kept quiet, but since the filibuster is interfering w/ Govt's right to present bills to Parliament, I thought I'd comment. The Houses of Parliament each have the power to send for persons and papers bc it is necessary for them to have information to 2/n

If my preferred voting system had been in place yesterday, neither the Liberal or the Conservative candidate wld have won on that FPTP ballot bc neither had a majority of votes cast. Instead, voters wld have had the option of ...1/n @telfordk @DLeBlancNB @JustinTrudeau indicating a 2nd choice on the same ballot. Then an instant runoff of the top two candidates on the FPTP vote wld determine which of the two had a majority for that riding. In this case, NDP and Green voters wld have determined whether a Conservative or Liberal candidate won. 2/n

What a political hatchet jog! See thread. #cdnpoli

Departing officials complain Commons clerk was partial to Liberals, fell asleep during question period | CBC News cbc.ca/news/politics/… This article has all the earmarks of a politically orchestrated take-down designed to hurt the Liberals and Rota when he runs for Speaker. The Conservatives have opposed CR from the beginning and have even conducted a whisper campaign against him because he's gay. 2/n

Why am I so "pedantic" abt distinguishing House of Commons from Parliament? The House (and Senate) each have parliamentary privileges, but they have them because Parliament (HoC+Senate+Crown) enacted a statute (Parl of Cda Act) giving them those privileges. But a House #cdnpoli by itself is not supreme. An Act of Parliament may limit privileges granted by Parl of Cda Act (not all statutes do so). Any article claiming the Govt is taking "Parl" to court and "Parl" has right to hold Govt to account bc "Parl" is supreme is just uttering nonsense. Govt is

Reading Cda Evidence Act, s. 38.01 and see this: "(4) An official ... who believes that sensitive information or potentially injurious information is abt to be disclosed in the course of a proceeding may raise the matter with the person presiding at the proceeding. #cdnpoli If the official raises the matter, he or she shall notify the Attorney General of Canada in writing of the matter as soon as possible, whether or not notice has been given under subsection (3), and the person presiding at the proceeding shall ensure that the information is not

Let's recall what the WE "scandal" is abt: Was WE chosen out of favouritism by PMJT? It's now clear the answer is NO.
2nd questn: Shld PMJT have "recused" himself under COIA? To be determined by Ethics Commissioner, not by Opposition. Parliament gave that right away.
3rd questn: Was WE a good choice? That is a purely administrative issue, not an "ethics" or conflict of interest question. It's proper IMO for Finance Cmtee to look at that.
The imprtnt thing to keep in mind is that Parliament by statute has given an impartial Ethics Commissioner sole pwr to

On Friday, July 9, 1982, at 4 p.m., the House of Commons proceeded to Private Members' Business, which was supposed to last an hour. In those days PMB was usually "talked out", i.e., MPs talked whole hour and never got to vote. When that happened, the private member's bill or motion dropped to the bottom of the PMB list, rarely if ever to be called again before session ended and item died on Order Paper. But not that day! The bill was to amend the Holidays Act by changing "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day". The proposer was Hal Herbert, QC anglophone and

Both @EvanLSolomon and @theJagmeetSingh on @ctvqp today gave the impression that BQ MP Alain Therrien rejected a *motion* moved by Singh. That's incorrect. Singh sought unanimous consent of HoC (i.e., unanimous permission of every MP in House) to move the motion he read out. /2 Unanimous consent is required to move a motion w/o having first given 48 hours' notice of the intention to do so. Notice is required so that the House is not caught by surprise. If no formal notice is given, the MP who wants to move a motion is supposed to consult the House Leadr