By Matthew Lombardi and Andrew Perez | July 09, 2013With Bob Rae's resignation from the House of Commons late last month, the consensus among the press quickly congealed around the notion that the profession of politics in this country instantly became a poorer place without his experience, gravitas and extemporaneous speaking ability. Indeed, it has been reported here and elsewhere that MPs from all parties would slowly filter towards their seats in the lower chamber to hear Bob Rae deliver one of his regular tour de force performances.In speaking to reporters to address his retirement, Rae characterized the current state of politics as more rancorous, partisan, and acutely divisive than anyone today can recall:“ What's different today is…a planned toxicity…a deliberate strategy to create a toxic environment,” he told reporters.Mr. Rae clearly regards this more toxic environment as a hostile attribute of modern politics. And, this state of affairs has been diagnosed ad nauseum: it's the centralization of power in the PMO; it's iron-clad party discipline; it's the new media environment; it's the poor caliber of our political class. The list goes on.But the conventional wisdom does not leave much room to consider that the increase in rancour could in fact be more a symptom of a new structural reality taking shape. And this symptom – however sad and negative – might well be more due to a thoroughly positive structural development: a sea change in the composition of the House of Commons over the past generation.Perhaps the deterioration of parliamentary decorum is not all bad, but rather akin to a healthy forest fire: a messy type of change that at first looks like chaos, but promotes healthy growth in the long run by clearing away the old and leaving a revitalized landscape.In order to test this theory, we must consider this issue in terms of the people – past and present – who have been sent to Ottawa to represent Canadians of all walks of life.The demographics of the House of Commons have noticeably changed over the past twenty-five years. The change in composition has seen increased representation for women, First Nations, visible minorities, sexual minorities, and less conventional professions. In short, a chamber more representative of modern Canada.But this is not the only adjustment the House has withstood. The structure of the lower chamber has also profoundly changed as a result of the formation and electoral breakthrough of new political parties representing entrenched regional grievances.However, we argue these promising changes to both the composition and structure of the House of Commons are one factor – among many others – that has lead to deteriorating parliamentary decorum. This statement might sound counterintuitive at first glance, but a further examination of the Commons' changing face over the past generation sheds some light on this argument.The 1993 federal election ushered in an entirely new political order: decimated to a mere two seats in the House of Commons, the Progressive Conservatives all but vanished off the electoral map, replaced by the populist Reform Party in Western Canada and the separatist Bloc Quebecois in Quebec.The subsequent Parliament produced a peculiar dynamic: the Bloc Quebecois – a party dedicated to Quebec secession – formed Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (the Official Opposition) with 54 seats.Not far behind, with 52 seats, was the Reform Party – an anti-establishment party formed by disenfranchised Western Tories who felt Mulroney's Conservatives had abandoned Western Canadian interests throughout their decade in power.The result on election night: a House of Commons more representative of the general population, including undeniable regional grievances. For the first time in the nation's history, the interests of Quebec separatists, right-wing Western populists, and central Canadians were simultaneously represented in the lower chamber.There is no doubt that the 1993 sea change led to deteriorating parliamentary decorum. While the House of Commons had become a more representative body, MPs were now pitted against each other – not simply along partisan lines – but along regional, cultural, and even religious lines (the Reform Party of the early 1990s based much of its appeal on the values of Evangelical Christianity – values often at odds with central Canada).In the post-1993 era, the shared background and experiences of MPs from all parties was demonstrably reduced, but the 35th Parliament was also far more representative of the growing pains the country was traversing in the mid-1990s. The rancorous debates on the floor of the Commons were reflective of the very discussions taking place in the living rooms of the nation.And so, when highly emotional and polarizing – but existential – policy issues such as deficit reduction, Quebec independence, the Clarity Act, official bilingualism, and multiculturalism were vigorously debated on the Commons floor, tempers inevitably flared on all sides.Many of the issues that dominated the House in the 1990s could be characterized as 'wicked policy problems' – challenges that are difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. These 'wicked policy problems' led to highly polarizing debates, heightened tensions among the parties, and inevitably led to a Parliament more divided and susceptible to personal attacks predicated on a lack of appreciation for opponents' backgrounds and political ideologies.Eighteen years after the historic 1993 election, a second sea change transpired in the May 2011 federal election. This time the Bloc Quebecois were annihilated – replaced by the NDP's 'orange wave' in Quebec.The NDP's victory was significant for structural reasons but, more than anything, it accompanied the most diverse House of Commons Canada has witnessed to date. For the first time in our history, women now constitute a quarter of the country's 308 MPs (still not enough, but evidence of progress).In the Official Opposition NDP caucus, 40 per cent of its MPs are female. It's also the most ethnically diverse and youngest caucus in Canadian history, with several of its MPs below the age of thirty. Let's look at the numbers:The 41st Parliament – elected May 2, 2011 – is on average, younger (less than 50 years old), more female (76 female MPs – largest number in Canadian history), and more diverse (almost 10 per cent of MPs are members of visible minorities) than previous parliaments. In addition, five MPs (4 NDP, 1 Liberal) serve as openly gay members.Members from the '2011 class' also hail from a broader range of professional backgrounds, including increasing numbers of MPs with non-legal or non-business backgrounds. To illustrate how diverse Parliament has become, in the 2011 election, the oldest MP elected was 74 (Conservative), while the youngest was just 19 years of age (NDP).Once again, it appears that these refreshing changes in the composition of our elected House have – unfortunately – indirectly contributed to the regrettable undercurrent of antagonism and hostility evident in political Ottawa.Admittedly, in today's context, much of the toxicity has originated from the government benches – largely white and male. The PMO – reflecting largely the same makeup – is determined to obliterate their opponents by exposing what are often refreshing differences among MPs and leaders of different parties.This Conservative government has professionalized the art of questioning the motives of new political interests – and the duly elected MPs representing those interests – that are increasingly representing new segments of Canadian society not previously afforded a voice in Parliament.Whether it's by dismissing the NDP as a party of 'union bosses', attacking Thomas Mulcair's patriotism for his position on the Sherbrook Declaration and his French citizenship, or by viciously mocking Liberal leader Justin Trudeau as a lightweight because of his youthfulness, teaching background, and lack of formal government experience – with the last point of criticism being particularly ironic, given that Harper had no experience in government upon assuming office in 2006.At its worst, you even have backbench Conservative MPs such as Rob Anders crudely dismissing an NDP private member's bill on gender identity and expression (supported by a handful of Tory cabinet ministers) as the “bathroom bill.” Such a distasteful – not to mention intolerant – comment is illustrative of the toxic and often dismissive tone that now dominates political Ottawa.To be clear, it's not that diversity in and of itself is making the House of Commons a more lethal institution. It's the deliberate, highly cynical, and pre-meditated modus operandi of this government to expose increasing differences among the parties – differences that should otherwise be embraced – in a divide and conquer mentality that denigrates the institution of Parliament and leaves many MPs unfairly bloodied. In the end, these antics adversely affect morale among all elected members.In the short term, the Commons' increased diversity has in fact led to a more poisonous environment – albeit indirectly – where the governing and official opposition parties arguably have less in common than any other previous Parliament in Canadian history (the Bloc Quebecois official opposition from 1993-1997 serving as a notable exception).But let's not romanticize the past: it's not as if prior to 1993, debates in the House of Commons were all warm and fuzzy – they weren't. Back then – like today – legislators fought long and hard battles, but the vitriol – and deeply personal attacks – were not ubiquitous. In the pre-1993 era, it was much less common – and indeed difficult – to launch personal attacks across the Commons floor and question opponents' legitimacy, patriotism, and ability to serve when the institution of Parliament was uniform in its makeup – that is, predominately white men with legal and business backgrounds.Put simply, homogenous groups of people – in this case, white men of similar background, privilege, and familial social status got along more collegially than the diverse group of lawmakers found in today's House of Commons.But increased rancour and negativity ought not be the natural state of affairs in Ottawa.Political actors – perhaps this government most of all – can fear change, and fear what – and whom – they do not understand and cannot relate to. Today's Conservative government has certainly embodied this approach when defining their opponents to the Canadian public. Sadly, they have succeeded to some extent in their efforts.But this need not be the case moving forward; moreover deteriorating parliamentary decorum need not accompany the changing composition of the House of Commons. In the medium to longer term, it's possible – even likely – that the Commons' changing face will contribute to a more respectful institution when it comes to daily House proceedings, namely Ottawa's now infamous daily Question Period. Once the Commons' relatively newfound diversity is entrenched, one can only hope the growing pains we are now witnessing will have played themselves out and withered.In the short term, this is but one contributing factor to the increased rancour of our parliamentary democracy, but one with a silver lining: it is a growing pain of legislatures becoming more diverse in their composition, and more reflective of Canada.In the meantime, the political class – particularly today's government – must find ways in which to communicate their message without explicitly or even tacitly denigrating their opponents' legitimacy, patriotism, or backgrounds. Only then will House of Commons decorum be greatly improved and respect for legislators restored.Matthew Lombardi is a former political staffer, graduate of the London School of Economics, currently working in financial services in Toronto. Andrew Perez is a former political staffer, graduate of the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy, currently working in the private sector in Toronto.