Joshua Lohka
If the purpose of question period is to develop an area where legislation and governance may be examined and explained; offering critical evaluation as well as clarity in understanding to both politicians and the Canadian public alike, then it has most certainly failed to meet its purpose. Question period in its current state succeeds only in developing an antagonistic arena where partisan attacks by all parties constitutes the norm of behaviour. Often, questions brought up by members of parliament (MPs) act first as defamatory remarks against opposing parties and secondarily as legitimate questions, nullifying the potential for constructive discourse. Further contributing to the lack of legislative discourse and the often “immature” state of order within parliament, are the frequent failures of ministers to properly answer questions posed to them, falling short of the suspended expectations of both lawmakers and Canadians. Solutions aimed at solving the ineffective state of question period have many forms. Examples of such solutions can be found proposed by MPs such as Michal Chong who advocated for the increased fortification of discipline within legislature through increased powers granted to the speaker (Chong et al., 2010a), developing the opportunity for the house speaker to better handle instances of disorder within the house. Further reform suggestions take the form of allocating dedicated time to ‘backbench’ MPs (Chong et al., 2010a) who may then posit questions outside the range of party whips; greatly widening the space for nuanced questions while avoiding the pit-fall where a single MP dominates over question period. Most notably however sits a potential solution to consistent non-answers by ministers; the levying of legislation that would require ministers faced with a question to answer directly and satisfactorily — to the discretion of the speaker — the question posed from opposition MPs, eliminating the use of repetitional strategies by MPs whose questions are seldom answered as well as tactics of deflection by questioned ministers.
Highlighted within the Question Periods of December 13th, 14th, and 15th 2023, two pillars central to the undermining-effect question period holds over the respectability of legislature is displayed. The first takes the form of members’ delivering statements tasked to attack an opponent’s character as opposed to their legislation. Prime Minister Trudeau’s punny remarks concerning Mr. Poilievre’s choice of glasses (House of Commons Canada, 2023a) makes up a soft-form style of character assassination, constituting similar form to NDP MP Jenny Kwan’s undiplomatic catchphrase-branding of the “Cut and Gut Conservatives” (House of Commons Canada, 2023a).
In addition to the character focused quips found within each party’s ranks, it is often found that MPs take great lengths to fulfill the adage that ministers “have always said that this is question period, not answer period” (Chong et al., 2010b, pg.5). Without a legislated requirement for MPs and ministers to answer — as opposed to simply respond — to questions, opportunities lay open for interactions where in lieu of answering a question, a minister may respond with either a rhetorical response or speech concerning a wholly unrelated topic. The use of deflection is prominently displayed within the Liberal Caucus, where carbon-tax debates are avoided and redirected towards topics constituting the active war in Ukraine (House of Commons Canada, 2023c). Without the necessity for questions to be answered directly, the ability for question period to critically evaluate legislation is neutered. Further-more the lack of required answers allows for MPs and ministers alike to submit non-question speeches degrading opposition MPs, seeding break-downs in legislative order. December 15 2023, held particular notability, with Assistant Deputy Speaker Hughes intervening over ten times within the thirty minute allotted slot for question period, correcting MPs for breaches of procedure and calling numerous times for order within the house (House of Commons Canada, 2023c).
Central to question period reform is the speaker, tasked with keeping order and ensuring proper decorum is followed. Through granting the speaker an enhanced scope of power, all other reform gains plausibility. Increasing scope allows the speaker to assess and distinguish proper answers from the poor, as well as maintaining order through authority. More so, by allotting time, perhaps one third of question period, even half as some suggest (Chong et al., 2010b, pg.5) for backbench MPs to question — while enforcing the speaker’s jurisdiction to hear spontaneous questions — question period domination by party leadership is limited. With Spontaneous questions pertinent to ongoing debates activated, enhancing legislative clarity whilst a greater number of constituencies field direct representation in question period. Further developing clarity under question period reform, requiring legislators to answer questions directly, to the speaker’s satisfaction, would head many changes within question period decorum. Firstly clarity and transparency would be greatly improved with confident answers on legislation void of topic deflection. Moreover, MPs would be required to pose answerable questions, eliminating rhetorical remarks aimed at defamation over legislation.
Aside from over-arching shortfalls targeted by question period reform, December’s question periods held on the 13th, 14th and 15th, day of the month demonstrated key political cleavages concerning topics of interest between each political party. Salient cleavages constitute, climate change affordability concerning the carbon-tax, as championed by the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC); and their focus on Mr. Poilievre’ riding’s ‘Carleton Mushroom Farm’ (Tumilty, 2023). The Bloc Québécois meanwhile remains set on issues of Québécois sovereignty, particularly with concern over new legislation regulating a Liberal Party headed dental plan (House of Commons Canada, 2023b). Both above topics represent decisive niche voting blocks of support within each party; rural Canadians who voted CPC en-mass within the 2021 election (Elections Canada, 2021), and Quebec citizens who make up the sole electorate of the Bloc (Elections Canada, 2021). This same voting niche system, accounts for the NDP’s self branding as a force pushing the Liberal government to act in the best interests of Canadians; an attempt to further capture potential Liberal-NDP swing voters to the NDP banner.
The observation of question period displays to the whole of Canadian society, a failed attempt at reasonable decorum, where legislation is critically evaluated in an effort to develop effective, efficient policy, capable of aiding all citizens regardless of political affiliation. Where one expects to find respectful questioning and discourse — disorder and rhetoric are used as bludgeons within the halls of legislature to serve partisan objectives, party whips, party discipline, and key party voting blocks, without consideration of the potential 66% of Canadians whom any select party failed to secure the vote (Heard, 2019).
References
Chong, M. (2016, January). Yes, we can fix question period. We already know how. Www.ipolitics.ca. https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/yes-we-can-fix-question-period-we-already-know-how
Chong, M., Davies, L., Jennings, M., Laframboise, M., & Lukiwski, T. (2010a). Canadian Parliamentary Review – Article. Www.revparl.ca. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=199&art=1391
Chong, M., Davies, L., Jennings, M., Laframboise, M., & Lukiwski, T. (2010b). Canadian Parliamentary Review – Article. Www.revparl.ca. http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=199&art=1391
Elections Canada. (2021, September). Map of official results for the 2021 federal election | Elections Canada’s Civic Education. Electionsanddemocracy.ca. https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/geography-elections-0/map-official-results-42nd-general-election
Heard, A. (2019). Canadian Election Results: 1867-2019. Www.sfu.ca; Simon Fraser University. https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html
House of Commons Canada. (2023a, December 13). Edited Hansard No. 267. Parliament of Canada. https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-267/hansard
House of Commons Canada. (2023b, December 14). Edited Hansard No.268. Parliament of Canada. https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-268/hansard
Leave a Reply