54 Comments
User's avatar
Terry's avatar

I like this article but....The whole case you're making for not upholding the rule for Pierre is because uprooting child during a school year would be traumatic? Last I checked Pierre is pretty well off and it wouldn't be that hard to move to somewhere close by lol. I mean poorer people are forced to move all the time.

Now we should ignore that a man who did his best to pander to and sell our country to a racist, transphobic base in a quest for power deserves more of our tax dollars to stay in the mansion as a signal of progressive virtue?

I'm failing to see why the people who pay the bills for this mansion and who have to do normal people things like move in the middle of school year and have nothing to do with a Hunter Biden pardon should care about a millionaire having to move from one mansion they pay for to another that they don't.

Expand full comment
StonedGoose's avatar

To be fair, he owns a very large house in a suburb of Ottawa that he rents to Michael Cooper, another MP. He lived there before moving to Stornoway for 24 or so months. Not much in his family's life would change.

Expand full comment
Terry's avatar

Exactly why are we going to pretend like it would be this huge thing to have to move. Oh the horror

Expand full comment
kaycee's avatar

Forcing them to move would be needlessly petty & mean-spirited and visiting the sins of the father on the child. Doesn't matter that other people's children have to move - the conversation is about this man's children.

And forcing him to move, moving someone else in & then moving Poilievre back in would cost more money that taxpayers don't need to spend.

Expand full comment
Terry's avatar

Ok, I see your point but how is moving cruel? I'm not even saying he should be forced to move or see the reason why we should even talk about it. Let Ottawa do what they decide to do.

But saying it's cruel for a child from a privileged and wealthy family to have to move if that's how it goes as the argument? Here is me playing my world's smallest violin.

Expand full comment
kaycee's avatar

Moving is among one of the top 5 life events which create stress. Just because a child comes from a wealthy/privileged background, doesn't mean it's not stressful for the child. We need to do better than deliberately playing stupid political games that impact kids.

Expand full comment
Terry's avatar

Well if the day comes he loses his opposition post hopefully they have good therapists on hand for when they have to move mansions I suppose

Expand full comment
Allan Stratton's avatar

Very true. Poilievre wouldn't have extended the courtesy and would have waited as long as he could to call the by-election. But Trudeau wouldn't have extended the courtesy either, and had a history of running out the clock on election calls. Carney needs to show he's different: a mature adult who recognizes that prime ministers should respect the dignity and importance of the opposition.

Expand full comment
Madom's avatar

Carney has already said that he will schedule a bi-election as soon as possible. He is the class act, and like Michelle Obama, when PeePee goes low, Carney goes high.

Expand full comment
Charles Parkhurst's avatar

The voters spoke. Pollievre lost his seat. Time for him to move on.

Expand full comment
Russell McOrmond's avatar

The problem is, political parties in Canada are using US-Presidential style leadership conventions rather than ensuring the Executive branch is always accountable to the legislative branch, and other party leaders are always accountable to party caucus.

The "voters", or whatever you call those political tourists that "vote" during leadership conventions and force external "leaders" onto parliamentary caucuses, didn't vote Polievre out.

https://www.davidgraham.ca/p/leadership-by-caucus

BTW: The first "Canadian" party, operating within a Westminster Parliamentary system (which is very different than a Presidential system) to show their desire to be more like the USA and adopt this US-Presidential leadership convention format was the Liberal Party of Canada.

Elbows up? Hmmmm....

Expand full comment
I’m already a subscriber's avatar

As an American observer, I commend you on your efforts to avoid being like PP. One point that I disagree with you is bringing Biden’s decision to pardon his son. This was not a typical decision. The republicans had been trying to hurt Joe Biden for years. The election had been called for trump. You have seen what he’s done to our country. Do you think that Hunter would be safe here, EVER! No. You are entitled to your opinion. But knowing what the current party and president are like, Joe did the correct thing. He protected someone from years and years of harassment and imprisonment. All for being a relative.

Expand full comment
Stefan Klietsch's avatar

I think that it might have been more defensible for Biden to commute his son's sentence rather than to pardon him entirely. The pardon sent the wrong signals about the integrity of America's justice system.

Expand full comment
I’m already a subscriber's avatar

Fair enough.

Expand full comment
Joanne Pettis's avatar

I REALLY intensely and passionately dislike, distrust, and deplore Poilievre and every MAGA thing he stands for, and every MAGA thing he stands for includes mean-spirited, vengeful behaviour. Therefore I urge us to be the Canadians we say we are, the Canadians the world is watching. Once/if Poilievre finds a riding to run in, let Carney call a bi-election quickly, (but maybe run a Liberal in opposition unless it’s a super safe Conservative riding). Let the Poilievre family stay in Stornaway until the outcome of a bi-election.

Carney has come this far in our hearts by showing himself to be a strong, principled, and decent man. That’s the leader I want and the Canada I want.

Expand full comment
kaycee's avatar

I dislike Poilievre intensely, but he's not MAGA & I wish people would stop saying he is. His behaviour was baked in long before MAGA existed.

Expand full comment
Russell McOrmond's avatar

Polieve is from the Reform branch of the Conservative Party, and "Make Alberta Great Again" feel very much like the same grievance politics. That said, I agree that the use of the MAGA term is misleading as it falsely suggests the Canadian political movement is somehow younger or happened because of what is happening with Trump recently in the USA.

The Reform movement predates the US MAGA movement by quite a bit, especially when you consider SOCRED.

I wish more people had a multi-generational lens of politics, rather than thinking what is happening at any given moment is brand new and not predictable given longer-term trends.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK3dnGheWA

Expand full comment
Alexis's avatar

MAGA is only the current name for the same ideology. Back in the early 2000’s.And they learned from the IDU which was up and running since the early 1980’s. MAGA ideology isn’t anything new.

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar
May 2Edited

I think this is nonsense. The leader of the opposition in the house is a defined role. Poilievre is not in this role at the moment. So, until he is back in this role, he cannot stay in the official residence. That is not petty or mean spirited.

Now, I don’t think anybody would object to giving a couple of weeks of transition time for the Poilievre family to find suitable accommodation. There is no need to order moving trucks immediately when the last vote has been counted. But by the time that the new MPs take their oaths, he should have moved out.

You might ask, why not make an exception? Well, the answer is simple. The government moves people all the time. Diplomats and military personnel are moving all the time. Considerable effort is spent to make sure that these people receive what they are entitled to, but also to make sure that they do not receive more than they are entitled to. The same applies to the Poilievre family. There is no special treatment for a corporal moving with family from one base to another, nor should there be for the former leader of the opposition in the house.

Finally, I remember the conservatives howling about Gerald Butts receiving relocation benefits exactly per the relocation policy of the government of Canada. They portrayed him as a grifter, taking advantage of the taxpayers for receiving a benefit he was entitled to. Let’s just agree we apply the rules and policies for everybody equally.

Expand full comment
Kim Vale's avatar

Had he led a clean, polite campaign, I might be tempted to let him stay for a bit.

But he didn’t.

He resorted to propaganda, lies and name-calling.

As another reader said, his 6 year old will adjust, just as other 6 year olds do when their parents have to move. Except the difference here is that he has boat loads of money to make it easier on all of them.

It isn’t like they are being thrown out into the street like so many other families who can’t afford their rent.

I ran out of sympathy a long time ago for this deceitful person.

Expand full comment
Jimmy Business's avatar

Gotta strongly disagree, time to roll out Pierre. If you want to benefit from the principle "children living in Ottawa should not have their lives disrupted" you should not have fondled the truckers

Expand full comment
Maureen Cam's avatar

Men love it when there are no consequences for anything they do, especially in politics. We just have to look across the border to the south to see how this works out. Pollievre is no different. He lost the election and he lost his seat. There needs to be consequences. Especially for this misogynistic, hateful whiny little (?) Human.

Expand full comment
Velociraver's avatar

Let him stay, but make him pay for the upkeep 🤷‍♂️

Expand full comment
Bruce1's avatar

Your point on avoiding petty revenge is acceptable however I draw the line on being sympathetic because he has a young family. The fellow is a millionaire and his Party will cover him in riches so he would manage if forced out.

Expand full comment
Scott Harradine's avatar

How delicious it will be to point out the CONservative hypocrisy on the SO many points that we just know will be coming. Going ‘high’ by allowing him to continue his government subsidised ‘stay’ at Stornway, will give us such great opportunities to remind Canadians how much he’s costing us, how ‘fair, generous and considerate’ we are. Everyday will be like a hockey glove face-wash to the Opposition.., and it will be so delightful.

Expand full comment
Jim Sellers's avatar

With the amount of our money that he has spent catering to his own personal needs, I have no problem telling him to move out, even if he moves back in.

If the Conservatives have a leadership review and boot him out, then he should have to move to Battle River.

Expand full comment
Steve Shortt's avatar

Poilievre owns a house or two in Ottawa, under his wife’s name, and is renting one of them to a CPC member while collecting the allowances paid by the government. I say he should leave the Opposition Leaders residence and move into his own home. No big deal. Also, how does Hunter Biden influence any of this?

Expand full comment
Writeorama's avatar

Funny that the oppo lives in Stornoway while the Prime Minister has lived in a “cottage.”

I do not know how the residences compare, but perhaps this is the time to consider a shuffle.

Expand full comment
Alexa's avatar

I was thinking that, too. Why cant they move the PM's residence to Stornaway? The Cons can't complain right now as they don't have anyone to live there.

Expand full comment
D. Madole's avatar

Perhaps people wouldn't be in such a hurry to get rid of him if he wasn't so ready to gleefully inflict pain and suffering on others.

Expand full comment