Every year, for the past 19 years, members of the UNBC community and the general public have gathered on campus for the Annual Santa Claus Debate. (This year it is taking place at 7:30 p.m. on Nov. 29, in the Canfor Theatre and everyone is welcome. Caroling will start at 7:00 p.m.)
This debate is set up in the traditional debating structure with a side in favour of the proposition (the pro-Santa side) and a side that is opposed (the con side or the Anti-Santies, as I like to call them).
The proposition is laid before them: "Be it resolved that Santa Claus exists" and the two sides go at for the better part of an hour.
But it is not a real debate in the sense that we do not have a defined rebuttal period. Nor do the debaters actually speak to what the other side is arguing. Instead, each side simply makes its case and hopes that it is better than the other side's. (The Pro-Santa side is 18-0 so far.)
At high school debating competitions this is not how things work. You have the chance to make your case but you are also required to provide a rebuttal to your opponent's argument. It requires a quick wit and a sharp intellect.
I guess that is why most of the debates in Parliament more closely resemble the Santa Claus debate than a true debate about the issues at hand.
If you read Hansard Canada or watch the parliamentary channel, most of the time a speaker stands to address a proposition - be it a piece of legislation or other business - and speaks eloquently for some time then a member from the opposite side of the House stands and ignores everything the first speaker said so that they can make their points.
Many people argue that the real work - the real debate about important issues and legislation - happens in committee. It happens before the subject is ever broached in the House. That is likely the case as legislation does appear before Parliament.
However, it does leave the public out of the concept of public debate. We weren't invited to offer an opinion in the first place, but occasionally it would useful to see just how much thoughtful discussion goes into budget estimates or legislation.
In any case, these are the formalized forms of public debate.
Parliament, legislatures, city councils and school boards discuss matters of public importance from pay parking downtown to rezoning subdivisions in an orderly and formal manner, generally with advocates for both sides, and a structured format which allows everyone to have their say.
There are a great many non-formalized debates, though, that take place in Canadian society. Issues such as same-sex marriage or pay parking downtown find a voice in public places.
One of those places is the letters to the editor in newspapers across the country. But frequently the various authors involved are not listening to each other.
Another place is in public forums. There once was an appetite for large groups of people to gather while one side then the other made their case. Now, most such meetings are one sided.
A more modern venue for public discourse is afforded by blogs, chat rooms and Twitter. It seems that everyone can say anything to everyone in an electronic environment. It is unfortunate, though, that many people use the anonymity of cyberspace to say things that they would never utter in person.
Television was once a great forum for public debate but many people don't watch television anymore. If they do, they fast forward through the commercials because they are watching on the web or with PVRs.
However, there are still companies that are advertising during hockey games and other sporting events which claim that they want to have an open and forthright public debate about issues.
Which brings me to my point.
Enbridge is now running a series of commercials discussing their commitment to the north, their interest in preserving the coastline and their desire to save the environment. One set of commercials even feature Janet Holder, born in northern B.C. and committed to preserving the region.
"How can she?" the voice over asks "because she is heading up the project."
Some of these commercials though claim that Enbridge is interested in having an open and full debate on the subject. How? With whom? And when? Bring it on, I say.
The presentations from Enbridge that I have seen have been exactly that:presentations. No counter point. No rebuttal. No opposing side. No real debate.
And the money being spent on the television commercials can't be matched by ordinary citizens in northern British Columbia.
They are not interested in having a real debate. But it would be fun to watch if they did.
Almost as much fun as the Annual Santa Claus Debate at UNBC.
