John Ivison: If Trudeau won’t answer the questions in question period, what’s the bloody point?
If Trudeau’s pioneering use of non-sequitur politics takes hold in the House, frustrated taxpayers are going to demand someone provides adult supervision
OTTAWA — There was an exchange during question period on Wednesday that marked a new low in the House of Commons’ descent into disrepute — and I say that advisedly, having watched this gong show at close quarters over the past 15 years.
Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative finance critic, who you might have imagined would want to talk about a federal budget that was hot off the presses, asked Justin Trudeau about his trip to India and the apparent contradiction of him blaming his own backbencher and the Indian government for the invitation of a convicted terrorist to an official event.
The Prime Minister responded by ignoring the question entirely and trumpeting the benefits of the budget “for the middle class and those working hard to join it.”
The Conservatives urged the Speaker to enforce the relevancy rule, on the basis that Trudeau had also ignored the long-standing custom of the House to at least provide an unsatisfactory non-answer on the same topic as the question.
But, as Speaker Geoff Regan pointed out, no such relevancy rule exists and the quality of the answers is up to ministers. “Members ought to understand that the Speaker is not empowered to comment on any of those things,” he said.
In which case – what is the bloody point?
Taxpayers spend more than $500 million a year so that the opposition parties can ask inane questions, designed to embarrass the government. The ruling party has now resolved to discount those questions entirely and use the opportunity to tout how brilliant it is at being the government.
It’s an outrage and, in an ideal world, we would all withhold our tax dollars until those idiots got their act together.
Question period is, in theory, the opportunity for the legislative branch to seek information from the executive and hold the government to account. Nobody really believes that, probably not even Trudeau himself when he pledged in his 2015 election platform to reform question period to hold the government, and the Prime Minister, to greater account.
The Liberals introduced a Prime Minister’s question period “to improve that direct level of accountability.”
Speaker Geoff Regan Adrian Wyld//The Canadian Press But it was during the new and improved prime minister’s questions that Trudeau unveiled his latest example of openness and transparency — an answer to the question he preferred had been asked, rather than the one that was.
We came close to this nadir under the Conservatives. Paul Calandra, Stephen Harper’s parliamentary secretary, was forced to issue a teary apology after answering questions from the NDP on Canada’s mission in Iraq with a non-sequitur attack on the NDP position on Israel. It was awful and embarrassing. But Calandra was not prime minister.
In their election platform, the Liberals pledged to empower the Speaker to challenge and sanction members. But there has been scant evidence of Regan imposing himself on proceedings in the House. He has been clear in his public utterances and letters to Canadians that he sees his role as being “limited to ensuring the adherence to the body of rules, conventions and traditions to which members of the House of Commons themselves have agreed.”
In a letter to one taxpayer, he pointed out there are no explicit rules or conventions that oblige ministers to respond to questions addressed to them during question period, and that the Speaker is not responsible for the content of replies.
That is true, and is consistent, not only with the rulings of speakers going back decades, but with Westminster style parliaments in countries like New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
For the Speaker to deviate from that convention would require agreement in the House, probably stemming from a review of the rules by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
But it seems to me we are veering into dangerous new territory when questions are ignored completely.
Back in the 1960s, the House approved content guidelines that do require that answers are brief, do not provoke debate and, crucially, deal with the matter raised.
Speakers do have discretion and authority — they can rule questions out of order or interrupt members for using unparliamentary language.
When Andrew Scheer was Speaker, he said he would rule questions out of order if they did not establish a direct link with the administrative responsibilities of the government (there had been a rash of opposition MPs using lengthy preambles to criticize the government). If the Speaker can regulate questions, why not answers?
Regan would be well within his rights to intervene and insist that answers must deal with the matter raised in the question.
Rob Walsh, the House’s former law clerk, urges caution, pointing out that the current system has in-built political accountability. “The government has to rise and respond in some manner or face the political consequences,” he said. He suggested that giving the Speaker the right to vet questions and answers would soon descend into partisan debate.
Maybe so. But if Trudeau’s pioneering use of non-sequitur politics takes hold in the House, frustrated taxpayers are going to demand that someone provides adult supervision to the unruly urchins. That someone should be the Speaker.
John Ivison: If Trudeau won
If Trudeau’s pioneering use of non-sequitur politics takes hold in the House, frustrated taxpayers are going to demand someone provides adult supervision
OTTAWA — There was an exchange during question period on Wednesday that marked a new low in the House of Commons’ descent into disrepute — and I say that advisedly, having watched this gong show at close quarters over the past 15 years.
Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative finance critic, who you might have imagined would want to talk about a federal budget that was hot off the presses, asked Justin Trudeau about his trip to India and the apparent contradiction of him blaming his own backbencher and the Indian government for the invitation of a convicted terrorist to an official event.
The Prime Minister responded by ignoring the question entirely and trumpeting the benefits of the budget “for the middle class and those working hard to join it.”
The Conservatives urged the Speaker to enforce the relevancy rule, on the basis that Trudeau had also ignored the long-standing custom of the House to at least provide an unsatisfactory non-answer on the same topic as the question.
But, as Speaker Geoff Regan pointed out, no such relevancy rule exists and the quality of the answers is up to ministers. “Members ought to understand that the Speaker is not empowered to comment on any of those things,” he said.
In which case – what is the bloody point?
Taxpayers spend more than $500 million a year so that the opposition parties can ask inane questions, designed to embarrass the government. The ruling party has now resolved to discount those questions entirely and use the opportunity to tout how brilliant it is at being the government.
It’s an outrage and, in an ideal world, we would all withhold our tax dollars until those idiots got their act together.
Question period is, in theory, the opportunity for the legislative branch to seek information from the executive and hold the government to account. Nobody really believes that, probably not even Trudeau himself when he pledged in his 2015 election platform to reform question period to hold the government, and the Prime Minister, to greater account.
The Liberals introduced a Prime Minister’s question period “to improve that direct level of accountability.”
We came close to this nadir under the Conservatives. Paul Calandra, Stephen Harper’s parliamentary secretary, was forced to issue a teary apology after answering questions from the NDP on Canada’s mission in Iraq with a non-sequitur attack on the NDP position on Israel. It was awful and embarrassing. But Calandra was not prime minister.
In their election platform, the Liberals pledged to empower the Speaker to challenge and sanction members. But there has been scant evidence of Regan imposing himself on proceedings in the House. He has been clear in his public utterances and letters to Canadians that he sees his role as being “limited to ensuring the adherence to the body of rules, conventions and traditions to which members of the House of Commons themselves have agreed.”
In a letter to one taxpayer, he pointed out there are no explicit rules or conventions that oblige ministers to respond to questions addressed to them during question period, and that the Speaker is not responsible for the content of replies.
That is true, and is consistent, not only with the rulings of speakers going back decades, but with Westminster style parliaments in countries like New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
For the Speaker to deviate from that convention would require agreement in the House, probably stemming from a review of the rules by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
But it seems to me we are veering into dangerous new territory when questions are ignored completely.
Back in the 1960s, the House approved content guidelines that do require that answers are brief, do not provoke debate and, crucially, deal with the matter raised.
Speakers do have discretion and authority — they can rule questions out of order or interrupt members for using unparliamentary language.
When Andrew Scheer was Speaker, he said he would rule questions out of order if they did not establish a direct link with the administrative responsibilities of the government (there had been a rash of opposition MPs using lengthy preambles to criticize the government). If the Speaker can regulate questions, why not answers?
Regan would be well within his rights to intervene and insist that answers must deal with the matter raised in the question.
Rob Walsh, the House’s former law clerk, urges caution, pointing out that the current system has in-built political accountability. “The government has to rise and respond in some manner or face the political consequences,” he said. He suggested that giving the Speaker the right to vet questions and answers would soon descend into partisan debate.
Maybe so. But if Trudeau’s pioneering use of non-sequitur politics takes hold in the House, frustrated taxpayers are going to demand that someone provides adult supervision to the unruly urchins. That someone should be the Speaker.
John Ivison: If Trudeau won
