From what I'm seeing on Mastodon, there was some kind of altercation between Ezra Levant and other reporters...
- In early April 2025, a rumor began to spread that U.S. President Donald Trump had backed down on tariffs because Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney forced his hand by orchestrating a collective sale of U.S. bonds.
- It is true that Trump paused tariffs after the price of U.S. Treasurys began to drop at the same time as the price of U.S. stocks plummeted, an event known as a synchronized sell-off. In fact, after he announced the pause, Trump said, "bond markets are tricky."
- However, the claim that Carney had orchestrated the bond sell-off alongside the European Union and Japan was not confirmed. It came from the newsletter of Dean Blundell, a staunch supporter of Carney in Canada's next federal election and a former "shock jock."
- Snopes has contacted Blundell, asking him to explain how he came upon this story and to clarify some points from his allegations.
- Snopes also contacted Carney's office asking for confirmation of Blundell's claims. Lastly, we have reached out to several fixed income analysts to inquire about the plausibility of such a scheme.
Those requirements are designed to allow Quebec’s provincial party a seat at the table
Certainly, and I've already expressed how I feel about that. But I get it - they're able to leverage the electoral system to their advantage, and have in fact been the Official Opposition at times.
I certainly agree that it's very questionable to have an explicitly regional party in the federal debates, but for clarity's sake, the criteria are 2/3 of the following:
-
having at least one sitting MP who's been elected as a member of that party
-
having at least four per cent national support in opinion polls
-
running candidates in at least 90 per cent of all ridings
After pulling the candidates, the Green Party only meets one of these criteria (the first).
Yeah, from what I've gathered from previous articles on the topic, CSIS does not have boots-on-the-ground spies, foreign assets, or the infrastructure to support them.
Then we should be tracking down and firing everyone involved from all parties?
Yup.
In this case, I think there might be a case to be made.
"The prosecutor would be, I think, concerned … if the investigation was still going on behind the scenes, without them being looped in, while they're trying to prosecute a case," said Michael Arntfield, a criminologist and professor at Western University who worked for 16 years as a detective with the London Police Service in Ontario.
"If they say they can't interview him, that to me sounds like they've taken direction either from the Crown or from superior officers to not potentially interfere with the prosecution."
Sure, I just don't find "everybody does it" to be a particularly compelling argument. Wrong is wrong.
Absolutely. It's beyond me why someone would be against a hearing taking place, considering a "no" would be practically guaranteed in cases like these.
Carney said they’ve been “reassigned” within the campaign.
Not nearly enough.
Is it safe to say that casual use of the notwithstanding clause has been normalized to the point that there are no real consequences to invoking it any more?
Absolute madness.
Respect.