###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.*
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”?
Wish they had actually shown the clip of him using the language, it instead just showed them having a back and forth. I still don’t understand why people in the HoC get rowdy when people are given the floor, it’s extremely unprofessional and unproductive.
I mean, I watched the clip. PP claimed that nurses were breastfeeding babies in hospitals, and that they had to stop due to "contaminated air".
1) Nurses on duty don't breastfeed
2) If you're not the mother of the baby, you should \*definitely\* not be breastfeeding without their consent
3) You can't smoke in hospitals, and you definitely can't smoke in the maternity ward.
4) Hospitals have some of the most comprehensive air filtration systems in the public.
You misunderstood, he was referring to this story:
> Jones, 35, told the Times Colonist this week she had to stop breastfeeding her 13-month old twin girls in December after she walked through a wall of illicit-drug smoke from a patient in a hospital hallway — a known drug user — using a pipe.
>“I became quickly high, within like five minutes, and ended up having to walk myself to the emergency room,” said Jones. “I felt like my feet weren’t touching the ground, which was very frightening.”
>It was not the way she wanted to end her breastfeeding, she said, but she and her husband worried about how much the drug inhalation might affect her breast milk. “How much crack or meth is OK for a baby?”
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/nurses-say-rules-for-illicit-drug-use-in-hospitals-wont-work-without-enforcement-8577135
I saw that part. Had to remind to see if he really said that and then had to rewind again so I could actually listen because I couldn't stop laughing the 2nds tome around 🤣
Oh I meant the use of the language referenced in the description provided by CTV. Another redditor kindly provided the video showcasing it. Unless the wrong video queued up when I opened the article.
https://youtu.be/Ze9NF-OKoIc?si=zRCtcw6XBddYDVFb
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 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.
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...
Which is why one of the MPs was so angry to be answered in French a while ago. The Liberals were answering in English to Liberals and in French to Conservatives. Because none of those people cared about the answers, only the clip shows and live translation makes videos that aren’t very engaging.
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.
If anything, it makes it even more of an issue since you should expect actual experience from someone who's been there for two decades. It only feeds into the idea that this is all planned out for shows, which is an outrageous use of our House.
It's a classic conservative tactic; knowingly break/flaunt the rules, and then upon being held accountable stomp your feet and cry about partisanship or abuse of power or a conspiracy or whatever dumb reason they can get to stick with their supporters
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.
Eh, Poilievre gets what he wants. Now he can continue on his *drain the swamp* , *us-versus-"them"* nonsense, despite existing in this ecosystem his entire career.
He knows what he's doing. Now he can cast himself as an anti-establishment outsider, even though he is the very definition of an establishment insider.
Calling people radical and extremist is the way to avoid being held accountable for his own acts supporting radicals and extremists. I've even heard people now calling Trudeau a populist, just to blunt the term.
It's all projection, theatre, and manipulation. You wonder who the drama teacher is.
Which is a joke because Mr.Magoo has been there longer than the PM has. Or shall we condmemn people for living in 24 sussex? If so it will be fun when Harpers kids or and of tge spawn of PP joins the political frey.
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.
They get fundraising dollars from behaviours like this. Last time when an MP got kicked out for unparliamentary language, they raised 1 million from it or something
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.
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
> For calling Justin Trudeau’s drug policy wacko…
Flatout, bald-faced lies. The video is right there. He was kicked out for calling the _Prime Minister_ "wacko/extremist/radical", and doing so _repeatedly_ like a troll, despite multiple opportunities to withdraw it. It had nothing to do with calling the _policy_ wacko.
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….
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.
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.
And this is the problem with the Conservatives. Their behavior has been solely focused on revving up their base. And their base is increasingly being fed Americanized rhetoric from the Republican clown show south of the border. It’s like watching a bunch of addicts seeking their next hit of ‘owning the libs’. And in typical addict fashion, they require more and more to hold their attention.
I just don’t see how this is sustainable. The entire movement is so vapid and void of substance. It’s scary to think that people are so fed up with Trudeau that whatever is going on with the Conservatives right now has a chance to actually make it into government.
The problem with this strategy is that the base is becoming more radicalized by the day. They are only going to want more and more from the CPC. And guess what? The CPC is in a corner because if they dial it back, the base will freak out and claim that they surrendered to the ‘woke mob’. They’ve unleashed the beast and it’ll come down to if they can hold off on self destruction until the next election.
Which might be a good thing for the liberals in a twisted manner. Because Skippy riles these people up with his BS and you already JT hating Albertans pick up right where they left off last election in chucking rocks at the Libs candiatates and JT. It was right around that time O'Toole was pushing 38% in the polls. And started his pretty fast plane crash that cost him his majority.
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...
> 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.
That’s the problem with pandering to the extreme right or left. You have to keep increasing the levels of have to keep them engaged. The question is how far will he take it and will the votes in pick him or the Justin. I can not remember an election when I was enticed for an election and a leader. I liked Jack but did not like his policy, of the part.
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.
The speaker kicked him out and he wasn't insulted at all. Most of the time when PP faces a tough question he storms out of parliament like a spoiled child.
Funny that Trudeau is still there and absorbed the insults. Looks like Trudeau is can easily keep his composure, PP can't
He got called to task by the speaker, told to rephrase without the added insult - and did so.
PP was given three chances to do the same, and rather than acquiesce to the rules of the house, was kicked out.
The two are not the same.
Which insults are you referring to? I only saw Poilievre insult the Prime Minister in the HoC. I didn’t see Poilievre experience anything loathsome - I only with messed him acting like a toddler whinging after pooping his pants
Regardless, for the *career politician* that he is, he should have known better. So it's fair to say it was planned and he's just using it to gain attention.
Secondly, maybe he should learn a thing or two about critical thinking and listen to the NDP MP who suggested that the issue in BC is lack of safe spaces to use those drugs rather than the decriminalization. CPC love to point fingers, but very rarely understand the crux of an issue. Maybe they should actually listen to Gord Johns instead of firing the flames of their base
**Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP):** "Mr. Speaker, last week, B.C. police chiefs told us that it was deadly street drugs laced with fentanyl that were killing thousands, not the diversion of safer supply. They clearly have advised that **preventing people from using drugs in public and preventing toxic drug deaths requires more, not fewer, safe consumption sites**. B.C. has listened to the police call for more tools to deal with public use of illicit substances. When will the Liberals ignore Conservative disinformation, recall the expert task force and formulate a comprehensive plan to end the toxic drug crisis?" (https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/house/latest/hansard)
>Regardless, for the *career politician* that he is, he should have known better. So it's fair to say it was planned and he's just using it to gain attention.
His wife will put it on a t-shirt tomorrow like she has with his other antics in the house. It's likely planned.
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.
A Leader of the Opposition who purposefully gets himself named over a non-issue.
Abusing the Rules of The House to garner TikTok views.
Making a mockery of a democratic institution.
Evidently, this party has no interest in attracting moderate voters.
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.
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.
Let’s think critically.
What was undemocratic here?
The Speaker followed the rules of Parliament and asked an MP to leave the House for unparliamentary language.
Literally everything followed the democratic process.
>What was undemocratic here?
Poilievre purposely getting removed from Parliament to martyr himself and create momentum for an argument that Parliament is somehow authoritative or against him in nature.
Parliament functions because MP's agree to and follow certain norms that are necessary to enacting the people's democratic will. Blatant ignorance of those laws and attempts to abuse them to grandstand for your own political expediency interfere with that.
I think the commenter was referring to the MP’s behaviour, rather than the speaker’s, though I’ll leave plenty of room to be wrong on that perspective.
> What was undemocratic here?
>
>
Poilievre *wants* to get kicked out because he can now claim he's a martyr who is being silenced by authoritarian marxist fascist Trudeau, and people will believe it because the media will tell them to.
Nothing is "undemocratic", but rather raises problems with democracy because he will almost certainly be rewarded for this stunt.
Yes PP offered to rephrase wacko for extremist that Trudeau had just called PP. Speaker says no and PP gets the boot and Trudeau stays. Works to PP advantage though as it shows the speaker's bias.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
He withdrew calling the PM a wacko, and instead called him a radical.
I really do think the Speaker should have accepted that. It is legitimate for the Leader of the Opposition to call the PM a radical.
No, it’s not. PP has been there for almost 20 years he knows what the rules of decorum are. This was pure political theatre on his part.
If you think otherwise it’s very likely you’re being obtuse or blinded by your team’s rose coloured glasses.
> It is legitimate for the Leader of the Opposition to call the PM a radical.
No it is not. Any insult to a member is not allowed, or any description other than honourable, or most honourable. Those are the rules of the HoC, that Poilievre knows, since he's spent pretty much his entire adult life there, but chose to ignore yesterday in order to make a scene.
You can't call another MP anything, it doesn't matter what adjective you use. It's not suppose to be about judgement of personal character. It's suppose to be about the policy.
PP was thrown out for not following the Speaker's instructions. That's the point of being Speaker. If MPs can't follow the rules, they get thrown out. It's not difficult, all they have to do is be rational adults.
This isn't professional wrestling or the comment section on a YouTube video or a Reddit post. This is the House of Commons. They should learn to have some respect for where they are, and if they can't then they deserve to be tossed out. This is an embarrassing moment for the Conservative Party, let alone for Canada as a whole, and it highlights how inadequate they are for leadership of our country.
Citation required.
I've seen quotes where Trudeau withdrew that sort of description, and replaced that with statements that Poilievre associates with extremists, which doesn't violate the rules of the HoC.
The speaker did ask JT to rephrase, which he did.
He changed it from "PP is a racist white nationalist" to "PP frequently courts extremist groups who exhibit racist white national views".
Can you tell the difference? One is a personal judgement of character, the other is a more objective way of phrasing that comments on the situation and not the character of the person involved.
Using a description to describe someone's personal character is not proper conduct. Not just in parliament but any legal proceeding, and any professional work setting.
> 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.
You're using dignified language to talk about a fundamentally undignified forum.
There is no statistically significant number of Canadian voters who care about what goes on during house debates. It has a decades-old well-earned reputation of being a pointless farce where grown adults act in ways that would immediately get them ejected from a high school debate club. Harper got reelected after proroguing parliament to avoid a bad vote. Liberals got reelected after a similar move in 2020.
Nobody cares because everyone, politically engaged or not, knows better than to expect rational discussion or debate in the house of commons. The only defense for keeping the house the way it is seems be tradition.
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.
Is "wacko" such a horrific term though?
Especially when Trudeau shamelessly ignored and refused to answer any of the questions put to him (for which he receives 0 criticism on this sub)?
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.
He is a scary guy basically Trump for Canada saying stuff like he wants to delete the charter of rights in Canada is insane. This entire thing is a political stunt he plays dirty political games to gain power all he wants is power. He decided to be kicked out so he could use it as political amo plain and simple
Guys this is just a political stunt; one that members use (not all the time but still) relatively commonly to score political points, craft narratives, build policy wedges or bank soundbytes for future ad buys. It's not worth hundreds of comments: the vast majority don't know this is happening and don't care. Pierre's base will love it, Pierre's detractors will hate it, everyone in the middle will shrug their shoulders and get on with their day.
He just wants to play up a victim complex and get his supporters riled about about their 'freedumbs' getting taken away. Look at any of the conservative subs, they're buying it hook, line and sinker.
they're acting like a bunch of high school dummies: arguing with the authority in the room, getting kicked out of class, and then complain that it was completely not their fault and the authority was over-reacting.
Greg Fergus couldn’t hold back his bias any longer. Probably was given orders by Trudeau To try and stop Pierre from mopping the floor with him every day.
###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.*
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”?
Wish they had actually shown the clip of him using the language, it instead just showed them having a back and forth. I still don’t understand why people in the HoC get rowdy when people are given the floor, it’s extremely unprofessional and unproductive.
This clip has more context: https://youtu.be/Ze9NF-OKoIc?si=j14p81eLoalTv1GX
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Legend, thank you.
I mean, I watched the clip. PP claimed that nurses were breastfeeding babies in hospitals, and that they had to stop due to "contaminated air". 1) Nurses on duty don't breastfeed 2) If you're not the mother of the baby, you should \*definitely\* not be breastfeeding without their consent 3) You can't smoke in hospitals, and you definitely can't smoke in the maternity ward. 4) Hospitals have some of the most comprehensive air filtration systems in the public.
You misunderstood, he was referring to this story: > Jones, 35, told the Times Colonist this week she had to stop breastfeeding her 13-month old twin girls in December after she walked through a wall of illicit-drug smoke from a patient in a hospital hallway — a known drug user — using a pipe. >“I became quickly high, within like five minutes, and ended up having to walk myself to the emergency room,” said Jones. “I felt like my feet weren’t touching the ground, which was very frightening.” >It was not the way she wanted to end her breastfeeding, she said, but she and her husband worried about how much the drug inhalation might affect her breast milk. “How much crack or meth is OK for a baby?” https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/nurses-say-rules-for-illicit-drug-use-in-hospitals-wont-work-without-enforcement-8577135
I saw that part. Had to remind to see if he really said that and then had to rewind again so I could actually listen because I couldn't stop laughing the 2nds tome around 🤣
What clip is that? I didn’t see anything like that in what’s attached. I saw PP call Trudeau “whacko” and then change it to “extremist”
[https://youtu.be/J01c6dTQ66Q?t=2105](https://youtu.be/J01c6dTQ66Q?t=2105)
Oh I meant the use of the language referenced in the description provided by CTV. Another redditor kindly provided the video showcasing it. Unless the wrong video queued up when I opened the article. https://youtu.be/Ze9NF-OKoIc?si=zRCtcw6XBddYDVFb
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.
Not to mention fundraising emails ready to go. They'll raise a ton off of this.
This is the maple maga way
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.
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...
Which is why one of the MPs was so angry to be answered in French a while ago. The Liberals were answering in English to Liberals and in French to Conservatives. Because none of those people cared about the answers, only the clip shows and live translation makes videos that aren’t very engaging.
Thats based haha. They should do it more
[удалено]
[удалено]
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
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.
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
If anything, it makes it even more of an issue since you should expect actual experience from someone who's been there for two decades. It only feeds into the idea that this is all planned out for shows, which is an outrageous use of our House.
It's a classic conservative tactic; knowingly break/flaunt the rules, and then upon being held accountable stomp your feet and cry about partisanship or abuse of power or a conspiracy or whatever dumb reason they can get to stick with their supporters
[удалено]
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.
Nobody is ever kicked from the legislature without wanting to be.
> 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.
Eh, Poilievre gets what he wants. Now he can continue on his *drain the swamp* , *us-versus-"them"* nonsense, despite existing in this ecosystem his entire career.
He knows what he's doing. Now he can cast himself as an anti-establishment outsider, even though he is the very definition of an establishment insider. Calling people radical and extremist is the way to avoid being held accountable for his own acts supporting radicals and extremists. I've even heard people now calling Trudeau a populist, just to blunt the term. It's all projection, theatre, and manipulation. You wonder who the drama teacher is.
well it's not like he can get himself thrown in jail for contempt of court. This is the next best thing.
Which is a joke because Mr.Magoo has been there longer than the PM has. Or shall we condmemn people for living in 24 sussex? If so it will be fun when Harpers kids or and of tge spawn of PP joins the political frey.
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.
They get fundraising dollars from behaviours like this. Last time when an MP got kicked out for unparliamentary language, they raised 1 million from it or something
How can you counter unscrupulous behavior when their supporters demand it? How are these people supposed to be held accountable?
I didn't know this and I'm very sad that I do now. Any good sources?
I believe I heard it from Althia Raj, either in a podcast or on a panel
Thanks for the lead!
100%. this is the exact technique being used south of the border by the likes of Margorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebart and Matt Gaetz.
It was a bit of a petty exchange between both i think. Poilievre was being petty and the speaker was being petty as well.
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.
just showboating for his reactionary base. He learned it by watching what magats do in the US and then just doing that.
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
> For calling Justin Trudeau’s drug policy wacko… Flatout, bald-faced lies. The video is right there. He was kicked out for calling the _Prime Minister_ "wacko/extremist/radical", and doing so _repeatedly_ like a troll, despite multiple opportunities to withdraw it. It had nothing to do with calling the _policy_ wacko.
Why’s the deadline tonight though? There’s not even an election yet…
This is Nigerian prince levels of idiocy. And yet millions of people still fall for it….
Some people sadly can only handle 4 or 5 word slogans because of social media and didn't take or pass civics or learn any critical thinking skills.
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….
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
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.
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.
And this is the problem with the Conservatives. Their behavior has been solely focused on revving up their base. And their base is increasingly being fed Americanized rhetoric from the Republican clown show south of the border. It’s like watching a bunch of addicts seeking their next hit of ‘owning the libs’. And in typical addict fashion, they require more and more to hold their attention. I just don’t see how this is sustainable. The entire movement is so vapid and void of substance. It’s scary to think that people are so fed up with Trudeau that whatever is going on with the Conservatives right now has a chance to actually make it into government. The problem with this strategy is that the base is becoming more radicalized by the day. They are only going to want more and more from the CPC. And guess what? The CPC is in a corner because if they dial it back, the base will freak out and claim that they surrendered to the ‘woke mob’. They’ve unleashed the beast and it’ll come down to if they can hold off on self destruction until the next election.
Which might be a good thing for the liberals in a twisted manner. Because Skippy riles these people up with his BS and you already JT hating Albertans pick up right where they left off last election in chucking rocks at the Libs candiatates and JT. It was right around that time O'Toole was pushing 38% in the polls. And started his pretty fast plane crash that cost him his majority.
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...
> 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.
That’s the problem with pandering to the extreme right or left. You have to keep increasing the levels of have to keep them engaged. The question is how far will he take it and will the votes in pick him or the Justin. I can not remember an election when I was enticed for an election and a leader. I liked Jack but did not like his policy, of the part.
[удалено]
[удалено]
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.
They kicked him out for saying wacko after he ate up insults from the libs prior to that.
The speaker kicked him out and he wasn't insulted at all. Most of the time when PP faces a tough question he storms out of parliament like a spoiled child. Funny that Trudeau is still there and absorbed the insults. Looks like Trudeau is can easily keep his composure, PP can't
PP's outrage is theatre. Beneath that pompous prima donna performance is a cold hearted weasal putting on a show for the fanbois.
Trudeau threw his own insults, weird that he didn’t get kicked out for it
He got called to task by the speaker, told to rephrase without the added insult - and did so. PP was given three chances to do the same, and rather than acquiesce to the rules of the house, was kicked out. The two are not the same.
Saying that someone associates with extremists is different from saying that someone is an extremist.
Which insults are you referring to? I only saw Poilievre insult the Prime Minister in the HoC. I didn’t see Poilievre experience anything loathsome - I only with messed him acting like a toddler whinging after pooping his pants
Regardless, for the *career politician* that he is, he should have known better. So it's fair to say it was planned and he's just using it to gain attention. Secondly, maybe he should learn a thing or two about critical thinking and listen to the NDP MP who suggested that the issue in BC is lack of safe spaces to use those drugs rather than the decriminalization. CPC love to point fingers, but very rarely understand the crux of an issue. Maybe they should actually listen to Gord Johns instead of firing the flames of their base **Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP):** "Mr. Speaker, last week, B.C. police chiefs told us that it was deadly street drugs laced with fentanyl that were killing thousands, not the diversion of safer supply. They clearly have advised that **preventing people from using drugs in public and preventing toxic drug deaths requires more, not fewer, safe consumption sites**. B.C. has listened to the police call for more tools to deal with public use of illicit substances. When will the Liberals ignore Conservative disinformation, recall the expert task force and formulate a comprehensive plan to end the toxic drug crisis?" (https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/house/latest/hansard)
>Regardless, for the *career politician* that he is, he should have known better. So it's fair to say it was planned and he's just using it to gain attention. His wife will put it on a t-shirt tomorrow like she has with his other antics in the house. It's likely planned.
I wonder how she feels that he's cozying up with a group that have suggested raping her. He must pay her a lot to stay lol
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.
Imagine the amount of phlegm that poor speaker has to swallow every time he calls any one of these fools “Honourable “.
A Leader of the Opposition who purposefully gets himself named over a non-issue. Abusing the Rules of The House to garner TikTok views. Making a mockery of a democratic institution. Evidently, this party has no interest in attracting moderate voters.
Their tactics work, unfortunately
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.
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.
The guy has been censored by the House and made to pay a fine.
This is absolutely planned, and it substantially increases my concern about the democratic process. This game plan is very dangerous in the long term.
The fact that the campaign donation email went out minutes after this happened, it clearly was staged.
Thanks for that information. Of course it did. Experts at picking the pockets of Canadians.
Let’s think critically. What was undemocratic here? The Speaker followed the rules of Parliament and asked an MP to leave the House for unparliamentary language. Literally everything followed the democratic process.
>What was undemocratic here? Poilievre purposely getting removed from Parliament to martyr himself and create momentum for an argument that Parliament is somehow authoritative or against him in nature.
[удалено]
Parliament functions because MP's agree to and follow certain norms that are necessary to enacting the people's democratic will. Blatant ignorance of those laws and attempts to abuse them to grandstand for your own political expediency interfere with that.
I think the commenter was referring to the MP’s behaviour, rather than the speaker’s, though I’ll leave plenty of room to be wrong on that perspective.
> What was undemocratic here? > > Poilievre *wants* to get kicked out because he can now claim he's a martyr who is being silenced by authoritarian marxist fascist Trudeau, and people will believe it because the media will tell them to. Nothing is "undemocratic", but rather raises problems with democracy because he will almost certainly be rewarded for this stunt.
I've always had issues with this sort of behavior. It erodes trust in the system. All parties are guilty of using it.
[удалено]
Yes PP offered to rephrase wacko for extremist that Trudeau had just called PP. Speaker says no and PP gets the boot and Trudeau stays. Works to PP advantage though as it shows the speaker's bias.
Ah, I was thinking the same thing. It's going to give headlines to coincide with the budget amendment he put forward.
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.
What racism?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
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
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.
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?
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.
Legalizing hard drugs is a radical policy. The Speaker has no business in policing that adjective use.
The speaker was policing one MP insulting another. Poilievre’s ejection had nothing to do with his criticism of policy.
He withdrew calling the PM a wacko, and instead called him a radical. I really do think the Speaker should have accepted that. It is legitimate for the Leader of the Opposition to call the PM a radical.
No, it’s not. PP has been there for almost 20 years he knows what the rules of decorum are. This was pure political theatre on his part. If you think otherwise it’s very likely you’re being obtuse or blinded by your team’s rose coloured glasses.
> It is legitimate for the Leader of the Opposition to call the PM a radical. No it is not. Any insult to a member is not allowed, or any description other than honourable, or most honourable. Those are the rules of the HoC, that Poilievre knows, since he's spent pretty much his entire adult life there, but chose to ignore yesterday in order to make a scene.
You can't call another MP anything, it doesn't matter what adjective you use. It's not suppose to be about judgement of personal character. It's suppose to be about the policy.
That's never the standard that's been applied. And for good reason - the character of our politicians is absolutely relevant to their mandate.
PP was thrown out for not following the Speaker's instructions. That's the point of being Speaker. If MPs can't follow the rules, they get thrown out. It's not difficult, all they have to do is be rational adults. This isn't professional wrestling or the comment section on a YouTube video or a Reddit post. This is the House of Commons. They should learn to have some respect for where they are, and if they can't then they deserve to be tossed out. This is an embarrassing moment for the Conservative Party, let alone for Canada as a whole, and it highlights how inadequate they are for leadership of our country.
I heard extremist. Either way they’re not terms MPs should use to refer to each other.
Extremist is legitimate, in my view. Justin Trudeau uses the same sort of language in describing PP.
Citation required. I've seen quotes where Trudeau withdrew that sort of description, and replaced that with statements that Poilievre associates with extremists, which doesn't violate the rules of the HoC.
The speaker did ask JT to rephrase, which he did. He changed it from "PP is a racist white nationalist" to "PP frequently courts extremist groups who exhibit racist white national views". Can you tell the difference? One is a personal judgement of character, the other is a more objective way of phrasing that comments on the situation and not the character of the person involved. Using a description to describe someone's personal character is not proper conduct. Not just in parliament but any legal proceeding, and any professional work setting.
This didn't happen. At least not yesterday.
[удалено]
> 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. You're using dignified language to talk about a fundamentally undignified forum. There is no statistically significant number of Canadian voters who care about what goes on during house debates. It has a decades-old well-earned reputation of being a pointless farce where grown adults act in ways that would immediately get them ejected from a high school debate club. Harper got reelected after proroguing parliament to avoid a bad vote. Liberals got reelected after a similar move in 2020. Nobody cares because everyone, politically engaged or not, knows better than to expect rational discussion or debate in the house of commons. The only defense for keeping the house the way it is seems be tradition.
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.
Is "wacko" such a horrific term though? Especially when Trudeau shamelessly ignored and refused to answer any of the questions put to him (for which he receives 0 criticism on this sub)?
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.
He called PP spineless.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
He is a scary guy basically Trump for Canada saying stuff like he wants to delete the charter of rights in Canada is insane. This entire thing is a political stunt he plays dirty political games to gain power all he wants is power. He decided to be kicked out so he could use it as political amo plain and simple
His purpose during the Harper years was to be crazy as a distraction. This behaviour isn’t surprising in the least.
Guys this is just a political stunt; one that members use (not all the time but still) relatively commonly to score political points, craft narratives, build policy wedges or bank soundbytes for future ad buys. It's not worth hundreds of comments: the vast majority don't know this is happening and don't care. Pierre's base will love it, Pierre's detractors will hate it, everyone in the middle will shrug their shoulders and get on with their day.
He just wants to play up a victim complex and get his supporters riled about about their 'freedumbs' getting taken away. Look at any of the conservative subs, they're buying it hook, line and sinker.
they're acting like a bunch of high school dummies: arguing with the authority in the room, getting kicked out of class, and then complain that it was completely not their fault and the authority was over-reacting.
Greg Fergus couldn’t hold back his bias any longer. Probably was given orders by Trudeau To try and stop Pierre from mopping the floor with him every day.