THE INCREASING DISCONNECT BETWEEN AND THEIR

Michael Chong

The last election saw the lowest voter turnout since Confederation, evidence of a growing gap between Canadians and their democratic institutions. If the centre of our democracy is Parliament, then the heart of Parliament is in the House of Commons. Each day, its proceedings are relayed to millions of Canadians through the national media. For many Canadians, Question Period is Parliament. In order to bridge the gap between Canadians and their Parliament, Parliament should be reformed. This reform ought to begin with Question Period.

Preuve de l’écart grandissant qui sépare les Canadiens de leurs institutions démocratiques, la participation électorale n’a jamais été aussi faible qu’aux dernières élections fédérales dans toute l’histoire de la Confédération. Or, si le Parlement joue un rôle central dans notre démocratie, écrit , la période de questions à la Chambre des communes en constitue le cœur même : Tous les jours, des millions de Canadien suivent ses délibérations à la télévision nationale. Pour bon nombre d’entre eux, la période de questions est le Parlement. C’est pourquoi toute réforme parlementaire visant à combler cet écart doit commencer par la période de questions, conclut le député de Wellington-Halton Hills.

n the last federal election, 59 percent of Canadians What they see through this window is not some- turned out to vote, the lowest turnout since thing they are impressed with. If there is one thing that I Confederation. The fact that more than four out of ten Members of Parliament hear consistently in their con- voters stayed away from the ballot box is evidence of a stituencies, it is that many Canadians, disapprove of the growing gap between Canadians and their Parliament. way in which Question Period is conducted. As a result, This growing gap undermines the centrality of Parliament there is a growing divide between Canadians, who are to public debate. The increasing irrelevance of Parliament to increasingly apolitical, and a Parliament that is more many Canadians is forcing these debates into other forums, and more partisan. For this reason, the reform of such as the courts, the Internet and civil society. While each of Question Period is the necessary first step to restoring these various forums plays an important role in public debate, Parliament’s relevance. they cannot represent the democratic will of the Canadian Before we discuss some of the problems with Question people. Only the 308 Members of Parliament, duly elected by Period, a brief history will help provide the context. their constituents, can do that. If Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Canadians and is not central to pub- hen the Parliament of was created in lic debate in Canada, then public policy will be determined in W 1867, Question Period did not formally exist in an increasingly nondemocratic fashion. the standing orders governing the House of Commons. So how do we restore Parliament’s relevance to In the subsequent decades after Confederation, Question Canadians? A first, but important, step should begin with Period slowly established itself in the daily practices of the reform of Question Period. the House, but it was not until 1964 that it was formally The heart of the daily proceedings in Parliament is codified in the standing orders. Even after its formal Question Period in the House of Commons. For 45 minutes establishment in 1964, Question Period continued to each day, Members of Parliament ask questions of the gov- evolve. For example, changes were made to establish ernment in order to hold it to account. Each day, Question Question Period at certain times and for certain dura- Period is relayed to millions through the national media. tions. In addition, successive Speakers have made numer- For many Canadians, it is their only window on Parliament ous rulings that established precedents governing and for those Canadians Question Period is Parliament. Question Period. These rulings have contributed greatly

24 OPTIONS POLITIQUES SEPTEMBRE 2010 The increasing disconnect between Canadians and their Parliament to the evolution of Question Period focus on rhetoric and hyperbole, due, in characterized by aggressive body lan- over the last number of decades. part, to the rule changes introduced by guage and by those who can yell the What is striking about these rul- Parent. Limiting questions and loudest and hurl the biggest insults. ings is the reluctance of successive answers to 35 seconds has had the result The noise, a result of the yelling and Speakers to enforce the rules as they of encouraging rhetorical questions and incessant applause (begun after the exist in the standing orders and other answers over substantive ones. Often, introduction of television to the conventions, instead deferring to 35 seconds is not enough time to ask a House), is often at such levels that a Members in the expectation that they substantive question or to provide a Member cannot hear what is happen- will regulate themselves. What is equal- thorough answer. As a result, rhetorical ing even with the volume turned all ly striking is that, in certain cases, sig- questions dominate Question Period, the way up in the earpiece. Ministers nificant rule changes were made by naturally producing rhetorical answers. have difficulty hearing the questions successive Speakers based on agree- This does not advance the understand- and the professional translators — in enclosed soundproof If there is one thing that Members of Parliament hear booths and with state-of- consistently in their constituencies, it is that many the-art sound equipment — Canadians disapprove of the way in which Question Period have difficulty delivering is conducted. As a result, there is a growing divide between simultaneous translation. This is most unfortunate. Canadians, who are increasingly apolitical, and a Parliament Of all forums in Canada, that is more and more partisan. For this reason, the reform the House should be the of Question Period is the necessary first step to restoring place for reasoned debate. Parliament’s relevance. Instead, it resembles more the Roman Colosseum ments reached in private discussion ing of any particular issue and is one of where gladiators spilled blood and among fewer than five Members of the the reasons that Canadians do not see fought for the crowd’s emotions. House (often the party whips or House themselves or their concerns reflected in leaders), rather than by the debate and Question Period. he current standing orders and consent of the House as a whole. The second problem with T other conventions governing For example, after the introduc- Question Period is the behaviour. Question Period are more than ade- tion of television to the House of Quite simply, on many days, Question quate to address the problem of deco- Commons in 1977, a significant Period is unintelligible to most rum. As mentioned before, successive change to Question Period was intro- Members. Far too often, it descends Speakers have been reluctant to duced by Speaker Jeanne Sauvé. into, anger-filled screaming match, enforce these existing rules, leaving it According to Robert Marleau, former of the House, after private dis- FIGURE 1. VOTER TURNOUT AT FEDERAL ELECTIONS, 1958-2008 cussions between Speaker Sauvé and the party whips, the Speaker agreed to 100 accept from them lists of Members 90 permitted to ask questions during 80 Question Period. Prior to these lists, any member of the House could pose 70 a question by rising and catching the t n 60 e

eye of the Speaker. c r 50 In another example, after the feder- e P al election of 1997 and at the beginning 40 th of the 36 Parliament, Speaker Gib 30 Parent held discussions with the House 20 leaders of the five parties then in the House. The six of them agreed to a num- 10 8 8 3 0 2 9 0 4 6 5 8 8 2 4 7 4 ber of conventions governing Question 3 0 8 9 0 7 7 8 0 0 6 6 5 6 8 9 7 0 6 0 9 9 0 9 9 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Period that are still in current use, and in 9 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 4 1 5 7 0 2 8 8 3 5 8 1 8 4 2 8 particular, the convention that questions 8 / / / / / 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 / / / / / / / / / 1 / / / 6 9 7 and answers be limited to 35 seconds. 4 0 1 0 1 0 6 5 2 1 1 6 3 6 1 1 1 1 The first problem with Question 1 Period is the lack of substance and the Source: .

POLICY OPTIONS 25 SEPTEMBER 2010 Michael Chong

to Members to self-regulate. offices to make their way to Parliament questions to ministers other than Collectively, Members have not shown Hill for a 1:00 p.m. meeting with all the prime minister. themselves up to that task. other ministers. It is at this meeting A third problem with Question that the entire ministry is coordinated he first proposal calls for the ele- Period is that most Members are relegat- and final messaging for the day deter- T vation of decorum by strengthen- ed to the role of spectators, not partici- mined. At 2:15 p.m., the minister ing the authority of the Speaker. Many pants. As a result of the rule changes arrives in the House for the start of believe that the level of decorum in introduced by Speaker Sauvé, Members Question Period, to remain there until the House has eroded over the years. can no longer spontaneously rise and it is finished. At 3:00 p.m., the minis- Others dispute that fact, and point to catch the eye of the Speaker to be recog- ter departs , arriving raucous and rowdy sessions of decades nized for a question, unless they get on back at the departmental offices some- past. Regardless of which point of view the party list and have their questions time before 4:00 pm. is correct, modern technology now vetted beforehand (usually coordinated This daily routine of Question Period ensures that the decorum in the House by the whip or ). Each is enormously disruptive, taking up to is now in the living rooms and work- party submits its list of questioners to four hours a day out of a minister’s sched- places of the nation through television the Speaker in advance of Question ule, time that could be spent on the and the Internet. The decorum in the Period, and the Speaker recognizes only important work of running a portfolio. House, once witnessed only by those on the list (with the exception of Out of a ministry of 37 ministers, fewer Members themselves and by a few scat- the occasional question for than a dozen will be asked questions in a tered observers in the galleries, is now Independent Members). As a result, typical Question Period. In other words, seen by millions of Canadians. As a most Members rarely get on these lists. more than two dozen ministers and result, even if the level of decorum has Rather than being attentive and poten- dozens more staff spend half the working not declined in recent years (which is tial participants posing questions, day in vain. If structured differently, debatable), it is no longer acceptable. Members behave accordingly, as specta- Question Period could provide the same The Canadian public, seeing what was tors would in any forum. The party lists level of democratic accountability while once unseen, is demanding something also take away the discretion of the significantly reducing the time and better. Pleas for better decorum are Speaker to recognize Members, thereby resources required of the ministry. insufficient, and Members of the weakening the ability of the Speaker to There is an opportunity to address House need to give the Speaker a for- enforce discipline. If a Member misbe- some of these problems. This autumn, the mal mandate to more rigorously haves in Question Period one day and House will vote on Motion 517, a motion enforce the existing rules. the next day appears on the party list, I’ve submitted to reform Question Period. The second proposal would the Speaker has no discretion and must This motion contains six specific propos- lengthen the time given to ask a ques- recognize that Member. The party lists als for reform. These six proposals would: tion and the time given to answer a are another reason why the Question G elevate decorum and fortify the question from the current 35 seconds. Period more closely resem- bles the Colosseum than a The party lists also take away the discretion of the Speaker to . recognize Members, thereby weakening the ability of the Speaker to enforce discipline. If a Member misbehaves in final problem with Question Period one day and the next day appears on the party A Question Period con- cerns not the House but the list, the Speaker has no discretion and must recognize that ministry. Question Period, Member. The party lists are another reason why the Question as it is currently structured, Period more closely resembles the Coliseum than the legislature. requires an enormous allo- cation of resources on the part of min- use of discipline by the Speaker, The lengthening of time will encour- isters’ offices. The typical Question G lengthen the amount of time age more substantive questions and Period schedule for a minister would given for each question and more comprehensive answers than are unfold as follows. At noon, several answer, presently allowed. If an opposition officials, often including an assistant G require that ministers respond to Member asks a flippant 20-second deputy minister, brief the minister and questions directed at them, question, and a full and substantive provide the day’s news clippings, G allocate half the questions each response is given, more often than anticipated questions and answers, day for backbench Members, not, the opposition will appear hyper- and background information. At 12:45 G dedicate Wednesday exclusively for bolic. The opposite also is true. If an p.m., the minister and relevant politi- questions to the prime minister, and opposition Member asks a minister a cal staff leave their departmental G dedicate the rest of the week for serious one-minute question and a glib

26 OPTIONS POLITIQUES SEPTEMBRE 2010 The increasing disconnect between Canadians and their Parliament

20-second answer is given, the govern- prime minister to attend to the Parliament that needs to be reformed. ment will come across as arrogant. functions of the state on the other week- Motion 517 was inspired, in part, The third proposal calls for the re- days and yet be held fully accountable by the Reform class of 1993 and their examination of the convention that once a week on Wednesdays. There could earnest desire to see change for better in ministers need not respond to questions be a similar rotating schedule, perhaps Canada’s institutions. Preston Man- put to them. Sometimes it is not possible twice a week, for other ministers. ning, writing in the Globe and Mail, for a minister to respond, such as when recently said, “Although Motion 517 abroad representing Canada. Currently, hould Motion 517 be adopted, the has been moved by a government since most questions are rhetorical ones, S Standing on Procedure member, it is not partisan in nature and the government often chooses not to and House Affairs will be ordered to con- deserves support from all members who respond with the minister responsible, sider these reforms and report back rec- want to see Question Period made more instead designating another minister to ommended changes to the House within credible.” He added, “There must be The first problem with Question Period is the lack of substance some way of making Ques- tion Period more civil, pro- and the focus on rhetoric and hyperbole, due, in part, to the ductive and newsworthy, rule changes introduced by Speaker Parent. Limiting questions and the sooner we find it, and answers to 35 seconds has had the result of encouraging the better it will be for Cana- rhetorical questions and answers over substantive ones. dian democracy.” Preston Manning’s comments reflect answer. If the reform of Question Period six months. The committee may, in its a broader desire of part of the public to leads to more substantive questions best judgment, decide to include addi- see Parliament reformed. being asked of ministers, then the con- tional suggestions for reform or to modi- Members on both sides of the vention that they need not respond also fy some of the proposals outlined above. House have endorsed this motion. In needs to be re-examined. Motion 517 provides some viable fact, it has been seconded by 20 The fourth proposal would allo- and reasonable proposals for reform. If Members from three different parties, cate half of the questions each day for Parliamentarians cannot achieve some- the maximum allowable. backbench Members, as determined thing as simple as the reform of Parliamentary reform, beginning independently by the Speaker. This Question Period, then what hope do we with the reform of Question Period, would restore the right of Members to have of restoring Canadians’ trust in can reconnect Canadians to their ask questions, a right that was lost their institutions and regaining their democratic institutions. Motion 517 when party lists were implemented. respect? What hope do we have of is a first, but important, step toward The result would transform the role of recapturing the legitimacy and authori- that Parliamentary reform. The vote Members from that of mere spectators to that of partici- The second problem with Question Period is the behaviour. pants in Question Period, a Quite simply, on many days, Question Period is unintelligible role that their constituents to most Members. Far too often, it descends into a elect and expect them to carry out. testosterone-laden, anger-filled screaming match, The fifth and sixth pro- characterized by aggressive body language and by those who posals would dedicate specific can yell the loudest and hurl the biggest insults. days for the Prime Minister and for other ministers to attend Question ty of Parliament as central to the on it will be a measure of the gap Period. By adopting a rotating schedule, Canadian debate? What hope do we between Canadians and their both ministry and opposition would ben- have to meet the challenges of our era Parliament. efit. The ministry can more effectively use and continue the nation building their time and resources managing begun by our forebears? Michael Chong is the Member of Question Period, and the opposition can More than four out of ten Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills. better focus their resources and research Canadians refused to vote in the last First elected in 2004, he is a former min- on specific issues and ministers based on election. In doing so they decreased the ister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He co- the rotating schedule. One of the models legitimacy of our democratic institu- founded the Institute, now to look to is Question Period in tions and the authority of Parliament. known as the Historica-Dominion Westminster. There, the prime minister Canadians may not know the exact Institute, an organization committed to appears once a week on Wednesdays to statutes, standing orders or conventions raising Canadians' awareness of history answer questions for an entire 30-minute that need to be changed, but they do and civics. He currently sits on its board period. This allows more time for the know that something is wrong with of governors.

POLICY OPTIONS 27 SEPTEMBER 2010