LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Day: December 20, 2017

After a full calendar year in the House of Commons, we have seen some incremental progress from the Liberals when it comes to Question Period.  Between the heavier hand wielded by Speaker Geoff Regan, and the tone being set by the governing party, there has been a marked change in the daily exercise of accountability, but while it may no longer be the same soul-destroying experience that it was under the Conservatives, it's also clear that there remain a great many things that need to be done before QP can reach a better place.

To be clear, since the Liberals have banned their side from applauding in all but exceptional circumstances, and with heckles and catcalls at a minimum, the din of the place is far from what it used to be in the Stephen Harper era, particularly pre-2011 when the Liberals held official opposition and enjoyed the verbal jousting that the NDP were allegedly above engaging in.  What hasn't changed is just how scripted the whole thing is.  While some of the Liberal minsters are more comfortable not reading their responses in their first official language than the Conservatives were, there are still few answers to be had.

Granted, the quality of the questions hasn't exactly gotten any better either.  Because the operating model of QP has become so bastardized over the past couple of decades where there was once debate in a linear pattern, we are instead operating a buffet for media clips.  The same questions are asked repeatedly in order to get the best clips for use on the evening news, in both official languages, and then we feign surprise when answers are robotic and repetitive.  There is no flow, no follow-ups, and even when the government gives actual answers that completely shuts down the premise of the question being asked, opposition MPs have no ability to think on their feet and they will repeat their scripted question, looking like complete fools, because they have no ability to pivot or think on their feet.  There's a word for that: pathetic.

Justin Trudeau's attendance is another issue that has been bubbling up in the past month, as he has gone from attending three days a week to just one or two, eerily in the mould of his predecessor, Stephen Harper.  Yes, he has had a busy travel schedule, which is understandable, and yet there are days where he has been in town (because he had engagements earlier in the day), but didn't show up for QP.  On one occasion, we found out that it was because of a family obligation, but one would think that an open and transparent government as this one claims to be would actually communicate that, but they haven't.

Why this is important is because the election platform plank of reforming Question Period still lurks in the background, part of the same parliamentary reform package that included the promised changes to the electoral system that desperately needs to be smothered in the cradle.  The promise was to institute a UK-style once-weekly Prime Minister's Questions where Trudeau would answer all of the questions on one day in a week, and that would be it apparently not bothering to show up in QP any other time.  That promise should rankle because one of the great things about the way that our QP works is that it means that the PM would be available to be held to account on any day that events might happen.  What also rankles is that this is a promise that is completely unnecessary.  If he really wanted, Trudeau could answer backbencher questions rather than just those of other leaders there is nothing stopping him.  Rather than promising to do it one day per week and no more, he has the opportunity to do more of his own volition he simply won't.

Down the hall in the Senate, there have been a great many changes with their own Question Period as well, the most notable being that with there no longer being a Leader of the Government in the Senate who is a cabinet minister, they have begun inviting a cabinet minister to their chamber on a weekly basis to answer questions for a full 40 minutes.  While on the surface, this has been a reasonable exercise in accountability and an opportunity for senators to ask questions of ministers who might not otherwise come before committees that they are members of, this too has proven a bit more frustrating that it might appear on the surface.

QP in the Senate operates on a different time scale, and there is not a ticking clock looming over everyone's heads, where you have 35 seconds to ask and 35 to respond and that's it.  Instead, there is time enough for a lengthy question and a lengthy response if needed.  The problem is that the majority of ministers are taking copious time to answer, but rather than actually answer, they have developed a tendency to ramble and use their verbosity to obfuscate.  And the grumbling I've heard from the Senate Liberals in particular is that it should be Question Period, not "Announcement Period," where ministers simply repeat previous announcements of consultations or intentions with no specifics.

The solution to that would be rather simple modify the Senate rules so that the Speaker can demand an answer.  This is something they could do the Commons if they wanted as well, but nobody has any particular appetite to do so.  The added bonus is that it might also force the "government representative" in the Senate, Peter Harder, to actually answer questions posed to him as well rather than let him get away with some blatant evasions (such as refusing to answer how often he meets with Cabinet).

Political theatre aside and it is theatre QP still has an accountability function to play.  So long as we let MPs and ministers stick to scripts, its utility will continue to be debased, serving nobody's interests.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Screen Shot 2024-02-26 at 11.27.30 AM

More from Dale Smith

Click here for more

Land of the silver birch/ Home of the beaver/ Where mighty political correctness/ Wanders at will/ Blue lake and rocky shore/ I will return to the human rights tribunal.

The last bit doesn't scan very well.  But it's a song for our times in which, as Jacques Mallet du Pan warned about its French predecessor, the PC revolution is now like Saturn devouring its children.

In case you missed it, a Toronto music teacher is suing her principal, vice-principal and school board for defamation over an email calling a song she included in a 2016 school play at High Park Alternative Public School "inappropriate" and "racist".  The matter has yet to be heard by a court, but certainly an accusation of racism is very damaging nowadays.  And this one also seems daffy.

The song in question is "Land of the Silver Birch", which might fairly be classified among the cultural nationalist efforts Roy Conlogue once disparaged: "Torrents of terrible verse by any number of writers described the rocks, the rivers, the twisted pines, the vaulting mountains."  But racist?

Perhaps because I never went to camp, I never heard this song.  But evidently it helps keep paddlers in time and was probably inspired, though certainly not written, by aboriginal poet Pauline Johnson.  Its only aboriginal reference is "High on a rocky ledge/ I'll build my wigwam" or alternatively "There where the blue lake lies, I'll set my wigwam".

Surely it's not racist to say wigwam is an Algonquin word for a domed shelter or it would be nice to put one near a lake.  So what can be wrong with this song?  Aren't we all told about first nations' special relationship with nature?

Well, the National Post explained, the email by the principal and vice-principal said "While its lyrics are not overly racist … the historical context of the song is racist" because Johnson, who I repeat did not write it, performed mostly for non-natives and "depicted Native people and culture in romantic ways, while lamenting the dying out of Native civilization to be replaced by a superior western civilization."

Since Johnson was half-English you'd think she could perform for half-white audiences.  Or maybe not; political correctness is tricky.  But what could be wrong with depicting aboriginal culture positively and lamenting its disappearance?  If she really said Western civilization was superior she could be in a heap of trouble today even though its institutions and practices like hospitals, universities and parliaments, and even its bad habits like junk food, have spread around the world for some incomprehensible reason.

As for "romanticizing" aboriginal culture, surely we do it relentlessly now, ignoring any possible negatives and putting saccharine stress on the positives, to the point that aboriginals even get "elders" while everyone else just has old people.  And if you're planning to pursue native studies do not mention chronic warfare, cannibalism, torture or slavery or your career is pemmican.  Arguably the objection to lamenting its disappearance is part of a romantic conception that while European destruction of native tradition must be condemned, it can't possibly be acknowledged lest we appear to disparage aboriginal cultural resilience.  But even if Johnson committed every PC sin in the book, which now comprises many volumes, how does it affect Land of the Silver Birch which she… did… not… write?

Well, consider that after 40 years the Canadian Historical Association plans to rename the "Sir John A. Macdonald prize" the "CHA prize for Best Scholarly Book in Canadian History", a name only a commissar could love, because Macdonald was a genocidal bigot.  The National Post quoted Trent's Christopher Dummitt, a CHA member, calling it part of a "purity spiral" in which "We're finding more and more people who were not perfect according to our contemporary standards… Now that it has reached Canada's first and probably most important prime minister, it suggests that it's not going to end."

Indeed.  Instead it's devouring Land of the Silver Birch and half of Pauline Johnson, and presumably won't end until we celebrate our history by flinging everyone down the memory hole along with all our songs and well-meaning teachers who are surely not stereotypical bigots.

The Post gave the last word on the Macdonald Prize to U of T's Robert Bothwell, who noted acidly that "Defacing monuments and condemning the past go back to ancient Egypt, so why should we be surprised that the custom lingers?"  An excellent question, to which I reply because we used to scorn cultures that sought to erase embarrassing details of their past or any signs of the other like, awkwardly, many aboriginal groups victorious in battle.

So I'm giving the last word on Land of the Silver Shtum to Mallet du Pan, who knew that once the revolution starts devouring its children, its appetite grows inexorably.

Photo Credit: Donna Bonin

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

john-robson

More from John Robson

Click here for more