Civility, You Say?

It certainly represents an achievable goal, one perhaps long overdue.  And in the process of persuading Members of Parliament that polite discourse can produce a more favourable working climate in support of the end goal of representing the best interests of their constituents and the country as a whole, perhaps the acidic and venomous behaviour could give way to non-partisan co-operation.

While Conservative MP Michael Chong earnestly attempted two years earlier to present a set of proposals that might have the effect of civilizing the House of Commons and the process known as Question Period, from lobbing loaded accusations against one another in lieu of patient and polite querying to produce an aura of working toward a larger purpose than scoring biting sound bites, it went nowhere.

His recommendations included that responses to questions take no more than 35 seconds.  That the prime minister be allotted a particular day for answering questions for a more extended response.  And similar days might be scheduled for particular ministers to respond to questioners from the opposition benches, leading to an orderly, responsible, structured and useful exercise in question-and-answer.

This time around it is Nathan Cullen, a B.C. Member of Parliament who has come forward with a recommendation that his parliamentary peers begin demonstrating their intellectual and political maturity.  The news clip value of shock tactics may highlight certain lawmakers who find it useful to behave in a juvenile manner to bring attention to themselves, but it does lower the value of the debate in the House.

"I have a clear mandate from my leader and I believe we have a clear mandate from Canadians, to say that we must address this, that Canadians can no longer come into the House of Commons, or see it on television, and be embarrassed by the conduct of their elected representatives", Nathan Cullen explained.

And that's fair enough.  Snapping back waspishly at insulting questions may satisfy the bulldog instinct in some members to protect themselves from obvious smears, but it does little to advance the public trust that those whom they elect to represent the best interests of the country can see beyond their political perspectives to recognize common values in the round.

Leader of the Official Opposition, Thomas Mulcair's accusation that the government was unjustified in allowing "the British criminal Conrad Black" to return to Canada on a minister's permit, while denying other foreigners with criminal histories the same slack, demonstrates more than amply the misuse of Question Period, illustrating Mr. Mulcair's gross ignorance of process.

In stating, as he did that "This is a simple case of a double standard on behalf of the Conservative government.  There is obviously one set of standards for Conservative party insiders and another that applies to everyone else", Mr. Mulcair is being combative, ingenuous, and just sheer stupid, betraying his utter lack of understanding of the permit process and disinterest in knowing the facts; focusing only on his instinct to attack.

And, as the Conservatives, now celebrating a year of majority government status, may have been feeling pretty good about themselves, they have been brought up short by an ad hominem attack launched by interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, insultingly warning Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be aware that he may have little to celebrate, considering that he is unloved by many Canadians, in Mr. Rae's opinion.

In the opinion of the majority of voting Canadians, we cast our ballot for what we hope and trust are intelligent adults, only to discover, belatedly, that they are poseurs, people who have never really outgrown their juvenile instinct for confrontational demands and casting insults and slandering others.