Monday, May 24, 2010

Elevate Decorum? HA!

I like Micheal Chong, but I fear his private members bill is due to die. Why? The opposition don't want to be respectable. They want the "got you" moments caught on camera and broadcast on TV.

MP seeks to 'elevate decorum' of Question Period


Here's Liberal MP Bob Rae last week asking the government why it is not following the climate-change strategies proposed by people like British economist Nicholas Stern:

"Mr. Speaker, the government is living so far in the past it is not funny. Sir Nicholas Stern -

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a lot of heckling. I did not know 250 knuckles grazing the floor could make so much noise."


Seriously, Nicholas stern? He has been discredited years ago. Why should the government respond to "knuckles grazing the floor"? That is despicable, and Rae deserved to be booed.

Last week, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asked the government what the RCMP was investigating in regards to former Cabinet minister Helena Guergis. Mr. Baird responded thusly: "Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What I can do is speak as a member of the House of Commons. Why did the Liberal leader appoint a senior member of his caucus to the most important regulatory oversight committee, a man who is advertising himself as a paid lobbyist for foreign interests, specifically saying that he could get regulations changed?"


Jennings wasn't seriously expecting an answer, she has been one of the most vocal Liberals against Helena. Doesn't the Liberal pink book talk about "equality for women"? Yet it's okay to insinuate and smear. The media refuses to cover Liberal Lee for his "alleged" lobbying and Pablo for his arrest and "alleged" failure to blow...where are the MADD Mom's? Strangely quiet. Yet the media has made Helena's and Rahim's lives miserable.

(Mr. Chong has a bit of a history with taking stands on principle, having resigned as minister of intergovernmental affairs in 2006 because he disagreed with the motion that recognized the Québécois "nation.")

His motion, though, goes much further than suggesting that the Speaker be encouraged to metaphorically swing a bigger stick in the House. He suggests changing the rules around QP in order to eliminate the practice of having all questions vetted by the party whip and House leader; to set aside one day a week for the prime minister to be answerable in the House; to have other ministers available for two of the remaining four days; and to end the 35-second limit on answers that encourages snappy retorts and one-liners rather than thoughtful responses.

These measures are part of the same general theme: getting QP focused on "substantive issues more than political point-scoring," says Mr. Chong.


I seriously hope MP's from ALL parties support this bill, but I don't think they will. They are too intent on getting back into power and will not want their "star" performances curtailed.

A better bill would have been to cancel immunity for ALL MP's in Question Period. This rule goes back before TV and blogs, it is obsolete, and MP's are used it to saying anything they want without fear of legal action. I also think they should stop reading off of a prepared card, if an MP has some issue for their constituency, they should be able to get up and ask a question. Cabinet Ministers should be able to answer whatever question gets thrown at them.

Elevate Decorum? How about paying more attention to your constituents, and less time smearing the government.

4 comments:

Jan said...

I agree with you. Either get the press out of QP which has devolved into a dog and pony show, or remove the immunity during QP for all MPs.

CanadianSense said...

I don't blame adding cameras in QP, our media is providing their networks, production of editing, expert opinion, airing and analyzing the banter for public consumption.

Why, 80% people find politics boring, only during a campaign do they tune in.

Us junkies can watch it through the internet or CPAC.

The disconnect is not only for politics but includes almost everything.

The media is doing a horrible job in providing context for tabloid TMZ journalism.

Low cost, low quality, public shaping activities.

This begs the question why save the networks, if the content sucks?

CanadianSense said...

We should not remove, restrict the "free press" in any manner. They are free to continue a horrible job in reporting information (telling a story). We should vote with our dollars and not invest in their low quality product.
I have zero problem if the press were critical of the Government if the stories were balanced and the context was accurate.

The Gossip, using quotes behind parliamentary privilege for weeks, ignoring larger issues is the "red flag".

Our media has ignored the Financial behind the curtain of debt for months until the Greece flare up, and now they are starting to look at the threat it poses for the Global recovery.

maryT said...

OT, but who will lead the charge to save Lucy, with the death today of Art Linkletter.