Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Great moments in discretion

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:24pm - 56 Comments

Randomly selected quotes from Question Period on May 8, 2008.

Maxime Bernier. “Mr. Speaker, I never thought that I would be the victim of such a low, meanspirited attack by an opposition party. This is my private life people are talking about.”

Peter Van Loan. “Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree that if the House of Commons lowered itself to spending its days inquiring into the private lives of the members, our country would be a much sadder place.”

Peter Van Loan. “Mr. Speaker, it was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who said, ‘The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.’ The deputy leader of the Liberal Party is clearly no Pierre Trudeau.”

Peter Van Loan. “Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that these are politically motivated, personal attacks on someone’s private life, which have no place in the House of Commons.”

Lawrence Cannon. “Mr. Speaker, all the members of this House have a public life and all members are also entitled to their private lives. Everyone has the right to privacy and a private life, be they ministers, journalists or dentists.”

Lawrence Cannon. “Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing remarkable work in a very difficult job in our country. He deserves our encouragement and support. He definitely does not deserve this suspicion and these insinuations.”

Peter Van Loan. “I should confess that I am not surprised that the Liberal Party continues to engage in deep personal attacks that are not matters of government business. If anybody’s judgment as to their personal partners is something that people disagree with, I do not think that is a matter of government business.”

Peter Van Loan. “Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should not be answered here. It should not be asked here. It should not be asked now. It should not be dealt with ever in this kind of forum.”

Peter Van Loan. “This entire line of questioning is indecent.”

Tags: house of commons, Julie Couillard, lawrence cannon, Maxime Bernier, Michael Ignatieff, Parliament, Peter Van Loan, Pierre Trudeau, Question Period, Ruby Dhalla

More by Aaron Wherry

Wascally Wabbit

May they all choke over their duplicious tongues!
Thank you Mr. Wherry!
What’s the term for someone who says “Do as I say – not as I do” – hypocrite isn’t it?
TJ Cook

Conservative principles – if you don’t like ‘em, just wait a few minutes!
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Ah, but if Maxime Bernier had hired Ms. Couillard as a nanny, then we’d be cooking with gas.

Lord Kitchener’s Own

Or, to play Devil’s advocate, if Dhalla had left top secret briefing notes in the possession of her caregivers, then we’d be cooking with gas.

Your point that the two incidents aren’t really comparable at all stands of course, but we should remember that the Bernier incident wasn’t only about his briefs, it’s was about his briefs (see what I did there… ).

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Quite right and, as usual, brief & to the point.

That’s what’s so exasperating about the series of quotations above: the pretense, on the part of Van Loan, that having a protracted affair with a biker chick as Minister of Foreign Affairs is no more worthy of concern than if one had such an affair as a private citizen.

Yeah, so I guess they’re not comparable either way: Dhalla hasn’t grossly violated the Official Secrets Act, and Bernier wasn’t Minister of Anti-Gang Activity (or Minister of Chastity, for that matter). Well, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What is it with politicians and the craving to hire people on the cheap? MP’s shouldn’t have caregivers or nannies, or if they do they should hire Canadian workers.

Wayne

Sorry Aaron I know you are trying but without context or interpretation your posts is meaningless as anyone who was not on top of Ms Couilliard .. oops ROFL LMAO – never mind this typo works and I am leaving it .. anyone not on top of the story would agree with everything posted come to think so do I. What is the problem with the above posts as the latest thing with Ruby ihas nothing to do with her private life – and everything to do with a possible abuse of an employee of a family member that was made public by the employee therefore no discretion or indiscretion is within the context – nope don’t work Aaron nice try though keep up the good work.

hardboiled

Keep sputtering partisan.

Hypocrites – the lot of them.

Now the politicos have achieved reducing the voting public to below 50%. Anyone wonder why?.
Ted

The Conservatives repeatedly said that private affairs of a Member of Parliament are not the business of the House of Commons and should not be the subject of questions in Question Period.

That’s your Conservative Party of Our Principles Don’t Apply to Us, for you.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Aaron, I would like you to teach me the trick to sucking and blowing at same time because you seem to have it mastered. Yesterday, you were chiding Kenney for not wanting to wade into the thickets and now you are giving Cons hard time for being hypocritical, I guess, because I am not really sure what your point is.

Ted

I think Aaron, like most of us commenters, like to poke a pin in the bloviated hypocrisy of the broken moral compasses of our so-called representatives. Isn’t that point enough?

The Cons get the brunt of this pin pricking because they are the government right now and, well, they are soooo good at being or pretending to be morally self-righteous when it serves their purposes.

sf

I think Aaron is your twin, a sucking and blowing partisan masquerading as an objective observer.

Aaron Wherry

jwl: Thanks for the comment. As noted elsewhere on this blog, Conservative Paul Calandra raised the Dhalla matter in a question to Jason Kenney during QP yesterday. After QP, Kenney then declined to comment. Apologies if the timing was not clear from my posting.

I confess that I find the sequence humorous. My apologies if you do not.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Thanks Aaron. I withdraw my snarky comment because I agree it is kinda funny now that you have provided explanation.

madeyoulook

Jack & LKO are on track here.

A private romantic relationship with a woman who has, at its most diplomatic, a dubious past.

A minister leaving sensitive government documents lying around with an ex.

An MP accused by the alleged victims of engaging in abusive and illegal conduct towards her live-in caregiver foreign-worker employees.

The last two, and ONLY the last two, have any place in the public discussion, and on the floor of the House.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

I don’t 100% agree, MYL. I think Ministers of the Crown should not have relationships with bikers. The Hells Angels constitute the #1 threat to law and order in this country. Likewise, if the caregivers Dhalla had employed were Colonels in the Chinese intelligence service, that would be relevant.

Critical Reasoning

There are two degrees of separation here. A Minister of the Crown had a romantic relationship with a woman who had prior romantic relationships with bikers. How was law and order compromised?

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

She might well have been an agent.

SAB

I usually agree with you but you are dead wrong on this.

She might not have been an agent.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Thanks, SAB (re: “usually,” I mean!)

I have nothing against Couillard herself, she seems like a reasonably nice person who just fell in with a bad crowd. So I don’t mean to impugn her personally.

But you can’t conduct security policy on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s why security measures can’t just be left to law enforcement after the fact: the material they are designed to protect is so sensitive that punishing the guilty afterwards is moot.

What if she wasn’t, after all, a reasonably nice person who had cut her ties, as she apparently had done, with organised crime? What she learned from Bernier could have been used to blackmail the government, or it could have been sold to foreign powers, or it could have been sold to the press; or any number of things. The point being that she “had ties,” or had once had ties, to people who absolutely can’t be trusted on anything and who live by a completely alien moral code. If she had been not nice, what would have stopped her from selling such secrets as she learned — and Bernier was not the world’s most discreet fellow, by all accounts — to anyone and everyone?

We are entirely too lax about official secrets in this country. I don’t think we should expand the range of what’s secret; maybe we should even contract it. But we should take them seriously once we do designate them as secret.
madeyoulook

True or False: CSIS & the RCMP were aware of the relationship.

If True, undoubtedly threat assessments were made.
If threats were deemed to be real, undoubtedly there would have been warnings.
If threats were deemed to be nonsensical fantasy, carry on then.

If False, we need better people at CSIS & the RCMP.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

CSIS and the RCMP have no authority to tell a Minister what to do. That is the PM’s prerogative. Obviously I have no idea what the “threat assessment” may have been, but give me a break, the woman had spent a decade in contact with the Hells Angels leadership!
madeyoulook

Let the record reflect that Jack Mitchell has abandoned the concept of rehabilitation, even in people who have never been arrested, let alone convicted. Jack will have us believe that there are some stains on one’s record so severe as to render one unfit for participation in regular society. Or at a minimum, render one unfit to associate with anyone else who might be in a position of leadership in society. And a court of law’s findings are unnecessary for such a harsh determination.

Wow.

Bush fils could have used you at Gitmo…
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

And let the record show that MYL is completely out to lunch.
madeyoulook

The “out to lunch” reference shall be withdrawn from the record in order to let reasonable minded persons make up their own minds, following a review of these exchanges.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Fine, but strike out the “Jack Mitchell has abandoned the concept of rehabilitation” too, then. I’ve done no such thing; as I said somewhere on this sweater of threads, this has nothing to do with Couillard herself, it has to do with PMO and its opinion of Bernier.

To be quite frank, what strikes me as most likely is that the PM had no confidence in Bernier to begin with, laughed when he heard that Bernier had gotten involved with Couillard, and decided that Bernier would simply be a figurehead and not a real minister; only when Bernier did something absolutely ridiculous (leaving the documents lying around) did he ruefully have to force him out. Because Bernier was never a serious minister. So I didn’t, myself, lose any sleep for Bernier & his Secrets, or wish Couillard ill, or anything, because as is well known the PM is all-powerful and wouldn’t tell his Foreign Affairs minister if he were planning to invade Iceland tomorrow morning. But that is rather depressing too.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Not that the Hells Angels are interested in Canadian foreign policy, I should add. But they deal in blackmail.

Critical Reasoning

Bernier showed poor judgment and richly deserved to be sacked.

That said, she might well have been an agent – but she wasn’t. The documents Bernier left in her apartment might well have been sensitive – but they weren’t. They consisted of NATO meeting agendas and other inane things. The Hell’s Angels could have been peripherally involved, but they weren’t. They are for the most part low-rent drug smugglers and thugs, as opposed to sophisticated and treasonous blackmailers.
madeyoulook

I am almost certain they are actively seeking to encourage international borders to remain porous. Although not necessarily at the government policy level.

madeyoulook

Then you should be retrospectively pleased, Jack, since the available evidence shows Couillard was not a biker at the time.

And Dhalla’s record as an employer is ABSOLUTELY fair game once the truth is actually known. I will nonetheless reserve judgment until innuendo is either upgraded to fact or exploded to dust.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

“Relieved,” I think, is the word. But from the point of view of security, once a biker, always a biker. Seriously, it’s like working / once having worked for the KGB. The Hells Angels are not funny guys on motorbikes, they are dangerous people, and they had enough on Couillard to make her tell them everything she might have known. So maybe they didn’t, and she didn’t, and all’s well that end’s well — “hoping for the best” is no way to run the security of the federal government! Bernier should have been told in no uncertain terms to stop seeing her the moment it came to the PM’s attention.

madeyoulook

Wow. I am glad you are not the head busybody lording over the private affairs of our MPs, Cabinet Ministers and Senators. These people have rights and freedoms too, may I respectfully remind.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

And may I remind YOU, madeyoulook, that people’s “rights and freedoms” are subject to the imperatives of the offices they voluntarily agree to fill. Missed that memo, eh?
Sean Stokholm

Jack, I’m normally in your corner on many positions, but I’ve got to admit you’re giving me whiplash on this one. How do you reconcile this with your scathing words for Coyne on torture and prosecution? It seems to me the post 9/11 social and political reaction you (rightly) railed against included similarly draconian approaches individual freedoms, justified by blanket appeals to security. Just curious!
madeyoulook

Put “reasonable” in front of imperatives, and therefore give this ex-couple a break.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

@Sean — I’m not saying that Couillard should have had her freedoms or rights restricted in any way. I don’t even think she should have been under surveillance or anything like that. I’m just saying that the PM, when alerted by the RCMP that his MInister of Foreign Affairs was involved with someone who was a significant security risk, should have told Bernier that it was not appropriate for a minister to be compromising himself like that. Maybe the PM did so and Bernier said no; who knows.

The bottom line is that we can’t have our cabinet ministers sleeping with KGB agents. I think we’d all accept that. Once that premise is accepted, and if we take the Hells Angels seriously as a dangerous and subversive element in our society (which they are), it’s not a stretch to say that Couillard-Bernier made a mockery of our security system. I don’t see how protecting official secrets and maintaining ordinary citizens’ rights and freedoms are incompatible.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

MYL: “Put “reasonable” in front of imperatives, and therefore give this ex-couple a break.”

I don’t mean to belabour this, but I obviously wasn’t clear what my position is and I’m concerned not to seem like a busybody. I have nothing against this ex-couple per se; my point is an entirely general one. Once we’ve finished laughing at the whole silly soap opera, I want to make sure that a) it doesn’t happen again, b) we send the signal to our allies that we goofed and they can actually trust our Foreign Ministers in the future, c) our ministers actually take their jobs seriously, brush their teeth, comb their hair, and not leave sensitive documents lying around the house for their biker girlfriends to flip through. Is that so much to ask?
madeyoulook

Take “biker” away from “biker girlfriend.” Then we’re getting somewhere. Although you seem to be rather fixated on the lady.

It is NOT the non-criminal history of Couillard that deserves any ink. It is the sloppiness of the minister. And it is the sloppiness of the minister for which I celebrated his sacking. Nothing else.
Sean Stokholm

@Jack

Absolutely agree about leaving documents lying around. That is a gross dereliction of duty. But I guess I’m hard pressed to see that dating an ex-associate of the Angels should be a culpable offense (for a minister). It runs too close to McCarthy sensibilities for my tastes. Potential blackmail is an awfully hypothetical reason to start dictating the sex lives of our civil servants and ministers, I’d argue. That said, your point about the nature of certain positions is food for thought. (Ministerial positions, not the ones Couillard specializes in).
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

OK, MYL, so let’s get down to business. You’re cool with Ministers of the Crown sleeping with ex-KGB agents. Because, after all, as long as you’re not actually in touch with Moscow on a daily basis, you’re not a security risk, right? Security risks are only for people who have Osama Bin Laden’s number on speed dial. Otherwise we’re restricting people’s freedoms. Just clarifying.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

@ Sean — if I may adopt one tone with one interlocutor and another with the other — I think it definitely is a difficult line to draw between McCarthyism and having a sensible security policy, but I guess it boils down to how cunning one thinks the Hells Angels are. I just think their reach and inventiveness is generally underestimated and that it’s the connection to ruthless organised crime (as opposed to, say, a particular political connection or a criminal record or something like that, not related to security) that should have rung alarm bells in PMO.
Aaron Wherry

Can I request that everyone go back to MYL’s point about what’s relevant and what’s not—what’s a matter for Question Period and what should be dealt with elsewhere?

Genuinely interested to know what everyone makes of that.

Sean Stokholm

Never mind Bernier’s incompetence with secret documents. Van Loan invoked Trudeau! In a positive, agreeable sort of way! I’m pretty sure that’s on the list of “End of Days” portents, n’est pas?
Wascally Wabbit

Let’s get down and dirty here.
I find it the height of hypocrisy for example – that Helena Guergis would politicize this intrusion into someone’s personal space – standing in Question Period as she did today – when she herself is being investigated for intruding into someone else’s “political space” – her hubby’s Rahim Jaffar – by apparently recently using Government of Canada funds to promote Harper government good deeds in the riding her hubby lost to the NDP last October…especially on top of the fact that her blatant issuance of a Parliament Hill constituency mailer one week into the October campaign almost certainly had an adverse effect on the support that her opponents could muster.
Try this link – http://www.allistonherald.com/allistonherald/article/134911
sf

Leave it to Wherry to condone illegal activity when it’s a Liberal MP doing it.
http://www.windyroom.wordpress.com truemuse

up late again with the hansard?
madeyoulook

OK, MYL, so let’s get down to business. You’re cool with Ministers of the Crown sleeping with ex-KGB agents. Because, after all, as long as you’re not actually in touch with Moscow on a daily basis, you’re not a security risk, right? Security risks are only for people who have Osama Bin Laden’s number on speed dial. Otherwise we’re restricting people’s freedoms. Just clarifying.

If you want to take your extreme and unwarranted reaction to Couillard’s past, and equate her history with that of a proven former-and-possibly-current enemy of the state, I fear the “out to lunch” designation is back in play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdem

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

The question is, Is this person going to sell secret information to the highest bidder, or is he/she not going to do so? If there is any serious chance of a “Yes,” that person is a security risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindergarten

sf

“Is this person going to sell secret information to the highest bidder”

I know you would, so I don’t think it would be appropriate for you to have a relationship with someone who is the aunt of the dog-walker of an MP.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

I certainly would not sell secret information to anybody. This is grown-up time, sf, the inane cheap shots are for playtime.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Our Host: “Can I request that everyone go back to MYL’s point about what’s relevant and what’s not—what’s a matter for Question Period and what should be dealt with elsewhere? Genuinely interested to know what everyone makes of that.”

For my money, it’d be a question of whether the allegation of misconduct could be related to the official’s official duties. For instance, if Ruby Dhalla were Minister of Immigration, then these allegations of abusing the immigration system so as to profit from cheap labour would be pertinent, because they would reflect poorly on her capacity to understand her own portfolio. As it is, it seems to me she’s just a celebrity with a scandal and the Tories are playing the paparazzi.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

“For my money, it’d be a question of whether the allegation of misconduct could be related to the official’s official duties.”

Jack M

I think you go to far with this. If Dhalla was Heritage Minister and the same allegations were leveled against her, I would still have a problem with “abusing the immigration system so as to profit from cheap labour”.

“Can I request that everyone go back to MYL’s point about what’s relevant and what’s not—what’s a matter for Question Period and what should be dealt with elsewhere?”

It is an interesting question Aaron and myl because It is awfully hard to draw big, bold lines between what is gossip and what’s important. Certainly, if laws have been broken, than it’s fair game to bring up allegations during Question Period. If it’s strictly puritan gossip, who’s sleeping with whom or whatnot, than maybe it should not be dealt with in QP. But on the other hand, I like the partisan bickering and childish insults, I just wish our MPs were better at it. It would be great if they were all as good as Churchill was with the quips.

madeyoulook

Aaron, in answer to your appeal of a half hour ago, I am pasting a snippet of my own commentary from the thread of Great Moments (II). I hope that’s ok, and I hope this is on point as per your request.

The phraseology of Calandra’s question crossed the line in my opinion. The Star reports the allegations — it is wrong to then take them as fact just because the Star said so [additional clarification: I am not accusing the Star of calling this fact, if all they did was report that employees are making the allegation]. I have no doubt Calandra would avoid using that language outside the House, and I have never been a fan of using Parliamentary privilege for protecting partisan & insulting cheap shots. Which this was.

And I went on to praise Kenney for staying in generalities with his answer to Calandra’s question. Then I went on to criticize Kenney for not getting Calandra to tone down the pre-planned question in the first place.

madeyoulook

And I wish to add that I don’t see this as a proper item for QP anyways, unless one wants to challenge the governing party with failing to protect these vulnerable individuals from criminal activity. Again in the general sense.

Dhalla’s business is with her accusers, the cops, and possibly with Immigration officials, or whatever other branch of government is involved (maybe the CRA if there’s some under-the-table stuff going on). Perhaps there could one day be a debate as to whether her conduct, IF PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN AS ALLEGED, renders her unfit to serve as an MP. But I don’t see that day being this week.

But alas, I don’t hold up much hope, if the HoC will permit a smearing of an MP for having a vacation picture of his girlfriend on his laptop, to choose but one example.
Sean Stokholm

Well put, myl. I know it’s never going to happen, but I sure wish the cons would stop using QP to attack the opposition. It’s unseemly, and contrary to the intent of the exercise, which is to hold the government accountable – not the opposition.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Hear hear.

Ted

Are people aware that Dhalla’s accusers have not filed any formal complaint?

Are people aware that the only request for any formal investigation into the actual facts was initiated by Dhalla herself earlier this week?

Is anyone at all puzzled about why this comes to light now even though the nannies quit or were fired OVER ONE YEAR AGO(!!)?

or why the Conservatives seemed to be campaign ready for this controversy and so very ready with their own talking points, press releases, Commons questions?

or why, by pure chance, a Parliamentary committee hearing just happens to be scheduled to deal with migrant workers issues (and Tilson, the Conservative chair, is calling on Dhalla and the nannies to appear)?

I agree with the growing chorus of considered opinion at the National Post (!) that think the “Dhalla affair doesn’t pass the smell test“:

“Being young, ethnic, female, ambitious and camera-friendly should be the dream ingredients of Canadian political star power. But in federal politics, they make you a juicy target. [...] Something doesn’t smell right in having two former nannies step forward a year after they left the Dhalla family’s employment to suddenly complain about conditions that don’t seem unusually onerous for immigrant workers. Perhaps I’m being excessively suspicious, but a Conservative hit squad has taken aim at Dhalla for more than a year and her opponent in the last and next election, Parm Gill, has his website up and is a regular tagalong with Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.”