Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
John Barlow, that's right; he's from a riding just south of mine—a good Albertan.
Before I speak to this article and some of its contents, again, I want to provide content and material that perhaps may be used if this motion is followed through on, hopefully with the amendment, because I think that's the best way to do it. This article helps make the case for it.
I have a quote here from Katharine Murphy. This is about the U.K. Parliament, and she refers to Australia as well. She says—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
No, she is not. She's a pundit, or someone who has studied it. She says:
Question time in its contemporary manifestation symbolises everything that's wrong with political discussion in Australia—an exchange of manufactured sound bites and confected television “moments” signifying nothing at all. It is at once uncomfortably aggressive, spiteful and gladiatorial, and completely soporific.
I can only assume that Ms. Murphy at some point went to university, because I don't think anybody uses the word “soporific” all that often without prior extensive post-secondary education.
I think it's a good point, and question time, at times, turns into that. But never doubt the value of question period. I know that a lot of people would like to change the Standing Orders around how question period is dealt with, to improve it. Some people say it doesn't serve any purpose, but it's the only opportunity we have. How many questions do we really get in per day as the opposition? It's the only time we can have the ministers there directly to ask them questions. There are ministers who have been forced to apologize over the last hundred years, to resign. It's also an opportunity for the opposition to discover contradictions among ministers, different viewpoints, because as much as the executive and the cabinet members are obliged by cabinet solidarity to vote together, I refuse to believe they all think alike, that there's groupthink suddenly, that you get the “honourable” title in front of your name and you cease to think. I refuse to believe that happens.
There have been members of Parliament who were members of the executive, who have resigned on principle, whether we agree or disagree with it. There's a member of our caucus, the Honourable Michael Chong, who resigned on a matter of principle. I remember that because I was a staffer in this building when it happened. I think he did it for all the right reasons. I may not have agreed with it, but he did it for the right reasons. So there is no groupthink amongst the cabinet, but question period is the only time we have to really see what members of the cabinet are thinking and what the prime minister thinks, and whether what he or she says agrees with the cabinet members. It's the only opportunity we have.
I worked at the Alberta legislature for the minister of finance, where there was question period. Now, this was in Alberta during the 44-year reign of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. A great many of the questions were being asked by members of the Progressive Conservative Party to their own members in what's called the softball lob. There we have a question and up to two supplementals that we do, and I would say they serve no real purpose. The model we have here is not actually all that bad.
There are some things that I would change. Again, some of this is mentioned here about changing the way we do question period. But the standing order rule for relevance and repetition is suspended during question period. So a minister can get up and repeat their line, whatever that line is. Having worked for a minister, the Minister of National Defence—again, this is my background—I participated in the building of the binder every single morning. The larger your department, the more you have to remember, and that's always the great difficulty.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is it okay if we suspend for question period, and we'll let you carry on when we finish?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
We'll go to room 253-D after the vote.
As I said before, if anyone has any suggestions on our next suspensions for tonight or over the break, talk to me this afternoon.
We're suspending until 10 minutes after the vote.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I call this to order again.
We're debating the amendment to Mr. Scott Simms' motion. This meeting is televised.
Mr. Kmiec had the floor before the votes, and we will return to Mr. Kmiec.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On a point of order, I would ask for a clarification, sir. Forgive me, because I don't recall exactly, but you made a commitment to us earlier about advising when we would be suspending this evening. Are you a little closer to when that's going to be?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I am not much closer, but hopefully this afternoon, because before question period I asked any of the members who had thoughts on this to come to see me. My original thought was to go pretty late, but I haven't had any feedback yet. When we have our breaks and stuff—
4:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
When you say “really late”, like, up until midnight is late, and after that it's really early.
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's not real helpful, and you know that.
The two times we've done it so far, I believe two nights, were at 3 o'clock and midnight. Are you in that same ballpark?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If anyone has any thoughts, let me know in the next couple of hours.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I hate to belabour it, Mr. Chair, but we have a bit of a clarification on this evening. Probably tomorrow morning there will be people wanting to plan their morning schedule to be here or not be here at certain times. Can you give us any indication of what you think you would do in terms of recommencing, then?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
For tomorrow morning, what I said earlier today was that I thought we wouldn't be that late in the morning. It would be relatively early.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal