Canadians deserve a better question period |
Like (I’d wager) most Canadians, question period was not part of my daily diet before being elected to the House of Commons in April last year.
Most of my exposure was through news clips and I came into my role with no strong opinions about it. But quickly it became one of my least favourite parts of the job: shallow questions, shallow answers, mad applause on both sides as though we were hitting oratory high scores in 35-second exchanges about procurement.
Too often, it feels like noise, not insight.
This Friday, the House of Commons will debate changes to its the Standing Orders — the rules that govern how Parliament works. This gives us a rare opportunity to ask a basic question: is question period doing what it’s supposed to do?
I’d argue no. At least not well.
Canada’s system is built on the idea that the government must answer to Parliament routinely and in public. That’s a good thing — a deteriorating executive cannot hide here.
But beyond serving as a daily wellness check, the current format of question period falls short. True accountability is not measured in decibels or sound bites. It’s measured in whether Canadians learn something they didn’t know before.
So, as we debate the rules under which Parliament runs, here are four proposals that I hope me and my colleagues can consider for our most important accountability mechanism:
HAVE LONGER EXCHANGES
In Canada — and uniquely in Canada — questions and answers are capped at 35 seconds each. And in 35 seconds, anyone can hide.
You don’t need to listen to the question to give the answer. You don’t need to engage with the premise. You don’t need to back up your attack. Weak performers — on either side of the House — can survive indefinitely in the shallow end.
Other countries with parliamentary systems don’t do it this way. The UK, Australia and Ireland all have short, pointed questions — but answers measured in minutes not seconds.
This was also the system here in Canada until the 1990s. The tight clock was introduced to solve the problem of certain members and ministers monopolizing the time. This is well intentioned, but the point of question period is not that everybody gets a turn.
The point of question period is accountability. But the short clock and increased number of participants meant sharply reduced information content and a strong incentive for theatrics, to stand out from your colleagues and the mass of dozens of identical queries and responses. Accountability suffered.
Longer questions and answers don’t guarantee substance, but they raise the cost of evasion. They force coherence. They expose ignorance. They reward members who understand their files and punish those who don’t.
If accountability is about information — not just performance — this is the single most important change.
LIMIT WHICH MINISTERS ARE UP ON ANY GIVEN DAY
Right now, question period is a free-for-all. Any minister can be targeted at any moment. That sounds like maximal accountability, but in practice it produces heat, not light.
Again, other countries do this differently, as does Canada’s Senate. In other countries, the prime minister answers questions on set days. Social ministers take questions on social days. Economic ministers on economic days. In Canada’s Senate, a single minister is invited to provide longer answers to longer questions — and engage on topics more deeply through the use of supplementary questions.
The effect is not to shield ministers, but to focus scrutiny. Ministers know when they’re up. They prepare more deeply. Answers improve. The information content rises. Rotating through ministers or topic areas also ensures there are no dark spots, where opposition disinterest means government weakness can go unnoticed.
It would also make Question Period more efficient. Instead of dozens of ministers half-engaged at once, you get sustained exchanges with the people responsible for the file.
STOP ASKING THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER
Every question period, blocks of questions are loops: the same question, asked five times; the same answer, delivered five times. Everyone knows it. Everyone can predict it. No one benefits from it — not Parliament, not the public.
The rules should limit the repeated asking of substantively identical questions.
Yes, defining what counts as substantively identical is tricky. The Speaker would have to exercise judgment. There would be many edge cases. But even eliminating the most egregious cases would be a meaningful improvement.
Finally, we shouldn’t be slaves to consistency.
We do not need to have the same format of question period five days a week. We don’t need to go all-in on any change. We can experiment on a day or two, and see if it produces the desired results — proceeding from there.
We could try longer questions and answers once a week. We could have two days of free-for-all and three days for more targeted, in-depth queries. Accountability isn’t one thing and Parliament doesn’t need a single tempo.
Debating the rules under which our system of government operates doesn’t happen often. When those debates do happen, we should use them to improve how Parliament works.
Theatre has a place in democratic politics. But it shouldn’t crowd out information.
Question period can be more illuminating, more substantive, and more worthy of Canada’s attention. As lawmakers, we should welcome the challenge of improving it.
Corey Hogan is the Liberal MP for Calgary Confederation.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.