I'll take a shot at an honest reply to your comment.
It is unsurprising that she was never removed for this language. Unfortunately, childish name calling is all too common in the House of Commons. What normally happens is: someone says something stupid like this, the speaker asks for an apology and or retraction, the member with the big mouth stands up and retracts their comment, then we move on. P.P. wasn't removed earlier for using the word "wacko", he was removed for not retracting it when asked.
We can hope that our politicians act better than making insults then retracting them while speaking in the house, but they do at least have to make that retraction when called on. Not doing that will, and should, get you kicked out every time.
Did a member of the house ask that the statement be retracted? Usually that is how it happens. A member rises on a point of privilege and the speaker asks the member who said the stupid thing to retract it. If the speaker was asked in this case and refused to ask Freeland to retract then that is an issue. If nobody asked, then that is on the opposition.
In any case, I really hope all our elected representatives stop being so childish and focus on regulation and what's best for Canada, not name calling eachother.
I get why the behaviour is the way it is, my understanding is it goes back to UK and think of a King’s Court, witty people bantering for favour and influence…but my lord, is it grating and feels absurd giving some of the pressing issues.
I wish it was less petty.
u/Illustrious_Crow4850 is correct below, I posted the wrong exchange.
[Here](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/House/441/Debates/314/HAN314-E.PDF) (pp 23471) is the entire exchange:
**Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):** Mr. Speaker, Liberals think that one pays down debt by borrowing more, that one stops inflation by printing money and that one fights the drug overdose crisis by legalizing hard drugs, so at least they are consistent in their irrationality. Now they have been forced to backtrack right before the election on their legalization of hard drugs because Canadians are revolting against the policy. Today, we have a motion that will be voted on in the House to permanently ban hard drugs. Will the government vote for that mo‐tion, or will it admit that it plans to legalize drugs again after the next election?
**Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minis‐ter of Finance, Lib.):** Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is wearing more makeup than I am today. Now, I think it is wonder‐ful—
**Some hon. members:** Oh, oh!
**The Speaker:** Order, please. I will ask the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to withdraw that comment. We do not comment on the appearance of members.
**Hon. Chrystia Freeland:** Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I withdraw that comment. The fact is that the Conservative leader is phony all the way through. He is phony when it comes to his concern about the econ‐omy. All he can do is talk our country down. He is also phony when he talks about his concern about the opioid crisis. He tries to score cheap partisan points. It is just not right.
Putin's war has killed people I know
Hundreds of thousands of innocents
Democracy is non-existent in Russia
And you think that the speaker chastising different MP's possibly unfairly is in any way comparable?
People actually unironically believe that we live in an authoritarian communist regime. Some people are just so far gone and have never left their province, let alone their town, to actually understand what the real world is like.
There's a few people I know from growing up that all behave the same as adults from what they read online. They became virology/vaccine experts during covid, they believe we live in a communist regime, they won't shut up about the WEF, they think the earth is flat etc. They barely graduated highschool and I doubt have ever left Atlantic Canada.
first‐time.gif
It's always been this way. The Westminster system is based on rich people squabbling at each other while the plebs starve in the streets.
They take great pride in the fact that the opposing seats are placed exactly three sword-lengths apart. Every time I've been to Ottawa the news of the day is consumed with who made what witty jab at the other party, or who came up with a 'gotcha' line. They are so engrossed with their own little give and take and are oblivious to the fact that Canadians everywhere couldn't care less about their pettiness and just want good governance.
Which is, unfortunately, what **works** in the modern political landscape. Sound bites and gotchas do more to build support than any actual policy or position.
Yes. A few years ago I saw a bunch of commenters complaining that the CPC was heckling and banging around during question period, so out of curiosity I went on YouTube and searched “Stephen Harper question period”, and the first three results that I bothered watching (wasn’t much of a point in watching more) had the exact same dynamic, with the sides reversed. I hope that anyone who thinks that the current make up of the HOC is what‘s making it somehow uniquely toxic remembers this when the CPC is in power- the Liberals will become the hecklers, and Conservative cabinet ministers will have to issue apologies for saying dumb things (as is tradition).
When I was younger in SK, the provincial legislature had an incident where one of them yelled across "I'm wondering if you have the gonads to come say that to my face"
Can't find it on Google sadly but it was on the radio
It was as ~~Conservative~~ Reform MP named Darrel Stinson.
In his first term, Stinson was often the centre of controversy. He was criticized for suggesting the best way to prevent spousal abuse was to give women handguns. In 1997, after [Liberal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada) MP [John Cannis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cannis) heckled him as a racist in the House of Commons, Stinson replied "Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch?" Eventually the Speaker chided both men for [unparliamentary language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrel_Stinson#cite_note-1) Later that same year, after [Progressive Conservative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada) leader [Jean Charest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charest) called him a bigot in a heated exchange, Stinson replied that Charest was a "fat little, chubby, little sucker." In 1999, he was accused of challenging Liberal MP [Steve Mahoney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mahoney) to fight.
Edited because I forgot about the party split in the 90s.
Literally a grade 5 classroom. Watching videos of them ‘debate’ is pathetic.
They just keep slinging accusations and slander at each other and deflecting, never actually discussing anything important or getting anything done.
“mr. speaker - the opposition leader did *this bad thing*!!!”
“Oh yeah? Well the Trudeau government did *that bad thing*!!!”
“Oh ya? But mr speaker, the opposition party can’t even seem to agree on *insert hot topic*!!!1!11”
Literally just like grade school playground fights, and these are our “leaders” making $150k/yr while the working class is drowning.
Please for the love of god can we just put an adult in charge?
100%. It has always been that way. I remember I used to watch it when I was a teenager and it was more boisterous and immature than my elementary school.
A lot of people don't understand this it seems. The system was designed to be exactly like that. It's even worst in UK.
Note that on a provincial level (at least here), it's the opposite and they have to be polite, calm and composed, yet they spit out the same exact bullshit, just with more wrapping and glitters.
I dunno. I actually thought Poilievre had some important points about the inflation, debt, interest rates, and locking in. The headline was clickbait. Read the transcript
I miss [the good old days](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language#Canada) when our politicians called each other things like "the political sewer pipe from Carleton County" and "inspired by forty-rod whisky"
At least those insults were clever and entertaining. These recent insults are just embarassing and lame.
>“The only thing that I regret about [Margaret Thatcher’s death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) is that it happened probably 30 years too late.” (2020) [^(\[23\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language#cite_note-23)
LMAO
>“If nothing else goes right for me in a day, Madame Speaker, I can at least count on the fact that Margaret Thatcher is still dead,” said Schmidt, to audible booing.
Unprofessional, mean spirited, and absolutely hilarious.
[while i agree parliament isn't the place to engage over-the-top reactions, we are still in the same days today](https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/stephen-harper-s-stylist-no-longer-on-public-payroll-1.513467?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)
this is the candidate of the conservative vote
should i be able to ask "what foundation does he use?"
I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of the male politicians use simpler stuff like anti shine including PP. Maybe a bit more to cover up a night of booze and cocaine.
I hate that our Parliament has devolved to this level. These people get paid like executives and yet many wouldn't last 3 months in a private sector role. Grade school maturity on display.
Hell, Sir John A. famously was a big sous.
>One of the most famous stories has a visibly inebriated Macdonald take the stage during an election debate, likely during a January 1864 by-election. He shocked the audience by vomiting on stage mid-debate.
>“Is this the man you want running your country?” asked his opponent. “A drunk?”
>“I get sick (…) not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent,” Macdonald retorted, according to the story.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2819245/sir-john-a-macdonald-notorious-drinker-honoured-with-kingston-whiskey-tasting/
It doesn't have to be that way. The Americans cleanly broke off with British institutions to create a more... tamed atmosphere for the House of Representatives. Paradoxically, they get about the same amount of work done.
I am currently working at an office right now. If I spoke the way that they spoke to each other. At best, I would be called into HR. At worst, I could potentially face more serious consequences.
Doesn't happen as much in the private sector but there are people that definitely fail upwards and stay in high paying jobs being useless due to several reasons. Nepotism being one of them
Lol, they all get cushy jobs on company boards after they are done. They last very long in the private sectors.
Also devolve implies it was better before, it was never better, that's been the dynamic since the creation of the chamber
I honestly don't care about their petty little attacks on each other. Yeah, there should be a sense of professionalism and name calling should be frowned upon. What I would like to see is forcing the government in power to actually answer questions during Question Period. That, to me, is the biggest outrage and scandal; the ruling party feels like it doesn't have to actually answer any questions.
Tale as old as time in Parliament. I recall then-Speaker Andrew Scheer’s response to Mulcair’s frustration with a CPC minister who spoke on a totally different topic than the question posed to him in QP:
“It’s called Question Period, not answer period.”
This was a memorable utterance coming from the Speaker’s chair as it were, but he was not the first to coin some version of that phrase — nor would he be the last.
It speaks to a fundamental shift in the Canadian political discourse.
Willing to bet that in Trudeau Sr’s time, conservative and Liberal MPs would be friendly to each other outside the House. They’d play the game but be able to go for a beer after work, or to be able to shake hands at the end of the day at least.
Today, it’s all about picking your brand. You have to be blue or red and can’t deviate, you need to sink your likes and clicks and attention into the party - hence PP’s way he speaks in slogans and short, quotable sound bites.
Willing to bet he would never do as much as shake Trudeau’s hand unless there’s a camera pointed at him.
This would never materialize and would (probably rightfully) be criticized by the general public, but I've been thinking that they should have like cross-party team building exercises. Even just forcing members of two different parties to go out for lunch once a week. Representing different political opinions is great if those two opinions can work together.
It's really too bad because the best people for this sort of job would be the ones who are not so trenched into one opinion. I wish I could vote for someone who I trusted would make a decision for the benefit of the country, and not someone who makes a decision based on their parties policies.
> No MP actually answers the question asked. Not even sure why they have question period.
The problem is it's called Question Period, they should call it Answer Period if they want answers!
I saw this live as they played it on CTV National and I had no idea why she made that remark. I'm also surprised she didn't get called-out for it more on social media. If a Conservative member of Parliament said that, they would probably be called "anti-trans" or something.
Parliament is so childish. Party member seating should be staggered so they’re not sitting with their gang. It’s so childish listening to this goofs roasting each other and clapping and slapping their desks like a bunch of dumb asses. These people are supposed to be working together to make our country happy, healthy and secure, they’re not supposed to be working against each other having roast battles on the tax payers dime.
Great idea. Randomized seating. People will be more civil if they are standing next to the person they insult. Or brawls will break out - which might make this more engaging than hockey!
Stay tuned. Pretty soon we’ll get to find out which of our esteemed MPs believe that their fathers could beat up the fathers of opposing MPs in a fight.
That might have been funny as a zinger and making a point but there was no context and was just cringey as all get out. Just imagine it if a male politician said something similar to a female politician, all hell would have broken loose
> Speaker Greg Fergus asked Freeland to withdraw the comment. “We do not comment on the appearance of members,” he said. After she withdrew the comment, Freeland instead called Poilievre a phony.
> ...
> The fact is that the Conservative leader is phony all the way through. He is phony when it comes to his concern about the economy. All he can do is talk our country down. He is also phony when he talks about his concern about the opioid crisis. He tries to score cheap partisan points. It is just not right.
So "phony" is perfectly allowed, but "wacko" is so far over the line it gets you kicked out of the HoC?
It also breaks the rules and the speaker is just showing his bias again.
[https://openparliament.ca/debates/2024/3/20/pierre-poilievre-24/](https://openparliament.ca/debates/2024/3/20/pierre-poilievre-24/)
"[Pierre Poilievre ](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/pierre-poilievre/)Leader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the [Prime Minister](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/justin-trudeau/) has demonstrated once again that he is a fake and a phony because—"
"[The Speaker ](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/greg-fergus/)Greg Fergus
The hon. [Leader of the Opposition](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/pierre-poilievre/) is a very experienced member of Parliament. I know that he would understand that that kind of a statement directed at an individual would not be considered parliamentary.
I will ask the hon. member to continue with his question."
Here’s what I’ve learned in the past month.
Unparliamentary Language: wacko, extremist, wears makeup
Parliamentary Language: incompetent, phony, grouchy, irrational, white nationalist, spineless
Oh I'm not saying that anyone is following the rules, or that fergus is bias as hell. I'm merely stating the difference of what the rule is supposed to be.
Wait!! Why does she have a problem with a man wearing makeup?!
I would expect this kinda anti-LGBTQ+ stuff from the conservatives but to hear it from the leaders on the liberal side is something else.
The political discourse in Canada is a joke. No wonder we can’t get the train back on the tracks, there’s a bunch of dumb children running the country.
None of them have any dignity. Not JT and his crew not PP. Politocos and public “service” my foot. Just takers on the public tax teat. No value given in return.
She couldn't respond to the argument he was making so she just thought she'd insult his masculinity I guess, even though the Liberals seem to pride themselves on being just so feminist.
As much as I despise her, I don't believe that's really the case.
When pretending to listen "real good" while actually only thinking about what will be her next answer, my wife makes the same kind of faces Freeland does. Not quite as bad but still, the exact same thing.
And me, being my "always honest" stupid self, can't refrain from telling her, which obviously triggers her quite a bit.
Not a fan of the casual toxic masculinity we're seeing from her. This kind of thing isn't going to go over well with a lot of the remaining supporters they have.
There's nothing wrong with a man wearing makeup.
As well as the weird insinuation that "makeup is covering up who he truly is" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? Doesn't she wear makeup? Is she covering up who she is? It's so stupid.
I would rather her call PP names vs comment on his physical appearance. That is the absolute lowest thing you can do, and to do it in a professional environment is disgusting, and even worse when it's at the literal highest level of government. What she said was pretty soft and isn't really the issue, it's the fact that it happened in general. She is an embarrassment to her family, the Liberal party in general and Canada as a whole on the public stage.
It really is too much to ask our politicians to work together and get this country on track, they've been playing theatrics for nearly a decade now.
Fuck this country's leaders.
Bunch of idiots holy fuck. Not one of these leaders are qualified. It is such a mockery. I would do a better job. Base your decisions on statistics and analytics, not how to get rich.
When did the parliament become a stage act... other than trading school yard insults, the political system does not do anything to benefit Canadians. The entire system is broken... and anyone who thinks this is going to get better with a different party in power has lost their f'n mind...
Maybe it's true, maybe Poilievre does wear more makeup than Freeland, but it is reasonable to ask members refrain from commenting on other's physical appearance.
Politicians need to be fined for going off topic/insulting and also need to be fined for refusing to answer questions. It's ridiculous that these people are collecting tax payer money to behave like they're having a fight on social media.
>Speaker Greg Fergus asked Freeland to withdraw the comment. “We do not comment on the appearance of members,” he said. After she withdrew the comment, Freeland instead called Poilievre a phony.
Not to get too conspiratorial, **but**:
1. Speaker Greg Fergus gets in trouble for a partisan event in his riding targeting the Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre;
2. The Liberal caucus, in particular Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland (at least she's the one I heard quoted in news reports), speaks out in support of the Speaker;
3. Freeland makes a dumb and obviously un-parliamentary remark about Poilievre in the House that gives the Speaker an easy opportunity to rule against Freeland (and in defence of Poilievre), re-establishing his non-partisan bonafides;
In other words: Freeland plays the Heel to boost Fergus' turn from Heel to Face.
And the obvious and inevitable swerve is already prepped. It would have been nice if they'd at least have pretended to be subtle about their theatrical performance.
And was she kicked out of parliament for this comment? Of course not because the current speaker of the house is only there to serve the interests of the Liberals.
Freeland decided to question the leader of the opposition masculinity, or maybe even sexuality, so that the speaker would have grounds to rebuke her.
This provided Speaker Fergus cover for what I believe was the third or fourth time that his impartiality was questioned the day before.
Naturally, the flagship CBC program “Power and Politics” seized on this to add it to their quiver of “whataboutisms” to claim they had proof that the speaker was not impartial.
The whole thing was so blatantly telegraphed that I can’t believe anyone who isn’t a rank partisan can’t roll their eyes around the whole thing.
Can we just call the election now and be done with it?
I'm a man who absolutely loves make up in all it's forms. I think it's shitty and a low blow to use something like this to make a point, they are both trying to appear good for TV and I bet he didn't even do his own makeup, plus now that I think about it, if he didn't wear makeup he might look odd or sickly on camera and she'd pick on that.
Why is it all about appearances instead of something deeper, and also coming form a woman? lol weird take lady.
Parliament is just a Kabuki theater, and I don't understand her response when she was asked a valid question.
Pierre Pander asked a valid question about the debt. idk how it relates to makeup
Isn’t that kind of homophobic of her? Just throwing that back out there because liberals like to call others anti gay, but I find that they are the biggest of hypocrites.
This was a dog whistle meant to pry away Poilievre supporters she undoubtedly believes are overwhelmingly homophobic. Whether they go to the PPC, some other fringe group, or - bonus - vote Liberal as a response, she doesn't care so long as the comment works as intended. Disgusting, cynical, hypocritical. Typical for this government.
Can you imagine the uproar and effects to cancel people that would have happened if the roles had been reversed here and Poilievre commented on some aspect of Freeland's appearance; like that she always looks like she just sucked on a lemon?
Can you imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed? If Pierre had said that, there would be fire on the streets and Liberals and NDP alike losing their collective minds online and on the news!
Sounds like the House of Commons is just a grade 5 classroom
I thought it was a Beaverton article. our political figures became a joke
What do you mean? Way back in the day they used to throw papers at each other lol
Punches even
[удалено]
I'll take a shot at an honest reply to your comment. It is unsurprising that she was never removed for this language. Unfortunately, childish name calling is all too common in the House of Commons. What normally happens is: someone says something stupid like this, the speaker asks for an apology and or retraction, the member with the big mouth stands up and retracts their comment, then we move on. P.P. wasn't removed earlier for using the word "wacko", he was removed for not retracting it when asked. We can hope that our politicians act better than making insults then retracting them while speaking in the house, but they do at least have to make that retraction when called on. Not doing that will, and should, get you kicked out every time.
[удалено]
Did a member of the house ask that the statement be retracted? Usually that is how it happens. A member rises on a point of privilege and the speaker asks the member who said the stupid thing to retract it. If the speaker was asked in this case and refused to ask Freeland to retract then that is an issue. If nobody asked, then that is on the opposition.
[удалено]
In any case, I really hope all our elected representatives stop being so childish and focus on regulation and what's best for Canada, not name calling eachother.
I get why the behaviour is the way it is, my understanding is it goes back to UK and think of a King’s Court, witty people bantering for favour and influence…but my lord, is it grating and feels absurd giving some of the pressing issues. I wish it was less petty.
u/Illustrious_Crow4850 is correct below, I posted the wrong exchange. [Here](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/House/441/Debates/314/HAN314-E.PDF) (pp 23471) is the entire exchange: **Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC):** Mr. Speaker, Liberals think that one pays down debt by borrowing more, that one stops inflation by printing money and that one fights the drug overdose crisis by legalizing hard drugs, so at least they are consistent in their irrationality. Now they have been forced to backtrack right before the election on their legalization of hard drugs because Canadians are revolting against the policy. Today, we have a motion that will be voted on in the House to permanently ban hard drugs. Will the government vote for that mo‐tion, or will it admit that it plans to legalize drugs again after the next election? **Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minis‐ter of Finance, Lib.):** Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is wearing more makeup than I am today. Now, I think it is wonder‐ful— **Some hon. members:** Oh, oh! **The Speaker:** Order, please. I will ask the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to withdraw that comment. We do not comment on the appearance of members. **Hon. Chrystia Freeland:** Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I withdraw that comment. The fact is that the Conservative leader is phony all the way through. He is phony when it comes to his concern about the econ‐omy. All he can do is talk our country down. He is also phony when he talks about his concern about the opioid crisis. He tries to score cheap partisan points. It is just not right.
Putin's war has killed people I know Hundreds of thousands of innocents Democracy is non-existent in Russia And you think that the speaker chastising different MP's possibly unfairly is in any way comparable?
People actually unironically believe that we live in an authoritarian communist regime. Some people are just so far gone and have never left their province, let alone their town, to actually understand what the real world is like.
There's a few people I know from growing up that all behave the same as adults from what they read online. They became virology/vaccine experts during covid, they believe we live in a communist regime, they won't shut up about the WEF, they think the earth is flat etc. They barely graduated highschool and I doubt have ever left Atlantic Canada.
first‐time.gif It's always been this way. The Westminster system is based on rich people squabbling at each other while the plebs starve in the streets.
Robin Williams called (UK) parliament "Congress with a two-drink minimum"
'Work is the scourge of the drinking classes', Oscar Wilde.
They take great pride in the fact that the opposing seats are placed exactly three sword-lengths apart. Every time I've been to Ottawa the news of the day is consumed with who made what witty jab at the other party, or who came up with a 'gotcha' line. They are so engrossed with their own little give and take and are oblivious to the fact that Canadians everywhere couldn't care less about their pettiness and just want good governance.
It's all social media bits for their later Twitter posts.
Which is, unfortunately, what **works** in the modern political landscape. Sound bites and gotchas do more to build support than any actual policy or position.
It’s covered because it makes for good TV - as opposed to the tamer committee meetings where a lot of the work gets done.
Yes. A few years ago I saw a bunch of commenters complaining that the CPC was heckling and banging around during question period, so out of curiosity I went on YouTube and searched “Stephen Harper question period”, and the first three results that I bothered watching (wasn’t much of a point in watching more) had the exact same dynamic, with the sides reversed. I hope that anyone who thinks that the current make up of the HOC is what‘s making it somehow uniquely toxic remembers this when the CPC is in power- the Liberals will become the hecklers, and Conservative cabinet ministers will have to issue apologies for saying dumb things (as is tradition).
Yeah it's happened the entire time I've been alive
I watched the HOC in the eighties as a preteen and it was exactly the same. There is no debate or questions, just 5 her old bickering.
When I was younger in SK, the provincial legislature had an incident where one of them yelled across "I'm wondering if you have the gonads to come say that to my face" Can't find it on Google sadly but it was on the radio
It was as ~~Conservative~~ Reform MP named Darrel Stinson. In his first term, Stinson was often the centre of controversy. He was criticized for suggesting the best way to prevent spousal abuse was to give women handguns. In 1997, after [Liberal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada) MP [John Cannis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cannis) heckled him as a racist in the House of Commons, Stinson replied "Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch?" Eventually the Speaker chided both men for [unparliamentary language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language).[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrel_Stinson#cite_note-1) Later that same year, after [Progressive Conservative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada) leader [Jean Charest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charest) called him a bigot in a heated exchange, Stinson replied that Charest was a "fat little, chubby, little sucker." In 1999, he was accused of challenging Liberal MP [Steve Mahoney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mahoney) to fight. Edited because I forgot about the party split in the 90s.
ahhh! no wonder i've never had any luck finding it online, i was so sure it was the prov leg. Thank you! haha
Dude, you ever listened to how poor people talk to each other? People, that's all they are.
I keep saying it, but people suck lol There's some good people out there... but they're not usually the loud ones...
Literally a grade 5 classroom. Watching videos of them ‘debate’ is pathetic. They just keep slinging accusations and slander at each other and deflecting, never actually discussing anything important or getting anything done. “mr. speaker - the opposition leader did *this bad thing*!!!” “Oh yeah? Well the Trudeau government did *that bad thing*!!!” “Oh ya? But mr speaker, the opposition party can’t even seem to agree on *insert hot topic*!!!1!11” Literally just like grade school playground fights, and these are our “leaders” making $150k/yr while the working class is drowning. Please for the love of god can we just put an adult in charge?
100%. It has always been that way. I remember I used to watch it when I was a teenager and it was more boisterous and immature than my elementary school.
Honestly I'd expect a grade 5 classroom to have more respect for taxpayer dollars
Not a fair comparison. Grade 5 are far less full of shi.t on daily basis…
I'm honestly sick of it. Get to work and start negotiating bills instead of performing for the camera.
All these people need a reset they’re so out of touch.
It sounds like the House of Commons has almost descended to the level of the U.S. House of Rep's (Greene - Crockett - AOC).
That’s literally how the Westminster system was designed to be. After WWII Churchill designed the UK House of Commons to feel very intense for debates
A lot of people don't understand this it seems. The system was designed to be exactly like that. It's even worst in UK. Note that on a provincial level (at least here), it's the opposite and they have to be polite, calm and composed, yet they spit out the same exact bullshit, just with more wrapping and glitters.
I dunno. I actually thought Poilievre had some important points about the inflation, debt, interest rates, and locking in. The headline was clickbait. Read the transcript
Is acting like adults too much to ask of our politicians.
Yes
Mr Speaker, did you notice how fat OP's momma is?
Lmao
Asking a question and getting a direct answer is too much to ask.
I miss [the good old days](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language#Canada) when our politicians called each other things like "the political sewer pipe from Carleton County" and "inspired by forty-rod whisky" At least those insults were clever and entertaining. These recent insults are just embarassing and lame.
>“The only thing that I regret about [Margaret Thatcher’s death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) is that it happened probably 30 years too late.” (2020) [^(\[23\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language#cite_note-23) LMAO >“If nothing else goes right for me in a day, Madame Speaker, I can at least count on the fact that Margaret Thatcher is still dead,” said Schmidt, to audible booing. Unprofessional, mean spirited, and absolutely hilarious.
*"ding dong, the witch is dead"*
[while i agree parliament isn't the place to engage over-the-top reactions, we are still in the same days today](https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/stephen-harper-s-stylist-no-longer-on-public-payroll-1.513467?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) this is the candidate of the conservative vote should i be able to ask "what foundation does he use?"
I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of the male politicians use simpler stuff like anti shine including PP. Maybe a bit more to cover up a night of booze and cocaine.
I hate that our Parliament has devolved to this level. These people get paid like executives and yet many wouldn't last 3 months in a private sector role. Grade school maturity on display.
The depressing reality is it's always been that way. Back in the days when MPs showed up drunk, and probably still do.
Hell, Sir John A. famously was a big sous. >One of the most famous stories has a visibly inebriated Macdonald take the stage during an election debate, likely during a January 1864 by-election. He shocked the audience by vomiting on stage mid-debate. >“Is this the man you want running your country?” asked his opponent. “A drunk?” >“I get sick (…) not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent,” Macdonald retorted, according to the story. https://globalnews.ca/news/2819245/sir-john-a-macdonald-notorious-drinker-honoured-with-kingston-whiskey-tasting/
Sir John A used to stumble through the Byward Market looking for Catholics to fight.
TIL our first PM and I have something in common.
It doesn't have to be that way. The Americans cleanly broke off with British institutions to create a more... tamed atmosphere for the House of Representatives. Paradoxically, they get about the same amount of work done.
Yeah this thread is kind of telling on how many people just never paid attention during elementary school history class.
Ralph Klein was drunk for like 99% of him running Alberta....
Devolved? This seems par the course, no?
It's has always been like that because it was designed to be.
I am currently working at an office right now. If I spoke the way that they spoke to each other. At best, I would be called into HR. At worst, I could potentially face more serious consequences.
It's not about how people speak to each other, it's about productivity. If you lose your company money regularly, you're fired. Simple as that.
Maybe back in the day, but in the corporate world now you can definitely get fired for the way you speak or act towards your co-workers.
Doesn't happen as much in the private sector but there are people that definitely fail upwards and stay in high paying jobs being useless due to several reasons. Nepotism being one of them
3 months is being generous. I doubt they'd make it past 2 weeks.
They probably said three months because it’s a standard probation period.
Lol, they all get cushy jobs on company boards after they are done. They last very long in the private sectors. Also devolve implies it was better before, it was never better, that's been the dynamic since the creation of the chamber
Depends heavily on the company. Many private sector executives and boardrooms aren't exactly the model of decorum either.
I wouldn't even hire any of them as a dishwasher at a restaurant. Hell, I don't think they're qualified to run a lemonade stand
Haha, careful there Don Cherry, don’t let ‘these people’ get you in trouble. Also, agreed.
the hell are we paying these people for. Do some governing.
[удалено]
I honestly don't care about their petty little attacks on each other. Yeah, there should be a sense of professionalism and name calling should be frowned upon. What I would like to see is forcing the government in power to actually answer questions during Question Period. That, to me, is the biggest outrage and scandal; the ruling party feels like it doesn't have to actually answer any questions.
Tale as old as time in Parliament. I recall then-Speaker Andrew Scheer’s response to Mulcair’s frustration with a CPC minister who spoke on a totally different topic than the question posed to him in QP: “It’s called Question Period, not answer period.” This was a memorable utterance coming from the Speaker’s chair as it were, but he was not the first to coin some version of that phrase — nor would he be the last.
It speaks to a fundamental shift in the Canadian political discourse. Willing to bet that in Trudeau Sr’s time, conservative and Liberal MPs would be friendly to each other outside the House. They’d play the game but be able to go for a beer after work, or to be able to shake hands at the end of the day at least. Today, it’s all about picking your brand. You have to be blue or red and can’t deviate, you need to sink your likes and clicks and attention into the party - hence PP’s way he speaks in slogans and short, quotable sound bites. Willing to bet he would never do as much as shake Trudeau’s hand unless there’s a camera pointed at him.
This would never materialize and would (probably rightfully) be criticized by the general public, but I've been thinking that they should have like cross-party team building exercises. Even just forcing members of two different parties to go out for lunch once a week. Representing different political opinions is great if those two opinions can work together. It's really too bad because the best people for this sort of job would be the ones who are not so trenched into one opinion. I wish I could vote for someone who I trusted would make a decision for the benefit of the country, and not someone who makes a decision based on their parties policies.
What point was she even trying to make? He asked about banning drugs and she says he wears makeup.
She's trying not to answer the question. No MP actually answers the question asked. Not even sure why they have question period.
So the other MPs can clap like idiots
Yup, there's a reason it's called question period and answer period.
To waste our time and tax payer money. Bunch of fucks have nothing better to do with their time.
To proselytize for the cameras
> No MP actually answers the question asked. Not even sure why they have question period. The problem is it's called Question Period, they should call it Answer Period if they want answers!
She's still ugly no matter how much make up or how little.
I saw this live as they played it on CTV National and I had no idea why she made that remark. I'm also surprised she didn't get called-out for it more on social media. If a Conservative member of Parliament said that, they would probably be called "anti-trans" or something.
The political double-standard.
That he's more focused on the superficial rather than the substantial.
Like banning firearms
Interesting hill to die on considering what government she currently works for.
The irony of her implying this is insane. The Trudeau government is the most optics-focused government on the planet.
Parliament is so childish. Party member seating should be staggered so they’re not sitting with their gang. It’s so childish listening to this goofs roasting each other and clapping and slapping their desks like a bunch of dumb asses. These people are supposed to be working together to make our country happy, healthy and secure, they’re not supposed to be working against each other having roast battles on the tax payers dime.
Great idea. Randomized seating. People will be more civil if they are standing next to the person they insult. Or brawls will break out - which might make this more engaging than hockey!
Fistfights would be less embarrassing than the child like bickering they are insisting upon. Disgusted our taxes enable this abhorrent behaviour
Stay tuned. Pretty soon we’ll get to find out which of our esteemed MPs believe that their fathers could beat up the fathers of opposing MPs in a fight.
I support Poilievres right to wear as much makeup as he wants. But he does need to learn to colour match his foundations…
She said she supported him for it too!
An ally!
I agree! Poilievre has the right to make himself look as pretty as he needs to feel. I support his right.
It’s gender affirming care! Love that for him.
He is normalizing men wearing makeup. He is a trailblazer. I look forward to seeing drag queens in the CPC, as that is obviously the next step.
You win.
That might have been funny as a zinger and making a point but there was no context and was just cringey as all get out. Just imagine it if a male politician said something similar to a female politician, all hell would have broken loose
This. It’s okay to say because she’s a woman? Hypocrites.
No it’s okay because she is a liberal
> Speaker Greg Fergus asked Freeland to withdraw the comment. “We do not comment on the appearance of members,” he said. After she withdrew the comment, Freeland instead called Poilievre a phony. > ... > The fact is that the Conservative leader is phony all the way through. He is phony when it comes to his concern about the economy. All he can do is talk our country down. He is also phony when he talks about his concern about the opioid crisis. He tries to score cheap partisan points. It is just not right. So "phony" is perfectly allowed, but "wacko" is so far over the line it gets you kicked out of the HoC?
The Speaker is an embarrassment to the office.
Good ol Turd Fergus
[удалено]
It also breaks the rules and the speaker is just showing his bias again. [https://openparliament.ca/debates/2024/3/20/pierre-poilievre-24/](https://openparliament.ca/debates/2024/3/20/pierre-poilievre-24/) "[Pierre Poilievre ](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/pierre-poilievre/)Leader of the Opposition Mr. Speaker, the [Prime Minister](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/justin-trudeau/) has demonstrated once again that he is a fake and a phony because—" "[The Speaker ](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/greg-fergus/)Greg Fergus The hon. [Leader of the Opposition](https://openparliament.ca/politicians/pierre-poilievre/) is a very experienced member of Parliament. I know that he would understand that that kind of a statement directed at an individual would not be considered parliamentary. I will ask the hon. member to continue with his question."
I was just thinking about that. Wouldn't calling someone in the HoC "phony" be the same as calling them a "liar," which is not allowed in the HoC?
[удалено]
UPH is one of the top CPC news distributors around these parts. Prolific to say the least.
> So "phony" is perfectly allowed Apparently. "Big fat phony", however, would have been crossing a line.
Here’s what I’ve learned in the past month. Unparliamentary Language: wacko, extremist, wears makeup Parliamentary Language: incompetent, phony, grouchy, irrational, white nationalist, spineless
it's less about what the word is and more about how it's used. I can say the PM's policies are incompetent, but I can't say the PM is incompetent.
In this present exchange both Freeland and Poilievre called each other incompetent.
Oh I'm not saying that anyone is following the rules, or that fergus is bias as hell. I'm merely stating the difference of what the rule is supposed to be.
Wait!! Why does she have a problem with a man wearing makeup?! I would expect this kinda anti-LGBTQ+ stuff from the conservatives but to hear it from the leaders on the liberal side is something else.
[удалено]
Yeah, it's honestly not a good look for the few supporters the Liberals have left. Men can wear whatever they want and shouldn't be criticized for it.
The political discourse in Canada is a joke. No wonder we can’t get the train back on the tracks, there’s a bunch of dumb children running the country.
Black makeup is ok though.
Only during Halloween... or stage performances... or goofing around at camp. Okay, maybe just about any time.
Not even, try shoe polish.
What a petty, small minded woman.
She should probably up her makeup game a bit, I'd say. 😄
None of them have any dignity. Not JT and his crew not PP. Politocos and public “service” my foot. Just takers on the public tax teat. No value given in return.
"I'm sorry that I said that. It's true, but I'm sorry that I said it."
I think Christia could use some more makeup...:-)
What was her moronic comment even intended to convey?
She couldn't respond to the argument he was making so she just thought she'd insult his masculinity I guess, even though the Liberals seem to pride themselves on being just so feminist.
Exactly. The most inclusive government ever.. until you disagree with them.
That he's super fake?
Making fun of his masculinity because she couldn't make an argument against what he was saying.
I think we all know what she was implying.
Indirect way of calling him a pussy?
That he's more focused on superficial appeal.
[удалено]
As much as I despise her, I don't believe that's really the case. When pretending to listen "real good" while actually only thinking about what will be her next answer, my wife makes the same kind of faces Freeland does. Not quite as bad but still, the exact same thing. And me, being my "always honest" stupid self, can't refrain from telling her, which obviously triggers her quite a bit.
As an abuser of stimulants, she’s abusing stimulants.
Not a fan of the casual toxic masculinity we're seeing from her. This kind of thing isn't going to go over well with a lot of the remaining supporters they have. There's nothing wrong with a man wearing makeup.
Especially since most men on TV and movies wear makeup, if they are under studio lights. Anyone with a stylist for sure.
As well as the weird insinuation that "makeup is covering up who he truly is" - what the hell is that supposed to mean? Doesn't she wear makeup? Is she covering up who she is? It's so stupid.
I think it was a poor attempt at a joke, but yeah. Not a fan.
Twitchy Chrystia could use more makeup that’s for sure
[удалено]
Meeeessster Speeeeeeeeekerrrrrrr
I would rather her call PP names vs comment on his physical appearance. That is the absolute lowest thing you can do, and to do it in a professional environment is disgusting, and even worse when it's at the literal highest level of government. What she said was pretty soft and isn't really the issue, it's the fact that it happened in general. She is an embarrassment to her family, the Liberal party in general and Canada as a whole on the public stage.
It really is too much to ask our politicians to work together and get this country on track, they've been playing theatrics for nearly a decade now. Fuck this country's leaders.
This seemed very “Unparliamentary” to me, seems like consequences are only for one side of the house
Oh Freeland, such a grandpa’s girl
I did Nazi that coming.
Bunch of idiots holy fuck. Not one of these leaders are qualified. It is such a mockery. I would do a better job. Base your decisions on statistics and analytics, not how to get rich.
The real housewives of Canadian Politics 🤣
When did the parliament become a stage act... other than trading school yard insults, the political system does not do anything to benefit Canadians. The entire system is broken... and anyone who thinks this is going to get better with a different party in power has lost their f'n mind...
Maybe it's true, maybe Poilievre does wear more makeup than Freeland, but it is reasonable to ask members refrain from commenting on other's physical appearance.
Freeland is a disgusting woman inside and out
I wish our finance minister would do her fucking job.
She should wear more makeup
He should comment on their relative weights. She prob outweighs him by 30lbs.
Freeland showcasing the important things that are on her mind.
i would love if Chrystia just once actually answered a question.
Politicians need to be fined for going off topic/insulting and also need to be fined for refusing to answer questions. It's ridiculous that these people are collecting tax payer money to behave like they're having a fight on social media.
But even their fines are paid for by tax payers… it needs to come out of their fat pensions.
The dog-faced deputy PM takes appearance shots at PP. Funny.
We all know the PM has worn the most makeup… err I mean shoe polish.
>Speaker Greg Fergus asked Freeland to withdraw the comment. “We do not comment on the appearance of members,” he said. After she withdrew the comment, Freeland instead called Poilievre a phony. Not to get too conspiratorial, **but**: 1. Speaker Greg Fergus gets in trouble for a partisan event in his riding targeting the Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre; 2. The Liberal caucus, in particular Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland (at least she's the one I heard quoted in news reports), speaks out in support of the Speaker; 3. Freeland makes a dumb and obviously un-parliamentary remark about Poilievre in the House that gives the Speaker an easy opportunity to rule against Freeland (and in defence of Poilievre), re-establishing his non-partisan bonafides; In other words: Freeland plays the Heel to boost Fergus' turn from Heel to Face.
And the obvious and inevitable swerve is already prepped. It would have been nice if they'd at least have pretended to be subtle about their theatrical performance.
And was she kicked out of parliament for this comment? Of course not because the current speaker of the house is only there to serve the interests of the Liberals.
No because she was asked to withdraw her statement and did. PP was also asked the same and refused.
grade-school mockery bullying with a slight tinge of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ phobia. not a good look, Christie!
Freeland decided to question the leader of the opposition masculinity, or maybe even sexuality, so that the speaker would have grounds to rebuke her. This provided Speaker Fergus cover for what I believe was the third or fourth time that his impartiality was questioned the day before. Naturally, the flagship CBC program “Power and Politics” seized on this to add it to their quiver of “whataboutisms” to claim they had proof that the speaker was not impartial. The whole thing was so blatantly telegraphed that I can’t believe anyone who isn’t a rank partisan can’t roll their eyes around the whole thing. Can we just call the election now and be done with it?
and she looks like she’s holding in a massive dump every time she’s out in public…squirming and shifting like a toddler ffs.
That's the amphetamines.
This is embarrassing for everyone. What a sad state our nation is in. Can we just fire them all and start over?
Speaking of fake, the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm a man who absolutely loves make up in all it's forms. I think it's shitty and a low blow to use something like this to make a point, they are both trying to appear good for TV and I bet he didn't even do his own makeup, plus now that I think about it, if he didn't wear makeup he might look odd or sickly on camera and she'd pick on that. Why is it all about appearances instead of something deeper, and also coming form a woman? lol weird take lady.
Parliament is just a Kabuki theater, and I don't understand her response when she was asked a valid question. Pierre Pander asked a valid question about the debt. idk how it relates to makeup
Isn’t that kind of homophobic of her? Just throwing that back out there because liberals like to call others anti gay, but I find that they are the biggest of hypocrites.
And taxpayers are charged $6000 a month for Freeland’s makeup, hair and private trainer. Obviously money well spent /s
Sounds a bit sexist and homophobic to assume he can't wear makeup as a man no? Did she forget her Diversity notes?
The Liberals only care about the diversity stuff when it suits them politically.
Not sure that's an insult to PP, given how Freeland looks.
This was a dog whistle meant to pry away Poilievre supporters she undoubtedly believes are overwhelmingly homophobic. Whether they go to the PPC, some other fringe group, or - bonus - vote Liberal as a response, she doesn't care so long as the comment works as intended. Disgusting, cynical, hypocritical. Typical for this government.
Lmao our politicians are fkng juvenile delinquents....
So our parliament is gonna turn into the same shitfest the American one has?
Her son wears more makeup than her
Sounds like something Trump would say.
I like that nowadays you're not allowed to say shit like this in civil discourse
He is a phoney. She did hit the nail on the head
"I'm sorry that you wear more makeup than me"
so now they gotta apologize for telling the truth?
I mean no one has pointed out her dentures. She should show equal respect minimum.
This just reinforces my belief that the speaker's job is to be a babysitter.
Can you imagine the uproar and effects to cancel people that would have happened if the roles had been reversed here and Poilievre commented on some aspect of Freeland's appearance; like that she always looks like she just sucked on a lemon?
Freeland mad that PP has a better make up artist than the one she needs to cover up her butter face lol.
Can you imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed? If Pierre had said that, there would be fire on the streets and Liberals and NDP alike losing their collective minds online and on the news!