Today, changes have been proposed to the daily trainwreck that has become question period in the House of Commons.
Question period is a forty-five minute event, held at quarter-past-two every weekday that the House sits, where members of the House of Commons can address questions to the prime minister, ministers, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries, and chairpersons of House committees (chairpersons can only rise to respond to questions clearly addressed to a chairperson, and these are extremely rare; most weeks see no questions addressed to the chairs). Not only opposition parties ask questions; back-benchers for the governing party can also rise to question the Government, but these questions tend to be set up as a chance for the Government to showcase a particular strategy or decision.
Per the proper orders of the House, any member can rise and “catch the Speaker’s eye”, whereupon the Speaker calls upon that member to rise and ask a question. Unfortunately, practices have developed where back-benchers tend to have few chances, if any, to ask questions of the Government; nowadays, the several House leaders prepare the names of members to ask questions ahead of time, and communicate these names to the Speaker, who then simply goes down the roster of names and the members ask questions in order. One unfortunate effect of this developed practice is that we lose a certain energetic spontaneity that question period could have once had. Members of the House of Commons, and members of the Government, should be well-versed and engaged enough to ask and respond to relevant questions without rehearsal.
Changes have been proposed by The Honourable Michael Chong P.C., M.P. (Wellington—Halton Hills), a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. On a quick sidenote, Mr. Chong is one of the few members of the Government who I have a great respect for; Mr. Chong resigned his cabinet position in 2006 to protest the prime minister’s push to see Québec recognised as “a nation within a united Canada.”
Among the changes that Mr. Chong has proposed would be one day reserved for questions exclusively addressed to the prime minister (a practice that has already developed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and has been recognised by many Canadians as a more successful question-and-answer strategy than our current format), an increase in the amount of time given for questions and answers (to a possible ninety seconds each, as opposed to the current soundbite-prone 35 seconds), and ensuring that more time is allocated to spontaneous questions by back-bench members who would receive time by “catching the Speaker’s eye”.
So, the question is, do you support reforms to our question period format?
I do support reforms, but not quite along the same path as Mr. Chong is suggesting; I would suggest that the entire question period time should be dedicated to members who “catch the Speaker’s eye”, and there should be no consultation between the Government and opposition parties prior to question period. What we should see is a Government that is knowledgeable enough of its programs and agenda to respond to spontaneous questions as they come, and ministers having the freedom to answer questions without having statements vetted by the prime minister (not just under the present Government, but as a permanent solution to ensure that we can take advantage of each minister’s leadership, and not just that of a single minister).
Question period is a forty-five minute event, held at quarter-past-two every weekday that the House sits, where members of the House of Commons can address questions to the prime minister, ministers, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries, and chairpersons of House committees (chairpersons can only rise to respond to questions clearly addressed to a chairperson, and these are extremely rare; most weeks see no questions addressed to the chairs). Not only opposition parties ask questions; back-benchers for the governing party can also rise to question the Government, but these questions tend to be set up as a chance for the Government to showcase a particular strategy or decision.
Per the proper orders of the House, any member can rise and “catch the Speaker’s eye”, whereupon the Speaker calls upon that member to rise and ask a question. Unfortunately, practices have developed where back-benchers tend to have few chances, if any, to ask questions of the Government; nowadays, the several House leaders prepare the names of members to ask questions ahead of time, and communicate these names to the Speaker, who then simply goes down the roster of names and the members ask questions in order. One unfortunate effect of this developed practice is that we lose a certain energetic spontaneity that question period could have once had. Members of the House of Commons, and members of the Government, should be well-versed and engaged enough to ask and respond to relevant questions without rehearsal.
Changes have been proposed by The Honourable Michael Chong P.C., M.P. (Wellington—Halton Hills), a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. On a quick sidenote, Mr. Chong is one of the few members of the Government who I have a great respect for; Mr. Chong resigned his cabinet position in 2006 to protest the prime minister’s push to see Québec recognised as “a nation within a united Canada.”
Among the changes that Mr. Chong has proposed would be one day reserved for questions exclusively addressed to the prime minister (a practice that has already developed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and has been recognised by many Canadians as a more successful question-and-answer strategy than our current format), an increase in the amount of time given for questions and answers (to a possible ninety seconds each, as opposed to the current soundbite-prone 35 seconds), and ensuring that more time is allocated to spontaneous questions by back-bench members who would receive time by “catching the Speaker’s eye”.
So, the question is, do you support reforms to our question period format?
I do support reforms, but not quite along the same path as Mr. Chong is suggesting; I would suggest that the entire question period time should be dedicated to members who “catch the Speaker’s eye”, and there should be no consultation between the Government and opposition parties prior to question period. What we should see is a Government that is knowledgeable enough of its programs and agenda to respond to spontaneous questions as they come, and ministers having the freedom to answer questions without having statements vetted by the prime minister (not just under the present Government, but as a permanent solution to ensure that we can take advantage of each minister’s leadership, and not just that of a single minister).
