Ford, Horwath square off in legislature

Speaker steps in as leaders probe and trade jabs

Question period at Queen’s Park might not be the best place to find out what the Doug Ford government is going to do next, but if this week is an indication, it’s going to be quite a show.

It was the public’s first look at how PC premier Ford and NDP opposition leader Andrea Horwath stack up against each other in the legislature. Anyone who thought their new positions would give them a sense of decorum and responsibility was quickly proven wrong.

Opposition leaders are known for spraying on feigned outrage like cheap cologne, but Horwath was practically hopping up and down from the first minute, furious at Ford for the stock options retiring Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt will be allowed to cash out. That was actually something approved under the Liberals, but that didn’t keep Horwath from talking about backroom deals, lobbyists and insiders. She poured on the hyperbole, accusing Ford of helping ticket-scalpers, big polluters and his socialconservative friends.

Within the first few minutes, Horwath had called Ford a liar in a couple of different ways. She got away with the first one, but the Speaker asked for a retraction when she said, “It looks like this premier is going to be as honest in this House as he was on the campaign trail.”

One of the unknowns about Ford was how he would perform under this kind of pressure. Could he think on his feet and brush off obvious attempts to make him lose his cool? Expectations were low, but he was able to boom out his standard answers, add some shots of his own and even surprise by quoting a few facts.

By Tuesday, Horwath did manage to get under his skin with a question about reviewing rules for police oversight. Ford responded by saying, “We support our police, unlike the leader of the opposition and unlike their party that are police-haters, military-haters, veteranhaters, poppy-haters.” The Speaker ordered him to retract that one.

Horwath continued with the jabs, accusing Ford of knowing nothing about what has happened in the legislature in the last 10 years and being unaware of the role of the opposition. She helpfully pointed out that there is something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and suggested he go look it up.

After all of that, Horwath told reporters, “Mr. Ford behaves very, very badly and I’m certainly going to give him back what he gives me. That’s something I’m prepared to do. I’m not going to be bullied by this bully, frankly.” Self-awareness, it would seem, is not her strong suit.

While much of what was said in question period this week was second-rate political theatre, the questions and answers give some valuable insight into how both the government and the opposition intend to conduct themselves, and who are likely to be the skilful players.

The NDP has decided to vigorously defend the Liberal status quo, a curious strategy given the resounding defeat just experienced by the actual Liberals. People gave Doug Ford a majority because many of them want a government with a new approach, not one that would do all the same things as the Liberals under a different label.

The opposition’s main goal is to damage Ford by portraying him as a bully, an ignoramus, a man who loves backroom deals and consistently places the interests of his cronies ahead of those of the people. So far, they have provided precious little convincing evidence to back that up.

On the government side, Ford has shown that he can hold his own in the crossfire of question period, but he might want to think about tone. He is clearly trying to build a kinder, gentler image. The NDP undermine that effort every time they goad him into attack mode.

Ford’s cabinet performed moderately well in response to the NDP onslaught. Energy minister Greg Rickford, a veteran of the federal cabinet, was easily the best of the bunch, always looking relaxed, confident and informed. Deputy premier Christine Elliott gave several short, clear answers and did well during Ford’s absence Wednesday and Thursday. Overall, the ratio of obfuscation to clear answers was better than average, but there’s plenty of room for improvement.

Question period has degenerated into a farce on Parliament Hill and under the previous government it wasn’t much better at Queen’s Park. Now there are new players, and it’s time to do better, not worse. The opposition owes it to the public to ask fact-based, respectful questions that deserve good answers. Government members ought to feel obligated to respond in kind. What we have seen so far falls far short of the mark.

NOW THERE ARE NEW PLAYERS, AND IT’S TIME TO DO BETTER.