As I watched Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives brutalize former governor general David Johnston – a better man than they, in my view – coarsely cross-examining him like a hostile witness at a war crimes trial when he appeared before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) last week, I was filled with disgust.
Why, I asked myself, did the official opposition, so determined to discredit every word and deed of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, feel it necessary along the way to savage the reputation of an eminent Canadian whose only “sin” was to take on what proved, thanks to Poilievre and Co., to be an impossible task?
Johnston, the government’s “independent special rapporteur” on foreign intervention in Canadian elections, emerged from the PROC hearing on Tuesday afternoon, shaken to the core by his three-hour ordeal. He had gone in expecting – naively, perhaps – to discuss his report on national security flaws and failures, only to discover that the opposition members, who hogged the committee proceedings, had no interest in foreign interference or national security; their only interest was in demolishing his integrity as they portrayed him as a Trudeau stooge.
Three days later, David Johnston did what he had never done before: he quit, abandoning a task he had undertaken as a public service.
What, I wondered, has happened to Parliament? Where is the civility and decorum that Canadians had come to expect from the central institution of our democracy? Was the government so weak or unfocussed that it could not prevent the opposition from taking control of Question Period, the showpiece of the parliamentary day, and keep it from abusing the rules of QP and ignoring the Speaker’s feeble attempts to maintain order?
I thought I had some answers from my years covering Parliament, but I wanted a second opinion – ideally from a student of the institution who had personal experience of Parliament at its best and at its worst. So I called Joe Clark.
Last week happened to mark an anniversary for Clark, who became Canada’s youngest prime minister, at 39, when he took office on June 4, 1979. With his partisan years long behind him, Clark has become something of an elder statesman, a thoughtful observer and commentator who worries about declining voter turnouts and other symptoms of a disengaged public in a time when democracy is being challenged on all sides, from apostles of negativism like Poilievre, to charlatans in the Donald Trump mold, to hard-right extremists only too willing to use the tools of democracy to bring it down.
How, I asked him, can the public be expected to respect politicians who have so little respect for Parliament and for the democracy it represents?
“That’s a good question,” he replied, “In my time (referring to the years following his initial election to Parliament in 1972) most members regarded themselves as parliamentarians first and as agents for their parties second. There were role models, or mentors, such as the house leaders and party whips for new members to follow. The house leaders, in particular, were people of experience – Jed Baldwin for the Conservatives, Stanley Knowles of the NDP and Allan MacEachen for the Liberals. They were certainly partisan to the extent that each wanted the best arrangement he could get for his party in negotiations with the other house leaders. But the important thing to them was to make sure legislation was properly handled and considered and that members had an opportunity to make their contributions before the measures were passed. Same thing with the whips. Parliament was more important than party.”
Are there no role models today? Clark said he doesn’t see any. “It seems that rookie MPs are being made house leaders before they have served even one term in Parliament.”
Asked for his thoughts on David Johnston’s treatment and resignation, he offered a nuanced response: “I think the genuinely distinguished former governor general should not have been asked to accept that role and the PMO was trading upon his legitimate and earned general reputation for good judgement and public service.
“In retrospect, he was probably unwise to agree, although I understand his own deep sense of duty compelled him both to accept the assignment, and to step aside when the toxic debate had undermined his authority. I’m a former leader of the opposition, who dug in on some constitutional and other issues, and co-operated on others. I don’t want to see toxicity become the trademark of Parliament.”
Clark also talked about possible ways to restore public respect for Parliament. We’ll return to the subject another week.
Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens is an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s. He welcomes comments atgeoffstevens40@gmail.com