Common(s) behaviour

In the Commons today, Transport Minister John Baird repeatedly said that if people had accusations to make, they should make them outside the chamber, where they would not be protected by parliamentary privilege.

As we've seen today, not  everyone in the chamber is privileged, and this should be cause for some reflection here, along the lines of Aaron Wherry's very clever observation: "Unsophisticated debate will not be tolerated in this place."

I've been around Ottawa a long time. I get the rules, even the arcane ones.  You can't make references to someone's absence in the chamber. You can't talk to someone directly -- it all has to be done through the Speaker.  You can't call someone a liar. You can't address someone by name; you have to refer to his or her  representation.  But all those rules are founded on a principle of respect between adversaries.  The idea is that they are not individuals,  but part of an institution.

And I was initially taken aback by the demonstration today -- thinking "you can't do that" in the Commons. But I'm thinking that they've done us a favour.

There is no more respect among rivals in the Commons. There is no advantage for any politician to demonstrate respect or show civility or act as part of the institution.  It's a whole other discussion, but there isn't much incentive for political reporters to do the same.  Judging by the tenor of some comments to this blog, too, civility doesn't seem to be front of mind in any political discussion online either.

So why wouldn't members of the public, in the public galleries, decide to join in the  mayhem? The point of parliamentary privilege is that it has to be earned. Rather than punish the protesters, I think I'd argue that all the participants in the Commons have lost their privileges, because the foundation of respect is gone.

Here's a thought: take away the privilege for all MPs in the Commons. Don't have John Baird tempting people to take their accusations outside, because that basically says the outside world is better than the Commons at civil discussion. Out here, where most people live, you're punished for nasty, gratuitous, personal attacks. If you're going to punish people who scream and demonize political opponents, don't start doing that in the public galleries. Start with the people sitting there in the MPs' seats.

   

Comments

[Catherine]

Ms. Delacourt, you just hit a home-run with this entry.

[Sarann]

Bang on. And no members have been less civil than the conservatives and their punishment is that no one believes them anymore. At least I don't. AND 66 % of Canadians don't seem to have a voice anymore so I suppose that's why those young people demonstrated, also. I am reminded of the million person's march in London and no one listened. Seems to be how it goes these days.

[Gabe]

"If you're going to punish people who scream and demonize political opponents, don't start doing that in the public galleries. Start with the people sitting there in the MPs' seats."

Didn't that used to be part of the Speaker's responsibilities?

[Mike-D]

I could not agree more. Frankly, having sat through countless live broadcasts of QP, I find it impossible to believe that many of those seat holders, according to their official bios, were actually trained for one or more professions before winning election as MPs. Their in-House behaviour -- exemplified by asinine pit bulls like Baird and Poilievre (the Party pairing is accidental; they are just the most egregious examples at the moment but the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are no less guilty of encouraging appalling House behaviour) -- if practised outside the Chamber, would long ago have earned them the sanctions of their professional peers (and, for that matter, would have seen them tossed out of any playground sandbox). If our elected representatives are genuinely interested in finding out why voter apathy is on such a steep rise, they need look no farther than their own mirrors.

[scoubs]

When only one question is raised about climate change in QP, while a bill is being tabled? about climate change it is totally acceptable behavior. Good on the protesters. To bad about the fake blood tactic kind of limits their credibility.
http://envirogy.wordpress.com

[Darwin O'Connor]

MP Glen Pearson also just wrote about this issue: http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/canadas-natural-governing-party/ and pointed his finger in your general direction as the cause of this.

[Wascally Wabbit]

Mr. Baird better be careful - because - while he has been practicing his ranting in the House of Commons Question Period - the Libel laws in Canada have been tested and those bad bad Judges - who always seem to be testing the laws that politicians make - especially CPC politicians - have added some clarity to the abysmally archeic libel laws of Canada - Fair comment is now permitted.

I have been sued in the past in what my lawyer described as one of the most egregious cases of libel chill he had ever come across - so I have some experience with the sort of action that Mr. Baird is apparently threatening. His hope is to stifle dissent by tying it up in the courts - a technique that the CPC and this government has used several times before.
This socalled respect for the Institution of Parliament is all a parody under this Conservative government - because in most parliaments - Questions are usually matched with answers - but not for the last 3 1/2 years it seems - this government is incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question.