Why Sensible People Don’t Become Members of Parliament

So what do you think of your MP? Odds are: not much.

I don’t mean that you have a low opinion of your member of Parliament. I do mean that whatever she or he does, doesn’t occupy a significant chunk of your waking time. (Unless of course you work in politics, which is a different matter entirely.)

I mention this because this recent matter of two ex-Liberal MPs should be giving the politically-engaged a bit of pause. Rex Murphy is of the opinion that the investigations process should have been made public. I honestly think such a move would have made matters worse.

First, it would have meant identifying the two female NDP members who made the accusations. The consequence of this would be that reporters would be assigned to profile and get background information on these two — and, because they are public figures (even more so because of this “open” nature of the investigation), their private lives would have been invaded. The media might apologize afterwards, but the damage would already be done.

Second, it would also mean the doings of both accused and accusers, past and present, would be fodder for the social media crowd. As a Facebook user I was startled by the sheer vitriol that popped up in my newsfeed against the dental students of Dalhousie University, when that “gentlemen’s page” scandal erupted. Since we’re talking about elected officials paid by the national taxpayer, I’d expect the vitriol to be at least ten times worse, fuelled by the more immature partisans out there.

Third, even though this involved only members of the Opposition, it’s all too easy to see this as a trap for Tory MPs, who would be tempted to make some smug remark about relative morality. Which is all the excuse the media needs to pounce on their lives, with every communal trip to the pub potentially magnified as the activities of an incipient alcoholic, every misstep torqued into potentially criminal misbehaviour.

Do you think it can’t happen? More to the point, would you trust our media, both commercial and social, to be responsible about handling this information?

I suppose it’s only natural that, when we elect our political representatives, we sort of expect them to be paragons of virtue. We take it for granted that they know how to behave in public, and that their private behaviour is scrupulously correct.

What we do forget, though, is that MPs, because they represent us, the great unwashed masses, are also human. And that, despite all their training in childhood and their education and whatever vows they took concerning their profession or their family lives, they can yield to temptation. They can fail, and fail badly. Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidick is the worst example I can think of. And today’s media environment, with its incessant opinion-spouting and rush to instantaneous judgement, means the consequences of a fall can be long-lasting, devastating in proportion to the actual transgression — and a deterrent to those people who could contribute something significant to the political debate, but are confronted by a high-and-increasing personal cost.

We need mechanics and engineers and physicians and, yes, academics to be in Parliament; we’re not going to get them if they feel that Big Brother has put them on a tightrope and expects them to do cartwheels on it 24/7.

Posted in Federal Government, Politics | 1 Comment

Note To The Wise: Political Parties Never Leave People

Does this sound familiar to you?

For a long time now I have found myself defending my membership of the Labour party while wondering what values of mine it defended any more. I didn’t leave the Labour party. It left me, and many others besides. Yet we, the “defectors”, are lambasted as traitors, since it’s easier to launch personal attacks than political arguments, easier to insult and scaremonger than to reflect on why so many core and loyal voters are edging away uncomfortably.

You may recall that when Garth Turner left the Conservative Party, he made pretty much the same argument (“I didn’t leave the Tories, the party left me!”) It’s a cliché, and it’s a bad one because it feeds a delusion of the politically engaged: that sometimes, people are mistaken about the causes they espouse.

Contrary to what some pundits will tell you, one person, alone, does not comprise a political party; you need at least two, because that shows that the ideas of a party can be shared. And as a party gets bigger, its ideas are still shared, but not all of them are shared by all its members. I call myself a Tory, but I don’t support the death penalty, although many other Tories do.

Ms. Monroe, here, is a rising star of the Guardian. She can be saluted for enduring poverty as a single parent and being creative in feeding her family; that she decided to declare her politics in public is also commendable. But there’s a whiff, in her declaration in that Guardian piece, of the conceit that “since all reasonable people think like me, people who do not are therefore not reasonable.” To declare that “the party left me” may sound to the author like “by embracing policies A to C, the party has made itself unworthy of support.” In reality, it looks more like, “The party doesn’t want to listen to me, so why should I stick around?”

It is not a statement of the treacherous, but one of the petulant, of the spoiled, of the person who’s yet to learn to subsume his or her ego to the pragmatism of practical politics.

If Ms. Monroe wishes to condemn the British Labour Party, she could certainly do better than the plaintive cry of “the party left me.” Since it’s not her party anymore, she should do better than cry.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The Original Mister Spock, R.I.P.

When he published an update to his previous memoir (entitled I Am Not Spock), Leonard Nimoy changed the title to I Am Spock. It was a rueful acknowledgement, and acceptance, that while it severely limited the number of roles he could take as an actor, he still created one of the most iconic roles in television history.

Note: not science-fiction television history. Not just that particular genre. Consider this:

Spock, while an extraterrestrial, is the second-in-command of a crew of 430, mostly from Earth. The series producer, Gene Roddenberry, was optimistic about mankind, wanting to send a message that humanity could accept other intelligent people as intellectual and social equals, but he designated Spock as an alien because, as an “outsider,” he could be an observer on contemporary events as reflected and portrayed on the show.

Yes, you had the character in strong suppression of his emotions, which led non-fans to criticize his performance as wooden. But in episodes such as “Amok Time” and “This Side of Paradise,” the viewers discovered that this was a facade: Spock did have emotions, powerful ones, which he kept in check because that was expected of him by both his culture and his contemporaries.

No other character in series television, at that time, carried that off. Not in the Westerns of the day, not in the sitcoms, not in the crime dramas. It’s one of the reasons Spock was so resonant with teenaged viewers, who experienced that same sort of conflict, dealing with a family and society that expected them to keep themselves in check just as they were beginning to assert their independence and individuality. It’s not surprising that, by the time the series ended in 1991 (yes, 1991, I’m counting the six movies as part of it), we knew more about Spock as a character than any of the other Enterprise crew, including Captain Kirk.

It would be illogical to wish Mr. Nimoy “live long and prosper,” because at 83 he’d already done that. But “it has been an honour” is definitely a fitting epitaph for this man.

Posted in R.I.P. | 1 Comment

We Don’t Need More Sana Hassainias — But We’re Going To Get Them

Sana Hassainia, you ask, what the heck is that?

Actually it’s a who: Sana Hassainia is the independent (but formerly New Democrat) MP for the Quebec riding of Verchères-Les-Patriotes, and according to the CBC she is the MP with the poorest attendance and voting record. Today, she’s announced that she won’t be running for re-election:

In a statement posted to her parliamentary website, Sana Hassainia said that she would continue to represent the citizens of Verchères-Les-Patriotes to the best of her ability as a “maman-députée.”

Okay, yes, Ms. Hassainia was one of the “Orange Crush” MPs who probably never expected to be elected. Her riding used to be held by the Bloc Québécois’ Luc Malo, which is one of the reasons why you’ve probably never heard of it (Bloc MPs usually don’t get coverage outside Quebec). What’s worrisome about this news story, though, is its description of how Ms. Hassainia saw her duties as an MP:

She also points out that it was the NDP caucus leadership that chose not to assign her to a House committee, and didn’t put her in the regular rotation for question period.

“I wasn’t among the star MPs who deserved to ask questions,” she said.

In an interview with CBC News last week, Hassainia said that she missed the votes because she didn’t feel that her vote as an opposition MP mattered with a majority government.

“So I allowed myself to do this, because it’s not my little voice that makes a difference,” she told CBC News in French.

I’m sorry, but even as a partisan Tory I’d be ticked off at that kind of attitude from any MP. Even granting her status as a mother of newborns (with which she excuses her poor attendance record), to carry the attitude that “my vote doesn’t matter because it makes no difference” does a disservice to the people who voted her into office. Even if she voted straight down the NDP party line, she can at least say that her vote is her own exercise of judgement on behalf of the people of Verchères-Les-Patriotes, expressing their concerns and will on the legislation and business before the House.

(Mind you, it’s not quite true that she didn’t have any committee work. According to the Parliamentary website, she was a full member of two committees: Status of Women and Scrutiny of Regulations. So, she’s not really a total slacker. Even so, her attitude is still a bit worrisome.)

It’s worrisome because, come the next election, we’re going to get a lot more MPs into the House. And, no matter what side they’re sitting on, the odds that some MPs will show the same attitude as Ms. Hassainia are going to be pretty good, whether they’re freshly-minted government backbenchers or Opposition newbies staring in despair at their numbers.

Posted in New DiPsticks, On The House | 1 Comment

Peter Van Loan Defines Combat

Yesterday, the Opposition raised a question of privilege, accusing the Harper government of misleading the House on the nature of Canada’s military role in Iraq. (The mission is known as Operation IMPACT, and you can find the official DND page describing it here.)

Specifically, the Opposition wanted to pin the government down on the definition of combat. Responding was house leader Peter Van Loan, and his response, while underreported (hey, it wasn’t Question Period) is still a pretty good one:

We think self-defence is not combat. We think it is common sense. We think it is what anyone would expect their troops in the field to be able to undertake. The mission is a mission to advise and assist. There is nothing in that mission to prevent our soldiers from defending themselves if they should come under fire.

The opposition, keeps using some funny terms that seem very odd to me. One is “front lines”. Another is “combat zone”. The opposition seems to think that the advise and assist mission means that our forces will never be on the front lines of the combat zone. “Front lines” is an archaic image. This is what we had in World War I, when soldiers were in trenches. There is nothing like that right now. Right now, in a place like Iraq, where our special forces are on the ground, everything is the front line. Everything is the combat zone.

In fact … the combat zone is not just in Iraq. The front lines are not just in Iraq. The combat zone, the front lines, are in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, where a Canadian soldier was killed. They are at the National War Memorial. Those are the front lines now. It is a terminology I frankly do not understand from the opposition.

I heard the hon. member say that he expects that Canadian soldiers will be “behind the wire”. They are in Iraq. There are no Canadian bases in Iraq. There is no wire to be behind. It shows a remarkable lack of understanding of what our forces are doing there.

The fact is that they are in a dangerous place, and in that dangerous place, doing the dangerous work of advising and assisting, they have, and should have, every right to defend themselves. No one has ever told this House of Commons or suggested, not this government at least, that our soldiers should go there with their hands tied behind their backs, restricted from doing that. That is the fundamental difference in this debate, and that is what it is. It is a debate.

Of course, the Opposition are right to be worried that Canada’s current role may, in the long term, escalate into something protracted and more deeply involved. But at the same time, it’s important to emphasize that the nature of the beast is, most definitely, not the same as the one that drew Canada into Afghanistan, and Mr. Van Loan does deserve kudos for drawing attention to that fact.

Posted in Can Cons, Military Matters | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Why Jeb Bush Is Braver Than The Ontario Liberal Party

Private e-mails made public, as Sony Pictures executives and now surely attest, can sink a career. They can also, with a certain amount of bravery, bolster it. as Jeb Bush is now wont to demonstrate.

It’s a risk, certainly. Something like this, for example, is more likely to get people mad at him than be considered a satisfactory reply:

To a man who wrote “politicians make me sick, you make me sick,” Bush replied: “I am truly sorry you feel that way. Have a nice day,” adding a smiley face.

As Mr. Bush’s campaign for the 2016 presidential election becomes more seriously, we should expect a few more revelations along these lines: missives that show him being unnecessarily flippant, or at least unsympathetic on topics which the media can make mischief with.

Still, though, Mr. Bush should be applauded for making these e-mails public. Certainly it’s a bolder step than what we’ve seen from the Ontario Liberals.

Such a step would also be a good thing to see from the Prime Minister’s Office, or the offices of the opposition party leaders. It’s also a bit surprising, given Justin Trudeau’s so-called commitment to a more open process for candidate nomination, that he hasn’t offered to make public the e-mails between his office and the riding associations for which he wants to recruit potential “star” candidates.

Then again, given the complaints we’re seeing in public already, probably not.

Posted in Ontario, Politics, Yankees | Tagged , | 2 Comments

On MPs And Their Hospitality

Let me draw your attention to this story in the Ottawa Citizen, which discusses the hospitality expenses of our Members of Parliament.

More helpfully, the actual report itself is available here at the Parliamentary web site. If you want to compare hospitality expense numbers among individual MPs, there’s a search tool here.

I thought it might be interesting to use this tool, so I pulled up the expense figures for Élaine Michaud, the NDP member whom the news story names as the highest spender on hospitality; Paul Dewar, the MP for my riding of Ottawa Centre, and the three major party leaders.

The results, in alphabetical order:

Mr. Dewar had $2,007.83 allotted for hospitality during the reporting period. He spent a total of $305.94 for two meetings in June, both at the Parliamentary restaurant.

The Prime Minister had no money in his MP budget for hospitality, and the report says he spent no money. (To be fair, whatever hospitality he would have spent would be covered in the PMO budget. Different account, you might say. Or, as leader of the Conservatives, hospitality could be picked up by the party.)

Ms. Michaud had $6,190.27 budgeted for hospitality, $4,999.83 of which was spent. The majority of her expenses (which are documented here) were on town hall meetings. Considering how big her riding is (7,617 square kilometers and 81,093 registered electors) and since the attendance was substantial, the amounts do seem reasonable.

Mr. Mulcair budgeted $70 for hospitality (yes, $70), which wasn’t used. As with the Prime Minister, hospitality expenses are more likely to come out of the budget for the opposition leader’s office, which is a separate account, or the budget of the party.

Mr. Trudeau had $562.30 budgeted for hospitality, which wasn’t used. Although the leader of the third party doesn’t have an official parliamentary office, hospitality would most likely be picked up by the Liberal Party due to his role as leader.

Here’s the thing: hospitality is a recognized function of all MPs. A constituent comes to visit to discuss business, and if they go for lunch or dinner, who pays for it? Answer: the MP, because if the constituent pays it could be twisted in the media to look like undue influence. Should the MP pay for it from his / her own salary? No, because if he or she does, there won’t be a public record that the meeting took place (i.e. the restaurant bill), and sometimes it’s desirable that an MP prove that there was a meeting at which business was discussed.

Thankfully, the expenses aren’t quite as outrageous as the $18 orange juice that Bev Oda tried to put on the public tab. But they’re still necessary to the business of MPs, and nothing here seems overly extravagant. Wouldn’t you agree?

Posted in Harping, On The House, Politics, The Muleclear Reactor | 1 Comment