It only accounts for 45 minutes of a workday that sometimes lasts more than 10 hours. But Question Period in the House of Commons is the public’s main window into the daily goings on in Parliament.
In 1949, almost a decade before he would be elected prime minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker proclaimed, “Parliament is more than procedure - it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”
Twenty-two years later, the former leader said, “The quality of debate in the House is deplorable. You watch today and count how many read from prepared texts.”
We can only imagine the words Diefenbaker would use to describe modern-day proceedings in the Commons – the storied chamber where Canada’s elected representatives question, amend and vote on legislation that rules the country.
MPs and ministers don’t often use their allotted 35 seconds to stimulate thought or debate. Instead, their questions or answers frequently appear crafted with sound bites, quips, insults, and one-liners in mind.
Other times, government offers nothing witty, relying instead on pushing the party line through a talking point.
In February, Liberal MP Marc Garneau asked Defence Minister Peter MacKay to tell Canadians about the costs of a specific modification to the F-35 jets, which would enable them to refuel while in flight.
Instead of addressing the question about the stealth fighters, which were pegged at costing more than $16 billion, the minister chose to take a stab at the Liberal member – Canada’s first astronaut and a former military officer – and question his commitment to the military.
“I had hoped, given his background, that he would boldly go where no Liberal has gone before and support the men and women in uniform,” MacKay said at the time, appealing to any Star Trek fans tuning in. “Alas, he has fallen back on that old Liberal position of playing politics on the backs of the men and women in uniform.”
The state of the Commons doesn’t fare better at other times of the day, when the focus turns to long debates on government and opposition proposals.
Granted, the partisan quibbling takes a back seat, but that could be explained by the fact that there is only a handful of MPs peppered throughout the chamber.
During these debates, the scene tends to offer one MP on his feet, speaking, while the others read a newspaper, do paperwork or thumb their BlackBerrys.
“It’s a sad story,” said Max Cameron, director of the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia. “It’s hard to take someone to Parliament, show them what’s happening, and then tell them this is an important place.”
The erosion of Parliament, as Cameron put it, has been slow but consistent, dating back to the 19th century, when politicians split into parties and governments formed caucuses, where power was eventually centralized.
The process started accelerating when Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, then gained momentum under Brian Mulroney until Jean Chretien took it even further, and Stephen Harper finally perfected it, Cameron said.
Parliament is there to hold the executive accountable, as Diefenbaker said.
But with party discipline and the cabinet bubble growing tougher and more powerful with every government, the role of the ordinary parliamentarian has withered.
Now, Canadians are left with a House of Commons where a vast majority of the members have been emasculated, eroded to the point where they often feel they can’t vote with their conscience, Cameron said.
“Of course, parliamentarians do more work than sit in Question Period, or stand to vote, but that work is done in committees and caucus meetings, which is less visible to the public,” he said. “So we’ve weakened Parliament, and with it, a pillar of accountability in the system.”
As a consequence, a certain degree of disengagement, disenchantment and disillusionment with politics has spread among the public.
When Diefenbaker was elected prime minister in June 1957, more than 74 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot. The two subsequent elections he would also win saw 79 per cent voter turnout.
The five elections held so far this century have brought historic lows, dipping below 60 per cent in 2008.
Parliament didn’t arrive at its current state overnight, Cameron said.
So turning the train around to bring a heightened sense of relevance to Parliament won’t likely happen quickly either.
Conservative MP Michael Chong tried when he brought forward a series of proposals he thought might help elevate the level of discourse in the Commons.
In a bill tabled during the last Parliament, Chong sought to give the Speaker of the House more power to enforce good behaviour and extend the amount of time given to questions and answers.
Even if those reforms ever made it through the House, politicians would have to re-train themselves, Cameron said.
“There are enormous pressures that politicians feel,” he said. “Particularly when they’re in the media spotlight during Question Period, to revert back to glib-natured comments or just toeing the party line.”
Origin
Source: Global News
In 1949, almost a decade before he would be elected prime minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker proclaimed, “Parliament is more than procedure - it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”
Twenty-two years later, the former leader said, “The quality of debate in the House is deplorable. You watch today and count how many read from prepared texts.”
We can only imagine the words Diefenbaker would use to describe modern-day proceedings in the Commons – the storied chamber where Canada’s elected representatives question, amend and vote on legislation that rules the country.
MPs and ministers don’t often use their allotted 35 seconds to stimulate thought or debate. Instead, their questions or answers frequently appear crafted with sound bites, quips, insults, and one-liners in mind.
Other times, government offers nothing witty, relying instead on pushing the party line through a talking point.
In February, Liberal MP Marc Garneau asked Defence Minister Peter MacKay to tell Canadians about the costs of a specific modification to the F-35 jets, which would enable them to refuel while in flight.
Instead of addressing the question about the stealth fighters, which were pegged at costing more than $16 billion, the minister chose to take a stab at the Liberal member – Canada’s first astronaut and a former military officer – and question his commitment to the military.
“I had hoped, given his background, that he would boldly go where no Liberal has gone before and support the men and women in uniform,” MacKay said at the time, appealing to any Star Trek fans tuning in. “Alas, he has fallen back on that old Liberal position of playing politics on the backs of the men and women in uniform.”
The state of the Commons doesn’t fare better at other times of the day, when the focus turns to long debates on government and opposition proposals.
Granted, the partisan quibbling takes a back seat, but that could be explained by the fact that there is only a handful of MPs peppered throughout the chamber.
During these debates, the scene tends to offer one MP on his feet, speaking, while the others read a newspaper, do paperwork or thumb their BlackBerrys.
“It’s a sad story,” said Max Cameron, director of the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia. “It’s hard to take someone to Parliament, show them what’s happening, and then tell them this is an important place.”
The erosion of Parliament, as Cameron put it, has been slow but consistent, dating back to the 19th century, when politicians split into parties and governments formed caucuses, where power was eventually centralized.
The process started accelerating when Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, then gained momentum under Brian Mulroney until Jean Chretien took it even further, and Stephen Harper finally perfected it, Cameron said.
Parliament is there to hold the executive accountable, as Diefenbaker said.
But with party discipline and the cabinet bubble growing tougher and more powerful with every government, the role of the ordinary parliamentarian has withered.
Now, Canadians are left with a House of Commons where a vast majority of the members have been emasculated, eroded to the point where they often feel they can’t vote with their conscience, Cameron said.
“Of course, parliamentarians do more work than sit in Question Period, or stand to vote, but that work is done in committees and caucus meetings, which is less visible to the public,” he said. “So we’ve weakened Parliament, and with it, a pillar of accountability in the system.”
As a consequence, a certain degree of disengagement, disenchantment and disillusionment with politics has spread among the public.
When Diefenbaker was elected prime minister in June 1957, more than 74 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot. The two subsequent elections he would also win saw 79 per cent voter turnout.
The five elections held so far this century have brought historic lows, dipping below 60 per cent in 2008.
Parliament didn’t arrive at its current state overnight, Cameron said.
So turning the train around to bring a heightened sense of relevance to Parliament won’t likely happen quickly either.
Conservative MP Michael Chong tried when he brought forward a series of proposals he thought might help elevate the level of discourse in the Commons.
In a bill tabled during the last Parliament, Chong sought to give the Speaker of the House more power to enforce good behaviour and extend the amount of time given to questions and answers.
Even if those reforms ever made it through the House, politicians would have to re-train themselves, Cameron said.
“There are enormous pressures that politicians feel,” he said. “Particularly when they’re in the media spotlight during Question Period, to revert back to glib-natured comments or just toeing the party line.”
Origin
Source: Global News
No comments:
Post a Comment