The Speaker of the House Responds
Today’s mail included a reply to the questions posed to Mr. Peter Milliken, Speaker of the House of Commons, regarding decorum in the House and the rules governing conduct in Question period. I’m posting his full response in case you’re interested in reading the whole thing, if not, it can be quite fairly summarized, I believe, as “the lunatics are in charge of the asylum, and they think they’re doing a fine job indeed”.
Dear Mr. Mason
Thank you for your electronic message of February 17, 2007, in which you ask about the procedures governing Question Period, the rules relating to the content of responses to questions, as well as the conduct of MPs during this time period.
Many observers of televised broadcasts of the daily Question Period in the House would agree that there is a need for improvement in the level of discourse and decorum during these tumultuous forty-five minutes.
However because of the collegial character of the House of Commons and the broad privileges enjoyed by its Members, particularly in the area of freedom of expression, no-one – not even the Speaker – can act unilaterally to improve the level of discourse during Question Period.
The guidelines that govern the form and content of oral questions and responses are based on convention, usage and tradition. While there are no written rules for questions in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, a set of principles and guidelines has evolved based on practice, precedents and statements made by various Speakers over time.
The Speaker has the discretion and the authority to rule out of order any question posed during Question Period if he or she is satisfied that it is in contravention of House guidelines. Questions, although customarily addressed to specific Ministers, are directed to the Cabinet as a whole.
In response to a question, a Minister may:
* provide an answer;
* defer an answer;
* explain briefly why an answer cannot be provided at that time; or
* say nothingA Member may not insist on an answer, nor insist that a specific Minister respond to his or her question. A Minister’s refusal to answer a question cannot be questioned or treated as the subject of a point of order or of a question of privilege. Although the Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the dictates of order, decorum, and parliamentary language, he or she is responsible for neither the quality nor the content of replies to questions.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recently undertook a study of the rules of the House with a view to seeking new ways of improving decorum. The Committee heard from a number of authorities on parliamentary procedure to obtain their views and advice regarding the effects of certain disciplinary measures with respect to decorum in the House and the potential impact on Parliamentary privileges, including freedom of speech.
In its report, presented to the House of Commons on March 1, 2007, the Committee decided against codifying specific rules relating to Question period, reasoning that the existing powers of the Speaker as set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are extensive and adequate to deal with disorder and decorum.
The Committee did note however, the the Speaker requires the cooperation and assistance of the Members and, in the conclusions of its report, relayed the following message to Members of the House of Commons:
“…We have been entrusted by the public to sit in the House of Commons. It is our duty and obligation – both individually and collectively – to behave in a respectful and appropriate manner in keeping with the House’s position as one of the constituent elements of the Parliament of Canada. Each Member must take responsibility for his or her own actions, and those of their colleagues.”
It is a deep respect for the traditions enshrined in this institution, in particular, the fundamental parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech that dictate this careful and measured approach.
Please note that the issues addressed in your letter are of serious concern to me and to many of my colleagues. Thank you for your interest in the work of the House of Commons.
Yours truly,
Peter Milliken, M.P.
Once upon a time our Members of Parliament may have had the statesmanship necessary to operate in that sort of essentially rule less environment, by their conduct in the House during Question Period during this, and prior, parliaments, it is quite obvious that that is not the case today.
As I mentioned earlier in response to an earlier comment in a different thread, “following traditions can be a good thing, if they serve a purpose”; the manner in which this particular tradition is being abused by those who pretend to represent our interests is a clear indication that it no longer does serve a purpose – it should be discontinued, sooner, rather than later.
If anyone, anyone at all, can put forward an argument that either side of the House is behaving, on an even reasonably consistent basis, “in a respectful and appropriate manner” during Question period I’ll withdraw that suggestion – but I really don’t think I’ll have to.
“Once upon a time our Members of Parliament may have had the statesmanship necessary to operate in that sort of essentially rule less environment, by their conduct in the House during Question Period during this, and prior, parliaments, it is quite obvious that that is not the case today.”
The most important word in this passage is its may. When was this time?
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I find it interesting that the slurs, slander, and outright defamation of the Conservatives went without a peep from the Liberals and NDP for decades–and indeed were encouraged by the party supporters.
But the second that a Conservative sits as Prime Minister, there are issues raised about decorum in Parliament.
This is the very model of disingenuity. “You” (meaning Liberals and NDP) started the brawl, dragged things into the gutter with unrepentent hatred of those who disagreed with you, and now, when your opponent is ready to return your serve, you shout out “no mas!”
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You want decorum in Parliament, then start treating your opponents with respect. You may be pleasantly surprised at their response. But to slander your opponents and expect them to treat you with anything other than contempt…means you’re living in a fantasy world.
That’s the biggest load of horse shite I’ve seen in quite a while RJ, decorum and common decency in the House has been going down hill for years and years and years….. the idea that it is somehow a Liberal thing, or an NDP thing, or a CPoC thing, is foolish beyond belief – they are all acting like spoiled kids.
Are you saying that the Conservatives were some sort of model of decorum and good manners when they were in Opposition RJ?
Bull shite, they asked the loaded, rhetoric filled, questions and complained bitterly about the Liberals tossing back rhetoric filled non-answers, and they said that that sort of thing was unbecoming.
Yet there they are, handing out the very same types of non-answers that they got in Opposition.
Here’s the long and the short of it – I could actually give a smelly Ottawa sewer rats arse who, way back in the day, first decided to abuse their parliamentary privileges, or who followed their lead, or who was, or was not, the Prime Minister or Opposition Leader of the day, and which party they had sold their souls to – it does not matter.
If you’re happy with the lack of common sense and decency in the House then come out and say so, and then make your case that it doesn’t need to change, or, as I have suggested, tossed as an irrelevant piece of tradition that serves no useful purpose.
“You want decorum in Parliament, then start treating your opponents with respect. ”
Excellent suggestion. Since we can’t go back and undo past breaches of decorum, we have to start now. I would think a cooperative effort, sincerely endorsed by the Prime Minister, with the cooperation of all party leaders and whips and the Speaker, might work.
I heartily encourage the Prime Minister to take the initiative in this matter.
You’re right SL, it is bull-shite, to use your word–and you’re the one who’s slinging it. You don’t care who started it because you know you started it.
Liberals and NDP defined the bounds of decorum under Chretien when they proceeded on a 13-year-long attack against the Conservative Party, its predecessors, and the institutions of parliament. Do I see the latest concern for decorum in the house as anything more than a cynical continuation on that attack? Hell no.
And yes, SL, yes I am saying that the Conservatives and the Reform Party before them were a model of decorum and decency compared to everybody else in Parliament–with the possible exception of the Bloc. It was the arrogant Liberals who, complacent in their majority, proceeded to ignore Parliamentary decorum and engage in nothing less than a “scorched-earth” policy against the Reform/Alliance/Conservative leaders. And they were helped in no small part by an NDP–captured by the extremists–who saw no harm in tossing aside Ed Broadbent’s statesmanship model and proceeded to dogpile on the conservatives in the superheated rhetoric of commentators like Robert McLelland. Hell, during the last election, the NDP members in Jack Layton’s victory party couldn’t muster the class to congratulate Stephen Harper’s victory, choosing instead to boo Jack Layton’s attempts to do so.
Add in Carolyn Parrish, Jean Chretien’s Alberta-baiting–hell his entire career for that matter, attacks on Stockwell Day’s religious beliefs, attacks on Peter McKay, and dozens more instances of gratuitous and vicious attacks on Canadians simply for disagreeing with the Liberals/NDP/Greens and you’ll start to get a grasp on the problem. Read through the bile spouted at anything even remotely conservative at sites like babble.ca or on Liblogs/Blogging Dippers or the reflexive banning of conservative thought at those same sites.
It will take years to fix what Jean Chretien (and the Liberals and NDP who abetted him) did to Canada’s Parliamentary institutions.
The facts are not on your side here SL. You started it and now when the fur starts to fly, you want to play the wounded party and appeal to “parliamentary decorum.” You want to find the cause for the lack of Parliamentary decorum–look in the mirror.
Balbulican, I heartily endorse your suggestion.
I guess the useful thing about transforming a “here’s a problem” thread into a “You started it! No, YOU started it…” thread is twofold, as my esteemed interlocutor RJ so ably demonstrates:
- it allows one to resurrect ancient, trite and true trashings of one’s ritual enemies, and,
- it avoids the tiresome necessity of actually accepting any measure of responsibility for the problem, or dealing with it.
That’s getting to be an awfully boring dynamic, however popular it has become among our Conservative friends (whose political representatives seem unable to fart in the House of Commons without an indignant preamble describing how much stinkier were the farts of their Liberal predecessors).
I personally trace the decline in decorum during question period to the introduction of live television coverage during the late seventies. This was actually anticipated as a possible consequence of media coverage by both media and the Conservative opposition at the time; I don’t think anyone knew how bad it was going to get.
I think that would be a worthy and interesting initiative to arise from the blogging community; an actual, organized advocacy effort to pressure the party leaders, whips and speaker.
No RJ, I have no idea in the world who started it, but I can tell you that it’s been going on, and steadily getting worse, for as long as I’ve been paying attention.
It was worse under Mulroney than it was under Trudeau, it became worse under Chretien than it was under Mulroney, Martin and his cabinet picked up the flag of stupidity and carried it to new and higher ground, and now Harper and his are looking at new mountains of incivility to climb, aided (as every Prime Minister for generations has been) by a Leader of the Opposition that either doesn’t know the difference between righteous indignation and spewing garbage because he thinks it makes for a good sound bite, or thinks that the Canadian public is too stupid to figure it out.
Maybe Trudeau started it, who knows, even people who like the man have to admit that he was pretty darned arrogant, I know squat about how Pearson or Diefenbaker conducted themselves, I’d like to think (and maybe I’m just romanticizing “the good old days” here) they were the statesmen that our modern day politicians are not – who knows, and does it really matter?
Well then yer blinders are firmly in place and there’s no help for that whatsoever, you’re the only one who can do anything about that and if you don’t no one will.
If you want to see complaints about the levels of civility and common sense in the House as an attack on the CPoC there’s no help for that either…. more’s the pity.
Imagine that, we can actually agree on something in this little discussion, we’d be a hell of a lot closer if you didn’t think that the Conservatives and the Reformers conducted themselves with stately grace during that period.
My side is the one that says they’re all acting like spoiled brats RJ, if you’re happy to have the business of the House conducted like a bunch of school kids that’s your business entirely isn’t it?
I started it? My dear man, that’s a heavy burden you’ve laid on me, how the hell did I start it. I don’t even have a political side to come down on, they’re all equally useless in my opinion.
I hate to return you to the world of reality here RJ but, by consensus and practice, all of the political parties condone the lack of common sense and civility in the House.
Do you disagree that any of the major parties could change that by simply refusing to engage in the stupidity?
– and, given what we now know (thanks to Mr. Milliken), what do you think of simply tossing the whole thing completely as a tradition that maybe once played a useful role in the process but has been so corrupted by the partisan party concept that it no longer serves a purpose?
I’ve yet to see a code of conduct that effectively circumscribes the behaviour of practiced liars and clear delusionals, of the type presented by some of this blog’s more….ah….motivated contrarians….except for one that facilitates a more frequent application of censure and expulsion.
I see that Stageleft is still plagued with the usual creatures that make reading this blog less enjoyable than it should be.
“I see that Stageleft is still plagued with the usual creatures that make reading this blog less enjoyable than it should be. ”
I reckon boog commentin’ gabfests oughtn’t be held up t’ the selfsame standards as House o’ Comments debates. Fact is, most boog comments discussions is as civilized or more civilized than them kindergarten antics we see comin’ from the fellers an’ gals we elected t’ do the most important job in Canada.
Decorum in Canajun society has eroded over the past few decades. Maybe that’s where they got the word “decadent.”
When I was a freckle-faced lad back in the 50’s an’ 60’s, kids an’ teenagers did stuff like call each other dirty names an’ use cuss words an’ smoke cigarettes. We kids was always careful not t’ do them things when there was any adult around — any adult, not just somebuddy’s Ma or Pa.
Today, in my little town, kids walk down the street an’ holler out the f-word at one another an’ they don’t give a rat’s ass if there’s anybuddy around. In the summertime, my 82 year old Mum has t’ hear that bad language comin’ in through the open windows. If anybuddy sez anything t’ the foul-mouthed teens, they risk hearin’ more o’ the same aimed at them — or worse.
MP’s set an example fer Canajun kids an’ fer Canajuns in general. The example they’re settin’ ain’t good an’ it ain’t just their decorum. Their extreme partisanship an’ obstructionist tactics preventthem from doin’ the job we’re payin’ ‘em t’ do.
JimBobby
‘I started it? My dear man, that’s a heavy burden you’ve laid on me.”
Time to come out of the closet, dear friend. I don’t know how he did it, but RJ has obviously penetrated your web alias and determined that you are, in fact, John Crosbie.
My blinders are firmly stowed away SL. How about yours? Are you prepared to see clearly? Really clearly I mean?
What is forgotten in this “rush to civility” is that there has been harm done and for the healing to begin, it is not enough to say “let’s let bygones be bygones”–there must be some form of reparations made. That’s part of the point of dredging up the past that so discomfits the cynical commentariat calling for civility. There has been no acceptance of responsibility, or remorse for statements made in the heat of Parliament. In fact, the demonization of opponents has become applauded.
Conservatives have been demonized by the Liberals/NDP for decades now, and have been subjected to pernicious attacks upon their character that they have to respond firmly and show the Liberals/NDP that the attacks will be responded in kind. Only when the Conservatives feel that a call for civility is sincere and not a cynical “that’s not fair!” shout from bullies who have had their own noses bloodied from their former victims, only then will there be meaningful steps towards returning Parliamentary decorum.
Throughout history, nations have turned away from war in one of two circumstances–either one side has vanquished the other, or both sides realize that open conflict would accomplish nothing but their own destruction and so they turn to different forms of conflict. The situation in Parliament is analogous in that the open conflict between Parliamentarians must reach the level where both sides feel that continuing on would be self-destructive and where neither side has to feel vanquished.
The decline in Parliamentary decorum is necessary as part of the healing of our democratic institutions. The old wounds must be salved. Those who have been inflicting the wounds must take responsibility and demonstrate regret. So far, you and Balbulican have shown little interest in having Parliamentarians show such redress. And that is why I see this as nothing more than another cynical attack on political opponents.
BTW Lurker, you don’t like dissenting opinion? Don’t read it. I may state my case firmly and even passionately, but I do recognize that I am a guest here at SL’s place and I try to treat him and his other guests with respect. It would behoove you to do the same.
An eloquent justification of ongoing bad manners, RJ, but a specious one, I think. The matter is hardly so grave that it requires a truth and reconciliation commission or a transitional period. Your defense strikes me as yet another iteration of the increasingly strained ” Oh, YEAH? Well, WE may be bad, but what about THEM??” meme. It has a certain limited application in rhetoric, I guess, but as an engine of government it has no value whatsoever.
Let’s start the change now.
An interesting theory RJ, how far, and to how many, do we extend this “it is necessary….” freebie to anyway.
– and more to the point, shall we grant the same right of necessary to the Liberals or the NDP or any other party that is not the CPoC when they get in to help deal with the supposed wounds currently being inflicted on them?
– and if we do that when will it ever end?
If a big ole group hug is necessary then let them come together half way across the House floor and hug to their hearts content, and then suck it up and get to work without all the stupidity – and if they cannot do that then simply get rid of the idea of Question period completely.
Instead of real questions being asked we see rhetoric filled grand standing, and instead of real answers being provided we see more rhetoric filled grandstanding, and they all seem to find that an acceptable way of doing business.
From where I sit, given the rules of the process as laid out to us by the Speaker, and given the fact that they do not seem believe change is necessary, Question Period is serving no useful function and should dispensed with.
I love it. Threatening to punch out other MPs and accusing your opponents of supporting child molesters and kiddie porn — as practiced by Reform/Alliance/Conservative MPs, since, oh 1993 or so — is a model of decorum and decency. (Or, for that matter, claiming that your opponents support criminals and terrorists, as Harper does.) How blue-tinted of a set of shades do you have to be wearing to come up with that one?
The Reformers and their successors — not the NDP or Bloc, not even the Liberals — are the ones who’ve been dragging down Parliament for the last 13 years. What else do you expect when most of their MPs debate in the House in exactly the same way they “debate” down at the local bar (for the older ones) or campus conservative club (the younger ones)?
You just keep on believin’ whatever you want to believe there, RJ.
I guess that depends on whether or not you are looking for a big ‘ole cyber “I agree, I agree, look at me, I agree” circle jerk type blog, or one where people of different opinions, ideas, and philosophies discuss (sometimes quite heatedly) those differences.
If that’s what you’re getting at Lurker I’d have to say that personally I quite enjoy having my particular thoughts, ideas, philosophy, and take on the various topics, challenged.
Yeah, I agree.
Follow my theory through to its conclusion. Decorum will return to Parliament where there is no advantage to attacking, and where one side feels no disadvantage to ceasing the attacks. Right now, the wounds are still fresh and the superheated politics of the chattering classes–that would be you and me–act to ensure that the pain continues.
If you want to fast-track decorum, then there has to be the “reconciliation” that Balbulican disparages. Saying let bygones be bygones will not have any more lasting effect in Ottawa as it does in Kosovo. The Liberals, NDP, et. al. have to step up and take responsibility for the attacks that they launched on Conservatives and they have to take concrete steps to clean this up. So far, there have only been half-measures.
Right now, given the history of the rhetoric, Conservatives see no incentive or reason to do so–and their best strategy for reaching the point where attacks are a nullity is to make sure that there is no benefit that accrues to the Liberals/NDP/Greens for making such attacks. This means, pardon the expression, bloodying the bully’s nose.
So, your call for decorum, while I have no doubt you think is well-meaning, I see as either cynical or fatally flawed and will end up creating even less decorum in the long run.
And Ian, I suggest that you look at Hansard to see the history and balance of attacks, and the Contempt that Jean Chretien and his ilk had for Parliament. (Note that I exclude a number of good liberals, including e.g. Bill Graham and John McCallum who really did try to make Parliament work in the Chretien/Martin era). You’ll find that you’re wrong in ascribing responsibility…or you’re incredibly partisan, which amounts to the same thing.
RJ, I have read more than my share of Hansard and watched enough CPAC, and seen enough attacks and counterattacks to conclude that the Conservatives (especially the Reform/Alliance ones) are far more likely to get into the base personal attacks and gutter politics I mentioned above. I get that you think that Chretien’s stonewalling and non-answers (which every modern PM engages in) were a greater sin than others’ — Chretien is a Liberal and when “they” do it, it’s bad, and when “we” do it, it’s necessary. It should be easy for you to find Chretien or Martin accusing Manning, Day, or Harper of the equivalent of (supporting terrorists, caring more for the Taliban than Canadian troops, putting criminals first…) if the Liberals are as you cliam they were. The Libs were tough, partisan and ruthless — the current Cons and their predecessors are all that and far more likely to hit below the belt.
There were Reformers who were gentlemen such as Manning and Ray Speaker, or who evolved into good MPs like Grey, Penson, Strahl, Ian McLelland or either of the Hills. Too bad they’re overwhelmed by the Myron Thompsons on one end and the little college cons like Rob Anders and Jason Kenney on the other.
If you had any sort of case to make, you’d be able to point out how the Liberals (or NDP, or Bloc — but they’re both pussycats compared to the big two) consistently sank to the same levels as the Reform yahoos. (While you’re at it, feel free to find a recent non-Conservative who threatened to punch out an MP on the floor of the house.) There’s only one incredibly partisan person on this thread, RJ — it’s you.
“Right now, given the history of the rhetoric, Conservatives see no incentive or reason to do so–and their best strategy for reaching the point where attacks are a nullity is to make sure that there is no benefit that accrues to the Liberals/NDP/Greens for making such attacks. ”
As nice a rationale as I’ve ever read for continuing an appalling behaviour.
“But Mom…RJ LOOKED at me!”
“…their best strategy for reaching the point where attacks are a nullity is to make sure that there is no benefit that accrues to the Liberals/NDP/Greens for making such attacks. â€
Huh? Since when are the Greens in any position to attack in the House o’ Comments? Is this some sorta pre-emptive defense like them pre-emptive TV ads an’ that ever-so-successful pre-emtive war on EyeRack that Harpoon was so keen on joinin’?
Wait until Lizzie May cleans Petey’s clock before defendin’ against fictitious Green attacks.
JB
Forgive me if I doubt that Ian. You have obviously missed the continual gratuitous slurs against Conservatives, particularly Alberta Conservatives by Jean Chretien and Scott Brison (”There’s not a lot of room for Red Tories in a party with a lot of red necks.”) , the continual denigration of Stockwell Day’s religious beliefs and the portrayal of Christians as “scary” and “hatemongers” before, during, and after the Same-Sex marriage debate to give but a few examples. Or the full-court attack on the integrity of David Emerson, or Wajid Khan for crossing the floor to the Conservative party.
Those pointing out the parallels to Belinda Stronach need to be reminded that in the Election Debates, Stephen Harper declined the opportunity to pursue anti-floor-crossing legislation, saying that MP independence was a necessary feature of Parliament, while the same could not be said about the NDP and Liberals who were all hot and bothered about people crossing the floor–to the Conservatives.
And let’s not forget the full-court attack and then some against Gurmant Grewal, whose only crime was to bring forth evidence that the Liberals were offering inducements for crossing the floor. (Wait for the reflexive cries of “The Tapes were manipulated” to die down). You want vicious and below-the-belt? Look at what happend to Grewal and his career–all because he embarassed the Liberals.
And then there’s Hedy Fry…whose most notable moment in Parliament came when she imagined burning crosses in Prince George, slandering the people of that town and comparing Conservatives with the Ku Klux Klan–a slur that would be repeated by Joe Volpe who said:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/055db_2005-05-04-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1
Want me to keep going? Because this is only from the last couple of years. We haven’t even really delved into some of the more outrageous things in the Chretien era.
Balbulican:
Neener neener. Mom always liked me better.
Surely you would have to agree that if you want an appalling behaviour to stop, make sure there is no advantage to continuing the behaviour. Simply saying that the behaviour is “not allowed” is ineffective at best, and cynical and enabling at worst.
(I’m not sure what sound being represented by the phrase “neener-neener”, although its meaning is clear. Is that a regional variant of that which in this neck of the woods we render as “nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah”, chanted to the melody approximated by (in the key of C) G-E-A-G-E?)
‘Simply saying that the behaviour is “not allowed†is ineffective at best, and cynical and enabling at worst.”
So we have two options on the table.
An initiative endorsed by the party leaders, accepted by their caucuses, and enforced by Party whips and the Speaker; or
A “period of reconciliation” during which your preferred party doesn’t have to be civil, following which, by some mysterious alchemy, decorum is restored to the house.
Hmmm…that’s a tough choice.
What is the advantage to parties on both sides of the floor acting like spoiled kids now RJ?
“What is the advantage to parties on both sides of the floor acting like spoiled kids?”
None. The advantage is to Green Party and to a lesser extent, the NDP. Cons an’ Grits name-callin’ an’ actin’ like kindergarten kids is a turn-off — ’specially, when we’re trustin’ ‘em to do the most important job in Canada.
JB
SL, Balbulican, JB there must be some advantage to the behaviour, otherwise it would not be done, right? People do not do things without reason.
My interpretation is that demonizing the opponents gives a political advantage to the party and its base. It serves as a rallying cry for the party faithful, and as a means of dissuading people from voting for the opponents.
As an example, this has been especially pernicious in the Politically Correct chant of “racist/sexist/homophobic” levelled against anyone who disagrees with the Liberals/NDP/Greens. (Sorry, the current target of hatred is the “Climate Change Denier”).
Which would be utterly ineffective. Because the advantages to breaching decorum would still be there.
No alchemy. It’s understanding simple human behaviour. The lack of decorum burning itself out and the litany of attacks would end up losing their impact–and hence their advantage.
If you want to have decorum return to Parliament, ensure that there is a tangible advantage to decorum. Your first option is doomed to failure. My option (your second option) returns decorum to the House, eventually. If you want to do it faster, find a way to remove the advantage to breaching decorum, but it will be tough to do.
Those are your three options.
I respect your intelligence too much to pretend you think there’s any actual logic in that position, honoured foe.
Come on Balb, think about it. What incentive is there for Parliamentarians following your option to refrain from making political attacks? The accord would last only as long as it was to a party’s advantage to do so and it would do nothing to dissuade party members and supporters from continuing their attacks.
As soon as there was an advantage, the attacks would continue and would be nastier than before.
Am I wrong in my projection?
The advantage, if there is any, is the ability for a party to spout off the most partisan of rhetoric for their dogmatic ideologues to parrot, and the hope for a sound bit on the national news that puts the party banner in the spotlight for 15 or 20 seconds.
At this point most intelligent people place about as much credibility in what is said during question period as they put in reports of the Virgin Mary deciding to appear in a slice of french toast at a truck stop, and I’m afraid that their quest for the 15 second sound bite is starting to cost them more than it gains – for the very same reason.
If we want decorum to return to the House the answer is to provide negative incentives for juvenile behaviour… exactly like you would any other spoiled and insolent child.
A few comments to add to Stageleft’s, RJ.
a) I think there’s good short to medium term political capital in being perceived as the person/party spearheading a move to restore some decorum to Question Period. Canadians are sick of the shouting, the juvenile catcalling, and contempt for actual discussion displayed by the members: that may be one of the few things we can all agree on.
b) No-one’s suggesting that Parliamentarians will ever refrain from political attacks. What we’re suggesting is that they be based on information, logic and points of policy, that they be framed with a bit of intelligence, and that the culture of belligerent “gotcha”backed by roaring, mock indignant cheerleaders in Harry Rosen suits be replaced by something with a bit more dignity. Played right, the government bench could look like adults quietly watching a swarm of howler monkeys in the opposition benches.
A bit late in responding, but thought I’d bring attention to this editorial in National Post:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=170d521c-1b22-45d8-9df6-f349b416d5c3
So, you’ll understand my cynicism regarding the calls for “bringing decorum back to the house.”
Thanks for yet another example of petty, childish, and partisan rhetoric out of the mouths of those who pretend to represent our collective interests RJ – you still seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that I am complaining about the CPoC being an uncivilized bunch of louts, that’s a mistake, I think they’re all a bunch of uncivilized louts more useful in serving as good examples of bad practice than anything else.
I note that we are still awaiting a response from the Honourable Member (CPoC) representing Ottawa West – Nepean with his answers to our questions regarding the levels of civility and common sense in the House.
Given that he’s a high profile Minister dare we hope that it will be an official CPoC response?
“So, you’ll understand my cynicism regarding the calls for “bringing decorum back to the house.â€
Is there a reason you keep trying to cast this as an attack on the Conservatives rather than a statement about the general decline in civility in the House? I ask because you’re pulling out all the stops to drag this into one of the familiar, well-dredged partisan channels, deploying the tedious “They Started It”, the “They Do It Too”, and the “They’re Worse Than We Are” memes.
Caroline Parrish was every bit as big an asshole as John Baird. There. Happy? Now back to the matter at hand…
Well, I only started watching QP about 2 years ago, and it’s been a zoo the whole time. For the first month or two of the CPoC gov’t, there were more answers than non-answers, but then I took a different job so can’t watch QP anymore other than clips at various blogs and the CTV highlights (which tend to be more window dressing than substance).
From what I’ve read regarding the latest remark from the PM (that frankly, was long overdue IMHO as I stated in a different thread), sometimes questions are answered, but the person asking doesn’t like the response so asks again.
I don’t know about you, but after saying “no” to my daughter at least 20 times (over whether or not she should by a rabbit to add to the menagerie that I do all the maintenance for), I lost my temper.
Sometimes, “no” means just that. “No, you can’t buy a rabbit.” “No, my minister will not be resigning.”
Continuing to ask, as my daughter did, almost resulted in a sleepover being cancelled. We know what happened to Dion. And why was his only defense to say he’d been insulted? Because he couldn’t point to a single question from him or his Liberal colleagues in Hansard for the past 18 months regarding Canadian soldiers’ safety.
Yet Harper is the one you’d like to pillory for that remark (on a different thread), rather than all the catcalls & BS the Opposition was throwing out, including the NDP.
Yeah, ok.
“Yet Harper is the one you’d like to pillory for that remark (on a different thread), rather than all the catcalls & BS the Opposition was throwing out, including the NDP.
Yeah, ok.”
Two separate topics, Candace.
One thread, or pillorying, “was for an offensive remark.”
This thread is about restoring a bit of dignitiy to Question period. And except for the Conservative supporters who are trying to convert the thread to a more comfortable topics (the much beloved “but THEY’RE WORSE!” refrain), no-one is suggesting that this is the Conservatives’ “fault”.
So. Any thoughts on how restore some sort of decorum?
How to Restore Decorum in the House of Parliament. (This thought accepts that there was at one time decorum in the House of Parliament)
I put a lot of thought into this question (about 20 minutes over morning coffee) and think I have an idea. When we see disgraceful behaviour we should, each as individuals, send e-mails and/or post-cards – en mass, to the offenders mom. The post card should say – “Sorry we weren’t there to support you when you were raising your child.â€
It’s behaviour reminiscent of the schoolyard bully and that comes as a result of a neglected childhood. Let’s be real, not all elected MP’s are rude and a disgrace, but some do stand out for their outrageous behaviour and language. They learned to behave like that from somewhere and if they were not supported as children and taught better life-skills then bullying can become the norm and if left un-checked that behaviour will manifest itself in inappropriate behaviour in adulthood.
I would also like to suggest for the individual – because they are adults now and need to take responsibility for their actions – that we use the guilty persons image on advocacy posters that support Early Childhood Development funding and that support access to quality daycares.
It’s not like there is a bunch of Clan mothers that sit and watch over their antics in that House. But regardless of who sits in Government in opposition or left field, this body of parliamentarians is elected (supposedly) to reflect the values of our society as a whole. Therefore we have a responsibility as part of that collective body to ensure we are not shamed on the world stage by the cowardly and bullish behaviour or one or two people.
So that’s my idea
“Not all elected MP’s are rude and a disgrace, but some do stand out for their outrageous behaviour and language.”
Without trying to speak for RJ, I think part of what he was saying was that the behaviour will continue as long as the behaviour is rewarded.
The Bairds and the Parrishes are like hockey goons. They’re not the only resource on the team, but as the game is currently played, they’re an allowable tactical asset. That asset is not allowable in every sport, however.
The current culture of the House of Commons permits this crap, and the current media culture rewards it with a sound bite. Is that curable?
Only if there were a want for a cure otherwise what would be the incentive?
If the incentive to misbehave is the reward of a sound bite then maybe there is no want for a cure because this behaviour is acceptable and representative of Canadian culture. Removing the potential of the sound bite only removes the behaviour from our eyes and ears it doesn’t change the behaviour.