There was no shortage of back-patting for the emergency sitting of Parliament on Saturday, as it reconvened in skeleton format to pass the latest bill on emergency measures to deal with the ongoing pandemic. With the opposition parties already on-side for the substance of Bill C-14 before the sitting began, it was a lot of pro forma action, and a little bit of the usual kinds of political theatre that had been pent up for the past several weeks with little outlet. Nevertheless, watching the proceedings as they unfolded showed that the need for an ongoing skeleton parliament during these pandemic times, because what happened in this emergency sitting was not the kind of oversight that Canadians need or expect.
The biggest indictment of what happened is that the bill was agreed to beforehand, which means that we have no public record of what the original version was like and what amendments were made as part of the negotiations between the parties. This is important, because without a public record, we have no way of holding government to account, and future historians have no basis for which to judge what happened during the pandemic. We could ask the government to produce the original version of the bill, but it won't happen, because draft legislation is considered Cabinet confidence and is classified as Secret, and will not be released. We have a hole in the public record because the first instinct in the face of a pandemic was to simply shutter Parliament rather than to take reasonable precautions and modify the operations such as reducing to a skeleton complement so that this kind of necessary work can continue, and a record can be kept.
When the sitting did convene on Saturday, what followed wasn't legislative debate. Instead we had a couple of hours of Committee of the Whole, which was essentially run like a quasi-Question Period for the duration, followed by speeches on the pandemic and the government's responses, but little to do with the bill itself. Other speeches were about what that particular party wanted the government to do which was never going to happen (for the Conservatives, rebating GST paid by businesses even though those funds were only ever in trust and didn't actually belong to those businesses; for the NDP, the demand to just send everyone $2000, even though we don't have a magic database or delivery system that could make that happen any faster than the current Canada Emergency Response Benefit). There was no actual debate on the merits or the substance of the bill because it was agreed to entirely beforehand.
Over in the Senate, much the same occurred they resolved into Committee of the Whole as well, but only quizzed Bill Morneau and his Senior Associate Deputy Minister, and all of the speeches were at Third Reading of the bill, mostly in the flavour of "I support this bill, but…" followed by their particular grievances with how the government has handled the pandemic. There were no speeches on the substance of the bill itself, and while questions about it may have been asked of Morneau, the Committee of the Whole process was separate from the actual legislative debate.
The point here is that if we are to ensure that Parliament is fulfilling its proper functions, we need not only proper legislative debate, but ongoing accountability sessions, and Question Period is a decent way to achieve that. If a first version of the bill could have been drafted and tabled in the House, followed by actual debate on its merits, and the amendments being tabled in an open and public manner, we could have confidence that everything was happening above-board and on the record. If the opposition parties and the government wanted to negotiate how to amend the bill once it had been tabled, then that's fine it's not unlike how things happen on a regular basis. It wouldn't take any additional time to ensure there was proper debate anyway, given that a draft of the bill was given to the opposition parties a week before the emergency sitting, and said sitting took 48 hours to recall officially all time that could be used to ensure the bill got the proper legislative scrutiny it deserves.
A proper, public process would also allow more MPs to participate from home while the small number in a skeleton parliament represented them in the Commons, because it would be on the table and we wouldn't have to worry about keeping the draft bill under wraps because it's secret, which means it's more likely to be shared among the caucus rather than the leadership team alone. Caucus calls could happen and MPs could give their input to their sitting colleagues then much as the daily calls between MPs and government are currently happening (which Elizabeth May described during her speech on Saturday, where she said that concerns she raised wound up as fixes in the bill).
Parliament is due back in some form on April 20th, according to the motion passed on Saturday, but we'll see in what form. While the Liberals continue to push for "virtual" sittings in spite of the constitutional and technological hurdles (simultaneous interpretation over teleconference is hard, as is ensuring good connections that don't drop, or that the transmission quality isn't so poor that it affects the ability to record it for Hansard), I will continue to press for the more practical option of a skeleton parliament to continue to sit. Justin Trudeau and his House Leader, Pablo Rodriguez, continue to say things like "We can't tell Canadians to stay home then meet in Parliament every day," as though the essential democratic service that parliament provides is somehow above what we're asking people who work in our grocery stores and pharmacies to undertake, even though it's far easier for MPs and senators and the staff inside the West Block and the Senate building to properly physically distance than those grocery store workers. Parliament matters, and it needs to be able to do its function now more than ever.
Photo Credit: CBC News
