Behaviour in the provincial legislature or federal parliament is sometimes as refined as children fighting over a toy in the sandbox.
Just last week, Government House leader Peter Van Loan admitted to using what he called an “inappropriate” word and swearing in a verbal brawl with NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Opposition House leader Nathan Cullen. He later apologized for his role in the flare-up, and called on the NDP to do so as well, but it was already another cause for head-shaking over the tantrums and fighting seen in the House.
Closer to home, in the provincial legislature, we are seeing an acrimonious fall sitting, with the NDP even calling on Premier Alison Redford to resign over her role in what the opposition has called the tobacco litigation scandal.
Some of the acrimony results from good cause – for instance, the government’s tendency to ram legislation through. A little more than 120 amendments have been put forth by opposition parties over the fall session, and the government has rejected all but two – either the opposition parties have no good ideas or the government is just refusing to consider thoughtful amendments to legislation such as Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act, or Bill 7, the Election Accountability Amendment Act.
With the latter, there was a lot of sense in the opposition parties’ call to ban political donations from corporations and unions, and to close what has been called the “Katz loophole,” so that individuals and organizations can only make one donation, rather than write one big cheque and split it into amounts under the $30,000 limit and divide it among several entities for receipt purposes. The government put up only a pathetic defense for rejecting these amendments, the equivalent of a petulant attitude of crossing their arms and stomping their feet, saying, “We don’t want to do that.”
The government should consider what is in the best interest of the public, rather than what it is in its own best interests, and give consideration to what the opposition has to say rather than rejecting it out of hand simply because the PCs can, with their majority.
However, some conflicts seem blown out of all proportion, the tobacco litigation scandal being just one example. Premier Alison Redford and her government have bungled this issue over whether Redford made the decision to award a lucrative contract to her ex-husband’s law firm. Redford and others have basically quibbled on whether she made a decision or the final, final decision. Her line of defense, instead, should have been that awarding the contract to this law firm was the best, most reasoned choice, and that an ex-husband isn’t included in conflict of interest rules.
It would be nice to see opposition parties focusing their attention on matters of importance, rather than attacking the government on every issue. Instead, when the government makes the right moves (for instance, the decision to serve home-cooked meals in long-term care units or finally crafts an Education Act which has general support), the opposition parties should applaud and encourage these efforts, rather than try to use these issues to score political points for themselves.
Aside from the constant need to improve decorum within legislature or parliament, there is nothing wrong with a government of any kind having its feet held to the fire. It is, after all, the role of opposition parties to do just that and no one can argue they are failing in this duty.
