Heckling in the House of Commons.

• Author: Grisdale, Mackenzie
• Position: Report

Visitors and observers of the House of Commons have long remarked on the prevalence of heckling in the Chamber. But what are the consequences or benefits of this behaviour? This study offers an analysis of an original set of quantitative and qualitative data gathered in an anonymous survey completed by Members of Parliament near the end of the 40th Parliament. The survey addressed perceptions of heckling in the House of Commons as well as the impact MPs believe heckling has on their work. A significant number of MPs reported that heckling causes them to participate far less frequently, or not at all, in the work of the House. In addition, many of the words used against fellow MPs in heckles are contrary to Charter values. These words include racism, ageism, sexism, religious discrimination, discrimination against physical disabilities and homophobia.

**********

Heckling is a force in the Canadian House of Commons. Traditionally, if you walk into Question Period, you walk into a wall of sound. Those in the gallery reach for the earpieces, not just to hear the proceedings translated to their preferred official language, but also to make it possible to discern anything at all in the din.

Heckling is much-maligned in spite of the obvious drama it introduces to the Canadian House. Never mind how unproductive it looks, or the self-destruction inherent in a job where hundreds of people yell at you in your own workplace day after day. The House of Commons is where the nation's decisions are made, where taxes go up or down, where we decide to go to war. What role does heckling play in that same room? The reasons for heckling, the attitudes Members of Parliament hold toward this behaviour, the content of the heckling, and how heckling affects MPs' work all deserve examination.

Context and Literature

Heckling, by its nature, is difficult to study. It is often indecipherable from the galleries. It is not recorded in Hansard because it does not emanate from the person whose microphone is activated. At the same time, heckling has always occurred in the House of Commons. Mark Bosc has written about the behaviour of Members of Parliament shortly after Confederation. He found media accounts from that time that described members who acted "somewhat in the manner of irrepressible school boys in the absence of the teacher" as they sent "whirling in every direction ... paper balls, blue books, bills ... cushions ... hats and caps of all styles," made meowing noises, set off firecrackers, or played jewsharps to distract the person speaking. (1)

Even now, however, there is a significant focus in the media on the childish behaviour of MPs in the House of Commons. Some columnists defend heckling and "big-boy words" in the interests of passionate debate, (2) while others directly compare MPs to students in a hypothetical failed classroom where pupils take "every opportunity to hurl allegations at each other," (3) or characterize the rhetoric in the House as "the stuff we learned was inappropriate in elementary school." (4) There is also a theme in many media reports that heckling and similar behaviours are male. In addition to the "bigboy" comment above that equates personal attacks with masculinity, media reports often employ some variation of "testosterone politics" (5) to describe heckling.

The attitudes in the media are not necessarily germane in and of themselves. They become more important when they mirror the perceptions of the general public. Indeed, the suggestion that the public is fed up with heckling appears regularly in the media. The Hamilton Spectator describes heckling as a "problem that is not new--teachers were complaining about question period behaviour in front of school groups decades ago." (6) The problem of bringing guests to Question Period persists; several MPs who participated in this study shared anecdotes of bringing students and teachers to Question Period only to watch their guests leave in disgust.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Of course, politics-aficionados may view any media report on heckling as suspect since many believe the media perpetuate such behaviour by reporting on it. Still, we must note that many journalists push for more decorum in the House. This is the case in numerous articles, but we will take one example. After the late leader of the New Democrats issued a condemnation of sexist heckling, Chris Selley wrote in the National Post, "That a Canadian politician would demand an end to sexist heckling tells you most of what you need to know. A non-politician would instead propose doing away with heckling, period." (7) Ultimately it would be difficult to claim that the media at large either encourage or discourage heckling, but there is, at the very least, significant attention paid to it by journalists.

It is important to note as well that, both before and during Speaker Milliken's time in the Chair, there have been efforts to alter the Standing Orders to give the Speaker more overt power to enforce discipline in the House. Speaker Fraser convened an unofficial advisory committee to study the problem in 1992. The House never debated the changes to the Standing Orders the committee recommended. (8) In October 2006, Joe Comartin and Dawn Black, both NDP MPs, attempted unsuccessfully to revive the report of that advisory committee and implement its recommendations. In 1995, Milliken, as then-Chair of the Procedures and House Affairs Committee, helped look into "increased penalties for 'abusive, racist, or sexist language" with such consequences as "docking the pay of offending MPs, cutting off their phones, or lengthy suspensions." (9)

Method and Results

The data in this paper come from an original data set gathered using a survey delivered by the author to all members of the 40th Parliament during March 2011. (10) In addition six sitting MPs agreed to interviews before the 40th Parliament fell. (11) Sheila Copps, who served as an MP from 1984-2004 and has also been Deputy Prime Minister, was also interviewed. She was widely-known as a heckler and she helped elucidate why some believe heckling is useful. These conversations supplemented the survey data and the participants agreed to have their names used in association with their comments.

The surveys were based on self-reporting. There could be a tendency to under-report one's own participation in heckling, even though the responses were anonymous. A further limitation is that some MPs indicated they defined heckling differently than what was stated on the survey itself, which read, "for the purposes of this survey, the definition of 'heckle' is: to call out in the chamber of the House of Commons without having the Speaker's recognition to speak." Some respondents said that anything involving humour was not heckling. So, witty heckles were not, in some cases, reported as heckles at all.

MPs readily admit that heckling is a major feature of life in the House. A majority of respondents said that heckling takes place in the House of Commons frequently (63.3%), or continuously (18.3%). MPs are far more likely to say heckling occurs more in Question Period than at any other time in a typical sitting day. This was followed, in order, by Statements by Members, Private Members' Business, Government Orders, Routine Proceedings, and Adjournment Procedures. The qualitative data

also suggest that more heckling occurs when a controversial bill comes up for debate, as well as when the overall climate in the Chamber is tense. Many MPs expressed that the time when the survey was delivered was indeed stressful as a contempt ruling was about to spark an election.

The surveys showed that heckles encompass a range of topics, a minority of which run against the values enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the chart "Content of heckles" indicates, most of the heckling in the House of Commons deals with the heckled MP's idea, comment or question Much less frequent, but still notable, were heckles involving MPs" appearance, gender, age, race, sexuality, and religion.

The heckles that MPs said resonated the most were personal attacks. Often, MPs were reluctant even to divulge examples of heckles they recalled, while some would refer vaguely to "racism and sexism" or...