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

'We should not expect parliamentary debate to be consistently exciting'

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 12:20pm - 9 Comments

Adam Chapnick tries again to convince us parliament should do away with heckling.

If, as I contend they should be, our MPs are role models for Canadians as a whole, then why should we allow them (or, in Langstaff’s case, encourage them) to behave in a manner that would be condemned in any of our public classrooms? How can our educators teach their students to hear out their peers and refrain from speaking out of turn if those same students can reply that they learned how to deal with conflict by observing the public conduct of their prime minister during Question Period? Moreover, how can Canadian parents tell their children that cutting people off with the intent of poking fun at them (however thoughtfully) is inappropriate if we reward our elected representatives for acting similarly?

Your move, Langstaff.

Tags: Adam Chapnick, Amy Langstaff, decorum, heckling, house of commons, Ottawa, Parliament, Question Period

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

A good piece. IMHO the problem is that it is no longer possible to tell the difference between the "debate" and the heckling, at least in QP.

What we need is a Speaker worth the cloth his robes are made of. He (or she — perhaps we need a woman speaker for this) must be the arbiter on whether a particular heckle is worthy or just juvenile; and, if juvenile, he/she must PUNISH the offending MP. That's PUNISH as in kick them out of the House in disgrace and/or revoke cafeteria privileges. We need a Speaker who is not a clown.

Brad

Are you not concerned, JM, that such arbitrary power might lend itself to the corruption of the poor fellow's (woman's) soul? And is forcing good behaviour a moral victory or hollow in its essence?

There are those who model appropriate behaviour. Do they get ink – or pixels, these days – for their quiet, respectful manner? Are their ideas frontpage, screaming at us? In politics, if an MP behaves well, and nobody hears, did they ever exist at all?

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Quite right, Brad: every tantrum reaps its rewards. I just hate to think that the combination of TV news and democracy inevitably debases our public discourse, and would be willing to test a few Draconian measures if no alternative presents itself.

Probably the Speaker would, as you say, end up as Caligula, but then MP's could vote him/her out of the chair. Doesn't the Speaker already have the power of censure, and fail to use it? As long as it were exercised rationally, I think MP's themselves — who, as you say, get a bad press owing to the couple dozen maniacs among them — would endorse its use; if it ceased to be rational and impartial, they could select a new Speaker.

Brad

Speakers can "name" an MP who has crossed the line. I think this results in their suspension from participation in the Commons until they apologize or otherwise rectify their disrectitude.

In a space, though, governed by those who elect their referee, the referee has to decipher the invisible hand that influences the social dynamics. Since the Speaker has been elected by secret ballot, none has ruled with an iron hand. They are literally the servants of those they referee. Skillful politicians seem to have inhabited the post and they must have applied a degree of their political sensibilities to the mood of the place and decided how far they could go.

While perhaps a bit loose in the last Parliament, the Speaker can't be blamed for the behaviour initiated by the inhabitants, seized upon by the media to fill their daily rota quota and, frankly, consumed by a hypocritical public. Like good bit players, MPs are just giving their audience what they want.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Heckling is part of our Parliamentary tradition. As Jack mentioned, a strong Speaker is needed to make sure things don't get out of hand.

YTZ

Can I ask, what critical reasoning is associated with the phrase "heckling is part of our Parliamentry tradition?"

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Congratulations, YTZ. You're the 102nd person to… ah, never mind.

Look at the history of the British and Canadian Parliaments. The big difference between now and then: in the good old days, heckling was wittier and far less boorish.

Wotcher?

Well, if it can no longer be done with any degree of skill, perhaps it should be dispensed with altogether. Why let the inept continue to practise it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SophiaGeffros SophiaGeffros

The fact that we're talking about it proves why they do it: they get publicity.
When an Honourable Member insults someone or their mother, we hear about it.
What we don't hear about is the real, hard work done by Members.
There is real, hard work done by Members, right?