Trashing Parliament
A week is a long time in politics, and this one seemed longer than most. It was a disgraceful week, one in which both sides of the House took turns advertising their contempt for the Parliament each claims to revere.
And why not? Either side could justify its own abuses in light of the other’s, its own hypocrisy redeemed by that -- far worse! -- of its opponents. So Parliament spirals ever downward into irrelevance.
It started with the rejection of Gwyn Morgan as head of the new Public Appointments Commission by a six-member majority of the Commons Operations committee. I trust those exquisites given to fluttering about the dangers of “American-style” confirmation hearings will have the decency to shut up after this travesty: the Americans should rather be concerned about things degenerating to Canadian levels.
I’m not kidding. No Congressional committee would ever treat a nominee for public office, particularly one of Mr. Morgan’s stature, with such reckless disregard for reputation as we saw this week. Through long experience, the Americans know an open confirmation process depends on all sides agreeing to stay within certain boundaries: the President’s choices, unless clearly unsuited, are generally given the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise the whole thing descends into partisan score-settling.
No such limits were observed here. The sight of Mr. Morgan -- probably the most respected figure in Canadian business, not only for his accomplishments but as a man -- being forced to prove he was not a racist will not soon be erased from the memory -- though the thought of Mr. Morgan’s moral standards being found wanting by, for example, Joe Volpe, at least introduces a note of levity.
There is a further irony, in that the office whose integrity the Liberals were so anxious to uphold is one they never got around to creating themselves, what with the crush of friends and supporters needing government jobs and all. Under the circumstances, one can perhaps excuse Stephen Harper’s decision to scrap the whole thing and start again.
The same indulgence does not extend, however, to his handling of the gun registry. Yes, the registry is a mess, and was probably ill-conceived to begin with. Yes, the Tories have made no secret of their desire to dismantle it, and yes, the Liberals are in no position to squawk about respect for Parliament, having been exposed, in this week’s Auditor General’s report, as having lied to Parliament about the registry’s costs.
But none of that justifies proceeding as the Conservatives have done -- not by passing a bill to abolish the registry through Parliament, but by issuing an edict to the effect that henceforth they will not bother to enforce the existing law. That a majority of the people’s elected representatives stand opposed to Conservative policy in this regard is apparently viewed as little more than an inconvenience, a tiresome quibble of interest only to those with a predilection for democracy.
All of this bipartisan shamelessness, however, was but a prelude to the symphony of cant surrounding the Afghanistan vote. Take your pick: after insisting for weeks that no vote was required to extend the current mission (as opposed to a new deployment of troops, for which they had pledged to seek Parliament’s approval), the Conservatives suddenly demand that a vote be held immediately. Or: after demanding just such a vote for weeks, the opposition is outraged to find it has been given one.
And yet, there is a certain consistency in their positions all the same. The Liberals, or that section of the party that voted against the motion, may appear to have repudiated, in opposition, the very policy they upheld in government, scant weeks ago. But that is to forget why the troops were sent to Afghanistan in the first place: to prevent them from being sent to Iraq. The Grits were never seriously committed to the mission, either in principle or in materiel. Remember the blankets soldiers were issued for camouflage in the Afghan scrub, their own uniforms being a nice iridescent shade of forest green?
As for the Prime Minister, while at first blush the decision to hold a vote would appear as something of a flip-flop, the contradiction was soon resolved by his declaration in debate that, whatever the result of the vote, the troops were staying -- if not another two years, then certainly one. (The Liberals might have put up more of a fuss at this, had they not sent the troops in themselves without even the pretense of a vote.)
So it goes. Each outrage begets another. You reject my nominee, I reject your committee. You mislead Parliament, I act outside Parliament. You debase your vote, I ignore it. And each side justifies its behaviour with the age-old defense, beloved of statesmen and philosophers: They Started It.
I don’t know what damage they’re doing to each other, but they’re sure making a mess of Parliament.
And why not? Either side could justify its own abuses in light of the other’s, its own hypocrisy redeemed by that -- far worse! -- of its opponents. So Parliament spirals ever downward into irrelevance.
It started with the rejection of Gwyn Morgan as head of the new Public Appointments Commission by a six-member majority of the Commons Operations committee. I trust those exquisites given to fluttering about the dangers of “American-style” confirmation hearings will have the decency to shut up after this travesty: the Americans should rather be concerned about things degenerating to Canadian levels.
I’m not kidding. No Congressional committee would ever treat a nominee for public office, particularly one of Mr. Morgan’s stature, with such reckless disregard for reputation as we saw this week. Through long experience, the Americans know an open confirmation process depends on all sides agreeing to stay within certain boundaries: the President’s choices, unless clearly unsuited, are generally given the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise the whole thing descends into partisan score-settling.
No such limits were observed here. The sight of Mr. Morgan -- probably the most respected figure in Canadian business, not only for his accomplishments but as a man -- being forced to prove he was not a racist will not soon be erased from the memory -- though the thought of Mr. Morgan’s moral standards being found wanting by, for example, Joe Volpe, at least introduces a note of levity.
There is a further irony, in that the office whose integrity the Liberals were so anxious to uphold is one they never got around to creating themselves, what with the crush of friends and supporters needing government jobs and all. Under the circumstances, one can perhaps excuse Stephen Harper’s decision to scrap the whole thing and start again.
The same indulgence does not extend, however, to his handling of the gun registry. Yes, the registry is a mess, and was probably ill-conceived to begin with. Yes, the Tories have made no secret of their desire to dismantle it, and yes, the Liberals are in no position to squawk about respect for Parliament, having been exposed, in this week’s Auditor General’s report, as having lied to Parliament about the registry’s costs.
But none of that justifies proceeding as the Conservatives have done -- not by passing a bill to abolish the registry through Parliament, but by issuing an edict to the effect that henceforth they will not bother to enforce the existing law. That a majority of the people’s elected representatives stand opposed to Conservative policy in this regard is apparently viewed as little more than an inconvenience, a tiresome quibble of interest only to those with a predilection for democracy.
All of this bipartisan shamelessness, however, was but a prelude to the symphony of cant surrounding the Afghanistan vote. Take your pick: after insisting for weeks that no vote was required to extend the current mission (as opposed to a new deployment of troops, for which they had pledged to seek Parliament’s approval), the Conservatives suddenly demand that a vote be held immediately. Or: after demanding just such a vote for weeks, the opposition is outraged to find it has been given one.
And yet, there is a certain consistency in their positions all the same. The Liberals, or that section of the party that voted against the motion, may appear to have repudiated, in opposition, the very policy they upheld in government, scant weeks ago. But that is to forget why the troops were sent to Afghanistan in the first place: to prevent them from being sent to Iraq. The Grits were never seriously committed to the mission, either in principle or in materiel. Remember the blankets soldiers were issued for camouflage in the Afghan scrub, their own uniforms being a nice iridescent shade of forest green?
As for the Prime Minister, while at first blush the decision to hold a vote would appear as something of a flip-flop, the contradiction was soon resolved by his declaration in debate that, whatever the result of the vote, the troops were staying -- if not another two years, then certainly one. (The Liberals might have put up more of a fuss at this, had they not sent the troops in themselves without even the pretense of a vote.)
So it goes. Each outrage begets another. You reject my nominee, I reject your committee. You mislead Parliament, I act outside Parliament. You debase your vote, I ignore it. And each side justifies its behaviour with the age-old defense, beloved of statesmen and philosophers: They Started It.
I don’t know what damage they’re doing to each other, but they’re sure making a mess of Parliament.
5/20/2006
