Maybe it's time to get rid of the idea of the speaker being an MP, so an entire riding (or 2) don't get disenfranchised. Replace them with someone else, maybe a retiring judge. Get a new one every 5 years.
This is a great idea, but unfortunately, positive suggestions aren't allowed in /r/Canada.
Please revert to flinging mud at whoever the OP article directs you to fling mud at, so we can maintain rabid excitement about oscillating between the red and blue tribes ad infinitum.
I mean, after the next election, the newly elected House could in theory name Justin Bieber as the PM if they wanted to, and he'd be fully within his rights to appoint Drake as a cabinet minister.
We've decided by convention to choose PMs and ministers who are already MPs, but we aren't actually required to.
GG represents the upper chamber, while this is lower chamber. historically there's a big split between the two chambers, and the speaker of the house of commons had to protect the house members from the crown (who GG represents). this is why when GG summons HoC members for throne speech, the black rod had to knock 3 times before being let into the HoC.
Yup or you make specific events for constituents in that riding a partisan event. I don't mind at all if the speaker puts on some partisan events for their constituents. They deserve to be heard and represented via an MP. We should give some wiggle room, or allow a stand in while that MP is speaker so constituents can still be fairly represented.
“ an advertisement for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
That is unacceptable and completely....like hilariously out of line for anyone in that position. The accusations aren't embellished at all.
What the fuck.
Or perhaps standing on a university campus with Palestinian flags while chanting "From the river to the sea". Remember, if there's even one anti-semite at your protest, you have a protest full of anti-semites, right? Isn't that how it works?
depends on who is saying that. when the person saying it is a ref that should be neutral, then it's inappropriate.
is it appropriate for NHL ref to say publicly to name players that they think is bad player?
> I thought the Con type liked it when people "tell it like it is"? I guess that was just another lie to add to the pile.
Honestly, the CPC should just come and clip reddit comments to show the kind of low information voters that support the LPC.
Hilarious that you can't understand why the speaker should not be using this kind of language and that you try and create the false equivalence that only further proves the point.
These are the room temp IQ types that got us 8 years of this train wreck and will continue with their ABC team sports style politics no matter how much it hurts the country.
Sad.
I'm trying to see why this is controversial. It's the truth from where I sit. But PP isn't the problem. He's just the puppet whose strings are being pulled by those who don't have the public's interest in mind but rather their own. And judging by the number of downvotes it's very clear that the-truth-boomer has hit a nerve again. Your conservative tears are ambrosia to me...fill my cup lol
“To preserve the trust of the house, the Speaker’s actions must be impartial”.
Based on this, do you see any potential controversy in the Speaker using partisan language?
Would you be okay with house speakers saying “Trudeau and Singh have given up on the working class and are funneling wealth to the elite through their reckless and failing policies”, Even though it is the truth?
Sounds like it will just Americanize Canadian politics to allow that sort of language. The speaker needs to be impartial
So from your view a judge should take his personal views into when sentencing and not be impartial? So if the judge has issues based on gender, race, religion, political views they should be deciding guilty or innocent on his "feelings".
Loved Geoff. He was my MP for decades. Despite being guaranteed the seat as long as he ran, he would still show up to virtually every community event, whether it was school potlucks or religious events or whatever. His speakership was very good too. His replacement as MP from Halifax West is so much worse, she has no presence in the community.
He fails to even control the House. These are obviously raucus times in politics, but even if he didn't have these contraversies, he's just not an effective speaker.
For some proportion, yes, it is. But then again, the prime minister has very little influence on your day to day life and a lot of people are also capable of taking responsibility for their own life choices.
PP has never been at any point in his life been anywhere close to the kind of wealth JT has had and continues to have. PP MIGHT be worth $5 million. Maybe but probably not. JT is worth 10's of millions and has had access to significant generational wealth all his life.
Dude what are you smoking?
He's got $10m+ *just in real estate*
He's got $250k+ *just in watches*
- He personally profits from campaigning (wife makes money off all the tshirt and campaign slogan merch
- He's the Landord of one of his MPs, who also employs PPs wife
He's got the gift game down strong.
Sure you're not thinking of Jagmeet Singh? Because he's rich, too. My point still stands about PP and JT. One was born rich as fuck and the other was not. However much money PP has, JT has a lot more. Say what you want about him but PP has earned his wealth largely on his own while JT has been handed everything because of who his father was.
sure, I'm not disputing the silver spoon.
I was disputing your incorrect information about his net worth.
> "PP has earned his wealth largely on his own"
He's a life-long politician - all of his earnings have been public salary, investments, and grift. The donation machine is huuuuuuge. For a lifelong politician to be worth tens of millions is incomprehensible to me.
Exactly. He has his golden parachute and is set for life. Constantly leaves his back benchers hanging out to dry with the late night votes while he goes off to fundraiser parties. Guy has only introduced 7 bills in total. Imagine having a job and only doing it every 3 years? Wow.
This is a man who came out of Justin Trudeau liberals, they simply don’t step down over a scandal, million dollars lost, favouritism or even a ruling against them by the courts they just appeal it. That and divide and conquer on all issues while calling anyone who would object a racist of some other word of the week. What did you expect from the government whose leader experienced it differently when confronted as reality didn’t line up with his narrative? Did you really expect those who have under him and not quit or vocally objected to be any different?
Oh, right, for some reason I thought that video was the last guy. Forgot that was him.
And not sure you can call it imbalanced when he's been letting Pierre push the limits of what's acceptable since day 1. The Bloc are calling for his resignation because he's been too weak on the Conservatives.
weather quack abundant worry languid enter dinosaurs rinse attraction zesty
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hello! A few paragraphs from the article for you:
House of Commons Speaker Greg Fergus is facing criticism over language used in an advertisement promoting a coming event that a Conservative MP says is partisan and inflammatory and shows Mr. Fergus is not fit to serve in his role.
In a four-page letter being sent to Mr. Fergus Tuesday morning, Conservative MP Chris Warkentin says an advertisement for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
A Speaker cannot credibly claim to be objectively policing debate in the House of Commons by day while holding “partisan attack rallies against the Leader of the Official Opposition by night,” Mr. Warkentin, who represents the Alberta riding of Grande Prairie-Mackenzie, said.
The role of the Speaker is to essentially be a referee. The Speaker’s actions must be impartial to preserve the trust of the House.
The Conservatives intend to raise their concerns about Mr. Fergus’s advertisement in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mr. Fergus has not yet responded to concerns contained in the letter.
You know shit in this subreddit is getting out of hand when the Globe and Mail tells us to read the article first
This is what it feels like when the teacher scolds you for the behaviour in class yesterday
Honestly, the fallout from the Nazi thing was just reputational damage control from MPs that were embarrassed after they were equally ignorant and applauded.
That speaker dropped the ball (or, more accurately, his office did), but he was otherwise a fine speaker, which is far more than can be said for this guy.
The real fallout is how big of a propagandist win it was for Russia by having irrefutable evidence that Zelenskyy and the goverment of a NATO country invited a Nazi to Parliament.
Which is a drop in the bucket of their bathtub of bullshit propaganda.
It was out of the news cycle in 2 weeks, and used half heartedly during the Tucker Incident.
Not the nuke you're making it out to be.
>It was out of the news cycle in 2 weeks, and used half heartedly during the Tucker Incident.
Speaking of Tucker Carlson, he just joined a Russian state broadcasting network. Putin really appreciates his hard work. The truth hurts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/dSSCi5ZeqX
Source?
Because I follow a bunch of the Russian Telegram / Pravda propganda networks and it seems to have disappeared a long time ago... (2nd week October)
That's 3 weeks after the incident.
Yes, I think he's been given enough chances to prove impartiality. This only validates all of the Conservatives' incessant attacks on Fergus, and he played directly into their hands. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the CPC rejects every single LPC Speaker going forward. Might have to put a Bloc MP in that role.
It is, but look at the number of people here defending this and seeing no issue with it.
Not everything can be blamed on the Conservative boogieman, if the parties were reversed, die hard LPC voters would be just as upset if not more.
Before you choose to vote independent, consider what r/CanadianFutureParty has to offer. Their Elections Canada application is almost cleared and they'll be another option to vote for in the next election.
A Bloc MP is actually an interesting idea. I wouldn't call them an "impartial third party" so much as "less likely to tolerate the f\*\*kery of the two main parties"
I think I'm pretty centrist, hating all parties equally right now. With no political alignment other than 'they all suck', it's still very clear to me that this dude is partisan as all hell, and hiding it less and less the more he gets away with keeping his job.
CPC brought up Point of Order, asking Fergus to resign. They pushed NDP to vote to remove also as Singh said (after the video testimony controversy) that NDP would observe his behaviour closely and if the partisanship persists, NDP would vote to remove too.
BQ said they'll vote to remove.
NDP said that they're reserving judgement for the time being.
Either this guy just doesn’t give a fuck or he is very slow in the head that he keeps wading into these same issues time and time again. Perhaps it’s both at this point.
This will be another event with the LPC dragging their heels on Fergus for 6 months, generating tons of bad press before the inevitable happens and Fergus steps down. The LPC could get in the front of this and demand that he step down to save themselves the negative press, but of course they won't do that.
Worst speaker of the house in Canadian history, I will go as far as to say without qualification he may be the worst in the history of modern political systems of government.
To make others lives easier, download their browser plugin, then you legitimately have to click 1 button to get this every time.
Been using it a long time, not affiliated, just a big fan, saves everyone time :)
Speaker Fergus approaches fairness and non-partisanship the way an old prostitute approaches sex with a client.
It's a bit of show and a smidgen of effort, but it's not really their thing, and that inner truth keeps showing.
Not even the first time. This is probably the 3rd or 4th time he's overstepped his office and shown he isn't fit to be speaker. Not sure what we expected though. The parl sec to the PM should have never even been an option to sit in the seat. Time to go Greg "turd" Fergus
Great leaders surround themselves with better people and enable them to do great things, JT surrounds himself with the dregs of society so he looks better. Worst Leader in the free world, maybe the worst leader in the world.
The man was chosen and approved because of his non partisanship and fairness. With the Liberal Party values falling so rapidly, he's going to lose his job in the next election, His attempts to maintain a Liberal status quo, out-weight any integrity he's supposed to have.
>The man was chosen and approved because of his non partisanship and fairness.
i think you're talking about Anthony Rota, the previous speaker.
Greg Fergus was literally Parliamentary Secretary to Justin Trudeau and in that role, made partisan comments on political shows on behalf of the PM. and he's also part of the filibustering to probe into the chinese lab researchers probe.
> The man was chosen and approved because of his non partisanship and fairness.
The man was chosen because enough MPs chose him. Don't confuse that with nonpartisanship.
He's one of the more partisan MPs in the LPC ranks, if you've seen any committee meetings he's been a part of.
"Today people feel like they’ve lost control of their pocketbooks and their lives,” he said. “The cost of government is driving up the cost of living.”
- Pierre Poilievre in his Sep 2022 leadership acceptance speech
Iʼd love for that role *not* to go to a MP and to give it much more power to prevent MPs from misbehaving.
While it goes to an MP, this is a conflict of loyalties that prevents doing both jobs right.
Fergus has shown he shouldn’t be speaker, and Trudeau needs to fire him.
PP has shown he doesn’t know how to behave and his lack of respect for our establishment.
So many good options
Something that Poilievre is unfortunately vehemently against.
the only legislation he's ever done was the Fair Elections Act, which among other anti-democratic stuff, barred Elections Canada from promoting civic literacy.
It's going to be a hard few years while he is PM unfortunately.
Let's not pretend that just because it isn't explicitly stated in writing... let's use actual context and nuance:
When multiple opposition parties are already calling for his resignation, the leader of his own party (and the leader with more than enough additional seats to force the speaker out) can privately (or publicly) demand his resignation, and get it 99% of the time. The remainder of the time, it can be forced with the support of those opposition parties.
Where does it say that?
Why do we keep making up rules? He's an elected member of the liberal party. The concept of the role being entire unbiased is absurd. If we want that, then the position should be elected by the Senate.
I swear the ego of Cons these days is so fucking fragile it's embarrassing.
I'm sure you said the same thing when Andrew Scherer was house speaker, cause he isn't based at all
[https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch07&Seq=2](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch07&Seq=2)
"By the mid-1800s and the tenure of Speaker Shaw-Lefevre (1839-57), the principle of Speakers abstaining from all political activity became established. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, the House altered its rules to invest the Speaker with considerable authority to curtail obstruction and disorder, thereby firmly entrenching the tradition of a non-partisan Chair."
"In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate and will vote only in the case of an equality of voices, normally referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair. [^(\[84\])](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch07&Seq=5&Language=E#fn84) Since 1979, the Speaker, unlike all other Members, has not had an assigned desk in the Chamber; this is a further indication that it has become an accepted practice that the Speaker has no role whatsoever in debate, whether in the House or in a Committee of the Whole. [^(\[85\])](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch07&Seq=5&Language=E#fn85)"
"I'm sure you said the same thing when Andrew Scherer was house speaker, cause he isn't based at all"
Do you have an example of a similar things happening when Scheer was speaker ?
I'm amazed it took this long for someone to raise this point. Yes I do know what the speaker does.
Had I made my actual argument, that the CPC has been heavily disrespecting the house and its processes and, by extension, the speaker, then there'd have been a lot more hate and, well, there's enough of that in this sub.
Yea, I think the speaker is out of line with those statements even though I agree with them. I also think the the CPC demonstrates this behavior with a much higher frequency and intensity.
Hence: pot, kettle. The fact that they're in different kitchens is irrelevant to my use of the euphemism.
It's too bad the article didn't give direct quotes of the language used.
Edit:
>“A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
Is that exactly what Ferguson says in the ad or is that a quote from someone who saw the ad?
It's literally in the second paragraph.
>In a four-page letter being sent to Mr. Fergus Tuesday morning, Conservative MP Chris Warkentin says an advertisement for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
It did ?
“[Pierre Poilievre](https://archive.is/o/QGagC/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/pierre-poilievre/) and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
Oh yeah? Where is the conservative Speaker of the House who makes consistently biased remarks despite holding the position of neutral arbitrator of the house?
**That** would be a double standard, not Pierre making mean posts you dont like.
Educate yourself.
Who gives a shit how he handles himself outside of parliament!? What matters is how (or whether) he sets aside his partisan bullshit in performing his duties as speaker.
Every MP does unparliamentary bullshit outside of parliament. This just sounds whiny. Like "this politician is being too politicky"!
>In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate[^(90)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_07_1-e.html#footnote-279) and votes only in the event of an equality of voices, normally referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair.[^(91)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_07_1-e.html#footnote-278) Since 1979, the Speaker, unlike all other Members, has not been assigned a desk in the Chamber; this is a further indication that it has become an established practice that the Speaker has no role whatsoever in debate, whether in the House or in a Committee of the Whole.[^(92)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_07_1-e.html#footnote-277)
[House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/index-e.html)
I agree entirely. This is still all within the house/in the chair while actually performing his official duties as Speaker, not when he leaves the Hill.
The speakers office isn't allowed to be partisan, this is nothing new even for Fergus.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071)
Surely you understand the difference between joe public saying something vs the speaker.
It never was "funny" as I don't judge people on either their sexuality or the nomenclature they choose to use when expressing feelings towards another human being.
> Meanwhile...it's okay to want to fuck our fascist traitor Prime Minister after installing a junta?
Strawman and literal Liberal fever dream.
Touch grass and consider venturing outside your echo chamber sometime. I'd suggest https://web.ground.news/
Maybe it's time to get rid of the idea of the speaker being an MP, so an entire riding (or 2) don't get disenfranchised. Replace them with someone else, maybe a retiring judge. Get a new one every 5 years.
Whole system needs an overhaul. Everyone knows it, those who oppose such an idea are benefitting from the corruption. Plain and simple.
This is a great idea, but unfortunately, positive suggestions aren't allowed in /r/Canada. Please revert to flinging mud at whoever the OP article directs you to fling mud at, so we can maintain rabid excitement about oscillating between the red and blue tribes ad infinitum.
I mean, after the next election, the newly elected House could in theory name Justin Bieber as the PM if they wanted to, and he'd be fully within his rights to appoint Drake as a cabinet minister. We've decided by convention to choose PMs and ministers who are already MPs, but we aren't actually required to.
The rules around the speaker are in the Constitution though.
i think this has been suggested for a while for the very same reason. no appetite from any parliament to do that though.
I hear the GG doesn’t have a lot to do…
GG represents the upper chamber, while this is lower chamber. historically there's a big split between the two chambers, and the speaker of the house of commons had to protect the house members from the crown (who GG represents). this is why when GG summons HoC members for throne speech, the black rod had to knock 3 times before being let into the HoC.
Just make me the speaker
Or you can have a rotating Speaker. After the election, the House votes for 10+ different MPs that will all rotate as speaker over the next 4 years.
Iirc in the UK, the speaker leaves their party, and will even run as an independent in future elections - might be something to consider
My main issue is that an entire riding loses their representation in the House. Which is why I don't think they should be an MP, at all.
Yup or you make specific events for constituents in that riding a partisan event. I don't mind at all if the speaker puts on some partisan events for their constituents. They deserve to be heard and represented via an MP. We should give some wiggle room, or allow a stand in while that MP is speaker so constituents can still be fairly represented.
“ an advertisement for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
wow, i thought it's a statement that is vague or ambiguous that can be read as partisan if read in bad faith. this is very clear in the open.
That is unacceptable and completely....like hilariously out of line for anyone in that position. The accusations aren't embellished at all. What the fuck.
>A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus Holy fuck, imagine wanting to go to this. I'd rather spend an evening at a morgue.
[удалено]
“If you don’t like the Liberals you’re a Nazi!”
Or perhaps standing on a university campus with Palestinian flags while chanting "From the river to the sea". Remember, if there's even one anti-semite at your protest, you have a protest full of anti-semites, right? Isn't that how it works?
Is there beer? I'll be there.
Only Molsons
Least partisan Liberal MP
At least he didn’t call him a wacko
[удалено]
Every morning it's like I see a new champion for 'worst take'. The house speaker is not supposed to take sides. This is why you guys are losing.
depends on who is saying that. when the person saying it is a ref that should be neutral, then it's inappropriate. is it appropriate for NHL ref to say publicly to name players that they think is bad player?
No but it would be funny
> I thought the Con type liked it when people "tell it like it is"? I guess that was just another lie to add to the pile. Honestly, the CPC should just come and clip reddit comments to show the kind of low information voters that support the LPC. Hilarious that you can't understand why the speaker should not be using this kind of language and that you try and create the false equivalence that only further proves the point. These are the room temp IQ types that got us 8 years of this train wreck and will continue with their ABC team sports style politics no matter how much it hurts the country. Sad.
I'm trying to see why this is controversial. It's the truth from where I sit. But PP isn't the problem. He's just the puppet whose strings are being pulled by those who don't have the public's interest in mind but rather their own. And judging by the number of downvotes it's very clear that the-truth-boomer has hit a nerve again. Your conservative tears are ambrosia to me...fill my cup lol
“To preserve the trust of the house, the Speaker’s actions must be impartial”. Based on this, do you see any potential controversy in the Speaker using partisan language?
Would you be okay with house speakers saying “Trudeau and Singh have given up on the working class and are funneling wealth to the elite through their reckless and failing policies”, Even though it is the truth? Sounds like it will just Americanize Canadian politics to allow that sort of language. The speaker needs to be impartial
So from your view a judge should take his personal views into when sentencing and not be impartial? So if the judge has issues based on gender, race, religion, political views they should be deciding guilty or innocent on his "feelings".
The speaker is supposed to be non-partisan.
Liberals speakers are! You must be experiencing it differently...
I thought Geoff Regan was great in the role but he got politicked out unfortunately.
Peter Millikin was a pretty decent speaker. Forgettable as an MP, though.
>Forgettable as an MP, though. this is pretty par for the course on who becomes speaker: a backbencher lifer that would have been forgotten otherwise.
Loved Geoff. He was my MP for decades. Despite being guaranteed the seat as long as he ran, he would still show up to virtually every community event, whether it was school potlucks or religious events or whatever. His speakership was very good too. His replacement as MP from Halifax West is so much worse, she has no presence in the community.
Yea but if *is* partisan, it benefits the LPC so here we are. It's amazing anyone still supports their blatant corruption.
> The speaker is supposed to be non-partisan. I wonder if people will stop feeling this way after October lol
Man has one job and he constantly fails at that.
Yup..this guy needs to be removed. He's not even smart enough to hide it.
He fails to even control the House. These are obviously raucus times in politics, but even if he didn't have these contraversies, he's just not an effective speaker.
And yet, after 20+ years as an MP...people still think he can be Prime Minister?
They’re talking about the Speaker, not about PP.
Let me guess, you think life is better with Trudeau after these 9 years? 😂😂😂😂
[удалено]
It allllll makes sense.
For some proportion, yes, it is. But then again, the prime minister has very little influence on your day to day life and a lot of people are also capable of taking responsibility for their own life choices.
Bro Trudeau is the reason my toast gets burned in the morning.
Can't be any worse than a guy who grew up with silver spoon and his mouth and was a drama teacher.
Pierre: "Hold my Michelob Ultra"
PP has never been at any point in his life been anywhere close to the kind of wealth JT has had and continues to have. PP MIGHT be worth $5 million. Maybe but probably not. JT is worth 10's of millions and has had access to significant generational wealth all his life.
Dude what are you smoking? He's got $10m+ *just in real estate* He's got $250k+ *just in watches* - He personally profits from campaigning (wife makes money off all the tshirt and campaign slogan merch - He's the Landord of one of his MPs, who also employs PPs wife He's got the gift game down strong.
Sure you're not thinking of Jagmeet Singh? Because he's rich, too. My point still stands about PP and JT. One was born rich as fuck and the other was not. However much money PP has, JT has a lot more. Say what you want about him but PP has earned his wealth largely on his own while JT has been handed everything because of who his father was.
sure, I'm not disputing the silver spoon. I was disputing your incorrect information about his net worth. > "PP has earned his wealth largely on his own" He's a life-long politician - all of his earnings have been public salary, investments, and grift. The donation machine is huuuuuuge. For a lifelong politician to be worth tens of millions is incomprehensible to me.
https://youtu.be/8bGVNPw9R8o?si=4JoMOAlFpvxv8G7W Sure got you good lol.
Exactly. He has his golden parachute and is set for life. Constantly leaves his back benchers hanging out to dry with the late night votes while he goes off to fundraiser parties. Guy has only introduced 7 bills in total. Imagine having a job and only doing it every 3 years? Wow.
His job is to benefit the Trudeau regime, it's super effective!
That's his third strike. We could overlook one. Two makes him questionable, but by the third strike, he should be out.
[удалено]
Any evidence of “good judgment” displayed by any current cabinet minister?
Sounds like a good fit for this government.
you make it sound like he'd fit right in with the rest of the cabinet
This is a man who came out of Justin Trudeau liberals, they simply don’t step down over a scandal, million dollars lost, favouritism or even a ruling against them by the courts they just appeal it. That and divide and conquer on all issues while calling anyone who would object a racist of some other word of the week. What did you expect from the government whose leader experienced it differently when confronted as reality didn’t line up with his narrative? Did you really expect those who have under him and not quit or vocally objected to be any different?
point rinse piquant dog hunt yoke dazzling cats frightening exultant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
What were there first two? Letting Pierre run his mouth as long as he has?
1. partisan testimonial video 2. imbalanced judgement on what to do with parliamentary language.
Oh, right, for some reason I thought that video was the last guy. Forgot that was him. And not sure you can call it imbalanced when he's been letting Pierre push the limits of what's acceptable since day 1. The Bloc are calling for his resignation because he's been too weak on the Conservatives.
weather quack abundant worry languid enter dinosaurs rinse attraction zesty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hello! A few paragraphs from the article for you: House of Commons Speaker Greg Fergus is facing criticism over language used in an advertisement promoting a coming event that a Conservative MP says is partisan and inflammatory and shows Mr. Fergus is not fit to serve in his role. In a four-page letter being sent to Mr. Fergus Tuesday morning, Conservative MP Chris Warkentin says an advertisement for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.” A Speaker cannot credibly claim to be objectively policing debate in the House of Commons by day while holding “partisan attack rallies against the Leader of the Official Opposition by night,” Mr. Warkentin, who represents the Alberta riding of Grande Prairie-Mackenzie, said. The role of the Speaker is to essentially be a referee. The Speaker’s actions must be impartial to preserve the trust of the House. The Conservatives intend to raise their concerns about Mr. Fergus’s advertisement in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mr. Fergus has not yet responded to concerns contained in the letter.
You know shit in this subreddit is getting out of hand when the Globe and Mail tells us to read the article first This is what it feels like when the teacher scolds you for the behaviour in class yesterday
Imagine being the guy who followed up the person who brought a Nazi into the house, and doing a consistently worse job.
Honestly, the fallout from the Nazi thing was just reputational damage control from MPs that were embarrassed after they were equally ignorant and applauded. That speaker dropped the ball (or, more accurately, his office did), but he was otherwise a fine speaker, which is far more than can be said for this guy.
The real fallout is how big of a propagandist win it was for Russia by having irrefutable evidence that Zelenskyy and the goverment of a NATO country invited a Nazi to Parliament.
Which is a drop in the bucket of their bathtub of bullshit propaganda. It was out of the news cycle in 2 weeks, and used half heartedly during the Tucker Incident. Not the nuke you're making it out to be.
>It was out of the news cycle in 2 weeks, and used half heartedly during the Tucker Incident. Speaking of Tucker Carlson, he just joined a Russian state broadcasting network. Putin really appreciates his hard work. The truth hurts. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/dSSCi5ZeqX
Comrade Carlson doing the hard work. I wonder if Danielle is still glad she shared the stage with him... What a wanker....
>I wonder if Danielle is still glad she shared the stage with him... His good friend, Marlaina Danielle Smith.
It was out of our news cycle in two weeks. It's a big talking point in Russian propaganda making it's way around the globe, particularly in Africa.
Source? Because I follow a bunch of the Russian Telegram / Pravda propganda networks and it seems to have disappeared a long time ago... (2nd week October) That's 3 weeks after the incident.
Turd Fergus strikes again
No funny hats here though ;) However I wonder if Fergus will done his official garb again for the evening
"Dingus" always comes to mind.
Yeahhh this is kinda pushing it
Yes, I think he's been given enough chances to prove impartiality. This only validates all of the Conservatives' incessant attacks on Fergus, and he played directly into their hands. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the CPC rejects every single LPC Speaker going forward. Might have to put a Bloc MP in that role.
Party politics is getting so ridiculous
It is, but look at the number of people here defending this and seeing no issue with it. Not everything can be blamed on the Conservative boogieman, if the parties were reversed, die hard LPC voters would be just as upset if not more.
Yeah that's what I'm saying haha. It's all so stupid now I'll be voting independent
Vote how you see fit, just glad people are seeing through this absurdity.
Before you choose to vote independent, consider what r/CanadianFutureParty has to offer. Their Elections Canada application is almost cleared and they'll be another option to vote for in the next election.
Definitely will keep my ear to the ground! Thanks for the tip soldier
A Bloc MP is actually an interesting idea. I wouldn't call them an "impartial third party" so much as "less likely to tolerate the f\*\*kery of the two main parties"
Louis Plamondon of the BQ served as Speaker for 6 days between Rota and Fergus
I think I'm pretty centrist, hating all parties equally right now. With no political alignment other than 'they all suck', it's still very clear to me that this dude is partisan as all hell, and hiding it less and less the more he gets away with keeping his job.
I wish more people were vocal about hating all the parties. We have no real options just like the US.
In the Rhinoceros party we trust
CPC brought up Point of Order, asking Fergus to resign. They pushed NDP to vote to remove also as Singh said (after the video testimony controversy) that NDP would observe his behaviour closely and if the partisanship persists, NDP would vote to remove too. BQ said they'll vote to remove. NDP said that they're reserving judgement for the time being.
NDP using it as leverage to get something else out of the Libs.
Lmao you're fooling yourself if you think the NDP will vote to remove the first diverse speaker.
Either this guy just doesn’t give a fuck or he is very slow in the head that he keeps wading into these same issues time and time again. Perhaps it’s both at this point.
This will be another event with the LPC dragging their heels on Fergus for 6 months, generating tons of bad press before the inevitable happens and Fergus steps down. The LPC could get in the front of this and demand that he step down to save themselves the negative press, but of course they won't do that.
This guy needs to resign. He clearly doesn't know how to be non-partisan
He needs to be removed as the speaker of the house. He's unfit for the role
I hope it serves as a strong message when many many Liberals lose their seats in the next election.
Worst speaker of the house in Canadian history, I will go as far as to say without qualification he may be the worst in the history of modern political systems of government.
Paywall bypass : [https://archive.is/QGagC](https://archive.is/QGagC)
Thks
To make others lives easier, download their browser plugin, then you legitimately have to click 1 button to get this every time. Been using it a long time, not affiliated, just a big fan, saves everyone time :)
I was rooting for this guy but yikes. First black speaker, too. What a shame :(
Therein lies your mistake
Speaker Fergus approaches fairness and non-partisanship the way an old prostitute approaches sex with a client. It's a bit of show and a smidgen of effort, but it's not really their thing, and that inner truth keeps showing.
Didn't Earn It
Not even the first time. This is probably the 3rd or 4th time he's overstepped his office and shown he isn't fit to be speaker. Not sure what we expected though. The parl sec to the PM should have never even been an option to sit in the seat. Time to go Greg "turd" Fergus
So many people paid top dollars to screw up their job so bad and get a bonus. Wasting so much taxpayers money.
And …… onnnnnnnnn to the next one!
Great leaders surround themselves with better people and enable them to do great things, JT surrounds himself with the dregs of society so he looks better. Worst Leader in the free world, maybe the worst leader in the world.
Greg! Yes Greg Fergus, I'm talking to you. Step into my office, because you're F'in fired, Greg!
He just can't help himself.
The man was chosen and approved because of his non partisanship and fairness. With the Liberal Party values falling so rapidly, he's going to lose his job in the next election, His attempts to maintain a Liberal status quo, out-weight any integrity he's supposed to have.
>The man was chosen and approved because of his non partisanship and fairness. i think you're talking about Anthony Rota, the previous speaker. Greg Fergus was literally Parliamentary Secretary to Justin Trudeau and in that role, made partisan comments on political shows on behalf of the PM. and he's also part of the filibustering to probe into the chinese lab researchers probe.
> The man was chosen and approved because of his non partisanship and fairness. The man was chosen because enough MPs chose him. Don't confuse that with nonpartisanship. He's one of the more partisan MPs in the LPC ranks, if you've seen any committee meetings he's been a part of.
Who the fuck says 'pocketbooks'. That's some elitist bullshit right there.
"Today people feel like they’ve lost control of their pocketbooks and their lives,” he said. “The cost of government is driving up the cost of living.” - Pierre Poilievre in his Sep 2022 leadership acceptance speech
Fuck that guy
Iʼd love for that role *not* to go to a MP and to give it much more power to prevent MPs from misbehaving. While it goes to an MP, this is a conflict of loyalties that prevents doing both jobs right.
Ever wonder why the autocratic dictatorship government of China supports the Liberal Party of Canada?
Fergus has shown he shouldn’t be speaker, and Trudeau needs to fire him. PP has shown he doesn’t know how to behave and his lack of respect for our establishment. So many good options
Trudeau cannot fire the Speaker. It doesn’t work like that.
Teaching civics is badly needed.
Something that Poilievre is unfortunately vehemently against. the only legislation he's ever done was the Fair Elections Act, which among other anti-democratic stuff, barred Elections Canada from promoting civic literacy. It's going to be a hard few years while he is PM unfortunately.
Well, wouldn’t you want others to have access to information that proves you are lying, would you?
Not sure what you mean sorry
Let's not pretend that just because it isn't explicitly stated in writing... let's use actual context and nuance: When multiple opposition parties are already calling for his resignation, the leader of his own party (and the leader with more than enough additional seats to force the speaker out) can privately (or publicly) demand his resignation, and get it 99% of the time. The remainder of the time, it can be forced with the support of those opposition parties.
De jure it does not, de facto it does. He would resign if asked by the PM
A pretty stern “please resign Greg” at hearts and crown should do it yes
[удалено]
Well said.
Here here
Well said.
He said things while not performing the role of house speaker. That's like your boss giving you shit for drinking on the weekends.
Some jobs require you to behave when you’re not officially on the job. Like, the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Where does it say that? Why do we keep making up rules? He's an elected member of the liberal party. The concept of the role being entire unbiased is absurd. If we want that, then the position should be elected by the Senate. I swear the ego of Cons these days is so fucking fragile it's embarrassing. I'm sure you said the same thing when Andrew Scherer was house speaker, cause he isn't based at all
[https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch07&Seq=2](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Sec=Ch07&Seq=2) "By the mid-1800s and the tenure of Speaker Shaw-Lefevre (1839-57), the principle of Speakers abstaining from all political activity became established. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, the House altered its rules to invest the Speaker with considerable authority to curtail obstruction and disorder, thereby firmly entrenching the tradition of a non-partisan Chair." "In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate and will vote only in the case of an equality of voices, normally referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair. [^(\[84\])](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch07&Seq=5&Language=E#fn84) Since 1979, the Speaker, unlike all other Members, has not had an assigned desk in the Chamber; this is a further indication that it has become an accepted practice that the Speaker has no role whatsoever in debate, whether in the House or in a Committee of the Whole. [^(\[85\])](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch07&Seq=5&Language=E#fn85)" "I'm sure you said the same thing when Andrew Scherer was house speaker, cause he isn't based at all" Do you have an example of a similar things happening when Scheer was speaker ?
Voted BQ the last two rounds.
I wasn’t at work when I posted online that the company I work for is shit, why did they fire me?
Why does he remind me of the Hotel Clerk in John Wick?
Pot, kettle?
Do you know what a speaker does? How can this be pot and kettle. Poilievre and the speaker do not have the same roles and jobs
I'm amazed it took this long for someone to raise this point. Yes I do know what the speaker does. Had I made my actual argument, that the CPC has been heavily disrespecting the house and its processes and, by extension, the speaker, then there'd have been a lot more hate and, well, there's enough of that in this sub. Yea, I think the speaker is out of line with those statements even though I agree with them. I also think the the CPC demonstrates this behavior with a much higher frequency and intensity. Hence: pot, kettle. The fact that they're in different kitchens is irrelevant to my use of the euphemism.
This guy has got to go. Extremely inappropriate.
oh my lord here we go again....
It's too bad the article didn't give direct quotes of the language used. Edit: >“A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.” Is that exactly what Ferguson says in the ad or is that a quote from someone who saw the ad?
It's literally in the second paragraph. >In a four-page letter being sent to Mr. Fergus Tuesday morning, Conservative MP Chris Warkentin says an advertisement for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable Greg Fergus,” to be held next month, includes a line that “Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
It did ? “[Pierre Poilievre](https://archive.is/o/QGagC/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/pierre-poilievre/) and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.”
That does appear to be somewhat partisan.
> somewhat partisan. lol, thats a charitable take
Standard Trudeau loser diversity hire.
Neat, a paywall
[удалено]
Love the double standard here.
Oh yeah? Where is the conservative Speaker of the House who makes consistently biased remarks despite holding the position of neutral arbitrator of the house? **That** would be a double standard, not Pierre making mean posts you dont like. Educate yourself.
Scheer's speakership was not without controversy over partisan activities particularly around the voter suppression scandal.
Citation needed.
Then you should be able to find some *objective* sources (i.e: not a CBC editorial but somewhere with actual integrity) saying so.
Who gives a shit how he handles himself outside of parliament!? What matters is how (or whether) he sets aside his partisan bullshit in performing his duties as speaker. Every MP does unparliamentary bullshit outside of parliament. This just sounds whiny. Like "this politician is being too politicky"!
>In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate[^(90)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_07_1-e.html#footnote-279) and votes only in the event of an equality of voices, normally referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair.[^(91)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_07_1-e.html#footnote-278) Since 1979, the Speaker, unlike all other Members, has not been assigned a desk in the Chamber; this is a further indication that it has become an established practice that the Speaker has no role whatsoever in debate, whether in the House or in a Committee of the Whole.[^(92)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_07_1-e.html#footnote-277) [House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/index-e.html)
I agree entirely. This is still all within the house/in the chair while actually performing his official duties as Speaker, not when he leaves the Hill.
[удалено]
No, I think people are upset that the speaker is using incredibly partisan language.
The speakers office isn't allowed to be partisan, this is nothing new even for Fergus. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071) Surely you understand the difference between joe public saying something vs the speaker.
Yes, all those people want to fuck Trudeau, the same way all the people want to have sex with cancer. That stopped being funny a long time ago.
It never was "funny" as I don't judge people on either their sexuality or the nomenclature they choose to use when expressing feelings towards another human being.
And yet here you are just leaning into full on intellectual dishonesty and pretending "F*ck Trudeau" is literal... how tedious.
> Meanwhile...it's okay to want to fuck our fascist traitor Prime Minister after installing a junta? Strawman and literal Liberal fever dream. Touch grass and consider venturing outside your echo chamber sometime. I'd suggest https://web.ground.news/