Politique canadienne

A17(c) - Political Discourses and Parliamentary Debates

Date: Jun 5 | Heure: 10:15am to 11:45am | Salle:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Daniel Westlake (University of Saskatchewan)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Daniel Westlake (University of Saskatchewan)

Politicizing Facts in Canadian Parliament: Edward Koning (University of Guelph)
Abstract: Contemporary political controversies often seem to center on issues that can be verified empirically, such as on whether or not the average temperature on the planet is increasing, whether a majority of immigrants are from Muslim-majority countries, and on whether crime rates are increasing. Such contestation – which I will refer to as the politicization of facts – arguably challenges the very foundations of our system of government which aims to incorporate diverse interests, priorities and values but is not designed to weigh diverse perceptions of empirically verifiable facts. In an era of alternative facts and fake news, it is tempting to assume there is something new about this phenomenon, and to associate it with the rise of (in particular right-wing) populist actors over the last two decades. However, existing research has so far not attempted to test this assumption systematically. We simply do not have evidence that demonstrates a systematic connection between the politicization of facts on the one hand and the success of right-wing populism on the other. As a preliminary investigation of this relationship, this paper presents the results from a systematic comparison of parliamentary debates on 86 bills in the Canadian parliament spanning two time periods (1994-2000 and 2015-2021) and three subjects (the environment, citizenship and immigration, and crime). This research design provides multiple comparative angles that allow for an assessment both of the level of disagreement on empirically verifiable information in Canadian parliamentary debates and the extent to which it is driven by populism.

“It’s All in The Word”: Strategic Uses of Languages for Political Gain in Canada: Emmanuelle Richez (University of Windsor), Vincent Raynauld (Emerson College)
Abstract: While many studies have taken interest in the strategic uses of language (e.g. French, English) for political outreach and engagement by elected officials, candidates during elections, and government agencies, few have unpacked their impact on the tone, structure, and targeting of political messages. Indeed, members of different linguistic and, by extension, cultural communities can have different political priorities and objectives, which can in turn influence how politicians develop and roll out their political appeals. This study takes interest in this dynamic in Canada and fills gaps in the scholarly literature. It does so by looking at how elected officials in ridings with a high level of French and English-speaking Canadians communicate with members of the public, such as by adjusting the tone, structure, and themes discussed in their political messages based on the language used to engage with audience members’ preferences and objectives. Specifically, it analyzes the content of the bilingual (French-English) publications of Canadian elected officials representing ridings with a large official language minority (over 25% of the population) on social media platforms, including X and Facebook. It compares several facets of these publications, including the issues and public policies discussed, the tone of the messages, the timing of the publications of the posts, and the communication channels used. This paper argues differences of varying importance exist between the messages shared with different sociolinguistic groups of a population in a national context.

Language in the House: Examining the Conservative Party of Canada’s Use of Liberal Gender Rhetoric: Esli Chan (McGill University), Kelly Gordon (McGill University)
Abstract: Gender politics have become increasingly divisive within the evolving Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatism in Canada has historically emphasized tradition and preservation of social norms. Critics also argue that conservatism lacks a firm ideological foundation, instead reacting to the dominance of the Liberal Party. However, the Party has come to adopt a more progressive stance on gender in recent years. This raises the question of whether the Party’s gender-progressive politics is genuinely ideological or merely strategic. This paper examines speeches by Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) on gender-related Bills from 2014 to 2024, using a discursive and institutional approach to evaluate the Party’s relationship with gender politics. I explore three main questions: how does the gendered rhetoric used by Conservative MPs ideologically align with the content of proposed gender-related Bills? Do Conservative approaches to gendered rhetoric differ when proposing or opposing gender-related Bills? How might institutional structures shape Conservative engagement with gender issues? I argue that Conservative gendered rhetoric varies depending on its stance in the House. In opposing legislation, Conservatives adopt progressive rhetoric, leveraging Liberal Party language against themselves while qualifying social conservative talking points as progressive. In proposing legislation, Conservatives narrow their gender vocabulary by equating gender politics to the protection of vulnerable young women and using gender politics to promote other Conservative priorities, such as penal politics, protectionism, and nationhood. This varied approach is shaped by the historical party and parliamentary structures and the dominant role of the Liberal Party.

The opioid crisis debates in the Canadian House of Commons: Ahmed Al-Rawi (Simon Fraser University)
Abstract: This study seeks to understand what discourses are associated with the opioid crisis in the Canadian House of Commons and how they have changed over time. The initial argument is that these debates provide an understanding of what is important to each political party concerning the opioid crisis. We show that criminalizing drug use has been important to some parties in these debates especially the Conservative Party, while the NDP mostly frames it as a social and public health emergency. By analyzing debates using a mixed method approach, we offer an understanding of how the major issues like new solutions, public safety, treatments, overdose death, and systemic racism have evolved and discussed by different parties, and in some cases the discussion becomes polarized.