The unanimous motion adopted last March by the National Assembly to denounce a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada where the expression “person with a vagina” was used was back in the news this week. This is because it is one of the examples that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court used to demonstrate the importance of fighting disinformation.
With hindsight, some parties have expressed regret over this motion. Beyond knowing who actually took the trouble to read the decision or not, there is reason to question the process of presenting and adopting these so-called “without notice” motions. This is obviously not the first time that an unfortunate result has resulted from a unanimous motion by the National Assembly, the most famous case probably being the motion of censure against the late Yves Michaud.
These motions are the subject of exchanges between the teams of leaders of each parliamentary group, and the wording is then discussed with their caucus. Access to caucus discussions is very restricted: it is the prerogative of elected officials and a handful of political employees. Anyone who has had the privilege of attending it knows what a frenzied time it is. In the midst of discussions on various political issues, the subjects of motions arise point blank without notice. We must then take a position on sometimes very serious subjects in a very short period of time which does not lend itself well to discussions and even more so to reflection.
Some of these current affairs files can be manipulated for very partisan purposes, to set a trap for one’s adversaries. As there is no room for nuance, we then formulate a wording with which no one can object without losing face. Who could be against reiterating “the importance of retaining the word “woman””? No matter what the judgment basically says, even if it mentions the word “woman” 67 times, no one wants to take the risk of being complicit in making women invisible!
We probably hoped to trap some of them with this other motion which denounced the federal government’s desire to study “access to Islamic mortgage loans”. Even if the Québec solidaire deputies did not vote against (they abstained from voting), that did not prevent a columnist from writing a text entitled “QS refuses to oppose sharia”. This kind of shortcut undermines intelligent public debate and increases polarization, which is exactly what drives people away from politics.
In a text published recently, Christine St-Pierre and Véronique Hivon questioned the notion of time and the ways of slowing down in politics. Mme St-Pierre rightly mentioned the example of motions without notice, where we sometimes make hasty decisions that would have required more time for reflection. The two ex-MPs also made recommendations to give themselves more time to think about politics. We could add to their list for a reform of parliamentarism a minimum delay before voting on a motion.
There is a solemn character to a unanimous motion adopted by our National Assembly. To avoid devaluing the weight associated with such a position, our elected officials should take the time to analyze the wording and basis of these motions with the seriousness it requires. Without a doubt, the population would benefit greatly from this modification which would allow for better debates and fewer partisan contests.