Since the Conservatives won their majority two years ago, one of the most noticeable changes at the House of Commons agriculture committee is the lack of dissenting voices invited to testify.
MPs invite who they want to hear. Conservative MPs now rule the committee.
Hearings on contentious issues tend to have a preponderance of witnesses who agree with the government approach, even if they quibble with some of the details.
During the past few weeks, at least part of the reason for the lack of critics has become clear: Conservatives apparently don’t like to hear critics and don’t like to give them airtime.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Their version of politics is a “take no prisoners” vision: you are for me or against me.
So if known Conservative-agenda critics are invited at the recommendation of the opposition and the consent of the majority, it almost always is a trap: a chance for Conservative MPs to set civility and open debate aside to attack witnesses for who they are or where they stand on the political spectrum rather than what they say.
An example was a Feb. 5 meeting when former National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells and current Manitoba NFU director Ian Robson were invited as “individuals” and proceeded to oppose Conservative grain and agricultural policy directions, as would be expected.
Instead of agreeing to disagree, Conservative MPs went into bully mode, complaining that the witnesses weren’t “individuals” as they were described on the committee agenda and invited by the committee clerk, but partisan NFU members and should have been so identified.
In attack mode, Conservatives resurrected old statements and positions the NFUers had taken. The idea or possibility that some farmers actually oppose the Conservative agenda and have a right to be heard was a foreign concept.
When Wells or Robson tried to respond, they were cut off by Conservative questioners with more accusations to make.
Last week, they (mainly Alberta MP Blake Richards) were at it again.
They invited one opponent and many supporters to testify during hearings on low-level presence acceptance for unapproved genetically modified gene traces in imports, and then spent most of their time attacking the lone critic: Lucy Sharratt from the anti-GMO Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
CBAN’s position is well known and yet they went at her for stating it.
Richards argued she represents radical anti-GM environmentalism, financed by American environmentalists opposed to Canadian interests. The implication was she has a hidden anti-Canadian agenda.
When Sharratt tried to answer, Richards repeatedly cut her off, insisting the time was his.
It was rude, crude and abusive.
Whether CBAC’s positions offend the Conservatives or not, she was a guest invited by the committee and should have been treated with respect.
Sharratt said later that the Commons agriculture committee, of all parliamentary places, should “offer space” for debate of opposing opinions.
“I don’t want to be there to be a pawn in a partisan game.”
Governments and their MPs always have the right to ignore opinions with which they disagree, but to try to throttle those opinions, belittle the messengers or assume there is only one legitimate point of view is a step on the path to arrogance and losing touch.
Ask the 1993 version of the Progressive Conservatives who fell from majority to two seats in an historic loss.
