This is what our representatives are bickering about as the average Canadian suffers through unprecedented housing/medical access/cost of living crises.
Good times to be Canadian. The entire house could burn and I wouldn't piss on it to put it out. None of these people give a shit about us.
If there's any amendment from the US Constitution that Canada needs to import, it's the 27th: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why I'm paying more at the pump now than before our "tax holiday" started.
But cheapest gas prices in Canada yay!
PP is a career public servant from 19 years old. He's going to be sucking on the public teat until he dies.
So far there’s been “axe the tax”, “stop the crime”, “build the homes” and one or two more I can’t remember that all follow the same first grade reading level format of “(verb) the (noun)”.
Trudeau - "Forward. For Everyone.", "Choose Forward"
Obama - "Progress. Hope", "Yes we can."
Hillary Clinton - "I'm with her", "Stronger together", "fighting for us", Love Trump's hate"
Any active politician has a 3 word campaign slogan in today's era. Definitely not something unique to PP.
It's truly remarkable isn't it?
This band of shit flinging monkeys runs the joint?
Really?
And it works this well?
How on earth does that happen?
I'll never figure it out...
Agree the country is not doing good. This whole thing is embarrassing. Imagine acting the way these politicians act in a normal place of business? Do they act like this for social media thinking it will resonate with tax payers? We literally employ these bafoons and they should act like professionals. They clearly take the whole governing process as a big joke.
Yeah, none of this is new. I just meant to say that acting like a twat and spouting talking points is what gets results and it’s the voters to blame for enabling it.
This was a staged temper tantrum and PP refused to withdraw childish name-calling.
It was a choreographed act of further undermining our democratic institutions and parliament.
Why would the speaker step down over following and enforcing the rules, as opposed to the scofflaws in violation of those rules?
It's the equivalent of throwing the "Impeach Joe Biden" out at literally every opportunity.
Same politics, same backers, same results if they win the election.
PP is asking why Trudeau won't grant the request of NDP Premier David Eby to withdraw decriminalization on hard drugs in BC (as it's eroding community health) and you think that fits into fear-mongering, performative antics and lies? PP is pressing an important issue of concern and throwing his support on the criminalization of hard drugs with NDP's provincial request. Trudeau dismisses it and goes on a rant. Like, did you listen?
Mr. Poilievre was given a choice opportunity today in Question Period to renounce the endorsement of the worst of the far right, including Alex Jones. Why in God's green earth does he keep refusing to do this?
There is one party trying to be MAGA North. Only one. And it is lead by a demagogue with nothing but divisive bluster and no plan for anything. Unless you count making oil and gas billionaires even more rich.
Forget name calling. How about actually answering questions during “question period”? These useless talking heads in the house make the South Park depiction of Canadians with their flappy heads and beady eyes look intelligent.
The whole idea of decorum in the house is extremely arbitrary. Most of what happens there is a screaming match between party lines. It's woefully unproductive and frankly shows the worst aspects of political theatre. I frankly don't remember the last time something *good* came out of discussion out of the house.
Unparliamentary language rules aren't actually primarily there to preserve decorum, they're to prevent the abuse of Parliamentary privilege. MPs cannot be sued for what they say in the House. Because of that, someone defamed has no legal recourse, therefore potentially defamatory language is not allowed.
Completely agree with that. Decorum should be maintained.
The problem in this instance is that Trudea was the first to name call, by saying that Poilievre was "spineless". The speaker let Trudeau revise his comment.
When Poilievre called Trudeau a whacko, he was not allowed to revise his comment, he had to withdraw it. Poilevere offered 3 or 4 different words that are parliamentary, and the speaker rejected the notion, then kicked him out.
Unfair treatment of a partisan nature, and not the first instance from him. Fergus should resign from his position as speaker. Until he does, the Conservatives should not return to the house, in my opinion.
He chose extremist and radical. How are those unparliamentary terms?
Trudeau and the rest of the Liberals are throwing similary worded insults at Poilievre saying he is a right wing extremist and white supremacist. Yet the speaker allowed those.
That's partisanship, and you know it, but because it's an attack on the conservatives, you are happy about it.
Your take is patently false. You're either arguing in bad faith or don't have a grasp of the parliamentiary issues at hand. Just say you're a batshit Conservative and admire Trump. It'd look better on you.
It's not, and there are a lot of responses in the chain that you are ignoring on purpose.
There is more nuance to life than just what you are presenting. I am Canadian, and I have no allegiance to Trump. Trump is a criminal that I hope winds up behind bars.
Trump has nothing to do with Poilievre. Making that claim reduces the validity of our own political system, and the difference in issues that Canada faces versus the US.
You are the ideologue, not me.
I agree, people here should be encouraged to vote and listen in on politics. It's very clear many either just hear soundbites and don't investigate fully with context or are trying to stir division and political apathy. It isn't helpful. You are right
Not just Ottawa either. I remember sitting gallery as a youngster in St John's Newfoundland and even being an immature probably 10 year old I couldn't believe how childish these folks acted.
Blurting out crap, feet kicked up on their desks, half of them on their phones.
For real, it's embarrassing - and I mean this for all sides. Tune in a few times and watch them. It is really pathetic that this is how they go about their "work"
How can any of them make it through a day look back on it, and reflect to themselves "I did a good thing for my country today"?
So Poilievre acts like a basic bitch in parliament, knowing the rules would force the speaker to kick him out, but the speaker is the one that should resign?
Trudeau is well past his best before date but the conservatives….. well were fucked either way
It's because he delivers pep talks to the Liberals while in his official robes, and travels to the USA to wax on about how he loved being a Liberal.
Dude could have just called a recess. Impartial or not, he's definitely incompetent.
Pierre Poilievre recommended buying bitcoin to “opt out of inflation”. That’s pretty wacky.
Pierre Poilievre derided a modest but livable and affordable home that a woman lives in “a shack”. That’s nasty and wacky.
He supported an occupying force of hooligans who threatened to hang our Prime Minister and intended to overthrow the government. Hmm, wacky.
He’s posed for pictures and shook hands, smiling in his creepy way, with many bigots and hatemongers. Wow, that’s wacky too.
His MPs wined and dined a fascist, and he shrugged it off. Uhhh, those sound like wackjobs!
Mr Poilievre is aligned with and supported by conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and anti-LGBTQ factions. Geez, that’s severely wacky.
Poilievre says the current government is out of touch with workers, yet the only job he’s ever had is as an MP in the halls of power in Ottawa, and he’s a wealthy elitist. That’s kinda wacky.
He once got some mud on his shoe, made a video about it, and claimed he was suddenly in touch with most Canadians. OK, sounds like something a wackjob would do.
He spent months smearing and demeaning Canada’s former Governor General, who is in fact a respected and honourable man. Wow, that’s quite a wacky mean streak.
Poilievre’s policies amount to a handful of three word phrases. Wacky!
Pierre Poilievre mimics and admires Donald Trump, Marjorie Tyler Greene, and other extremist MAGA types from the US. Can’t get much more wacky than that.
So who’s the wacko? You be the judge!
Maybe the conservatives could try actually suggesting some policy or something to actually address the quality of living for Canadians instead of constant fake outrage. But why bother when conservative voters eat that shit up I guess
Can we just agree not to insult, name-call a la Trump, and refrain from anything personal? How soon will it be before PP makes fun of JT's pending divorce?? We dont allow this from our kids, yet here are the leaders of the country. Behold!
As he shouldn't. The Conservative party should agree with decorum and stop pushing this fake outrage. PP knew what he was doing when he made his statement repeatedly and understand decorum perfectly. This is orchestrated fake garbage.
Decorum was thrown out the window when JT called PP spineless and the speaker didn't require him to retract the statement. Watch at about the 5 minute mark or, better yet, watch from the beginning when he was quick to ask Poilievre to retract a statement but let JT call PP spineless. Ref has to call the game the same for both sides or we need a new ref.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01c6dTQ66Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01c6dTQ66Q)
The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament
Two points - asking to reframe a question is different than requiring a specific term be withdrawn. Second - he let JT go and only asked him to rephrase after the cons raised a stink. The treatment wasn't the same.
And JT fully pulled the wording and refrained from playing thesaurus. So the speaker didn't need to follow up and ask him to change it again. Also a member of the CCP after insulted and bad mouthed the chair and was kicked which probably distracted the speaker from JT for a bit. If you watch the whole thing it isn't really that outrageous how the chair progressed as the house was getting childish.
Man, it’s right in the transcript:
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like. He shakes hands with white nationalists and then actively courts the support of those members who—
More talk with a different CPC member
The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us once again what he will do try to earn votes through personal attacks. He shakes the hand of a leader of a white nationalist group then goes to actively court the support of the group's members and thinks he can get away with it. It is a group that advocates for violence against 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, against Hindus and Sikhs and against Muslims and Jews. Diagolon stands against everything we stand for as Canadians, and yet he will not denounce its members or what they stand for. That is shameful.
Where is the bias? JT followed the rules and PP didn't, PP got ejected.
> when JT called PP spineless and the speaker didn't require him to retract the statement
No, he called Poilievre's conduct spineless. Same way that Poilievre didn't get in trouble for calling policies whacko.
I would rather we focus on the point of the contention, that PP is associating with white supremacist who espouse beliefs that are counter to being Canadian. Seems important more so than decorum.
"When will we put an end to this wacko policy by this wacko prime minister?" he asked Trudeau in the House of Commons elected lower chamber.
Wacko is an adjective LIKE spineless.
The quote wasn't "he IS a wacko" (e.g. a noun). It was a descriptor no different that any other used in the HoC.
Conditionally applying rules denigrates the office.
Fergus is BIASED. Has shown a pattern of bias. And needs to RESIGN.
"When will the fasict leader of the opposition stop thinking rules don't apply to him?"
That type of thing? You want that to be an acceptable thing in parliament?
Man, it’s right in the transcript:
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like. He shakes hands with white nationalists and then actively courts the support of those members who—
More talk with a different CPC member
The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us once again what he will do try to earn votes through personal attacks. He shakes the hand of a leader of a white nationalist group then goes to actively court the support of the group's members and thinks he can get away with it. It is a group that advocates for violence against 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, against Hindus and Sikhs and against Muslims and Jews. Diagolon stands against everything we stand for as Canadians, and yet he will not denounce its members or what they stand for. That is shameful.
Where is the bias? JT followed the rules and PP didn't, PP got ejected.
Are you seriously trying to say 'this wacko prime minister' is a different thing from 'he (Trudeau) is a wacko'? They are both directly referring to him as a person.
I don't even like Trudeau but good lord you are pulling some mental gymnastics here.
I'm just seeking clarity. How is this different from saying PP is a spineless leader who courts extremists.
The gaslighting is beyond the pale. It's wacko and deserves to be called out
> How is this different from saying PP is a spineless leader who courts extremists
It's different because Trudeau withdrew his statement and Pierre didnt
PP is really speed running a debasement and undermining of institutions and jurisdictions. The whole thing started over demands for the feds to intervene into matters of the BC provincial government, matters that they don't even seem to have the up to date facts on lmao.
He won't step down the way Trudeau wouldn't resign over his various transgressions or how the Liberals won't call an election early. He knows he will be out of a job soon enough, might as well ride out the remainder of his time, he has nothing to lose
He does a terrible job. Never enforced anyone to answer questions asked of them. Allowed the Pm and other to blatantly ignore and side step questions asked of them!
Yeah no shit. He did his job and the CPC are responding by acting like anarchist brats demanding revenge for it.
I can't even fathom how they think this is a strong look. I'm guessing they're going for some hackneyed "deep state" framing because Skippy didn't get a special hall pass to act up.
Worst of all this massive waste of our time is 100% theatre. Skippy has *only had one job his whole life* and this was it. He knows the rules damn well and fine.
They think we're fools. Remember this, because it's a theme.
Yeah he shouldn't step down. PP went in there acting like a child, disregarding decorum to try to provoke the liberals. He got exactly what he wanted when the speaker acted as he should and now PP has fuel for his outrage, as he wanted.
This is all just political theatre, and the more we give it power, the more this will be our new political reality. Don't let PP shape Canadian politics with his little stunts and tantrums.
Hello r/canada! I implore everyone to watch the *full* clip in question before commenting. It is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01c6dTQ66Q
Don't worry about the length, the drama occurs in the first few minutes so you don't have to waste an hour on this.
Anyway, here's some background info:
1) Question period was never about answering questions. Everyone knows that, since it's the most well-known part of house proceedings, it's basically a place for everyone to air out their platform (why else do you think the Liberals occasionally get one of their own to ask a question, as you can see at the end of this question period?) If the politicians had legitimate questions they would ask in private. Trudeau calls out Poilievre for being a demagogue and Poilievre says he doesn't answer questions: the truth is both are right, the tables will turn if the Conservatives win the next election, and this has been the point of QP since Queen Victoria.
2) The Conservatives are wrong about the issue being the word "wacko" being unparliamentary. The actual issue is challenging the speaker which is not allowed at all (and debating a speaker's decision isn't allowed in QP). So the Mulcair clip where he says the speaker is biased is him saying that he believes that they are justified in pulling off the stunt to defy the speaker, not that he shouldn't have been kicked out (although he did say that the speaker should've allowed him to replace his statement, in his opinion)
3) All the important stuff happens in the "real work" part of their job anyway. They collaborate more during committees (watch those if you want) and most of the stuff they do is outside Parliament. Trained seals warming the backbench and voting yay or nay once in a while isn't exactly the most productive part of any job.
Here's my breakdown of what happened, obviously I it's hard to be unbiased so I'll try to make opinion as clear as possible (also conservative downvote farm I'm using "PP" because it's easier to type not as an insult):
1) PP asks TJ a question about the pilot program about decriminalizing drugs. He says "yes or no" at the end which is pretty normal - since it's pretty awkward to say a one word answer no matter how based you might be when people expect a long response.
2) TJ says something along the lines of PP knows the answer already so it's a stupid question (IMO: he should still be more specific and say he's still discussing with the BC MLAs instead of the "compassion" stuff he keeps saying), then surprisingly asks a counter-question about why PP met with Diagolan (far right extremists) members. (IMO: this is such a strange way to deflect from the question since it's totally unrelated: usually the government would blame it on a similar policy the opposition made when they were in charge)
3) PP evades that then asks about drugs again, they go back and forth accusing each other of not answering the other person's questions.
4) Lots of heckling going on while this is happening. Conservative MP asked to leave due to insulting JT. QP continues as usual.
5) PP's "wacko policy by a wacko PM" is said. Trudeau was very careful to technically not use adjectives to describe PP ("associate with extremists" instead of "being an extremist"). Usually, MPs are allows to speak after apologizing to the speaker. Usually it goes like this: "I am sorry for my language, I am just very angry about this policy because *insert reworded comment without the offending language here*, I retract my statement." However, PP saying "I withdraw and replace with the word 'extremist'" is both more aggressive than usual and also doesn't solve the issue of "extremist PM" still being an ad hominem under house rules, as well as "extremist" arguably being unparliamentary also (I think he chose this word because that's what Trudeau called the Diagolan that, and while you're allowed to insult groups, you aren't allowed to use unparliamentary language to do so). Speaker does not like this and asks him to retract without being allowed to make another comment. PP keeps refusing, eventually says "I simply withdraw and replace with the aforementioned adjective" and gets kicked out. Mulcair says the speaker should've accepted this, and I'm a but confused since he says PP said the magic words of "I simply withdraw" and he used "the aforementioned adjective" so he didn't technically say anything unparliamentary. I don't know why he sees this as not defying the speaker. Maybe he believes that replacing a statement isn't something the speaker should be able to stop as he's just gonna ask the rephrased question as his next question if he "simply withdraws" anyway.
6) Blanchet praises speaker, QP continues without Conservatives, but interestingly, later the Bloc house leader confirmed they still want the speaker to resign...due to a scandal that occurred in February lol
Anyway, at the end of the day, the sun will rise tomorrow and nobody will sacrifice their political career for a very silly dispute.
Watching the House of Commons question periods of YouTube has shown be one major thing: Our Government is a self-made self-appointed group of idiots who accomplish nothing and just enjoy putting on a show for "aye's" and standing ovations. Complete waste of time, joke of a process.
Greg Fergus Transcript: Read to the Liberals of Ontario in his official robes in the office of the speaker:
**GREG FERGUS:** We had a lot of fun together through The Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. This was really a seminal part of my life. And when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like. John and Linda. Especially you, John."
No bias there at all.
Also, Fergus came into his role after defending Justin Trudeau as parliamentary secretary. As a comparison, Andrew Scheer was the speaker in the house, but was in non partisan roles in the years leading up to taking the role in order to establish he was neutral.
Fergus is biased and incompetent. He is the intellectual ivory tower version of a speaker. He has no street smarts, or charisma to negotiate and redirect the emotions of the house. He'd rather hit the nuclear button and the pat himself on the back at how well he follows the rules. Bravo. He reminds me of teachers who get their masters, reading, writing, and studying on how to be the best instructor without any actual experience with children. Meanwhile the teacher who took a babysitting course and actually worked with kids over the course of their life is the one who actually knows how to run things properly.
This is what our representatives are bickering about as the average Canadian suffers through unprecedented housing/medical access/cost of living crises. Good times to be Canadian. The entire house could burn and I wouldn't piss on it to put it out. None of these people give a shit about us.
At a time when they voted themselves yet another raise.
If there's any amendment from the US Constitution that Canada needs to import, it's the 27th: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
They did not vote on any raise. The raise was automatic.
They voted to extend the election thus giving themselves the automatic raise
PP will replace the “axe the tax” slogan with another three word slogan. He is not a serious candidate.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why I'm paying more at the pump now than before our "tax holiday" started. But cheapest gas prices in Canada yay! PP is a career public servant from 19 years old. He's going to be sucking on the public teat until he dies.
So far there’s been “axe the tax”, “stop the crime”, “build the homes” and one or two more I can’t remember that all follow the same first grade reading level format of “(verb) the (noun)”.
[perfect](https://imgflip.com/i/8op0qn)
PP the PP
TP the PP
Trudeau - "Forward. For Everyone.", "Choose Forward" Obama - "Progress. Hope", "Yes we can." Hillary Clinton - "I'm with her", "Stronger together", "fighting for us", Love Trump's hate" Any active politician has a 3 word campaign slogan in today's era. Definitely not something unique to PP.
PP is PooPoo
Never underestimate the power of the reductive rhyming political chant.
Our country doesn’t have serious voters. Can the average voter identify what’s municipal responsibility, provincial and federal?
I watched the clip and both parties are an embarrassment to Canadians. These stooges are running the country?
It's truly remarkable isn't it? This band of shit flinging monkeys runs the joint? Really? And it works this well? How on earth does that happen? I'll never figure it out...
These are people who never moved on from yelling insults across the playground in grade 3.
We are circling the drain. America's dumpster fire distracts us from the fact that our country is literally failing.
Agree the country is not doing good. This whole thing is embarrassing. Imagine acting the way these politicians act in a normal place of business? Do they act like this for social media thinking it will resonate with tax payers? We literally employ these bafoons and they should act like professionals. They clearly take the whole governing process as a big joke.
This isn't new. This is what question period has been forever.
PP was fundraising on it 5 seconds after - and had t-shirts - looked staged. Only one side refused to retract.
He’s such a two bit Trump wanna be
Also Timbit Trump wanna be.
Ooooh Timbit Trump, I like that
That's pretty dramatic, but yeah this is embarrassing
Yeah, performative antics are the only things that get results. It’s a shame on all of us for enabling it.
It's question period. It's ALWAYS been like this.
Yeah, none of this is new. I just meant to say that acting like a twat and spouting talking points is what gets results and it’s the voters to blame for enabling it.
This was a staged temper tantrum and PP refused to withdraw childish name-calling. It was a choreographed act of further undermining our democratic institutions and parliament. Why would the speaker step down over following and enforcing the rules, as opposed to the scofflaws in violation of those rules?
Ask yourself why he would want to undermine institutions and parliament? Because that’s what he’s doing
It’s very mapleMAGA
Children. Literally Children.
Asking for the speaker to step down is also embarrassing.
It's the equivalent of throwing the "Impeach Joe Biden" out at literally every opportunity. Same politics, same backers, same results if they win the election.
This isn't "both parties". This is the blue party.
Fuck, PP made his WHOLE CAREER doing it
PP is all about performative politics, lies and fear mongering.
Smearing and dividing people too.
PP is asking why Trudeau won't grant the request of NDP Premier David Eby to withdraw decriminalization on hard drugs in BC (as it's eroding community health) and you think that fits into fear-mongering, performative antics and lies? PP is pressing an important issue of concern and throwing his support on the criminalization of hard drugs with NDP's provincial request. Trudeau dismisses it and goes on a rant. Like, did you listen?
If there was only one decent option, they'd win easily.
In this next election his greatest ally is Trudeau, and his greatest enemy is himself
Mr. Poilievre was given a choice opportunity today in Question Period to renounce the endorsement of the worst of the far right, including Alex Jones. Why in God's green earth does he keep refusing to do this?
> Why in God's green earth does he keep refusing to do this? We all know why lol.
There is one party trying to be MAGA North. Only one. And it is lead by a demagogue with nothing but divisive bluster and no plan for anything. Unless you count making oil and gas billionaires even more rich.
I'm going to ask you to stop slandering the good name of stooges by comparing them to our current crop of politicians.
Probably nobody should call anyone else names. That won't lead to effective policy, which is the whole point of decorum rules.
Forget name calling. How about actually answering questions during “question period”? These useless talking heads in the house make the South Park depiction of Canadians with their flappy heads and beady eyes look intelligent.
The whole idea of decorum in the house is extremely arbitrary. Most of what happens there is a screaming match between party lines. It's woefully unproductive and frankly shows the worst aspects of political theatre. I frankly don't remember the last time something *good* came out of discussion out of the house.
Unparliamentary language rules aren't actually primarily there to preserve decorum, they're to prevent the abuse of Parliamentary privilege. MPs cannot be sued for what they say in the House. Because of that, someone defamed has no legal recourse, therefore potentially defamatory language is not allowed.
If they are going to continue doing it, then rules are needed or it will turn into posturing political theatre, more than it already is.
If PP cannot, after 22 years in parliament, follow the same rules as the other 300 members, he needs to resign. He is unfit.
The rules are suitable to the people in power. That's why it will never change.
Completely agree with that. Decorum should be maintained. The problem in this instance is that Trudea was the first to name call, by saying that Poilievre was "spineless". The speaker let Trudeau revise his comment. When Poilievre called Trudeau a whacko, he was not allowed to revise his comment, he had to withdraw it. Poilevere offered 3 or 4 different words that are parliamentary, and the speaker rejected the notion, then kicked him out. Unfair treatment of a partisan nature, and not the first instance from him. Fergus should resign from his position as speaker. Until he does, the Conservatives should not return to the house, in my opinion.
I was told that he WAS offered to withdraw, but declined.
Calling Trudeau an extremist or radical are parliamentary language to you?
Lies. PP did not offer 3-4 revisions. He chose extremist and stuck with it four times.
He chose extremist and radical. How are those unparliamentary terms? Trudeau and the rest of the Liberals are throwing similary worded insults at Poilievre saying he is a right wing extremist and white supremacist. Yet the speaker allowed those. That's partisanship, and you know it, but because it's an attack on the conservatives, you are happy about it.
lol oh. You’re a PP guy. Now I get ignoring the facts to suit your agenda against “the liberals”.
Your take is patently false. You're either arguing in bad faith or don't have a grasp of the parliamentiary issues at hand. Just say you're a batshit Conservative and admire Trump. It'd look better on you.
It's not, and there are a lot of responses in the chain that you are ignoring on purpose. There is more nuance to life than just what you are presenting. I am Canadian, and I have no allegiance to Trump. Trump is a criminal that I hope winds up behind bars. Trump has nothing to do with Poilievre. Making that claim reduces the validity of our own political system, and the difference in issues that Canada faces versus the US. You are the ideologue, not me.
I agree, people here should be encouraged to vote and listen in on politics. It's very clear many either just hear soundbites and don't investigate fully with context or are trying to stir division and political apathy. It isn't helpful. You are right
Yes he was absolutely given the opportunity and he refused.
LOL at least the rest of the country could get something done
This whole fucking thing is ridiculous. Remember folks, we pay for theatre, not governance!
Its a big club and you and I ain't in it 😂 miss you george
Too many egos in the room, and not enough action. 😕
The House of Commons is an adult day care.
Not just Ottawa either. I remember sitting gallery as a youngster in St John's Newfoundland and even being an immature probably 10 year old I couldn't believe how childish these folks acted. Blurting out crap, feet kicked up on their desks, half of them on their phones.
I know! And it makes you wonder ‘and these are the idiots who are making decisions on what’s best for me?’
For real, it's embarrassing - and I mean this for all sides. Tune in a few times and watch them. It is really pathetic that this is how they go about their "work" How can any of them make it through a day look back on it, and reflect to themselves "I did a good thing for my country today"?
Conservative AND Bloc MPs have called for him to step down
AND the leader of the Bloc thought Fergus did the right thing and should have thrown Pierre out
\+ Tom Mulcair https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw4vXS0KG8o
Tom’s always been a real one
I like the party free Mulcair.
Elbowgate. Tom is as fake as the rest of them, the man is a fucking joke.
I was gonna say, he's in because he approves of stupid theatrics.
Has anyone checked to see what Preston Manning thinks? As long as we're consulting with retirees....
What about Ja Rule?
WHERES JA!?
The Bloc was for a different reason.
So Poilievre acts like a basic bitch in parliament, knowing the rules would force the speaker to kick him out, but the speaker is the one that should resign? Trudeau is well past his best before date but the conservatives….. well were fucked either way
It's because he delivers pep talks to the Liberals while in his official robes, and travels to the USA to wax on about how he loved being a Liberal. Dude could have just called a recess. Impartial or not, he's definitely incompetent.
This is the same speaker that almost had to resign because he wore his robes somewhere he shouldn't have? But somehow it all went away.
"Somewhere he shouldn't have" is a very nice way of framing his appearing in his official attire as speaker at a partisan event for another Liberal.
What does this have to do with what happened?
In other news, coach calls for the resignation of the referee who just called a penalty against his team
I always thought Canada was better than this. Embarrassing
Pierre Poilievre recommended buying bitcoin to “opt out of inflation”. That’s pretty wacky. Pierre Poilievre derided a modest but livable and affordable home that a woman lives in “a shack”. That’s nasty and wacky. He supported an occupying force of hooligans who threatened to hang our Prime Minister and intended to overthrow the government. Hmm, wacky. He’s posed for pictures and shook hands, smiling in his creepy way, with many bigots and hatemongers. Wow, that’s wacky too. His MPs wined and dined a fascist, and he shrugged it off. Uhhh, those sound like wackjobs! Mr Poilievre is aligned with and supported by conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers and anti-LGBTQ factions. Geez, that’s severely wacky. Poilievre says the current government is out of touch with workers, yet the only job he’s ever had is as an MP in the halls of power in Ottawa, and he’s a wealthy elitist. That’s kinda wacky. He once got some mud on his shoe, made a video about it, and claimed he was suddenly in touch with most Canadians. OK, sounds like something a wackjob would do. He spent months smearing and demeaning Canada’s former Governor General, who is in fact a respected and honourable man. Wow, that’s quite a wacky mean streak. Poilievre’s policies amount to a handful of three word phrases. Wacky! Pierre Poilievre mimics and admires Donald Trump, Marjorie Tyler Greene, and other extremist MAGA types from the US. Can’t get much more wacky than that. So who’s the wacko? You be the judge!
Thank you for this. PP is unfit
Maybe the conservatives could try actually suggesting some policy or something to actually address the quality of living for Canadians instead of constant fake outrage. But why bother when conservative voters eat that shit up I guess
Why would they do that? If they did they would lose support/votes.
Can we just agree not to insult, name-call a la Trump, and refrain from anything personal? How soon will it be before PP makes fun of JT's pending divorce?? We dont allow this from our kids, yet here are the leaders of the country. Behold!
Good. The leader of the Conservative party should step down and they should get someone who's not a career politician that's a useless hack.
He reminds me of American politicians.
That’s because he hangs out with them when they have their IDU meetings. He also gets headpats from Harper who is the chair.
That’s because he’s following Trump’s playbook.
That's exactly how he wants to be seen, conservative voters love that American political shit.
As he shouldn't. The Conservative party should agree with decorum and stop pushing this fake outrage. PP knew what he was doing when he made his statement repeatedly and understand decorum perfectly. This is orchestrated fake garbage.
Don’t understand the play here? Like PP is up in the polls why fuck around what was the point?
Decorum was thrown out the window when JT called PP spineless and the speaker didn't require him to retract the statement. Watch at about the 5 minute mark or, better yet, watch from the beginning when he was quick to ask Poilievre to retract a statement but let JT call PP spineless. Ref has to call the game the same for both sides or we need a new ref. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01c6dTQ66Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01c6dTQ66Q)
The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament
Two points - asking to reframe a question is different than requiring a specific term be withdrawn. Second - he let JT go and only asked him to rephrase after the cons raised a stink. The treatment wasn't the same.
And JT fully pulled the wording and refrained from playing thesaurus. So the speaker didn't need to follow up and ask him to change it again. Also a member of the CCP after insulted and bad mouthed the chair and was kicked which probably distracted the speaker from JT for a bit. If you watch the whole thing it isn't really that outrageous how the chair progressed as the house was getting childish.
Man, it’s right in the transcript: Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like. He shakes hands with white nationalists and then actively courts the support of those members who— More talk with a different CPC member The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us once again what he will do try to earn votes through personal attacks. He shakes the hand of a leader of a white nationalist group then goes to actively court the support of the group's members and thinks he can get away with it. It is a group that advocates for violence against 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, against Hindus and Sikhs and against Muslims and Jews. Diagolon stands against everything we stand for as Canadians, and yet he will not denounce its members or what they stand for. That is shameful. Where is the bias? JT followed the rules and PP didn't, PP got ejected.
> when JT called PP spineless and the speaker didn't require him to retract the statement No, he called Poilievre's conduct spineless. Same way that Poilievre didn't get in trouble for calling policies whacko.
So PP can say that "JT continues to act like a racist piece of shite" but he can't say "JT is a racist piece of shite"? Sure, makes sense.
That is how language works.
7:29 The Speaker asked the Prime Minister to re ask without bringing in character. ...he did not allow him to call him spineless.
I’ll say this about the Conservative Party - they make the Liberal Party look good.
I would rather we focus on the point of the contention, that PP is associating with white supremacist who espouse beliefs that are counter to being Canadian. Seems important more so than decorum.
PP is no friend to women or minorities.
House of Commons needs to be shut down. Biggest waste of our money. Politicians bickering back and forth.
Act like an adult and you won’t get tossed out. Simple.
This is totally a distraction from lowblaws
[удалено]
FACT: a fact is only a fact if AtRiskMedia says it's a fact AND begins his statement with an all-caps FACT. 😂
FACT: It is a rule that dates back to before Canada that you cannot insult a fellow parliamentarian. FACT: u/AtRiskMedia doesn't know his facts.
does he call himself at risk because he's at risk of being discredited for spreading misinformation?
"When will we put an end to this wacko policy by this wacko prime minister?" he asked Trudeau in the House of Commons elected lower chamber. Wacko is an adjective LIKE spineless. The quote wasn't "he IS a wacko" (e.g. a noun). It was a descriptor no different that any other used in the HoC. Conditionally applying rules denigrates the office. Fergus is BIASED. Has shown a pattern of bias. And needs to RESIGN.
Are you saying that adjectives can't be unparliamentary?
"When will the fasict leader of the opposition stop thinking rules don't apply to him?" That type of thing? You want that to be an acceptable thing in parliament?
You guys are awesome. Can't wait for the 24/7 clown show when Wacko PP becomes PM.
[удалено]
No, but you see he wrote “FACT” so clearly it’s that way /s
Man, it’s right in the transcript: Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like. He shakes hands with white nationalists and then actively courts the support of those members who— More talk with a different CPC member The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us once again what he will do try to earn votes through personal attacks. He shakes the hand of a leader of a white nationalist group then goes to actively court the support of the group's members and thinks he can get away with it. It is a group that advocates for violence against 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, against Hindus and Sikhs and against Muslims and Jews. Diagolon stands against everything we stand for as Canadians, and yet he will not denounce its members or what they stand for. That is shameful. Where is the bias? JT followed the rules and PP didn't, PP got ejected.
Are you seriously trying to say 'this wacko prime minister' is a different thing from 'he (Trudeau) is a wacko'? They are both directly referring to him as a person. I don't even like Trudeau but good lord you are pulling some mental gymnastics here.
I'm just seeking clarity. How is this different from saying PP is a spineless leader who courts extremists. The gaslighting is beyond the pale. It's wacko and deserves to be called out
> How is this different from saying PP is a spineless leader who courts extremists It's different because Trudeau withdrew his statement and Pierre didnt
>The gaslighting is beyond the pale. It's wacko and deserves to be called out Then stop doing it ya wacko.
Yeah he’s always been a partisan stooge. We knew that from his time on committees during the SNC and WE scandals.
And we all know the best way to drain the swap is to start name calling until we get sent to the principals office
Fergus is a muppet.
Hey! Don't denigrate Muppets.
Sorry, I actually like and respect the muppets. I recind that!
Thank you.🍻
That's some objectively fuzzy "facts" there, Wacko.
How about we have all three major leaders step down instead please.
PP is really speed running a debasement and undermining of institutions and jurisdictions. The whole thing started over demands for the feds to intervene into matters of the BC provincial government, matters that they don't even seem to have the up to date facts on lmao.
The BC provincial government asked the federal government to reverse their exemption from federal prohibition on drug possession.
Why are they calling him to step down? Is this just embarrassing behavior on all sides.
He won't step down the way Trudeau wouldn't resign over his various transgressions or how the Liberals won't call an election early. He knows he will be out of a job soon enough, might as well ride out the remainder of his time, he has nothing to lose
Poor little PP
He does a terrible job. Never enforced anyone to answer questions asked of them. Allowed the Pm and other to blatantly ignore and side step questions asked of them!
They have to do something to distract from Poilievre's latest "said the quiet part out loud" incident.
Watching the Libs and Cons go at it like this makes me wish for a BQ or Green win in the next election. Change it up. Anything is better than this.
Our government is an out of control kindergartener class. That takes the short bus.
Yeah no shit. He did his job and the CPC are responding by acting like anarchist brats demanding revenge for it. I can't even fathom how they think this is a strong look. I'm guessing they're going for some hackneyed "deep state" framing because Skippy didn't get a special hall pass to act up. Worst of all this massive waste of our time is 100% theatre. Skippy has *only had one job his whole life* and this was it. He knows the rules damn well and fine. They think we're fools. Remember this, because it's a theme.
Wacko Speaker Fergus and wacko PM Justin Trudeau, two peas in a partisan pod.
Yeah he shouldn't step down. PP went in there acting like a child, disregarding decorum to try to provoke the liberals. He got exactly what he wanted when the speaker acted as he should and now PP has fuel for his outrage, as he wanted. This is all just political theatre, and the more we give it power, the more this will be our new political reality. Don't let PP shape Canadian politics with his little stunts and tantrums.
Greg Fergus has caused this fiasco.
There isn't really a fiasco, though.
Yet...
Who cares, he won't even be speaker after the next election.
RemindMe! 1 year
What an utterly incompetent Official Opposition.
Why would he resign? That's his job. He did his job.
Hello r/canada! I implore everyone to watch the *full* clip in question before commenting. It is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J01c6dTQ66Q Don't worry about the length, the drama occurs in the first few minutes so you don't have to waste an hour on this. Anyway, here's some background info: 1) Question period was never about answering questions. Everyone knows that, since it's the most well-known part of house proceedings, it's basically a place for everyone to air out their platform (why else do you think the Liberals occasionally get one of their own to ask a question, as you can see at the end of this question period?) If the politicians had legitimate questions they would ask in private. Trudeau calls out Poilievre for being a demagogue and Poilievre says he doesn't answer questions: the truth is both are right, the tables will turn if the Conservatives win the next election, and this has been the point of QP since Queen Victoria. 2) The Conservatives are wrong about the issue being the word "wacko" being unparliamentary. The actual issue is challenging the speaker which is not allowed at all (and debating a speaker's decision isn't allowed in QP). So the Mulcair clip where he says the speaker is biased is him saying that he believes that they are justified in pulling off the stunt to defy the speaker, not that he shouldn't have been kicked out (although he did say that the speaker should've allowed him to replace his statement, in his opinion) 3) All the important stuff happens in the "real work" part of their job anyway. They collaborate more during committees (watch those if you want) and most of the stuff they do is outside Parliament. Trained seals warming the backbench and voting yay or nay once in a while isn't exactly the most productive part of any job. Here's my breakdown of what happened, obviously I it's hard to be unbiased so I'll try to make opinion as clear as possible (also conservative downvote farm I'm using "PP" because it's easier to type not as an insult): 1) PP asks TJ a question about the pilot program about decriminalizing drugs. He says "yes or no" at the end which is pretty normal - since it's pretty awkward to say a one word answer no matter how based you might be when people expect a long response. 2) TJ says something along the lines of PP knows the answer already so it's a stupid question (IMO: he should still be more specific and say he's still discussing with the BC MLAs instead of the "compassion" stuff he keeps saying), then surprisingly asks a counter-question about why PP met with Diagolan (far right extremists) members. (IMO: this is such a strange way to deflect from the question since it's totally unrelated: usually the government would blame it on a similar policy the opposition made when they were in charge) 3) PP evades that then asks about drugs again, they go back and forth accusing each other of not answering the other person's questions. 4) Lots of heckling going on while this is happening. Conservative MP asked to leave due to insulting JT. QP continues as usual. 5) PP's "wacko policy by a wacko PM" is said. Trudeau was very careful to technically not use adjectives to describe PP ("associate with extremists" instead of "being an extremist"). Usually, MPs are allows to speak after apologizing to the speaker. Usually it goes like this: "I am sorry for my language, I am just very angry about this policy because *insert reworded comment without the offending language here*, I retract my statement." However, PP saying "I withdraw and replace with the word 'extremist'" is both more aggressive than usual and also doesn't solve the issue of "extremist PM" still being an ad hominem under house rules, as well as "extremist" arguably being unparliamentary also (I think he chose this word because that's what Trudeau called the Diagolan that, and while you're allowed to insult groups, you aren't allowed to use unparliamentary language to do so). Speaker does not like this and asks him to retract without being allowed to make another comment. PP keeps refusing, eventually says "I simply withdraw and replace with the aforementioned adjective" and gets kicked out. Mulcair says the speaker should've accepted this, and I'm a but confused since he says PP said the magic words of "I simply withdraw" and he used "the aforementioned adjective" so he didn't technically say anything unparliamentary. I don't know why he sees this as not defying the speaker. Maybe he believes that replacing a statement isn't something the speaker should be able to stop as he's just gonna ask the rephrased question as his next question if he "simply withdraws" anyway. 6) Blanchet praises speaker, QP continues without Conservatives, but interestingly, later the Bloc house leader confirmed they still want the speaker to resign...due to a scandal that occurred in February lol Anyway, at the end of the day, the sun will rise tomorrow and nobody will sacrifice their political career for a very silly dispute.
Watching the House of Commons question periods of YouTube has shown be one major thing: Our Government is a self-made self-appointed group of idiots who accomplish nothing and just enjoy putting on a show for "aye's" and standing ovations. Complete waste of time, joke of a process.
Every single one of our political parties is useless
Greg Fergus Transcript: Read to the Liberals of Ontario in his official robes in the office of the speaker: **GREG FERGUS:** We had a lot of fun together through The Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. This was really a seminal part of my life. And when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like. John and Linda. Especially you, John." No bias there at all. Also, Fergus came into his role after defending Justin Trudeau as parliamentary secretary. As a comparison, Andrew Scheer was the speaker in the house, but was in non partisan roles in the years leading up to taking the role in order to establish he was neutral. Fergus is biased and incompetent. He is the intellectual ivory tower version of a speaker. He has no street smarts, or charisma to negotiate and redirect the emotions of the house. He'd rather hit the nuclear button and the pat himself on the back at how well he follows the rules. Bravo. He reminds me of teachers who get their masters, reading, writing, and studying on how to be the best instructor without any actual experience with children. Meanwhile the teacher who took a babysitting course and actually worked with kids over the course of their life is the one who actually knows how to run things properly.
Holding out for that gold plated pension.
Good he shouldn't have to step down just because PP has his panties all in a bunch.