a day ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
The end of a raucous legislature session
Opinion
On June 2 at the end of the spring session of the Manitoba legislature, the two main parties issued duelling press releases, each claiming they were listening and responding to the needs and concerns of Manitobans.
The NDP government boasted it had delivered 'a strong, ambitious legislative agenda' of 39 bills that would improve health care, remove interprovincial trade barriers, make groceries more affordable, enhance public safety, and act on many other matters. The Progressive Conservative (PC) opposition countered with the claim that several of the more important bills were based on ideas stolen from them.
This credit claiming by the parties has become an annual ritual. Over the past five decades, the proceedings of the legislature have increasingly come to resemble a permanent election campaign in which the parties spend more time seeking to score political points against their opponent than using questions of the premier and ministers and debating bills for the constructive purpose of improving public policy.
The just-finished session featured too much shouting and name calling across the aisle and several unfortunate episodes of disorderly conduct. It was not, however, the most raucous session that has happened in the modern era of Manitoba politics, which I date from the breakthrough victory of the NDP in 1969.
For observers of my generation, it is impossible to forget the French language crisis of 1983-1984 during which then-PC leader Sterling Lyon and his MLAs ferociously fought a NDP government bill entrenching language rights by using prolonged bell-ringing which paralyzed the legislature and brought angry, screaming crowds into building.
I recognize that partisan competition provides the motivation and energy which drives the institution. The clash between opposing philosophies and policy perspectives helps to define what actions are in the public interest. Criticism from the opposition is the main way that the government is made to answer and to be held accountable through the media to the electorate. It would be impossible, and wrong, to seek to drive disagreement, emotion and passion entirely out of the proceedings of the legislature.
The legislature actually has two modes of operation: most often it is adversarial between the parties, occasionally it demonstrates the capacity for cross-party collaboration. Because media coverage focuses mainly on the partisan clashes in Question Period, many members of the public sees the legislative process as only games-playing by the parties.
In my view partisanship has become excessive, unduly negative and personal in content. There is throughout the legislative process too much rude heckling, personal attacks, bullying, inflammatory rhetoric, defensiveness and feigned indignation. Women MLAs are targeted disproportionately.
Two episodes in the past session illustrate the problem.
On April 22, PC MLA Greg Nesbitt questioned the NDP government about a contract for mental health therapy, suggesting, without providing any evidence, that it may have been for the personal benefit of NDP Finance Minister Adrien Sala. Either this was a cheap ' gotcha' question or Nesbitt had failed to do his homework to learn that the contract was actually for mental health support to landfill searchers. It strained credulity for the PC interim leader Wayne Ewasko to claim that his MLA was simply seeking information.
In the shouting match which ensued, the Speaker, Tom Lindsay lost his cool and threatened to toss Nesbitt from the chamber, a threat he apologized for the next day. He also expressed frustration with the lack of decorum and the refusal of MLAs to immediately obey his calls for the heckling to cease. There is only so much the Speaker can do under the rules to maintain civility and to curtail belligerent language.
The deeper problem is the culture of the institution which is shaped by many factors, most importantly by the words and actions of the party leaders. This brings me to the second episode which happened in the committee of supply on May 21 when the spending estimates of the executive council (which includes the premier's office) were under review. Proceedings of the meeting can be found on a YouTube stream.
Both Premier Wab Kinew and Opposition Leader Obby Khan were in attendance and the meeting turned ugly almost immediately with the two MLAs showing intense dislike and disrespect for one another. A backbench NDP MLA serving as committee chair was hard pressed to maintain order.
During Khan's opening statement on economic indicators, he was constantly heckled by Kinew, who at one point described the opposition leader as 'a joke.' Khan responded by bringing up Kinew's encounters with the law as a young adult and described him as a 'toxic, bullying leader' (echoing allegations from a former NDP MLA banished from that caucus). Kinew fought back by accusing Khan of being part of the ethics scandal involving violations of the caretaker convention during the final days of the former Heather Stefanson government.
Fostering a more respectful and constructive culture starts with the leaders who must model more responsible behaviour and encourage their MLAs to restrain their outbursts and personal attacks when emotions rise in the chamber and in the committees.
Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba.
