OPINION: Parliament: Not essential like bike repairs and Dollarama

The best course of government action in a healthy economy is, most often, to do nothing. Things are fine. Let the people be.

But now in the midst of a pandemic, the biggest crisis of our lifetime, we actually want our federal politicians to meet in Parliament and air out the issues. But the minority Liberal government refused to show up for the job.
Dozens of people at a time are in my local grocery. Surely, 34 MPs (10 per cent of them) could meet in one large hall to lead the country in its greatest need. Some MPs could stay home and watch via Zoom. Questioning our leader is our democratic way, it’s our right. But no, the hardware store is more essential than Parliament in a pandemic.

After thinking that one through, however, the Liberal government relented and agreed to show up one day a week (Wednesday) instead of five and agreed to hold two other weekly online sessions. “Duck and run” is new way of doing government business. It means Parliament is still not as essential as the construction workers actually working daily on rebuilding the House of Commons or even as essential as my local open-six-days-a-week bicycle repair shop.

The ice cream server at Dairy Queen is ready to offer you two scoops seven days a week but standing two-metres apart in the House of Commons is too risky for more than one afternoon in seven for our fearless leader with the colourful socks. I guess now is not the time to get too deep into the negligence of the Communist Party of China or if we should send them more masks. Or to question how to respond when they send us defective ones.

We were still in a countrywide lockdown on April 30. Townies couldn’t even go to the park. People were still dying, though very few and most often with pre-existing serious health issues. Yet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided we don’t need Parliament when he has daily talking points to inform us that his people are “working day and night” to do whatever it takes. How is it that social distancing in the House of Commons is far too dangerous in the country’s biggest crisis of our time when we can still walk down the aisles of Loblaws, then drive down across town, stretch out an arm and be handed a Timmy’s double-double? Even Dollarama is open all day, all week.

People want to know what the real number is of healthy people dying from COVID-19. We want to know if the crisis is really that bad why are there are no long lineups at assessment centres? Why are some causes of death of the elderly attributed to COVID-19 when they weren’t even tested? What’s wrong with sitting at a distance in a park if open air disperses the virus? Why can’t the young and healthy go back to school and to work if they are not at risk? If half the population infected shows no symptoms, shouldn’t more of the economy be opened while protecting the vulnerable?

As of April 30, we were still told to perish those thoughts. Don’t even think that the most important decision-makers in the country should get together each day at what could be the height of a pandemic. A plan that includes all our MPs to get out of this self-induced economy-crushing hell is, apparently, not worth it. Parliament is just not that important.

But what is important is controlling the message. If you can shut down Parliament, why not take another run at freedom of speech? Free speech has already been curtailed in this county.

Our prime minister recently floated the genius idea of banning online misinformation about COVID-19. His appointees would decide what information gets censored. Does anyone really think that is a good idea for any government? Ironically, if government were to decide what is misinformation, if it were honest, it would have to shut itself up. The Liberal government has repeated its approval of the Chinese Communist Party when countries and news agencies around the world have unmasked it for lying and hiding information about the virus from the rest of the world.

Shutting down Parliament and controlling the message are what you would expect as first steps toward totalitarianism. It could also be a tactic of a government hogging the microphone to get an exclusive start on campaigning for the next election. It could even be a government circling the wagons in panic. None of these possibilities is attractive.