Political Speech and the Degradation of Substantive Debate

I will posit the core of many of our Parliament's problems come from the lack of collaboration in pursuing tough questions.

As Maclean's Aaron Wherry writes of the first day back in session, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair went back and forth over the First Nations issues in a "rhetorical stalemate". The PM did as everyone does when they don't have a better answer: he resorted to "political speech".

I call it political speech anyway. It means you maximize the good, and minimize the bad. Take as much credit and deflect as much blame. We primarily see it in half-assers. This is a symptom, or a reaction really. We are accused of not doing a good enough job, and we go "well, we did this and this and that, and that part wasn't really my fault so..."

It should be seen as natural, is what I mean. Of course, how immensely difficult is it to address the core of these issues, and actually work to fix that whole host of problems that afflict Aboriginal communities across Canada in a substantive way?

Obviously it's very difficult, but we can't get there if our political parties are playing king-of-the-hill.

In a separate article, Wherry writes of civility and decorum in the House of Commons. This is something I am extremely passionate about. I believe civility is a means to an end. Not simply about being nice, but about being productive, actually addressing the issue. And if we don't think of it that way, then we should start to.

One of the issues Wherry sees with this is the appearance of controlling speech, or curbing it more specifically. He writes

"So how to separate the acceptable expressions from the unacceptable, the permissible from the harmful? We have come up with laws of war, so probably we can devise standards of democracy. But it is difficult to enforce rules on the rhetorical, dangerous even to say what can and cannot be said—all the more so in a place that is supposed to represent all of us, even the jerks."

 Among the ideas presented, NDP House leader Nathan Cullen calls for civility and penalties should infringements be made. Wherry quotes Conservative MP Lawrence Toet. See if you can spot the uncivil portion:

"Mr. Speaker, Canada is not immune to global economic challenges from beyond our borders. That is why in 2013 we will continue our commitment to grow the economy and create jobs by keeping taxes low and through measures like major new investments in research and development. However, while we are focused on helping the economy grow, the NDP wants a $21 billion carbon tax which would cripple our economy and put Canadians out of work. Could the Minister of Finance please give this House an update on our government's action to grow the economy and create jobs for hard-working Canadians?"

 Wherry continues,

"The Conservatives would argue that this was a question about government business—you see, even when rules are applied, there are ways of getting around them for your partisan purposes. But the Speaker might have stood up immediately after that third sentence, pronounced the question unfit and moved on to the next MP in line. He might set the standard that no wandering into such nonsense in this particular way would be tolerated."

 It is only aggravating that the Speakers are so complacent in their roles.

Their British counter-part John Bercow has gone on to become something of a "champion" for parliamentary reform. He "never been much given to little social cliques. And I’ve never been of that part of the Tory party that was given to dining in clubs and [saying], ‘Shall we meet for a few G&Ts afterwards?’ and that sort of thing.” Bercow seeks to change the culture of the House by changing its rules, "The herd have a Speaker determined to change their ways on several fronts. At a time when many grand claims are made about a new politics Bercow's public openness marks an historic break with Speakers of the past."

I interviewed Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie before her retirement on such progressive reforms, and was disappointed to find that Speakers only enforce the given parliamentary code and procedure, and not arbitrate between acceptable and unacceptable proffers of argument. Pity.

Yet, anyone watching these interactions would say this is part of the problem. For my part, I believe all these characters, Wherry, Cullen, Bercow etc are touching on relatively the same thing: culture and interaction.

The structure of our Parliament should encourage and cultivate civil and collaborative efforts to tackle public problems with public resources. In this light, civility and productive debate seem the most common-sense expectations when we spend millions sending people to a place where they come together to deliberate on deep, complex issues.

By affecting the structure, the rules, we affect interaction. When we aggregate those interactions, we often call it culture.

Let's change the culture.