The Quality of Debate

Or lack thereof

The quality of regular debate in the Chamber is so poor that in order for a speech a Member makes to be heard anywhere at all, it has to be either completely outrageous, or shared and promoted through social media channels, usually at the instigation of the person who gave the speech or their staff. And better, perhaps, if it is both; consider the reaction on social media to a well-thought out proposal versus that of a ridiculous meme; the one with substance is rarely the one to go viral. Making substantive impact on a national debate by the simple virtue of making a speech in the Commons simply does not happen.

On the occasions when I did make any kind of speech I felt to be particularly important in its substance, I realized that nobody would ever know if I did not tell them myself. In Parliament, the humble need not apply – and, incidentally, thank you for taking the time to read about them here. 

I quickly gave up on the notion that the content of a speech in Parliament could, in any meaningful way, affect the vote of other Members on the Bill in question; that would require them to be both listening and doing so with an open mind rather than only to seek weaknesses on which to pounce during the subsequent questions and answers, or, for interveners on the same side of the aisle, points on which to build up the same argument.

During the debate itself, for the most part only two or three other MPs in the Chamber, which has a quorum of 20 members, are ever paying attention; those two or three members being the ones that plan to ask a question to get their own mini-speech on the topic on the record. 20 members in the chamber rarely happens, and is only enforced if a Member rises on a point of order and requests a quorum call, at which point the lobby coordinator of the side most interested in preventing a sudden and premature end to the day’s sitting shouts at every Member having a meeting, eating, napping, chatting, or watching cat videos to run in while the Speaker makes an exaggerated effort to count the Members present. If fewer than 20 Members are present after this count, the division bells - a gentle rhythmic electronic ‘gong’ or flashing light throughout the precinct - will sound until that number is achieved. If after 15 minutes, the House remains short of 20 Members, the House rises unceremoniously for the day, all further business deferred. As a result of the bizarre process, quorum calls are used more as a delay tactic or to embarrass the other party knowing that their Members have wandered off in too great numbers than to actually ensure anyone is paying attention to the substance – what little there is – of the debate.

There are, however, a few places that truly genuine speeches are more common than not. 

While the Speaker generally offers great latitude, if a Member wanders too far off the topic at hand in a speech, they will be called back to order and could lose the remainder of their speaking slot if they persist. Budget and throne speech debates, by virtue of being generally about the future of the country, are so broad in their scope that government Members can speak about just about anything and be nominally on topic, so these are opportunities to speak of one’s home riding and how either it is the greatest riding in the country, or how this budget or speech will be a magic elixir for the riding. Conversely, budget and throne speech debates are so broad in their scope that opposition Members can speak of how this budget or throne speech is the worst thing ever to happen to the good people of their equally amazing riding. In both cases, the speeches tend to be written or improvised by the Members rather than canned, though both sides will provide canned speeches to ensure their overall point is made for the record in the debate, in case anyone cares.

As mentioned earlier, debate can also come to fairly abrupt ends. The different party leadership teams will be constantly negotiating in the background, and may, without warning, tell their various teams that this debate is to come to a halt. Right now.

Then-deputy Speaker Anthony Rota often called on me to replace him in the Speaker’s chair for a few minutes while he took short breaks, knowing that I enjoyed the experience. He was an expert at returning moments before I might have to speak from the Speaker’s chair, in spite of my playful hope for a chance to do so. As my role as Deputy House Leader was on an acting basis and not official, I could do this. Officers of Parliament cannot also serve as Acting Speakers.

On June 20th, 2017, I was in the Chair giving Anthony a lunch break while the House debated Bill C-25, an obscure piece of government legislation on corporate governance. While I was there, and Anthony was not, the parties came to an agreement. Dave MacKenzie, the Conservative MP for Oxford in Ontario, finished his speech and nobody rose to ask a question. I looked around a roomful of MPs – looking frantically yet hopefully at some I knew liked to ask questions – and found all looking back at me expectantly, some teasingly chanting “adjourn!” as the Page supervisor darted across the room to gather a pile of papers and bring them to me, with the script for how to conduct a vote on this particular bill. 

I rose and conducted the vote, for my first and only time. Hansard records the moment for the permanent record, in all its glory:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. David de Burgh Graham): 

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. David de Burgh Graham): 

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: 

Agreed.

Some hon. members: 

No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. David de Burgh Graham): 

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: 

Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. David de Burgh Graham): 

All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: 

Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. David de Burgh Graham): 

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. David de Burgh Graham): 

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 21, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

As I did so the Speaker, the Hon. Geoff Regan, for whom I had worked from the fall of 2011 to the fall of 2012 as a part time staffer, and Anthony Rota, who rapidly returned from his lunch, each entered the Chamber from the doors on either side of me, as captured in this screenshot of the day’s debate, the former teasing me after for wearing cargo pants in the Chair.

It was a fun moment, but drove home to what extent the Chamber is not run by the Members of Parliament sent there to seriously discuss the business of the nation, but by staff and party representatives who choreograph almost every move, down to the exact moment a debate will collapse, without any warning to those supposed to be engaging in open intellectual discussion.