It’s often referred to as the cut and thrust of politics, but jokes, verbal jabs at past flubs or greater errors in judgment, are — like it or not — currently an accepted part of political discourse in the province.
Recent formal complaints of bullying and harassment aren’t focused in the House of Assembly, but that’s not to say there haven’t been instances of inappropriate behaviour, including bullying, during proceedings.
In the past week, The Telegram spoke with a collection of former MHAs who said they witnessed and personally experienced inappropriate behaviour in the House.
One former Tory MHA said whenever he felt something directed at him crossed a line, he would check with the person directly at the first opportunity.
“You just want to make sure it’s something in the heat of the moment versus something more serious,” he said, acknowledging not everyone would necessarily do the same.
But there are considerations to keep in mind in any discussion of question period as a breeding ground for bullying and harassment in provincial politics.
There are already laws and rules governing conduct in the legislature, in addition to the members’ code of conduct — enshrined in legislation and holding all elected provincial politicians to reputable behaviour.
Related stories:
In Depth: Harassment and bullying in the N.L. House of Assembly
Will ‘Time’s Up’ change Newfoundland and Labrador politics?
Parliamentary privilege is enjoyed by members of the House of Assembly — a collection of rights intended to encourage members to speak freely, to challenge each other in debate without fear. It includes a particular freedom of speech keeping members from defamation lawsuits for something said on the floor of the House (the protection doesn’t apply outside, in the halls of Confederation Building).
In the House, there are standing orders that must be followed. Reference to a particular member by their name as opposed to their title would, for example, be against the standing orders.
The Speaker of the House, currently Perry Trimper, is empowered to take actions, make rulings, enforce standing orders and uphold the integrity of the proceedings. Central to the position are the ideas of authority and impartiality, with the Speaker having to ensure the minority voice is given space to be heard.
In addition to the standing orders, the Speaker must be familiar with customs and precedents, and “authority” guides (for example, the O’Brien and Bosc guide on procedure and practice).
Argument for any new, blanket policies that would attempt to guide language and behaviour in the House of Assembly needs to also consider free-flowing and spirited debate, and existing guides, roles and restrictions.
But it is also true Hansard (the official transcript of House proceedings), webcasts, the Speaker and the in-House microphones can’t pick up on everything. There are still public disputes around House behaviour, including between members on the floor of the House, with limited resolution.
In an example involving the current assembly, NDP Leader Gerry Rogers was speaking in the House in November 2017, presenting a petition, when — as she told the House and The Telegram at the time — she heard another member calling her “honey.”
On a point of order, Rogers stood and said Placentia West-Bellevue MHA Mark Browne began heckling with “Gerry, honey…”
“Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that’s very appropriate in this House. Considering how difficult it is for women to get elected in this House, that kind of disrespectful, sexist language is totally, totally inappropriate in the people’s House,” she said, for the record.
Government House Leader Andrew Parsons said he hadn’t heard the comment, but added there should still be a review of the tape to determine what was said.
Then-NDP leader Lorraine Michael said she had stepped out and wasn’t in the House to hear the comments, but supported Rogers, asking the House for the tape to indeed be reviewed.
The Speaker set out to review it, expecting to rule the next day.
The Telegram followed up with Browne by email before the ruling came back.
Browne said he was “extremely shocked” hearing the point of order from Rogers.
“I did not say this,” he said, adding he encouraged the review of the tapes.
“I believe in promoting a respectful workplace, particularly as elected leaders,” he said.
The next day’s session began with the Speaker addressing the matter before there was any further business.
“These are serious matters and members must be aware of their obligation to behave appropriately in this chamber. In this House, a word, phrase or behaviour must be seen within the context of how and what was said and done. Some actions are unparliamentary in some contexts and not in others. The essential root of supporting or not supporting this point of order is, however, whether or not the challenged actions are seen to be disruptive and therefore unparliamentary,” he said.
“Having reviewed Hansard (transcript) and the video record of debate at that time, the unparliamentary language in question cannot be discerned; therefore, there is no point of order. However, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members of their duty to preserve dignity and decorum in this honourable House and that I expect them to govern themselves accordingly.”
Any member who believes another may have crossed the line into harassment and bullying, into breaches of the code of conduct, but are not entirely certain, can still discuss their concerns confidentially with the commissioner for legislative standards, who is empowered to take action on expressed concerns involving elected members.
Related link:
Members’ Parliamentary Guide
