As the various party leaders lined up, one after another, to give their positions before the microphones on yesterday’s return of the House of Commons, prime minister Justin Trudeau devoted his presser to the mass-shooting in Nova Scotia and the loss of an RCMP constable, including a direct address to children as part of his speech. More controversially, Trudeau made a plea to media not to name the killer and give him the “gift of infamy,” which became the subject of many a column the rest of the day. During the Q&A, he insisted he didn’t want to fight about the return of the Commons, while also saying that the government was not backing away from its plans to enact further gun control measures.
Not far away, the Commons resumed its sitting with a skeleton complement, kicking off with Green MP Paul Manly immediately launching a point of privilege to complain that their health and safety was being jeopardized by the sitting, and it impacted on the ability of MPs who faced travel restrictions to participate. (Manly’s point was later rejected by the Speaker). After a very surreal QP, and more speeches on the Nova Scotia shooting, the vote was held and it was decided that there would be in-person sittings on Wednesdays starting next week, with planned 90-minute “virtual” sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays – you know, assuming that they can actually get them up and running. Also, those sessions would not be regular sittings of the Commons, but would qualify as “special committee” sessions that would be devoted to two-and-a-quarter-hour-long sessions to ask questions of the government.
Good. Manly’s argument was specious. https://t.co/SoiIikHPvc
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 21, 2020
After thanking all the staff, Rota says the House is now adjourned until May 25. MPs will still meet in person next Wednesday, but it will be a treated as a special committee. They will also meet on Tuesday, virtually! No one I've spoken with knows what that will look like…
— Althia Raj (@althiaraj) April 21, 2020
Throughout this whole debate, I keep shaking my head at the fact that they insist that they don’t want MPs to keep travelling, or how MPs from regions with travel restrictions can’t participate, but nobody can apparently fathom that MPs could travel to Ottawa, and then *gasp* stay there! You know, like they have housing allowances and per diems that facilitate it. This insistence on once-per-week sittings means that there will be all kinds of unnecessary travel, travel that MPs from those regions can’t participate in (or at least not easily), and it needlessly complicates this whole affair when we could have more easily kept a skeleton parliament with these MPs who stay in Ottawa present, and just ensured that you had a representative sampling that includes MPs from those otherwise hard-to-travel-to-and-from regions so they don’t have to travel back-and-forth. It’s revolutionary, I know. None of this is rocket science, and yes, it involves some sacrifice on the part of these MPs, but no worse than some of our essential healthcare workers who also can’t see their families during this crisis.