A simple fix for dirty tricks?

There is perhaps a reasonably effective way to stop the kind of dirty tricks we saw in Irwin Cotler's riding (referenced in a couple of earlier posts): 

Canada has a do-not-call list, so that we can opt out of being on the receiving end of pesky sales phones calls. Political parties, polling firms (and  media outlets, by the way)  are exempt from the legislation, because it's assumed that their phone activities  have   a public-service component. 

Why not just amend the legislation, so that if any of those   entitities are found to be bending the truth, using the calls to harass or mislead people, that they lose their public-service exemption? As regular readers of this blog know, I also think that political parties should voluntarily adhere to the code of Advertising Standards Canada -- the one that governs the private sector.  It simply isn't sensible, in this day and age, for  politicians to be getting away with lower standards than banks or corporations or small businesses -- especially when it's masked as public service.  

Dirty tricks

Bruce Anderson, a pollster and past Conservative strategist,  is apparently speaking for many people with one heck of an indictment over at The Globe's Second Reading website. 

He takes a cold, hard look at the Conservatives' admission of dirty tricks in Irwin Cotler's riding (see here for details) and offers some cold, hard truth: this is "insulting," "beneath the government" and "wrong at every level."  Particularly searingly, he says that anyone who regularly attends church or school is aware what's amiss here. 

That this episode risks disappearing under the waves of the next 50 news stories is not surprising. But the story deserves more oxygen, more time in the spotlight.

This truly isn’t complicated. If our children tell lies about schoolmates, we punish them not shrug it off. When it happens on the Internet, we call it cyber bullying and bemoan how young people seem to have grown up without decent values. Conservative Christian groups presumably recognize this as something hard to square with the “Golden Rule.”

When I last checked the story, it had garnered more than 1,000 comments, many of them urging us in the media to keep a spotlight on this story. Anderson, I should note, has every reason to believe that there will be a temptation to shrug and move on from this little episode. 

Earlier this year, two University of Ottawa academics went public with their concerns about being the targets of a dirty-tricks witchhunt, also a little Nixonian.

Tories accused of digging up dirt on ‘Liberal’ profs

 

In that instance, we got a categorical denial from the Conservative party and an official denial from the Prime Minister's Office. However, look what the PMO also appended to its denial: 

 Dimitri Soudas, communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said “the PMO did not file these freedom of information requests,” though he added: “There’s nothing wrong with filing such requests, media and all Canadians can do it under the law”

There's the old freedom-of-speech thing again. As some of the commenters over at the Globe have noted, this is not the freedom that your relatives and mine have gone to war to protect. In fact, Canadians have had strong views in the past about states in which people are harassed because they're on the wrong side of power. (And I have a bit of a quibble with Soudas saying this request was legal -- actually, the information being sought went way beyond the bounds of what the law says can be disclosed. The law was written to prevent harassment such as this, in fact.) 

Attaran and Mendes fought back against their pursuer with a challenge -- they would release ALL information if the person identified himself/herself. I ran into Attaran at one of the many social events around the Hill last week and inquired whether the access pursuit had continued. He said they hadn't heard a word since they dared the access-requester to come forward. I guess we can conclude that this crusader for freedom of speech prefers to operate in the dark.

Anderson is right -- the best antidote for this behaviour is a spotlight. That's the media's job, for sure, but it also depends on the public demanding that transparency. 

 

Scottish vs. Canadian decorum

A couple of months ago, researching this story, I visited the Scottish Parliament. It's a fascinating and beautiful piece of architecture, consciously designed in part to address the flaws and anachronisms of the Westminster style of Parliament. It's filled with glass (to emphasize transparency), for instance, and the seating in the chamber is arranged in a semi-circle, as opposed to the confrontational, facing sides of our Commons. The entire chamber of the Parliament is set on top of the public entranceway to the building, to show that power  flows upward from the citizenry. 

When I sat down in the press gallery seats of the Scottish Parliament, I immediately looked for the earpiece, similar to what we have here, so I could hear the proceedings. None was available; I found that odd. It turns out, though, that I didn't need it. Not only are the acoustics better in the Scottish chamber, but there's no need to strain to hear over the chatter and shouting noise we hear in the Canadian Commons. 

Yesterday, Scotland's Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, paid a call on our Parliament (I'll have a story about that visit in the days to come.) We had lunch in the parliamentary restaurant before she went to watch Question Period. I told her at lunch I'd be curious to hear how she thought it compared to her own Parliament. 

Later last night, at the St. Andrew's Day reception on the Hill,  Hyslop  offered her findings. First, she said, she found the questions and answers fine, in terms of substance. She thought that part was actually interesting, by and large. What struck her, though, was the number of people up on their feet, clapping and shouting in response to perceived points scored by the speakers. In the Scottish Parliament, she said, only one person can be standing at a time and this is strictly enforced. So it feels less like a sporting match and more like a conversation in the chamber. 

It's a small thing, but could that be part of the decorum fix for our Commons? Michael Chong's proposals from the last Parliament, by the way, are not likely to see the light of day anytime soon. They are so far down the order paper, Chong said recently, that they are not going to end up on the Commons agenda for years, maybe never.