Questions

Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail, usually a staunch Liberal supporter, published an article in today's paper partly blaming the opposition for the chronic misconduct of Question Period. He wrote, very accurately, that the questions posed to the government are so blatantly rhetorical and demagogic that they make it easy for the government to refuse to answer. For example, when an opposition MP asks a minister whether he's "incompetent or deliberately misleading the house", that MP can't seriously expect the government to answer.

Lawrence Martin strikes a very good point here. But one could also argue that the structure and sole objective of Question Period makes it impossible for the opposition to ask serious questions. After all, when Question Period only exists to put a member of each party on the 10 o'clock news, one shouldn't be surprised to see that the questions have little relevance.

Personally, I think the whole concept of Question Period needs reviewing. It's currently a waste of both time and money, and a source of serious embarrassment to our country. Those who defend it say that it strengthens our democratic process and forces the government to stay in tune with day to day issues. But there are better solutions. My suggestion is to adopt the British model where Question Period starts with a debate between the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and the rest of the questions deal exclusively with local issues. I really think that it would make all the difference. We'd have real debates every day on Parliament Hill, but the government would still need to pay attention to small local issues like water towers leaking in Milton or passport offices being closed in Vancouver. And unlike Senate reforms, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment.