Canada's parliament: Is it funny enough?

Electoral reform is dead.

But that doesn't mean Canada's democracy can't still be improved.

One area ripe for improvement may be the comedy chops of Canadian politicians. In the UK, news outlets often carve out the funniest bits of parliamentary debate, and casual observers make their own mashups of the best japes and jabs during QP, often focusing on colourful speaker John Bercow.

Andrew MacDougall, former communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who now works in the UK, says the relative lack of comedy in our parliament is symptomatic of bigger problems with our democracy. 

I think parliament's been beaten down laterally in Canada for reasons of control, and I think that control from the centre has bred a lot of individuality out of our politicians.- Andrew MacDougall, former Director of Communications for PM Stephen Harper

"I think Britain is a funnier place than Canada, and I think that's a function of having more history here, more tradition of both comedy, the arts, entertainment, literature, you name it. A parliament that's been more independent, and independent-minded than you see in Canada. I think parliament's been beaten down laterally in Canada for reasons of control, and I think that control from the centre has bred a lot of individuality out of our politicians. And that extends to debate, trying to stage manage debate in parliament to make it more serious and focused on the political objective."

According to Dale Smith, freelance reporter and author of parliamentary explainer book The Unbroken Machine, says Canada's parliament isn't nearly as funny as the UK's. 

QP is entirely theatre, and it's supposed to be. But in Canada, we're kind of like junior high theatre- Dale Smith, freelance parliamentary reporter

According to Smith, it's important to remember that Question Period, or as it's called in the UK, Question Time, is a performance. He says "QP is entirely theatre, and it's supposed to be. But in Canada, we're kind of like junior high theatre, where you can still see people with their scripts in front of them, trying to act out a scene, whereas opposed to the UK, they're a little more high class. It's a little closer to the Globe Theatre."

Smith thinks MPs may be hesitant to crack wise because the news media take jokes far too seriously. He says "the instinct for message control has become so dominant in Canada. Everyone's afraid of what the headline's going to be. It wouldn't be the first time that an MP or minister said something a little off the cuff and a little off-colour and the press gallery ran to the foyer, pearls clutched in hand, to demand if he actually meant that." 

By making fun of yourself voters will be more inclined to listen to you.- Christelle Paré, Centre for Comedy Research Studies, Brunel University London

Christelle Paré is a Canadian comedy researcher, affiliated with the Centre for Comedy Studies Research at Brunel University in London. To Paré, there's a particularly British form of humour often used in the parliamentary debates: self-deprecation. She says self-deprecation "puts you in a less aggressive position. In an uneasy position. You put yourself as less of a threat, then you charge your weapon and you shoot. Winston Churchill was excellent at it. it will make you less of a serious politician who's in his ivory tower. By making fun of yourself voters will be more inclined to listen to you."

While self-deprecation is a standard feature of the UK's parliament, one recent use in Canada didn't please everyone. Former Immigration Minister John McCallum, responding to a question about funding for refugees in which Conservative MP Michelle Rempel accused him of seeking photo-ops, said "Mr. Speaker, if the government wanted to send somebody somewhere for a photo-op, I suspect there are people in this aisle they'd probably send before they send me."

McCallum's answer did not play well with everyone, possibly because he didn't, as in Paré's description, use the self-deprecation as the setup to a rebuttal - he simply sat down.

To MacDougall, the the lack of freedom to be funny does more than harm the entertainment value of our parliamentary proceedings. That, paradoxically, not being able to joke around, stops MPs from taking the House of Commons seriously. 

You'll see this frustration of being automatons. Banked on for their votes, but not looked to for their thoughts and independence.- Andrew MacDougall

"You'll see this frustration of being automatons. Banked on for their votes, but not looked to for their thoughts and independence. It diminishes the role of the MP, I think it makes it less interesting to be a parliamentarian. And I think maybe that's where you see this lack of creativity or originality when it comes to parliamentary debate. It's a chore or a task to be done, not the primary reason they're there."

Smith agrees, saying the top-down, scripted nature of the Canadian parliament removes all spontaneity and wit from debates, to the detriment of democracy.

"We have seen examples where MPs have come in and haven't actually read over their question, and stumbled over words or pronunciations because they weren't prepared, and it wasn't a question that came from them, and that matters. If we want them to show Canadians that these are issues they care about, these are questions they want answers to, that they're trying to hold the government to account, I think it behooves them to demonstrate they are showing up, doing the work, being engaged, and taking the topic to heart. And their performance in the way they do that does matter."