I’ll try to add in the backstory for our American readers at the end, if only so they can look at their Congress and shake their heads with the same shame as Canadians shake their heads at the dimbulbs who populate our House of Commons.
The Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay is in the shit for an alleged comment he made in the House last week. Allegedly, MacKay said that his former girlfriend, Belinda Stronach, a sitting opposition member, was a dog and the Opposition already had her.
Hansard, the official transcript of the House, does not show his comment, but several members say they heard MacKay make the comment in the House. Needless to say, members of the House are blowing head valves at a record pace.
The House has always been a place of decorum. Theoretically, the members speak to each other by their ridings or their roles You don’t call a Member of Parliament by their name. As an example, saying "Hey Baird, you suck!" is unparliamentary. However, saying "The Honourable Member for Ottawa-West Nepean sucks!" is somewhat permissible.
It is considered bad form to call Cabinet members or the Prime Minister by their riding. Therefore it is somewhat permissible to say "The Right Honourable Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs both aspirate human fecal matter through a straw!"
Despite those and several hundred other rules of decorum and behavior, Hansard does not always represent exactly what was said in the House. The galleys ("Blues") of Hansard are sent to each Member of Parliament the next day for the correction of errors and omissions. Each MP is entitled to ‘correct’ what was reported, within certain fuzzy limits.
Comments not entered into Hansard are considered to not have happened. Technically, only the words uttered by the person speaking when so recognized by the Speaker of the House are for Hansard. Any comments overheard before, after, or during that are not recognized by the Speaker, do not exist and do not get into Hansard.
There is one exception. For example, if a member were to stand in his place and tell a joke about two nuns walking into a whorehouse, the resulting laughter would be reported in Hansard as: "Some Hon. Members: Oh, ho, ho, ho!" This is as close as Hansard ever gets to recording the gales of laughter, shouts of derision and general heckling that goes on in that joint.
Incidentally, anything said within the House is not considered actionable in a court of law. Therefore a Member can call another member a "sleeveen", as John Crosbie did. Sleeveen is Newfoundland slang for a rascal or sneaky person. Had Crosbie done this outside the House, he could have been sued for libel. Calling another member a "liar" means you must immediately withdraw your words and apologize to the House and the member for affronting the privilege of the House.
To say that the House of Commons is out of control is an understatement. You can watch CPAC, the cable Parliamentary Channel to get a small taste of what the House is like. But if you can, go and sit in the Public Gallery during Question Period. Seats are free, but you do have to show ID and go through a security checkpoint, like in an airport. Settle in for an hour of shouts, curses, interruptions, invective, heckling and general hysteria. It is worse than trying to get a word in edgewise in a bar argument at closing time.
The House of Commons at Question Period is embarrassing in its boorishness and lack of any vestige of decorum, dignity or solemn representation of the will of the people of Canada. None of it is reported in Hansard. Very little of it shows up on the cable Parliamentary channel.
The backstory on MacKay and Stronach is merely salacious. Stronach was a Conservative MP who was dating a Conservative MP, Peter MacKay. Then one day, Stronach decided to cross the floor and become a Liberal Cabinet Minister under Paul Martin’s Ship of Fools. Needless to say, the romance went into the dumper when MacKay found out: There was no way in hell he’d date a Liberal. There was also no way in hell Stronach could be in a Liberal cabinet and be dating a Conservative. The rumour press has posited that MacKay was ‘devastated’ by Stronach’s turncoat political power grab.
(Parenthetically, if Belinda Stronach had been a man and dumped a girlfriend for a position of power in the Cabinet, this discussion would not be happening. It would be accepted as the normal course of the affairs of Men. This, of course, is bullshit sexism and a double-standard of reporting because Stronach doesn’t have a dick.)
Technically, Peter MacKay said nothing, at least according to the Official Hansard of the Proceedings of the 39th Parliament, First Session. Therefore, nothing happened. If Peter MacKay did actually say what he is alleged to say, then he’s a petulant child and a poor loser who deserves every little molecule of shitrain that is falling on him.
American Translation: A Republican Congressperson called a former girlfriend who is now a sitting Democrat Congressperson, a dog just before standing to talk to some bill in Congress. People overheard it, but it was not in the Congressional Record.
The rest of the reporting media and a bunch of other Congresspersons are all a-twitter about it. There has been some reporting that the Republicans are actually proud of the alleged remark. It proved that the member was heterosexual and was bad-mouthing someone whom he used to romp with, not gathering up piles of unmarked cash from Jack Abramoff.
A minor correction – all that McKay is alleged to have said is – "You have her" after a Liberal questioned how the environmental policy being discussed would affect "their dog" ???
This, through the aid of the Liberal biased media in Canada, has been twisted into an insult of all women everywhere. McKay maintains he said nothing at all.
This is an environment where male MPs get called things like "d1ckhead" on a fairly regular basis.
McKay needs to stand up in parliament and say the following: "Mr. Speaker, for the record, I did not call the b1tch, err honourable member from Newmarket-Aurora, a dog."
I will stand corrected. But the House is still the most vile place of debate I have seen outside of baseball/hockey/soccer fans arguing in the Prescott Hotel at closing time.
The only redeeming factor is the Prescott has a liquour license and square pizza. Other than that, the House is just as vituperative, belligerent and mindless a forum for debate as any beer parlor.
Should MacKay stand in his place and deny his comment? If he did, then the Speaker would have to rule. This, of course, is impossible, as some kind of poorly printed, cheap cardboard cutout of Peter Milliken is propped up in the chair. Where the real Speaker of the House is, is an ongoing mystery.