Read on Twitter
Okay, my little twitter bubble is talking about virtual Parliaments, and I have some thoughts, so here& #39;s a thread.
(I said some of this stuff in replies to a friend last night, but this way it& #39;s all in one place!) /1
#cdnpoli #COVID19
(I said some of this stuff in replies to a friend last night, but this way it& #39;s all in one place!) /1
#cdnpoli #COVID19
As a starting point, take a look at this recent op-ed in the @globeandmail by longtime press gallery journalist @journo_dale: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-parliament-is-an-essential-service-and-it-cannot-be-done-virtually/
Smith">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a... notes a range of reasons why, in his opinion it would be impractical and undesirable for Parliament to "go virtual." /2
Smith">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a... notes a range of reasons why, in his opinion it would be impractical and undesirable for Parliament to "go virtual." /2
I want to set aside his practical arguments (technology, standing orders, constitutional restrictions, etc.) for now - not because they& #39;re unimportant, but b/c they& #39;re all theoretically solvable - and focus on the other side of his argument - the effect on political culture. /3
I think I broadly agree with the thrust of his argument. The fact is, Parliament, in our system of government, is every bit as much about the *rituals* of governing and the utilization of the *symbols* of state power, as it is about the actual considerations/enactment of laws. /4
Far from being archaic or silly, those rituals and symbols are *of equal importance* to the practical business of Parliament (yes, equal!). This is because they are not separate, but rather complementary to the practical bits. /5
Parliament is an institution whose membership changes regularly, and where - until somewhat recently in our history - it hasn& #39;t always been a guarantee that its members would be fully literate.
The rituals and symbols are a way of preserving our shared and inherited history. /6
The rituals and symbols are a way of preserving our shared and inherited history. /6
But they do more than that! In telling stories in the heart of the State, they also establish - over centuries of repetition - which uses of power are legitimate and which are not. In essence, they are the reason that the practical parts *work in the way we expect them to.* /7
So, does this mean virtual Parliaments are an intractable non-starter, because half of Parliament& #39;s functioning would thus be impaired?
Well, no. And this is where I& #39;ll respectfully disagree with @journo_dale, even if I thought he made some decent points. /8
Well, no. And this is where I& #39;ll respectfully disagree with @journo_dale, even if I thought he made some decent points. /8
All the symbolic/ritual aspects of Parliament *came from something real.* Usually, that real thing was some sort of crisis that Parliament wasn& #39;t, at the time, equipped to respond to.
The rituals are reminders of what was gained, what was lost, and what mustn& #39;t be forgotten. /9
The rituals are reminders of what was gained, what was lost, and what mustn& #39;t be forgotten. /9
When faced with a crisis, NO responsive Parliament can EVER afford to say "we can& #39;t afford to be responsive this time because it would upset our esoteric customs." So Parliament adapts. That means all of Parliament - including the symbols. /10
Digitizing Parliamentary proceedings doesn& #39;t mean abandoning Parliamentary symbols. It& #39;s the opposite - the symbols *lead* - they are the guideposts that would enable parliamentarians to understand the new world, offering a sense of legitimacy, authority, and continuity. /11
In practical terms, for a fully virtual Parliament that might mean developing a "virtual mace" of some sort. Or a virtual equivalent to the Speaker& #39;s parade that kicks off proceedings. But I won& #39;t speculate too much. /12
THAT SAID, I also don& #39;t think I need to speculate. For practical/technical reasons, a fully virtual Parliament is unlikely to happen now or in the near future. And that& #39;s for the best (for reasons Smith outlines in the 3rd-last paragraph of his piece, which which I agree). /13
A fully virtual Parliament (essentially, a giant videoconference) would, in general, not be very healthy for a democracy, and frankly the political discontinuity isn& #39;t what we need right now.
But a skeleton Parliament *also* ISN& #39;T the answer to the current crisis. /14
But a skeleton Parliament *also* ISN& #39;T the answer to the current crisis. /14
Damaging as uprooting the House might be, asking 90% of it to stay away for Lord-knows-how-many-months would be undemocratic and disenfranchising to pretty much the entire country that lives more than driving distance away from Ottawa (i.e. nearly all of Canada). /15
IMO, a better solution (if practically doable), is to maintain the physical House, with its staff and a quorum of MPs, WHILE establishing options and rules changes for MPs further away to connect virtually, to the point where they can speak and even vote from outside Ottawa. /16
In other words: don& #39;t convene a virtual Parliament: convene Parliament with most members in virtual attendance.
Based on the Speaker& #39;s letter to the Government House Leader last week, it seems this is the solution the House Administration is working towards. Good! /17
Based on the Speaker& #39;s letter to the Government House Leader last week, it seems this is the solution the House Administration is working towards. Good! /17
Four caveats:
1) Of course, everything I& #39;ve just said about the House should apply to the Senate as well.
2) The practical difficulties do still matter, and resolving them fully during a period of crisis might not be doable.
18/20
1) Of course, everything I& #39;ve just said about the House should apply to the Senate as well.
2) The practical difficulties do still matter, and resolving them fully during a period of crisis might not be doable.
18/20
3) I don& #39;t apply these same arguments in normal times. Outside of emergency situations, MPs should always physically be in the House to debate and vote (although I am open to the idea of MPs absent for valid reasons giving their vote to a colleague in proxy).
19/20
19/20
And finally, 4) Let committees meet virtually if they need too. Unlike the House, committees are entirely practical bodies. I also think delegating extensive parliamentary oversight powers to committees during crises is reasonable.
Thanks for reading!
20/20
Thanks for reading!
20/20
