Parliament’s overheated rhetoric
There have been times over the years, far too many times, that we have witnessed the antics of our elected representatives in Ottawa and shaken our heads in despair.
A nostalgic journey into the mud quickly conjures a litany of lowlights. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, while in opposition, once had to apologize to the House of Commons after calling then-Conservative environment minister Peter Kent “a piece of s--t.” His father infamously shouted an obscenity across the aisle, which he later amended to “fuddle duddle.” In opposition, a Liberal quartet of backbenchers who would go on to become cabinet ministers became known as the “Rat Pack” for their disruptive behaviour and taunting of the Brian Mulroney government.
Former Reform Party MP Darrell Stinson twice challenged Liberals to fisticuffs and referred to then-Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest as “a fat little chubby, little sucker,” after Charest called him a bigot. One-time PC cabinet minister John Crosbie told Liberal Sheila Copps to “just quieten down, baby.”
So, expectations for reasoned, mature debate are often low, but this week MPs in Ottawa managed to slither under the limbo bar one more time.
When Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was ejected from the Commons on Tuesday, he went far beyond the heat-of-battle indiscretions oft heard in the chamber. He three times refused entreaties from Speaker Greg Fergus to play by the rules and withdraw a word Fergus deemed unparliamentary. For Poilievre, there seems to be no rules except his rules, no respect for decorum and a delight in saying anything, meeting with anybody and flouting convention in the name of ramping up anger. In Poilievre’s world, everyone is a liar and only he has the truth. Just the day before that ugly day in the Commons, he told the Canadian Police Association he would set his own rules on bail reform by using the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution to override Charter rights. He also sets his own rules on civility. Time and again he has shown he will gladly meet with fringe supporters sporting Diagolon stickers and flying F--k Trudeau flags, or convoy protesters illegally blockading Ottawa streets.
The point is not that Poilievre was booted for calling Trudeau a “wacko,” a fairly tame term given what had already been tossed around Tuesday. Poilievre clearly wanted to be booted from the Commons as a challenge to Fergus, because the Speaker is one of those gatekeepers he clearly disrespects. Members of his caucus who followed him outside the chamber were live streaming their faux indignation and victimhood before they left the building.
None of this absolves Trudeau from blame. Indeed, the day after the drama, it was the prime minister who tossed barbs at Poilievre who in turn channelled his inner adult and was the model of decorum. The leader of the country should be elevating discourse and displaying maturity and calm, but he too often plays on Poilievre’s turf. He had already helped inflame proceedings by referring to the “spineless” style of leadership shown by Poilievre. For his part, the Opposition leader called Trudeau a racist and implied the prime minister was responsible for drug deaths in British Columbia.
Chaos in the House of Commons is something that rivets Ottawa insiders but is mostly ignored by Canadians outside the capital. It’s easy — indeed fashionable — to point out that no one is watching daily question period and it is all vacuous political performance by MPs who seem more concerned with spewing over-the-top rants that are quickly posted to social media.
But we’re headed to an election next year (if not sooner) and if this type of overheated rhetoric continues between two men who clearly dislike each other, voters will continue to be repelled and serious, quality candidates will run for cover. Indeed, Liberal MP Pam Damoff announced Wednesday she would not run again, citing the toxicity in Canadian politics and the erosion of national discourse.
More disconcerting is that, if the polls are correct, Poilievre is on track to become the next prime minister on a campaign stoked by anger and distrust of our institutions. Once elected, can he possibly put that anger back in the box? That would be a tall order for a man who has so far shown no appetite for compromise or calm.
WORTH REPEATING ‘The threats and misogyny I have experienced as a member of Parliament are such that I often fear going out in public, and that is not a sustainable or healthy way to live.’
PAM DAMOFF, LIBERAL MP FOR OAKVILLE—NORTH BURLINGTON