The Peace Tower on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on June 19.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Peter A.S. Milliken is the longest-serving Speaker in the history of Canada’s House of Commons, holding that role from 2001 to 2011. Vikram Handa is chief operating officer of Maya Investments.
In recent Canadian parliamentary history, two notable incidents involving prominent leaders have underscored a concerning trend in parliamentary conduct. New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh and Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre were both ejected from the House of Commons within a span of just four years for their use of unparliamentary language. Mr. Singh’s exit in June of 2020 and Mr. Poilievre’s in April of 2024 have brought attention to the evolving dynamics of political discourse within Canada’s legislative chambers.
Since the Second World War, both houses of Canada’s Parliament have often been characterized by spirited debates, competitive dynamics and strong personalities. However, never before have members or senators sacrificed the opportunity to address critical national issues in favour of crafting sound bites tailored for social media. While robust debate and the exchange of diverse ideas are essential for shaping meaningful policy outcomes, the tone and conduct within Parliament must never descend – as it has – into fear-mongering, personal attacks, or the deployment of empty rhetorical devices.
The Canadian Parliament has seen its share of colourful moments, from the infamous “fuddle duddle” incident in which prime minister Pierre Trudeau was alleged to have said an epithet in 1971, to more contemporary debates increasingly shaped by social-media dynamics. While such historical incidents often add flavour to parliamentary folklore, the current landscape emphasizes the challenge of maintaining decorum and substantive debate amidst the pressures of modern media and political polarization.
The current shadow over parliamentary debates in the House of Commons is not merely a reflection of any single session, speaker, opposition leader or member. It reflects broader societal shifts, including the influence of digital media and the rapid dissemination of confrontational rhetoric. This trend raises questions about the balance between effective communication and the integrity of parliamentary traditions rooted in respectful dialogue and substantive policy engagement.
Parliamentarians must navigate a landscape where slogans and partisan messaging often overshadow substantive policy deliberations. The focus on crafting messages for short-term effect risks undermining the fundamental role of Parliament as a forum for deliberative democracy and meaningful governance.
At its core, parliamentary debate should serve the interests of Canadians by fostering an environment where rigorous discussion is conducted with civility and integrity. By upholding principles of respectful engagement and rejecting personal attacks, parliamentarians can reinforce public trust in democratic institutions and ensure that diverse voices are heard in shaping the country’s future.
As we assess the state of political discourse, it becomes clear that the evolution of parliamentary decorum is intertwined with broader societal changes. In recent years, the influence of social media and the wider temptation to prioritize sensationalism over substance have transformed the landscape of political communication, amplifying the immediacy and intensity of parliamentary exchanges. While this can enhance transparency and public engagement, it also introduces challenges in maintaining decorum and dignity while producing substantive debate. The quest for viral moments and the pressure to craft messages that resonate in 10-second sound bites can waylay the nuanced deliberations necessary for effective policy-making.
Moreover, the polarization of Canadian politics has contributed to a climate where adversarial rhetoric and personal attacks occasionally overshadow collaborative efforts and constructive dialogue. This polarization not only impedes legislative progress but also erodes public trust in the ability of elected representatives to govern effectively on behalf of all Canadians.
It is crucial to remember that within Parliament, members are opponents engaged in debate, not enemies. A mature and constructive conversation should transcend rigid ideologies and blind partisanship, and it should focus instead on delivering meaningful outcomes for Canadians. This approach demands a commitment to truth in policy discussions and a steadfast adherence to civility, while rejecting personal attacks and character assassinations.
To uphold the integrity of Canada’s democratic process, all parliamentarians must commit to elevating the quality of discourse within legislative chambers. This commitment involves promoting constructive dialogue that transcends partisan divides and promotes genuine engagement on issues that matter most to Canadians.
Canadians deserve a higher standard of parliamentary discourse. The integrity of our democratic process hinges on fostering an environment where rigorous debate is conducted with respect, integrity, and a genuine pursuit of the public good. As custodians of public trust and stewards of our democratic institutions, parliamentarians must uphold these principles to ensure that the voices of Canadians are heard and their interests are faithfully represented.