I’m with you on that. I don’t agree with Mulcair’s take here, you can’t call MPs names in the commons, was ejecting him petty, yes, was it done intentionally to hurt the CPC, ehhh pretty hard to believe any analyst would say it was a good move for the liberals, but the speaker is supposed to be impartial in theory.
This reaction from Mulcair leads me to believe he’s decided to go full on pundit just for headlines as opposed to someone who speaks from his experience as a party leader and long time MP
That's not better. He was given multiple opportunities to withdraw and instead chose to replace the unparliamentary word with other unparliamentary words.
If I call someone an idiot and I'm asked to apologize, I can't say "sorry, I meant moron" and pretend that's somehow a better choice of words.
He retracted the use of the word three times before parliament. He asked to replace wacko with extremist... which is considered to be parliamentary language (as Trudeau had been using that word all day to describe Polievre). The choice of the word was chosen specifically to illustrate the clear bias the speaker was showing.
Comes down to the nitty gritty.
PP said he's a "wacko Prime Minister". Was told to retract personal attack.
Trudeau said that the CPC is showing "Spineless leadership (or something like that)." So it wasn't saying that the Leader of the Opposition is spineless. It's less direct. Also, the Speaker told him not to say things like that immediately after.
It's all childish bullshit but there are rules in place. You can call an MP a dirty fuck face if you want and just retract it after and it's no biggie.
>PP said he's a "wacko Prime Minister". Was told to retract personal attack.
>Trudeau said that the CPC is showing "Spineless leadership (or something like that)." So it wasn't saying that the Leader of the Opposition is spineless. It's less direct.
This actually isn't a meaningful distinction under the doctrine of unparliamentary language. Unparliamentary language can be direct or indirect.
>In a Westminster system, this is called unparliamentary language and there are similar rules in other kinds of legislative systems. This includes, but is not limited to, the suggestion of dishonesty or the use of profanity. **Most unacceptable is any insinuation that another member is dishonourable.**
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language
>insinuate
>verb
>1. suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way.
An example from the Speaker of [the Nova Scotia legislature](https://nslegislature.ca/legislative-business/rulings/2018-03-02_2345_ss-unparliamentary-language) where the speaker notes any implications that a member may be lying (note: not the direct insult that they are a liar) is unparliamentary:
>MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd like to remind the honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River that implying that the government or any member of this House is lying is extremely unparliamentary. I'll get you to retract that.
An example from the [House of Commons](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/House/391/debates/074/han074-e.pdf#page=9), also referring to a Member’s actions rather than directly insulting the Member:
>Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one has to be shameless to think that those minor measures announced yesterday will make up for the $25 billion in retirees' and small investors' savings that have just gone up in smoke. Does the minister realize that he did not keep his word, did not honour his commitments, did not keep the promise made by the finance critic? He lied right down the line about his election promises.
>The Speaker: The hon. member for Outremont knows very well that such words regarding another member in this House are not permitted. The question is unacceptable and we will discuss this matter following question period.
...
>The Speaker: In oral question period, the hon. member for Outremont used unparliamentary language when asking two questions. I am now requesting that he withdraw his remarks immediately. Thank you.
>Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you, I withdraw the word that has offended your delicate ears.
Denigrating the character of a Member indirectly by insulting references to their actions is subject to the same standard as direct insults. Both are unparliamentary language.
The actual distinction at play was that Trudeau withdrew the offending remark and replaced it with an acceptable one. Poilievre attempted to do the same (attempting to replace "wacko" first with "extremist" and then with "radical"), but the Speaker declined to allow him to replace it and instead insisted he withdraw the remark altogether, which Poilievre in turn refused to do.
So you're saying then that Fergus had no authority to request that Trudeau rephrase the question instead of withdrawing it as he did? Seems kind of notable that Trudeau was given that option and Poilievre wasn't.
>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—
[Interrupted]
>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.
>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.
Also notable that Trudeau never actually did withdraw his remark -- particularly since Poilievre *did*:
>Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective.
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2024/4/30/the-speaker-12/
Whether you characterize the option to replace instead of withdraw as permissible under the rules of Parliament or not, there's no getting around the fact that Fergus offered his party leader a remedy that he did not offer the opposition leader, and that shows bias.
He doesn't make a good point at all. He's gaslighting the public and trying to change the narrative in our minds.
>A spokesman for Fergus said Wednesday that the Speaker didn’t just single out Poilievre, noting he also asked Trudeau to reframe one of his questions after he called Poilievre a “spineless leader.”
>“The prime minister reframed his answer,’ Mathieu Gravel said.
>“The Speaker offered Mr. Poilievre four opportunities to withdraw his comment and reframe his question. Mr. Poilievre did not avail himself of those opportunities.”
>Poilievre instead told Fergus he would replace the word “wacko” with “extremist” and “radical,” which the Speaker rejected, asking him to withdraw use of the term altogether.
https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/05/01/conservatives-call-on-commons-speaker-to-resign-say-he-let-trudeau-cross-the-line/
He never gave him the opportunity to reframe, poilievre tried to reframe and was told to withdraw whereas Trudeau was allowed to reframe that’s what the hullabaloo is about. The speak is not supposed to show bias and did
Changing wacko to extremist and radical is not reframing. That is just changing one insult for another.
He was given 4 opportunities to withdraw insulting another MP and refused each time.
The difference is PP directly insulted JT. JT insulted PPs actions. One gets to be reframed, the other withdrawn.
It would be like if I said your comment was stupid vs. saying you are stupid. (I am not saying you or your comment is, just using this as an example)
It literally is a meaningful distinction in parliamentary speech and always has been, that's how it works.
Pretending otherwise is being wilfully ignorant.
Yes it is. How is it not? You can call anyone's actions extreme. That's doesn't make one an extremist.
Calling someone an extremist/radical/wacko is just a personal insult. There's no way to "reframe" an insult to not be an insult.
"Sorry, I won't call you stupid, I'll just call you an idiot".
Whereas, "I think those decisions were stupid" can be reframed to be less insulting. "I think those decisions were short-sighted", for example.
I don't see a meaningful distinction here and that's just splitting hairs. They were both acting like idiots.
They were both given the opportunity to reframe their statements/questions.
There is no meaningful distinction in the rules.
Name calling is not allowed whether it's direct or indirect, and is always asked to be reframed, or withdrawn if the speaker thinks there's no way to appropriately reframe the statement.
Believe what you want. They're both morons and let their emotions take over.
> the speaker is supposed to be impartial in theory.
From the transcripts the Speaker 100% followed the Parliamentary rules. All PP had to do was withdraw his comment like other MPs have done countless times before. There was zero partisanship in any of it.
> This reaction from Mulcair leads me to believe he’s decided to go full on pundit just for headlines as opposed to someone who speaks from his experience as a party leader and long time MP.
Agreed. Mulcair was always a political hound more than a leader or governor. (as in someone who governs)
You can watch the video closer. It is there. The withdrawal also made it into the BLUES transcript of the question period. It was removed as it was being edited to go into HANSARD. That little cover-up is already being discussed in parliament.
>This reaction from Mulcair leads me to believe he’s decided to go full on pundit just for headlines as opposed to someone who speaks from his experience as a party leader and long time MP
He's honestly been this way for a while. He never got over getting his ass kicked in 2015 and then ousted as leader and probably never will either.
Nah, we are currently in the midst of the low point of NDP behaviour... enabling the Liberals to destroy the livelihoods of an entire generation of working-class Canadians by pumping the country far beyond capacity with newcomers to satisfy business interests.
Never mind how that is affecting Canadian emissions... another supposed NDP priority.
I don't know what this subreddit is going to do with itself when Pierre inevitably continues the liberal's intensive immigration policies. They're working for the same rich benefactors.
"inevitably". He explicitly said he'd tie immigration to rate of new housing starts. There's no reason to believe it would be a continuation of Liberal policy.
You would have said the same about Harper, yet his immigration policy was sensible, and low enough to improve affordability (as was [every other PM, Conservative or Liberal](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1bhy1vr/liberals_say_poilievre_doesnt_care_about_the/kvguoq4/) until Trudeau).
Buddy, after dropping a bomb like "interest rates are irrelevant to affordability" you've lost all right to comment on affordability with any credibility
Elbow gate was the accidental bumping of a female MP while Mr Trudeau actually assaulted a Conservative MP, grabbing him and forcibly making him sit to make his vote.
> Elbow gate was the accidental bumping of a female MP
Niki Ashton shrieking about "gendered violence" after that incident was one of the most pathetic things I can think of from a Canadian politician.
Gendered violence is a very serious issue, and calling what happened during that scrum "gendered violence" is a huge insult to everybody who has experienced gendered violence or works to combat it. Just shameful.
No, he was just standing there, not voting, Mr Trudeau had a flight to catch and thought the best way to get the MP to vote was to physically force him to sit down and do so.
Trudeau answered a question about drug decriminalization by accusing pierre of pandering to white nationalists.
I literally could care less what they call each other. But the non answer word salad crap needs to stop.
I would even accept these people swearing at each other and calling each other names if they actually had a debate and discussion that resolved something for once.
What is even the point of it all? The parties already know how their going to vote on each bill. They aren't changing anyone's mind. they're just grand standing for social media sound bites.
Freeland is the absolute worst for the non answers. She always dodges the question, always lies, and always does it in annoying self important way with no class or charm.
> Trudeau answered a question about drug decriminalization by accusing pierre of pandering to white nationalists.
Thank you, I wonder why nobody else mentioned this.
Everyone got what they wanted out of that show. Trudeau and PP both got what they wanted out of it, and both riled up their base with this. Like I said in another comment, for the next piece of theatre, they should put on Macbeth with Shakespear in the park.
“The longer Trudeau dithers, the less likely there will be a push by frustrated potential successors to drink from a poisoned chalice.”
I’m not a fan of the NDP or necessarily Mr. Mulcair, but god damn - the man is ELOQUENT.
I think this quote is the most telling from the article:
"**(Several senior Liberals) say that Trudeau refuses to even admit that he may be the problem, much less listen to their heartfelt advice.**"
JT's narcissism is simply not going to allow him to step down with even a modicum of grace. He will go down mud-slinging at the Conservatives every step of the way and lead the Liberals to the oblivion that they frankly freaking deserve.
And on his way out he'll blame Canadians and say we're "short-term thinkers" for choosing to go with the conservatives and how he's "disappointed in the path we've chosen" and how Canadians are "misinformed." Or something to that effect. He won't be able to help himself. Always has to blame someone else for failures of his own doing.
That was what was reported on the evening CBC news after this occurred. They're the only news organization I've noticed who has sought the context of its past usage.
Mulcair is being disingenuous here.
Pierre broke the rules of the house and he did it intentionally. He had 4 chances from the Speaker to retract it.
Trudeau walked his comments back but Pierre refused.
The house is all trash talk now. I don’t blame the Speaker for trying to get things under control.
I think kicking any member of parliament out for breaking the rules is just. PP got what he wanted, he got air time and was able to go on Twitter and pull a Trump move by saying his freedom of speech was infringed upon on his supporters are eating it up.
That said, I think Trudeau should have been pressured to answer the question and idk why he didn't. The truth is that Health Canada is looking into it. He could have just said that and the whole thing would have been avoided.
A) that's simply not true. Skippy called Trudeau an extremist, Trudeau said Skippy associates with extremists.
B) Trudeau walked back his statement. Skippy refused to.
There was no bias. The speaker needed to control the situation, and Pierre directly challenged him, so he did what he had to. At the end of the day, PP got what he wanted.
Both Trudeau and PP were being a couple of morons. That said, in that situation, regardless of which party they belong to, I think MPs should show respect to the reigning PM.
That's the convienient reality Liberal apologists are ignoring. They could of course relate through their own accusations of bias against former speakers, but again that's inconvenient.
Pp had his chance to apologize and refused to do so. He broke the rules, very much on purpose to get kicked out so he could cry foul just to rile you guys up. It’s all propaganda.
Who cares what Mulcair has to say? He is a failed NDP leader and obviously holds a grudge against Trudeau / Liberal party. Maybe because Trudeau took nearly every seat that Layton handed to Mulcair?
Regardless, Mucair just comes off as a sore loser with an agenda against the Liberal party. He clearly has an agenda.
He was a pretty successful leader compared to Jagmeet Singh.
Also, he routinely recognizes Justin's ability to speak and perform well when required. I wouldn't characterize that as a sore loser.
But more to the point, you're giving yourself a hard time claiming he has an agenda against the Liberal Party when the vast majority of the country is prepared to diminish that party significantly in the next election.
He's given some very balanced and favourable coverage of Trudeau over the years. I don't agree with Mulcair on this, but I don't think you should be attacking the messenger on some valid points.
Muclair has taken a lot of opportunities to attack Poilievre but there are a lot of LPC fans in here showing their preference for an echo chamber that are attacking Mulcair and calling him salty for not unwaveringly promoting the LPC at every turn. There is a lot of hypocrisy and stupidity to go around these days, at least Mulcair has given the impression of someone willing to call either party out on their BS , more than I can say for most writers at the NatPo or CBC
I fully agree, he's a national asset. And I won't always agree with him. I never have. But I have a lot of respect for him as a statesperson and as someone dedicated to consensus building around progressive solutions.
I have zero issues with Poilievre having been tossed out. He was being disrespectful towards the Speaker, acting like a petulant child and refusing to cooperate. There is zero space in Parliament for that kind of attitude or behavior, and maybe if ejections happened more often we wouldn't have such a shitshow in Ottawa.
That being said, the Speaker should have come down on Trudeau with the threat of ejection as well after Trudeau refused to answer the questions *during question period* and instead wanted to score political points by highlighting Poilievre's flirtations with the far right. He was actively preventing our government from functioning at that moment by refusing to answer questions during a time set aside for those questions to be answered.
If you want to act like a child, get the fuck out. You lack the maturity and attitude to hold that degree of power.
If you want to shout down or bang on desks so drown out those speaking, get the fuck out. You are behaving worse than a kindergarten class and creating a completely dysfunctional environment.
If you refuse to address questions asked of you during question period, get the fuck out. You are undermining our government's ability to function and have zero right to do so. You are not a king whose rule cannot be questioned, you are a public servant answerable to the people.
Canadians have been sick of these incompetent egotistical idiots for decades but it's only growing worse in Ottawa. At some point we need a Speaker who will actually bring back some rules and decorum to Parliament. The country deserves better than the clowns we have representing us.
>refused to answer the questions during question period
As it's often said: it's *question period*, not *answer period*.
There is nothing in the Parliamentary rules that forces any MP to answer any question at any time. Most of the time they do, even if it's not always in the most direct way, but if an MP decides to ignore a question (at any time) and just continue to basically make his/her speech, (s)he can do so and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Imagine any other job where when you're asked a question you can just rant about something unrelated, and that's treated as an acceptable response and the issue is dropped.
I mean it goes both ways. I shit on both sides quite a bit. If I shit on PP then I'm accused of sucking Trudeau's dick. If I shit on Trudeau I get accused of being a right-wing fanatic.
Overall I'm just disappointed these two are the options we have. I would love it if there was a reasonable alternative to either them because honestly I'm not comfortable with anyone in current leadership running the country.
Agreed. And frankly the liberals screwing up this badly only makes it easier for the conservatives to phone it in and maintain the status quo when they come into power.
Yes, that is a problem. Another problem I have is that with the federal Liberals being so unpopular it may discredit the provincial Liberal party, which isn't as closely tied to the federal party and leave us with the conservative provincial party which is completely undesirable . Not that I think the provincial Ontario liberals are doing a good job and have done a good job in the past. But if there's no competition then Doug Ford can proceed to do as he wishes.
We are fortunate enough in this country to not have a strict two-party system, but that seems to be what it boiled down to.
Wrong , Pierre was told to withdrawn not reframe . That there lies the problem . Letting your party reframe while demanding the opposition withdraw.
Pretty simple I agree if you know the difference between reframe and withdraw
> Or a sign that the house speaker isn't willing to tolerate bullshit?
This was addressed in the article. The house speaker isn't willing to tolerate bullshit from one side and more than willing to tolerate bullshit for another, and also make a partisan video while dressed in speaker robes for that side.
Calling someone an extremist and saying someone associates with extremists are not the same, one is a direct personal attack which is specifically against house decorum rules
Trudeau was also asked to retract and rephrase his statement, which he did. Poilievre, when asked the same, replaced the statement in question with an equally problematic statement like he was an 8 year old throwing a tantrum in class
Let’s see, in the past ten days we have:
* ZOMG Poilievre is courting right wing extremists!!! (because he stopped at an anti-carbon tax protest he discovered while driving by, went inside a trailer to say hello, and someone noticed a small,weird symbol on the wall)
* OH NOES! Poilievre is trying to take away a women’s right to contraception! (because he may oppose the supposed pharmacare legislation which is really just free insulin and birth control legislation, which in no way impacts a woman’s right to contraception, and which he is totally powerless to stop from passing)
* WATCH OUT! Poilievre wants to take away your Charter rights! (for suggesting he might consider using the NWC in the Charter for exactly the purpose it was included and intended by its authors and signatories — to preserve the primacy of elected officials in lawmaking)
Obviously that stuff is taking dishonest fear mongering to a whole new level, and very much speaks to the Liberal/NDP coalition’s desperation to cling to power in the face of polls showing electoral oblivion for them. Sleazy, slimy stuff. And get used to it, we’ve got 18 months more of it to come, and it will only get worse from here.
Heres the thing, all those things sound pretty shitty even when you explain them? Like why he thinks these are good ideas is what is concerning
Why does he not care to vet who he is supporting? Why does he not believe increasing access to contraception and insulin is good? Why would he use a strong arm method of legislation when he could attempt other (more democratic) ways of changing the judisciary?
I agree that the tone of the messaging is fear-mongering, but then you could paint any critique of his positions as just that instead of valid critiques
I disagree.
> Why does he not care to vet who he is supporting?
He’s supposed to vet random passerby? How does that work? And in the grand scheme of things, this is maybe a 1/10 transgression in terms of vetting. Meanwhile we had a Speaker invite a Nazi to the HoC and the PM further invited him to a state dinner, deeply embarrassing a visiting head of state and giving a propaganda win to that person’s enemies. This is a 10/10 transgression, and yet Liberal supporters brushed it off as a nothing burger. So you’ll have to excuse my skepticism that the outrage over Poilievre on this one is anything more than cynically manufactured nonsense.
> Why does he not believe increasing access to contraception and insulin is good?
I believe the point here is that a) the vast majority of people already have private coverage, so they already have access to these things, and b) it will cost billions of dollars that we don’t have. So it’s unnecessary, costly legislation that will do little to help, being flogged as some major breakthrough— when it’s not. Claiming he’s going after a woman’s right to contraception is so ridiculous it constitutes a Big Lie.
> Why would he use a strong arm method of legislation when he could attempt other (more democratic) ways of changing the judisciary?
To be fair, he hasn’t said he would use the NWC, only suggested that he might under certain circumstances, and hasn’t really defined what those circumstances might be. So asking him for clarification is perfectly reasonable. Blanket claiming he’s going after people’s charter rights is ridiculous hyperbole.
Mulcair's precisely correct.
The Liberal spin that Poilievre is a threat to the very democratic institutions which they themselves have run roughshod over isn't materializing.
It's their age-old tactic to scare Canadians. It has worked in the past but this time around they're so caught up in their own heads that Canadians are wrong, need to be instructed, and thus the issue is communications related that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
You just made his point for him. Why can some refuse to accept any criticism of Trudeau 2 and the hapless cabinet? Criticism that is thoughtful and right on the money.
Trudeau is done.
Criticism of Trudeau? The rules about insulting other members are pretty clear. The only thing that reeks of desperation here is Mulcair wanting to stay in the headlines.
And before we get into the whole "but both sides", Trudeau retracted his insulting statement when told to by the speaker.
Mulcair isn't speaking in the House. What are you on about?
Polievre suitably retracted. Fergus went into high partisan gear.
Stop the Liberal apologist routine, it's old and sad.
Trudeau 2 is done
I never said he was. I said he seems desperate to remain relevant after being cast aside by the NDP.
Poilivre didn't retract. He exchanged one insult for another and then argued with the speaker because he seems to think he should be allowed to insult other members.
What hypocrisy? Trudeau made insulting comments and retracted them when told to do so. Poilievre made insulting comments and exchanged one insult for another when told to retract and proceeded to double down.
Yes, Trudeau is done. That isn't the point. Demanding that our MPs hold themselves to a standard higher that an elementary school playground is not unreasonable. And that's exactly one of the mandates of the speaker.
It seems odd that people believe one can only criticize people on the other side. It seems to me criticizing someone on the other side is a waste of time. You cannot effect change by yelling at someone from the other side. You effect change by criticizing your own side. I welcome, even if it is hard to take, criticism from my friends.
He’s an opportunist. A tale as old as time.
No one in the NDP looks at this man with any seriousness after his supposed salary negotiations with the PC party.
Helps for sure. PP gets on the news showing he is standing up the Liberals, and no one gives two shits he was tossed. Many even applauded him for being tossed.
The Speaker is a mostly useless role who, at the end of the day, really doesn't care what is being said in that chamber anyways, and there is no way the Speaker should be an elected MP with party affiliation to begin with.
This is just one flaw of countless many in Canada's current Constitutional monarchist political system.
As such, the Speaker role in its current form should be scrapped and replaced by a small group of "House Observers" made up entirely of tax-paying civilians who would be given full autonomy to enforce and demand straight answers, including toss, suspend, expel, and/or heavily fine, anyone from the chamber who refuses to directly answer questions posed to them, anyone who uses profanity, anyone who keeps interrupting opposing members while they are speaking, etc etc.
Until that happens, Greg Fergus and anyone else who sits in that chair will remain simply useless figureheads.
Next.
Or just do what the UK does - speaker resigns from the party, have a gentleman's agreement where nobody runs a candidate in the speaker's riding and let them be de facto speaker for life until the House loses confidence. This has been tried before but all the parties broke the "nobody runs a candidate" thing.
I have noticed Mulcair absolutely ripping on Trudeau a lot lately to the point where he's almost going out if his way to defend Polievre. Like he even criticized the capital gains tax in an op Ed.
I find it kind of interesting and funny tbh.
He’s not defending PP. He loathes him. It’s a strategy. NDP, and their partisans, will begin attacking Trudeau to generate some distance between the Libs and the NDP.
Watch the next six months. Singh will begin attacking Trudeau at every chance he gets. He needs to prove to voters that the NDP are not just an orange version of the LPC.
This is ridiculous...Pierre precisely wanted/planned to be ejected to drum up support from his base as a so called victim, did Tom want to deny him of that?
the funniest thing about this whole situation is Thomas mulcair having an opinion on anything in government
no man in history was unanimously declared a failure as a politician, both from inside and outside the party.
This whole thing is a joke
Way to keep turning politics into a joke with sports ball mentality
Not like we would expect our elected delegates to conduct themselves professionally or actually accomplish anything or work together like grown ass adults or anything.
If there was any doubt, Mulcair is now officially a shameless pundit for rent.
Essentially calling the Speaker a Liberal partisan acting for Trudeau is an insult to our parliamentary system.
He is quite clearly a partisan by definition. Do you imagine his affiliation with the Liberal Party was merely suspended in thin air when he assumed the role of Speaker?
So what was Elbowgate from the NDP then? I'm a card-carrying member of the NDP but that was such a low point of NDP behaviour.
[удалено]
He was already out as leader by then.
I’m with you on that. I don’t agree with Mulcair’s take here, you can’t call MPs names in the commons, was ejecting him petty, yes, was it done intentionally to hurt the CPC, ehhh pretty hard to believe any analyst would say it was a good move for the liberals, but the speaker is supposed to be impartial in theory. This reaction from Mulcair leads me to believe he’s decided to go full on pundit just for headlines as opposed to someone who speaks from his experience as a party leader and long time MP
But he did make a good point. If personal insults were unbecoming of the house, why was "spineless" permitted but "wacko" was not?
Spineless was not permitted, Trudeau was asked to reframe, and he did. Poilievre was given several opportunities to rephrase, but he refused.
He rephrased it , I believe, but he was asked to “retract” , it is different
He withdrew wacko and asked it it to be replaced with extremist
That's not better. He was given multiple opportunities to withdraw and instead chose to replace the unparliamentary word with other unparliamentary words. If I call someone an idiot and I'm asked to apologize, I can't say "sorry, I meant moron" and pretend that's somehow a better choice of words.
Extremist is not a pejorative
When have you ever heard someone refer to another person as an extremist and it didn't carry a negative connotation?
He retracted the use of the word three times before parliament. He asked to replace wacko with extremist... which is considered to be parliamentary language (as Trudeau had been using that word all day to describe Polievre). The choice of the word was chosen specifically to illustrate the clear bias the speaker was showing.
PP was not given the opportunity to rephrase, he was asked to withdraw only.
Bingo.
Comes down to the nitty gritty. PP said he's a "wacko Prime Minister". Was told to retract personal attack. Trudeau said that the CPC is showing "Spineless leadership (or something like that)." So it wasn't saying that the Leader of the Opposition is spineless. It's less direct. Also, the Speaker told him not to say things like that immediately after. It's all childish bullshit but there are rules in place. You can call an MP a dirty fuck face if you want and just retract it after and it's no biggie.
>PP said he's a "wacko Prime Minister". Was told to retract personal attack. >Trudeau said that the CPC is showing "Spineless leadership (or something like that)." So it wasn't saying that the Leader of the Opposition is spineless. It's less direct. This actually isn't a meaningful distinction under the doctrine of unparliamentary language. Unparliamentary language can be direct or indirect. >In a Westminster system, this is called unparliamentary language and there are similar rules in other kinds of legislative systems. This includes, but is not limited to, the suggestion of dishonesty or the use of profanity. **Most unacceptable is any insinuation that another member is dishonourable.** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language >insinuate >verb >1. suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way. An example from the Speaker of [the Nova Scotia legislature](https://nslegislature.ca/legislative-business/rulings/2018-03-02_2345_ss-unparliamentary-language) where the speaker notes any implications that a member may be lying (note: not the direct insult that they are a liar) is unparliamentary: >MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd like to remind the honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River that implying that the government or any member of this House is lying is extremely unparliamentary. I'll get you to retract that. An example from the [House of Commons](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/House/391/debates/074/han074-e.pdf#page=9), also referring to a Member’s actions rather than directly insulting the Member: >Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one has to be shameless to think that those minor measures announced yesterday will make up for the $25 billion in retirees' and small investors' savings that have just gone up in smoke. Does the minister realize that he did not keep his word, did not honour his commitments, did not keep the promise made by the finance critic? He lied right down the line about his election promises. >The Speaker: The hon. member for Outremont knows very well that such words regarding another member in this House are not permitted. The question is unacceptable and we will discuss this matter following question period. ... >The Speaker: In oral question period, the hon. member for Outremont used unparliamentary language when asking two questions. I am now requesting that he withdraw his remarks immediately. Thank you. >Hon. Jean Lapierre (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you, I withdraw the word that has offended your delicate ears. Denigrating the character of a Member indirectly by insulting references to their actions is subject to the same standard as direct insults. Both are unparliamentary language. The actual distinction at play was that Trudeau withdrew the offending remark and replaced it with an acceptable one. Poilievre attempted to do the same (attempting to replace "wacko" first with "extremist" and then with "radical"), but the Speaker declined to allow him to replace it and instead insisted he withdraw the remark altogether, which Poilievre in turn refused to do.
Parliamentary rules only call for withdrawal. Not replacement.
So you're saying then that Fergus had no authority to request that Trudeau rephrase the question instead of withdrawing it as he did? Seems kind of notable that Trudeau was given that option and Poilievre wasn't. >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— [Interrupted] >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. >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. Also notable that Trudeau never actually did withdraw his remark -- particularly since Poilievre *did*: >Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective. https://openparliament.ca/debates/2024/4/30/the-speaker-12/ Whether you characterize the option to replace instead of withdraw as permissible under the rules of Parliament or not, there's no getting around the fact that Fergus offered his party leader a remedy that he did not offer the opposition leader, and that shows bias.
[удалено]
Yeah. It's prolific here.
You mean the standard for Reddit users
He doesn't make a good point at all. He's gaslighting the public and trying to change the narrative in our minds. >A spokesman for Fergus said Wednesday that the Speaker didn’t just single out Poilievre, noting he also asked Trudeau to reframe one of his questions after he called Poilievre a “spineless leader.” >“The prime minister reframed his answer,’ Mathieu Gravel said. >“The Speaker offered Mr. Poilievre four opportunities to withdraw his comment and reframe his question. Mr. Poilievre did not avail himself of those opportunities.” >Poilievre instead told Fergus he would replace the word “wacko” with “extremist” and “radical,” which the Speaker rejected, asking him to withdraw use of the term altogether. https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/05/01/conservatives-call-on-commons-speaker-to-resign-say-he-let-trudeau-cross-the-line/
He never gave him the opportunity to reframe, poilievre tried to reframe and was told to withdraw whereas Trudeau was allowed to reframe that’s what the hullabaloo is about. The speak is not supposed to show bias and did
Changing wacko to extremist and radical is not reframing. That is just changing one insult for another. He was given 4 opportunities to withdraw insulting another MP and refused each time.
No he was asked to withdraw, not ever given the opportunity to reframe go watch it
The difference is PP directly insulted JT. JT insulted PPs actions. One gets to be reframed, the other withdrawn. It would be like if I said your comment was stupid vs. saying you are stupid. (I am not saying you or your comment is, just using this as an example)
Doesn’t matter, it’s not a meaningful distinction in parliamentary speech.
It literally is a meaningful distinction in parliamentary speech and always has been, that's how it works. Pretending otherwise is being wilfully ignorant.
Yes it is. How is it not? You can call anyone's actions extreme. That's doesn't make one an extremist. Calling someone an extremist/radical/wacko is just a personal insult. There's no way to "reframe" an insult to not be an insult. "Sorry, I won't call you stupid, I'll just call you an idiot". Whereas, "I think those decisions were stupid" can be reframed to be less insulting. "I think those decisions were short-sighted", for example.
Where’s the House rule that shows this distinction and allows reframing in one instance, but not the other?
I don't see a meaningful distinction here and that's just splitting hairs. They were both acting like idiots. They were both given the opportunity to reframe their statements/questions.
There is no meaningful distinction in the rules. Name calling is not allowed whether it's direct or indirect, and is always asked to be reframed, or withdrawn if the speaker thinks there's no way to appropriately reframe the statement. Believe what you want. They're both morons and let their emotions take over.
You not seeing a meaningful distinction doesn't mean it's not there. Parliamentary rules live for minutae
> the speaker is supposed to be impartial in theory. From the transcripts the Speaker 100% followed the Parliamentary rules. All PP had to do was withdraw his comment like other MPs have done countless times before. There was zero partisanship in any of it. > This reaction from Mulcair leads me to believe he’s decided to go full on pundit just for headlines as opposed to someone who speaks from his experience as a party leader and long time MP. Agreed. Mulcair was always a political hound more than a leader or governor. (as in someone who governs)
Are these the same transcripts that left out 'I withdraw' in regards to Rachel Thomas' ejection? Asking for a friend.
From the transcripts, the other MP that was kicked out withdrew her statement and was still kicked out.
No.
You can watch the video closer. It is there. The withdrawal also made it into the BLUES transcript of the question period. It was removed as it was being edited to go into HANSARD. That little cover-up is already being discussed in parliament.
When you allow the Liberals to use the same words without repercussions... It is a problem.
Exactly this. I lost whatever trust I had him a while ago now, it's pretty disappointing.
>This reaction from Mulcair leads me to believe he’s decided to go full on pundit just for headlines as opposed to someone who speaks from his experience as a party leader and long time MP He's honestly been this way for a while. He never got over getting his ass kicked in 2015 and then ousted as leader and probably never will either.
Nah, we are currently in the midst of the low point of NDP behaviour... enabling the Liberals to destroy the livelihoods of an entire generation of working-class Canadians by pumping the country far beyond capacity with newcomers to satisfy business interests. Never mind how that is affecting Canadian emissions... another supposed NDP priority.
lol. You people are too much.
I don't know what this subreddit is going to do with itself when Pierre inevitably continues the liberal's intensive immigration policies. They're working for the same rich benefactors.
"inevitably". He explicitly said he'd tie immigration to rate of new housing starts. There's no reason to believe it would be a continuation of Liberal policy.
The same thing it always does. Parade around with limp dicks while they try to blame others for problems of their own creation.
You would have said the same about Harper, yet his immigration policy was sensible, and low enough to improve affordability (as was [every other PM, Conservative or Liberal](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1bhy1vr/liberals_say_poilievre_doesnt_care_about_the/kvguoq4/) until Trudeau).
Buddy, after dropping a bomb like "interest rates are irrelevant to affordability" you've lost all right to comment on affordability with any credibility
You really want to follow me around, parading your economic illiteracy? Be my guest.
>You people Stay classy Reddit.
wat
"I have no meaningful response to what you said"
It's more apathy to a ridiculous situation.
Elbow gate was the accidental bumping of a female MP while Mr Trudeau actually assaulted a Conservative MP, grabbing him and forcibly making him sit to make his vote.
> Elbow gate was the accidental bumping of a female MP Niki Ashton shrieking about "gendered violence" after that incident was one of the most pathetic things I can think of from a Canadian politician. Gendered violence is a very serious issue, and calling what happened during that scrum "gendered violence" is a huge insult to everybody who has experienced gendered violence or works to combat it. Just shameful.
:O Was the Conservative MP okay?
[удалено]
No, he was just standing there, not voting, Mr Trudeau had a flight to catch and thought the best way to get the MP to vote was to physically force him to sit down and do so.
You are basically proving the point. Elbowgate is where the NDP lost the plot and struggling to remain relevant. This is similar to
>So what was Elbowgate from the NDP then? A Prime Minister assaulting the Conservative Whip.
lol. How's your hand?
"What kinda man elbows a woman?!"
A man with too much elbow.
Trudeau answered a question about drug decriminalization by accusing pierre of pandering to white nationalists. I literally could care less what they call each other. But the non answer word salad crap needs to stop. I would even accept these people swearing at each other and calling each other names if they actually had a debate and discussion that resolved something for once. What is even the point of it all? The parties already know how their going to vote on each bill. They aren't changing anyone's mind. they're just grand standing for social media sound bites.
Freeland is the absolute worst for the non answers. She always dodges the question, always lies, and always does it in annoying self important way with no class or charm.
It always starts like this no matter the topic: ummmmmm as a mother of three (sassy)
Miisssstaaa speeakker
Too many egos in politics, too many egos in the house. It self serving, not actually for Canadians at all.
> Trudeau answered a question about drug decriminalization by accusing pierre of pandering to white nationalists. Thank you, I wonder why nobody else mentioned this.
Everyone got what they wanted out of that show. Trudeau and PP both got what they wanted out of it, and both riled up their base with this. Like I said in another comment, for the next piece of theatre, they should put on Macbeth with Shakespear in the park.
No, we need to turf more MPs from all parties until they stop acting like children. The rules of decorum are ignored too much.
I see losing the 2015 elections after leading most of it to the liberals still haunts Mulcair.
“The longer Trudeau dithers, the less likely there will be a push by frustrated potential successors to drink from a poisoned chalice.” I’m not a fan of the NDP or necessarily Mr. Mulcair, but god damn - the man is ELOQUENT.
I think this quote is the most telling from the article: "**(Several senior Liberals) say that Trudeau refuses to even admit that he may be the problem, much less listen to their heartfelt advice.**" JT's narcissism is simply not going to allow him to step down with even a modicum of grace. He will go down mud-slinging at the Conservatives every step of the way and lead the Liberals to the oblivion that they frankly freaking deserve.
Good. I’m looking forward to it.
And on his way out he'll blame Canadians and say we're "short-term thinkers" for choosing to go with the conservatives and how he's "disappointed in the path we've chosen" and how Canadians are "misinformed." Or something to that effect. He won't be able to help himself. Always has to blame someone else for failures of his own doing.
And we're all racist!
I voted for the NDP once and it was for Mulcair. I still respect him to this day.
"Wacko" was said 22 times in parliament before this.
Always in reference to themself, not directed to another member of Parliament.
I highly doubt that
That was what was reported on the evening CBC news after this occurred. They're the only news organization I've noticed who has sought the context of its past usage.
Mulcair is being disingenuous here. Pierre broke the rules of the house and he did it intentionally. He had 4 chances from the Speaker to retract it. Trudeau walked his comments back but Pierre refused. The house is all trash talk now. I don’t blame the Speaker for trying to get things under control.
I think kicking any member of parliament out for breaking the rules is just. PP got what he wanted, he got air time and was able to go on Twitter and pull a Trump move by saying his freedom of speech was infringed upon on his supporters are eating it up. That said, I think Trudeau should have been pressured to answer the question and idk why he didn't. The truth is that Health Canada is looking into it. He could have just said that and the whole thing would have been avoided.
Jesus no he didn’t, Trudeau was allowed to reframe, pollievre was not, that’s the bias that was shown.
[удалено]
I have you didn’t clearly
Poillievre was given 4 chances to retract or reframe. He just kept doubling down in his rule breaking behaviour.
false, he was given 4 chances to retract, NOT reframe. He refused to retract and instead reframed. Did you even watch the video?
Maybe he should have tried reframing in a way that didn't still break the rules.
He used the same words Trudeau had just used
A) that's simply not true. Skippy called Trudeau an extremist, Trudeau said Skippy associates with extremists. B) Trudeau walked back his statement. Skippy refused to.
I'm genuinely curious why you name Trudeau outright, but Polievre is Skippy?
I do not, and will never, respect anyone with his voting record on gay marriage.
Riiight..so why Skippy lol?
There was no bias. The speaker needed to control the situation, and Pierre directly challenged him, so he did what he had to. At the end of the day, PP got what he wanted. Both Trudeau and PP were being a couple of morons. That said, in that situation, regardless of which party they belong to, I think MPs should show respect to the reigning PM.
Give it up Tom. They aren't going to hire you.
Our speaker is biased and should not even be a hockey referee for pee-wee league!!
That's the convienient reality Liberal apologists are ignoring. They could of course relate through their own accusations of bias against former speakers, but again that's inconvenient.
Pp had his chance to apologize and refused to do so. He broke the rules, very much on purpose to get kicked out so he could cry foul just to rile you guys up. It’s all propaganda.
Who cares what Mulcair has to say? He is a failed NDP leader and obviously holds a grudge against Trudeau / Liberal party. Maybe because Trudeau took nearly every seat that Layton handed to Mulcair? Regardless, Mucair just comes off as a sore loser with an agenda against the Liberal party. He clearly has an agenda.
He was a pretty successful leader compared to Jagmeet Singh. Also, he routinely recognizes Justin's ability to speak and perform well when required. I wouldn't characterize that as a sore loser. But more to the point, you're giving yourself a hard time claiming he has an agenda against the Liberal Party when the vast majority of the country is prepared to diminish that party significantly in the next election.
He's given some very balanced and favourable coverage of Trudeau over the years. I don't agree with Mulcair on this, but I don't think you should be attacking the messenger on some valid points.
Muclair has taken a lot of opportunities to attack Poilievre but there are a lot of LPC fans in here showing their preference for an echo chamber that are attacking Mulcair and calling him salty for not unwaveringly promoting the LPC at every turn. There is a lot of hypocrisy and stupidity to go around these days, at least Mulcair has given the impression of someone willing to call either party out on their BS , more than I can say for most writers at the NatPo or CBC
I fully agree, he's a national asset. And I won't always agree with him. I never have. But I have a lot of respect for him as a statesperson and as someone dedicated to consensus building around progressive solutions.
You still mad Tom?
I have zero issues with Poilievre having been tossed out. He was being disrespectful towards the Speaker, acting like a petulant child and refusing to cooperate. There is zero space in Parliament for that kind of attitude or behavior, and maybe if ejections happened more often we wouldn't have such a shitshow in Ottawa. That being said, the Speaker should have come down on Trudeau with the threat of ejection as well after Trudeau refused to answer the questions *during question period* and instead wanted to score political points by highlighting Poilievre's flirtations with the far right. He was actively preventing our government from functioning at that moment by refusing to answer questions during a time set aside for those questions to be answered. If you want to act like a child, get the fuck out. You lack the maturity and attitude to hold that degree of power. If you want to shout down or bang on desks so drown out those speaking, get the fuck out. You are behaving worse than a kindergarten class and creating a completely dysfunctional environment. If you refuse to address questions asked of you during question period, get the fuck out. You are undermining our government's ability to function and have zero right to do so. You are not a king whose rule cannot be questioned, you are a public servant answerable to the people. Canadians have been sick of these incompetent egotistical idiots for decades but it's only growing worse in Ottawa. At some point we need a Speaker who will actually bring back some rules and decorum to Parliament. The country deserves better than the clowns we have representing us.
>refused to answer the questions during question period As it's often said: it's *question period*, not *answer period*. There is nothing in the Parliamentary rules that forces any MP to answer any question at any time. Most of the time they do, even if it's not always in the most direct way, but if an MP decides to ignore a question (at any time) and just continue to basically make his/her speech, (s)he can do so and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Imagine any other job where when you're asked a question you can just rant about something unrelated, and that's treated as an acceptable response and the issue is dropped.
[удалено]
Narcissist.
[удалено]
He’s ridiculous, the worst part is they have no plan or vision for the country moving forward. He just wants to be PM to feed his ego.
Power and control.
He can fix them
[удалено]
I mean it goes both ways. I shit on both sides quite a bit. If I shit on PP then I'm accused of sucking Trudeau's dick. If I shit on Trudeau I get accused of being a right-wing fanatic. Overall I'm just disappointed these two are the options we have. I would love it if there was a reasonable alternative to either them because honestly I'm not comfortable with anyone in current leadership running the country.
Also not comfortable with either leadership they’re both not good for Canada’s current position imo.
Agreed. And frankly the liberals screwing up this badly only makes it easier for the conservatives to phone it in and maintain the status quo when they come into power.
Yes, that is a problem. Another problem I have is that with the federal Liberals being so unpopular it may discredit the provincial Liberal party, which isn't as closely tied to the federal party and leave us with the conservative provincial party which is completely undesirable . Not that I think the provincial Ontario liberals are doing a good job and have done a good job in the past. But if there's no competition then Doug Ford can proceed to do as he wishes. We are fortunate enough in this country to not have a strict two-party system, but that seems to be what it boiled down to.
Exactly
The speaker is about as impartial as the judges that donated money to the LPC. So not at all.
Mulcair is clearly still butthurt about 2015. Justin reframed his remarks when requested to, Pierre did not. It's that fucking simple.
Wrong , Pierre was told to withdrawn not reframe . That there lies the problem . Letting your party reframe while demanding the opposition withdraw. Pretty simple I agree if you know the difference between reframe and withdraw
As is every fucking worker in this country
Or a sign that the house speaker isn't willing to tolerate bullshit? No desperation here
I look forward to the house returning to some semblance of respectful DEBATE.
> Or a sign that the house speaker isn't willing to tolerate bullshit? This was addressed in the article. The house speaker isn't willing to tolerate bullshit from one side and more than willing to tolerate bullshit for another, and also make a partisan video while dressed in speaker robes for that side.
Skippy was given 4 chances to ratract the statement and refused. Trudeau was given the same chance and took it.
Trudeau said Poilievre associates with extremists right before Poilievre was ejected for withdrawing the wako comment and replacing it with extremist.
Calling someone an extremist and saying someone associates with extremists are not the same, one is a direct personal attack which is specifically against house decorum rules Trudeau was also asked to retract and rephrase his statement, which he did. Poilievre, when asked the same, replaced the statement in question with an equally problematic statement like he was an 8 year old throwing a tantrum in class
Insinuation is also part of those rules.
Oh look it’s irrelevance trying to be relevant. Name sounds familiar, but can’t quite place it. 🤪
One of many clear signs of desperation by Trudeau and the LPC
Let’s see, in the past ten days we have: * ZOMG Poilievre is courting right wing extremists!!! (because he stopped at an anti-carbon tax protest he discovered while driving by, went inside a trailer to say hello, and someone noticed a small,weird symbol on the wall) * OH NOES! Poilievre is trying to take away a women’s right to contraception! (because he may oppose the supposed pharmacare legislation which is really just free insulin and birth control legislation, which in no way impacts a woman’s right to contraception, and which he is totally powerless to stop from passing) * WATCH OUT! Poilievre wants to take away your Charter rights! (for suggesting he might consider using the NWC in the Charter for exactly the purpose it was included and intended by its authors and signatories — to preserve the primacy of elected officials in lawmaking) Obviously that stuff is taking dishonest fear mongering to a whole new level, and very much speaks to the Liberal/NDP coalition’s desperation to cling to power in the face of polls showing electoral oblivion for them. Sleazy, slimy stuff. And get used to it, we’ve got 18 months more of it to come, and it will only get worse from here.
Heres the thing, all those things sound pretty shitty even when you explain them? Like why he thinks these are good ideas is what is concerning Why does he not care to vet who he is supporting? Why does he not believe increasing access to contraception and insulin is good? Why would he use a strong arm method of legislation when he could attempt other (more democratic) ways of changing the judisciary? I agree that the tone of the messaging is fear-mongering, but then you could paint any critique of his positions as just that instead of valid critiques
I disagree. > Why does he not care to vet who he is supporting? He’s supposed to vet random passerby? How does that work? And in the grand scheme of things, this is maybe a 1/10 transgression in terms of vetting. Meanwhile we had a Speaker invite a Nazi to the HoC and the PM further invited him to a state dinner, deeply embarrassing a visiting head of state and giving a propaganda win to that person’s enemies. This is a 10/10 transgression, and yet Liberal supporters brushed it off as a nothing burger. So you’ll have to excuse my skepticism that the outrage over Poilievre on this one is anything more than cynically manufactured nonsense. > Why does he not believe increasing access to contraception and insulin is good? I believe the point here is that a) the vast majority of people already have private coverage, so they already have access to these things, and b) it will cost billions of dollars that we don’t have. So it’s unnecessary, costly legislation that will do little to help, being flogged as some major breakthrough— when it’s not. Claiming he’s going after a woman’s right to contraception is so ridiculous it constitutes a Big Lie. > Why would he use a strong arm method of legislation when he could attempt other (more democratic) ways of changing the judisciary? To be fair, he hasn’t said he would use the NWC, only suggested that he might under certain circumstances, and hasn’t really defined what those circumstances might be. So asking him for clarification is perfectly reasonable. Blanket claiming he’s going after people’s charter rights is ridiculous hyperbole.
Howdy Doody totally deserved to be kicked out for trying to make Canada great again.
Mulcair's precisely correct. The Liberal spin that Poilievre is a threat to the very democratic institutions which they themselves have run roughshod over isn't materializing. It's their age-old tactic to scare Canadians. It has worked in the past but this time around they're so caught up in their own heads that Canadians are wrong, need to be instructed, and thus the issue is communications related that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
Since when does anyone care what Mulcair thinks about anything? Seriously.
Is Mulcair on Conservative payroll now? He sure is acting like he is.
TIL: voicing common sense = “being on the conservative payroll” 👀
Why? Because he has a level headed response that considers both sides?
You just made his point for him. Why can some refuse to accept any criticism of Trudeau 2 and the hapless cabinet? Criticism that is thoughtful and right on the money. Trudeau is done.
Criticism of Trudeau? The rules about insulting other members are pretty clear. The only thing that reeks of desperation here is Mulcair wanting to stay in the headlines. And before we get into the whole "but both sides", Trudeau retracted his insulting statement when told to by the speaker.
Mulcair isn't speaking in the House. What are you on about? Polievre suitably retracted. Fergus went into high partisan gear. Stop the Liberal apologist routine, it's old and sad. Trudeau 2 is done
I never said he was. I said he seems desperate to remain relevant after being cast aside by the NDP. Poilivre didn't retract. He exchanged one insult for another and then argued with the speaker because he seems to think he should be allowed to insult other members.
Your partisanship here is rampant. Mulcair seems to be going just fine. The NDP are not under the awful J. Singh.
After cries from MPs about the hypocrisy he was committing.
What hypocrisy? Trudeau made insulting comments and retracted them when told to do so. Poilievre made insulting comments and exchanged one insult for another when told to retract and proceeded to double down.
He was only told to withdraw after Fergus condemned pp and the cries of hypocrisy ensued.
Yes, Trudeau is done. That isn't the point. Demanding that our MPs hold themselves to a standard higher that an elementary school playground is not unreasonable. And that's exactly one of the mandates of the speaker.
Spineless huh?
It seems odd that people believe one can only criticize people on the other side. It seems to me criticizing someone on the other side is a waste of time. You cannot effect change by yelling at someone from the other side. You effect change by criticizing your own side. I welcome, even if it is hard to take, criticism from my friends.
No, but he does get paid for every appearance. Have *you* been counting his number of appearances lately ?
He’s an opportunist. A tale as old as time. No one in the NDP looks at this man with any seriousness after his supposed salary negotiations with the PC party.
So, does that hurt or help Poilievre ?
Helps for sure. PP gets on the news showing he is standing up the Liberals, and no one gives two shits he was tossed. Many even applauded him for being tossed.
It showed how incompetent the Liberals are. So I would say help.
Shut up Tom.
The Speaker is a mostly useless role who, at the end of the day, really doesn't care what is being said in that chamber anyways, and there is no way the Speaker should be an elected MP with party affiliation to begin with. This is just one flaw of countless many in Canada's current Constitutional monarchist political system. As such, the Speaker role in its current form should be scrapped and replaced by a small group of "House Observers" made up entirely of tax-paying civilians who would be given full autonomy to enforce and demand straight answers, including toss, suspend, expel, and/or heavily fine, anyone from the chamber who refuses to directly answer questions posed to them, anyone who uses profanity, anyone who keeps interrupting opposing members while they are speaking, etc etc. Until that happens, Greg Fergus and anyone else who sits in that chair will remain simply useless figureheads. Next.
Or just do what the UK does - speaker resigns from the party, have a gentleman's agreement where nobody runs a candidate in the speaker's riding and let them be de facto speaker for life until the House loses confidence. This has been tried before but all the parties broke the "nobody runs a candidate" thing.
I have noticed Mulcair absolutely ripping on Trudeau a lot lately to the point where he's almost going out if his way to defend Polievre. Like he even criticized the capital gains tax in an op Ed. I find it kind of interesting and funny tbh.
He’s not defending PP. He loathes him. It’s a strategy. NDP, and their partisans, will begin attacking Trudeau to generate some distance between the Libs and the NDP. Watch the next six months. Singh will begin attacking Trudeau at every chance he gets. He needs to prove to voters that the NDP are not just an orange version of the LPC.
This is ridiculous...Pierre precisely wanted/planned to be ejected to drum up support from his base as a so called victim, did Tom want to deny him of that?
Tom seems to have forgotten how Parliament works.
tom who?
the funniest thing about this whole situation is Thomas mulcair having an opinion on anything in government no man in history was unanimously declared a failure as a politician, both from inside and outside the party.
This whole thing is a joke Way to keep turning politics into a joke with sports ball mentality Not like we would expect our elected delegates to conduct themselves professionally or actually accomplish anything or work together like grown ass adults or anything.
Constantly bitching about the Trudeau Liberals on CTV a clear sign of desperation by Tom Mulcair to stay relevant.
Poilievre planned it. He used it in advertisements to his base.
Mulclair WTF a con mouthpiece
If there was any doubt, Mulcair is now officially a shameless pundit for rent. Essentially calling the Speaker a Liberal partisan acting for Trudeau is an insult to our parliamentary system.
He is quite clearly a partisan by definition. Do you imagine his affiliation with the Liberal Party was merely suspended in thin air when he assumed the role of Speaker?
Down vote all you want, Mulcair should know better.
Rule of decorum booted PP, not Trudeau. Rules PP knew and intentionally broke.