Stop the madness

Fixing question period would help the country, writes Paul Wells. Here’s where to start.

by Paul Wells on Friday, June 5, 2009 9:00am - 112 Comments

Taken together, these three simple changes conspire to turn the temperature down on Parliament’s most overheated hour. If the prime minister doesn’t have to be there every day, he’ll have more time for the rest of his duties. If the spotlight is shared along the whole front bench, problems won’t fester unexamined until they become crises. If everyone has more time to think like adults, they might act like it. And if the whole thing is over before lunch, everyone can spend the afternoon thinking about something else.

Now I’ll let you in on a secret. I’ve been pitching these changes as simple ways to improve the way politicians do their jobs. But I hope they’ll help us reporters pick up our game, too.

Staffing cuts at most newspapers and TV networks have left too many well-meaning reporters frazzled and unable to concentrate on complex stories that evolve slowly. Far easier to report on confrontation and accusation, which need no context or explanation. Far easier to take the video feed from question period, where you can always count on somebody to shout and point. If we lower the temperature of the daily circus and tuck it out of the way, then just maybe reporters will be forced to cover other stories.

And if they don’t? Then cut out the middleman. MPs should give the Speaker’s office the trivial budget allotment it would need to ensure that every debate, every committee meeting, every news conference in the Hill precinct’s two press theatres is covered by webcam, so any citizen who wants to watch any part of the parliamentary day can see it for himself. Some people complain that the problem with question period is that it’s on television. But since there’s no chance of taking those cameras away, the solution is more cameras, watching every part of Parliament, accessible by anyone who cares.

Taken together, these reforms would begin to drain the swamp in the middle of Canadian democracy. Can we make these changes? Not in mid-session. Everyone’s too afraid of change. But if parties came forward with their plans for reform now, and promised to implement them if elected, a new election could bring a mandate for change.

But first of all, a few brave souls in Parliament need to admit what’s obvious to the rest of us. Question period is broken. It poisons the rest of the day and our democracy with it. We’re not protecting accountability by preserving this charade. We’re mocking it.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

    Reporters and editors alike love controversy and despise policy, and Paul wonders why politicians anxious for “earned media” cater to them?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/mecheng1388 mecheng

    When I want a good answer to a question from a subordinate, I ask it to them and give them some time to gather their facts and formulate an intelligent response. Written submitted questions would be the best way to accomplish this. Follow up question would not have to be scripted…gives public a chance to see them think on their feet, as well as respond intelligently to questions.

    Put me on the spot about a random topic associated with my job, and I'll give you a bafflegab nonresponse as well.

    And if well thought out answers were being given, maybe the opposition (whomever it is at the time) would not be so eager to ask idiotic questions, because they would be the ones looking like idiots.

  • Janice Rose

    Hey, not so fast to discount the idea – you could also contrast to examples of the most commendable performances in QP. Classical reinforcement strategies – punish for bad behaviour and praise for good. They might get the message.

  • Terren

    You petty commoners don't know what it's like to work during QP, in Parliament. It's great and shouldn't be changed.

  • Pingback: Madness

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Kenn1959 Kenn1959

    Hi Paul:

    As an avid watcher of all things political I agree with you one hundred percent. When I put similar concerns to the Speaker in 2007 I received the following reply. Mr. Milliken seems to take no responsibility for allowing the childishness to continue. I fear that he is appeasing those who might otherwise vote him out of his perk-filled office. I also have an underlying suspicion that he feels a deep-seeded need to appear as 'one of the boys' among boys with whom he would not normally mix.

    Dear Mr. Chaplin:

    Thank you for your electronic message of February 6, 2007, which I note was also addressed to the Prime Minister’s Office and to the leaders of the opposition parties. In responding to your comments, please know that I speak only for myself and from my particular perspective as Speaker of the House of Commons.

    There is no doubt that many observers of televised broadcasts of the daily Question Period would agree that there is a need for improvement in the level of discourse during those tumultuous forty-five minutes. It is no accident that the video clips of House proceedings replayed on network news broadcasts are, almost without exception, recorded during Question Period. In the interest of fairness, however, it is important to remember that Question Period is very much the exception rather than the rule, and that most of the business of the House is transacted in a constructive, respectful manner.

    Because of the collegial character of the House of Commons and of the broad privileges enjoyed by its Members, particularly in the area of freedom of expression, no one–not even the Speaker–can act unilaterally to improve the level of discourse during Question Period. Thanks, however, to a growing consensus that such improvement is overdue, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has undertaken to study the rules of the House with a view to proposing changes to this end and has already heard from a number of authorities on parliamentary procedure.

    Thank you for your interest in the work of Parliament and for taking the time to write. Please be assured that I take these matters very seriously.

    Yours truly,

    Peter Milliken, M.P.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LeenieJ LeenieJ

    They are decent men and women who upend quiet lives, endure the indignity of electoral campaigns,

    decency begins with apologies for insensitive and depraved comments concerning things that negatively affect the ppl you represent.

From Macleans