NDP, Liberals Cut Short Debate on How Commons Should Function During Pandemic

Updated: 2020-05-26 23:10:05

OTTAWA—New Democrats joined forces with the governing Liberals to cut short debate Tuesday over how Parliament should function in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A government motion to impose closure on the debate passed by a vote of 29-23, with the support of Liberal, NDP and Green MPs in a skeleton House of Commons.

Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs voted against closure.

The decision paved the way for a vote later Tuesday on a government motion to waive “normal” Commons sittings in favour of expanding the special COVID-19 committee that has acted as a stand-in for the chamber over the past month.

If the motion passes, the committee will resume sitting Wednesday but in a new hybrid format, with a small number of MPs in the Commons and others participating virtually via two large screens set up on either side of the Speaker’s chair.

The motion calls for the committee—which has been meeting twice a week virtually and once a week in person with reduced numbers in the Commons—to meet four times each week for the next month and four times over the summer.

The Commons has been largely adjourned since mid-March, when the country went into lockdown to curb the spread of the deadly virus that causes COVID-19. It has met only briefly to pass emergency aid legislation and several times to come to agreement on how the chamber should function while the pandemic continues.

The last agreement expired Monday, triggering a resumption of “normal” proceedings in the Commons.

Conservative and Bloc MPs want the House of Commons to resume its normal operations, albeit with a reduced number of MPs in the chamber.

They argued that the committee structure does not allow MPs to use all the tools they would normally use in the Commons to hold the government to account, including opposition days, introducing motions, posing written questions and debating and voting on legislation on topics other than the pandemic.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen called the special committee “feeble” and a “fake Parliament.”

However, until the issue of how MPs can vote electronically is resolved, Liberals and New Democrats maintained the special committee is the best way to continue and involve all 338 MPs in the proceedings—not just those who are in the chamber.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said earlier Tuesday that there are still limitations in allowing MPs to vote virtually that would prevent many Canadians from having their representatives have an official say on government policies.

“I think it would be important to ensure that Canadians across the country have an ability to make their voices and decisions heard in Parliament through that process. That continues to be something we are working on,” he said.

The motion calls on the procedure and House affairs committee to further study how a secure electronic voting system could be set up.

The committee has heard from experts that there may be constitutional and technical concerns over electronic voting, which may also violate traditional principles of parliamentary procedure.

But Bloc MP Stephane Bergeron contended that the issue of voting is a “fallacious argument” being used to “silence Parliament.” He maintained that a solution to electronic voting could have been found had MPs put their minds to it.

Bergeron also accused the government of secretly negotiating a deal to secure the NDP’s support for continuing with the COVID-19 committee format, including a promise to work with the provinces to ensure workers are allowed at least 10 days of paid sick leave during the pandemic. That is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, he said.

Because the Liberals hold only a minority of seats in the Commons, they need the support of at least one of the main opposition parties to pass the motion.

Government House leader Pablo Rodriguez chided the Bloc, which had refused to take part in the most recent negotiations about the future of the Commons because it maintained the government had reneged on previous agreements, for going off to “sulk in a corner.”

Go Back: World News
source : www.theepochtimes.com
''