|
| 2009-05-27 It's time to end parliamentary privilege | | | Ottawa Sun
Published: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 An idea worthy of debate Last fall, fellow Sun columnist Michael Harris and I broke bread at my favourite pasta joint to talk shop just before the federal election. We lamented the dysfunction of the House of Commons, the counterproductive nature of committees and most importantly, a public disgust with politics in general that threatened to result in abysmal voter turnout that could threaten the relevance of elected government itself if not remedied over time. Our lunch stemmed from an appearance on his radio show where we disagreed on how far Parliamentarians – both on Parliament Hill and in the provincial legislatures – can use their “privilege” and wide latitude to score political points.For example, we have seen with increasing frequency over the past decade that opposition MPs have and do make some outrageous accusations about the conduct of their peers. From issues of government appointments to political scandals to funding questions in the riding back home, Ministers of all partisan stripes, and sometimes their supporters, have been dragged through the question period (QP) mud. Of course one shouldn’t tarnish the institution of Parliament or the art and practice of politics as a whole; however we have seen more lawsuits launched by politicians against each other or by staffers or members of the public against politicians, pundits, etc. This stems in part from the invocation of parliamentary privilege where accusations and statements made in parliament quickly send defamation lawyers into a salivating frenzy if made on TV, in the media or at a public event. And the phrase “if the honourable member is so sure I did what he says then he should have the courage to step outside this Chamber and make the accusation again so we can let the courts decide”, or some variation thereof, has probably been uttered more times in the last decade than in all of our political history combined since 1867. The Speaker is quick to admonish MPs if they call each other “liars” or use un-parliamentary language, but many character assassinations, including those on members of the public who may or may not be in the news, slip by unchallenged. It is wrong that the legitimate limits placed upon our free speech do not apply with the same rigour to the confines of parliamentary debate. We can and should elevate political debate – as there are capable and witty orators in all political parties -- to an enviable contest of concepts and ideas that inspire action from the present slumber of surly soundbites and demoralizing invective.The election of Barack Obama last year was supposed to herald a renaissance of compelling allocution, grander visions and unleash the aspirations of frustrated generations. And while the international financial crisis and global recession has narrowed political energies to the here and now, surely we can still strive for better daily debate.Both Prime Minister Harper and Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff are men of ideas at their respective cores; Canadians need to see more of this from both of them, their peers and their counterparts in our provincial legislatures. Removing parliamentary privilege would not censor free speech or fair comment to hold governments to account. Instead it would likely have the opposite effect and liberate new ideas, reduce acrimony amongst our politicians, and result in more legislation getting passed and the machinery of government working to its full potential.And if our politicians themselves took steps to change the rules that govern their own discourse, even better. If I may be so bold, it is an idea worthy of vigourous yet respectful debate. | | |
|
|
| |