At this time of year, we’re starting to see a number of reflective pieces about the state of our democracy, and over on The Agenda, they gave a thinkpiece about the state of Question Period in advance of an episode on the subject. While the piece is geared toward the state of things at Queen’s Park, there is applicability to Parliament, and the suggestions that the polisci prof that they cite in the piece makes don’t really offer anything constructive, in my opinion.
For example, he wants more questions from more members and no supplementals. I disagree, because if we were running things properly, supplementals offer decent back-and-forth exchanges where you can get better accountability by drilling into answers (or non-answers) provided. And as demonstrated in Parliament, especially on Fridays, just having more MPs asking questions doesn’t necessarily improve things because they’re all reading the same scripts, so you just get more MPs asking the same questions – which in turn becomes fodder for them gathering clips to be distributed over social media. He suggests that the parties determine who asks questions for the first two thirds and then the Speaker determine for the final third – well, that doesn’t actually help with the ability of the Speaker to “not see” frequent misbehaving MPs, as they will be the ones the party puts on their list. It needs to be all or nothing. Having the Speaker rule on the relevance of answers and to police friendly backbench suck-up questions? Nice in theory, and if we could get MPs to give the Speaker the power to the determination, all the better, but if we’re not careful, it just creates an opportunity for parties to whinge about the Speaker. (I’m kind of in favour of empowering the Speaker in this way, but it needs to be done very carefully). Banning applause? Yes, absolutely.
What’s missing in this is the reliance on scripts, which we need to do away with entirely. Parties argue that they need to come up with plans and narratives and tactics, but to be frank, that’s bullshit. Plans and tactics don’t enhance the accountability function of QP – it just ensures that it will be theatre, and not good theatre at that. Banning scripts plus empowering the Speaker to choose who asks questions for the whole of QP (and sure, he can continue to divvy them up according to a set formula in the interests of fairness) is going to be far more effective than most of these suggestions – but the trick is to convince MPs to move to that system, which would involve their leaders giving up their powers to direct the show, and that is part of where the bigger problem lies.
Good reads:
- Justin Trudeau was attending D-Day commemorations in Portsmouth, UK.
- Bill Morneau says that a comprehensive review or overhaul of the tax code in order to simplify it isn’t on the Liberal government’s agenda.
- Ralph Goodale named the interim members of the new RCMP civilian advisory board that will help oversee its management.
- Jim Carr is downplaying any fallout from the departure of the Chinese ambassador.
- The federal government has agreed to provide funding for the tree planting programme in Ontario that the Ford government cut.
- Here’s a look at some of the potential international implications for the use of “genocide” with the MMIW Inquiry report, such as OAS demands for investigations.
- Here’s a look at the contradictory things the MMIW Inquiry report says about Gladue reports for Indigenous sentencing.
- A second Indigenous group is looking to buy an equity stake in the Trans Mountain pipeline.
- The Public Prosecution Service says that SNC-Lavalin misunderstands the Attorney General’s role in prosecutions, as they fight in the Federal Court of Appeal for a DPA.
- The federal government is on the verge of banning the importation of shark fins.
- The RCMP is looking at the possibility of charging ISIS fighters from Canada under war crimes laws.
- In the Meng Wanzhou extradition trial, RCMP and CBSA officials denied searching her phones or electronic devices.
- The Commons industry committee has completed their review of the Copyright Act and want more clarity on who owns works generated by AIs.
- Conservatives in the Senate are using procedural tactics to hold up deliberation of the UNDRIP bill, as they say it will give a veto to resource projects.
- Andrew Scheer won’t be in any Pride parades, but his people want you to know that the Conservatives fight for gay rights “in many ways.” Sure, Jan.
- Brian Pallister is under fire for using civil servants to praise Andrew Scheer.
- BC’s privacy commissioner is looking to see if he can apply provincial privacy laws to federal political parties over their databases.
- Kady O’Malley talks to some retiring MPs as they start their farewell speeches.
- Melanee Thomas looks at how the election of Jason Kenney hasn’t dissipated the anger that he fomented in Alberta. Shocking. (If only someone else warned of that).
- Heather Scoffield thinks more women should be in key finance portfolios federally.
- Andrew Coyne writes the intervention that Michael Cooper should have said at the justice committee instead of his outburst. (But Cooper would never say this).
- Paul Wells recalls that Justin Trudeau wrote an op-ed in 2012 about Canada’s relationship with China, and compares it to the state of the relationship today.
Odds and ends:
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.
The problem with “letting the Speaker choose” who gets to ask a question is that the parties will simply only stand one person when it’s their slot in the rotation. That’s what happens at Queen’s Park — there’s only ever one MPP standing. The only proceeding for which there’s ever more than one MPP standing is Petitions.
I’d rather we do as they do in the UK and have a lottery for who gets to ask questions. Submit the question a few days ahead of time (which would also allow the Clerks to week out the ‘Tell me how great you are, Minister’ questions, and then draw them by random ballot and list the draw results on the Order Paper. Then allow the Speaker to choose whoever he wants for the supplementals.
True, but if there’s only one MP/MPP standing, perhaps the Speaker can choose someone who isn’t standing, and let them know that he’s onto their game. But I’ll have to look into the lottery system.
They have an archived Fact Sheet that still provides a good overview of the process: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/guides/factsheets/procedure/p01/
Thanks for that link and your comments. The UK system seems much superior to the circus here.
I’m not entirely convinced that a lottery would be successful in reintroducing dynamism and cutting back on the ritualistic and formulaic farce that is Question Period in the federal House today.
The interesting thing is that we don’t really need to speculate on what it would be like if the Speaker chose the questioners. We can look back to, say, Speaker Lucien Lamoureux in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Especially with a variety of parties, there was no lack of Members who would rise to be recognized. Lamoureux would regularly decline to see Members if they offended the rules. He didn’t hesitate to cut off Opposition Members who were delivering speeches instead of asking questions, and he regularly cut short the Prime Minister and other Ministers who weren’t actually answering questions.
So, Oral Questions can work as an accountability mechanism, instead of mere theatre – if Members choose to let.
Re: Thomas’ article on Alberta and the political fallout
All the Cons ever do is stoke irrational anger for votes! Trudeau and Notley are sincerely kind, compassionate consensus-builders and what do they get? Death threats, back-stabs and motivation by the electorate to “throw the bums out”! It worked for Scheer’s favorite clusterf— of Brexit, and the only beneficiaries from that are Farage, BoJo and their ilk laughing all the way to the (Arron) Banks. No doubt an “Albexit” stoked by these same cynical, self-serving crooks would do nothing for the “forgotten man” and everything to line the pockets of the likes of Scheer and Kenney. Figures Scheer is the social-media troll candidate just like his role model Trump. Mark Zuckerberg’s motto of “move fast and break things” is the perfect slogan for the Cons.
Trudeau’s “common ground,” like Hillary Clinton’s “stronger together,” sadly seems to be an idealistic vision for a bygone era of “hope and change.” How do you reach across the aisle and work with someone who would only reach across to grab your throat? A similar conclusion seems to have been drawn in Susan Delacourt’s column highlighted in an earlier Round-Up post this week, how the feminist principles that Trudeau articulates openly and fervently have aroused anger among men. Interesting that a black-or-white battle of the sexes would be pitched against a hobbyist quantum physicist who, like the transcendent and intersectional millennials of the future generation, rejects the notion of binary gender altogether. What’s the predictable knee-jerk response to that? “Justine’s a soyboy cuck!!!”
Nevertheless, he persists. I will never forget how, in 2015, when his supporters were ready to go after Conservative voters with torches and pitchforks for the ten years they’d suffered under Herr Harper’s Reign of Error, Trudeau instructed them to respect political disagreements and reject tribalism in favor of an all-Canadian unity: “The people who voted for Stephen Harper are not your enemies. They are your neighbours.” He said pretty much the same (substituting Scheer/Kenney/Ford for Harper) at a stump speech in Toronto just last month. This is who he is. But evidently the feeling isn’t mutual, judging by all the yellow-vest renegades who want him and his family dead, even his young children, over “economic anxiety.” But Andy and his provincial Scheerleaders do nothing to cool them off.
I have often thought that Justin Trudeau is the Fred Rogers of Canadian politics — Western politics, or even just politics in general — and his reference to sharing the land with “neighbours” only confirms it. But Fred Rogers never stood for political office anywhere, and probably for good reason. Can’t we all just get along? I guess not. Only in the land of make-believe.