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

For the past several weeks, prime minister Justin Trudeau and other government voices have insisted that the only way to re-open Parliament in regular sittings is for it to be done as a "hybrid" system where most MPs stay home, and to implement remote voting likely in some kind of electronic format which is anathema to how our parliamentary democracy works.  We heard this yet again this week when the government was unable to come to any kind of agreement with opposition parties over its latest emergency legislation, which sparked a bunch of ill-considered commentary about "political games" and dismissal of concerns over process issues.  But it doesn't have to be like this, and hybrid sittings with remote voting cannot be the solution.  There is a better way.

Part of this failure of imagination can be chalked up to the Liberals and the NDP treating Parliament like a technological problem to be solved.  Government House Leader Pablo Rodriguez has been quoted as saying the government is "100 percent in favour of electronic voting," and you can tell that he gave those marching orders to his members of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, based on their behaviour.  The NDP's House leader, Peter Julian, also agrees, saying "I don't see how any party could be opposed to having all MPs vote."  It's been up to the Conservative House Leader, Candice Bergen, to pump the brakes on this course of action, citing "grave concerns about this proposal," saying that she doesn't trust the government's motives "as they push for a voting system that would keep MPs away from the House of Commons."

In this Bergen is correct the Liberals have been pushing for remote, electronic voting for a while, wrapped up in the guise of needing it for parental leave or to help MPs with work-life balance issues, which is precisely why this attempt to bring it in for the sake of the pandemic is a Pandora's Box  once it's been unleashed, it can't be bottled up again, and these same Liberals aren't letting the crisis go to waste to push forward this agenda wrapped up in the excuse of "modernization."  Like her, I have no reason to trust that any measure they introduce for the sake of the pandemic will only be for the course of the pandemic, which is why we should avoid them altogether.  Instead, there are ways to bring the Commons back to near-full ability or utility without doing it remotely, and part of that solution is to create a parliamentary bubble.

The biggest hurdle here is going to be the whinging of MPs over travel, especially in parts of the country where there are orders to self-isolate upon return.  The answer is not to travel back-and-forth, but to keep MPs in Ottawa for the duration of the sitting, presuming this goes ahead in September.  And yes, this is going to involve sacrifice, whether it means bringing their families with them, or being apart for the course of several weeks, but this is a global pandemic and everyone needs to make sacrifices.  Many front-line healthcare workers can't see their families either for fear of infecting them, and they're making a lot less than MPs are.  As well, it's not like MPs are going out and doing community events because of the pandemic, so why shouldn't they be doing their jobs in Ottawa?  This is how MPs operated for the better part of a century after Confederation, so it's not inconceivable that they do so again for this unprecedented period.  As well, if they don't have permanent lodgings in this city Parliament as a whole should simply rent out the Chateau Laurier to house MPs and presumably senators for that duration, since it's already closed to the public.  It brings jobs back, and it'll keep MPs contained in that "bubble" zone and being forced to spend that much time together may do wonders for collegiality.

The idea that all 338 MPs would be in the House of Commons at once instead of physical distancing is also something of a red herring.  The only time all MPs are in the Chamber are for Question Period and votes, and there is no actual need for everyone to be there for QP, especially in the current circumstances.  Parties could decide on who gets to be in attendance the government obviously needing to put more ministers in place than backbenchers, though not eliminating backbenchers entirely which would work perfectly fine.  If they need additional space for MPs and ministers, the public galleries aren't being used, so they could serve as an overflow area, and a solution for microphones and cameras could be found without too much additional trouble less trouble than the technology necessary for hybrid sittings or remote electronic voting.  New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador's legislatures have been doing this, and it seems to be working fairly well.

This only leaves the issue of voting, and while some of the suggestions brought forward at PROC included block party voting because it works in New Zealand, I would recommend against it because it is intimately tied to their use of proportional representation, where they have actual party-designated seats.  We could instead use the roll-call system with MPs in the Chamber and galleries, and if need be, institute some kind of shift system where they can safely file out and those who have not yet had a chance to vote can take their places to continue the roll-call.  Yes, it may take longer, but so long as no one party is slowing down the vote process to make a point, or MPs don't have any particular conscience objections, subsequent votes can be applied in the manner that already happens.  Nobody needs to re-invent the wheel, and nobody needs to open Pandora's Box and set dangerous precedents.

Resuming full sittings of Parliament is fully possible, if MPs are willing to do that bit of personal sacrifice to ensure that it happens.  And the alternatives of setting us on a path where parliament will be permanently in a hybrid state is far worse than simply having MPs stay in their Ottawa bubble for a few weeks.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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.