The Speaker takes a stand (II) -

The Speaker takes a stand (II)


And you’ll never guess who’s unhappy.

Ottawa-area Tory Pierre Poilievre vigorously defended the right to criticize. He suggested the Speaker might have succumbed to pressure from fellow Liberals.

“Part of a democracy is promoting ideas. The other part of a democracy is pointing out the flaws in some of those ideas,” Poilievre said.

He said it should be up to voters to scrutinize and judge MPs for their behaviour in the Commons, not the Speaker.

There was, in fact, a lengthy debate after Question Period today on the Speaker’s ruling. A transcript wasn’t immediately available, but will be posted here on Friday.


The Speaker takes a stand (II)

  1. Whatever will Pierre Poilievre do now? The speaker has just removed any usefulness Poilievre has to Stephen Harper. It will be fun watching the Tories try to contain their frustration over this ruling. Can an exploding blood vessel on the Conservative front bench be far off?

  2. Before we blow this out of proportion, from the Glossary of Parliamentary Procedure:

    Statements by Members: “A daily 15-minute period preceding the oral question period, when Members who are not Cabinet Ministers may make statements on matters of national, regional or local importance. Statements are limited in length to one minute and opportunity to speak is given equally to all private Members.” (emphasis mine)

    So Peter Miliken’s affront to democracy is to try and make 15 minutes of the day of Parliamentary proceedings a bit more civil.

    If these statements were meant for “pointing out flaws in some of those ideas”, then they would offer a chance for members to respond. If you don’t offer a chance for rebuttal, then you’re not engaging in a debate of ideas, you’re just make uncontested statements.

    Therefore, Miliken has done absolutely nothing to limit debate. Therefore, our democracy is still in the same shape as it was on Wednesday.

  3. It’s this 15-minute ‘statement’ period that the CONs had turned into ‘hatchet period’… Of course others, especially the Liberals, have sunk to that level over the past 2 years, but only one party has made it their aim, to use drive-by smears that can’t be answered, that have nothing to do with actual goings-on or real life issues, to continue their oral assault style. I can only guess how they’ll react — maybe throw a lawsuit or something?
    Time to get a new trick, boys.

    • Indeed I remember reading some of those statements when Dion was the Opp Leader. I couldn’t believe that these MPs were able to get away with such vile insults.

      • That is why I am wondering why this sort of action is only being taken now.

        As you say, the vilest insults were made against M. Dion during these “Members’ Statements” so it leads one to ask if back then it wasn’t only the Conservatives who thought they could benefit from that behaviour.

  4. Poilievre says it’s up to the people, not the Speaker? Is he for real. Besides, I bet the Speaker has been flooded with complaints from the people.

    The CONS have been using taxpayer funded parliamentary time to do their negative campaigning.

    The House of Commons belongs to the people, not the CONS.

  5. And only yesterday I told ITG that – with Van Loan poised to jump into the Ontario pond, she would left with just Poilievre and Tilson to tweak!

    now she’s down to Tilson….

    Pretty soon she’ll have no fun left in liveblogging!

  6. Poilievre confuses populists with lynch mobs — but then, he was educated at UofC. That’s where they teach posse comitatus101, no?

    • Wow. Partisanship is fine, but why would you insult an entire school and its alumni? What has that got to do with anything?

      • Why is it partisan and why is it an insult? Seriously. It’s an observation followed by a question intended to imply an institution having a lot of graduates that display a very particular tendency for self-serving confirmation bias accompanied by particularly unkind commentary that IS insulting. And it is my opinion (non-partisan and not borrowed from some ideologue’s talking points memo) that Poilievre and the people who encourage his behaviour are the only real insults here.

        Here are the names of some of the political science faculty:

        Barry F. Cooper, Tom Flanagan, Rainer Knopff, Ted Morton

        Don’t you think they would know a thing or two about posse comitatus?

        Nothing personal Anon, I read and enjoy your comments.

      • Well here’s a genbuine question that some may take as an insult -are the voters from Nepean-Carleton heavy into crack? (I’m serious, are they?)

        • As someone in that riding who wishes to apologise for voting NDP in 2004 (if only half of us had voted Liberal, PP would not have not have won that election), I can say that I have no idea why he’s so “popular.” He was helped greatly in the last election in that the Liberal candidate was such a joke (a man who’d previously lost the local Con nod to PP in 2004 and John Baird in 2006, then suddenly had problems with the Cons’ platform and changed teams), he had no real competition. That said, the Lib candidate, who didn’t know the Lib platform and almost never showed at the debates still got 16,000 votes, so enough people know he’s a fool. Hell, The Ottawa Citizen (!) endorsed the Green candidate in this riding, and said the NDP choice was a good one, too, because the Con and Lib candidates were so awful.

          I guess as long as you bombard mailboxes with self-serving propaghanda, idiots think you actually do stuff. All I know is, I’m giving up voting because of him.

    • There is no evidence that Poillevre was educated anywhere, although he might have gone through the motions.

  7. ““Part of a democracy is promoting ideas. The other part of a democracy is pointing out the flaws in some of those ideas,” Poilievre said.”

    So…. As far as Poilievre is concerned, the way to point out those flaws is by insulting people?

  8. Polievre is Harper’s Parl Secretary, which means it was really Harper who was objecting. Pierre is really the PM’s personal toilet paper roll — useful for the dirty work, but not much else. No point villifying him.

  9. Yes Pollievre does a very good job of … what was it again? Demonstrating the flaws in democracy?

  10. Let’s consider the source shall we?

    Poillevre has done what was best described as a “Pixie dance” on the floor of the Commons to mock the Speaker, and at Committee told the other members to “go eff themselves.”

    One of the worst offenders of decorum in the House doesn’t want the Speaker to crack down? What a surprise.

  11. It seems likely that public pressure made the Speaker’s ruling necessary. When things were going well and Canadians were preoccupied with buying stuff, they couldn’t care less what happened in the House. Now that things aren’t going so well, they’re paying more attention, and don’t appreciate the concept of ‘Pixie dancing’.
    About time!

  12. Way to go Pierre !!!! The more I hear of this young guy the more I like him I think I am going to keep an eye on him I like his ability for research as whatever he gets into he really digs through the flotsam …. Give the speaker some grief as it’s about time he earns some of his salary … Personally I love the absolute hypocrisy of it all when you look at how long the Lib’s have been abusing this as well – makes my heart all warm and fuzzy. Imagine Parliament debating it’s own behaviour – that’s like the Simpson’s episode where the whole family goes to counselling and gets to zap each other for a big screen ROFL

    • I know you’re…well, kind of obtuse (to be charitable) at the best of times, but please point out specific examples of the Liberals abusing the Members’ Statements…just one or two would be fine.

  13. Watching the Harper party try to defend/rationalize their personal attacks disguised as Members’ Statements today was laughable.