Article content
Speaker Greg Fergus may not be intending to bias the House of Commons in favor of Liberals. Perhaps his partisanship is so drilled into his bones that he doesn't even realize how bigoted he is.
Advertisement 2
Article content
That doesn't matter. Fergus too often acts in a partisan, pro-liberal manner. Therefore he must go.
Article content
He has put his thumb on the liberal scale many times. And in his all-powerful role, where objectivity and impartiality are key, it doesn't matter whether his biases are conscious or unconscious. He is too tainted to be trusted as a neutral arbiter of commons business.
Since President Fergus expelled Conservative leader Pierre Poièvre from question period on Tuesday, at a time when Poièvre was scoring political points by denouncing the Liberal Party's stubborn commitment to drugs, the chairman had deliberately There are ongoing accusations that he was trying to protect Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Decriminalization remains an unmitigated disaster in eliminating addiction and overdose deaths.
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
This policy increased street crime and deaths instead of decreasing them.
Prime Minister Trudeau began his spat with Poièvre by ignoring the opposition leader's questions about drug policy and instead asking the Conservatives why they would collude with white supremacists. This is a reference to Poièvre's impromptu visit to a maritime tax opposition camp two weeks ago. The RV had a symbol of a white supremacist group on its door.
Recommended videos
Misdirection and false accusations are what the Liberals are all about at the moment, as every policy initiative they take, including last week's budget, is pushing them further and further back in the polls.
Shortly afterward, Poièvre called both Trudeau and his drug policy “bizarre.” (Apparently, truth is not a defense in Congress, unlike in a libel suit.)
Advertisement 4
Article content
Prime Minister Trudeau responded by calling Poièvre “spineless.” But Chairman Fergus simply saw fit to kick Poilievre out.
Fergus was correct that Poièvre's language was “unparliamentary,” but it was no more unparliamentary than Trudeau's.
And, as Fergus said, Poilievre was guilty of “casting doubt on the individual character of members of Congress.” But so did Prime Minister Trudeau. In fact, I prefer Mr. Poièvre's assertion that Mr. Trudeau is “actively courting the support of groups with white supremacist views” to his labeling of Mr. Trudeau and his policies as eccentric. I would like to argue that this is a malicious act of character assassination.
Fergus showed bias by acting solely on Poièvre's violations of parliamentary rules, not Trudeau's.
Advertisement 5
Article content
Compounding Fergus's one-sided attitude, the Speaker of the House of Commons has taken all necessary steps to warn MPs, especially those who are also party leaders, that they are at risk of expulsion. I didn't take the class. Fergus ignored Poilievre's due process and acted arbitrarily.
Fergus also expelled Alberta Conservative MP Rachel Thomas, who challenged the unequal application of House rules.
Former NDP and opposition leader Thomas Mulcair told CTV that Fergus acted in a “clearly, clearly partisan” manner. Mulcair served as House leader before becoming NDP leader, and is well-versed in parliamentary rules.
Fergus clearly exercised a double standard, being harsher and quicker to criticize the Conservatives than the Liberals. Such poor judgment is completely unacceptable for a man with such unwavering power as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It is also part of a pattern of partisan bias since Mr Fergus became Speaker. In December, Mr. Fergus found himself in trouble after he made a memorial video wearing the robe of the Speaker of the House of Commons to mark the retirement of the outgoing Ontario Liberal leader.
Even if we believe that none of these rise to the level of bias that would disqualify Mr. Fergus from his job, the mere perception of bias in his post is sufficient. And even though the House of Commons is not just a liberal institution, there is a perception that there is enough prejudice to force Mr. Fergus to resign in order to maintain public trust.
Article content