Winnipeg New Democrat MP Pat Martin found himself in the centre of a media storm last week after he sent out a vulgarity-laced tweet from the floor of Parliament.
The journalism tribe being what they are ( “knee-jerk pack” comes to mind), much of the initial focus was on Martin’s use of language.
Are you sorry? Will you apologize?
He said no. He’s a former construction worker and “that’s our language.”
But the frenzy missed the point.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
He tweeted in frustration after the Conservative majority imposed time allocation on the budget bill, one of the many times in this brief session that discussion has been cut off.
The “parle” in Parliament is supposed to indicate it is a place for talk, but under this majority Conservative government, not so much.
A day or two of debate and the hammer comes down – budget, Canadian Wheat Board, abolishing the gun registry, adding seats to the House of Commons and others.
So parliamentary tempers are flaring, accusations are growing louder, language is getting more colourful and personal attacks more pointed.
So much for the increased decorum that MPs from all parties promised rookie speaker Andrew Scheer when the Regina MP was elected to the position last summer. He has his hands full keeping the place functioning.
There are reasons for the political ill will.
The newly elected majority government has the most aggressive agenda in at least a generation.
It likely won’t be possible, but the Conservatives say they are determined to push many key parts of their election platform through Parliament by Christmas. The issues have been debated for years, they argue, Canadians gave them a mandate May 2 (well, 39 percent) and Canadians expect fast action.
In the end, time simply will run out and some bills will not get through by Christmas, but in their effort, the Conservatives are trampling on parliamentary traditions of debate.
The tendency by Conservatives to combine parliamentary restrictions with partisan putdowns of their opponents (Gerry Ritz, anyone?) adds to the breakdown of civility.
Liberal senator Bob Peterson from Saskatchewan calls them bullies. Martin complains of “jackboot” (read Nazi) tactics.
Add to that the clear frustration of opposition MPs facing a majority government determined to get its way while their own parties, wrapped up in leadership confusion, are largely sidelined and the combination is toxic.
It leads to spirited and sometimes mean-spirited debate, but so what?
Parliament is and always has been a partisan battleground where tempers flare and words are harsh. It is called democratic debate, even if opposition MPs insist these days that it is more of a concept than a reality.
The alternative would be a Parliament where ideas and actions are not debated, where everyone agrees. Pray for a bit of rancour.
The irony is that while Parliament has become more partisan, the agriculture committee that in the last Parliament was largely dysfunctional has become the model of decorum.
“I think you’ll find this committee a lot more welcoming than other committees you might have come before,” Liberal Frank Valeriote told a witness last week.
Indeed, a change of membership does seem to have lowered the temperature.
For the moment, that is not in sight in Parliament.
