Did you know that senators who don't belong to a political party caucus have always been called "independents"? That term isn't new. What did PM Trudeau do to modernize the Senate? 1) He dissolved Liberal Party caucus in the Senate. 2) He appointed lots of new senators who 1/n don't belong to a political party caucus, so they were all "independents" by virtue of that fact. 3) The independent senators divided themselves up into non-party groups: Independent Senators Group, Canadian Senators Group, Progressive Senate Group. Only one political party 2/n

Since American colonies won independence b4 UK developed responsible govt, the then independnt colonies (they were separate States on the international level) had only the colonial legislatures given them by Britain: an elected lower house w/ an upper house that advised the 1/n appointed royal governor (an executive council imitating Privy Council) and also approving bills passed by lower house, so dual role. The person chosen as presiding officer (Speaker) was spokesman for the elected House in opposing the governor. The upper house was composed 2/n

Since you can be PM without being an MP (or senator) as I explained earlier, you may wonder what makes our system democratic. The House of Commons is the elected House of Parliament, but the Govt is appointed by the GG not elected by us. Before the convention of responsible 1/n government was developed (sometime after American colonies revolted so they didn't inherit responsible govt), the Crown cld appoint anyone it wanted to the Privy Council to advise the monarch or colonial Governor. But w/ responsible govt, the Crown was expected to pick as PM 2/n

For anyone who complains that Mark Carney, if he is chosen to lead the Liberal Party, wld become Prime Minister w/out a seat in Parliament, they shld know this: if he becomes PM and asks GG to dissolve Parliament for general election, ALL MPs will immediately cease to be 1/n cease to be Members of Parliament. When the House of Commons is dissolved, it actually ceases to exist. When there is no HoC, there are no MPs. Yes, former MPs who are running again continue to be paid until the election results determine whether they are re-elected or not. 2/n

After convo w/ @sachaforstner ystday, I decided to look at Clarity Act for 1st time in 20+ yrs. Surprised by drafting. Full title: An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. 1/n Title indicates Act has limited purpose: to ensure understdg of how fed govt wld decide whether referendum question were "clear". Secession of a province requires constitutional amdt, which requires negotiations btwn all provinces and fed govt. Act sets time limit for HoC to 2/n

As an immigrant I never cease to be amazed and disappointed by Cdns' ignorance of how their Constitution and parliamentary system work. They conflate the government and Parliament, and the party leadership and Prime Minister's office. Justin Trudeau has resigned the leadershp 1/n of the Liberal Party. He has not resigned the prime-ministership. He is still PM and retains all the powers and prerogatives of that office. Parliament has been prorogued, but the government is still operating. There is no void, no power vaccuum. The PM has all the powers he 2/n

Did you know that the right to strike is not mentioned in the Charter? At first the Supreme Crt of Cda decided it wasn't a constitutional right, but when it came up again, the Court changed its decision and read it into the freedom of association. An odd right it is tho. 1/n Strikes are predicated on the right of workers to act collectively (in association) to withdraw their services from an employer. The employer lost money bc the workers wldn't work and customers went elsewhere. That ideal model fails when the employer is a public service or 2/n

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