I never talked about parisan positions or whatever. I expect both the house and the presidents office to have staff looking into some more details about things and raising the issue with the respective position, if it could be in violation of values of the respective institution or the country in general.
That does not involve any change of authority and i struggle to imagine that there weren’t staff people raising these issues beforehand. So i think it to be more plausible that their voice was ignored by the speaker and president, or the information was deliberately not passed on to them.
Either reason, lack of background check, ignorance by the political leaders or holes in the communications chain, speak of general problems in the organization that need to be adressed. These issues are specific to organizations and it doesnt matter whether it is a political party, a governmental institution, private business or NGO.
Canada doesn’t have a president. The Speaker of the House is the top official when it comes to running Parliament. He definitely fucked up, but it was his fuck-up and he resigned because of it. I don’t think it means we have to re-write the rules for how Canada’s Parliament operates. I mean, it’s not like we actually elected a Nazi, unlike some countries.
You certainly did unknowingly imply that changes need to be made when you said that the “president’s” staff should be vetting the Speaker’s decisions. However, I understand that you aren’t familiar with how Canada’s Parliament is structured. To be clear, it is not currently the Prime Minister’s prerogative or job to vet those whom the Speaker invites to speak in Parliament.
I never talked about parisan positions or whatever. I expect both the house and the presidents office to have staff looking into some more details about things and raising the issue with the respective position, if it could be in violation of values of the respective institution or the country in general.
That does not involve any change of authority and i struggle to imagine that there weren’t staff people raising these issues beforehand. So i think it to be more plausible that their voice was ignored by the speaker and president, or the information was deliberately not passed on to them.
Either reason, lack of background check, ignorance by the political leaders or holes in the communications chain, speak of general problems in the organization that need to be adressed. These issues are specific to organizations and it doesnt matter whether it is a political party, a governmental institution, private business or NGO.
Canada doesn’t have a president. The Speaker of the House is the top official when it comes to running Parliament. He definitely fucked up, but it was his fuck-up and he resigned because of it. I don’t think it means we have to re-write the rules for how Canada’s Parliament operates. I mean, it’s not like we actually elected a Nazi, unlike some countries.
I’m sorry. i meant the premiers office. And again nowhere did i propose that they need to change anything, except for running their staff better.
You certainly did unknowingly imply that changes need to be made when you said that the “president’s” staff should be vetting the Speaker’s decisions. However, I understand that you aren’t familiar with how Canada’s Parliament is structured. To be clear, it is not currently the Prime Minister’s prerogative or job to vet those whom the Speaker invites to speak in Parliament.