Although I am no longer clerk of the House, I am still an honorary officer of the House. I have always been very careful not to criticize question period too much because it is a very powerful exercise in accountability. It is very powerful, bar none, in the Commonwealth.
The Prime Minister comes for 15 minutes once a day in Great Britain, in that great mother of Parliament. All of the cabinet ministers have notice of the questions, or at least notice of who will be asking the questions. I'm not advocating that as something you should consider.
If you want to tone down question period, there is a draw for questions at the end of the day. Members file their notice for a question and the clerk shuffles them like a bunch of cards and then he turns them over for the first thirteen, and that's what's printed on the order paper. That tones it down a bit because the ministry can get ready in terms of some of the answers coming their way. It does take away, which they don't have in Great Britain to this day, the total party control of their membership in the line-up of question period. The member in Great Britain is far more independent. If he gets in the draw to get his question, it has nothing to do with his party. It may have to, in terms of the content and the policy and that sort of thing, but it has nothing to do with his party leadership. He's there because as part of the process he has been selected.
There are techniques you could look at. Notice is one, but it does diminish the power of question period to ask a question on any matter of public administration within the government's responsibility on any day, at any time. We're very demanding in Canada in asking the Prime Minister to be there most days, and the entire cabinet would be in attendance.
What happens in Great Britain with notice is, well, we know today it's only going to be on defence and social affairs, so only those ministers show up.
There are two ways of looking at it.