As we prepare for the return to Parliament, let us look back at a summer incident that illustrates, perhaps better than anything, how the political culture of the House of Commons has deteriorated profoundly in recent years.
On July 31, a woman who came to testify at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women about her experience as a survivor of domestic violence left the meeting in tears. Why did she suddenly leave? After a short period of testimony, during which two other women were also heard, a Liberal MP, Anita Vandenbeld, supported by a NDP colleague, Leah Gazan, had a motion passed to adjourn the discussion on domestic violence and return to another topic on the agenda, namely the issue of abortion. The adoption of the motion generated a chaos of points of order and procedural squabbles, in the middle of which two of the invited witnesses—including a victim, Cait Alexander—decided to leave the room.
Why would Liberal and NDP members assigned to the status of women committee want to shut down a debate on domestic violence? It is important to understand that, traditionally, parliamentary committees operate in a fairly collegial manner on a range of issues. Normally, the chair of a committee determines with his colleagues the topic of a parliamentary hearing, and members of the different parties are invited to submit their suggestions for guests. Except that is not what happened here.
In this case, the chair of the committee, Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman, acted unilaterally. Let us recall that, according to the political narrative of the Conservative Party, the Trudeau government is a deeply irresponsible one, in particular because it did not put in place tough enough laws to fight crime. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that opening a hearing on the issue of domestic violence, so to speak on the corner of a table, serves a partisan interest. Since the public is unfamiliar with how Parliament works, the tactic can easily “corner” the other parties.
If the Liberal members of the committee had refused such a hearing in a hurry, they would have been accused of refusing to talk about crime and of not caring about victims. But by agreeing to hear from Mme Alexander while denouncing the conservative procedural abuse, we opened the door to a chaos that highlighted the tactical instrumentalization of the witness. We understand those who took the door.
New Democrat Leah Gazan, for her part, lamented not being able to contribute to the guest list, as she is particularly active on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women. But here too, a citizen who is not particularly familiar with how Parliament works can interpret her actions on that sinister day as a failure to listen to Mme Alexander.
In short: It’s ugly. Ugly, in every way, from every angle. By the end of the session, the Conservative communications team was ready. “SHOCKING,” read Pierre Poilievre’s social media posts. “Victims invited to testify today at an emergency committee on violence against women were SILENCED by Liberal and NDP MPs today,” it read, alongside a video montage of the exchanges between parliamentarians. Two of the Conservative members of the committee echoed his sentiment. “SHAMEFUL,” wrote Anna Roberts. “Absolutely disgusting.” [disgusting] “, added Michelle Ferreri.
It was in this context that, two days later, the victim’s mother, who had come to support her daughter in her speech, made public an acrimonious letter addressed to the Conservative, Liberal and neoliberal MPs present. “I have taught children from 6 to 8 years old for 31 years of my life and I have never been in the presence of such self-centered, abusive and badly behaved people in my life,” wrote Carolyn Alexander. The letter forced more or less eloquent explanations and apologies from the various elected officials questioned.
*****
By analyzing this single incident, we can come to understand almost everything that is wrong with parliament, with the rise of social networks.
There was a time, not so long ago, when the antics and other effects of parliamentary robes were mainly reserved for question period. Not anymore. Now, backbenchers seek their moment of glory by means of short edited videos that they hope will go viral, in order to present themselves as heroes of the people, and to represent their opponents in a SHAMEFUL manner (in capital letters preferably).
Parliamentary committees, where common sense, to use Pierre Poilievre’s favorite expression, once reigned, have since seriously degenerated. The search for “clips” – while the dissemination of parliamentary work to the general public increasingly goes through X and no longer through CPAC – now stifles the possibilities for intelligent and intelligible exchanges.
The irony, of course, is that this summer’s incident was supposed to be about violence against women. But what the Standing Committee on the Status of Women ultimately highlighted was the urgent need to address verbal and procedural violence in Parliament, just in time for the return to school. There is serious question as to whether it is safe for citizens, particularly vulnerable people, to be invited to speak there—especially on sensitive issues.