The televising of Question Period began in 1977 and prompted all parties to script their exchanges more tightly. When I wrote about the operation of government at the beginning of the 21st century, Question Period had become more embarrassing than effective. As I said then:
Much of the time seems to be taken up with angry exchanges or good-natured banter, usually accompanied by desk thumping and cries of “hear, hear” or “shame, shame – depending on which side of the House is speaking or responding.
The one redeeming feature remained the fact that Question Period was still spontaneous, leaving the possibility that the government could be caught off guard. However, this spontaneity was increasingly eroded as contact between government and opposition house leaders and whips became more frequent and advance notice of questions to be put became the norm. Question Period lost further value when the Speaker was given a list of those who would be posing questions on a given day. Previously, the Speaker exercised discretion in determining who would be recognized among those waving hands or trying to attract attention. Moreover, the government now decides who responds to the questions, which isn’t always the responsible Minister!
Please Behave Children!
If all these changes weren’t enough, Question Period has further deteriorated because of the frequent bad behaviour of too many members. One of the most pathetic examples occurred in 2014 when Paul Calandra repeatedly responded to questions about the Conservative Government’s military operation in Iraq by ignoring them and referring to a social media post about Israel supposedly written by an NDP staffer.
Question Period is also tarnished by the all-too-frequent heckling and name-calling that goes on. A survey conducted by Samara Canada found that a majority of MPs think that heckling is a problem but an even larger proportion acknowledge that they are guilty of this behaviour – at least once a week. Apparently the poor little dears just can’t help themselves. I must add, however, that I have known a fair number of politicians – provincial as well as federal – and have found most of them to be decent, hard-working individuals who became involved in politics out of desire to serve the public. It is regrettable that when one of them resorts to heckling, it triggers a similar response from another and sets in motion a mutually reinforcing downward spiral of behaviour.
It’s Time for More Detentions
Children behaving badly in school are often sent to the Principal’s Office (at least I was, back in the day). It is high time that the Speaker cracked down on badly behaving MPs. If more specific power is needed to do this, then it should be given. Enforcing higher standards of behaviour is important to counteract the increasingly negative and cynical view that the public has about politics and politicians. We need to save the politicians from themselves so that we can save democracy for all of us. Some bantering, back and forth repartee, evasion, and even obfuscation will inevitably remain a part of Question Period. But we need to take steps to reinstate the spontaneity that was once the most important feature of this daily event, so that it can continue to be an important means of holding government accountable.
Make Better Use of Question Period
It would also help if opposition members did not waste the time they have in Question Period by using it to try and score cheap points rather than drawing attention to important issues of the day. Chantel Hebert illustrated this misplaced focus in a recent column dealing with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s questions in the final days of this spring’s parliamentary session. He might have used his time, she suggests, to probe such issues as the increasingly difficult Canada-U.S. relationship, the controversial extension of the equalization payment program, or how to respond to the new Ontario Government’s objection to any form of carbon tax. Instead, Scheer used his last four questions of the spring sitting to draw attention to the kids’ swing set purchased and installed at the Prime Minister’s official summer residence at a cost of $7,500.
This attempt to provide further evidence of Trudeau’s use of taxpayer money to support a lavish lifestyle was beyond hypocritical, given that Scheer knew that the PM had paid for the swing set and that it will be left behind to be enjoyed by the family of the next PM. Having spent most of the past seven years, first as Speaker and now as Opposition Leader, in government-subsidized housing, Scheer also knows that the maintenance of official residences – including the cost of installing the swing set – is the responsibility of the National Capital Commission. Using Question Period to hold government to account is difficult enough without opposition members squandering their time on frivolous matters rather than substantive issues. It must be added that the effectiveness of Question Period is not helped by the amount of dodges on the government side, the refusal to answer questions in a meaningful way. This was the finding of a team of journalists who examined five days of Question Period randomly selected during April and May 2018.
It is clear that members on both sides of the House could do more to improve Question Period. Since the exchanges during this time are the main exposure most Canadians have to the activities of their elected representatives, failure to make the necessary improvements will only contribute to a further deterioration in public respect for politics and politicians.