EDITORIAL – It was a truly wacko week in Canadian politics

An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.

GOOD TO KNOW there’s one place in Canada where people have to be polite to one another.

There are various lines of thought on what happened in Parliament this week as Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre went toe to toe. The latter was booted from the House for calling Trudeau a “wacko prime minister” and refusing the retract it, instead offering to substitute a couple of other unacceptable terms.

Trudeau, in return, described Poilievre as “spineless,” for which he was allowed by Speaker Greg Fergus to remain in his seat.

It all had to do with a debate over B.C.’s request to the federal government to make public drug consumption in the province illegal.

A day later, things returned to a much more civilized, subdued atmosphere. However, the Conservatives claimed Fergus, a Liberal, was biased in showing Poilievre the door but not doing the same for Trudeau. Predictably, they’re demanding he resign.

Public reaction has been varied. Some think it’s more of the same old unproductive name-calling in Question Period. Some think Poilievre deserved what he got. Some agree with the Tories that Trudeau should have gotten the same. Others are outright cheering Poilievre’s stunt.

And Poilievre no doubt got exactly what he wanted: a good deal of media attention and characterization of Trudeau as a wacko, a description that promises to endure among those of right-wing persuasion.

But name-calling isn’t allowed under the rules of Parliament. Fergus has the right to ask MPs to retract anything they say that’s unparliamentary. He even has the right to interpret what’s unparliamentary and what’s not.

There’s a long history of such incidents. The list is varied and rather amusing. Terms such as sick animal, pompous ass, pig, jerk, trained seal, ignoramus, son of a bitch, dim-witted, bag of wind, piece of shit and now, wacko have been ruled unparliamentary over the years. But not spineless.

(Interestingly, though, “does not have a spine” was once ruled to be unparliamentary. So at the civic level, maybe Coun. Kelly Hall’s use of the term “weak-kneed” during a Kamloops City council meeting not long ago should have been ruled out of order.)

Usually, the offending MP, having had their moment, retract when asked by the speaker. Sometimes, like Poilievre, they refuse and are cited with the legislation that empowers the speaker to remove the MP from the proceedings for the rest of the day.

It’s interesting that anyone would think the language used by either Poilievre or Trudeau against each other was acceptable. We love to complain about what a gong show Question Period is, and rant about how it should be scrapped altogether, but then cheer on nasty language and behaviour as long as it comes from the side we favour.

Belgium has no rules against unparliamentary language, allowing members to say anything they want about each other. I imagine debates must get pretty unruly there. Our system of requiring civility makes more sense.

Fergus might not be the best speaker ever but he does his best to keep a lid on parliamentary proceedings. He didn’t get it totally right this time but he got it half right, which isn’t such a bad percentage.

Mel Rothenburger is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor.  He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.