“Obviously, the Liberal Party opposes the change we have made … I am not surprised, given what I am reading in The Vancouver Sun today, when I realize this is how the Liberal Party makes decisions … The Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for Mississauga-Brampton …”
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve had the privilege of sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, and each time, I always do the same thing when I first arrive, watch, not listen.
Why do I do this? For a number of reasons, the most important of which is you learn a lot more watching the members that aren’t speaking than watching the actors currently on cue.
Wednesday of this week wasn’t just the usual circus, it was worse.
I won’t rehash my blog of November 6 – Decorum in the House; the cynical silver bullet. If you’re interested you can review what I wrote. Today I’d like to draw attention to and expose, perhaps a little more explicitly than others have, something about Stephen Harper Canadians should be aware of and concerned about.
Once again I find myself referencing something John Ibbitson has written so that I may highlight the issue I want to address, namely, “There is one other difference between Stephen Harper and John Diefenbaker. There is nothing, nothing Mr. Harper won’t do to win.”
Don’t get me wrong, I like to see competitiveness in a person and I too believe in doing whatever needs to be done to win, within the rules of the game. But on that latter clarification – within the rules of the game – Mr. Harper and his inner-circle have a hard time distinguishing, I think, between what they do day-in day-out, and ethics. Ethical behaviour, it would appear, being in short supply.
What concerns me most is not the character flaw, but rather that many Canadians seem to confuse the personality trait with leadership. It’s critical, I think, to distinguish between ingenuity and confidence versus slime and bullying.
Forget for the moment that I or any other Canadian may or may not agree with the Conservatives desire to extend the anti-terrorism measure versus the Liberals purported wish against it. That’s not the point. Forget too that when Navdeep Bains was 9 years old, his future father-in-law may or may not have been associated in any way, shape, or form, with the Air India bombing. However, it takes pretty sinister strategic thinking and forethought to get from those two unrelated facts, to fabricating a cobbled-together link which at the same time pays absolutely no regard, whatsoever, to the character assassination of one Navdeep Bains. Or, was that just a bonus?
Getting back to the dynamics of Question Period, CPAC is simply no replacement for being there.
With some degree of regularity, I watch NHL hockey on TV. However, on those few occasions I attend in person, I watch an entirely different game. Question Period is that, times a thousand. That’s why when I am in the gallery I watch very intently and listen very little, rarely reaching for the telephone-like handset that delivers what I shall loosely refer to as, sound.
The difference between a hockey player adjusting himself or hoarking while possibly on camera, is they don’t care and it’s part of the game. In Question Period they don’t care either, but for entirely different reasons. During Question Period a member can literally, or at least figuratively, stand at his or her seat and moon an opponent safe in the knowledge CPAC will never pick it up. It’s forbidden.
On Wednesday, watching Mr. Harper and various designated Liberals exchange on the Navdeep Bains debacle was NOT what I was focused on. Instead, watching the likes of John Baird and Jason Kenny was far-far more insightful.
Only once, and only for a fleeting moment, did I once observe a look of worry in John Baird’s demeanor. It was on December 13, 2006, when he was still the Treasury Board boss and I was a guest in the Government lounge. An issue had developed while Mr. Baird was in the House during QP and he needed to come back and consult with his army of minions in the lounge. It didn’t look good. The guard came down and there was a noticeable look of worry and concern. A look that does indeed fracture the usual facade if you know to look for it.
I saw that exact same look of momentary panic on John Baird’s face Wednesday during Question Period at the very instant it became clear the Prime Minister’s attack strategy on a man who happened to be wearing a Turban was about to go sour. The look lasted all of five seconds, if that. Jason Kenny more nervously had the exact same look, for maybe a second or two longer until the two looked at each other and knowingly nodded. That’s when it happened. All the other stuff that is.
SOL shifted from it’s usual meaning (s-out-of-luck) and became save our leader. The concerted effort to try and rescue the leader from his own gaffe would begin to occur just as fast as humanly possible; to get the spotlight off PMSH and on someone else, anyone else.
I carefully watched as the once cockily-held cut-out piece of paper from the Vancouver Sun was quietly folded and put away. Following failed attempts to go on the defensive by being more offensive, the statement was never retracted, but the man himself did, retract that is, while underlings did their best to try and cover, up. On that particular day however, the Liberal team functioned, as a team.
3 o’clock never came fast enough for the beleaguered Mr. Harper. It was written all over his face, even from the balcony. Never before have I seen that glass of water reached for so often for so little intake, but for so much swallowing.
While it was the turn of Liberal members to speak, at left is an example of how the “honourable” member for Ottawa West Nepean behaves. In fairness to Mr. Baird, he was not alone. To watch and observe the antics coming from all sides was worse than disgusting. Another time, I will blog about the competence, or lack thereof, of the current speaker of the house, Mr. Peter Milliken.
A notable few, Garth Turner included, participate in no such capacity, where civility and professional conduct is not sacrificed in the name of childish partisanship. While for the most part most members simply support their parties’ position, a few dozen behave like complete and utter buffoons. Of one thing I am certain, few or none would behave the way they do if there was any chance CPAC was permitted to put the camera on, for constituents to see, not just hear, what goes on during Question Period.
From people who watch Question Period everyday, even highly respected journalists who sit and observe from on-high, the headshaking and ad-hoc comments later in the foyer were nearly all the same; never before had they witnessed such a session. Neither had I.
You had to be there!