LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

On Thursday morning, I was invited to appear before the Procedure and House Affairs committee to discuss the issue of hybrid sittings and remote voting in these pandemic times possibly because of the insight I could offer from my book, but more likely because of the criticisms of these concepts that I have been penning in this space (and in fact this particular column got mention from one of the MPs).  Nevertheless, it quickly became clear that as far as what was being discussed, the Liberals on the committee had an agenda to fulfill they were set on making remote voting happen, and were simply looking to witnesses to bless the notion and to tell them the best way to implement it.

My own presentation to the committee was predicated on the notion that one of the most important aspects of parliament is its in-person connections that the real work often happens on the sidelines of committee rooms, in the lobbies behind the Chamber, and conversations in corridors.  As well, any changes need to be very carefully considered because there is a very deep history of unintended consequences every time there are rule changes the imposition of limits on speaking times killed debate in favour of reading canned speeches into the record; ending evening sittings meant MPs no longer ate dinner together three nights of the week, and that killed collegiality; and expelling senators from the Liberal caucus excised the institutional memory from the room and centralized power with the leader.

I also gave them a very clear warning instituting any changes, even if the intention is for them to be temporary for the duration of the pandemic, is opening Pandora's Box.  All of the evils within cannot be put back in once they are released once the pandemic is over, MPs will start demanding that hybrid attendance and remote voting be used for parental leave, and once that is granted, they'll demand it for work-life-balance; and when that is granted, they'll insist that they have "so much work to do in their riding," and by then it will be too late.  The West Block will be emptied out, and the House of Commons will become a kind of home room where MPs turn up a couple of times a year, and there won't be any semblance of collegiality, and there will be no personal connections between MPs or stakeholders.

I was fortunate in that most of my co-panellists former MP and one-time Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie, as well as former Nova Scotia Deputy Speaker Kevin Deveaux agreed that in-person connections matter in any parliament, and that it was imperative that any changes were temporary for the duration of the pandemic.  (The other co-panellist, former interim Clerk of the Commons, Marc Bosc, did not offer positions so much as technical advice on procedure).  Derveaux also put forward the notion of the possibility of block party voting as they have in New Zealand (which needs to be contextualized as reflecting their use of proportional representation where there are designated party seats) and the creation of a temporary business committee (and regular readers will know how I feel about business committees).

It became clear, however, that part of my role as a witness was to be painted as the reactionary, as questions from both Mark Gerretsen and Omar Alghabra both kept trying to question my resistance to reforms using non-sequiturs like simultaneous interpretation and voice amplification in the Chamber, or the complete red herring of allowing mothers to bring their infants into the House (though I will say in the last couple of years I've seen more fathers bring their children than mothers, for what that's worth).  None of those innovations has actually impacted the work of the Chamber though the example of broadcasting proceedings to CPAC certainly has, as Question Period soon became an exercise in providing a buffet of clips to media outlets in both official languages, and has since devolved to the point where all interventions in the Chamber are now more for the utility of creating content for social media than they are for engaging with the material before them.  The tactic appears to be used in order to present remote voting likely in some kind of electronic format as a simple technological evolution comparable to interpretation, which it most certainly is not.

Other Liberal members had tightly scripted questions demanding yes-or-no answers, mostly for Bosc, that were leading toward the conclusions that in order for a proper hybrid sitting to work, and for all MPs to exercise their privileges, that there needs to be remote voting, likely of the electronic variety in spite of witnesses saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be a single system, but a combination of different ones, including proxy votes, block votes by parties, or even a roll-call by way of Zoom as the closest approximation to a standing vote in the Chamber.  Even the notion of block voting was problematized as an exercise in centralizing power which it can certainly be, though Deveaux explained how it could be used to record dissents but it was quite obvious that a fix was in, and our testimony was simply being used to justify it.

There are other options to how Parliament could operate successfully and largely in-person when it returns in the fall with slightly more imagination and a willingness to actually work together than is being demonstrated, but they have already determined that Parliament is a technological problem to be solved, and any resistance to that notion is like opposing interpretation or microphones a position that is dangerous and will lead to long-term damage to the institution.  They have their hands on the lid of Pandora's Box and instead of asking whether they should open it, they are instead asking the best way to open it.  If we do go down this road of electronic voting and it seems quite clear that it's what they are aiming to do, no matter how much they protest that it will only be for the duration of the pandemic there will be no going back, and our parliament will suffer for it.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.