OTTAWA—Hopes that Question Period might become more civil were dashed on Wednesday when the Conservative Caucus began again to return the insulting questions of the opposition with insulting answers, the conduct that typified QP in the previous session of Parliament.
But for two days at least, there was hope.
When Parliament returned on Monday, the press gallery in the balcony above the floor of the House of Commons was unusually full and government MPs were on their best behaviour. While the tone of questions from opposition parties was not noticeably different from the previous session, there was less heckling, according to MPs.
Even Liberal Deputy Leader Ralph Goodale, and NDP citizenship critic Olivia Chow, after prodding, admitted that they had noticed improvement in the government’s conduct.
In Question Period, opposition leaders and MPs ask the government questions on any given topic, usually aimed at embarrassing the government or calling some policy or recent action into disrepute. The government typically answers each question, or evades it to varying degrees, and tries to in turn cast aspersions on the policies of the opposition party that asked the question.
Questions and answers are limited in length, ruling out substantive responses to often-challenging questions, and the period plays out in a series of sound bites.
But for the first two days of the current session, the Conservatives held back. Questions were met with answers but hardly any direct insults, though there were a couple of exceptions, notably from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
The most noticeable difference though was in the conduct of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper set the tone that followed with the first question of the session Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff asked, “Why is he ignoring the real concerns of Canadians?”
Harper’s response: “This government’s main priority is Canada’s economy. That is one reason Canada’s economy is outperforming other economies. I toured the country as well and I saw 16,000 job-creating projects across Canada. A recent study by the OECD shows that Canada’s national assets and the government’s timely decisions are what minimized the financial and economic damages caused by the global recession. Canadians should be pleased about that.”
That relatively good behaviour even held over on Tuesday, when new Conservative House Leader and noted partisan strongman John Baird answered for the absent PM. Baird even brought attention to the improvement later that QP.
“I should point out that the actions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition appointing me and the member for Ottawa South [Liberal MP David McGuinty] has seen a significant reduction in the heckling in the House. Those two should get some just reward for their actions on decorum. There is leadership.”
But by Wednesday, it was business as usual.
Ignatieff: “Yesterday the Minister of Finance delivered himself of a wild partisan rant. I assume that the prime minister approved this speech because, after all, he makes the rules. But what I wanted to know is whether the prime minister understands that this was a classic example of the politics of fear, division, envy and resentment at a time when Canadians need to hear a message of hope and unity.”
Harper: “As for the government’s economic policy, we are, of course, providing hope and opportunity through the economic action plan and stand strongly against the tax and spend policies of the Liberal Party.”
[xtypo_dropcap]B[/xtypo_dropcap]ut while turning questions and answers into insults is normal practice, it is not accepted.
The issue of decorum in the house has been getting increasing attention. One Conservative MP, Michael Chong, has even brought forward a private members motion aimed at addressing many of the problems that plague Question Period.
That motion aims to elevate decorum during QP and raise the level of discourse. Among other things, Chong wants more time for each question and answer and to require the specific minister questioned to answer the question.
Currently, any minister can answer any question. But he also wants ministers to attend scheduled days of QP so they don’t waste time there when only a handful of the 35 in cabinet ever answer a question on any given day. Wednesday would be reserved for the prime minister to answer questions and he would be freed up from attending the other days of the week. This measure is aimed to allow busy ministers to use their time more effectively.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Chong said he thinks Canadians want to see the situation improve but it is not a simple problem.
“I think the behaviour is just a symptom of a much deeper problem and the problem is with the format. And the fundamental problem is that members of Parliament have lost the right to ask questions in the House, questions of concern to their constituents.
“As a result they have turned from being true participants in question period to being mere spectators and to behave as any spectators would, as any Canadian would in any public arena. They cheer and cheer against the opposition or for their team. So I think we need to make MPs true participants in question period again and the one way to do that is to restore the right of a member of Parliament to rise in the House, catch the eye of the speaker and ask questions of concern to their constituents.”
Among other things, Chong’s motion calls to let a certain number of MPs, backbenchers who typically are not granted the opportunity by their party to ask a question, the right to do so.
Goodale told reporters that he thinks the motion could be helpful in making the issue of decorum the focus of formal debate.
“And that kind of initiative will be useful,” he said.
Some of the Parliament Hill Press Gallery’s most senior staff and other observers say that decorum fell apart after debates became televised. Playing for sound bites before a television audience, many MPs try to score political points against opponents rather than engage in genuine discussions.
Preston Manning, who led the Reform Party to the Official Opposition benches in 1997, tried to change that by informing ministers of their questions in advance in hopes of substantive answers. Unfortunately, as Mr. Manning told Tom Clark on CTV’s Power Play last week, the press was bored by the new format and tuned out.
But while the press might like the drama and mudslinging in QP now, Canadians do not. A recent Nanos-Policy Options poll shows an overwhelming majority of Canadians think the House of Commons would be more effective if MPs had more free votes and were more polite during Question Period.
Almost two thirds of those who took the poll, 64.6 percent, thought Parliament would work better if MPs behaved better.
But for two days at least, there was hope.
When Parliament returned on Monday, the press gallery in the balcony above the floor of the House of Commons was unusually full and government MPs were on their best behaviour. While the tone of questions from opposition parties was not noticeably different from the previous session, there was less heckling, according to MPs.
Even Liberal Deputy Leader Ralph Goodale, and NDP citizenship critic Olivia Chow, after prodding, admitted that they had noticed improvement in the government’s conduct.
In Question Period, opposition leaders and MPs ask the government questions on any given topic, usually aimed at embarrassing the government or calling some policy or recent action into disrepute. The government typically answers each question, or evades it to varying degrees, and tries to in turn cast aspersions on the policies of the opposition party that asked the question.
Questions and answers are limited in length, ruling out substantive responses to often-challenging questions, and the period plays out in a series of sound bites.
But for the first two days of the current session, the Conservatives held back. Questions were met with answers but hardly any direct insults, though there were a couple of exceptions, notably from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
The most noticeable difference though was in the conduct of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper set the tone that followed with the first question of the session Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff asked, “Why is he ignoring the real concerns of Canadians?”
Harper’s response: “This government’s main priority is Canada’s economy. That is one reason Canada’s economy is outperforming other economies. I toured the country as well and I saw 16,000 job-creating projects across Canada. A recent study by the OECD shows that Canada’s national assets and the government’s timely decisions are what minimized the financial and economic damages caused by the global recession. Canadians should be pleased about that.”
That relatively good behaviour even held over on Tuesday, when new Conservative House Leader and noted partisan strongman John Baird answered for the absent PM. Baird even brought attention to the improvement later that QP.
“I should point out that the actions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition appointing me and the member for Ottawa South [Liberal MP David McGuinty] has seen a significant reduction in the heckling in the House. Those two should get some just reward for their actions on decorum. There is leadership.”
But by Wednesday, it was business as usual.
Ignatieff: “Yesterday the Minister of Finance delivered himself of a wild partisan rant. I assume that the prime minister approved this speech because, after all, he makes the rules. But what I wanted to know is whether the prime minister understands that this was a classic example of the politics of fear, division, envy and resentment at a time when Canadians need to hear a message of hope and unity.”
Harper: “As for the government’s economic policy, we are, of course, providing hope and opportunity through the economic action plan and stand strongly against the tax and spend policies of the Liberal Party.”
[xtypo_dropcap]B[/xtypo_dropcap]ut while turning questions and answers into insults is normal practice, it is not accepted.
The issue of decorum in the house has been getting increasing attention. One Conservative MP, Michael Chong, has even brought forward a private members motion aimed at addressing many of the problems that plague Question Period.
That motion aims to elevate decorum during QP and raise the level of discourse. Among other things, Chong wants more time for each question and answer and to require the specific minister questioned to answer the question.
Currently, any minister can answer any question. But he also wants ministers to attend scheduled days of QP so they don’t waste time there when only a handful of the 35 in cabinet ever answer a question on any given day. Wednesday would be reserved for the prime minister to answer questions and he would be freed up from attending the other days of the week. This measure is aimed to allow busy ministers to use their time more effectively.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Chong said he thinks Canadians want to see the situation improve but it is not a simple problem.
“I think the behaviour is just a symptom of a much deeper problem and the problem is with the format. And the fundamental problem is that members of Parliament have lost the right to ask questions in the House, questions of concern to their constituents.
“As a result they have turned from being true participants in question period to being mere spectators and to behave as any spectators would, as any Canadian would in any public arena. They cheer and cheer against the opposition or for their team. So I think we need to make MPs true participants in question period again and the one way to do that is to restore the right of a member of Parliament to rise in the House, catch the eye of the speaker and ask questions of concern to their constituents.”
Among other things, Chong’s motion calls to let a certain number of MPs, backbenchers who typically are not granted the opportunity by their party to ask a question, the right to do so.
Goodale told reporters that he thinks the motion could be helpful in making the issue of decorum the focus of formal debate.
“And that kind of initiative will be useful,” he said.
Some of the Parliament Hill Press Gallery’s most senior staff and other observers say that decorum fell apart after debates became televised. Playing for sound bites before a television audience, many MPs try to score political points against opponents rather than engage in genuine discussions.
Preston Manning, who led the Reform Party to the Official Opposition benches in 1997, tried to change that by informing ministers of their questions in advance in hopes of substantive answers. Unfortunately, as Mr. Manning told Tom Clark on CTV’s Power Play last week, the press was bored by the new format and tuned out.
But while the press might like the drama and mudslinging in QP now, Canadians do not. A recent Nanos-Policy Options poll shows an overwhelming majority of Canadians think the House of Commons would be more effective if MPs had more free votes and were more polite during Question Period.
Almost two thirds of those who took the poll, 64.6 percent, thought Parliament would work better if MPs behaved better.
Friends Read Free