Thursday, April 25, 2002
The House is not a home - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- It’s rather disheartening to watch the proceedings of the House of Commons as of late. I watch CPAC all the time and I rather enjoy watching the business of the House. It’s all steeped in the traditions of the Westminster Parliamentary system and full of archaic tendencies like not calling a fellow MP by his or her’s surname; rather one must call an MP by their constituency. “The Honourable Member for...” Yes, they’re all ‘honourable’ even though some 70% of Canadians think they’re all corrupt and in on the jig.
By nature, I’m a sentimental bloke. I love gloves on ladies and a well-marbled porterhouse. I like listening to Frank Sinatra, and kinda miss smoking on television. I appreciate the historical precedence of the House, and all houses of Parliament across this country. I’m a tad horrified though by British Columbia’s Speaker of the Legislature, Claude Richmond, condoning the use of laptop computers in the House. But at least they aren’t permitted cellular telephones (though Blackberries have become a fad in Ottawa).
I believe the House of Commons, and all houses of Parliament across this land as sacred. Sure the behaviour can get surly and horrifying -- catcalls and insults -- but that’s the miracle of parliamentary democracy. To explain, it’s better having the pols of the land debating and yelling in the precincts of a House, rather than leaving the law of the land to be determined on the streets, by laymen and women, who know not of order. Proverbial blood in the House, rather than actual blood spilling in the street.
There have been a number of incidents in the House of Commons this last month or so that deserve further discussion in this space. First, Canadian Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant, participating in the bellyaching that goes on in the House, in the heat of a debate yelled outloud to Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, “Go and ask your boyfriend.” See, they were debating something to do with the Middle East, and NDP MP Svend Robinson -- an openly gay MP -- had made a provocative trip to the region in support of Yasser Arafat. (Robinson has since been stripped of his shadow cabinet post of Foreign Affairs critic for the Middle East.)
Graham, whose sexuality has been the subject of gossip in such esteemed (ahem) publications as Frank Magazine, personally didn’t take offence to Gallant’s obvious insinuation. Robinson, getting on his soap box of advocating his homosexuality, took Gallant to task. Gallant’s newly minted leader, Stephen Harper, was said to fret over the on-going image of Alliance MPs having neck’s of a reddish hue; thus pressured Gallant to apologise.
MPs are protected by some provision that allows them to say whatever the hell they want in the House. When a Member of Parliament makes a defamatory remark, such as accusing a cabinet minister of some scandalous action, often in Question Period, the minister challenges the accuser to repeat those accusations outside the House. When such is done, the accuser is often sued. Many times prior to elections in BC, are writs of the sort filed in the courts. Now the Gallant/Robinson issue does point to the impregnable image of the Alliance people being a bunch of hicks, but besides that it signals the high drama and emotion of the House. It shows the thoughtlessness of some, but also the fact mere slips of the old tongue, in the heat of a debate, can lead to issues being dealt with (albeit oh so politically) in the public realm.
Now of course, the big story to come this last week has to be that of Dr. Keith Martin, a BC Alliance MP, whose decriminalisation of marijuana legislation was effectively killed in the House. Dr. Martin’s proposition had the support of about 50-60% of MPs he claims. And the Liberals have had a long standing convention that should private member’s bills come for a vote in the House, the whip is off and members can vote freely. It sounded good, because it looked like it would pass. However the Prime Minister wasn’t pleased with the legislation for one reason or another, and so a couple of his backbench MPs inserted an amendment to the legislation. It was obscene, really. The amendment called for the deletion of all of Dr. Martin’s words, and that rather then sending the bill to a committee for further study, it would stop right there, dead on the floor of the House of Commons. The free vote on the main private member’s bill was meaningless, because of the Liberals whipped vote dealing with the amendment. So, the Liberal majority crushed Dr. Martin’s bill -- a piece of legislation that took nearly four years out of his life to draft.
Upon the passing of the ‘poison pill’ amendment, the entire Alliance caucus save for one (I think it was St. Albert’s MP John Williams who remained in his seat), left the chamber in protest. Prior to going through the golden curtains of the chamber to the doors that lead to the hall, Dr. Martin retreated to the grand table in the middle of the House, lifted the Mace and hoisted it over his head, proclaiming something to the effect that there was no more democracy in Canada.
The Mace of course symbolises the authority of Parliament. It dates back to the age of Richard I, whose bodyguards used the club-like object for protection.* Now, the Mace is adorned with jewels and gold and is the supreme symbol of the power that left the monarchy with King John when he was forced to cede power to elected individuals. Dr. Martin’s lifting of the Mace is much the same, as former British Tory MP Michael Heseltine’s outburst in the 1970s. Unhappy with the then Labour government of James Callaghan’s behaviour over a vote, Heseltine lifted the Mace swung it over his head and tried to hand it to government MPs as a symbol of their abrogation of democracy.
Well, Dr. Martin lifted the Mace and soon the Liberal Government House Leader Ralph Goodale protested Dr. Martin’s actions saying his rights as an MP were violated. Geez. Well this past Monday, Dr. Martin tried to debate reasons why he shouldn’t be censured by the House and that he shouldn’t have to apologise. He tried and the House deferred the vote till Tuesday. Rather than voting on it, it ended up getting unanimously approved, by all sides of the House -- even Dr. Martin’s Alliance party.
It is right that Dr. Martin be called to the Bar of The House and formally apologise to all members of the House. He must. He practically mocked Parliament by disrespecting one of the archaic symbols of the House. When we lose our traditions -- no matter how silly they are -- we lose our identity in a way, and we lose the history, of what Peter Newman said, is sometimes a good nation. Dr. Martin’s intentions were good. Lifting the Mace has become a personal embarrassment for him, but he should be commended for trying to cast a light on the dictatorial nature of Jean Chrétien and his government. Mr. Chrétien has practically bastardised Parliament and ignored the will of the democratically elected men and women who are supposed to act for those that send them to sit that House.
* I am indebted to Maureen McTeer’s Parliament: Canada’s Democracy and How It Works (Toronto: Random House, 1995) p. 57. Also, I must note the title of today’s tome is exact to the memoirs of former deputy prime minister, the Hon. Erik Neilsen. I cannot claim to have read his book, thus any remarkable allusions between this column and his book and its title are purely accidental.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .