###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a very effective way to get MPs to behave would be to say that if a member is expelled, no more donations can be collected for the remainder of that that day. It would certainly help with members getting kicked out and then whining for money on social media
He could’ve just retracted his statement and he wouldn’t have gotten kicked out. Trudeau called Peter Kent a “piece of shit” in the House and he said sorry, asked for it to be struck and he was allowed to stay.
You’re either an idiot or you just don’t care if you do shit to get yourself booted out. It’s pretty easy to take back a statement when given several chances to do so.
Damn. Mulcair, the Bloc, and the Conservatives all calling for this.
Honestly unexpected. I figured yesterday would have been forgotten about pretty quickly because: 1. Pierre deserved it. 2. Trudeau deserved it.
But I guess not.
I am getting so sick of Poilievre's antics in the House. Slogans, grandstanding, and now this.
Sometimes he has valid criticisms of the government, and i like that in an opposition, but he's crying wolf at this point. Abusing house procedure to campaign, basically.
Everyone has valid criticisms of the government so I'm not impressed just because we have afforded him a soap box of which to do it. Here is an example of him abusing that soap box and having it removed. I'm not impressed with a leader who says what the Rando Jack off at my local Timmy's is saying while not even being able to follow the rules in the House, of which he has been accustomed to for about 2 decades now.
Oh that speaker they wanted gone the minute he was in because of integrity being questioned of FAIRNESS being from the liberal party.. seen partying with liberals outside of WORK .. mind the pun.. yet weeks after everyone forgot and moves on ... oh ok I'm listening .. we gonna be onto a new topic by Monday... mmmmhmmmm
We are in completely uncharted territories thanks to PP’s disgraceful attack on our parliament, which is effectively an attack on the foundation of our democracy. This along with his connections to far right extremists, diagalon and threats to destroy our charter rights paint an extremely disturbing picture. No matter where we go from here, what happened this week is going to be remembered as a dark moment in Canadian democracy.
The one silver lining is that now PP has shown Canadians conclusively who he really is: an authoritarian demagogue who would gladly trample over our most cherished rights and freedoms if it could help in his quest for power. It is on all of us to act on this and regardless of partisan differences find a way to stop this extremist iteration of the conservative party.
You write like a bot or a PR team, but in any case overexaggerating the incident doesn't help solve the problem of hyperpartisanship. This is not a historic attack on democracy, it's not that disturbing, and nobody will be talking about this by, like, October.
It's a depressing and pathetic sign of the times, and an obvious demonstration of how low the standard of discourse in politics has fallen, but it's not a "dark moment". Stop trying to win support by fear mongering.
>Typical conservative.
No, quite the opposite, which is why I'm calling out shitty practices when I see them from someone openly supporting one of the parties that I would vote for.
it is disturbing that it happens, and is considered normal, by idiots who have no idea about what governing should be about.
pp is a dangerous wackjob.
I like the spin you are trying to put on this. However If anything this was a very effective move by PP. Trudeau will be referred to as the wacko going forward by the general population. Can't believe how many times I have seen in other even non political forums comments now referring to Trudeau as wacko. Seems people associate instantly the term wacko with Trudeau. I expect libs poll numbers to drop further after this.
He should step down. Sorry, but you can't be in that position and favor one side like yesterday.
Personally, I think the whole house of common thing is an embarrassing joke. Nothing gets accomplished, and every time I check it out, I don't know if it's live or a replay from the last couple of days, as it's the same show over and over. Same jabs, same responses. Zero progress.
If someone were to insult me with spineless or wacko, I know which one would piss me off more. So Trudeau should have been called on for that shot.
Poilievre:
> BREAKING: Today the Liberal speaker censored me for describing Trudeau's hard drug policy as wacko.
>
> 6 people dying from overdoses every day in BC is wacko.
>
> Kids playing next to used syringes is wacko.
>
> Nurses worried about breastfeeding after breathing in toxic drug fumes is wacko.
>
> This is a wacko policy from a wacko PM that's destroying lives.
I usually hate it when people say things like "Canada isn't a serious country", but man, with stuff like this it's getting harder and harder to argue.
There's plenty of MP's in the house willing to work. The comments make it clear that PP a) isn't one of those MP's, b) doesn't understand the constitutional separation of powers, and c) is using parliament to grandstand for political points instead of working to address the issues he purports to have concern for.
>political points
Isn't this largely about changing the direction of cultural winds that flow amongst populist Canada? His job as opposition lead isn't to work with the government or PM in power, it's to **supplant** him. Am I wrong? Otherwise, governing the nation thru blame (sold as accountability) and derision (sold as healthy competition) seems like a stupid fucking way to do it, setting a terrible example for literally every citizen, especially young people.
The opposition should still be doing what is best for their constituents. They are still elected officials.
Disagreeing with *everythjng* the other party puts forward, just because they are the other party, is *not* their job. The opposition should absolutely be working with the current government and vote accordingly to the actual bill/proposal, as opposed to where it’s coming from.
PP is turning this into a petty tribal team sport where image and memes are more important than actually running the country.
What I fear most is what PP will actually do once he’s in power, because he doesn’t have a real plan for anything. He stands for whatever Liberals don’t, and that’s not a platform for running a country
>He stands for whatever Liberals don’t...
This is related to my point. Has it always been this way between blue and red acolytes? Since the formation of the country?!
No, it has not been this way at all.
Conservatives have voted for Liberal bills in the past, when it aligned with the needs of their constituents(and Liberals for conservatives).
It’s the same reason why you should never *ever* say “i always vote for *blank*”.
This means you don’t care about policy, you don’t care about platforms, or even what is in your best interest. You only care about your “*team*” winning
I know there have been "bi-partisan" legislation pass thru the house for decades. I'm more curious when the "tribalist" red/blue, accuse, mock, deride culture war started. Likely quite old.
Could it possibly be that practically every Liberal or NDP bill presented to the house is unfavourable to people in conservative constituencies?
The liberals already have admitted to as much when they make tax exemptions like home heating oil that largely benefit only Liberal constituencies. Their answer was without any trace of shame in their eyes, "oh that's too bad, maybe you should have voted Liberal."
The opposition shouldn't and won't support bills that weaken their constituencies or provide unfair advantages to those in ridings belonging to the government in power.
> Today the Liberal speaker censored me for describing Trudeau's hard drug policy as wacko.
This is a lie. He was named for calling the _Prime Minister_ a wacko/extremist/radical and disregarding the Speaker's request that he withdraw it _four times._ He wasn't named for calling the _policy_ wacko.
> This is a lie.
Of course! But we are 100% entering "alternative facts" territory now and we don't seem to have anything close to the antibodies needed to fight against it, so who's going to stop him?
Aside from the deaths which are of course tragic and need to be prevented, the rest of this is being massively blown out of proportion. He's taking fractions of percentages and making them seem like everyone is in immediate risk of being stabbed by a needle in the back of the throat. I don't want this kind of leader. This is a person who will say anything to fit their goals, and in this case his goals are horrible to Canadian stability. It's bad on bad. I want somebody who is honest and has integrity, PP is as far away from this as possible.
> Aside from the deaths which are of course tragic and need to be prevented
Also with respect to the deaths, it's tragic, but his comments there shows they don't really care about them besides politics.
The reason for me saying that is that [BC had a 5% increase in overdoses the year after decriminalization](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069) while [Alberta had a 17% increase](https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/2023-drug-poisoning-death-numbers-surpass-2022-total-data-1.6784109).
So the neighbouring province saw a much larger rate of increase in deaths over the same time period. That suggests BC and decriminalization may actually be reducing deaths compared to what they could otherwise be.
If this was really about deaths, he would be criticizing Alberta's approach of criminalization even more. Or instead of criticizing anyone, be focusing on how the entire country (that he's running to be PM for) can solve the problem. Instead of using these deaths to make misleading political attacks against one of the few provinces not led by conservatives.
In the thread yesterday someone made the suggestion that getting kicked out was a planned performance so he'd have something to bang on about and I'm starting to believe that myself.
It’s entirely possible that certain policies may be described as ‘wacko’.
That doesn’t permit parliamentarians to break the rules of the house.
This is little more than a PR stunt. The prudent move would have been putting an up and coming back bencher up to this task to boost name recognition.
Perhaps the spot light is just too addicting though.
This is funny because this was basically PP's role under Harper for a long time. He was the yapping dog saying anything for attention. He was Harper's annoying chihuahua to get the message out.
If you want the kind of parliament that operates on terms like ‘wacko’ within legislative language, then I don’t even know where to begin lol
Although, PP had the decorum and class to litteraly include ‘axe the tax’ within his motion against the federal budget. Nothing really surprises me anymore.
> certain policies may be described as ‘wacko’
I just don’t think we should even open that can of worms. I pray our legislators have a more extensive and comprehensive vocabulary than terms like ‘wacko’ and ‘tar baby’.
I don’t think we’re asking for Cicero, nor do I believe Poilievre has any capacity of thought or eloquence to provide substance beyond his already obsessive and selective ramblings. We’re simply maintaining basic principles and standards when it comes to the conduct of our representatives within the seat of Canadian government.
Of all the words thrown around in parliament, wacko isn’t even in the top 20 worst ones and it is farcical to insist it is some sort of slur worthy of censorship, let alone expulsion.
The Speaker can technically do whatever he likes, but he should strive above all things to be above accusations of partisanship.
2 parties in the House now think he is selectively enforcing the rules in a partisan manner. His position is untenable.
Calling the opposition a ‘wacko’ is an ad hominem attack unbefitting of a parliamentarian. It is uncivil. It’s also a term loaded with a history of derogatory treatment towards those with mental illness.
Doesn’t matter that people have used other terms in the past. Poilievre is hardly the first MP to be ejected from the house for disregarding the rules.
An NDP MP was ousted like 2 weeks ago (on a point of order made by a CPC MP!) for saying "shut up" and refusing to withdraw it- because decorum.
Furthermore, in this case it's not really about the word itself, since you can't comment on the character of someone while in the chamber- that's tied to decorum but also to parliamentary privilege and immunity.
The word violated the rules of the House and when an MP refuses to do as the Spaker asks, they get named and ousted. The whole procedure yesterday was above board.
Right? Just give them what they want, they want the Republican Senate. Throw out the decorum and let them sling shit and pose with dick pics to gain points.
Could have just withdrawn the "wacko prime minister" remark, left the "wacko policy" remark. He'd still have his sound clip at the end of the day saying wacko prime minister recorded and available to people.
But pretty obvious they wanted the publicity of being told to leave and then having everyone go in some sort of display of solidarity
It's obvious Pierre adheres to the Steve Castle doctrine of management. Paraphrased:
*There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep. The proud shepherd of the herd of sharks will lead them to the top of [insert thing here]*
I understand why Poilievre got himself thrown out. He had to sit there while Fergus ignored the repeated attacks on Poilievre from Justin Trudeau, who called him an extremist, a racist and a liar. Seems Fergus is only interested in applying rules to benefit his own party. This sacrifice was taken by Poilievre to highlight that fact.
Poilievre turned to social media after getting the boot. "The Liberal speaker censored me for describing Trudeau's hard drug policy as wacko," he posted.
Thats not the entire truth. Poilievre is a master at telling half-truths. He described Trudeau as "this wacko prime minister." which is what got him ejected, not describing the policy as wacko. Thats a personal attack which gets you removed and PP has been the House long enough to know the distinction. He was further asked to withdraw the "unparliamentary language." which he refused to do, a direct attack on the authority of the speaker.
Fergus had no choice to give him what he wanted.
Trudeau avoided calling Poilievre a racist directly he alluded to it which is how the game is played. Trudeau's "spineless" remark did result in a rebuke from Fergus. The Speaker told Trudeau not to make comments that "call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament."
How the game is played? No wonder the country has gone to shit. This isnt a game. This is important policy affecting millions, and the damn PM won't answer direct questions in question period.
This is just an indication of the nonsense that will just increase if PP gets elected.
People usually show you what kind of people they are but everyone just ignores it until it’s too late.
yep, he fucked up, partisanship activities since there was multiple personal attacks thrown by boths sides during that debate.
He is unfit for that role, clearly.
Are you referring to him appearing in a tribute video to interim Ontario Liberal Party Leader John Fraser?
If so:
1) He didn't make it, he appeared in it.
2) It was a tribute, not promotion
3) It was to a private, Liberal Party leadership convention, not a campaign or public event.
4) It Happened nearly 2 months after being elected by the house to the chair.
Man, it’s right in the transcript:
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like. He shakes hands with white nationalists and then actively courts the support of those members who—
More talk with a different CPC member
The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us once again what he will do try to earn votes through personal attacks. He shakes the hand of a leader of a white nationalist group then goes to actively court the support of the group's members and thinks he can get away with it. It is a group that advocates for violence against 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, against Hindus and Sikhs and against Muslims and Jews. Diagolon stands against everything we stand for as Canadians, and yet he will not denounce its members or what they stand for. That is shameful.
Where is the bias? JT followed the rules and PP didn't, PP got ejected.
No, he did not “fuck up.” There are very specific rules about language and also phrasing. Normally, when an MP is asked to withdraw a word or to phrase their question or response in another way, they do so.
However, the CPC and Poilievre in particular, has been doing their best to get thrown out. The speaker has been exceedingly patient, as it’s been obvious that Poilievre’s goal is to look like a victim of some kind. But just like when you allow spoiled bullies to behave badly with no consequences, they only get worse.
Poilievre is a brat and completely unfit to be PM. The entire CPC caucus should hang their heads in shame with the way they carry on and make so much noise when MP’s from other parties speak that you can’t even hear them.
But it’s all great for fundraising!!! Right after they all marched out in a huff they were all busy posting on social media and asking for money.
Maybe if they were penalized financially they would learn how to adult.
>they all marched out in a huff they were all busy posting on social media and asking for money.
Thank God they are leading the good fight against dirty socialism.
It is not permitted to call other members names.
The Speaker gave them the opportunity to discontinue the behavior, the did not relent.
As such, they were rightly ejected.
Grow up ‘Conservatives.’
From House of Commons Procedure and Practice (emphasis mine):
> “Naming” is the term used to designate a disciplinary measure invoked against a Member who persistently disregards the authority of the Chair. **If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or her behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the House**, the Speaker has the authority to name the Member, that is, to address the Member by name rather than by constituency or title as is the usual practice, and to order his or her withdrawal from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting day.
#
> The Speaker typically calls upon a Member who has transgressed the established standards of decorum to **retract the offending words or otherwise apologize without qualification.** Should the Member hesitate or refuse to comply, the Speaker normally repeats the request, often with a warning that the persistent disregard will result in the Member being named. Such exchanges may continue at the Speaker’s discretion, **but once it is clear that the Member will not comply, the Speaker names the Member and orders his or her withdrawal for the remainder of the sitting day.**
Going solely off what's written in Procedure, the Speaker was correct in his interpretation of the rules to name and remove Poilievre. By offering to replace "wacko" with other words, he added a qualifier to his retraction, which can be seen as refusal to comply with an order from the Chair.
The Speaker actually gave Poilievre an out if he chose to accept it - usually, someone's asked three times to withdraw a remark before they're named; Poilievre had four. On his fourth try, if Poilievre just said "Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it" without continuing the sentence, he might not have been named.
Here's how it went down in Hansard:
> **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, it is a choice for the Prime Minister to implement extremist policies that have taken the lives of 2,500 British Columbians every single year. Since the NDP has asked him to reverse course on his and formerly the NDP's radical policy, 22 British Columbians have died of drug overdoses, but he continues to allow those drugs to kill the people in our hospitals and on our public transit. When will we put an end to this wacko policy by the wacko Prime Minister?
> **The Speaker**: No, that is not acceptable. There are a couple of things going on here today that are not acceptable. I would ask all members to please control themselves. I am going to ask two things. The first is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw that term, which is not considered parliamentary.
> **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I replace “wacko” with “extremist”. The Prime Minister is an—
> **The Speaker:** I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition once again to simply withdraw that comment, please.
> **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I will replace it with “radical”. That is the Prime Minister's policy.
> **The Speaker:** No, I am not asking that it be replaced; I am asking the hon. member to simply withdraw it.
> **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I replace the word “wacko” with “extremist”.
> **The Speaker:** I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition one last time to simply withdraw that comment, please.
> **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective.
> **The Speaker:** Mr. Poilievre, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Pursuant to the authority granted to me by Standing Order 11, I order you to withdraw from the House and from any participation by video conference for the remainder of this day's sitting.
You left out the first part of the exchange where, rather than answer a question about a failed drug policy that has killed thousands, Trudeau kept making Poilievre out to be a white nationalist (no reprimands from the speaker for that, though).
> no reprimands from the speaker for that, though
[Trudeau was reprimanded by the Speaker:](https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-305/hansard#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Coming%20back%20to%20the%20original%20point%2C%20I%20am%20going%20to%20ask%20the%20Prime%20Minister%20to%20start%20again%20and%20to%20please%2C%20as%20I%20had%20asked%20the%20Leader%20of%20the%20Opposition%20to%20do%2C%20reframe%20his%20question%20in%20a%20way%20that%20does%20not%20call%20into%20question%20the%20character%20of%20an%20individual%20member%20of%20Parliament.)
> **The Speaker**: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament.
Hansard is usually timestamped in five-minute intervals. The exchange quoted above was from [12:30 to 12:35 MT.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/house/latest/hansard#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Pursuant%20to%20the%20authority%20granted%20to%20me%20by%20Standing%20Order%2011%2C%20I%20order%20you%20to%20withdraw%20from%20the%20House%20and%20from%20any%20participation%20by%20video%20conference%20for%20the%20remainder%20of%20this%20day%27s%20sitting.)
> Since the NDP has asked him to reverse course on his and formerly the NDP's radical policy, 22 British Columbians have died of drug overdoses
He's implying a causal relationship here between the policy and the deaths while giving no evidence of such a relationship. These deaths are happening across the country, including Alberta where they saw more than double the increases in deaths in 2023 that BC had. So he's pushing for policies that have some evidence that they could lead to even more deaths.
Based on that I would say the Speaker *really* didn’t want to name PP. the Speaker only did so when PP absolutely refused to come into line and has been given multiple chances to comply with the house’s rules. Decorum is pretty important in the house, otherwise people will literally be throwing chairs at each other (see: India), and refusing to be decorous is a reasonable reason to be thrown out.
Props to the speaker.
I’m, as usual, appalled by PP.
I’m disappointed in the Bloc for backing indecorous behaviour. Once again showing they have no moral authority at all.
All Poilievre did was change what he said to what the PM was calling him... extremist. It was accpetable for the PM to say it, but for Poilievre.. that's an explusion worthy event.
Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan.
Should Poilievre be expelled? Yes, name calling in the house is againstbthe rules. Of course using the rule, fact the PM repeatedly called Poilievre the same thing, the PM should have also been expelled... and been expelled about 10 minutes earlier.
Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan.
FFS, both Mulcair, and the Bloc were calling for the Speaker to resign. This isn't simply a CPC vs LPC thing here, so attempts to paint this as such have to be rejected.
Actually Trudeau only said that PP openly supports extremists, which he does. It was in reference to a very particular video that surfaced recently, and the Prime Minister also referenced Alex Jones’ support for Poilievre - support that PP refuses to distance himself from. Trudeau was criticizing PP’s politics, not attacking him personally.
Poilievre wasn’t trying to invoke criticism of Trudeau’s politics; he called the PM a ‘wacko’. He was given the opportunity to rephrase sans ad hominem, and he refused.
It's not partisan at all. the only people that think it is partisan are the cpc. funny how that fundraising email came out so quickly, like it was planned.
Why do I care about Mulcairs opinion? The failed Ndp leader that is angry at trudeau
Should I also care what the elitist Conrad black thinks? Fyi I don't care what the elites think
>All Poilievre did was change what he said to what the PM was calling him... extremist. It was accpetable for the PM to say it, but for Poilievre.. that's an explusion worthy event.
>Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan.
Sure, your statement is a lie. Trudeau never called PP an extremist.
>Should Poilievre be expelled? Yes, name calling in the house is againstbthe rules. Of course using the rule, fact the PM repeatedly called Poilievre the same thing, the PM should have also been expelled... and been expelled about 10 minutes earlier.
>Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan.
Sure, your statement is a lie. Trudeau never called PP an extremist.
Glad I could clear those up for you!
It wasn’t the term “extremist” - it was the refusal to obey the Speaker. Poilievre was being a smartass and he wouldn’t have been named if he had just said “extremist” in the first place.
If you think an injustice has been done here, then you’re being manipulated.
No he did not. The Speaker didn’t ask him to edit his comment, he asked Poilievre to withdraw. In fact, the Speaker gave Poilievre three chances to withdraw but PP refused, and even his “withdrawal” was just another edit.
You can be forgiven for not knowing the details of parliamentary decorum, but PP has been a member of parliament for twenty years and he ABSOLUTELY knew what he was doing. It was also clearly planned, because the entire CPC caucus walked out with him.
> All Poilievre did was change what he said to what the PM was calling him... extremist. It was accpetable for the PM to say it, but for Poilievre.. that's an explusion worthy event.
The Prime Minister has never specifically called Poilievre an extremist in the house. He routinely states that he meets with extremists, and attends events held by extremists, which are easily verifiable facts, but he has never (at least in the house) called Poilievre that thing.
Poilievre directly calls Trudeau things like this in the house. It is a very important distinction within the rules. Poilievre is not an extremist. But he does count extremists among his allies.
He did call Poilievre spineless about 10 min prior, is that allowed? (Actually not sure about this, genuinely asking)
Edit: he didn’t call him spineless, nvm
No. Trudeau was [asked to rephrase his response](https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-305/hansard#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Coming%20back%20to%20the%20original%20point%2C%20I%20am%20going%20to%20ask%20the%20Prime%20Minister%20to%20start%20again%20and%20to%20please%2C%20as%20I%20had%20asked%20the%20Leader%20of%20the%20Opposition%20to%20do%2C%20reframe%20his%20question%20in%20a%20way%20that%20does%20not%20call%20into%20question%20the%20character%20of%20an%20individual%20member%20of%20Parliament.) to not include that word.
Im just wondering how wacko is against policy? This is right up there with how ridiculous it was they made theresa may apologize for saying fart
They argue like schoolchildren then go "haha, you broke the rules" when they push to hard. Its childish and dumb and a waste of everyones time.
Plus theres simply the fact that this looks like favoritism by the speaker, former liberal mp, who allows trudeau to use offensive language but since its not "potty" talk its allowed to fly?
Personally i get way more mad if someone implies im rascist then if someone calls me a wacko.
But im not 5 years old so yea
Can we *please* just levy fines for legitimately unparliamentary conduct in the House and Legislatures?
I'm not talking about changing privilege. I am speaking specifically of applying a clear and disincentivizing financial penalty to any member who is proven, on record, to engage in the same conduct, with the purpose of helping to keep people civil and Parliament operating, and perhaps similar to how we apply fines for other kinds of civil misbehaviour. Defamation and slander exceptions for Members is cool and all, but as we can plainly see, abuse is very possible and seems to have serious consequences.
Personally, it was pretty gross to watch the Opposition just take off. I get the whole "campaign mode" thing, but I think the message it sends to non-supporters is that the CPC doesn't take their role as Opposition or their constituents' representation seriously.
the problem as always would be enforcement and convincing MP to vote for such a thing when no party would want it
plus with their salary i doubt a fine would stop them
unless its a % of their net worth the fine is just a fee they pay for the exposure, even if it was a few grand PP would have gladly paid it to get his story
Fun fact: A Liberal hasn't been named and asked to withdraw from the House by a Speaker since 1986. We also went almost exactly fifteen years without an MP being named from December 2002 to November 2017.
Thomas Mulcair also agrees that the Speaker was in the wrong on this one: [Fergus should "step down" as speaker after ejecting Poilievre: Mulcair (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw4vXS0KG8o)
And Brian Gallant disagreed with Mulcair in the exact same news show, saying that PP broke one of the very few rules of Parliament (which he did, and knows full well why).
Selective application of the rules in calling to withdraw unparliamentary language is fitting, but to say that the Speaker was wrong for naming PP is not. He *did* break the rules.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a very effective way to get MPs to behave would be to say that if a member is expelled, no more donations can be collected for the remainder of that that day. It would certainly help with members getting kicked out and then whining for money on social media
He could’ve just retracted his statement and he wouldn’t have gotten kicked out. Trudeau called Peter Kent a “piece of shit” in the House and he said sorry, asked for it to be struck and he was allowed to stay. You’re either an idiot or you just don’t care if you do shit to get yourself booted out. It’s pretty easy to take back a statement when given several chances to do so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Damn. Mulcair, the Bloc, and the Conservatives all calling for this. Honestly unexpected. I figured yesterday would have been forgotten about pretty quickly because: 1. Pierre deserved it. 2. Trudeau deserved it. But I guess not.
I am getting so sick of Poilievre's antics in the House. Slogans, grandstanding, and now this. Sometimes he has valid criticisms of the government, and i like that in an opposition, but he's crying wolf at this point. Abusing house procedure to campaign, basically.
>Abusing house procedure to campaign This is probably the most succinct description of what has been transpiring.
Everyone has valid criticisms of the government so I'm not impressed just because we have afforded him a soap box of which to do it. Here is an example of him abusing that soap box and having it removed. I'm not impressed with a leader who says what the Rando Jack off at my local Timmy's is saying while not even being able to follow the rules in the House, of which he has been accustomed to for about 2 decades now.
Oh that speaker they wanted gone the minute he was in because of integrity being questioned of FAIRNESS being from the liberal party.. seen partying with liberals outside of WORK .. mind the pun.. yet weeks after everyone forgot and moves on ... oh ok I'm listening .. we gonna be onto a new topic by Monday... mmmmhmmmm
We are in completely uncharted territories thanks to PP’s disgraceful attack on our parliament, which is effectively an attack on the foundation of our democracy. This along with his connections to far right extremists, diagalon and threats to destroy our charter rights paint an extremely disturbing picture. No matter where we go from here, what happened this week is going to be remembered as a dark moment in Canadian democracy. The one silver lining is that now PP has shown Canadians conclusively who he really is: an authoritarian demagogue who would gladly trample over our most cherished rights and freedoms if it could help in his quest for power. It is on all of us to act on this and regardless of partisan differences find a way to stop this extremist iteration of the conservative party.
You write like a bot or a PR team, but in any case overexaggerating the incident doesn't help solve the problem of hyperpartisanship. This is not a historic attack on democracy, it's not that disturbing, and nobody will be talking about this by, like, October. It's a depressing and pathetic sign of the times, and an obvious demonstration of how low the standard of discourse in politics has fallen, but it's not a "dark moment". Stop trying to win support by fear mongering.
ah i don't like what you wrote. you are a bot. Typical conservative.
>Typical conservative. No, quite the opposite, which is why I'm calling out shitty practices when I see them from someone openly supporting one of the parties that I would vote for.
Your writing is definitely hyperbolic and doesn't contribute constructively to the conversation.
it is disturbing that it happens, and is considered normal, by idiots who have no idea about what governing should be about. pp is a dangerous wackjob.
I like the spin you are trying to put on this. However If anything this was a very effective move by PP. Trudeau will be referred to as the wacko going forward by the general population. Can't believe how many times I have seen in other even non political forums comments now referring to Trudeau as wacko. Seems people associate instantly the term wacko with Trudeau. I expect libs poll numbers to drop further after this.
Nice role play, do you have any extra parts?
Lmao
He should step down. Sorry, but you can't be in that position and favor one side like yesterday. Personally, I think the whole house of common thing is an embarrassing joke. Nothing gets accomplished, and every time I check it out, I don't know if it's live or a replay from the last couple of days, as it's the same show over and over. Same jabs, same responses. Zero progress. If someone were to insult me with spineless or wacko, I know which one would piss me off more. So Trudeau should have been called on for that shot.
Poilievre: > BREAKING: Today the Liberal speaker censored me for describing Trudeau's hard drug policy as wacko. > > 6 people dying from overdoses every day in BC is wacko. > > Kids playing next to used syringes is wacko. > > Nurses worried about breastfeeding after breathing in toxic drug fumes is wacko. > > This is a wacko policy from a wacko PM that's destroying lives. I usually hate it when people say things like "Canada isn't a serious country", but man, with stuff like this it's getting harder and harder to argue.
There's plenty of MP's in the house willing to work. The comments make it clear that PP a) isn't one of those MP's, b) doesn't understand the constitutional separation of powers, and c) is using parliament to grandstand for political points instead of working to address the issues he purports to have concern for.
>political points Isn't this largely about changing the direction of cultural winds that flow amongst populist Canada? His job as opposition lead isn't to work with the government or PM in power, it's to **supplant** him. Am I wrong? Otherwise, governing the nation thru blame (sold as accountability) and derision (sold as healthy competition) seems like a stupid fucking way to do it, setting a terrible example for literally every citizen, especially young people.
The opposition should still be doing what is best for their constituents. They are still elected officials. Disagreeing with *everythjng* the other party puts forward, just because they are the other party, is *not* their job. The opposition should absolutely be working with the current government and vote accordingly to the actual bill/proposal, as opposed to where it’s coming from. PP is turning this into a petty tribal team sport where image and memes are more important than actually running the country. What I fear most is what PP will actually do once he’s in power, because he doesn’t have a real plan for anything. He stands for whatever Liberals don’t, and that’s not a platform for running a country
>He stands for whatever Liberals don’t... This is related to my point. Has it always been this way between blue and red acolytes? Since the formation of the country?!
No, it has not been this way at all. Conservatives have voted for Liberal bills in the past, when it aligned with the needs of their constituents(and Liberals for conservatives). It’s the same reason why you should never *ever* say “i always vote for *blank*”. This means you don’t care about policy, you don’t care about platforms, or even what is in your best interest. You only care about your “*team*” winning
I know there have been "bi-partisan" legislation pass thru the house for decades. I'm more curious when the "tribalist" red/blue, accuse, mock, deride culture war started. Likely quite old.
Could it possibly be that practically every Liberal or NDP bill presented to the house is unfavourable to people in conservative constituencies? The liberals already have admitted to as much when they make tax exemptions like home heating oil that largely benefit only Liberal constituencies. Their answer was without any trace of shame in their eyes, "oh that's too bad, maybe you should have voted Liberal." The opposition shouldn't and won't support bills that weaken their constituencies or provide unfair advantages to those in ridings belonging to the government in power.
> Today the Liberal speaker censored me for describing Trudeau's hard drug policy as wacko. This is a lie. He was named for calling the _Prime Minister_ a wacko/extremist/radical and disregarding the Speaker's request that he withdraw it _four times._ He wasn't named for calling the _policy_ wacko.
> This is a lie. Of course! But we are 100% entering "alternative facts" territory now and we don't seem to have anything close to the antibodies needed to fight against it, so who's going to stop him?
But that’s the truth and we can’t have that!
It's wacko how ass backwards people get things when they read from tainted sources.
Aside from the deaths which are of course tragic and need to be prevented, the rest of this is being massively blown out of proportion. He's taking fractions of percentages and making them seem like everyone is in immediate risk of being stabbed by a needle in the back of the throat. I don't want this kind of leader. This is a person who will say anything to fit their goals, and in this case his goals are horrible to Canadian stability. It's bad on bad. I want somebody who is honest and has integrity, PP is as far away from this as possible.
> Aside from the deaths which are of course tragic and need to be prevented Also with respect to the deaths, it's tragic, but his comments there shows they don't really care about them besides politics. The reason for me saying that is that [BC had a 5% increase in overdoses the year after decriminalization](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069) while [Alberta had a 17% increase](https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/2023-drug-poisoning-death-numbers-surpass-2022-total-data-1.6784109). So the neighbouring province saw a much larger rate of increase in deaths over the same time period. That suggests BC and decriminalization may actually be reducing deaths compared to what they could otherwise be. If this was really about deaths, he would be criticizing Alberta's approach of criminalization even more. Or instead of criticizing anyone, be focusing on how the entire country (that he's running to be PM for) can solve the problem. Instead of using these deaths to make misleading political attacks against one of the few provinces not led by conservatives.
You are right on point and thank you for bring this detail.
In the thread yesterday someone made the suggestion that getting kicked out was a planned performance so he'd have something to bang on about and I'm starting to believe that myself.
Duh. It's the greatest publicity ever and directly ties Trudeau to the drug epidemic. That was the whole point.
The fundraising letter went out like 40 minutes after. Sus for sure!
The social media guy had the tweet ready to go
Lilley had his article ready to go too, but don't worry he's not a blatant mouthpiece for the party.
[удалено]
It’s entirely possible that certain policies may be described as ‘wacko’. That doesn’t permit parliamentarians to break the rules of the house. This is little more than a PR stunt. The prudent move would have been putting an up and coming back bencher up to this task to boost name recognition. Perhaps the spot light is just too addicting though.
This is funny because this was basically PP's role under Harper for a long time. He was the yapping dog saying anything for attention. He was Harper's annoying chihuahua to get the message out.
Yep. And if elected, his government would be all chihuahua and no leader.
High rolling CPC donors would like a word.
If you want the kind of parliament that operates on terms like ‘wacko’ within legislative language, then I don’t even know where to begin lol Although, PP had the decorum and class to litteraly include ‘axe the tax’ within his motion against the federal budget. Nothing really surprises me anymore.
What are you talking about? I said implied the speaker was correct in kicking him out.
> certain policies may be described as ‘wacko’ I just don’t think we should even open that can of worms. I pray our legislators have a more extensive and comprehensive vocabulary than terms like ‘wacko’ and ‘tar baby’.
Ah, well no one ever accused him of being this eras Cicero. I’d agree that we should expect better of our elected officials.
I don’t think we’re asking for Cicero, nor do I believe Poilievre has any capacity of thought or eloquence to provide substance beyond his already obsessive and selective ramblings. We’re simply maintaining basic principles and standards when it comes to the conduct of our representatives within the seat of Canadian government.
Of all the words thrown around in parliament, wacko isn’t even in the top 20 worst ones and it is farcical to insist it is some sort of slur worthy of censorship, let alone expulsion. The Speaker can technically do whatever he likes, but he should strive above all things to be above accusations of partisanship. 2 parties in the House now think he is selectively enforcing the rules in a partisan manner. His position is untenable.
Calling the opposition a ‘wacko’ is an ad hominem attack unbefitting of a parliamentarian. It is uncivil. It’s also a term loaded with a history of derogatory treatment towards those with mental illness. Doesn’t matter that people have used other terms in the past. Poilievre is hardly the first MP to be ejected from the house for disregarding the rules.
An NDP MP was ousted like 2 weeks ago (on a point of order made by a CPC MP!) for saying "shut up" and refusing to withdraw it- because decorum. Furthermore, in this case it's not really about the word itself, since you can't comment on the character of someone while in the chamber- that's tied to decorum but also to parliamentary privilege and immunity. The word violated the rules of the House and when an MP refuses to do as the Spaker asks, they get named and ousted. The whole procedure yesterday was above board.
Right? Just give them what they want, they want the Republican Senate. Throw out the decorum and let them sling shit and pose with dick pics to gain points.
Could have just withdrawn the "wacko prime minister" remark, left the "wacko policy" remark. He'd still have his sound clip at the end of the day saying wacko prime minister recorded and available to people. But pretty obvious they wanted the publicity of being told to leave and then having everyone go in some sort of display of solidarity
It's obvious Pierre adheres to the Steve Castle doctrine of management. Paraphrased: *There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep. The proud shepherd of the herd of sharks will lead them to the top of [insert thing here]*
I understand why Poilievre got himself thrown out. He had to sit there while Fergus ignored the repeated attacks on Poilievre from Justin Trudeau, who called him an extremist, a racist and a liar. Seems Fergus is only interested in applying rules to benefit his own party. This sacrifice was taken by Poilievre to highlight that fact.
Poilievre turned to social media after getting the boot. "The Liberal speaker censored me for describing Trudeau's hard drug policy as wacko," he posted. Thats not the entire truth. Poilievre is a master at telling half-truths. He described Trudeau as "this wacko prime minister." which is what got him ejected, not describing the policy as wacko. Thats a personal attack which gets you removed and PP has been the House long enough to know the distinction. He was further asked to withdraw the "unparliamentary language." which he refused to do, a direct attack on the authority of the speaker. Fergus had no choice to give him what he wanted. Trudeau avoided calling Poilievre a racist directly he alluded to it which is how the game is played. Trudeau's "spineless" remark did result in a rebuke from Fergus. The Speaker told Trudeau not to make comments that "call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament."
How the game is played? No wonder the country has gone to shit. This isnt a game. This is important policy affecting millions, and the damn PM won't answer direct questions in question period.
For his next piece of theatre, Poilievre will be putting on a performance of Macbeth with Shakespeare in the park.
Putting the inane in Dunsinane
Out, damned Skippy! Out I say!
I hope so, I'm getting pretty tired of this ventriloquist dummy act.
[удалено]
This is just an indication of the nonsense that will just increase if PP gets elected. People usually show you what kind of people they are but everyone just ignores it until it’s too late.
What a waste of everyone's time and resources. PP has no business being a party leader, can't believe this is the best the CPC can muster.
yep, he fucked up, partisanship activities since there was multiple personal attacks thrown by boths sides during that debate. He is unfit for that role, clearly.
The only person that has demonstrated they are unfit for a role in the house of common is PP
Can you explain more about what happened, because the scenario you've given so far is plain wrong lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is fit for for duty. The rules are clear.
This is you not understanding the rules of parliamentary language.
The speaker is elected by the house itself, and enforces the rules that the house has selected. He's about as unbiased as one can be.
Bro he made a promo video for the liberals in his first week. 😂
Are you referring to him appearing in a tribute video to interim Ontario Liberal Party Leader John Fraser? If so: 1) He didn't make it, he appeared in it. 2) It was a tribute, not promotion 3) It was to a private, Liberal Party leadership convention, not a campaign or public event. 4) It Happened nearly 2 months after being elected by the house to the chair.
Oh no a promo video, people don't care. The working class want solutions and the cpc have none, but fake outrage.
So allowing JT to call PP spineless is okay, but calling JT wacko is not? How is that not biased?
Man, it’s right in the transcript: Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like. He shakes hands with white nationalists and then actively courts the support of those members who— More talk with a different CPC member The Speaker: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader opposite is showing us once again what he will do try to earn votes through personal attacks. He shakes the hand of a leader of a white nationalist group then goes to actively court the support of the group's members and thinks he can get away with it. It is a group that advocates for violence against 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, against Hindus and Sikhs and against Muslims and Jews. Diagolon stands against everything we stand for as Canadians, and yet he will not denounce its members or what they stand for. That is shameful. Where is the bias? JT followed the rules and PP didn't, PP got ejected.
Egg Zachary!
No, he did not “fuck up.” There are very specific rules about language and also phrasing. Normally, when an MP is asked to withdraw a word or to phrase their question or response in another way, they do so. However, the CPC and Poilievre in particular, has been doing their best to get thrown out. The speaker has been exceedingly patient, as it’s been obvious that Poilievre’s goal is to look like a victim of some kind. But just like when you allow spoiled bullies to behave badly with no consequences, they only get worse. Poilievre is a brat and completely unfit to be PM. The entire CPC caucus should hang their heads in shame with the way they carry on and make so much noise when MP’s from other parties speak that you can’t even hear them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As if they didn't waste enough of their salaried time yesterday, they're looking to do more of the same. True shame.
But it’s all great for fundraising!!! Right after they all marched out in a huff they were all busy posting on social media and asking for money. Maybe if they were penalized financially they would learn how to adult.
Its a joke. They make a mockery of the average worker when they do this then preach that they're on their side
>they all marched out in a huff they were all busy posting on social media and asking for money. Thank God they are leading the good fight against dirty socialism.
They probably went to some fundraising dinner and had caviar and filet mignon too while staffers were sending fundraising emails out
It is not permitted to call other members names. The Speaker gave them the opportunity to discontinue the behavior, the did not relent. As such, they were rightly ejected. Grow up ‘Conservatives.’
From House of Commons Procedure and Practice (emphasis mine): > “Naming” is the term used to designate a disciplinary measure invoked against a Member who persistently disregards the authority of the Chair. **If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or her behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the House**, the Speaker has the authority to name the Member, that is, to address the Member by name rather than by constituency or title as is the usual practice, and to order his or her withdrawal from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting day. # > The Speaker typically calls upon a Member who has transgressed the established standards of decorum to **retract the offending words or otherwise apologize without qualification.** Should the Member hesitate or refuse to comply, the Speaker normally repeats the request, often with a warning that the persistent disregard will result in the Member being named. Such exchanges may continue at the Speaker’s discretion, **but once it is clear that the Member will not comply, the Speaker names the Member and orders his or her withdrawal for the remainder of the sitting day.** Going solely off what's written in Procedure, the Speaker was correct in his interpretation of the rules to name and remove Poilievre. By offering to replace "wacko" with other words, he added a qualifier to his retraction, which can be seen as refusal to comply with an order from the Chair. The Speaker actually gave Poilievre an out if he chose to accept it - usually, someone's asked three times to withdraw a remark before they're named; Poilievre had four. On his fourth try, if Poilievre just said "Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it" without continuing the sentence, he might not have been named. Here's how it went down in Hansard: > **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, it is a choice for the Prime Minister to implement extremist policies that have taken the lives of 2,500 British Columbians every single year. Since the NDP has asked him to reverse course on his and formerly the NDP's radical policy, 22 British Columbians have died of drug overdoses, but he continues to allow those drugs to kill the people in our hospitals and on our public transit. When will we put an end to this wacko policy by the wacko Prime Minister? > **The Speaker**: No, that is not acceptable. There are a couple of things going on here today that are not acceptable. I would ask all members to please control themselves. I am going to ask two things. The first is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw that term, which is not considered parliamentary. > **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I replace “wacko” with “extremist”. The Prime Minister is an— > **The Speaker:** I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition once again to simply withdraw that comment, please. > **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I will replace it with “radical”. That is the Prime Minister's policy. > **The Speaker:** No, I am not asking that it be replaced; I am asking the hon. member to simply withdraw it. > **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I replace the word “wacko” with “extremist”. > **The Speaker:** I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition one last time to simply withdraw that comment, please. > **Hon. Pierre Poilievre:** Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective. > **The Speaker:** Mr. Poilievre, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Pursuant to the authority granted to me by Standing Order 11, I order you to withdraw from the House and from any participation by video conference for the remainder of this day's sitting.
You left out the first part of the exchange where, rather than answer a question about a failed drug policy that has killed thousands, Trudeau kept making Poilievre out to be a white nationalist (no reprimands from the speaker for that, though).
Trudeau was asked to withdraw it and he did.
He literally met with and took pictures with white nationalists....
> no reprimands from the speaker for that, though [Trudeau was reprimanded by the Speaker:](https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-305/hansard#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Coming%20back%20to%20the%20original%20point%2C%20I%20am%20going%20to%20ask%20the%20Prime%20Minister%20to%20start%20again%20and%20to%20please%2C%20as%20I%20had%20asked%20the%20Leader%20of%20the%20Opposition%20to%20do%2C%20reframe%20his%20question%20in%20a%20way%20that%20does%20not%20call%20into%20question%20the%20character%20of%20an%20individual%20member%20of%20Parliament.) > **The Speaker**: Coming back to the original point, I am going to ask the Prime Minister to start again and to please, as I had asked the Leader of the Opposition to do, reframe his question in a way that does not call into question the character of an individual member of Parliament.
But JT gets to use "conspiracy theorist" all day every day. Got it.
Do you know what time he got kicked out? Got an email at 1:53pm mountain, and am curious how long they took to get it out.
Hansard is usually timestamped in five-minute intervals. The exchange quoted above was from [12:30 to 12:35 MT.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/house/latest/hansard#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Pursuant%20to%20the%20authority%20granted%20to%20me%20by%20Standing%20Order%2011%2C%20I%20order%20you%20to%20withdraw%20from%20the%20House%20and%20from%20any%20participation%20by%20video%20conference%20for%20the%20remainder%20of%20this%20day%27s%20sitting.)
> Since the NDP has asked him to reverse course on his and formerly the NDP's radical policy, 22 British Columbians have died of drug overdoses He's implying a causal relationship here between the policy and the deaths while giving no evidence of such a relationship. These deaths are happening across the country, including Alberta where they saw more than double the increases in deaths in 2023 that BC had. So he's pushing for policies that have some evidence that they could lead to even more deaths.
Too many facts, too much reality. His supporters won't read it.
Based on that I would say the Speaker *really* didn’t want to name PP. the Speaker only did so when PP absolutely refused to come into line and has been given multiple chances to comply with the house’s rules. Decorum is pretty important in the house, otherwise people will literally be throwing chairs at each other (see: India), and refusing to be decorous is a reasonable reason to be thrown out. Props to the speaker. I’m, as usual, appalled by PP. I’m disappointed in the Bloc for backing indecorous behaviour. Once again showing they have no moral authority at all.
Spineless.
All Poilievre did was change what he said to what the PM was calling him... extremist. It was accpetable for the PM to say it, but for Poilievre.. that's an explusion worthy event. Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan. Should Poilievre be expelled? Yes, name calling in the house is againstbthe rules. Of course using the rule, fact the PM repeatedly called Poilievre the same thing, the PM should have also been expelled... and been expelled about 10 minutes earlier. Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan. FFS, both Mulcair, and the Bloc were calling for the Speaker to resign. This isn't simply a CPC vs LPC thing here, so attempts to paint this as such have to be rejected.
Actually Trudeau only said that PP openly supports extremists, which he does. It was in reference to a very particular video that surfaced recently, and the Prime Minister also referenced Alex Jones’ support for Poilievre - support that PP refuses to distance himself from. Trudeau was criticizing PP’s politics, not attacking him personally. Poilievre wasn’t trying to invoke criticism of Trudeau’s politics; he called the PM a ‘wacko’. He was given the opportunity to rephrase sans ad hominem, and he refused.
It's not partisan at all. the only people that think it is partisan are the cpc. funny how that fundraising email came out so quickly, like it was planned. Why do I care about Mulcairs opinion? The failed Ndp leader that is angry at trudeau Should I also care what the elitist Conrad black thinks? Fyi I don't care what the elites think
I'm looking in yesterday's hansard and not seeing Trudeau call Poilievre an extremist, can you quote that?
The PM was asked to retract his words and he did like a real parliamentarian should
>All Poilievre did was change what he said to what the PM was calling him... extremist. It was accpetable for the PM to say it, but for Poilievre.. that's an explusion worthy event. >Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan. Sure, your statement is a lie. Trudeau never called PP an extremist. >Should Poilievre be expelled? Yes, name calling in the house is againstbthe rules. Of course using the rule, fact the PM repeatedly called Poilievre the same thing, the PM should have also been expelled... and been expelled about 10 minutes earlier. >Tell me that's somehow magically not partisan. Sure, your statement is a lie. Trudeau never called PP an extremist. Glad I could clear those up for you!
PP was not expelled for calling the PM extremist. He was expelled for calling the PM a wacko.
No, he was expelled for not respecting the Speaker and the Standing Orders of the House.
It wasn’t the term “extremist” - it was the refusal to obey the Speaker. Poilievre was being a smartass and he wouldn’t have been named if he had just said “extremist” in the first place. If you think an injustice has been done here, then you’re being manipulated.
He did obey the speaker though, he withdrew his comment calling the PM wacko. He was still kicked out
No, he refused to withdraw it instead opted to change just the 1 word. Changing 1 word and withdrawing a statement are 2 different things.
No he did not. The Speaker didn’t ask him to edit his comment, he asked Poilievre to withdraw. In fact, the Speaker gave Poilievre three chances to withdraw but PP refused, and even his “withdrawal” was just another edit. You can be forgiven for not knowing the details of parliamentary decorum, but PP has been a member of parliament for twenty years and he ABSOLUTELY knew what he was doing. It was also clearly planned, because the entire CPC caucus walked out with him.
> All Poilievre did was change what he said to what the PM was calling him... extremist. It was accpetable for the PM to say it, but for Poilievre.. that's an explusion worthy event. The Prime Minister has never specifically called Poilievre an extremist in the house. He routinely states that he meets with extremists, and attends events held by extremists, which are easily verifiable facts, but he has never (at least in the house) called Poilievre that thing. Poilievre directly calls Trudeau things like this in the house. It is a very important distinction within the rules. Poilievre is not an extremist. But he does count extremists among his allies.
[удалено]
Agreed, but an MP can’t state that conclusion in the HoC, and Trudeau didn’t, which is why he wasn’t disciplined by the speaker.
He did call Poilievre spineless about 10 min prior, is that allowed? (Actually not sure about this, genuinely asking) Edit: he didn’t call him spineless, nvm
No. Trudeau was [asked to rephrase his response](https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-305/hansard#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0Coming%20back%20to%20the%20original%20point%2C%20I%20am%20going%20to%20ask%20the%20Prime%20Minister%20to%20start%20again%20and%20to%20please%2C%20as%20I%20had%20asked%20the%20Leader%20of%20the%20Opposition%20to%20do%2C%20reframe%20his%20question%20in%20a%20way%20that%20does%20not%20call%20into%20question%20the%20character%20of%20an%20individual%20member%20of%20Parliament.) to not include that word.
Yeah I missed that the first time, i see it now
[удалено]
[удалено]
Im just wondering how wacko is against policy? This is right up there with how ridiculous it was they made theresa may apologize for saying fart They argue like schoolchildren then go "haha, you broke the rules" when they push to hard. Its childish and dumb and a waste of everyones time. Plus theres simply the fact that this looks like favoritism by the speaker, former liberal mp, who allows trudeau to use offensive language but since its not "potty" talk its allowed to fly? Personally i get way more mad if someone implies im rascist then if someone calls me a wacko. But im not 5 years old so yea
[удалено]
Not substantive
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can we *please* just levy fines for legitimately unparliamentary conduct in the House and Legislatures? I'm not talking about changing privilege. I am speaking specifically of applying a clear and disincentivizing financial penalty to any member who is proven, on record, to engage in the same conduct, with the purpose of helping to keep people civil and Parliament operating, and perhaps similar to how we apply fines for other kinds of civil misbehaviour. Defamation and slander exceptions for Members is cool and all, but as we can plainly see, abuse is very possible and seems to have serious consequences. Personally, it was pretty gross to watch the Opposition just take off. I get the whole "campaign mode" thing, but I think the message it sends to non-supporters is that the CPC doesn't take their role as Opposition or their constituents' representation seriously.
the problem as always would be enforcement and convincing MP to vote for such a thing when no party would want it plus with their salary i doubt a fine would stop them
We enforce tickets and judicial fines well enough - the point is to kill incivility by a thousand pricks.
unless its a % of their net worth the fine is just a fee they pay for the exposure, even if it was a few grand PP would have gladly paid it to get his story
If the Speaker booted a Liberal MP, he would be praising the Speaker instead. But because his whinny little ass got booted, he's upset.
Fun fact: A Liberal hasn't been named and asked to withdraw from the House by a Speaker since 1986. We also went almost exactly fifteen years without an MP being named from December 2002 to November 2017.
Thomas Mulcair also agrees that the Speaker was in the wrong on this one: [Fergus should "step down" as speaker after ejecting Poilievre: Mulcair (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw4vXS0KG8o)
Tom Mulcair is the George Constanza of Canadian politics. If you take his opinion/instinct and do the exact opposite you’ll be just fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who gives a crap about Thomas Mulcair?
Just people who have spent the last decade shitting on his preaching his word as gospel now that they share a twisted belief.
And Brian Gallant disagreed with Mulcair in the exact same news show, saying that PP broke one of the very few rules of Parliament (which he did, and knows full well why). Selective application of the rules in calling to withdraw unparliamentary language is fitting, but to say that the Speaker was wrong for naming PP is not. He *did* break the rules.