In the autumn issue of Canadian Parliamentary Review, Evan Sotiropoulos applies a little qualitative and quantitative analysis to the spectacle that now is the 15 minutes before Question Period reserved for statements by members.

My extensive review of parliamentary transcripts showed that unparliamentary or partisan discourse is on the rise during Members’ Statements in the House of Commons. Policy differences and their expression in a democratic society should not be used as cover for mean spirited attacks. All Members, regardless of party affiliation, should strive to arrest this decline in political discourse and help to cultivate a political environment conducive to cooperation.

The Speaker has the power required to sanction those parliamentarians who violate Standing Order 31. Throughout the 38th and 39th Parliaments, however, many examples can be found of violations of the spirit of the rule. It is no wonder then that when Speaker Milliken issued his warning to House Leaders, most Members simply ignored his advice and continued to follow the pattern set over the past five years.

Elsewhere in the CPR, an expansive attempt to rethink Question Period. More on that once I’ve read it all.

Bit late to this, but here is John Manley reflecting on his time in office, the current state of play and the way forward.

Many of the changes in political culture were healthy. We ceased to spend what we could not afford. We no longer assumed that growth was inevitable and learned that we had to have the right mix of public policy and investment if we wanted a strong economy. We demanded results and high ethical conduct from our public officials.

All of this is good. But what I see as the erosion of public space — the declining importance we attach to collective action, and the growing distrust of the state — are dangerous if left unchecked. If the past year and a half of turmoil in the financial markets has taught us anything at all, surely lesson number one is that public policy matters.

Bit late to this, but here is Andrew Steele considering the state of modern political discourse.

The left and right appear not just deadlocked intellectually but actively ignorant of what motivates their opponents. In a world where the Internet, talk radio and micromarketing allow us to restrict our exposure to those with whom we share opinions, it is increasingly incumbent upon us to seek out other points of view and challenge our own assumptions.

Or, we can just resort to calling our political competitors crazy.

Stephen Harper, Friday. “We just had an election. What we’re looking for from Ignatieff and the other parties is, obviously, an opportunity to work together to advance the interest of the country. We do think that, rather than this kind of partisanship, people should be seeking ways to work together to advance our shared interests at this time of recession.”

Since returning in January, the House has been in session for a total of 49 normal business days.

On each of those 49 days, the schedule, as dictated by Standing Order 31 of Parliament, has dictated that 15 minutes before Question Period be reserved for “statements by members”—time typically used by MPs to publicly celebrate local bake sales, pass on congratulations to noteworthy constituents or champion personal causes.

Through yesterday, Conservative members have used 81 of these statements since the House returned to cast aspersion or accusation on the Liberal opposition or its leader.

James Bow considers partisanship, politics, democracy, civil discourse and blogging.

Reginald Stackhouse: The purpose of the opposition is to prevent the government and its supporters from using their near-absolute power to govern that way. It cannot be done by sweetness and light. It demands that the opposition have adequate access to information and adequate opportunity to articulate its critical analysis of government proposals – especially when the government doesn’t want the opposition parties to be in the know. That means politics has to be war. It means we, the public, are served best when our parliamentary representatives keep each other honest, making all aware they are living on a firing line where battle is done every day.

Janice Kennedy: Instead of counter-arguments, we get monosyllabic slurs. Instead of witty repartee, catcalls. Instead of inspired ideas coherently expressed, grunts from mouth-breathing goons. The tone is raucous, the atmosphere chaotic. And the daily brass ring goes not to the most verbally adept, but to the one with the most capacious set of lungs. The corollary is obvious. When all you can hear is shouting — that moronic braying that goes on and on the whole time some member is trying to express something — you can be sure there’s precious little listening going on. And zero dialogue.

Rex Murphy: In this war – for war it is – all the petty arts of innuendo, exaggeration and allegation, refined to the highest degree by the stagecraft of scrums and Question Period, are called into play. Partisanship magnifies disagreement into zealotry. Personal rivalries metastasize into raging hatreds. Governments play an identical game in reverse. Slay the opposition from the moment it arrives in Parliament. Mock the leader, traduce the idea, demonize the eccentric. People outside politics cannot fully appreciate how total this game is, how swiftly partisanship twists otherwise benign and decent human beings into angry spouts of bluster and recrimination. Politics shrinks the human soul.

Everybody hold hands
Fear not, Canada. As soon as we’re back in the black, our politicians will go back to hating each other.

“Glittering through [the] bleakness” of recession, deficit and abandoned election promises, the Toronto Star’s James Travers also espies Stephen Harper’s “commitment to suspend the politics of division in favour of partnership.” It’s nothing less than a “seismic shift,” he enthuses, as evidenced most compellingly by his recent meeting with the premiers. And with the opposition parties in no position to trigger another election, Travers expects a new, congenial tranquility to descend over Ottawa. We’ll all be living in abject penury, of course, but you can’t have everything.

The Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin believes yesterday’s Throne Speech arrived safely at the midway point between “timidity” and “rash action.” And, like Travers, he detects unusually low activity in the Prime Minister’s Van Loan lobe, the part of the brain that regulates hyper-partisan blather. “The economic crisis has focused his mind,” he suggests; “he is a more mature leader. … He understands the country better.” And as such, Martin believes he now “realizes the necessary response [to the crisis] is consensus-building at home and abroad.” However, as if sensing Canada’s collective skepticism, Martin hastens to add “it’s by no means certain” that this new conciliatory tone will take hold throughout Ottawa.

Continue…