Exactly.
This is several pages long, so I'm not going to read it into the record because I have other things I want to get to.
When you're debating an issue such as this or discussing an issue such as this, we can think it analogous to the NAFTA negotiation. It's a complicated subject. Anyone speaking on it ought to know their files. If you look at this example, we talk about question period being question period, not answer period. This is an example of a legitimate answer period. If you look at some of the questions that are asked to the Prime Minister, she actually responds to the questions. There's a legitimate effort made to respond meaningfully to what is asked. This is not something that you can enforce in a standing order. It's not something you can enforce through a Speaker, at least not currently. It's a fascinating discussion, an ability to read a question, and sometimes a very specific question, and the answer that comes back, whether it's something as simple as how negotiations will be undertaken or what trade deals might come into play afterwards. There are meaningful responses.
Here's one example. I won't go into too much depth. One MP, Hilary Benn, from Leeds Central asks the big question about whether in the event of Brexit we would be able to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU and on what terms.
The Prime Minister responds, “As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we do not yet know how the European Council will choose to frame the negotiations”.
She acknowledges that there's a lot of uncertainty. She mentions:
...it will meet on 29 April to determine that. There will be two parts, if you like, to the work going forward: one is the process of withdrawal and the terms of withdrawal; and the other is what the future relationship will be. It is clear in article 50 that the former should be done in the context of the latter, so it is not just reasonable but entirely right and proper that we look at those two issues alongside each other.
As I have said in answer to other questions, the point about a comprehensive free trade agreement is that we will not be operating as a third party, such as Canada, for example, when it started its negotiations with the European Union. We are already operating on the same basis—we already have free trade between the European Union and the United Kingdom—and I believe that sets us on a better basis on which to start the negotiations...
She acknowledges that she may not be able to fully answer the question to satisfaction, but nonetheless provides clear details, clear strategies that the government could follow going forward in its negotiations with the European Union.
I cite this just because there is a lot of discussion that we have on question period, on how it operates. I don't think we can simply say we'll have a Prime Minister's question period on Wednesday, wipe our hands, and say, good job, let's carry on. It has to be looked at in context. What other mechanisms are we going to change or are meant to go with it? The U.K. Parliament is a good basis because we do share that history, but it's not the only Westminster system in the world, it's not the only Commonwealth country in the world. Having the opportunity to look at some of these different parliaments is where we need to go on issues such as this.