What Makes a Good Canadian MP

I'm not sure...

I wasn't sure what to write about today, I started out thinking I might write something on why, and how Ruth Ellen Brousseau is still a politician, but after a cursory search of her record it turns out she's done a pretty good job as a member of parliament. 

(The MP for Berthier-Maskinonge presumably about to
kick ass as an MP)

She’s on several committees, has run a few critic portfolios well, does a good job connecting with her constituents. That last one is juxtaposed with the fact she managed to go from ‘not speaking french’ to bilingual since her initial election. Oh yeah, this is also all while being a single mom. 

Dam, and that was my attempt at slinging mud her way. I mean no, way to go Ms. Brousseau obviously I want you to do well, its just that how you got there still bugs me. 

As someone who will likely have to finish my degree before I start working, it pains me to see someone plucked from university (where i currently find myself) and become and elected member of Canada’s highest political because in a fairy-tale move for a political science student. There are tons of qualified people with degrees out there, hell half the professors i’ve been taught by had the candour and knowledge to be successful candidates, but the NDP picked a bartender, who wasn’t finished her degree. Now not only was it maddening that this happened, but now MP Brousseau is actually doing a great job. Its almost like the job doesn’t require a formal education in political science…

I’m not going to go in depth into how she has done such a job, for that you can google her record. Suffice it to say that she is tenacious and has a fantastic work ethic. She also had a lot to prove and it seems she has used that to motivate her. 

So what am I mad about then. Well this comes back to a great book I read in my third year. What I Learned About Politics.

(A Great Book I am not getting paid to plug,
as I bought it on amazon for $0.01)

Written by former provincial NDP finance minister Graham Steele. That section i’m reminded of is where Mr.Steele talks about the ‘qualifications’ of the members of the cabinet. He basically says the geographic and tokenized modern cabinet is actually crap when it comes to having a skill set, and that the politicians he encounters who do well, tend to be the ones who can present themselves as expert in something after doing some minor research on a subject. Knowing a little about a lot of things, and being able to speak convincingly on a range of subjects. Now i’ve worked as a bartender before (as well as being a chef’s apprentice, Pizzaolo, security guard, maintenance worker, call centre employee, house painter etc.) and bartending is some very hard work. I don’t mean its hard compared to something else either, its objectively hard. You have to be in decent shape, lifting up to 25kg is common, so is being on your feet for 8+hours. You are constantly learning new skill sets, relating to products, POS systems, bookkeeping and more. Mental math and quick thinking are essential, so is problem solving and dealing with some of the most difficult people the service industry has to throw at you… drunks. Amidst all this if you want to make any real money your appearance is key. There’s a reason most bartenders are attractive, they are the face of a business, they are on display for everyone to see, and regardless of whether you think its morally wrong, people will support a business much more if their employees look ‘good’. 

(Senator Duffy who has never been criticized for his appearance)

These qualities translate pretty well to public service if you think about it. An MP also has to think quickly, learn new skill sets in a hurry like Mr. Steele said in his book. As an MP you have to stand around for long periods, listen to people like lobbyists and constituents talk at you for hours at a time. Not only that but as we have seen in both the female members of the house, and trial of senator Duffy, body image and appearance are for the foreseeable future are up for criticism. 

I’m not really sure what i’m saying here, maybe more bartender/university students should run for office ? Maybe the adaptability of the millennial generation makes them far better at the rapid pace of holding a public office? Maybe Ruth Ellen Brousseau is just a kick ass MP? Maybe this article didn’t turn out nearly as funny as I hoped? 

All of the above I guess. 

Elbowgate...? It’s a little sad...

That our government functions with marginally more decorum than a model parliament

I can see why the Prime Minister got frustrated and decided to leave his chair during yesterdays session in the house of commons. After all, he was a school teacher and he’s probably used to dealing with unruly teenagers. 

(A heavy handed teacher and a presumably misbehaving MP)

When you’re a teacher you must maintain control of your class if you wish to get anything done. As you are the one in charge, and not a peer of the students, sometimes a heavier hand, (calmly but firmly moving a student back to their seat for example) can be useful. However the ability to use heavy handed techniques is justifiable because of the dynamic created in the student teacher relationship. The House of Commons is not a classroom, and the Prime minister is not supposed to be its teacher. The members are to be considered peers of each other, and decorum is supposed to be maintained at all times. This is why PM Trudeau’s actions are creating so much controversy, they are interpreted as disrespect as they do not reflect a peer to peer relationship. To act like you are so far above a peer that you, like a frustrated teacher or parent, grab someone by the arm and “guide” them to their seat, is a huge sign of disrespect. It shows that the PM does not view himself as a peer of other MPs. The only member who is tasked with keeping order is the speaker of the house, for any other member to attempt to regain order in the commons is usurpation of the speakers power. So not only does this action reflect the Prime Minister’s view of other members being less than his peers, but it also shows that he only has respect for the house and its officers when it suits him. Geoff Reagan is after all a liberal MP as well as being speaker, but PM Trudeau could not even show patience and allow him to regain control, he thought this was a job for the PM. I will look like a bigger man, and they children. 

Mr. Trudeau seems to have forgot a lot about how the house works though… You don’t get to pick and choose what decorum you like. During PM Harper’s tenure the Liberals were just as vocal and disrespectful towards the house. This is not unusual of an opposition and there’s good reason why. The number of seats a party holds is only a small part of who gets their message across in the house. For as long as I have studied politics it’s not the number of voices, but to volume of individual voices that makes the difference. Take Elizabeth May and the Green party, although holding less seats than any other party (so much less they weren’t in the formal debates this year) most Canadians probably have a good idea of what the Greens stand for. This is because Ms. May was vocal in her criticisms, vocal in her jabs, and along with the other parties broke with decorum enough to derail various conservative statements. Tactics like shouting remarks, banging desks and creating rabble are, as anyone familiar with the house knows, a hallmark of Canadian politics. Why is this allowed ? Simply because the actions that members were engaging yesterday were not out of the ordinary. This is essentially the way things have always been done in the house. While members are supposed to show respect, they are most often not respectful. Like many things in Canadian politics (Including the office of the Prime Minister) this is due to what’s called a ‘political convention’. Convention rules westminster style politics and the Canadian House of Commons. "This is done because its the way it has always been done" is a laymen's explanation for a political convention. This is often the justification for things in Canadian politics. Wanton free discussion during question period, loud banging on desks, general rabble rousing and lack of respect is a convention in the house of commons, this is a fact.

The real amusing thing about this controversy is how much the NDP appear to want to jump into the fray. No one can blame them, I suppose. When you have less seats than a city bus you better have a couple of loud voices if you want people to hear your message.

(City Bus with 55 seats compared to the NDP's 44)

Now, I have watched the video several times and yes, MP Ruth Ellen Brousseau appears to get elbowed by the PM. However much like a european soccer player, she herself seems to take a couple seconds to notice. Although the audio isn’t great it appears she turns to other seated NDP members and with a look with puzzlement of her face says “Did the PM just elbow me?” the members appear to nod and then like a player who’s coach has given them the signal, she removes the question mark from her statement and dives onto the ground clutching her leg. Er wait the analogy has gone to far, she actually just starts wailing “THE PM ELBOWED ME” over and over, when the NDP coach “notices” the foul on the play (i’m fairly sure I saw  Mulclair nodding with the group) he comes in to join the vocal tirade that has started. As I said earlier, when you don’t have a large number of voices, if you want to stay relevant as a political party you better increase the volume of the voices you still have, even if it means taking a dive every now and then so they have something to yell about.

Now part of the real problem as I alluded to in my second paragraph is the decorum of the house in general. Regardless of convention, if there is a vote tabled members should not be standing and talking, especially when the bell to return to seats is ringing, as it was in the video of the incident. Members should not be out of their sections, members should respect the speaker, they should address all questions to other members through him etc. These are the basics of what we are taught in school. However this is not the case. During my model parliament days around 2007, such actions as the NDP leader being kidnapped, the planting then finding of “drugs” in the oppositions desks, multiple members walking across the floor and switching parties (this was prior to the creation of the Belinda Stronach law) etc, this was closer to the decorum of the real house than we were taught. Compare this to other states though and again through the lens of relativism it doesn't seem so bad. When private land ownership rights were proposed in the newly declared Russian federation members of the communist party head butted and physically prevented the party proposing th bill from coming to the podium where all new bills must be introduced. More similarly and recently in several debates in British parliament, groups of MPs not aligned with the motion being read, took the the floor in large groups to prevent the motion. The speaker in these cases suspended parliament for about a quarter of an hour, where after tempers had cooled, debate returned to normal (except in one case from 1970 where two canisters of CS gas were released, that sitting was suspended for just under two hours).

So at the end of the day most people only have one question in regard to all this, “Who should i be mad at ?” In this case i would say the largest blame lies on the chair of speaker of the house. Geoff Regan could have suspended the house for a few minutes if MPs were truly causing a grave disorder, after all that precise language is used in births parliament and after all Canada’s is in nature similar to England's. However when was the last time a speaker did this in Canadian parliament ? I have no idea and couldn’t care to look it up, this is because it’s completely aside from Canadian conventions. So what was Speaker Reagan to do ? Next blame the office of the PM, as this is the office who appoints a speaker, becomes offended when no one listens to them, then switches to the opposition and pays no attention to the new speaker. 

(The shocked Member for Outremont)

Lastly to the NDP, look Mr. Mulclair, if you’re going to go, just go, your angry vitriol and banshee like screams of “SHAME” or “YOU’RE PATHETIC” you prove you can't even be level headed over an issue of decorum. 

It’s 2016 Mr. Mulclair, everyone including MP Brousseau, who was standing after the speaker instructed them to sit, broke the rules. The PM also broke the rules, by leaving his seat and manhandling another member, he did not break the rules by elbowing your MP, that was an accident as she appears to be standing directly behind the conservative whip either eavesdropping or simply loitering to block the vote. Either way they are both at fault. In situations like this one, where the top officials we have elected to represent us make us look like fools, there is no one not to be mad at. All members broke the rules of decorum, there is no “one broke it more than another” that’s ridiculous. Who should we be mad at ? The house of commons and all its constituent parts. You have failed us by making a mockery of the democracy we have entrusted you with. I am not currently a sitting MP however, so the House’s rules of decorum don’t apply to me. “FOR SHAME HOUSE OF COMMONS, YOU’RE PATHETIC, FOR SHAME” … hmm I still don’t feel any better.

Video of the incident - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxL2xolQQOk