Mr. Speaker, this day is always a favourite of mine when we talk about what Parliament is and what Parliament could become by debating the rules that govern its operations. As we do so, let us keep our purpose squarely in mind. The rules should be so constructed not out of consideration for the comfort or well-being of members, but out of consideration for the common good of the nation we serve.
This debate today reminds us of how blessed we are to live in a country with long-standing and robust democratic institutions and traditions. I am thinking today about what the people of Burma have endured and are facing ahead, having struggled to achieve a partial democracy and now seeing even that very limited democracy knocked down by another military coup. Canada must engage swiftly in response to events in Burma. Some members will recall that I spent a great deal of time in this place in the last Parliament calling for sanctions against Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the armed forces responsible for the Rohingya genocide. The House recognized that genocide, but the government failed to sanction many leading members of the armed forces, and today we see the result of that failure to hold people accountable for such serious crimes. Of course, many minority communities in Burma and Rohingya in particular were deeply disappointed by the role of Burma's democratic leadership during the genocide. Sadly, not all democratic politics is inclusive. I hope that when Burma's democratic leaders get their second chance with democracy, they will do more to counter violence against minorities and promote an inclusive concept of nationhood that includes the Rohingya and all other national minorities.
In terms of our Parliament, I would like to start by talking about question period, which of course is terrible and ridiculous. It is not because of the cacophony that normally accompanies it, but because of the superficial and insubstantial nature of the exchanges that often take place. Generally, the questions are better than the answers, but that has less to do with party and more to do with the fact that government ministers have very little incentive to substantially answer questions. Most poignantly in my own experience was December 11, 2019, when I asked the Prime Minister a question about Iran. The Prime Minister responded with a prepared statement about Iraq, which is, of course, a different country. One possible way to improve question period might be to replace the Prime Minister.
Proposals have been put forward for changes to the Standing Orders that would improve question period, such as a requirement that questions be given in advance and that time limits be removed or relaxed so that ministers could be prepared and have enough time to delve into topics in greater depth. I am a bit skeptical about how much of a difference these changes would make, since they would also make it easy for ministers to bore and obfuscate with pre-planned precision. More time would create more opportunities for better responses, but it would not compel better responses. These ministers will not start answering questions unless and until the public holds them accountable for their failure to answer questions.
One simple rule for improvement might be to require that, in addition to oral responses, ministers provide written responses to every question asked in question period prior to the following day's question period, with no constraints on the length of written responses. This would be in addition to, not instead of, the existing process for written questions. This reform would still preserve the important verbal back and forth, but it would also provide ministers with an opportunity to provide more detailed policy information in response.
The biggest opportunity for question period reform is to promote the better use and increased prominence of late shows that provide the opportunity for a longer forum for back and forth on questions previously submitted, which is precisely what question period reformers want to see. Sadly, late shows virtually never feature the participation of ministers and sometimes involve the reading of pre-written responses by a parliamentary secretary not even responsible for the file. They also occur at the end of the day, when media have usually long ago filed their stories and gone home.
Social media is creating new opportunities for late shows to reach a wider audience, but I would also suggest that we adjust the scheduling of the day to have late shows immediately before or immediately after question period, and to require ministers to answer late slow questions on their own files. These modest reforms to question period and to late shows would provide more opportunity for substantive exchanges of ideas on policy issues.
One of the common complaints about question period is that it is too noisy. My contention is that, while not always done well, heckling has been a part of a tradition of this place for hundreds of years, and it should remain so. Some members have tried to suggest that it is impolite or even rude to interrupt a member while they are speaking, but what is polite or rude is entirely dependent on the cultural norms and traditions of an environment. It is rude to heckle a musician during a symphony. It is not rude to heckle a referee during a hockey game. It is generally good behaviour to avoid interrupting someone during a dinner party, but there are exceptions, such as if one has a particularly relevant point to interject. Clearly, an evaluation of what is and is not polite is dependent on an understanding of the norms and culture of a place, and heckling has always been a part of the culture of the House of Commons.
There are a few reasons why heckling is not only a tradition but a good tradition. There are 338 members in this place, and only one of them can hold the floor at a time. Heckling is a mechanism by which members can be heard and speak and can represent the voices of their constituents in short, pointed and, hopefully, thoughtful ways, even when they do not have the floor. Heckling allows more voices to be heard more often and for the House to exercise its collective voice, making approving or disapproving noises in response to what is being said.
A concrete example of this is the way in which our Alberta and Saskatchewan caucuses, in particular, explode in angry noise when other members of the House promote a flagrant disregard for jobs in western Canada. The cacophony of objection is more than our noise. It is, rather, a genuine demonstration of the consternation that certain statements stir up among Canadians from those regions. This response allows their voices, the voices of Canadians, to be heard more frequently, even when their elected members do not have the floor.
Heckling also creates additional opportunities for back and forth among members. During question period, individual heckles are rarely heard. Heckling is best done during debate when the people speaking can sometimes hear and have time to respond and incorporate a response to that argument in their speech. The culture of Parliament has been and should be an interactive one, where members are listening to each other's speeches, interjecting and being responded to. These interjections can create a challenge for the person speaking, who, these days, is often simply trying to get through the task of reading a prepared text written by someone else. However, the fact that we at times resemble a read-out-loud club more than a Parliament is a debasement of this institution. We should once again start valuing the substantive and constant back and forth that would better serve the public interest.
Of course, heckling can and often is still done badly. Speakers should not be rendered inaudible by shouting, and heckling should be sincere and substantive, instead of boring and predictable, and so, by the way, should speeches. Sadly, the existing structures of the virtual Parliament further advance our degeneration into a reading club instead of a proper Parliament. Although some have made an honourable effort in this regard, there is currently no way to heckle virtually that honours the tradition of allowing thoughtful interjections that do not overwhelm the speaker.
Right now, anyone who heckles virtually comes through at the same register as the speaker and displaces his or her image from the video feed. That is obviously a problem, but it is likely a problem with a technological fix. I am sure that a House of Commons IT team could arrange a way for members to still heckle, whereby hecklers come through at a much lower register and without their videos showing. Absent that change—
