Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to the Standing Orders.
I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but this is a venerable institution. Our regulations, procedures and practices are part of a parliamentary tradition dating back to the Magna Carta. They were adopted by thoughtful parliamentarians who came before us to respond to Canada's unique reality, and they have evolved over time. I am not exaggerating when I say that they represent centuries of work.
I am very mindful that to immediately have opinions on how to better operate could be taken poorly or viewed as presumptive, even arrogant. However, I also know that, like frogs in hot water, we can all become used to the intolerable when given the benefit of time. In those times, it is on those of us who are new and experiencing the shock to our system to speak up, to present the view of the people who have fresh eyes. After talking with colleagues on both sides of the House, I also do not believe that what I am going to say is remotely controversial, though we may disagree on how best to resolve it.
Question period is broken. Canada's system is built on the idea that government must answer to Parliament routinely and in public, and I believe this to be a very good thing. A deteriorating executive cannot hide here, as it can in the United States, but beyond serving as a daily wellness check, the current format of question period falls short of its goal of providing true accountability.
There are shallow questions, shallow answers, a degree of repetition that would make an advertiser blush, and mad applause on both sides as though we were hitting oratory high scores in 35-second exchanges about procurement. If I can relay one thing today, it is that it does not need to be this way.
Question period does not need to be this way.
There are many things that we can try to do to improve question period. There are also many lessons we can learn from our own history and from the experiences of other countries.
The Standing Orders do not actually say much about question period, other than to indicate that it happens.
Procedures and practices are established under the authority of the Speaker, often following consultation with the House leaders. Often, the goal is to ensure that changes have unanimous or almost unanimous support. That is fitting, and I am not suggesting that a mere majority should be able to make changes, but change is possible.
We can as a body be more prescriptive through the Standing Orders, or we can encourage the Speaker through our leaders to consider modification to improve accountability and to improve the value of question period to Canadians. We can experiment: We can agree to try different formats on different days; we can agree to try different formats for one session, having QP revert after that; or we can do both. Then we can see if our experiments have the intended effect or if they create new problems, and we can make changes more permanent or adjust accordingly. We can improve.
Once we embrace that, a world of possibilities opens up to us. For example, we could have different ministers answer questions on specific days. This would provide an opportunity for more targeted questioning and ensure that government weaknesses do not go unnoticed just because they involve topics that do not get much media attention.
We could limit the repetition of substantially similar exchanges. If the goal is to ensure accountability, not to get sound bites, we do not need eight versions of the same back-and-forth. We could do this or any number of other things as an experiment. This leads me to the most obvious way to improve question period.
In Canada, and uniquely in Canada, questions and answers are capped at 35 seconds each. In 35 seconds, anyone can hide. Members do not need to listen to the question to give the answer, and they do not need to engage with the premise. They do not need to back up their attack. Weak performances on either side of the House go undetected indefinitely in the shallow end.
Other countries with parliamentary systems do not do it the way we do it. We have not even always done it this way. The U.K., Australia and Ireland all measure answers in minutes, not seconds; this was also the system here in Canada until the 1990s. The tight clock was introduced to allow more participants. This is well-intentioned, but let us look at the current situation.
Before I was elected, I was a public engagement practitioner, and I would often talk about the conflict between an audience's stated and revealed preferences. Stated preference is what we say we will do; revealed preference is what we actually do. We say we want many questions, but our revealed preference is for longer exchanges. There are not 40 members asking 40 questions; members stay on one topic, one question, with a great deal of repetition for many rounds.
Here is my modest proposal. For one session, for two days a week let us do the following: lengthen the allowable time for both the question and the answer to two minutes apiece.
As questioners, in two minutes, members can lay out their values and the facts they rely on, and they can prosecute their case. They can demand information. They can show their deep understanding of the issue and where they believe our understanding may be deficient.
As answerers, in two minutes, we can lay out our values and the facts we rely on, and we can explain our decision-making and, if necessary, give our statement of defence. We can provide requested information. We can show our deep understanding of the issue and where we believe questioners' understanding may be deficient.
We can raise the level of debate and provide Canadians with thoughtful exchanges, at least from time to time, during these complex times. The purpose of question period is to provide accountability, and accountability is a very good thing. However, true accountability requires substance. Longer questions and answers do not guarantee substance, but they do increase the cost of dodging the question. They force consistency. They expose ignorance. They reward members who have have a firm grasp on their files and penalize those who do not. More in-depth discourse is the most important change we can consider.
We shape our systems, and then our systems shape us. If we allow question period to be shallow, we will become shallow. If we allow question period to be thoughtful, we will be thoughtful.
I want to end with a conversation I had with a teacher a couple of days ago. He told me that when he brought a class to question period many years ago, he was embarrassed because a lesson in democracy became a lesson in how sometimes adults act like children. We have all winced on occasion when we have looked up and have seen a class in the gallery. We see there the leaders of tomorrow watching us, the leaders of today.
I am new to the House, but what I have learned is that while we disagree often and vigorously, we have a chamber full of dedicated, kind and brilliant people from all walks of life; we just do not act accordingly in the chamber. Question period as currently constructed shows us at our worst, not our best, so let us improve, or at least try to improve. I believe that Canadians deserve better, and I believe we can do better. I hope to work with all members in providing them with better.