The closure or continuation of debate in the House matters very little
A 138-CHARACTER TWEET by New Democrat MP Pat Martin last week has—yet again—raised concerns over the Harper government’s eagerness to close debate in the House of Commons, with Martin deeming the forced finale of debate on Bill C-13 “a fucking disgrace.”
The current session of Parliament has witnessed the capping of discussion on six different bills, including that surrounding the omnibus crime bill, ending the long-gun registry, and adding seats to the House of Commons.
Although many commentators agree with Martin’s characterization of Ottawa, that “there’s something very wrong going on here,” the hype over shutting down the debates is just that—hype. The extent to which the closure of conversation in the House of Commons matters depends solely on how much debate matters in the House.
Members of Parliament across the political spectrum conduct themselves in a way that suggests parliamentary proceedings matter very little. Between profanity-laden tweets and inflammatory exchanges during debates, high rates of absenteeism amongst MPs in the House, and the infamous back and forth of question period, is the Conservatives’ decision to stifle these pathetic proceedings all that heinous?
The debate before a bill is transformed into a law is a fundamental feature of parliamentary democracies. An article published on Macleans.ca characterizes the point of debate as twofold: Persuasion and delay. Debate can be used to sway member votes and to delay the passage of legislation so there is more time for review and improvement when necessary.
But is there really a place for either in our lower house?
The rigidity of party discipline in Canada makes the votes of most MPs well known before a bill is officially brought to a vote—persuasion just isn’t possible. Although free votes are held in the House, members are expected to toe the party line on major bills, and those who dissent face serious consequences.
While bills have been successfully delayed in the House, it isn’t always clear why. In some instances, delays are predicated on partisan reasons, not in order to improve the legislation. And sometimes, as portrayed in the media recently, closure of debate has been invoked amidst the discussion of bills critical to social, legal, economic, and political policies in Canada.
The conventions of Canadian parliamentary democracy render these justifications for debate—and thus debate itself—pointless.
Our conventions need to evolve. Although the parliamentary process in Canada is resistant to change, our archaic institutions and the rules that govern them are becoming obsolete to politicians and citizens alike.
Fixed election dates—and thus terms of MPs—and the removal of the prime minister’s ability to dissolve Parliament and call an election whenever he or she wants would loosen the need for party discipline in votes that could take down the government. The ability of MPs to vote as they please or—gasp!—in line with the desires of their constituents would service our democratic deficit.
Although convention enables a majority government to close debate at any time, parliamentarians with legitimate concerns are being silenced. The Harper government should be negotiating the time allocation for debate with opposition parties, and these discussions need to be monitored by the Speaker of the House. Debate used as a stalling tactic for partisan reasons needs to be cut off; debate on issues such as crime, the registration of firearms, the federal budget, and the composition of the House needs to be protected.
As it stands, the silencing of debate within the House of Commons means very little upon the consideration that—as it stands—debate in the House is designed to mean very little. Until discussions are structured by a set of rules that demand respect from members of Parliament, we shouldn’t be surprised by disrespect in the lower house—both within it or on Twitter.
—Mercedes Mueller
