Parliament can boost civility if it’s willing

Let’s try a few experiments, says Samara’s Mike Morden.

“Innovation” is on the tip of everyone’s tongue, but it’s not a word one associates with Parliament. It’s hard to change Parliament. This is partly by design. Parliament is meant to weather political change, and deliver stability and continuity, which it has done for Canada.

But when times call for change, it can be slow to move. There is tradition to observe. And often parties’ conflicting interests, as competitors for power, get in the way of their shared interest in a more functional Parliament. Even when those changes might make for a more civil and inclusive workplace.

Earlier this year, members of Parliament were surveyed about how they regarded incivility in general, and heckling in the House of Commons in particular. The response was paradoxical. More than half of MPs see heckling as a problem. Only 16 per cent see it as beneficial. Three-quarters of MPs think heckling offends citizens. And yet, two-thirds of MPs admit that they heckle.

By and large, MPs don’t want to get rid of heckling — but they don’t think the status quo is working either: 72 per cent of MPs say they heckle to correct false statements, but only 15 per cent agree that heckling improves accountability.

Most troubling, one-third of respondents equated heckling with harassment.

The complete results are published in Samara Canada’s new report, No One Is Listening.

Samara’s research on the Hill suggests that many MPs on all sides of the House sincerely want a more civil, sensible, and substantive debate. But it’s hard to change Parliament.

In the report, Samara suggests a new approach. Over the last decade, governments around the world have enthusiastically adopted the practice of experiments, to test out new projects, improve public service delivery and achieve better behaviour. Canada’s Parliament can do this too.

An experimental Parliament needs buy-in from all parties for testing change. It needs time-limited pilots and established feedback loops. Parliament can first examine change on a temporary basis, then decide, based on feedback, how to proceed.

What would those experiments look like? The report offers some examples, to deal with the issue of incivility in particular.

Currently, cameras in the House only face directly on the Speaker of the House, or the MP who is recognized to speak. Everyone else is free to shout, bully or disrupt in relative anonymity. Experimenting with different angles and wider shots, thereby capturing more conduct on camera, could be a strong incentive to behave. In the survey, MPs largely agreed that citizens — presumably the observers of question period — don’t like incivility.

As well, some of the most disruptive heckling occurs when packs of MPs shout in unison. Mixing up members of the parties — by seating them among those of another party — could encourage more collegiality and less heckling. This is already the case in some countries, such as Norway and Sweden — so it is not entirely without precedent.

Lastly, Parliament could empower MPs by reducing reliance on party lists to the Speaker and extending time limits for MPs to allow for more substantive debate. A less staged, more dynamic and authentic exchange could give MPs more constructive ways to use their voices in the House.

These ideas are just a start. Those in Parliament likely have ideas of what else could change to make things better. Experimenting might result in a Parliament that is more functional, inclusive and better able to debate important questions for the country.

There’s never been a better time to embrace the idea of an experimental Parliament. Next year, the House of Commons will relocate to a temporary chamber while the regular chamber is renovated. Parliamentarians should take inspiration from their impermanent surroundings to explore and experiment for a more perfect Parliament.

Most troubling, one-third of respondents equated heckling with harassment.