Decorum in the House; the cynical silver bullet

C'mon, admit it. Somewhere between CSI Miami, Friday Night Showcase, Leafs TV, and Sex-in-the-City, you occasionally find yourself watching Question Period on CPAC.

Don't lie! I know you do. However, I also know you watch only five minutes, shake your head in disgust and flip the channel with opinion firmly formulated. 

Two months later, it's 3 a.m. and you can't sleep so you tune in again only to find nothing has changed except your opinion; now only further negatively entrenched.

Why such behaviour occurs during Question Period isn't hard to figure out. Why it persists, is what's mind boggling, embarrassing, and unacceptable.

How is it a group of politicians who supposedly live-and-die by polls don't seem to get it? I think they do get it. The culprits simply don't give a hoot, and I am being polite using the word hoot.

Outlined below is my sense of the Problem, the Cause, and the Cure. But this blog isn't the first attempt at identifying and solving the problem. Google "decorum in house" and note we are not alone.

Where I hope to differ, if I may be so presumptuous to believe this slice of the digital democracy can accomplish such a task, is to once and for all put an end to this blemish on our government record.

The Problem

Here's a thought; next time I am in a meeting with colleagues and clients, I'm going to start ridiculing and heckling whoever has the floor with juvenile slurs. And if someone asks me a question about say Communications Strategies, then smack in the middle of the question I am going to point to my Michael Jackson area, snicker, and rudely retort "strategize this!"   Or, I will quip, "...you wouldn't know a Communications Strategy if it smashed you in the head...".  Immediately after, I'll return to my office and wonder why I don't have anymore clients, why people have zero respect for me, or think I am an idiot. 

Think I'm exaggerating? For an example of the type behaviour that goes on during Question Period [click here].

But this is only the first part of the problem. The Second part of the problem is our parliamentary system is built upon the British parliamentary model and, unfortunately, the antics from across the pond are no better.

A third part of the problem rests with us, the constituents who form the audience and who largely tolerate the behaviour as a result of our own relative inaction. An even smaller partisan minority even encourage it.

By tolerating the behaviour and doing a lousy job communicating how most really feel, the guilty parties are only too giddy to assume it's not really an issue on the tips of constituents tongues, or they believe they can afford to ignore public opinion on this issue. If we really want change, more of us need to use the digital democracy to ensure we are heard, and to threaten figuratively deaf politicians who refuse to listen.

Fourth, the current Chief Referee, Speaker Peter Milliken, seems like a nice enough fellow. However, he also seems as interested in policing the matter as much as NHL referees seemed interested in calling hooking penalties prior to enforcement of the new rules. Isn't it ironic that a bunch of high school testosterone-rich jocks, slugging it out in arguably one of Canada's most physically taunting and provoking sports, saw fit to clean up their profession ahead of alleged statespersons mandated with running the country?

Fifth, Party leaders ignore and justify the behaviour as: "it's always been this way, its the nature of the beast, or Partisan bloodthirsty-ness can't be controlled." Of course this is pure nonsense. Because if supreme control freak - I apologize, I meant if the Honourable Prime Minister Steven Harper - can control with an iron-fist his Ministers from speaking to the Media when he isn't there, then surely - seated beside them - he can prevent them them from behaving like morons for 45 minutes per day in the House of Commons.

If on the other hand, the guttural urge to be a flaming imbecile can't eliminated altogether, then surely to goodness you'd think it could at least be reserved for a time during the day when the nation isn't watching. I mean Judas Priest, even in Grade 2, I knew not to blow paper spit-balls at the back of Andre Beauregard's head when Madame Hebert was watching!

Granted, CPAC ratings don't rank with the Simpson's, but that's no reason to act like Bart, or to think Keith Boag won't air the juiciest of segments during CBC primetime. And hello! No, it's not theatre as some of the actors proudly profess. Not nearly as many as you think are cheering from the sidelines, "good one!"  At least not many voters.

Six, and with all due respect, there is simply no amount of compensation in the feeble claim that "yeah, but you don't see all the good work and respect we have for each other in parliamentary committees outside the House."  The logic being what?  ... that Question Period being nearly the only glimpse into Parliament the voter gets, that's the precise time of day the school bell has to ring for recess?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if ever there is an opportune time that it's appropriate - and there isn't - for me to tell a colleague I think he's a "dickwad," surely that time isn't during a client presentation. Assuming those all-party parliamentary love-ins actually exist, and I've witnessed enough of one to say they don't, wouldn't that be the time to constructively roll-up the sleeves and duke-it-out, not on National TV? 

Seven, I believe some of the politicians think we are easily fooled by other lame justifications. For example, blaming the problem on bad acoustics in the House and overly sensitive microphones is, quite simply, hogwash. If elected MPs weren't out-of-turn disrespectfully yapping their jowls in the first place, then no amount of "bad acoustics" would be picked up by microphones that are, allegedly, more sensitive than a dog's ear.

The Cause

Further discussing "the cause" is likely as meaningful to the cure as trying to sort out "who started it first" between 2 year olds.

I don't like it either when the driver of another vehicle feels the uncontrollable urge to show me the length and singularity of his middle finger on HWY 401 at a 140 km/hr. But that's hardly justification for retaliating at 160 km, just because I can, or because of any incensed rage I may be feeling over the initial gesture being totally unwarranted and unprovoked.

Political partisanship is for certain built along sensitive, emotional, heartfelt, and personal convictions. I understand and tremendously respect this aspect of our democracy. But conviction mustn't cross, or be permitted to cross, the very lines of respect upon which social values are supposed to be built.  

To the accusation "your mother wears army boots," take a deep breath and consider the source. Especially flatter yourself that a more accurate taunt vis-à-vis the real issue couldn't be articulated. By all means, get the number on the back of the jersey, and input that information into cures below.

The Cure

If we were truly serious about curtailing, under all circumstances, cars traveling at speeds above 100 km per hour, the solution would be very simple. A device would be connected to the speedometer that prevented it. It's really that simple.

Instead, we justify allowing vehicles to travel faster because "you just never know when you might need to get to a hospital really fast," or, "for when you might take your Ford Windstar overseas to travel on the Autobahn." Besides, what better way to pass the time between Toronto and Montreal guessing what the tolerated speed limit is today in Gananoque?

Seriously though, the fact there is not zero tolerance for the type of behaviour we see in the House of Commons should be no more surprising than we also don't have zero tolerance for speeds of 101 km/hr. The moment we tolerate any of it, humans will do what humans do best; attempt to discover and push boundaries. This includes trying to get away with traveling 80 in a 50, or mocking a parliamentary colleague just because you think you're flying beneath the radar.

The NHL still has a ways to improve, regardless of what Don Cherry thinks. The "good-old-days" shouldn't be marked on a highlight-reel by guys pummeling each other, any more than our finest parliamentary hour was Belinda or Sheila being referred to as "dogs" and "sluts."

An all-party committee that establishes a set of zero tolerance rules is all it would take. To those who believe they know better because they live it, please don't ridicule this initiative as naive. I only know what I, and 90% of all other voters who pay MPs salaries don't wish to see and that isn't tolerated, one iota, in nearly all other work environments.

If the current speaker lacks the necessary gonads to do the job, I am quite certain the job of speaker of the House of Commons is one government position the average Canadian would not mind seeing the appointment of someone that is uniquely qualified. You don't see many judges allowing such childish behaviour in their courthouse. Why Mr. Milliken allows the house he presides over to run such amuck is, I believe, all the signal we need that it's perhaps time for a change in both who occupies the chair, and the mandate. 

Each party leader, but especially the Prime Minister has a role to play. The rules of engagement to the rank and file need only be this clear: Don't EVER be first to utter an unbecoming word or gesture, and don't EVER respond in kind. If you are speaking and there is the slightest interruption, stop speaking, and ask the speaker to deal with it. In turn, the speaker is to deal with it, severely if need be!

We appear to have cameras enough to focus on those in the spotlight either posing or answering questions. It would seem to me not very difficult to establish sufficient incentive for a few more videographers to capture rogue MPs who see it as their role in parliamentary life to behave like asses, are chronically absent, napping, or crackberrying Aunt Nancy instead of paying full attention to the matter at hand.

Surely if the NHL can have "player-track" on virtually any player it wants for later study, then surely CTV News could conclude each night with a special feature on which MP was the biggest ass of the day during Question Period. Frankly, if my MP is being an ass, I want to know about it. If we had in place mechanisms to showcase the buffoons, well, buffoons they wouldn't be for very much longer.

Finally, it comes down only to this. What are we waiting for? We either want to fix the problem or we don't. If you agree, then perhaps consider sharing this page with others. And if you have other/better solutions, then please share them with me.    

~~~

Note: When I began preparing this post I didn't know Garth Turner was also preparing his own piece on this same matter. Honest, we didn't confer on this one. Nevertheless, in addition to consuming this post, I urge you to also read Garth's post House-of-ill-repute? as well as the accompanying MPTV segment on the same day, November 3, 2006, with Dawn Black.