How Essential is parliament?
Andrew Scheer is making the argument that Parliament is an essential service and that it should meet in person 5 days a week.
And I agree. With one part of that statement. Parliament IS essential service. In fact, it is basically coordinating our national response and acting as the front line in providing financial and other forms of assistance. So, yes. Absolutely. Parliament is an essential service.
However, I don't believe that they need in person sittings at all, beyond the extent where current laws stop important decisions from being made via other mechanisms.
The fact that the response the Federal government has given thus far has been executed on far fewer than a single sitting a week should serve as proof.
Yes, there were cases where sittings were required to pass bills. But, it is not impossible to imagine that the laws could be modified to enable such bills to be passed remotely.
If you think the current approach is not working, you need only look as far as other parties have been outraged at things proposed by the current administration which ended up not coming to pass. Like the Liberals attempting to basically gain autonomy over taxation for 2 years. Don't tell me that parliament needs regularly sittings to intervene with such issues when it has already been shown that even with limited sittings such concerns can be addressed.
Probably my biggest issue with this however is that it is an insult to the rules being put into place. It would endanger lives and contradict current distancing measure without any research done one whether or not there would be any substantive benefit to Canadians. And the House of Commons is not an entity entirely staffed and run by MPs. Every sitting puts other Canadian's at risk. Security staff, and other employees.
Question period is certainly relevant. But, as the previous Conservative government made clear; the leading party is under no obligation to actually answer questions during question period. And, this all but renders its existence moot on matters where the ruling party does not need a vote in the house to act.
And, if the party needed a vote, they would be in the house to get the votes. And, as a minority government they would likely need to answer questions in that event simply to get the votes required to pass the legislation.
Frankly, if there were some semblance of the PM or ruling parties being required to answer questions during question period then one could legitimately see this as a venue to seek understanding and answering on actions the government is taking daily. But, any semblance of that was shattered in the prior administration.
Honestly, I think even once a week may be too much. It should sit as needed. Though, being held accountable to a once weekly sitting does at least ensure that parliamentarians are actually working with some regularity. Which, as a tax payer I can get behind.
We pay our parliamentarians a regular salary, and they are an essential service. And so they should be working. I've just never been convinced that even under normal circumstances that daily sittings of parliament actually made sense. It is the equivalent of a boss watching a worker in the office chat at the coffee maker. Seeing the employee certainly says that they are AT work, but doesn't ensure that they are actually working.
Unless bills are actually being passed, or the questions being asked might actually affect policy, then it is hard to argue that they are actively serving Canadians in a way which provides value.
And, I want to make this perfectly clear. This does not imply that I feel that parliament is "less essential" than the corner store.
Corner stores supply food, gas and other essential products for which there may be a need around the clock. A convenience store open once weekly would generate lineups and stock issues which would exacerbate the spread of the virus. Parliament, by contrast, increases the risk of spreading the virus the more often it sits and the more members that attend.
It is an inherently flawed belief that how essential a service is can be measured by the time the service spends open. By that twisted logic, as parliament is the cornerstone of our democracy, and thus our most important institution, 100% of parliamentarians should be forced to sit in the house of commons 24/7 since we allow many other essential services to be run around the clock.
And I agree. With one part of that statement. Parliament IS essential service. In fact, it is basically coordinating our national response and acting as the front line in providing financial and other forms of assistance. So, yes. Absolutely. Parliament is an essential service.
However, I don't believe that they need in person sittings at all, beyond the extent where current laws stop important decisions from being made via other mechanisms.
The fact that the response the Federal government has given thus far has been executed on far fewer than a single sitting a week should serve as proof.
Yes, there were cases where sittings were required to pass bills. But, it is not impossible to imagine that the laws could be modified to enable such bills to be passed remotely.
If you think the current approach is not working, you need only look as far as other parties have been outraged at things proposed by the current administration which ended up not coming to pass. Like the Liberals attempting to basically gain autonomy over taxation for 2 years. Don't tell me that parliament needs regularly sittings to intervene with such issues when it has already been shown that even with limited sittings such concerns can be addressed.
Probably my biggest issue with this however is that it is an insult to the rules being put into place. It would endanger lives and contradict current distancing measure without any research done one whether or not there would be any substantive benefit to Canadians. And the House of Commons is not an entity entirely staffed and run by MPs. Every sitting puts other Canadian's at risk. Security staff, and other employees.
Question period is certainly relevant. But, as the previous Conservative government made clear; the leading party is under no obligation to actually answer questions during question period. And, this all but renders its existence moot on matters where the ruling party does not need a vote in the house to act.
And, if the party needed a vote, they would be in the house to get the votes. And, as a minority government they would likely need to answer questions in that event simply to get the votes required to pass the legislation.
Frankly, if there were some semblance of the PM or ruling parties being required to answer questions during question period then one could legitimately see this as a venue to seek understanding and answering on actions the government is taking daily. But, any semblance of that was shattered in the prior administration.
Honestly, I think even once a week may be too much. It should sit as needed. Though, being held accountable to a once weekly sitting does at least ensure that parliamentarians are actually working with some regularity. Which, as a tax payer I can get behind.
We pay our parliamentarians a regular salary, and they are an essential service. And so they should be working. I've just never been convinced that even under normal circumstances that daily sittings of parliament actually made sense. It is the equivalent of a boss watching a worker in the office chat at the coffee maker. Seeing the employee certainly says that they are AT work, but doesn't ensure that they are actually working.
Unless bills are actually being passed, or the questions being asked might actually affect policy, then it is hard to argue that they are actively serving Canadians in a way which provides value.
And, I want to make this perfectly clear. This does not imply that I feel that parliament is "less essential" than the corner store.
Corner stores supply food, gas and other essential products for which there may be a need around the clock. A convenience store open once weekly would generate lineups and stock issues which would exacerbate the spread of the virus. Parliament, by contrast, increases the risk of spreading the virus the more often it sits and the more members that attend.
It is an inherently flawed belief that how essential a service is can be measured by the time the service spends open. By that twisted logic, as parliament is the cornerstone of our democracy, and thus our most important institution, 100% of parliamentarians should be forced to sit in the house of commons 24/7 since we allow many other essential services to be run around the clock.
Comments
Post a Comment