25 Ethics Bowl Case: Bad Behaviour in Parliament
Table of Contents
Bad Behaviour in Parliament
In a society that demands employers provide a safe working environment devoid of harassment, there appears to be a holdout — Canada’s House of Commons, particularly during the daily Question Period. Behaviours that would be considered unacceptable in the classrooms or workplaces of those watching, such as heckling, name-calling, and insults, are commonplace.
A recent Toronto Star survey found that this activity is on the increase. MPs frequently refer to each other as “liars” and in one recent case a “monkey.” MPs have accused their colleagues of believing in conspiracy theories by claiming they wear “tinfoil hats,” and some MPs have been falsely accused of supporting the terrorist organization Hamas or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is just a small sample, and although the Speaker often chastises MPs for using such language, by that point, the damage has been done.
Female and racialized parliamentarians have been particularly vocal about how they are often the target of sexist and racist insults. A survey by the thinktank Samara on civility in the House of Commons found that “female MPs were more likely than men to report hearing heckles, especially about gender, appearance, age and language.” The same survey noted that two-thirds of Canadians want the system “reformed and improved.” Is it that simple?
The goal of an elected official is to implement a set of policies. If they are in government, they can only continue to do that by maintaining power. If they are in opposition, they need to defeat the government of the day. To do either involves engaging voters, usually through media coverage or capturing the public’s attention through social media posts.
In a world inundated with information and dominated by complex issues, often the only way to garner public attention is through dramatic behaviour that vilifies your opponent and exaggerates your own virtue. Question Period is much more about psychological warfare than an exchange of information. Opposition parties try to make news by destabilizing the government, and governments try to minimize news by discrediting the opposition. The short time frame of each exchange does not help matters, making it virtually impossible to engage in serious discussion of complex matters.
Is bad behaviour simply an inevitable by-product of such a system?
Discussion Questions
- Is it legitimate for politicians to engage in uncivil behaviour to gain the attention of the media and public?
- Is someone encouraging poor behaviour by an MP by liking or circulating a social media post of them insulting a colleague in the House of Commons?
- To what extent is their poor behaviour the fault of a public that often elects or re-elects the party that has done the best job of vilifying their opponents?
- Should parliamentary assemblies be treated like other workplaces and have zero tolerance for harassment, name calling, and insults?
Further Reading
- “Cheering or Jeering? Members of Parliament Open Up About Civility in the House of Commons” by Samara Canada (2016)
- “Question Period is About Psychological Warfare” by John Milloy (2024)
- “‘Boorish and Rude’: Conservatives Heckle House Speaker During Speech on Ills of Heckling” by Rachel Aiello (2023)
Bibliography
Aiello, Rachel. 2023. “‘Boorish and Rude’: Conservatives Heckle House Speaker During Speech on Ills of Heckling.” CTV News, October 18, 2023. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/boorish-and-rude-conservatives-heckle-house-speaker-during-speech-on-ills-of-heckling-1.6607070.
Milloy, John. 2024. “Bad Behaviour in Parliament.” In Ethics Bowl Canada 2023-2024 National Case Set, edited by Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development Committee. n.p.: Ethics Bowl Canada. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IYW9BoZuJckjpj74ku24pLJgmTCj9h10/view.
Milloy, John. 2024. “Question Period is About Psychological Warfare.” The Peterborough Examiner, January 30, 2024. https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/opinion/contributors/question-period-is-about-psychological-warfare/article_fa6ad50f-e89f-549c-93f9-44001272aad1.html.
Samara Canada. 2016. “Cheering or Jeering? Members of Parliament Open Up About Civility in the House of Commons.” January 2016. https://assets-global.website-files.com/637bf69c5352661ca8b6d15b/649ef4c685681da8051e4876_20162001%20Cheering%20or%20Jeering%20FINAL.pdf.
Attribution
Unless otherwise noted, “Bad Behaviour in Parliament” by John Milloy (2024) [and the Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development Committee], via Ethics Bowl Canada, is used and adapted under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
The Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development committee gives permission to third parties to use the Case Sets it has developed between September 2021 and March 2024 under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. The Committee also asks that users notify Ethics Bowl Canada of their use of the case sets, especially if they are adapting or remixing it. This can be done by sending an email to contact@ethicsbowl.ca.
