Lift us up where we belong

Our Dear Premier said in last night’s debate:

[The public has] seen Gerry Reid in opposition. They’ve seen what he’s done in that House of Assembly. Negative. Pessimistic. Personal attacks. That’s the way he proceeds. That’s the way he conducts himself.

As opposed, one presumes, to Mr. Positivity, Optimism, and Nice Guy, Q.C., M.H.A.

(Yes, you’ve heard this before.)

Mr. P., O., and N.G. continued:

It’s that negativity, and that pessimism, that has had Newfoundland and Labrador down as far as it was before, and we’re lifting it up.

Here are just some of the ways in which Danny Williams has lifted politics out of the morass of negativity, pessimism, and personal attacks, so far in his illustrious career.

Danny Williams told Tracy Barron of The Telegram, in a New Year’s interview early in 2002:

Progressive Conservative Leader Danny Williams is alleging a bias in the way he was treated by Speaker Lloyd Snow, a Liberal, during the fall sitting of the legislature.

“It seemed that in the few days where we particularly had them on the run, the Speaker seemed to be a little more active than normal. He seemed to be setting a different standard for me, which I think somewhat restricted the scope of the questions and the way I could go at questions. He has got the right to interfere, I suppose, for want of a better term, and his rulings can’t be appealed, so you tend to have to live with it.”

Speaker’s rulings can’t be appealed, no. That’s a lesson Mr. Positivity would end up learning again and again. It would be difficult, in fact, to find any MHA who has been forced to apologize for, withdraw, or retract more comments in the House of Assembly since he made his debut in the chamber on November 19, 2001 - starting with the groveling apology he was obliged to give on the first day the House resumed sitting after his Telegram tirade:

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to you privately in your office on two separate occasions, and as I have reiterated in writing in a letter which I delivered to you this morning, that I do sincerely apologize for any comments that were made outside the House of Assembly during December that may have offended you or any member of this House of Assembly. It certainly was not my intention to do so.

I would also like to point out that I did not use the term bias in my comments. Comments that were made to the reporter at that particular point in time may have implied that, but that term was never used.

Mr. Speaker, and to all members of this hon. House, I do sincerely apologize.

Notice the curious use of the passive voice. “Comments that were made… that term was never used.” That is another recurring them with Mr. Positivity, Who Always Takes Responsibility For His Actions.

On May 15th of the same year, Mr. P. asked in Question Period:

My question for the Premier is: Why did he try to mislead the people into thinking that there was going to be a debate in this House on Voisey’s Bay that could actually influence the outcome of whether a deal would be signed or not, when in fact nothing is further from the truth?

“Mislead”, of course, is unparliamentary language, for which Mr. Positivity was required to make another apology, again in the passive voice.

If I am going to withdraw it, I want to make sure he is here to do it, Mr. Speaker. I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I certainly withdraw my comment. My remark was certainly no intention to imply that there was any deliberate intention to mislead the House. That remark is withdrawn.

On May 1st, Mr. Positivity-Nice Guy sputtered:

You are pathetic, Premier.

In November of that year, Mr. Positivity again dabble in the Unparliamentary, saying:

The hon. the Premier - and the record of Hansard will tell the truth - said that I spoke to Mr. MacDonald all through last week about this matter, and he used other terms which I didn’t hear, but we will check the record. This is improper, you are misleading the House, and you are lying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Misleading” was found to be just as unparliamentary as it was in May, as was “lying. Mr. P. managed to find his active voice for that retraction:

I withdraw the remarks with respect to lying, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. No Personal Attacks, again in November 2002, also said:

Just for the record, our caucus also supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, if it can be done in a strategic manner that does not negatively impact our economy. What I am at a loss to understand today is, which side of his mouth the Premier is speaking out of. I got this, I guess, maybe half an hour ago.*

For which Mr. Positivity, who never, ever engages in personal attacks, groveled again, six days later:

I graciously accept your ruling, and I withdraw my remark that the hon. gentleman was anything less than honest.

One of the more spectacular examples of Mr. Postivity being positive came on May 18, 2004:

So it is a little two-faced, to say the least, to get on this way in questions.

Mr. P. “withdrew” his positivity in the following words:

I actually withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, no-faced.

And, having been called on the carpet both for the original remark and for compounding the “positivity”, made a more abject apology at the start of the next sitting:

I unequivocally withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker, and apologize to the House.

On April 20, 2005, Mr. Nice Guy, cloaked by Parliamentary privilege, tried to besmirch the reputation of someone who isn’t even a member of the House:

What about when the Member for Torngat, whose brother was a negotiator for the LIA –

Withdrawing yet other remarks after Question Period, Mr. Positivity said:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling which I certainly honour. I do indicate to this House, and I do indicate to all members opposite though, that I will stand in my place and I will defend the honour of any of my members at any particular point in time, whether that is the hon. minister or any of the other thirty-two people. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I hereby withdraw my remarks.

The caveat, “on that basis”, wasn’t good enough. You’d think a lawyer, who deals with rules for a living, would have learned after nearly four years as an MHA, but no. So, in a later sitting day, he was required to be a bit more emphatic, again groveling:

Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally withdraw those remarks.

On May 25, 2006, Mr. Positivity, who really doesn’t seem to want to learn from his close reading of Beauchesne, said:

First of all, I would like to deal with the deliberate misleading of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the hon. gentleman opposite has done on Open Line this morning.

The M-word being just as bad in 2006 as it was at any previous instance where Mr. P. used it, Mr. P. – the P can stand for Positivity or Passive-voice, take your pick, “withdrew” it yet again:

The statement is withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

And of course, there were those unfortunate little comments that Mr. Positivity made about a judge.

And the use of the name “Joyce Hancock” as an insult.

The tone of debate in the House all too often takes its cues from Le Chef. It was like that under Brian Peckford and Brian Tobin, where theatrics, invective, and vitriol where, as now, the order of the day. Clyde Wells and his much leveller head brough some semblance of sanity to the Bow-Wow Parliament, though when the cat was away, the mice had a tendency to play.

But, all in all, it’s a good thing that “we’re lifting it up.”

Cause goodness knows, things would be really bad if there were a negative and pessimistic Premier in charge, one who engages in personal attacks.

In fact, they would be almost as bad as they are under a Premier who takes every one of his own character flaws, personal failings, and minor neuroses, and projects them onto everyone and anyone who dares challenge his world view.


- - -

* During the same sitting, Mr. Positivity also said something which is, in hindsight, pretty funny:

MR. WILLIAMS: Imagine, being bought with your own money. I just cannot fathom it.

And something which will, in the fullness of time, become equally so:

MR. WILLIAMS: I won’t be remembered as a quitter, though, Premier, and you will.