As you may know, my seat in the House of Commons is on the migratory path of at least eight species of birds. But, I do have a lovely view from up there! But until this afternoon the seat next to me (MPs are housed at desks built for two) was vacant, which meant more room for me to set up the bird bath and the banding station.
Alas, all that changed just before QP, when the newest MP was marched into the Chamber by his boss, Gilles Duceppe, leader of Her Majesty’s Unloyal Separatists.
Raymond Gravel won his seat in the Montreal area in the by-election of a couple of weeks ago, and did so handily, winning two-thirds of the votes for the Bloc Quebecois. That meant the riding stayed BQ, after the former popular member was killed in a car crash in which a cell phone was implicated.
Gravel is what you’d call interesting. He is gay. He was a former male prostitute in Montreal. He decided to become a priest. And he got special permission from the Pope to run to be an MP. Now he gets to sit beside me, which somehow seems just too perfect for words.
But this post is not about my new seatmate. Rather – with just one day left in the Parliamentary session – I want to make a few remarks further to a topic I mentioned yesterday, which is how we MPs (that would refer to Morons of Parliament) act when on the job. I can only imagine how my now-pious BQ friend reacted to what he saw unfold before him during his first 45 minutes in the House.
Of course, the people we elect to lead the country are generally disgraceful in their conduct. I say this having come back for my second tour of duty as a federal politician, having been away a dozen years. What I’ve seen develop over the past few months is beyond distressing and far worse than what I left in this Chamber back in 1993, when the Reform hordes chased out the PC hordes.
In those olden days any MP who yelled too loudly or said something unredeemingly stupid would get (a) a wicked and withering look from Mr. Speaker, (b) a shushing from the party whip and (c) probably a cuff on the head from one of his colleagues. Applause for good questions and good answers was routine. But standing ovations were reserved for prime ministerial declarations of war or speeches by visiting heavies like Nelson Mandela or Boris Yeltsin.
Today we have descended to the status of locker room found-ins, wearing suits. The Blue Team and the Red Team taunt, heckle, belittle, mock and generally dick around with each other at every opportunity. Poor questions are made worse with gales of laughter. Bad answers are accompanied by wails of disbelief. Anyone getting up on their feet during QP, with the respectful exception of the party leaders, should be prepared for instant humiliation. And the crappiest question or answer – so long as it is delivered with enough partisan fervour and a few buckets of testosterone – is rewarded by having all colleagues leap to their feet, whoop and clap madly.
Some MPs are actually frustrated actors. The two intriguing me the most are Chuck Strahl, the Tory ag minister, and his seatmate Monte Solberg, the immigration minister. This odd couple actually lives together in an Ottawa apartment and apparently practice their routines at night in front of a full-length mirror wearing white socks (at least that’s my personal image). During any QP you can see them razzing the opposition and exaggerating key points.
A couple of days ago Strahl was defending his Wheat Board policy and reminding people that under the Liberals (“13 years of shame…â€) some farmers were actually arrested for selling wheat. Sitting next to him, Solberg had both arms stretched into the air, wrists bared and touching, grimacing in pain and emotional anguish as the imaginary handcuffs were latched brutally upon him. Man, you could see the blood spurt.
Anyway, it’s getting worse. With the Tories trying to keep a minority alive, with the Libs now smelling an election and testing a new leader, behaviour in the House of Commons is painful to observe. Even from the nest I occupy.
A reporter from the Hill Times, the inside-the-Beltway bible, today asked me what can be done to clean things up. And I said only one guy can do this – the Speaker. He is Peter Milliken, a long-time Liberal MP from the Kingston area, who gets a double salary and a fabulous apartment right in the Centre Block, and a country house with sheep, and tons of employees and a parade every day and a cool three-pointed hat, just for doing his job. And so he should.
Mr. Speaker needs to appoint an all-party task force to review House of Commons buffoonery, and come up for binding recommendations for change. These guys need to sit through tapes of their performance, and see themselves the way millions of Canadians see them, without the benefit of the cut-and-thrust of the floor. Because while some hecklers and yodelers may think they are being very clever and scoring points, viewers just call them idiots.
And viewers are also voters. In fact, this is their Parliament. They may not love it, but they don’t want to see it disrespected. Hell, even a former hooker priest and a rebel bearded birder can see that.
113 comments ↓
Garth I know Parliamentary protocol is such that all questions are asked to the Speaker rather than directly to any particular minister, but can questions be asked of the Speaker himself? Since it’s the Speaker’s responsibility to manage the HoC isn’t it reasonable to ask him directly (and on the record) if something can be done to return the decorum to the house? Or is that a breach of protocol?
He is the referee, and can’t be directly questioned in the House. But he is quite open to discussions outside – and I’ve had a few. This decorum thing will never be addressed in any meaningful way until the parties themselves are made stakeholders, and MPs know they will be disciplined for being brats. — Garth
Ya, lets get another task force going. Who pays for that?
Oh right, our taxes.
A task force for this a task force for that, the guy just needs to give the next really annoying heckler a 5 minute lecture on decorum. Low-cost and I guarantee it’d be effective when said heckler ends up in the national news as a result.
I wonder if he reads your blog =P … doubt it.
by the way, was it really necissary to put all of Mr Gravels business on a very public blog? I mean, its probably true, but theres some things that people aren’t proud of, and its just rude to point it out.
Why focus on the fact he’s Gay? Why point out he was a prostitute… or even that he decided to become a preist.
I’m sure he’s got some redeeming quality, why don’t you tell us about that, instead of just taking the piss on the guy who you’ve got to sit next to.
Its also kind of ironic in a post about the locker-room nature of the house. Just saying.
Raymond Gravel’s status and history are household information in Quebec – and he seems quite proud of his life’s journey. As for an all-party committee on decorum, that would cost you nothing. Anything else? — Garth
Garth all good points on the conduct within the house. These types of antics are unacceptable.
On another topic, Garth – if the non-confidence motion is raised by the Bloc – how do you you intend to vote?
I recommend you have a peep at the following post so you know how ordinary Canadians such as myself will be judging those responsible for the fall of the government on this issue (is it so happens):
On Jihad, Afghanistan and Political Opportunism
Oh Garth, BTW – I didn’t get a thank-you note from you on the letter I sent in your defence of MPtv. Am I to take that as an indication of your character, or are you just too busy to answer all your fan-mail?
Thank you. I try to personally answer as much as possible, but it usually means I am a couple of weeks behind. An unfortunate reality, and I only wish they were all adoring fans like you. — Garth
I only wish they were all adoring fans like you
heh that was good for a laugh =p
Garth, I ponder as I type in this box and see your response in near-realtime, do you IRC? Have you considered a chat setup for this site?
But Garth, the behaviour is no better right here, even on your own blog. The name-calling, the personal attacks, routinely referring to certain people as “idiot” and worse, really have no place in a reasonable discussion. Yet these sorts of emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks take place right here on this blog with impunity.
Further, I have seen four letter words used on this blog which are offensive to many of us, and are not any part of a democratic reform that can build mutual respect and goodwill, even with people with whom one disagrees.
There is way too much emotionalism, and not nearly enough reason, and yet democracy can only work with a certain type of people who can separate attacking ideas from attacking persons.
I was watching CPAC the other day and the Speaker was answering questions from high school teachers in the House about his job. He said he has not thrown an MP out because he feels if he were to do so, they would have the cameras and reporters at his/her side as soon as he/she was in the halls. He would much rather just “ignore” the member, which he said he has done once or twice since being Speaker.
But from his Q & A it didn’t seem like he was all that concerned about bafoonery because, after all, when he was a little boy watching from the gallery, it was much worse (including loud banging and obnoxious yelling) because there weren’t cameras.
I think he underestimates his duty of keeping things calm. And I do agree that they look like idiots when they act up in parliament, but like you said, they don’t see that themselves. The whip SHOULD be right in there, but that duty has seemed to drift away over the past few years.
The worst for this type of behaviour is actually in the Ontario legislature, specifically Minister of Health George Smitherman. Have you seen this guy? He just lets everything go while he talks; really bad behaviour.
Ryan
http://mrpresutti.blogspot.com/
Question Period:
The media laps it up….uses the mistakes and gotchas to score their points.
The opposition expect to score points.
The government wants to score points.
The public often tune in to Question Period, but don’t take the time to listen to regular debates.
It generally gets sillier as it gets closer to the Holiday break.
Election talk is always on.
We can deal with it.
Many see Question Period as one theatre on life…God love ‘em…no biggee…
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch11&Seq=2&Lang=E
“More than any other segment of the parliamentary day, Question Period serves as a daily snapshot of national political life and is closely followed by Members, the press and the public, each sitting day of the House. It is that part of the parliamentary day where the government is held accountable for its administrative policies and the conduct of its Ministers, both individually and collectively. [2] As has been noted, “Question Period is a free-wheeling affair, with tremendous spontaneity and vitality. The main topics raised are often those on the front pages of the major newspapers or raised on national television news the previous evening.†[3] Any Member can ask a question, although the time is set aside almost exclusively for the opposition parties to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions, and to highlight the perceived inadequacies of the government. “Question Period serves the opposition and to a lesser extent the government well in its present form… . it is not subtle or clever but it is effective in making points — for both sides.â€
Garth, do you have a position on Conflict Diamonds in Canada. Whats your stance on the defunct private-member bill C-402.
It’s an issue thats been a problem for many years, but is now just starting to get its share of media attention lately in the Canadian press.
The AP via Victoria Times Colonist
Seems it took a private member to bring this bill up the last time, after which it promptly died. Maybe this is a made-for-garth issue?
Bill C-402 via legisinfo
I completely agree with you on this. I watch Question Period every day, and it’s getting ridiculous. I’m sure it’s a lot worse when you’re actually there, because one usually can’t hear exactly what’s being shouted when watching it on TV. This is what I’d like to see:
1. The MPs stop behaving like grade fives.
2. The Conservatives actually answering questions posed at them.
3. The Conservatives not turning around and pointing the finger at the previous Liberal government every. single. time that they’re asked a question.
I usually enjoy the general insanity of Question Period, but I find that it’s become malicious. I would hope for a little more maturity from the people running my country.
Your observations about the cacaphony of what is supposed to be REASONED debate are bang on! Apparently, the Public Safety Minister’s whittlings and etchings, are causing consternation in some circles.
Consider: He held forth on his public wish for a Big Al’s Glacial Melt, while truthfully giving his IQ as -24C (+11.2F)
The man is the earthly embodiment of how the Tower of Babble perpetuates. Opposing parties are finally recognizing his litarary attributes.
The Liberal Party of Canada sent out a media release this morning, (December 12) calling our attention to an article apparently written by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. The piece begins on the subject of global warming, and rambles from there. “Please note that the article appears in the official language in which it was published,” the Liberals pointed out.
We cite various journalistic references in recognition of this great spiritualist, while again expressing our frustration at not receiving a response from Jack Nicholson, of One Flew Over fame.
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/national/article.jsp?article=2006_12_12_1165955884
http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2006/12/11/2565337.html
Thanks for your Daily Insider, Garth!
Alison – that’s an insult to Grade 5′ers!
If I was in gr. 5 I would feel insulted,libeled AND defamed.
And they wonder why smart, intelligent women don’t want to go into federal politics. There you have it.
It would be nice to see less hype in the commons and more rational debate. Its really annoying to see the labellings that goes on all over the place. It seems basically the best way to defeat an idea, is to wait for a chance to ridicule or look for the most extreme view and hold that up for mocking. This goes on among all parties.
Not sure how that will really happen.
Maybe vote for the individual candidates who might operate in a more respectful manner and engage and champion rational debate. Problem is these types either get converted by the rest, or seem to be pushed into obscurity.
The irony is that on occasion I’ve seen similar action hear on this blog and not just in the comments. Well at least that is my take on it. But to be fair, its probably a long ways from what goes on in the commons.
I think I’m done with voting for the party as really I don’t see a big difference between most of the parties. My vote last time was for the individual as much as the party and next time it will be primarily for the individual, the party will not play heavily into the equation.
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=10104&sc=5
I would suggest that if you truly believe that which you state, (not because of any action or in-action by the Speaker in regards to MPtv)it is incumbent upon you to rise in the House and address these issues using the privileges afford you. No-one’s crystal ball is clearer than another’s. With that said, it may quickly become your last opportunity to do so.
Marc
Sheryl – the women are just as bad. I do not think you can divide this behaviour issue on gender lines.
If my memory is correct this issue was discussed in the last debate with each Leader saying it must improve. What happened? There needs to be some lobbying with the press to bring this to the front of discussion. Can we identify the key people making it an issue. I would suggest each one of us send notes to every press outlet to bring it to the open. That is the only way it will be reviewed as I see it. Does anyone have some good suggestions.
I cannot believe that this group of yahoos in parliament are qualified to make decisions and lead our country into the 21st Century.
Hmmmmmmm
The first thing that pops to mind Garth, is appointing politicians to a comittee about themselves. It’s like letting the criminals judge, convict and sentence themselves. Just won’t work due to the fact that, apart from a very few, they act the same way and obviously see nothing wrong with it or they wouldn’t do it.
I would suggest, there are enough people here, including myself, that are just plain fed up with the antics of the HoC. Why not ask the Speaker to form a comittee of the everyday citizen? I would gladly participate in something like that. If the Speaker is responsible for censoring the behaviour in the HoC, he could use the recommendations of the comittee as a guideline. Just a suggestion that might work in my humble opinion.
Garth you are lets say the expert here. What would have the most impact on all Parties to change their ways? They are all as bad as the next so voting one or the other out won’t change it. In your opinion rather than debate it here what can we do to have a positive effect for change?
If Canadians called indiviual MPs and asked them to act like responsible, reasonable adults, it would have an impact. Especially John Baird’s constituents! — Garth
Garth,
“Morons of Parliament” That made my morning. Thank you. Nothing like a hardy laugh to start the day…and a long day it is to be for moi!
Further, I have seen four letter words used on this blog which are offensive to many of us, and are not any part of a democratic reform that can build mutual respect and goodwill, even with people with whom one disagrees.
The unfortunate nature of blogs are that people can hide behind anonymity with their silly little nicknames. These people are not only rude and crude, they do not have the guts to put their names to their words.
Personally, I don’t (and wouldn’t) slag others unless they initiate it. I will occasionally respond in kind, although really not enjoying it.
Attacks do not need to be personal…
Roger: This is a blog not the weekly church newsletter. People are free to write and respond to comments.
Question Period is our elected officials supposedly demonstrating to the Canadian public how our tax dollars are being spent and how wise we were to elect them to represent us.
Question Periods has no redeeming qualities. Questions are not answered. Answers, when given, seldom relate to the posed question. Members are shouted down.
Is this good use of our tax dollars and our M.P.’s time? I think not.
I believe you will hear more raunchy talk during Question Period than you will read on this blog.
2. The Conservatives actually answering questions posed at them.
Alison, one does not have to be partisan in making this observation. The Conservatives are no better and no worse than the Liberals who preceded them, or the government before that or the government before that…
Question Period is where a lot of blowhards get to do a lot of posturing. They are playing to the media to get their 3 minutes of air time.
If the media didn’t report on it, there would probably be a lot less of this crap. Remember, question period is about 45 minutes per day, four days a week. Hopefully, the rest of the business in the HoC is a little less bizarre.
Question Period is the theatre of the absurd.
I have sneaking suspicion that this whole ‘politics’ thing is just fun and games to these guys.
Ambrose: she is the minister of the “Blame the Liberals” department. In my probably unsophisticated view, a lot of that started when Harper walked into the House with nothing much to say, until the Liberal scandals were unearthed and the Gomery Inquiry got started. This allowed Harper and the Conservatives to paint the Liberals as “crooks, etc., etc. The Liberal scandal was what Harper and his gang had been praying for, it was a gift from heaven: bad for the country but good for the PC’s ,and that’s what mattered.
The behavior of many (certainly not all) MP’s is disgusting.
I agree that QP is pure, unadulterated theatre, and the mass media are there looking for the sound byte that will best increase their ratings for the evening news that day.
I think that we need to see this as a human problem, and not just an MP problem, as Freud amply demonstrated that what controls human behaviour is often the irrational and the emotional rather than the rational and the cognitive.
Let’s not forget, however, that the same, irrational forces that allow us to get emotional and to hurt one another can also become a positive quality (if we choose to do so) to enable us to show sensitivity, to love, and to show kindness, even to our enemies.
There would be less emotionalism if we (including the media) were all fully rational people, and prioritized listening only to the speeches after Question Period when there is more calm, less emotion, and more reason, but a narrow rationality is boring, and so we look to the more emotional for entertainment.
Let’s face it! The emotions of all of us are capable of great harm and also of much healing, depending on how that they are used. Why do we not all show more love, even to those that we disagree with, instead of to call them names and make emotional put-downs as if that were an argument to the issues we are talking about?
I can’t help but wonder how these M.O.Ps (morons) would feel if their children acted like this in school and they as their parents had to pay them to do it. It would help maybe we can send them to a principal’s office.
Someone should also tell them if they are doing it to get their 15 mins of fame – that people remember the negatives aspect of things the longest, and acting like a buffoon when the Canadian taxpayer is paying their salary is definitely not going to ganer them more votes – quite the opposite.
I can’t help but wonder how these M.O.Ps (morons) would feel if their children acted like this in school and they as their parents had to pay them to do it. It would help maybe if we could send them to a principal’s office.
Someone should also tell them if they are doing it to get their 15 mins of fame – that people remember the negatives aspect of things the longest, and acting like a buffoon when the Canadian taxpayer is paying their salary is definitely not going to ganer them more votes – quite the opposite.
The theory behing having cameras in commons was that the voters will see the antics of their MP’s and tell them to stop being so stupid. As others have pointed out, the media loves this stuff..maybe we don’t have any real news that needs to be covered…and the MP’s, as you have shown, love to ham it up! Trying to get the cameras out will bring court challenges from the media because they’ll have to find real things to report on.
Assuming your re-elected, why don’t you run for speaker. (I can just imagine you running around bopping MP’s with the Mace!) It’ll also save the problem of that person being called biased as you’ll be an indie!
“Morons of Parliamentâ€
That phrase did nothing for me. It is just another example of putting down the dignity of other human beings as if they were less than us, when being a Member of Parliament is an honourable profession.
We need to beware the arrogance of those who say, “Everybody is crazy but you and me, and sometimes I wonder about you.” We all tend to see ourselves as the “sane” one and others as crazy, and yet this self-centred attitude is part of the problem, and not any part of the solution.
If we want others to be reasonable, need to treat them with a sense of human dignity and a sense of worth, not as morons and idiots. Humans are capable of the very worst, true, but they are also capable of the very best, and we should not see any human as without value and/or without potential for greatness.
Quote: “These guys need to sit through tapes of their performance, and see themselves the way millions of Canadians see them, without the benefit of the cut-and-thrust of the floor.”
Sadly, in these days of the 30 second sound bite, the vast majority of the Canadian Public do not see or hear their elected officials behave in a manner that would get any 4-year-old child grounded until they reach voting age.
What we see in the House of Commons today is nothing compared to the days of Brian Mulroney and the Liberal rat pack. Those days were not so tranquil compared to today if only we will recall.
I know that Brian Mulroney found the daily question period to be quite unpleasant as he was daily vilified, attacked and dehumanized as a crook, a rogue and a rascal. Yet Garth was privileged to serve in that government.
It is unfortunate that we abuse our government leaders, and they, in turn, end up abusing one another. As I say, it is a human problem, and it is a very good thing that we can talk about it so that this cycle of abuse can be recognized for what it is, and hopefully we will put a stop to it, or at least do our part.
Finally, someone mentions John Baird’s atrocious behaviour.
I have been wondering if he had contracted rabies for years — since he was an MPP. His ascension to MP and head of the Treasury Board hasn’t made a blind bit of difference. He still gnashes his teeth and flares his nostrils as he accuses all and sundry of misdeeds — except himself. Maud. Ontario
So…when does the speaker start doing his job?
I think that the Speaker Peter Milliken is highly respected as one who does the best that is possible in a very difficult and testing situation. I know that I am no one to judge him, since he does better than most of his critics.
I was in the House of Commons QP last November 1, and I noted that the Speaker made one honourable withdraw a comment such as “liar” toward an honourable member opposite.
The honourable member did withdraw the remark, and it does show that the Speaker is doing his best to retain some degree of civility, but who of us would want Mr. Milliken’s job?
And when it comes to accusations about Peter McKay’s alleged comment about Belinda Stronach, and the MPs get into an uproar about it, but the remark is not recorded in Hansard.
What is the honourable Speaker to do?
A long time ago, when I was in my teens (Paleontology, anyone?) I had the privilege of observing QP in the BC Legislature. OMFG! Talk about recess at a school for special needs children! The behavior of our “Morons of Parliament” is NOT surprising. PJ O’Rourke referred to Congress as the “Parliament of Whores.” Ours could be the “Legislature of Crack Addicts.”
And these are all people who need the job (apart from Garth) because they are not sufficiently competent to make their own way in life.
Decorum? Reasoned debate? Respectful questioning and considered answers? Dream on!
I do not see why there is such a fuss over this. I do not condone the churlish and childish behaviour – I should be very clear about that.
I do not think the HoC ever made any real decisions during QP. I believe that most, if not all, decisions are made off-line, so to speak. Answering questions? When has any politician ever answered a question? I am over 50 years old and I do not recall any politician ever answering a question directly – even when it is a yes or no question. Not once.
Public Safety Minister defends himself and PMSH.
He suggested the print journal which carried his wish for a “Big Al’s Glacial Melt,” when criticizing his rant, was of low quality because it spelled the PM’s name ‘Steven’ rather than Stephen.
That’s a bit like Ezra the LoveAnt, in the Western Standard, trying to be exceptional, when he suggests Stephane Dion is disloyal to Canada because Dion and his mother carry dual Canadian and French citizenship.
Garth: Thanks for telling us about Flim-Flam Flaherty throwing the Finance Committee Report in the garbage. I really didn’t find anything worthwhile, when reading it, other than limp attempts at justifying the expenditure for their ‘widespread consultation.’
Just wait ’til we get our guy in our crosshairs. He’ll be running from the room.
“when being a Member of Parliament is an honourable profession.”
Then why do they not behave honourably as mature adults and leaders we can be proud of? It is not a hockey game!
As for me I refuse to follow or respect anyone as a leader who does not have the qualities of one!
Meanwhile, real issues boil on. Looks like Mr Day is starting to feel some push-back on the Arar case.
The toronto star
Bill, that is fair enough, and your comments are well taken.
I, however, separate behaviour from identity, and believe that every human being has dignity and worth, simply because they are a human being.
Many children (and adults) resort to childish behaviour simply to get other people to notice them, and make them aware that they are there, and want to be noticed.
We should not have to perform in order to gain a sense of significance or self-worth. We have dignity and worth, simply by virtue of who we ARE, irrespective of BEHAVIOUR and CONDUCT.
What parent would stop loving and respecting his or her child as a human being, simply because they misbehave from time to time?
You say, “Then why do they not behave honourably as mature adults and leaders we can be proud of? It is not a hockey game!”
Point taken. However, again, I would separate behaviour from human identity. I realize that even as adults, many of us have not grown up yet beyond the childish phase.
I also realize that it takes faith to believe that all humans have dignity, worth, value and potential to be better than their behaviour. However, it works!
Rather than scold those who misbehave, I would simply say to them, “You are better than this,” and challenge them to become what they have the potential to become, if only they will choose to grow up, and rise above the childishness of their past (which includes name-calling and personal attacks).
“That’s a bit like Ezra the LoveAnt, in the Western Standard, trying to be exceptional, when he suggests Stephane Dion is disloyal to Canada because Dion and his mother carry dual Canadian and French citizenship.”
Not to jump to Ezra’s defence or anything but I’ve read the columns he wrote about the issue and I have to say I see his point. It’s not that Dion is disloyal by virtue of having the dual citizenship, but it does raise a lot of questions of potential conflicts of interest when dealing with contentious issues involving the French government. Since he ACTIVELY pursued French citizenship and has used it to his advantage he is bound by the laws of France by virtue of accepting citizenship JUST LIKE a new citizen of Canada is bound by the laws of Canada. So what happens when something Dion would do which might be perfectly fine and good in Canada is against French law? Or what happens when theere is a dispute between Canada and France? Can you guarantee he would always and unwaveringly defend and act in the best interests of Canada? Maybe…. maybe not.
The point is by having the dual citizenship in such a high positon in government will raise a lot of questions, founded or unfounded. Someone aspiring to be (God forbid) Prime Minister does have to take the appearance of impropriety into account regardless if his loyalties are divided or not.
I think that we need to see this as a human problem, and not just an MP problem, as Freud amply demonstrated that what controls human behaviour is often the irrational and the emotional rather than the rational and the cognitive.
This whole issue goes pretty deep. Anyone who thinks that the media’s job is to report the news is wearing rose-colored glasses. Their job is to make money for the shareholders, and they do that by attracting more eyeballs.
As a society, we are more interested in the prurient than the day to day goings on. For example, why are entertainers and hockey players worth millions of dollars; how is it that a baseball player is worth $10M or more?
The answer is that there is an insatiable appetite to keep our eyeballs amused.
Personally, I think doctors and firefighters are far more valuable than Paris Hilton and Tie Domi, but we sure don’t pay them accordingly. Jim Carrey can earn $20M for appearing in a movie that lasts just under 2 hours.
As a society, I believe our priorities are seriously skewed.
Where are the members of the notorious Liberal “rat pack” today?
Neither Sheila Copps nor John Nunziata left on very good terms with the Liberal Party of Canada, the very Party that they used to vociferously and emotionally defend as the alternative to the government in power.
Where are they today? What is their standing in the very party that they once defended with childish antiques?
What goes around comes around, and we tend to reap what we sow. I wouldn’t be surprized if many of these people are lonely today, and I would hope that we could be mature enough to reach out to those who have made mistakes in the past, and point out that there is a better way to gain attention, and that they have worth, simply by virtue of BEING, quite apart from DOING or past behaviour.
Defend-Canada –
Interesting that your site claims to defend against media hype when 90% of what you’ve published there is just that. Many of the photos that you have published are of Palestinians or Iranians and have very little to do with the reason’s why we’re in Afghanistan – unless you’re suggesting that we’re in Afghanistan to fight Hamas or Hezbolla. Some of them (the one of the man and child holding a ceremonial dagger, for example) have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. They are racist propaganda that do nothing but perpetuate the unfortunate perception that arab or muslim = terrorist. And the numbers that you have published regarding death rates run counter to your argument – they show that while less than 0.2% of Canadians died of Cancer, more than 2% of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have been killed.
Duceppe is not advocating a withdrawl of our troops from Afghanistan as you suggest – he is advocating a change in direction. It’s time we stood up for ourselves and stopped kissing NATO’s ass. While it’s true that someone has to fight the remnants of the Taliban that exist in Afghanistan, there are two dozen other NATO member countries that are not stepping up to the plate to help us clean house. While Canada, the Brits and the US are shouldering the burden, Germany et al are performing the reconstruction duties. Let’s swap them their shovels for our guns and let them do the fighting for the next couple of years while we rebuild the infrastructure. I think we’ve earned a rest.
Ed,
I google looked up Ed and E Brooks in the internet phone and found hundreds so you are anonymous unless you post your home address – phone number – e-mail address which I don’t advise with some of the kooks on this blog.
But I do agree there is a lot of slagging going. Also most bloggers are lazy – they attack you instead of the facts or data you present. For example yesterday I posted some facts about global warming. No one looked at the facts to agree or dispute – I just got a slag on my hidden agenda from Bill-Muskoka.
Ed I agree with you argue about the facts not the persons motives or their intelligence.
Judy,
My comment on your statement “This is a blog not the weekly church newsletterâ€
If you substitute Jew or black or Muslim in place of church your thinly veiled hate speech against a identifiable minority (church goers) you could be charged with hate crimes.
This was Rogers point — you folks attack the person rather than saying – “I think we should be able to swear on this blog. To make yourself appear bigger you try and belittle Roger.
On QP — The problem with it is that it is used to score media points and not really get answers.
A typical question formant. —- Will Minister X admit that he still beats his wife.. Yes or No.
The answer format. When my wife and I were married the weather was nice. It was in PEI — speaking of PIE the member asking the question should look at what he said when he was buying potatoes at the farrmers market. The member from NNN said they were too expensive. Does the member for NNNN suggest that PEI farmmers are overcharging canadians?
I don’t watch QP as a result.
Finally on why don’t the MPs try to change QP – It would have to be an all party agreement. Good old Preston Manning tried to when the Reformers first came to Ottawa. He got no press coverage for his reasoned mind mannered questions and answers and after a few months he gave up and gave us what we lap up.
When I asked my MP why they couldn’t act better in the HofC P Manning was his excuse – we tryed and the opposition wouldn’t go along. Won’t try it again until public becomes upset enough.
The MPs better hope that Canadians aren’t noticing in great numbers, because their jobs may be at stake. The Greens will likely be included in the debates this election (they are close to passing both the NDP and the Bloq in the polls). If Canadians see a fresh approach, they might jump at it. The Greens, as outsiders, have a huge upside in the next election.
Some one above noted the emotion vs fact based nature of discussions. You will never learn anything if you base all arguments on emotion. You will never change my opinion — if you want to — with just emotion but you may if we discuss thinks as adults. Remember the old Adult – Child transactional alalysis — not an age based thing but focus — Childlike being emotion / play/ fun / based and adult being reasoned / fact / discussion / based.
Let’s give the adult approach a go on this site just as we are asking are MP to do in QP.
Sorry I posted this by error on another topic as well.
Re QUESTION TODAY
With the click of a switch earlier (it is now 2:35 pm) I turned on the television CTV Newsnet and saw the House of Commons during question period. What a disgrace! The yelling, interrupting, rudeness, childish word-play by the prime minister and apparent lenient approach to such unruliness by the speaker are totally unacceptable. Those participating in the behaviour present themselves, in my opinion, as a group of buffoons and hence leave me, a taxpayer and voter, wondering how capable and sincere they could be at running our wonderful country.
Very sad! I had been under the impression during the last election campaign that more decorum could be expected in Parliament.
Stop the embarrassing word games and smirking and get on with business in a sincere manner. We don’t need the silliness, “charisma” and drama.
Wendy
I read this post this morning and find myself coming back to it now as QP was even more of a gong show then normal. After spending an hour turning the volume up and down I have this suggestion to make; ban the yelling by turning off the microphone of whoever is speaking as soon as they start, and refusing to let them continue. While this is obviously not a silver bullet solution, I think it would help somewhat as over 90% of the time someone yelling precipitates buffoonery.
It’s ironic to hear Premiers like Dalton McGuinty claim to dismantle the Senate. From their actions I’d say you could just as easily say ‘get rid of parliament’. Does anybody out there actually think this behaviour actually serves constituents?
Here in Ontario its said that an MP was escorted from the legislature because he made a row because the ontario liberals just voted themselves a hefty pay increase. There’s ‘democracy’ for you.
When the PMO runs everything and the commons is a place for rabid baboons, can anybody claim that this remotely resembles a democracy?
In fact, while there are nutty comments, outragious statements, slander and swearing (occasionally, but not nasty) I think this blog shows why canadians need more independants, and better yet, more DIRECT democracy. I’d take this crazy blog over those overpaid blutocrats anytime, and I’d trust decisions to people here before I’d trust them to a bunch of people who will never have to worry about pensions, making ends meet, or why to pay for kids dental or college. Sorry, Garth, have to lump you in there as well. I don’t have much sympathy for the ‘hard work’ you guys do, in fact its hard to stomach the blog the other day about how we are supposed to sympathize with MP’s and then see blogs like this, and CPAC.
Messing around with committees is no answer, all you need is a speaker with balls. My fifth grade teacher would have whipped us for behaviour like that, and I wouldn’t shed a tear if I saw the speaker ‘make an example’ out of some loudmouthed MP. They should all do mandatory military service and that would teach them how to maintain a little decorum, and I’d say give them fifty pushups but by the looks of most of em, that would kill them!
Right now I’m going to fire off an email to the speaker and a printed letter as well, perhaps even start a website demanding the speaker get some balls and teach these embarassments some manners.
More Federal money for Quebec and Ontario. Are there votes to be had in these two provinces???
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/13/prattwhitneyengine.html
“Right now I’m going to fire off an email to the speaker and a printed letter as well, perhaps even start a website demanding the speaker get some balls and teach these embarassments some manners.”
—————————————-
Oh.. can’t they vote him out then?
Hagrid, you’re on the right track as I am about Direct Democracy.
This BS with our poloticians acting like they’re still in high school and getting paid for what they do at that, makes me sick…. no…. not sick…. it pisses me right off.
The public’s voices are being heard now…. very shorty action will be taken and a dramatic revolution in how our democracy is run, will be at hand.
Not violently of course…. that just wouldn’t be “Canadian”
“Since he ACTIVELY pursued French citizenship…
Totally untrue, since he was born in France, and his mother carried French citizenship, and, as a result, so does he.
Hey Roger, I’d take the speakers job! I don’t know too much about hockey, but 2/5 minutes in the box might do some of these MP a bit of good (that is throw them out of the House for disorderly conduct!) Second offense….hit the showers!!! Lets give Milliken a striped shirt and a whistle!
There’s a saying that rugby is a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen, while soccer is a gentleman’s games played by hooligans! I’ll include QP in the same category as soccer!
JustWondering,
I know there are thousands of people ‘out there’ with the same name as mine. I understand that I could have represented myself as Jonathan Livingstone, if I wanted. You can, of course, choose to believe or not that I am posting under my real name.
That is the unfortunate nature of this type of communication. It sometimes is no better than QP, eh?
Things that you wouldn’t say to someone’s face, you can get away with here. All I’m saying is that people who aren’t willing to sign their name to their comments and opinion are less likely to be taken seriously, and more likely to be discounted or ignored.
How do you have a civil discussion with a group of people who can’t even bring themselves to admit to who they are?
” To make yourself appear bigger you try and belittle Roger.” –Just Wondering.
That is the point, isn’t it? If we are truly secure in our own identity, we should not need to have to belittle others to feel important, significant, or bigger ourselves.
My point all along has been that we have significance on the basis of who we are, without having to earn it or perform for it.
We should each sense that we are special, unique and irreplaceable, one of a kind, simply based on the fact that we are human. Equality before the law means that not one human being is worth more than another.
That is essential to a democracy. Let’s treat one another with dignity and respect.
Those who name-call and vilify our government leaders and other dignitaries are showing the same childish behaviour that they condemn in others, and it is time that we rose above it by becoming more mature ourselves. We are capable of better as human beings, because humans have free choice. We cannot choose what others will say, but we can choose our responses.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aNkEVX3rg8qg&refer=canada
Flaherty to eliminate Government of Canada bond coupons in 2021. After all, why should we have to pay all that money to bond holders, they should take political risk into account when investors put their money into an asset class.
For example yesterday I posted some facts about global warming. No one looked at the facts to agree or dispute – I just got a slag on my hidden agenda from Bill-Muskoka.
I have to admit I’m still a fence-sitter on GW. There are facts and there are facts; it is possible to find ‘experts’ who will eloquently argue both sides of the issue. Then it is a matter of who you choose to believe.
The popular support right now seems to favour the science that suggests that the effect we are having is catastrophic and something must be done. I don’t doubt that we are consuming the planet…
I was slagged the other day for bringing up the forest fire question the other day. IE. How much manmade emissions would have to be cut in order to negate the effect of forest fires in North America on an annual basis? The answer to that question would sure help quantify the ‘manmade’ effect on the environment.
There was one interesting response that suggested that the hydrocarbons released by a forest fire are not the same as the 500,000+ year old hydrocarbons released by manmade consumption.
I’m still scratching my head over that one.
“Right now I’m going to fire off an email to the speaker and a printed letter as well, perhaps even start a website demanding the speaker get some balls and teach these embarassments some manners.”
It is this kind of childish, sexist comment that is part of the problem, and will never contribute to elevating the tone of the discussion.
While I consider Question Period as an hour of some sort of release – which of course the media just loves this and encourages, I do see the house debating quite respectfully before and after QP. That’s where the real work is done anyway. In camera committee meetings are usually respectful, but, there are some prima donnas in them. For example, during the questioning of Stockwell Day, Mark Holland made an ass of himself, while Irwin Cotler and Joe Comartin asked tough questions respectfully.
Unfortunately, it is questionable whether the mass media would give any coverage at all to the individual who is polite, good mannered, reasoned and articulate all of the time.
How does Hollywood makes sales? Not by reason, but by exploiting sex and violence. We fall for it, and pay our hard-earned money to watch human’s inhumanity to other humans.
We tend to use sexist comments and emotionally agressive and violent words to make our point, or to get back at those who have offended us.
That has no place in a democracy where honourable people may honourably disagree, and where we can disagree without being disagreeable and cantankorous.
It is like the policeman who is subject to so much abuse on the job that he ends up becoming abusive himself. Similarly, our MPs, and all those in authority get abused, vilified, attacked and dehumanized, and it is little wonder that they cannot long resist the temptation to respond in kind.
Preston Manning tried valiantly to change the system, but eventually gave in to the way politics was previously done for the simple reason that he got no recognition for being polite, mild-mannered and reasonable.
We all have a need to feel significant, valued and worth something in the eyes of another, but we should not have to perform and use these kind of antiques to get attention (as a child would).
A mature person will place value on every human life on the simple basis that they are a fellow human with the potential for good, even if their behaviour does not yet line up with their potential. All humans have a potential which is better than their present behaviour.
Tax-cut conjurors up to their old tricks
NEIL REYNOLDS
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061213.REYNOLDS13/TPStory/Business
What we need in Canada is a late-night comedy show similar to Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. The show should have a segment where footage of the most idiotic behaviour of the day in the HoC is displayed along with names and specific reports of particularly boorish behaviours that may not have been caught by the camera. The host of the show should exercise a rapacious wit that the Morons of Parliament come to dread. If such a show became popular, the MPs would learn to behave respectfully in order to avoid public humiliation.
Most of us don’t know how our MPs behave in the HoC. If there were some way for people to easily find out about dumb antics by their MP, it would be possible to respond by sending them emails or letters of complaint. We would also have cause for trashing them in discussions around the water cooler at our workplaces. This would have the effect of holding MPs accountable for poor representation of the interests of their constituents.
I’m going to vote for Don Cherry as Speaker of the House – maybe he’ll be able to deal with these guys & gals!
The CBC could get a new show out of it too – “Parliament Night in Canada”
“Roger: This is a blog, not the weekly church newsletter. People are free to write and respond to comments.
Question Period is our elected officials supposedly demonstrating to the Canadian public how our tax dollars are being spent and how wise we were to elect them to represent us.” –Judy.
Surely you are not suggesting that we say to our duly elected representatives the double standard of “Do as we say, but not as we do.” Surely you are not saying that.
Surely since we, the voters, the people who elect our representatives, and who are the bosses, should be the first to set a good example for those that we put into office and who are accountable to us.
However, they will not be impressed if actions do not line up with words on our part, nor will they be impressed with the pot calling the kettle black.
I am sure that we could all do better, and as the bosses of those in government, we could all set a better example.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has introduced legislation that would bring democracy and greater accountability to the way Senators are chosen.
To Bring Back Bowie sign here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/bowie123/petition.html
That’s a neat idea Natural, but I suspect a show like that would become just another partisan tool very quickly. Regardless of how stupid members of either side of the house act I suspect some will be focused on more than others based on the bias of the show or the host. John Stewart, Rick Mercer, and the like all have a very obvious liberal slant. They may occasionally lampoon Liberal (or Democrat) foolishness but it’s pretty rare. Now we could argue that both the US and Canada have Conservative-style governments and as such the governing parties are usually the ones targetted by comedians (since opposition parties don’t actually DO anything) but, in the case of Mercer, his Liberal bias showed even when the lefties were in power.
Roger: How do you figure? A plebescite is not an election and it still would leave the final choice to the Prime Minister. What’s so democratic about that?
Just what we need-an American style Senate-another politically partisan body to hold up legistlation.
So, if we elect senators, does that mean they can’t be elected for more than 2, 4 year terms? If so, does that mean our M.P.’s would also not be able to serve more than 4 years even if elected?
Catherine: Exactly!!!And when Ms. Stronach speaks Mr. Solberg and Mr.Strahl are putting on the performance of their lives. Almost comical if it weren’t so pathetic.
Just Wonderin: It all comes done to knowing your audience and the language/tone that being socially aware allows. A “church Letter” is written for a specific audience-unquestionably an audience that would not welcome swearing or name calling.
A “blog” on the other hand is made available for a different audience-the blog is available for all who care to participate-the “church letter” is written for a limited, defined group.
I was not implying “hate” for people who write or read church letters, I was simply pointing out that different audiences require different forms of communication.
quote”Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has introduced legislation that would bring democracy and greater accountability to the way Senators are chosen.
By Roger Armbruster on 12.13.06 6:55 pm”
Roger that is a crock of crap and you know it. That is not accountability and elected senators and you know it. Electing from a list of persons in each province and then the “PRIME DICTATOR OOPS Minster” picks from the list who he wants to APPOINT. No doubt he is going to be very diligent in making sure that no one but Conservative make his final list.
Come on now this is another show for Harper to say in the next election campaign see the Liberals don’t want reform. Seems all the opposition parties are laughing at him on this one.
Keep it up though Steve and Jim. What with the Income Trust broken promise, bullying the Farmers and Wheat Board. Muzzling his members of the C.P.C Letting mouth pieces like Kenny and Baird continuously whine on and on about the Liberals or Previous Government (this really is getting tiring that line)
God I am glad I am Independent or Green Party leaning now.
’m going to vote for Don Cherry as Speaker of the House – maybe he’ll be able to deal with these guys & gals!
The CBC could get a new show out of it too – “Parliament Night in Canadaâ€
By Concerned for Canada on 12.13.06 6:18 pm
Now that is a great idea. Thanks for the laugh.
Garth,
Here is a question for you to ask Flaherty in Parliament:
“How do you justify reversing an election platform promise to not tax income trusts in penison/retirement accounts, then justifying this taxation by saying that if BCE converted to become an income trust they would pay less tax than as a corporation? According to BCE’s own outlook, they will not be paying any taxes until at least 2010 due to R&D tax credits. Please explain how stopping BCE from becoming an income trust was worth stripping $25 billion from investors equity, especially those seniors who took the Conservative Government at their word?”
Geoffery Laxton I followed the link you gave on the bond coupon comment — I coulodn’t figure out what you were on about. The only comment in the article that was remotely near what you said was
“Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced a plan last month to eliminate Canada’s “net debt” by 2021, in part by buying back C$3 billion ($2.6 billion) in bonds each year.”
That’s got nothing to do with stopping paying money when coupons are due — it is simply paying of a few (2.6 billion) of our 600bilion debt.
Before you start posting all these links you need to try to understand their content or people will stop reading your posts.
To Roger Armbruster -&- Ed Brooks
You two appear to be 2 of a very few who discuss things on a mature level. Most folks just seem to want to shout their opinion again and again — mostly anti conservative — I guess most conservative either don’t blog or don’t do so on this site.
I can’t seem to find anyone who wants to discuss facts rather than opinion and science rather than emotion so I am out of here. (Hooray — I hear from the liberals in in the background — now we don’t have to worry about logic they rejoice)
It has been an interesting couple of weeks.
Good luck and don’t waste too much time here — you could probably do some real good applying you time to some worthy charity.
“JustWondering,
I know there are thousands of people ‘out there’ with the same name as mine. I understand that I could have represented myself as Jonathan Livingstone, if I wanted. You can, of course, choose to believe or not that I am posting under my real name.
That is the unfortunate nature of this type of communication. It sometimes is no better than QP, eh?
Things that you wouldn’t say to someone’s face, you can get away with here. All I’m saying is that people who aren’t willing to sign their name to their comments and opinion are less likely to be taken seriously, and more likely to be discounted or ignored.
How do you have a civil discussion with a group of people who can’t even bring themselves to admit to who they are?”
Hear ye!
JustWondering on 12.13.06 9:11 pm
I was trying to be funny.
JustWondering on 12.13.06 9:11 pm
Try this link instead,
https://www.pwc.com/ca/eng/ins-sol/publications/itr_1206.pdf
(Sorry,Garth. This is lengthly.)
A Toronto rag reported that “Garth Turner is not just tearing up his Conservative membership card, he also hopes to lead a national revolt against traditional party politicsâ€.
The United States has a ‘democracy’ with built-in checks and balances against abusive power. On its northern borders is a ‘constitutional dictatorship’ that masks itself as a ‘democracy’.
Not to be defending him against charges of being a “one man showâ€, Stephen Harper is only using the undemocratic reigns of power that were imposed and formalized by Trudeau The Terrible, expanded during the Red Tory Mulroney years and exercised throughout the Chrétien-Martin regimes of corruption.
Canadians have been historically duped’ into believing that they elect MPs to represent their interests. Because Canucks take such little interest in their politics, they do not understand that this impossible.
How foolish can they be?
It’s obvious that Canucks do not understand that, once in Ottawa, their MPs fall under the vise-like, party-line-control grip of their respective party leader’s offices. Not for one moment is this gang of spineless, gutless, full-indexed-pensioned egotists allowed to speak out for their constituents. Functioning on greed, privilege and perquisites, their allegiances become, instantly and grossly, realigned.
MPs become mere puppets of their leaders. It is ‘unelecteds’, backroomers, etc. who have their leader’s ears.
MPs are fed positions on issues, given the word/scripts to back them and, shamelessly, brazenly, bounce up and down like marionettes in unison, when voting on legislation. They are on the ends of long strings that are pulled by their leader’s offices.
MPs also face the ultimate, threat of any federal politician that lies in the Canada Election Act. This insidious party-leader-written legislation requires their leader’s signatures on their papers following their next riding nomination meeting if they wish to run under their respective, party banners.
It does not matter if a duly-called, nomination meeting of a duly-constituted, riding association elects a candidate, without the leaders’ signature affixed to his/her nomination papers, the candidate is dead meat.
MPS are forced to stay in the ‘good books’ of the leader and his backroom, hidden cronies by doing their bidding.
In majority government, a party leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, lacking checks and balances, functionally operates with more ‘power’ than the President of the United States. Because the PM ‘governs’ over a buoyant economy, he/she has more power than most of his dictatorial counterparts in the 3rd world.
So far, Canadians have been fortunate. Their PMs have been ‘benevolent’ to their citizenry. The trouble is that a ‘system’ has been locked in place, waiting for the day of a one-man-ruling, ‘non-benevolent’, tyrannical dictator. Only then will sleepy Canadians wrapped in their socialistic, nanny-blame-state flag, wake up and take more than a passing interest in their politics.
Even then, would they?
Garth, do not look for support on The Hill. You’ll be wasting your time with the party-line-controlled gang of spineless, gutless, full-indexed-pensioned egotists. They are the ‘what’s in it for me’ ‘Gougers of Canada’ who sell-out their principles, morals, ethics and values for dollars, prestige and privilege. Also, fat-cats do not make good revolutionaries.
Garth, you may also have to wait until a “one-man-ruling, ‘non-benevolent’, tyrannical dictator†is fully in place before placid Canadians wake-up in a “national revoltâ€. Then, it may be too late.
Either way, the mission that you have dedicated yourself to, while hard, is long overdue and the right thing to do.
Congrats, Garth on picking up the gauntlet.
http://votp.blogspot.com
Judy, your comment misses the point (quite apart from what is appropriate for a church bulletin vs. a blog) that you seem to have a double standard for what is allowable on a blog and what is allowable in the House of Commons. Sure, you can use any kind of language on this blog that you want, as far as I am concerned, but then don’t go around preaching to our Parliamentarians about behaviour that you condone in their critics. That would be hypocrisy, would it not?
I do not want to judge you wrongly. I am just asking a question here.
And on the note about the Senate, the two sentences that I gave were the exact opening sentences from today’s CTV news report. The CTV is certainly no fan of Stephen Harper, so you might take it up with them as to why they would word this as a move toward greater democracy.
Just Wondering, thank you for your kind remarks. You will be missed, but I can fully understand why you would sense a futility in getting reason to prevail over emotion, even right here on this blog, let alone judging and condemning our MPs for what we do with impunity and with self-justification.
I still believe that the potential in people is better than their behaviour, however. Have a good one!
“Roger that is a crock of crap and you know it. That is not accountability and elected senators and you know it.” –Randy.
“Just what we need-an American style Senate-another politically partisan body to hold up legistlation.” –Judy.
“Canadians will vote for Senate choices and if the PM likes the results, he will appoint them. But, hey, at least it’s a step in the right direction.” –Garth.
I agree with Garth. It is a step in the right direction.
Roger: I believe CTV is Harpers best friend in the MSM these days.
And if you don’t see the difference in what is acceptable interaction on an anonymous blog and acceptable interaction by our elected members of the House, which is viewed by Canadians of every age and gender then I think it is you who is missing the point.
I speak differently in front of children than adults.
I speak differently at a funeral than a party.
I speak differently with my close friends than strangers.
You see, it is a matter of knowing what is acceptable when in different situations.
And will these nominated Senators be in televised debates?
Will they go knocking on doors looking for votes?
Will all Canadians vote for Senators no matter what area they represent?
And if their term is limited to 8 years, then will the elected House of Commons members also be limited to 8 years?
And if the “plebiscite” is in favour of a Liberal senator or 10 Liberal senators will Mr. Harper honour the wishes of the majority and appoint those Senators? Or will he use his “right” to appoint whoever he wants?
How can you possibly call this democracy?
Geoffrey – bonds are not like stocks – there is little or no risk. By definition, your question is not logical.
Judy – you are on to something good – we should elect our Senate for specific terms. As it is, these appointees who have little or no skills for the job, are there for life. You are also correct about Strahl and Solberg. Strahl was the original Garth – he slagged Stockwell Day publicly and led to the demise of Stockwell’s leadership and the party as it was. Personally, I find this sort of behaviour appalling. Solberg – well, he is something else; I cannot describe him.
Preston Manning was not only dismissed by Opposition, he was also dismissed by the Canadian voter. It seems that, collectively, we vote for style over substance. Robert Stanfield, posthumously described as the best prime minister we NEVER had, lost out to Trudeau’s charisma. And what did we receive in return? Unemployment, high inflation, double-digit interest rates and really high taxes.
I’ll take dull but substantial any day over style.
I have long wondered what gives the right to MPs to belittle others inside parliament and on TV in a way that would make a sailor blush. In all honesty, the first person who runs in my riding or for PM who runs a completely pro-platform campaign, without comments of the opponent or their platform, will get my vote no matter who they represent.
In trying to convince the speaker to bring order, is the speaker considered to have duties to the people like MPs, and supposed to take to heart the feelings of constituents? If so, perhaps a call for concerned Canadians to email him our concerns might be in order? If this might be effective, I would definitely appreciate an email address that might be read by someone with an open mind.
Well,
Old Ralph Klein is Toga’s up and ready for a seat per the Star’s Editorial Cartoon.
He thinks they are having a party! LOL
The Senators of Rome destroyed the Empire!
Just a thought for the day, and perhaps tomorrow?
politician, lawyers, business people……..rude and boorish behaviour have become acceptable in our society……..
the fact is the politicians don’t care what most taxpayers think……….they are arrogant and indifferent
Richard1 on 12.14.06 6:03 am
You missed my humour. I am satirizing political risk to extend to bond coupons. As on the one hand, people are saying that you can’t rely on the government to honest about income trust taxation, but on the other, people rely on the integrity of the government to pay bond coupons, which are considered to be risk free. There, it isn’t funny anymore.
Any prime minister would ignore the people’s choice for senator to his own peril. In fact, it would be political suicide. So there is no need to get cynical and prejudgmental here about imagined fears and dreads that we cannot name, but can only suspect and speculate on without tangible evidence. Again, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Let’s not be negative about everything. A move towards even a greater degree of democracy is surely a move in the right direction.
In point of fact, total democracy does not exist and has not existed anytime anywhere, but we all, I am sure, want to move in a direction where people feel heard, and even if their point of view is not followed, at least they have been heard and valued.
Every one should feel that they count, and that their point of view is worth listening to and considering.
At the end of the day, none of us will get out way all of the time in a democracy, but at least we can show respect and a high regard for one anothers dignity and worth as a human being.
“How can you possibly call this democracy?”
With all due respect, this is how meanings get twisted and distorted, I would hope not deliberately so.
You were responding, I take it, to my words that “I agree with Garth that this is a move in the right direction.”
Nobody is comparing this to perfection, but what is perfect in any sphere of human government today?
Please, people, why do we insist on comparing this with perfection, or a perfect democracy which doesn’t exist?
Why do we not compare it with what we have had, and admit that it is a move in the right direction?
I have no doubt that Mr. Harper himself would like to see Senate Reform take place much more rapidly if it could be done without all hell breaking loose from those with vested interests in an unelected and unaccountable senate of yesteryear.
I care not so much about how far we are yet from perfection as I am concerned that we are moving, and that we are moving in the right direction.
Who will admit it? Garth will, but how many others?
It occurs to me that the entire point of the senate was to create a system where the senate could not be whipped and was explictly not accountable to public or party.
It’s a place where, the electorate of years past has a place to be enshrined for 30+ years.
This to me, in an age where tyrany and 1984 politics are such a new threat, would seem to be a good balance against the manipulation of the system.
It’s fairly easy to manipulate MPs, its extremely difficult to manipulate the senate.
IMHO. It really should stay a lifetime appointment. How they get appointed, I don’t really care, but that they are immune from the results of their descisions seems like a good thing to me.
To conquer Canada’s democracy, you currently must defeat a majority of democracies past. Make the senate term-electable, and it would be very easy to take over un-challenged in any given election.
No where is it more clear how this can happen than in the U.S. I somehow think that an unread bill like the U.S. Patriot Act or even the Military Commmisions Act would never make it past our senators, though it could, like the budget, very easily get passed in the HoC.
Want my vote on it? It’s time to get rid of the not-withstanding clause in the constitution and transfer domain over constitutional rights to the courts and away from the sensationalist house of commons.
“Canadians will vote for Senate choices and if the PM likes the results, he will appoint them. But, hey, at least it’s a step in the right direction.†–Garth.
Thats my problem with it Garth. It still comes back to one line you wrote: “Canadians will vote for Senate choices and if the PM likes the results, he will appoint them.” It still comes down to Harper the dictator to make the decision. That to me is not,”elected by the people”.
What might help in the interim, is for some enterprising techie type person to cut out snippets of MPs acting boorishly in the House, and add the names and seats, and publish them on Youtube or some other medium open to the public. Then we could have a competition with viewers voting each week for the worst twit ….
Seeing themselves subjected to public ridicule for their childish behaviour might act as a bit of a restraint.
Kevin M,
“IMHO. It really should stay a lifetime appointment. How they get appointed, I don’t really care, but that they are immune from the results of their descisions seems like a good thing to me.”
Rome tried that and it FAILED!
While I see your point, however, no accountability of lawmakers means no recourse for the people.
Likewise, when you say
“It’s time to get rid of the not-withstanding clause in the constitution and transfer domain over constitutional rights to the courts and away from the sensationalist house of commons.”
that makes very excellent sense.
The Supreme Court should not be overridden by politicians. Under the U.S. Constitution the Separation of Powers specifically protects that very needed barrier to politicizing issues under the Constitution.
People think in rather narrow bands relative to their own small world view. They hold biases that overshadow objective equality of others. That is why we have a need for laws in the first place.
Unfortunately, some see law making as a power trip and it becomes both abused, and comprehensively illiterate to others.
Fortunately, there are still people of integrity and honour who will stand up against such actions.
Yea, senate elections like the one they had in Alberta that was totally unconstitutional .
Only neo-cons ran for the positions .
Bert Brown,Betty Unger,Ted Byfield all neo-cons not one NDP or Liberal .
How is that fair and democratic ?
Conscience
“Tis not the gilded palace, nor the dome,
In fretted work magnificently gay,
Which gives morality the peaceful home,
The cheerful moment, and the tranquil day;
Tis something more than palaces can give, 5
Or fretted dome, or pageantry supply;
Tis what instructs the wisest how to live,
And shews the proudest how they ought to die,
Tis confidence, trembling at the voice of God,
That inly whispers to the high and low;
10
Which points religion to the blest abode,
And bids her triumph in the midst of woe.
For all is woe beneath yon splendid orb;
An aching void replenish’d ill by mirth;
A thousand sorrows all our joys absorb, 15
And half our raptures perish at their birth,
Then who can trust the visionary ray,
And live regardless of a world to come?
Or who prefer ambition’s short liv’d day,
To that which gives an everlasting home?
A great poem from 1812 somewhat suitible to this discussion.
Everyone have a great holiday season
Ken
Bill – but we have accountability in the form of the HoC. This is where that accountability side of the coin falls.
Lifetime senate appointments when balanaced with a public-responsibile house, guarantee that no-one-government can control Canada.
Many of the senators sitting today go back more than 5 goverments; and we don’t have a senatorial problem.
When was the last time the senate blocked an otherwise democratically approved bill? I can’t even think of an example; but what I do know, is that if any stupid bill like the USA Patriot Act ever got passed the HoC, that the ’sober second look’ of the senate in Canada, would put a stop to it.
This to me is far more important than having direct control over senators.
Keeping senators honest, and ensuring they don’t need a large purse of private funds to run for office on a regular basis, keeps bias and paybacks out of the senate. Not being accountable to anyone but their own ethics, means theres no payback when they vote.
It’s a balance that has worked since the first senate was formed, and it’s not something I can see there being a problem with today.
If it aint broke, don’t fix it.
I do wonder about PMSH’s motives for senatorial reform though; it seems to me that the only thing standing between a future CPC majority government and a lot of really scary social conservative agenda, is in fact, the senate.
PMSH is an extremely briliant strategist, whether you like him or not, he really is. To think that he is thinking 2-3 governments down the road would not be naiive.
Kevin M,
“PMSH is an extremely briliant strategist, whether you like him or not, he really is. ”
So was Al Capone…I respect honesty not slyness and deception. My value system.
Bill — I think that was my point =P
Kevin M,
AH!