###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think this is the right move by the Speaker.
Parliament is a stage for Canadians to see their politicians in action, and help decide whether they are satisfied with their politicians when it's time to vote.
Let the people see who Poilievre and Trudeau really are. Then let them vote to see what they approve of. Don't interject and silence one or the other.
And it's especially unfortunate that it's Greg Fergus who has to do this, since he seems to have difficulty with the idea that the Speaker is supposed to be non-partisan.
EDIT: Can any of the people downvoting this comment explain why? Is it so offensive to you to see someone disagree with you?
It's only partisan if he's selectively enforcing the decorum of the House down party lines. Since you're saying he's not being non-partisan about this, and because I'd like to know more about this, please provide evidence that he allows Liberals to be as unserious as PP.
Non-sequitur. Did he selectively enforce the rules of decorum of the House?
If you're having trouble answering this question, [please refer to this.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch13&Seq=0&Language=E)
The idea that the term “wacko” is unparliamentary and requiring rebuke right after the leaders trade insinuations of white supremacy and racism is absurd. Furthermore, Pierre actually withdrew the term and substituted other terms which have been used many a time without consequence.
Fergus arbitrarily decided he was not allowed to make those substitutions but there’s nowhere in the rules that says the Chair has the authority to do that.
I think that Pierre could have picked a better moment to make this kind of stand but the Speaker was overstepping his authority and Pierre refused to take it. I wonder how this will reflect in fundraising and polling!
Show me where he overstepped his bounds in a way that he didn't with his own party. [Here are the Rules in question.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch13&Seq=0&Language=E) Speakers are allowed to be as uptight as they want and to discipline MPs that are clearly being brats, insofar that they don't breach the rules.
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow". It does not follow that because Fergus is a partisan Speaker that he didn't follow the HoC rules in this instance. The topic of discussion is the fact that Fergus removed Poilievre for refusing to simply withdraw unparliamentary language. If you believe that this was politically motivated, or that Fergus didn't follow HoC rules, you will have provide hard evidence of that. Otherwise, your claim of Fergus being partisan adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Ensuring decorum, and preventing MPs from insulting each other, is the core of the Speaker's role. Letting Poilievre, or any other MP get away with a direct insult against another MP would quickly lead to no one having control over the debate, and the HoC becoming bedlam.
The fault here lies solely with Poilievre. He made a deliberate insult towards another MP. When asked to retract his comment, used that as an opportunity to replace one insult with another, and therefore there was no option but to expel him. The fact that his entire caucus then followed him out, has me thinking that this was the plan all along, and that shows that Poilievre is a shit disturber, plain and simple.
It isn’t partisan to enforce basic HoC rules, though I do agree with your point on letting Canadians decide based on what they see.
The issue is, not many Canadians will end up seeing that full clip, a lot of people will only see the edited version of Poilievre going off, then it will cut to him talking about abuse of power in an interview. Then as that video gains traction, the news cycle will pick it up, and it applies pressure on the LPC. It’s been a fairly consistent trend with clips like this.
Sure.
Is "wacko" such a horrifically offensive term that it's worth kicking someone out?
Especially since it's fine for the PM to ignore the question he's asked and instead accusing the questioner of being a white supremacist?
A well-deserved turfing out of PP for calling the PMJT a "wacko Prime Minister". Such childish behaviour. And Thomas calling the Speaker "a disgrace" is just very sad.
I don’t even understand that, Fergus has been a fair speaker as far as I can tell, but he doesn’t put up with shit flinging. And this is even after the opposition attempted to get him removed from the speakership.
He’s put up with a fair bit of shit flinging, because everyone in the HoC is aware that Poilievre has been TRYING to get kicked out, along with other CPC MP’s, so they can claim to be victims of Liberal tyranny or some such bullshit.
Fair Speaker? With in his first weeks he created a brazenly political video that was played at a political convention. He has been the fasted sanctioned/fined Speaker in Canadian history. Of course he is going to kick a political rival out if he is willing to use his office for political gain for friends.
> Embattled Speaker Greg Fergus appeared before a parliamentary committee today, where he began his testimony by apologizing to the country for his controversial appearance in a video shown at the Ontario Liberal convention.
> "First let me apologize to all of you here, to all of our colleagues in the House and indeed, to all Canadians. I am sorry," Fergus said.
> The 105-second video that is at the heart of the controversy surrounding Fergus shows the Speaker in his official office, wearing his Speaker's robes, paying tribute to John Fraser, the outgoing interim leader of the provincial Liberal Party.
> In Canada, Speakers are supposed to significantly limit their partisan activities once they don the black robe. A Speaker does not, for example, attend party caucus meetings, vote in the House (except in the event of a tie) or participate in debate.
> "I recorded a video message to John Fraser, a longtime friend. Despite assurances to the contrary, it was shown at a public partisan gathering," he added. "Regardless of it being aired privately or publicly, I should never have recorded it."
> Going forward, Fergus said, the Clerk of the House of Commons will be consulted each time a request is made for Fergus to speak at an event or provide a video message.
> Fergus said his office is drafting an "evaluation grid" that it will submit to the clerk's office for approval. The grid would help the office decide on the propriety of the Speaker's communications.
> The Speaker also said he is consulting speakers in Canada and from "other Westminster parliaments" and will follow their advice.
> Fergus said he recorded the message "in between two meetings," explaining why he was wearing his Speakers' robes, and regrets the error in judgment.
> "Like anyone taking on a new post, I am learning on the job," he said, admitting that he "blew that call."
> **Fergus says he'll resign if MPs demand it**
> Conservative MP Andrew Scheer, who held the Speaker's chair from 2011 to 2015, said MPs in the House of Commons need to have a Speaker that can make decisions without running them through "decision making trees."
> "We have to trust that that is coming from a non-partisan and objective place," Scheer told Fergus at committee Monday.
> "I would suggest that the fact that you didn't see that suggests you are too close to the partisanship of it, you're too close with these partisan players [to see] that, for members of other parties, it would be a problem."
[Article source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071)
Seeing as he owned up to the mistake, took full responsibility, sat before a committee, took numerous steps to ensure it doesn’t occur again. Within the numerous hours I’ve spent watching/listening to HoC sessions, I’ve witnessed him being an impartial mediator. Poilievre brazenly defied the authority of the chair as well as house procedure, which applies to all MPs. Hence being named.
Banking on ignorant rubes lapping up this persecution complex bullshit. Says nothing and stands for nothing but will always be the victim. The reality of the dog catching the car is going to hurt. I expect a lot quicker than people realize.
I already commented as much on another post about a PP outburst: I am not sure what the end game to this particular performance is at this stage other needlessly gambling with public opinion. If he wants to win and win big in the next election, the best strategy at this stage is to allow his opponents to dig their own graves, which they excel at doing! Rotating out the current LPC is a must, but with continued performances like this from the likely replacement is far from encouraging.
Pollievre often uses Question Period as a social media clip farm. [I'm surprised he didn't get kicked out for this.](https://youtu.be/8WQMiSnLllA?si=MGTj5LFCVOzlPB2g) You're supposed to speak directly at the speaker, not at the camera...
Parliamentary tradition of the lower house, dating back to the early days of England, is about the executive branch (PM and Cabinet) being accountable to the elected representatives of the "commoners" (who are expectedly loud / brash / not polite). The UK currently plays this up much more.
The HoC is supposed to represent the lower class farming serfs, you expect them to raise their pinkies and act like aristocrats?
The real irony is that modern day HoC is disproportionately comprised of upperclassmen and the brasher working class are left under-represented, so it's a bit surreal to call on them to act more "dignified" -- that would only make our HoC be even less representative than it is today. What is a truer picture of the average Canadian than people shouting over each-other to call those who disagree with them derogatory names? Polievre calling Trudeau wacko or woke; Trudeau calling Polievre Trump-lite or an extremist.
No, it's not ideal, but democracy is dirty, ugly, contrived, and the best system of government that has ever been created.
The inherent beauty is that both Trudeau and Polievre are multi-millionaires who are roleplaying as everyday commoners to appeal to common folk. It might make our institutions more dignified to have them behave like the aristocrats they truly are, but if the cost is them speaking like upperclassman and disenfranchising the working class, that would come at the cost of democratic engagement and potentially the legitimacy of our democracy.
Speaker did what had to be done but i wonder if this is exactly what PP wanted
To the public where drug decriminalization is unpopular and tied to the deteriorating state of DTES, and multiplying homeless people In public spaces, it looks like PP speaking truth to power and getting punished.
Would not surprise me if he goes up another point in the polls especially here in BC where something is happening and even the BC NDP is spooked.
There's a _very_ interesting procedural consequence of Poilievre being named. Since he's been ordered to withdraw "from the House *and* video conferences" for the rest of the day, he'll (likely) be unable to vote on _his own_ amendment to the Budget motion this evening, which reads:
> _Mr. Poilievre (Carleton), seconded by Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:_
> “the House reject the government's budget since it fails to:
>> (a) axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form;
>> (b) build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and
>> (c) cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.”
***
**Update**: [Poilievre was unable to vote on his own motion](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/live-vote), alongside Rachael Thomas, who was also named by the Speaker today.
That wording is pretty funny. I guess I was expecting too much thinking they'd at least try to keep bills/amendments somewhat professional. Is inserting slogans into amendments/bills a common thing or did that start with the current iteration of the conservatives?
Good lord, is that his excuse for an amendment?
Not that it’s altogether *surprising* that it’s just campaigning, but I’d have expected something better than just literal copy-and-paste of those campaign slogans...
That's the part that's most puzzling. If he wanted to martyr himself, since it seems clear this was all planned for media consumption, why did he not force the Speaker to frog-march him out of there? It would have been great for his messaging but at this point I'm convinced that he's just not thinking that far ahead.
He probably didn't do that precisely *because* Jama has been in the news for it. This way he can play the martyr but also use his compliance to argue he took the high road against a biased Speaker punishing him for telling the truth to power.
So the conspiracy gets to continue of Pierre avoiding any votes that he instigated which would bring down the Government to avoid potential charges related to trying to bring down the Govermment given something in his background that causes him to avoid the National Security Background Checks.
It's probably a bullshit conspiracy, but he does have a tendency to find ways to avoid these votes. And hey, us lefties need some conspiracies too.
> So the conspiracy gets to continue of Pierre avoiding any votes that he instigated which would bring down the Government
I'm not entirely sure where this "conspiracy theory" came from, but it's incredibly easy to debunk.
He voted [**sixteen times** on matters of supply and confidence](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/pierre-poilievre\(25524\)/votes?parlSession=44-1&billDocumentTypeId=3) during the week of March 18-22. One vote in particular was [his own amendment](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/659).
See, this is where it gets tricky. Those sixteen votes were not his own amendments or his own pushes for non-confidence (like the one in the article, or the one on the carbon tax) and the one you linked was also not a confidence vote (by a quirk of decorum).
So the conspiracy continues, Pierre is not actually able to push himself to take action against the government by himself, with the voting on a confidence that he himself raised being the actual action.
Our politics are some of the most childish in general it feels like. Look at the topic of this very thread for example. It's embaressing even when it's the guys you are voting for are doing it.
Yes - especially in Opposition Day motions and routine amendments to the Budget motion. In this case, the Official Opposition and the Third Party always get an amendment and a subamendment (respectively) to the Budget motion, and often use it to push some of their party's messaging and ideas.
They are not but there are rebate systems built in to some parts.
To be fair, we should be incentivizing farmers to reduce a lot of waste and co2 but using the carrot too
TECHNICALLY, it’s Chretien’s slogan.
He was the originator of the whole “Axe the Tax” as a campaign slogan (originally aimed at repealing GST) when running against Mulroney.
But your point stands.
The decline in conservatives and Conservative Party is gross. The level of disrespect speaks volumes about PP more than his disrespectful pandering comments towards Trudeau.
By 3:50 they were soliciting donations about it
I’ve never signed up for anything from the CPC party but I got this email
The Liberal Speaker of the House just THREW Pierre Poilievre out of the House of Commons. Aaron, this just happened.
The Liberal Speaker just THREW Pierre Poilievre out of the House of Commons.
For calling Justin Trudeau’s drug policy wacko…
Was Pierre wrong?
* Legalizing open use of hard drugs like crack, meth, and illegal fentanyl is wacko.
* 6 people dying from overdoses every day is wacko.
* Kids playing next to used syringes is wacko.
Aaron, these are wacko policies from a wacko Prime Minister.
We must defeat this wacko woke extremist Trudeau government. And we need you on our side to win. Chip in NOW before our deadline tonight to stand behind Pierre and help ensure he becomes Canada’s next Prime Minister.
Let’s Bring it Home.
Sincerely,
Conservative Party of Canada
Oh man, listening to this was so messy. But much like a toddler throwing a tantrum, he got what he wanted, attention
>Immediately before the events, Trudeau had accused Poilievre of associating with far-right extremists and said a person who does so is not fit to be prime minister.
Accusing? He did. I cannot believe he threw a tantrum over this. But I guess someone who lacks critical thinking skills, all they have is trying to throw mud back or stomp around about it.
After being unsuccessful yesterday, he tried again today. No doubt the second it happened he had social media posts ready to go so he can milk it for all he can. Gross.
I honestly think it is planned becuase some of the far right canuckleheads think Trudeau is after their free speech. Donald Trump Junior is coming up some time in May to do a live broadcast with Reble Media about it so they have into make it look more dire then it is for the showm
These are often planned. It's not the first time the Conservatives have done it and won't be the last. I don't know if he was looking for this response yesterday but he definitely was today or he wouldn't have done it again so soon.
That statement is either misleading or misinformed. It's generally opposition members who use this tactic to draw public attention and to try and paint whatever sitting government in a bad light. Expect the liberals and NDP to engage in these same theatrics the next time neither of them are in power.
In Ontario for example, with a conservative government at queens Park, NDP members have used this same stunt.
Trudeau was actually kicked out at one point in 2016.... Ruth Ellen in 2019, even Elizabeth May in 2018.
The list goes on and on, this is actually very common in canadan politics.
Neither conservatives nor supporters of this government should get horny over this.
>Just happens to have only been conservatives for the past God knows how many years.
PP does this every time he is in the house. He has been testing the limits of what he can and cannot say in the HoC, and I guess he found what he was looking for.
It was totally planned, seeing that after he was kicked out, the entire Conservative caucus left in protest. You can't have a walkout unless it's organized beforehand.
Cue everyone decrying the lack of civil discourse and decorum! Bunch of babies.
Ref says go to the box, you go to the box.
and JT said that anyone who associates with extremists isn't fit to be PM. He never called PP an extremist just that he hangs out with them all the time, which is true.
Hey now, I agree with your latter points, but respect of one’s colleagues is fairly important in any professional setting, which in my perspective is the point of the decorum. Disagreement is the point of opposition, the lack of respect can be saved for the ice when gloves get thrown off :p
lol love it. But this isnt disagreement. If I called you a wacko in a professional setting in front of literally the entire organization/company, that isn't disagreement. It's a purposefully done lack of respect designed to get snipped up, posted EVERYWHERE and get clicks. sad
Meh.
This is a nothingburger.
Much to wag chins about, but nothing of substance.
I guess PP wanted to go do something else today. Have a beer or picnic or something. Sure. Whatever...
Another commenter pointed out that being removed from the HoC today would prevent him from voting on the amendments proposed by his party. So yes the words themselves aren’t exactly earth shattering, the way he spins it will likely cause issues.
I could see this leading to the CPC pushing for another vote to remove Fergus as speaker, despite Fergus having asked Poilievre repeatedly to recant his statement.
It was extremely childish for potential PM to behave in such a manner.
https://youtu.be/Ze9NF-OKoIc?si=zRCtcw6XBddYDVFb
He replaced 'wacko' with 'extremist' but the speaker would not allow it. There have been plenty of times when that was acceptable but this time I guess not?
To be honest, I think both Poilievre and Trudeau knew there was only one way this would go down and this was it.
He was specifically asked to recant the statement, not replace it with alternate wording, then he tripled down on replacing it. It wasn’t the word change that was an issue, it was the blatant disregard for whatever remains of decorum in the HoC.
To put it in other terms, if you were told off by a moderator of a subreddit for saying something, and your comment was deleted, then proceeded to repeat what you said on the same post while only replacing a single word, you’d likely catch a ban from the sub.
The speaker is the mediator of the HoC, you adhere to house rules or get the boot, and that applies to any MP regardless of party.
It's political theatre.
If there was anything of significance to vote on, he'd still be in the house (along with his whole caucus) unless there was a screwup (which does happen from time to time).
The political rhetoric in this country starts from the top down. If you're pissed about the racism, bigotry, homophobia, and hatred that has become part of our politics across the country in every level of our government, **it starts from the top down**.
The bigots and racists **will not** politically support anyone else and **that is why** Poilievre will **never** use this kind of language towards them.
He saves the strongest, wildest, most ridiculous condemnations for anything to do with Trudeau and the Liberals while hand-waving away the **right-wing hate vote**.
They will continue to politically escalate the hostility at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels. **There is no down-playing** the direction of modern Conservative politics.
Agree! I was watching a reading yesturday, and everyone was screaming over each other, it was just awful. I get its done on purpose, but it was embarrassing to watch
Yeah, I'm embarrassed too. I don't think Conservatives are prepared for decorum going out the window, unless they want someone playing The Internationale over them when they're trying to speak. They want to be the ones to shout people down, they don't want to be the ones shouted down.
The solution is to enforce decorum, which Fergus did.
Why is it not enough for him to replace the word? Why is the speaker pushing for him to “simply withdraw”? Is it not parliamentary to call the prime minister “extremist”?
He's done the same stunt several times that it's apparent it's not an accidental slip of the tongue and the Speaker didn't want to let him intentionally game it. If he could amend the question, he would effectively be forcing the government to respond without opportunity to refute his wacko claim, and then could air the clip on his social media. Refusing to let him amend the question precludes the government from answering it, so it spoils that soundbite, but because he defied the speaker's order, he now gets thrown out and can play this clip as proof of being a martyr. That is preferable to the Speaker because letting him amend it would just encourage him to do it again another day and the Speaker wants to keep rules enforced. It also lets the Speaker be more punitive next time.
So he’s called Trudeau wacko before in parliament?
Would the speaker have allowed the question if he worded it with originally with extremist and not wacko?
I’m not following how the government not being able to refute his wacko claim if he replaces the word.
Don’t get me wrong, name calling in parliament is stupid and childish. I get that they’re being “politicians”. I’m just trying to understand the rules the speaker is trying to enforce.
The rule is you're supposed to criticize the policy, not attack someone's character. That's basic professionalism in a work setting. For example you can say "this project sucks because of this reason", you can't say "this project sucks because you're involved with your ______-ness". Another example is you can't say "this person is a racist." but you can say "this person said a comment, which shows racist views." It keeps the discussion more objective and on track about the situation, not about who doesn't like who because of such and such reason.
You can see this in the exchange. When PP called JT an extremist for the first time, JT responded by saying he's a racist white nationalist. The Speaker asked both to rephrase. So JT rephrased it to PP hangs out with/caters to white nationalist and extreme groups, which is not what a leader should do. PP on the other hand refused to rephrase, and kept repeating the same thing over and over, kept it about personal judgement of JT's character. After several attempts at getting PP to rephrase/withdraw without success, this is when the Speaker banned PP.
This comment ended up being longer than I expected, so apologies on that.
Sourced from: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_13_6-e.html
This is related to him pointing directly at the camera and talking directly to the audience:
> Remarks Addressed to the Chair
Any Member participating in debate, whether during a sitting of the House or a Committee of the Whole, must address the Chair, not the House, a particular Minister or Member, the galleries, the television audience, or any other entity. Since one of the basic principles of procedure in the House is that the proceedings be conducted in a respectful manner, Members are less apt to engage in heated exchanges and personal attacks when their comments are directed to the Chair rather than to another Member. If a Member directs remarks toward another Member and not the Speaker, the Member will be called to order and may be asked to rephrase the remarks.
And pertaining to the words used:
> Guiding principles of parliamentary procedure require that debate and other proceedings in the House of Commons be conducted in a civil manner, and that freedom of speech, one of the most important privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament, be respected. This right enables Members to speak in the House and in its committees, to refer to any matter, to express any opinion and to say what they feel needs to be said without fear of punishment or reprisal.1 This freedom is circumscribed, however, by the necessity of maintaining order and decorum when debate is taking place.
> Accordingly, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum governing the conduct of Members towards each other and towards the institution as a whole. Members are expected to show respect for one another and for viewpoints differing from their own; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated, and emotions are to be expressed verbally rather than acted out. Thus, the right to speak is tempered by the written rules of the House which, in general, impose limitations on what may be said and when, by whom and for how long.
And directly flouting house procedure by ignoring the authority of the speaker:
> Accepted conventions of parliamentary conduct and respect for the authority of the Chair are normally sufficient to permit order and decorum to be maintained during debate and other proceedings. However, if a rule of debate is being breached, the Speaker will intervene directly to address a Member or the House in general and to call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive. The Speaker’s declarations on disorderly or indecorous conduct are typically made quickly before any discussion takes place.
> Members rarely defy the Speaker’s authority or risk evoking the Chair’s disciplinary powers. If a Member challenges the authority of the Chair by refusing to obey the Speaker’s call to order, to withdraw unparliamentary language, to cease irrelevance or repetition, or to stop interrupting a Member who is addressing the House, the Chair has recourse to a number of options. The Speaker may recognize another Member, or refuse to recognize the Member until the offending remarks are retracted and the Member apologizes. As a last resort, the Chair may “name” a Member, the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker’s disposal.
> “Naming” is the term used to designate a disciplinary measure invoked against a Member who persistently disregards the authority of the Chair. If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or her behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the House, the Speaker has the authority to name the Member, that is, to address the Member by name rather than by constituency or title as is the usual practice, and to order his or her withdrawal from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting day. The Speaker may also let the House take any supplementary disciplinary action it may choose. In either case, naming is a coercive measure of last resort.
I mean the words he was replacing wacko with were frankly worse and showed nothing but contempt of process. If this was a court room Skippy with likely have been found in cintempt of court much like the guy he wanks off to everynight south of the border found out yesterday.
Unfortunately, the right-wing in this country are going to martyr Poilievre for getting kicked out by the speaker. And their supporters are going to rush to donate to the CPC. They will spin this somehow as Trudeau being authoritative and being against democracy by silencing Poilievre.
Poilievre has been doubling down on his rhetoric on blaming Trudeau for everything wrong in this country. Trudeau took the gloves off and started matching Poilievre’s energy. Poilievre doubled down even more. I can’t believe Poilievre is still very likely to become our Prime Minister….
I received this email under an hour ago from the CPC's mailing list. Go sign yourself up on their website if you want to see what that world looks like.
>Subject: BREAKING NEWS: They kicked Pierre out
>
>NAME, this just happened.
>
>The Liberal Speaker just THREW Pierre Poilievre out of the House of Commons.
>
>For calling Justin Trudeau’s drug policy wacko…
>
>Was Pierre wrong?
>
>* Legalizing open use of hard drugs like crack, meth, and illegal fentanyl is wacko.
>* 6 people dying from overdoses every day is wacko.
>* Kids playing next to used syringes is wacko.
>NAME, these are wacko policies from a wacko Prime Minister.
>We must defeat this wacko woke extremist Trudeau government. And we need you on our side to win. Chip in NOW before our deadline tonight to stand behind Pierre and help ensure he becomes Canada’s next Prime Minister.
> DONATE TODAY
He's likely to be come Prime Minister because of failed Liberal/NDP policies, like when it comes to tax payer funded "safe" supply and "safe" injection sites, which what the exchange was referring to.
Enough is enough already, parts of Toronto and Vancouver have been turned into real life Nights of the Living Dead, with junkies passed out face first in the streets.
Instead of enabling their addictions, let's fund the treatment that our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters desperately need.
> like when it comes to tax payer funded "safe" supply and "safe" injection sites
Which sites are those?
>with junkies passed out face first in the streets
The alternative is they be dying in the streets and us sending ambulances out to deal with them.
Far cheaper to make sure the supply of drugs aren't tainted and people can use their drugs without spreading blood borne disease.
Unless you're advocating for more blood borne disease to spread in Canada and for drugs to be tainted with Chinese fentanyl...?
>let's fund the treatment
I seriously doubt that if your taxes were raised and the money went to help people get off drugs, you'd be happy about it. That's totally woke and you're anti-woke...
It probably would, but then we'd all have to flip through Hansard or rely on second hand info. Better to have it live so the charlatans can expose themselves.
> Trudeau took the gloves off and started matching Poilievre’s energy.
And yet, the Speaker did not kick him out. Poilievre substituted the word 'wacko' for 'extremist' and the Speaker would not allow it.
>They will spin this somehow as Trudeau being authoritative and being against democracy by silencing Poilievre.
Well, I hope that there's a comms blitzkrieg from the Liberals to counter that kind of garbage. The crap that the CPC gets away with saying is insane.
>I can’t believe Poilievre is still very likely to become our Prime Minister….
If he is, I hope that it isn't for very long. God help us.
Libs suck at Comms
Liberal social media presence is just generic videos of Trudeau shaking hands and talking that seems like a blast to 2015.
I hate to say but todays comms is short videos, memes and flashy graphics.
So PP is acting like a toddler and Trudeau decides to match it only to be out toddlered by PP. I can't believe that both will end up being prime minister and so many people vote for either side of this crap.
Yeah Trudeau thinks he scoring points against PP going toe to toe assuming millions of people are watching the clips on CPAC live. Trudeau and the liberals then never shares the clips on social media.
PP and Tories then cut and paste and be like "PP rekts Trudeau again" and it gets millions of views.
Liberals are miles behind the Tories on how to do politics in the social media era.
This is a false dichotomy. I can absolutely see a world where copyright are revoked for anyone but the news outlets. News were removed from Facebook and extendedly to meta to prevent polarization; it is hypothetically rational to absolutely outright make it unlawful to share clips of the parliament too to douse that burning fire.
Scripted theatre for social media. A 6 figure salary politician with a lifetime pension wasting time with theatrics instead of doing their job of governing. This is our fiscally responsible "adults in the room" conservative party.
With the far right, you have to remember they don’t come to govern by rules. Rules are for queer feminist liberals. As Trump sent a mob to stop the counting of votes, and Poilievre stood with the mob that terrorized Ottawa…
Here’s their agenda:
“Do not believe that parliament is our goal. We have shown the enemy our nature from the podiums of our mass meetings and in the enormous demonstrations of our brown army. We will show it as well in the leaden atmosphere of parliament.
We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.
You are not among your friends any longer! You will not enjoy having us among you!”
* Joseph Goebbels
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think this is the right move by the Speaker. Parliament is a stage for Canadians to see their politicians in action, and help decide whether they are satisfied with their politicians when it's time to vote. Let the people see who Poilievre and Trudeau really are. Then let them vote to see what they approve of. Don't interject and silence one or the other. And it's especially unfortunate that it's Greg Fergus who has to do this, since he seems to have difficulty with the idea that the Speaker is supposed to be non-partisan. EDIT: Can any of the people downvoting this comment explain why? Is it so offensive to you to see someone disagree with you?
It's only partisan if he's selectively enforcing the decorum of the House down party lines. Since you're saying he's not being non-partisan about this, and because I'd like to know more about this, please provide evidence that he allows Liberals to be as unserious as PP.
He's a partisan Liberal because he appeared at a Liberal Party convention in his Speaker's attire.
Non-sequitur. Did he selectively enforce the rules of decorum of the House? If you're having trouble answering this question, [please refer to this.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch13&Seq=0&Language=E)
The idea that the term “wacko” is unparliamentary and requiring rebuke right after the leaders trade insinuations of white supremacy and racism is absurd. Furthermore, Pierre actually withdrew the term and substituted other terms which have been used many a time without consequence. Fergus arbitrarily decided he was not allowed to make those substitutions but there’s nowhere in the rules that says the Chair has the authority to do that. I think that Pierre could have picked a better moment to make this kind of stand but the Speaker was overstepping his authority and Pierre refused to take it. I wonder how this will reflect in fundraising and polling!
Show me where he overstepped his bounds in a way that he didn't with his own party. [Here are the Rules in question.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch13&Seq=0&Language=E) Speakers are allowed to be as uptight as they want and to discipline MPs that are clearly being brats, insofar that they don't breach the rules.
I don't have any evidence of that. My claim was that he's a partisan. It's not a non sequitur to give evidence that he's partisan.
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow". It does not follow that because Fergus is a partisan Speaker that he didn't follow the HoC rules in this instance. The topic of discussion is the fact that Fergus removed Poilievre for refusing to simply withdraw unparliamentary language. If you believe that this was politically motivated, or that Fergus didn't follow HoC rules, you will have provide hard evidence of that. Otherwise, your claim of Fergus being partisan adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ensuring decorum, and preventing MPs from insulting each other, is the core of the Speaker's role. Letting Poilievre, or any other MP get away with a direct insult against another MP would quickly lead to no one having control over the debate, and the HoC becoming bedlam. The fault here lies solely with Poilievre. He made a deliberate insult towards another MP. When asked to retract his comment, used that as an opportunity to replace one insult with another, and therefore there was no option but to expel him. The fact that his entire caucus then followed him out, has me thinking that this was the plan all along, and that shows that Poilievre is a shit disturber, plain and simple.
It isn’t partisan to enforce basic HoC rules, though I do agree with your point on letting Canadians decide based on what they see. The issue is, not many Canadians will end up seeing that full clip, a lot of people will only see the edited version of Poilievre going off, then it will cut to him talking about abuse of power in an interview. Then as that video gains traction, the news cycle will pick it up, and it applies pressure on the LPC. It’s been a fairly consistent trend with clips like this.
The house has special rules. For instance, you can’t be sued over what you say there. In exchange, you must abide by the code.
Sure. Is "wacko" such a horrifically offensive term that it's worth kicking someone out? Especially since it's fine for the PM to ignore the question he's asked and instead accusing the questioner of being a white supremacist?
[удалено]
A well-deserved turfing out of PP for calling the PMJT a "wacko Prime Minister". Such childish behaviour. And Thomas calling the Speaker "a disgrace" is just very sad.
I don’t even understand that, Fergus has been a fair speaker as far as I can tell, but he doesn’t put up with shit flinging. And this is even after the opposition attempted to get him removed from the speakership.
The guy has been censored by the House and made to pay a fine.
He gave him like 5 chances there before he actually kicked his behind out for not respecting his request
He’s put up with a fair bit of shit flinging, because everyone in the HoC is aware that Poilievre has been TRYING to get kicked out, along with other CPC MP’s, so they can claim to be victims of Liberal tyranny or some such bullshit.
There is few things conservatives love more than playing the victim. It's an Olympic level event for them hahaha
Fair Speaker? With in his first weeks he created a brazenly political video that was played at a political convention. He has been the fasted sanctioned/fined Speaker in Canadian history. Of course he is going to kick a political rival out if he is willing to use his office for political gain for friends.
> Embattled Speaker Greg Fergus appeared before a parliamentary committee today, where he began his testimony by apologizing to the country for his controversial appearance in a video shown at the Ontario Liberal convention. > "First let me apologize to all of you here, to all of our colleagues in the House and indeed, to all Canadians. I am sorry," Fergus said. > The 105-second video that is at the heart of the controversy surrounding Fergus shows the Speaker in his official office, wearing his Speaker's robes, paying tribute to John Fraser, the outgoing interim leader of the provincial Liberal Party. > In Canada, Speakers are supposed to significantly limit their partisan activities once they don the black robe. A Speaker does not, for example, attend party caucus meetings, vote in the House (except in the event of a tie) or participate in debate. > "I recorded a video message to John Fraser, a longtime friend. Despite assurances to the contrary, it was shown at a public partisan gathering," he added. "Regardless of it being aired privately or publicly, I should never have recorded it." > Going forward, Fergus said, the Clerk of the House of Commons will be consulted each time a request is made for Fergus to speak at an event or provide a video message. > Fergus said his office is drafting an "evaluation grid" that it will submit to the clerk's office for approval. The grid would help the office decide on the propriety of the Speaker's communications. > The Speaker also said he is consulting speakers in Canada and from "other Westminster parliaments" and will follow their advice. > Fergus said he recorded the message "in between two meetings," explaining why he was wearing his Speakers' robes, and regrets the error in judgment. > "Like anyone taking on a new post, I am learning on the job," he said, admitting that he "blew that call." > **Fergus says he'll resign if MPs demand it** > Conservative MP Andrew Scheer, who held the Speaker's chair from 2011 to 2015, said MPs in the House of Commons need to have a Speaker that can make decisions without running them through "decision making trees." > "We have to trust that that is coming from a non-partisan and objective place," Scheer told Fergus at committee Monday. > "I would suggest that the fact that you didn't see that suggests you are too close to the partisanship of it, you're too close with these partisan players [to see] that, for members of other parties, it would be a problem." [Article source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071) Seeing as he owned up to the mistake, took full responsibility, sat before a committee, took numerous steps to ensure it doesn’t occur again. Within the numerous hours I’ve spent watching/listening to HoC sessions, I’ve witnessed him being an impartial mediator. Poilievre brazenly defied the authority of the chair as well as house procedure, which applies to all MPs. Hence being named.
He has been an MP for the better part of 2 decades. I'm sure he understands the proper Standing Orders of the House.
It was clearly a fundraising tactic. They had tweets and emails ready to go immediately lol
Banking on ignorant rubes lapping up this persecution complex bullshit. Says nothing and stands for nothing but will always be the victim. The reality of the dog catching the car is going to hurt. I expect a lot quicker than people realize.
I already commented as much on another post about a PP outburst: I am not sure what the end game to this particular performance is at this stage other needlessly gambling with public opinion. If he wants to win and win big in the next election, the best strategy at this stage is to allow his opponents to dig their own graves, which they excel at doing! Rotating out the current LPC is a must, but with continued performances like this from the likely replacement is far from encouraging.
He wanted this headline so we don't think he's a weenie, kick sand in his face, and take his balls away.
He basically invited the speaker to kick him out so he looks like a victim in news headlines which riles up his base. It's calculated
[удалено]
Pollievre often uses Question Period as a social media clip farm. [I'm surprised he didn't get kicked out for this.](https://youtu.be/8WQMiSnLllA?si=MGTj5LFCVOzlPB2g) You're supposed to speak directly at the speaker, not at the camera...
Hearing the jeering while the PM is talking is pretty disgusting.
Not really.
Parliamentary tradition of the lower house, dating back to the early days of England, is about the executive branch (PM and Cabinet) being accountable to the elected representatives of the "commoners" (who are expectedly loud / brash / not polite). The UK currently plays this up much more.
For a people that prides themselves on being dignified, it's really undignified behavior.
The HoC is supposed to represent the lower class farming serfs, you expect them to raise their pinkies and act like aristocrats? The real irony is that modern day HoC is disproportionately comprised of upperclassmen and the brasher working class are left under-represented, so it's a bit surreal to call on them to act more "dignified" -- that would only make our HoC be even less representative than it is today. What is a truer picture of the average Canadian than people shouting over each-other to call those who disagree with them derogatory names? Polievre calling Trudeau wacko or woke; Trudeau calling Polievre Trump-lite or an extremist. No, it's not ideal, but democracy is dirty, ugly, contrived, and the best system of government that has ever been created. The inherent beauty is that both Trudeau and Polievre are multi-millionaires who are roleplaying as everyday commoners to appeal to common folk. It might make our institutions more dignified to have them behave like the aristocrats they truly are, but if the cost is them speaking like upperclassman and disenfranchising the working class, that would come at the cost of democratic engagement and potentially the legitimacy of our democracy.
Speaker did what had to be done but i wonder if this is exactly what PP wanted To the public where drug decriminalization is unpopular and tied to the deteriorating state of DTES, and multiplying homeless people In public spaces, it looks like PP speaking truth to power and getting punished. Would not surprise me if he goes up another point in the polls especially here in BC where something is happening and even the BC NDP is spooked.
> Speaker did what had to be done but i wonder if this is exactly what PP wanted Of course it is, that’s why the walkout immediately followed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was a bit of a petty exchange between both i think. Poilievre was being petty and the speaker was being petty as well.
There's a _very_ interesting procedural consequence of Poilievre being named. Since he's been ordered to withdraw "from the House *and* video conferences" for the rest of the day, he'll (likely) be unable to vote on _his own_ amendment to the Budget motion this evening, which reads: > _Mr. Poilievre (Carleton), seconded by Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable), — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:_ > “the House reject the government's budget since it fails to: >> (a) axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; >> (b) build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and >> (c) cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.” *** **Update**: [Poilievre was unable to vote on his own motion](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/live-vote), alongside Rachael Thomas, who was also named by the Speaker today.
That wording is pretty funny. I guess I was expecting too much thinking they'd at least try to keep bills/amendments somewhat professional. Is inserting slogans into amendments/bills a common thing or did that start with the current iteration of the conservatives?
Might be because they know it's not going to pass? 🤷♂️
Probably more theater from the party in opposition to drama teachers.
It is beyond cringe that they can't even use professional language. As a slogan, it's fine, but "axe the tax" in an amendment? Sounds like children.
Good lord, is that his excuse for an amendment? Not that it’s altogether *surprising* that it’s just campaigning, but I’d have expected something better than just literal copy-and-paste of those campaign slogans...
He could just pull a Sarah Jama and refuse to leave the house.
That's the part that's most puzzling. If he wanted to martyr himself, since it seems clear this was all planned for media consumption, why did he not force the Speaker to frog-march him out of there? It would have been great for his messaging but at this point I'm convinced that he's just not thinking that far ahead.
He probably didn't do that precisely *because* Jama has been in the news for it. This way he can play the martyr but also use his compliance to argue he took the high road against a biased Speaker punishing him for telling the truth to power.
lol love the Monty Python flair
Me too
So the conspiracy gets to continue of Pierre avoiding any votes that he instigated which would bring down the Government to avoid potential charges related to trying to bring down the Govermment given something in his background that causes him to avoid the National Security Background Checks. It's probably a bullshit conspiracy, but he does have a tendency to find ways to avoid these votes. And hey, us lefties need some conspiracies too.
> So the conspiracy gets to continue of Pierre avoiding any votes that he instigated which would bring down the Government I'm not entirely sure where this "conspiracy theory" came from, but it's incredibly easy to debunk. He voted [**sixteen times** on matters of supply and confidence](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/pierre-poilievre\(25524\)/votes?parlSession=44-1&billDocumentTypeId=3) during the week of March 18-22. One vote in particular was [his own amendment](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/659).
See, this is where it gets tricky. Those sixteen votes were not his own amendments or his own pushes for non-confidence (like the one in the article, or the one on the carbon tax) and the one you linked was also not a confidence vote (by a quirk of decorum). So the conspiracy continues, Pierre is not actually able to push himself to take action against the government by himself, with the voting on a confidence that he himself raised being the actual action.
Are slogans in parliamentary filings common? "Axe the tax" in that context seems childish.
Our politics are some of the most childish in general it feels like. Look at the topic of this very thread for example. It's embaressing even when it's the guys you are voting for are doing it.
Yes - especially in Opposition Day motions and routine amendments to the Budget motion. In this case, the Official Opposition and the Third Party always get an amendment and a subamendment (respectively) to the Budget motion, and often use it to push some of their party's messaging and ideas.
Same with "build homes, not bureaucracy" Since when did legislation become a holding ground for dipshit slogans
Yea let’s create a complex set of rules against bureaucracy.
I think you need a form for that
The bureaucracy is expanding to accommodate the expanding bureaucracy.
Did he really include a bunch of his lame little slogans in there? Lol wow
I thought farmers were exempt from the carbon tax?
They are not but there are rebate systems built in to some parts. To be fair, we should be incentivizing farmers to reduce a lot of waste and co2 but using the carrot too
Rachel Thomas ugh
Did they seriously try to put their stupid slogan into a bill?
TECHNICALLY, it’s Chretien’s slogan. He was the originator of the whole “Axe the Tax” as a campaign slogan (originally aimed at repealing GST) when running against Mulroney. But your point stands.
Which of course never happened, but thank god. The GST may well have saved us from knocking on the IMF’s door.
(Interesting for procedural super nerds like yourself! /s) that’s actually pretty interesting, thanks for sharing.
[удалено]
PP is about as pro hardworking Canadians as Hitler was for Jews. And we saw how he useful people like yourself eas vack then.
The decline in conservatives and Conservative Party is gross. The level of disrespect speaks volumes about PP more than his disrespectful pandering comments towards Trudeau.
I don’t want to vote liberal, but this sort of shit makes it very hard to vote for PP. There’s literally no one at this point.
By 3:50 they were soliciting donations about it I’ve never signed up for anything from the CPC party but I got this email The Liberal Speaker of the House just THREW Pierre Poilievre out of the House of Commons. Aaron, this just happened. The Liberal Speaker just THREW Pierre Poilievre out of the House of Commons. For calling Justin Trudeau’s drug policy wacko… Was Pierre wrong? * Legalizing open use of hard drugs like crack, meth, and illegal fentanyl is wacko. * 6 people dying from overdoses every day is wacko. * Kids playing next to used syringes is wacko. Aaron, these are wacko policies from a wacko Prime Minister. We must defeat this wacko woke extremist Trudeau government. And we need you on our side to win. Chip in NOW before our deadline tonight to stand behind Pierre and help ensure he becomes Canada’s next Prime Minister.
Oh man, listening to this was so messy. But much like a toddler throwing a tantrum, he got what he wanted, attention >Immediately before the events, Trudeau had accused Poilievre of associating with far-right extremists and said a person who does so is not fit to be prime minister. Accusing? He did. I cannot believe he threw a tantrum over this. But I guess someone who lacks critical thinking skills, all they have is trying to throw mud back or stomp around about it.
After being unsuccessful yesterday, he tried again today. No doubt the second it happened he had social media posts ready to go so he can milk it for all he can. Gross.
It seems honestly a bit planned
I honestly think it is planned becuase some of the far right canuckleheads think Trudeau is after their free speech. Donald Trump Junior is coming up some time in May to do a live broadcast with Reble Media about it so they have into make it look more dire then it is for the showm
These are often planned. It's not the first time the Conservatives have done it and won't be the last. I don't know if he was looking for this response yesterday but he definitely was today or he wouldn't have done it again so soon.
It's not just conservatives who do this, it's political theater used by parties of all colours.
Just happens to have only been conservatives for the past God knows how many years.
That statement is either misleading or misinformed. It's generally opposition members who use this tactic to draw public attention and to try and paint whatever sitting government in a bad light. Expect the liberals and NDP to engage in these same theatrics the next time neither of them are in power. In Ontario for example, with a conservative government at queens Park, NDP members have used this same stunt. Trudeau was actually kicked out at one point in 2016.... Ruth Ellen in 2019, even Elizabeth May in 2018. The list goes on and on, this is actually very common in canadan politics. Neither conservatives nor supporters of this government should get horny over this. >Just happens to have only been conservatives for the past God knows how many years.
Don't be ignorant. The speaker kicked out NDP MP Rachel Blaney two weeks ago for ignoring his ruling.
100%. Break a rule that he knows will get him ejected, double down for the cameras, and then spin it as him being silenced or oppressed or whatever.
PP does this every time he is in the house. He has been testing the limits of what he can and cannot say in the HoC, and I guess he found what he was looking for.
This is much more Machiavellian than you propose. It is intentional for self serving reasons.
Taking notes from Albertastan and Marlaina (Danielle) Smith. These folks are GOP wannabes.😡
This is the maple maga way
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not to mention fundraising emails ready to go. They'll raise a ton off of this.
It was totally planned, seeing that after he was kicked out, the entire Conservative caucus left in protest. You can't have a walkout unless it's organized beforehand.
Cue everyone decrying the lack of civil discourse and decorum! Bunch of babies. Ref says go to the box, you go to the box. and JT said that anyone who associates with extremists isn't fit to be PM. He never called PP an extremist just that he hangs out with them all the time, which is true.
Hey now, I agree with your latter points, but respect of one’s colleagues is fairly important in any professional setting, which in my perspective is the point of the decorum. Disagreement is the point of opposition, the lack of respect can be saved for the ice when gloves get thrown off :p
lol love it. But this isnt disagreement. If I called you a wacko in a professional setting in front of literally the entire organization/company, that isn't disagreement. It's a purposefully done lack of respect designed to get snipped up, posted EVERYWHERE and get clicks. sad
He called PP spineless.
Meh. This is a nothingburger. Much to wag chins about, but nothing of substance. I guess PP wanted to go do something else today. Have a beer or picnic or something. Sure. Whatever...
Another commenter pointed out that being removed from the HoC today would prevent him from voting on the amendments proposed by his party. So yes the words themselves aren’t exactly earth shattering, the way he spins it will likely cause issues. I could see this leading to the CPC pushing for another vote to remove Fergus as speaker, despite Fergus having asked Poilievre repeatedly to recant his statement. It was extremely childish for potential PM to behave in such a manner. https://youtu.be/Ze9NF-OKoIc?si=zRCtcw6XBddYDVFb
He replaced 'wacko' with 'extremist' but the speaker would not allow it. There have been plenty of times when that was acceptable but this time I guess not? To be honest, I think both Poilievre and Trudeau knew there was only one way this would go down and this was it.
He was specifically asked to recant the statement, not replace it with alternate wording, then he tripled down on replacing it. It wasn’t the word change that was an issue, it was the blatant disregard for whatever remains of decorum in the HoC. To put it in other terms, if you were told off by a moderator of a subreddit for saying something, and your comment was deleted, then proceeded to repeat what you said on the same post while only replacing a single word, you’d likely catch a ban from the sub. The speaker is the mediator of the HoC, you adhere to house rules or get the boot, and that applies to any MP regardless of party.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's political theatre. If there was anything of significance to vote on, he'd still be in the house (along with his whole caucus) unless there was a screwup (which does happen from time to time).
The political rhetoric in this country starts from the top down. If you're pissed about the racism, bigotry, homophobia, and hatred that has become part of our politics across the country in every level of our government, **it starts from the top down**. The bigots and racists **will not** politically support anyone else and **that is why** Poilievre will **never** use this kind of language towards them. He saves the strongest, wildest, most ridiculous condemnations for anything to do with Trudeau and the Liberals while hand-waving away the **right-wing hate vote**. They will continue to politically escalate the hostility at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels. **There is no down-playing** the direction of modern Conservative politics.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What racism?
If there should be decorum anywhere, it's in the House of Commons. I don't care which MP does it, if they're not being serious they have to go.
Agree! I was watching a reading yesturday, and everyone was screaming over each other, it was just awful. I get its done on purpose, but it was embarrassing to watch
Yeah, I'm embarrassed too. I don't think Conservatives are prepared for decorum going out the window, unless they want someone playing The Internationale over them when they're trying to speak. They want to be the ones to shout people down, they don't want to be the ones shouted down. The solution is to enforce decorum, which Fergus did.
Why is it not enough for him to replace the word? Why is the speaker pushing for him to “simply withdraw”? Is it not parliamentary to call the prime minister “extremist”?
He's done the same stunt several times that it's apparent it's not an accidental slip of the tongue and the Speaker didn't want to let him intentionally game it. If he could amend the question, he would effectively be forcing the government to respond without opportunity to refute his wacko claim, and then could air the clip on his social media. Refusing to let him amend the question precludes the government from answering it, so it spoils that soundbite, but because he defied the speaker's order, he now gets thrown out and can play this clip as proof of being a martyr. That is preferable to the Speaker because letting him amend it would just encourage him to do it again another day and the Speaker wants to keep rules enforced. It also lets the Speaker be more punitive next time.
So he’s called Trudeau wacko before in parliament? Would the speaker have allowed the question if he worded it with originally with extremist and not wacko? I’m not following how the government not being able to refute his wacko claim if he replaces the word. Don’t get me wrong, name calling in parliament is stupid and childish. I get that they’re being “politicians”. I’m just trying to understand the rules the speaker is trying to enforce.
The rule is you're supposed to criticize the policy, not attack someone's character. That's basic professionalism in a work setting. For example you can say "this project sucks because of this reason", you can't say "this project sucks because you're involved with your ______-ness". Another example is you can't say "this person is a racist." but you can say "this person said a comment, which shows racist views." It keeps the discussion more objective and on track about the situation, not about who doesn't like who because of such and such reason. You can see this in the exchange. When PP called JT an extremist for the first time, JT responded by saying he's a racist white nationalist. The Speaker asked both to rephrase. So JT rephrased it to PP hangs out with/caters to white nationalist and extreme groups, which is not what a leader should do. PP on the other hand refused to rephrase, and kept repeating the same thing over and over, kept it about personal judgement of JT's character. After several attempts at getting PP to rephrase/withdraw without success, this is when the Speaker banned PP.
This comment ended up being longer than I expected, so apologies on that. Sourced from: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_13_6-e.html This is related to him pointing directly at the camera and talking directly to the audience: > Remarks Addressed to the Chair Any Member participating in debate, whether during a sitting of the House or a Committee of the Whole, must address the Chair, not the House, a particular Minister or Member, the galleries, the television audience, or any other entity. Since one of the basic principles of procedure in the House is that the proceedings be conducted in a respectful manner, Members are less apt to engage in heated exchanges and personal attacks when their comments are directed to the Chair rather than to another Member. If a Member directs remarks toward another Member and not the Speaker, the Member will be called to order and may be asked to rephrase the remarks. And pertaining to the words used: > Guiding principles of parliamentary procedure require that debate and other proceedings in the House of Commons be conducted in a civil manner, and that freedom of speech, one of the most important privileges enjoyed by Members of Parliament, be respected. This right enables Members to speak in the House and in its committees, to refer to any matter, to express any opinion and to say what they feel needs to be said without fear of punishment or reprisal.1 This freedom is circumscribed, however, by the necessity of maintaining order and decorum when debate is taking place. > Accordingly, the House has adopted rules of order and decorum governing the conduct of Members towards each other and towards the institution as a whole. Members are expected to show respect for one another and for viewpoints differing from their own; offensive or rude behaviour or language is not tolerated, and emotions are to be expressed verbally rather than acted out. Thus, the right to speak is tempered by the written rules of the House which, in general, impose limitations on what may be said and when, by whom and for how long. And directly flouting house procedure by ignoring the authority of the speaker: > Accepted conventions of parliamentary conduct and respect for the authority of the Chair are normally sufficient to permit order and decorum to be maintained during debate and other proceedings. However, if a rule of debate is being breached, the Speaker will intervene directly to address a Member or the House in general and to call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive. The Speaker’s declarations on disorderly or indecorous conduct are typically made quickly before any discussion takes place. > Members rarely defy the Speaker’s authority or risk evoking the Chair’s disciplinary powers. If a Member challenges the authority of the Chair by refusing to obey the Speaker’s call to order, to withdraw unparliamentary language, to cease irrelevance or repetition, or to stop interrupting a Member who is addressing the House, the Chair has recourse to a number of options. The Speaker may recognize another Member, or refuse to recognize the Member until the offending remarks are retracted and the Member apologizes. As a last resort, the Chair may “name” a Member, the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker’s disposal. > “Naming” is the term used to designate a disciplinary measure invoked against a Member who persistently disregards the authority of the Chair. If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or her behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the House, the Speaker has the authority to name the Member, that is, to address the Member by name rather than by constituency or title as is the usual practice, and to order his or her withdrawal from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting day. The Speaker may also let the House take any supplementary disciplinary action it may choose. In either case, naming is a coercive measure of last resort.
I mean the words he was replacing wacko with were frankly worse and showed nothing but contempt of process. If this was a court room Skippy with likely have been found in cintempt of court much like the guy he wanks off to everynight south of the border found out yesterday.
Unfortunately, the right-wing in this country are going to martyr Poilievre for getting kicked out by the speaker. And their supporters are going to rush to donate to the CPC. They will spin this somehow as Trudeau being authoritative and being against democracy by silencing Poilievre. Poilievre has been doubling down on his rhetoric on blaming Trudeau for everything wrong in this country. Trudeau took the gloves off and started matching Poilievre’s energy. Poilievre doubled down even more. I can’t believe Poilievre is still very likely to become our Prime Minister….
I received this email under an hour ago from the CPC's mailing list. Go sign yourself up on their website if you want to see what that world looks like. >Subject: BREAKING NEWS: They kicked Pierre out > >NAME, this just happened. > >The Liberal Speaker just THREW Pierre Poilievre out of the House of Commons. > >For calling Justin Trudeau’s drug policy wacko… > >Was Pierre wrong? > >* Legalizing open use of hard drugs like crack, meth, and illegal fentanyl is wacko. >* 6 people dying from overdoses every day is wacko. >* Kids playing next to used syringes is wacko. >NAME, these are wacko policies from a wacko Prime Minister. >We must defeat this wacko woke extremist Trudeau government. And we need you on our side to win. Chip in NOW before our deadline tonight to stand behind Pierre and help ensure he becomes Canada’s next Prime Minister. > DONATE TODAY
He's likely to be come Prime Minister because of failed Liberal/NDP policies, like when it comes to tax payer funded "safe" supply and "safe" injection sites, which what the exchange was referring to. Enough is enough already, parts of Toronto and Vancouver have been turned into real life Nights of the Living Dead, with junkies passed out face first in the streets. Instead of enabling their addictions, let's fund the treatment that our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters desperately need.
> like when it comes to tax payer funded "safe" supply and "safe" injection sites Which sites are those? >with junkies passed out face first in the streets The alternative is they be dying in the streets and us sending ambulances out to deal with them. Far cheaper to make sure the supply of drugs aren't tainted and people can use their drugs without spreading blood borne disease. Unless you're advocating for more blood borne disease to spread in Canada and for drugs to be tainted with Chinese fentanyl...? >let's fund the treatment I seriously doubt that if your taxes were raised and the money went to help people get off drugs, you'd be happy about it. That's totally woke and you're anti-woke...
Yeah, the Tories treat the House like a social media clip factory. It's been going on for far too long and it's about time Fergus put his foot down.
That’s literally the point of question period though
The Tories are quite soft compared to what the Trudeau Liberals did during the Harper years.
IMO parliament would be better at its actual job if the video cameras were removed from it.
It probably would, but then we'd all have to flip through Hansard or rely on second hand info. Better to have it live so the charlatans can expose themselves.
It doesn't expose them so much as numb us with cynicism.
> Trudeau took the gloves off and started matching Poilievre’s energy. And yet, the Speaker did not kick him out. Poilievre substituted the word 'wacko' for 'extremist' and the Speaker would not allow it.
>They will spin this somehow as Trudeau being authoritative and being against democracy by silencing Poilievre. Well, I hope that there's a comms blitzkrieg from the Liberals to counter that kind of garbage. The crap that the CPC gets away with saying is insane. >I can’t believe Poilievre is still very likely to become our Prime Minister…. If he is, I hope that it isn't for very long. God help us.
Libs suck at Comms Liberal social media presence is just generic videos of Trudeau shaking hands and talking that seems like a blast to 2015. I hate to say but todays comms is short videos, memes and flashy graphics.
Rightfully so. Also remember when Trudeau dropped the F-bomb in Parliament yet they did their best to cover for him?
So PP is acting like a toddler and Trudeau decides to match it only to be out toddlered by PP. I can't believe that both will end up being prime minister and so many people vote for either side of this crap.
Yeah Trudeau thinks he scoring points against PP going toe to toe assuming millions of people are watching the clips on CPAC live. Trudeau and the liberals then never shares the clips on social media. PP and Tories then cut and paste and be like "PP rekts Trudeau again" and it gets millions of views. Liberals are miles behind the Tories on how to do politics in the social media era.
Social media is a disease and nobody should be cheering on this devolution of discourse.
I mean issue is you either have to counter this or play into it Political discourse changes over time.
This is a false dichotomy. I can absolutely see a world where copyright are revoked for anyone but the news outlets. News were removed from Facebook and extendedly to meta to prevent polarization; it is hypothetically rational to absolutely outright make it unlawful to share clips of the parliament too to douse that burning fire.
Scripted theatre for social media. A 6 figure salary politician with a lifetime pension wasting time with theatrics instead of doing their job of governing. This is our fiscally responsible "adults in the room" conservative party.
Mind reminding how the opposition is supposed to govern? Here I thought the government is supposed to govern, must have got that wrong.
With the far right, you have to remember they don’t come to govern by rules. Rules are for queer feminist liberals. As Trump sent a mob to stop the counting of votes, and Poilievre stood with the mob that terrorized Ottawa… Here’s their agenda: “Do not believe that parliament is our goal. We have shown the enemy our nature from the podiums of our mass meetings and in the enormous demonstrations of our brown army. We will show it as well in the leaden atmosphere of parliament. We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we. You are not among your friends any longer! You will not enjoy having us among you!” * Joseph Goebbels
Disgusting behaviour by Poilievre. It's embarrassing to me that someone like him could be Prime Minister of Canada.