Pointless Parliament? Disenchanted Canadians describe debates in House of Commons as ‘posturing’, ‘useless’
Three-quarters say there’s no real debate about the issues in parliament
November 2, 2023 – 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 decorum to 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%).
In fact, of the 10 items listed, five positive and five negative, respondents are more likely to choose all five negative terms then their rosier alternates.
The negative assessment of debates in the House of Commons is not just coming from afar. Those who watch parliament proceedings frequently are more likely to describe the discussions as “dishonest” (58%) and disrespectful (45%) than those who aren’t avid followers.
While the nation can feel divided these days – see the Angus Reid Institute’s five-part series on Canada and the Culture Wars for more – the country is largely unified in its negativity regarding its political representatives.
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 that MPs vote to follow the views of their leader, so any real debate about issues is largely performative.
More Key Findings:
- 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.
About ARI
The Angus Reid Institute (ARI) was founded in October 2014 by pollster and sociologist, Dr. Angus Reid. ARI is a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan public opinion research foundation established to advance education by commissioning, conducting and disseminating to the public accessible and impartial statistical data, research and policy analysis on economics, political science, philanthropy, public administration, domestic and international affairs and other socio-economic issues of importance to Canada and its world.
INDEX
Part One: Who watches the proceedings?
-
More than half of Canadians say they watch at least occasionally
Part Two: The debates (or lack there of)
-
Canadians critical of tone of House of Commons
-
Younger Canadians more likely to see value in parliamentary debates
-
Most Canadians believe there’s no real debate in parliament about the issues
Part One: Who watches the proceedings?
More than half of Canadians say they watch at least occasionally
The proceedings of the Canada’s House of Commons are readily available to Canadians through the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) on cable or online. Witty comebacks and retorts from question period have also become regular fodder for social media.
More than half (57%) of Canadians say they at least watch parliamentary proceedings sometimes, including one-in-ten (11%) who are more frequent observers and 46 per cent who are watching occasional clips in news stories or social media. One-quarter (24%) say they rarely check in on what’s going on in the House of Commons and approaching one-in-five (17%) never do.
Men are more likely than women to say they frequently follow the House of Commons, while women are twice as likely as men to say they never watch or read anything about parliamentary proceedings:
Prior to becoming leader of the Conservative party last year, Pierre Poilievre made a name for himself during House of Commons’ question period, fueling his popularity on social media. With Poilievre at the helm, one-in-five (20%) past Conservative voters say they regularly tune in to parliamentary sessions, double the number of past Liberal (9%) and NDP (8%) supporters who say the same:
Part Two: The debates (or lack there of)
Canadians critical of the tone of House of Commons
The House of Commons was forced to choose a new Speaker this fall after the previous one resigned for inviting to parliament a former Ukrainian soldier who fought in a Nazi division. The change at the position provided an opportunity for perhaps a reset in culture, with many in the house believing “there is a profound and pressing need to repair political discourse in the House,” according to the Toronto Star. One week into his tenure, new Speaker Greg Fergus attempted to make a speech about decorum in the house, which devolved into heckling.
These recent events will do little do dispel the apparently negative opinion Canadians have of their legislative body. Canadians most chosen words to describe debates in parliament are “posturing” (54%), “useless” (46%), “dishonest” (38%), “disrespectful” (37%) and “uninformative” (35%). More positive terms such as “impassioned” (18%) and “informative” (15%) are chosen by fewer than one-in-five. One-in-20 or fewer choose “productive” (5%), “respectful” (5%), or “truthful” (3%, see detailed tables).
Across the political spectrum, a majority of all past voters view debates in the House of Commons as “posturing”. Past Conservative voters are much more likely to view them as “dishonest” (54%) than those who voted Bloc (21%), Liberal (27%), or NDP (33%) in 2021. Past Liberal voters are the most likely to believe the discussions in parliament to be “impassioned” at one-in-four (25%):
Frequent watchers of debates in the house are more negative than not in their assessments; three-in-five who say they regularly watch parliamentary debates describe them as “posturing” (58%) or “dishonest” (58%). One-quarter (27%) in that group also call them “uninformative”, but they are less likely to use this description than those who check in on the House of Commons occasionally (37%) or rarely (40%):
Younger Canadians more likely to see value in parliamentary debates
There are a handful of Canadians who view the discussions in the House of Commons with a more positive lens. Canadians under 45 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 under 35 are also more likely to offer no opinion:
Most Canadians believe there’s no real debate in parliament about the issues
The tone of conversations in the House of Commons is apparently one issue for Canadians. Another may be the lack of power individual members of parliament have to express their opinions. Most Canadians (73%) believe because MPs follow their leader, there is no real debate about the issues.
Across the country, at least seven-in-ten in every region say there is no real debate over the issues in parliament (see detailed tables).
Women are less likely than men to say this is the case, but are also more likely to say they are unsure:
A majority of all past voters believe there is no real debate on the issues in parliament, though a smaller proportion of NDP (68%) and Liberal (71%) voters believe this to be the case than past Conservative supporters (81%, see detailed tables).
Most Canadians regardless of how often they tune into parliamentary proceedings agree about the lack of true debate on the issues in the House of Commons, but those who regularly watch are much stronger in their assertion that this is the case:
METHODOLOGY:The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from Oct. 9-13, 2023 among a representative randomized sample of 1,878 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI. Detailed tables are found at the end of this release. |
For detailed results by age, gender, region, education, and other demographics, click here.
For detailed results by how often respondents follow parliamentary proceedings, click here.
To read the full report, including detailed tables and methodology, click here.
Read the questionnaire in English and French.
Image Credit – Photo 136324997 | Canada House Commons © Stef Ko | Dreamstime.com
MEDIA CONTACT:
Shachi Kurl, President: 604.908.1693 shachi.kurl@angusreid.org @shachikurl
Dave Korzinski, Research Director: 250.899.0821 dave.korzinski@angusreid.org @davekorzinski
