Pointless Parliament? Disenchanted Canadians describe debates in House of Commons as ‘posturing’, ‘useless’As new speaker of the House of Commons Greg Fergus attempts to reset the tone of debate, perhaps unsuccessfully so far, there is apparently much work to be done to bring back esteem for Parliament in the eyes of Canadians.New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds Canadians critical of their House of Commons. Asked to describe the sentiments that come to mind when they think of the exchange of ideas between their parliamentary members, the top descriptive terms are “posturing” (54%), “useless” (46%), and “dishonest” (38%).When presented with five positive and five negative descriptors, respondents are more likely to choose all five negative terms than their rosier alternates.The more frequently people watch Parliamentary debates, the more their negative assessment of them. Those who watch Parliament proceedings frequently are more likely to describe the discussions as dishonest (58%) and disrespectful (45%) than those who watch casually.While the Angus Reid Institute’s five-part series on Canada and the Culture Wars reflects a deeply divided country, it is, ironically, largely unified in its negative assessment of politicians in Parliament.Every group of partisans among past Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc Québécois voters are more likely to describe debate in the House as “posturing” than not..Some of this disenchantment may also be due to Canada’s tradition of party discipline. Three-quarters of Canadians say MPs vote to follow the views of their leader, so any real debate about issues is largely performative. Men more than 55 years of age are especially likely to hold this view.Men (15%) are twice as likely as women (8%) to say they watch Parliamentary proceedings frequently. Women (24%) are twice as likely as men (11%) to say they never tune in.Those who are regular watchers of House of Commons debates are less likely to describe them as uninformative (27%) as those who only occasionally (37%) or rarely (40%) watch, but the frequent watchers who describe the sessions as informative are still a minority (17%).Younger Canadians are more likely to use positive terms such as "impassioned," "informative," "productive," "respectful and “truthful” to describe discussions in the house, but they are also more likely than older ones to say they don’t know enough to offer an opinion.This may contribute to a more positive perspective held by younger voters. Canadians less than 45 years of age are twice as likely as those older than that to believe there is heartfelt passion in the debates. Younger Canadians are also more likely to view them as productive and truthful. However, those less than 35 years of age are also more likely to offer no opinion..The problem may not be new. More than 40 years ago, a Wayne and Shuster comedy skit alleged that televising debates turned them into a performance.“The Speaker of the House is going to be wearing sequins?” asked the Frank Shuster character.“It worked for Liberace!” said Johnny Wayne who played the speaker.Between pointed questions with snappy, funny answers, MPs sang,“Question time, question time, everybody loves question time / There ain’t no reason and there ain’t no rhyme, it’s question time.”A female MP from “Peel Potato” said, “In a recent survey of my party, we all agreed that this government is a do-nothing government. You have confronted every problem that has faced this nation with ignorance and apathy….What do you say to that?”MPs from the ruling party stood in unison and said, “We don’t know and we don’t care!”
