Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The backbencher

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:00am - 17 Comments

Around 3pm yesterday, Paul Calandra, the duly elected Member of Parliament for Oak Ridges-Markham, receiver of the votes of some 32,208 citizens in the last election, stood in the House of Commons during the 45 minutes allotted each day so that MPs may present oral questions for the government. He asked the following.

Can the Minister of State for Finance tell this House what time tomorrow the government will be letting this House and all Canadians know about the latest steps in our plan to create jobs, continue the recovery and improve financial security for Canadian families?

The Minister of Finance stood to respond to this and committed 82 words to the official record, none of which actually answered this question. Perhaps because Mr. Flaherty already answered this question three weeks ago.

Tags: backbencher, Budget, house of commons, Jim Flaherty, Oak Ridges-Markham, Parliament, Paul Calandra, Question Period

More by Aaron Wherry

Curious

What is the point of this article?

OriginalEmily1

It shows how paid political commercials are slipped into HOC time. LOL

Plus it tells you this is budget day, and gives you the time it will be read.

Mike514

Yeah, that's largely the point I was making below. MPs dont' always seem to use QP to ask questions and seek answers, but merely to convey a message (or "commercial" as you put it). I think the question about the time was merely tacked onto the end of this MP's message, to comply with the rules.

BCer in Mtl

Like the taglines on the ads purchsed via the In 'n' Out scheme

LdKitchenersOwn

Either

1) That there are government MPs in the House of Commons who don't know what time the Budget is being released. (not likely)

or,

2) That even a Tory asking a meaningless set-up question about what time the budget is being released isn't benign enough of a question for the government to, you know, ANSWER IT.

LOL

I don't mind a backbencher asking a meaningless question in order to give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to pontificate, that's SOP, but is it really too much to ask them to go through the motions of inserting the answer to the question into his response? Are they really so programmed not to answer the questions put to them in the House of Commons that they can't even answer the PLANTED questions?

Leo

It is a long-standing joke on the Hill, "that is why it is called Question Period, not Answer Period", lol!!

tedbetts

I think you meant to ask something like: "What is the point of this Member of Parliament?" or "What is the point of us taxpayers paying the salary and perks for this Member of Parliament?"

You are welcome.

Mike514

Aaron's link is a very interesting one. I've never before visited openparliament.ca and I'm surprised that it's run by volunteers (since it looks very complete and professional). Kudos to the team at openparliament.ca.

As for Aaron's post above, I always had the impression that QP always involved questions, but MPs would use it to ask either rhetorical or less-than-important questions, because they're making a point, not necessarily looking for an answer. Reading from openparliament.ca, I see that Paul Calandra made a pitch about the Tories and the economy, and even a shout-out to some people in his riding.

This was probably the point of his "question." Adding the largely frivolous question for the timing of the budget seems to be tacked on, simply to comply with the rules of QP.

LdKitchenersOwn

Oh, that's DEFINITELY the point of his "question" but still, it's pretty hilarious (if unimportant) that they can't even be bothered to throw the answers to frivolous questions asked by their own MPs into their responses.

It's like a dog and pony show without the pony! LOL

Mike514

I found the exchange between Irene Mathyssen (NDP MP) and Tony Clement to have much more substance (and an actual response to the question). This exchange happened just before Paul Calandra's question.

I'm sure there are several other substantial exchanges in the House, I just don't have the time or energy to look them all up (I only noticed this one because it was listed above Calandra's question on openparliament.ca).

I'm not sure what your personal views are, LKO, but I don't think the House has been reduced to a big dog and pony show (if that's what you were getting at). If one were to obtain their knowledge of parliament strictly from Wherry's posts, one would get the impression that the place is just one big circus tent. In reality, Wherry highlights only the irrelevant questions and answers, pathetic performances, etc.

When browsing through openparliament.ca, I can begin to appreciate the exchanges that occur in the House. Reading Wherry's posts made me depressed about the current state of politics in Ottawa, but perhaps the problem was that I was limiting myself to Wherry's posts?

LdKitchenersOwn

Oh, I don't really think it's as bad as all that, I just thought it was funny is all. I mean, at least answer the questions from your own backbenchers, lol.

gottabesaid

…lemme see my notes here… it says… OK, here goes…

Democracy in ACTION! Catch it!

Yeah!
Anonymous

Perhaps it's the case that a) the government isn't keeping him informed of such trifling details as this, and b) he's too busy with other important assignments (such as, say, making taxpayer-funded announcements) to keep himself informed of trifling details such as this.
tobyornotoby

MP's used to be nobodies ten minutes away from the Hill, now they're even nobodies during Question Period.

tedbetts

Is being a prop better or worse than being a nobody?

SanDiegoDave

There are days when I can't tell if I'm reading Macleans or The Onion.
briguyhfx

I hope Markham-Oak Ridges has good pressure washers. It's going to take one hell of a shower to wash all that dirty off.