Kind of like a parliamentary swear jar

The NDP have called for Members of Parliament to show a little decorum while conducting the nation’s business in the House of Commons. Going so far as to suggest that MP’s be docked a days pay for every day that they refuse to apoligize after having made any unparliamentarily remarks or gestures.

Which would make for a noble cause, even if in the past the parties’ own members have a bit of a history of having been less than parliamentary or polite while in the House. One need only think back to the days of Svend Robinson’s many outbursts, or the still remembered Jim Fulton’s fish market scene to realize that stones can be thrown by many participants.

The current debate over civility revolves around Peter McKay’s commentary in the heat of debate last week, where it is alleged that he referred to the Member from Aurora, Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, as a dog.

It’s been a most tempestuous affair in the Commons ever since, with daily demands by the opposition for a resignation or at least an apology and staunch statements by the Conservatives that McKay has done nothing wrong and need not apologize.

McKay conveniently has been out of the country ever since, on official business in Hungary attending commemorations of the Hungarian revolution. While he’s been away, the Conservatives have basically circled the wagons and basically said lets go to the record or the tape.

The Conservatives suggest that since there is no record in Hansard of McKay’s supposedly rude comment, and in their opinion no conclusive audio proof of misbheaviour, therefore it did not happen. An interesting concept, which while technically correct we guess, still doesn’t quite pass the smell test.

The irony of the situation is that the comments came about during a debate over clean air, which is just a wonderful bit of theatre, that of the parliamentary air itself polluted by unkind comments and snide remarks.

Of course the House of Common’s has a history of controversial utterances by our elected officials, from the days of Fuddle Duddle, to Pass the Tequila Sheila, the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate has brought out the best and at times the worst of our leaders. Check back to the days of Sir John A or Dief and Pearson and you’ll find that as a chamber of civil debate, it sometimes isn’t very civil.

If McKay did say what he is accused of he should apologize. Claim he was overcome by the heat of the debate if he must and offer up a mea culpa. It certainly won’t mark the high water point of his time in the House (and may cause Condi Rice to wonder about her friend from Nova Scotia), but will at least allow these overly loquacious deputies to get back to maybe trying to solve the issues of the day, which at last report was why we send them to Ottawa for in the first place.

However, we doubt that anything good is going to come from all of this, the Liberals have already suggested that if McKay apologizes, they then will puruse him over lying to the House. Not ruling out the option of slowing down the work of Parliament (would we notice?) or as they put it "examining our parliamentary tools" until the matter is resolved. And on and on it shall go.

As for the NDP proposal for a system of fines, it’s doubtful that it will work, and really only means that Canadian taxpayers have the odious task of covering the fines, paying for the foul mouths of their representatives. In fact will only highlight the already prevalent belief that NDP want to tax everything in sight, the air we breathe and even the words we use!

Instead we submit perhaps offending MP’s should just publicly wash their mouths out with soap, it’s environmentally friendly and may help us achieve those ambitious Conservative goals of cleaner air by 2050!