Roundup: Calling for a return to in-person sittings

Posted on by

Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet held a press conference yesterday, where he called for Parliament to be recalled as quickly as possible, and for it to resume in-person with vaccinated MPs, ending the “hybrid” sittings that we were saddled with in the previous session. For once, I actually agree with Blanchet – we are at the point with vaccinations and public health measures that there really is not any excuse for MPs not to be attending in person (wearing masks indoors as often as possible), because we cannot continue as we were before dissolution.

For those of you who weren’t following along, the hybrid sittings were direct contributors to the toxicity of the previous session, as MPs didn’t have to look one another in the eye while they behaved in the ways that they did or levelled the accusations at one another that they did, and the limitations of those sittings, particularly at committee, exacerbated the procedural warfare and filibusters that parties engaged in. Additionally, there can be no moral justification for continuing the hybrid sittings given the human toll it takes on the interpreters, who were suffering acoustic injuries at an increased rate because MPs refused to use their equipment properly, or behave reasonably online in ways that wouldn’t disrupt or injure those interpreters. Some parties – particularly the NDP, but you can bet that the Liberals will chine in as well – will want to keep some aspects of hybrid sittings around, but I want to caution that this should be resisted as much as possible – we don’t want to incentivise these to continue, because it will erode parliament the longer it carries on.

Meanwhile, I do fear that there will be Conservative MPs who continue to refuse either vaccination or to disclose their vaccination status (as a craven way of keeping their own anti-vaxx voters on-side) who will complain that they should be allowed to either attend the House of Commons without proof of vaccination, or to be allowed to carry on in a hybrid means without it. Even more to the point, I fear that at least one of them will turn this into a point of personal privilege, that their rights to speak in the Chamber are being infringed upon, and this will become a privilege fight (which would be doomed as the vaccinated majority eventually votes them down). Nevertheless, a return to in-person sittings needs to happen as soon as possible, and if some MPs refuse then so be it – and they can lose their salaries for absenteeism while they’re at it.

Good reads:

  • It’s National Truth and Reconciliation Day, and Governor General Mary May Simon has offered some personal thoughts about her experiences.
  • AFN National Chief RoseAnne Archibald wants the prime minister to convene constitutional talks with the premiers to address Indigenous concerns.
  • Here is a reminder of the bills the government has promised to (re)introduced in the first 100 days after Cabinet is sworn in.
  • Jonathan Wilkinson says the detailed plan to achieve Canada’s climate targets is coming in months, but likely not before the climate summit in Glasgow.
  • The Federal Court dismissed the government’s request for judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal decision on compensation for First Nations children in care.
  • The RCMP union says that they plan to protect Mounties who refuse mandatory vaccination (instead of taking the opportunity to get rid of “bad apples”).
  • New Green MP Mike Morrice says he won’t run for the party’s leadership, meaning any leader won’t have a seat, and can’t be taken seriously.
  • Paul Wells has a somewhat cynical reflection on the election, and the perverse incentives in the system to keep it in a perpetual state of election readiness.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

One thought on “Roundup: Calling for a return to in-person sittings”

  1. I’m indifferent to how Parliament comes back to sit, but I still don’t think the toxicity has anything to do with whether they’re holding sessions via Zoom or not. The NDP makes the excuse that it’s because of the “adversarial” first-past-the-post voting system (and blame Trudeau for why Canada doesn’t have proportional representation, as though having *more* fringe populists in office would make it any less acrimonious).

    There were no hybrid meetings from 2015-2019 and it was no less a pile-on, especially when the SNC brouhaha blew up. Remember the fracas after the India trip? Or Elbowgate? The opposition have nothing valid to contribute, so all they do is attack Trudeau and his party because they’re bereft of anything to offer.

    When the Liberals fight back on the defence, they’re accused of being “divisive” or “obstructionist.” Just like how Trudeau was blamed or faulted for inciting the gravel-throwers, the “friendly sausage maker,” the bulletproof vest incident. He shouldn’t have worn those socks when going out to that nightclub. He was just supposed to let his family get dragged through the mud at committee, close his eyes and think of England. Same idea, right?

    The fact is, it’s a *choice* these parties, these MPs, make. The campaign wasn’t “hybrid” either, and all that Singh and O’Toole did was attack and lie about Trudeau for six weeks. “They had an option, sir.” They *choose* to promulgate conspiracy theories and fake scandals for polling points, fundraising appeals, and to get their name in the news, instead of working together on positive and productive policy. They make minority governments a dog’s breakfast instead of a cooperative endeavour. They’re all about getting attention for themselves instead of working together for Canadians.

    It’s got nothing to do with hybrid parliaments or FPTP or PropRep or ranked ballots or whatever IMO. It’s a conscious choice made by these people, and these people are honest-to-god awful. The media doesn’t help either. They crave drama and sensationalism because stability doesn’t get ratings. They intentionally make it worse.

Comments are closed.