What to do about Question Period: A Roundtable Michael Chong, MP; Marlene Jennings, MP; Mario Laframboise, MP; Libby Davies, MP; Tom Lukiwski, MP On May 7, 2010 a motion calling for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing Oral Questions was introduced by the member for Wellington–Halton Hills. Among other things the Committee would consider ways of (i) elevating decorum and fortifying the use of discipline by the Speaker, to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House, (ii) lengthening the amount of time given for each question and each answer, (iii) examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond, (iv) allocating half the questions each day for Members, whose names and order of recognition would be randomly selected, (v) dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, (vi) dedicating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister in a way that would require Ministers be present two of the four days to answer questions concerning their portfolio, based on a published schedule that would rotate and that would ensure an equitable distribution of Ministers across the four days. The motion was debated on May 27, 2010. The following extracts are taken from that debate. Michal Chong (Conservative, Wel- Since this motion was made public, I have received lington–Halton Hills): Canadians phone calls, letters and emails from citizens across know that something is not quite right this country. From Kingston, a proud member of the with their democratic institutions. Canadian military wrote me: They may not know exactly what pro- I have served in the Canadian Forces for over cesses, procedures and rules need to 24 years and the lack of civility in the House be changed but they know their insti- of Commons has been an occasional topic of tutions need to be fixed and they want conversation throughout the years. I’ve often them to be reformed. thought it extremely ironic that my elected political leaders could sometimes be so immature We need to respond to these concerns and we need and exhibit such appalling behaviour when my to reform Parliament. Parliamentary reform begins fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen are required to uphold such high standards of deportment with the reform of question period. If the heart of our both in and out of uniform. democracy is Parliament, then the heart of Parliament is question period, the 45 minute period each day This concern has also been voiced to me by school where members of Parliament ask questions of the teachers, truck drivers, grade five students and government in order to hold it to account. Question boardroom executives. In fact, teachers have told me period is televised and each day its proceedings are that the level of behaviour in question period is such relayed by the national media to millions of Canadians. that they will not take their classes here anymore. This is the surest sign that question period needs to be If one thing has been made abundantly clear to reformed. me as a member of Parliament for the last number of years and to all of us in this House, it is that More than four out of ten Canadians refused to vote ordinary Canadians are disappointed with the level in the last election. This is a sign that our Parliament of behaviour in question period and they want their needs to be reformed. Question period has become parliamentarians to focus on the issues that really more about scoring cheap political points rather than matter to them. about the issues that really matter to Canadians. 2 CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW/AUTUMN 2010 Question period has become more about scoring extending the question and answer time made cheap political points rather than dealing with the for more substantive exchanges. issues that really matter to Canadians. The third proposal contained in the motion calls Question period has become a time where behaviour on the committee to re-examine the convention that is not permitted in any boardroom, dining room, that a minister need not respond to the questioner. or classroom regularly occurs here in the people’s Sometimes I understand it is not possible for a minister room. As a result, there is a growing divide between to respond, as they are out of the country in carrying Canadians who are becoming more and more apolitical out their duties representing Canada abroad. Other and a Parliament that is becoming more and more times the problem is that the 35-second rule results in partisan. questions that are rhetorical and answers that become rhetorical, and the government, for good reasons, We, as members of Parliament, need to bridge chooses to designate a particular minister to respond that gap by reforming Parliament and regaining to those rhetorical questions. the respect of Canadians. That is why today I move Motion No. 517, a proposal to reform question period. Thus, if we are going to overhaul question period, It contains six specific proposals to address question if we are going to have more substantive questions period and make it focus on the issues that really and more substantive answers, then we should also matter to Canadians. examine the convention that a minister need not respond. First, the motion calls for the elevation of decorum and the strengthening of the authority of the Speaker. Fourth, I am proposing in the motion to allocate half the questions per day to backbench members of From teachers with students on class trips to boardroom Parliament. Currently, in question period, members executives, Canadians want behaviour in question period of Parliament may only ask questions in the House if improved. The current behaviour is unacceptable in any they receive the prior approval of their House leader social setting, let alone this country’s Parliament. Pleas and party whips. This, in my view, is a denial of the for better decorum are insufficient. We, as members of right of the backbench members of Parliament to Parliament, need to give a mandate to the Speaker of this represent their constituents and to ask questions of the House to enforce the rules already in the Standing Orders government in relation to their constituencies. and in current convention. The introduction of the approval of the House The second proposal is to lengthen the time given to leader and the whip for a member to ask a question in ask a question and the time given to answer a question. question period in all parties is a recent practice. It is Currently, 35 seconds are allocated to the questioner and not something that was present here before the 1990s. 35 seconds to the answerer. It is an insufficient amount In fact, I was speaking with a former parliamentarian of time. As a result, we get rhetorical questions and who sat in this House for over 20 years in the 1970s rhetorical answers. and 1980s. He told me that he was shocked to find out The lengthening of time given to ask and to answer a that the Speaker no longer recognized members in question is something that was done here at one point in the House spontaneously during question period. In time. The short 35-second rule is a recent introduction fact, he told me that up until his time in Parliament, to this Parliament. For decades, parliamentarians had the first two or three rounds in question period went a minute to a minute and a half to ask a question, and to the leaders and their designates. After that, it was ministers had a minute to a minute and a half to respond backbench members of Parliament who could catch the to questions. Lengthening the amount of time given to eye of the Speaker and rise and ask questions that were ask and to answer questions will lead to more substantive of concern to their constituents. We need to go back to questions and more substantive answers. some sort of system like that in order to strengthen the role of this legislature. Writing in the National Post, Tasha Kheiridd opined that: Speaking on The Sunday Edition with Michael Enright on our nation’s public broadcaster, former New the current 35-second format may produce tailor-made soundbites for the evening news, Democrat leader and respected parliamentarian Ed but hardly allows for depth or reflection. Broadbent said, “We still have to make changes to magnify the role of individual MPs”. He added, “It is She added that the motion: up to individual MPs to assert themselves and to assert is supported by research done on Western their democratic rights”. European Parliaments where it was found that CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW/AUTUMN 2010 3 The final two proposals contained in my motion We are quite pleased that the member for Wellington– would dedicate specific days for the Prime Minister Halton Hills has confirmed to the House that he is open and other ministers of the Crown to attend question to suggestion and changes. He wants his motion to be period. Presently, preparing for question period adopted in the House and referred to the Standing requires almost four hours a day per minister. There Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He also are roughly forty ministers of the Crown in the wants members of this committee, of which I am one, government. Each minister spends four hours a day to do a comprehensive study in order to improve the either in question period or preparing for it. That is not content and the form of question period.