[ad_1]
Newfoundland and Labrador NDP Leader Jim Dinn ended the fall session of the House of Assembly still on a time out.
In late October, he was sanctioned for implying that Housing Minister Paul Pike lied in statements about the government’s record, in particular using the word “lie” when he spoke.
“Will the premier admit that what his minister said is a lie, and he has misled the House and the people of this province about the actual numbers of houses built?” Dinn said in October.
“I ask the premier: were these statements lies as well?”
Speaker Derek Bennett found that Dinn’s language was unparliamentary and asked for the NDP leader to withdraw both comments.
Dinn didn’t back down.
Bennett ruled that Dinn would not be recognized to speak in the legislature until he withdrew his statements, meaning he wouldn’t be allowed to put questions to Furey or other ministers during question period.
The fall session ended with Dinn still in the penalty box. Dinn did say he will consider whether he wants to retract his comments or not before the next sitting of legislature this spring.
The CBC’s Peter Cowan spoke with Alex Marland, who teaches political science at Acadia University and who keeps a close eye still on politics in his former home of Newfoundland and Labrador. Marland offers context into what happened, why it happened and how it played out.
Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Why can’t politicians call each other liars in a legislature in this country?
A: Well you can, but there’s going to be a consequence for it. Because of the principal of parliamentary privilege, you can make all sorts of accusations in the legislature and you’re not going to be sued for it. If you said these things outside the legislature you could be sued, but inside the legislature you’re protected by parliamentary privilege.
The consequence, however, of deeming somebody a liar, calling somebody a liar, is that the Speaker will want to maintain decorum. So that’s seen as unparliamentary, that’s seen as a problem with tone and if all we ever had was a legislature where everybody was calling other people liars, nothing would ever get done. So it’s up to a Speaker to make sure that the tone is civil. For that reason, if you call somebody a liar, you’re asked to apologize. If you don’t apologize, you’re not welcome back often.
And there’s whole long list of words that are deemed unparliamentary over the years by Speakers?
Absolutely. There’s already a whole lot of heckling that goes on and there’s a lot of things that detract from carrying on the business of the House. Years ago, [there] used to be absolutely terrible legislatures. There used to be people setting off firecrackers and throwing things and using spitballs. Then there was a period of time where people were intoxicated all the time. [Later] television cameras were in the legislature, so instead now there’s a lot more theatre.
But the bottom line is, the very common principle is you can’t call somebody a liar.
What do you make of Jim Dinn’s approach here, where he knew this was unparliamentary, he said it anyway because he wanted to make a point and has now refused to withdraw that comment because he wants to continue to make a point?
To me there’s an immediate difference between calling another member a liar and calling the government liars. One is you’re referring to another member of the legislature, another one is a broader entity, although if you use the word government essentially you’re referring to the entire cabinet.
I think in terms of a strategy it’s a good one if it ends up getting on the news. But at the same time you’re giving up an awful lot of ability to hold the government to account in other ways.
So in some ways, once you’ve made your point usually what happens is you eventually reluctantly go back in the House, you find some way to apologize but you don’t let the issue die. The real litmus test for me is really whether others side with you. So if other members, particularly other opposition members, end up siding with somebody now it becomes a bigger problem for the Speaker. So if you can turn this into an issue where the Speaker ends up being the source of the problem instead of the member, that’s a different situation than if one member is left standing on their own.
There hasn’t been another instance where someone hasn’t been able to speak for this length of time within the legislature locally. In the past, if they don’t withdraw the comment they get kicked out for the day and then are able to return the next day and continue. Do you think that this current strategy is more or less effective as a way to try and encourage decorum?
I think the question the Speaker has to ask is to what extent is the goal here to be able to move on because the problem that any Speaker encounters is when you’re the referee you do not want to be the story. If this is something that continues for a period of time, it will become actually a problem for the Speaker more than it will become a problem for Mr. Dinn.
So to some extent there’s going to have to be a point where somebody backs down. If you are challenging the authority of the Speaker, that’s a problem in itself but eventually, if the Speaker is causing the problem for the legislature. that’s a problem for the Speaker.
Jim Dinn isn’t disputing the language was unparliamentary. All of his criticism has been toward the government. He wants to point out that he doesn’t agree with the way government has been approaching this rather than saying the Speaker is wrong.
I think what is happening is Mr. Dinn is exposing a real flaw with the way the whole system is set up. This is something that isn’t about Newfoundland, it’s about the parliamentary system as a whole. It has come up in Britain.
The problem is a person who is using the word “liar” gets in more trouble than the person who is doing the lying. If we accept that the government wasn’t entirely truthful in this particular case — I’m not saying they were or weren’t — then why is it that they’re the ones who are not actually accepting any responsibility? Why are they not the ones who are having to defend themselves?
Instead it ends up being somebody who is making the accusation is silenced effectively. I think what this does is it really touches on a raw nerve [in] parliamentary debate.
What’s the solution to that?
The answer to this is actually what seems to always happen, which is eventually the member will apologize, goes along with what the Speaker has requested and then finds some other way to try to hold the government to account. He doesn’t have to use that language but can constantly make it a bit of a drumbeat to repeat and repeat that this is a concern. And it shouldn’t just be coming from the one member. It should be a variety of people who are echoing these concerns.
Download our free CBC News app to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Click here to visit our landing page.
[ad_2]
Source link