Traditions are important to parliaments. They lend dignity to the proceedings and help ensure respect for the democratic process. And then there’s question period.
It is the most visible aspect of the legislature; too often, it is also the time when MLAs display their worst behaviour, when voters might well wonder if they elected a gang of goons and buffoons.
It is not only the public that wonders — shenanigans in the B.C. legislature last week left Andrew Weaver, Green Party MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, wondering if he was in the wrong business.
“Question period in the legislature today was surreal,” Weaver wrote on his Facebook page Thursday. “I left the chamber wondering whether I should quit politics altogether. I was absolutely appalled by the behaviour of official opposition and government members. It was shocking — truly shocking.
“Personal attacks, vitriol, abuse, obnoxious heckling and utter disrespect [were] on display for all to see.
“There was no excuse for the behaviour today. No excuse at all.”
Weaver’s outrage was sparked by exchanges between the NDP and the B.C. Liberals concerning payments made to Premier Christy Clark as party leader, on top of her $200,000-a-year salary. It was the second day in a row that the Opposition hammered Clark for the payments.
The merits of arguments from both sides are a topic for another day. The issue is how the debate was conducted. NDP Leader John Horgan’s opening remarks implied that he had just learned about the payments, when they have long been public knowledge and are not particularly unusual in politics.
The Liberals countered with sneering and laughter. Rowdy jeers and heckling ensued from both sides of the house (recorded in Hansard as “interjections”). Insults, sarcasm and insinuations flew back and forth, forcing Speaker Linda Reid to call frequently for order.
While the unruly behaviour might have registered a little higher on the nasty meter than usual, it was not really an aberration. And that’s the problem. MLAs’ behaviour shows they are more concerned about scoring points than making points. When they should be conducting the province’s business, they are fighting the next election.
That doesn’t mean the opposition shouldn’t ask pointed questions, nor should the government refrain from sharp answers. Question period is the time for the opposition to hold the government to account, and an opportunity for the government to explain. The debate can be heated without being uncivil.
B.C. MLAs have no monopoly on boorish behaviour. Teachers at an Alberta middle school wrote a letter in 2014 to the speaker of that province’s legislature, saying they would no longer allow students to observe question period after Grade 6 students saw what went on.
“We witnessed members tell each other that they suck and blow, motions across the floor from one representative to another inviting them outside to fight, verbal invitation to fight, and again, numerous reprimands from the speaker,” wrote one of the teachers.
He said the lesson students took away was that behaviour not acceptable at school is commonplace in the legislature.
It would insult children to say MLAs’ behaviour is childish — Grade 6 students know better; even kindergarten students are taught the importance of courtesy and respectful behaviour.
There’s plenty of room for give and take in legislative debate, but legislators should not lose sight of why they are there — to govern, not to play games, not simply to rack up points against the members opposite.
Here’s an opportunity for parliamentary reform that wouldn’t take a constitutional amendment or complex legislation. It’s a matter of applying elementary principles of civility and respect, of being deserving of the title “honourable member.”
