Friday, May 16, 2003
‘Bullshit Theatre' (Encore Edition) - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
Hon. L.B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of current reports, he contemplates any further changes to his ministry?
Right Hon. J.G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the current reports are that have been turned out by the Liberal propaganda factory.
Hon. Mr. Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the Prime Minister if he considers the press, radio and television a Liberal propaganda factory?
Some honourable members: Yes.
Rt. Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I consider the inspiration to be Liberal propaganda.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear. (Hansard, February 5, 1963.)
(This column originally ran Friday, June 21, 2002.)
VANCOUVER -- Today, the House of Commons will prorogue the first session of the 37th Parliament. This will kill all motions and bills on the order paper, and barring the need to call the House in the summer (like an emergency of national significance), the House will stand not recessed, but adjourned until the fall. Then, The Queen will come to Canada for the State Opening of Parliament. With the prorogation of the House, the summer recess sends Members of Parliament back to their constituencies for a holiday until the time Her Majesty arrives to read the Speech From The Throne.
One of the things the summer recess brings is a slow down to the activities on Parliament Hill. Rather than rancour in the chamber of the Commons, the media tends to lay low until the fall sometimes focusing in on the backrooms of political power. Last summer, you'll recall the Alliance was in the midst of eating their leader, Stockwell Day. This summer, they'll watch the government deal with the G8 in Kananaskis, and watch for further moves by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his former finance minister, Paul Martin. They'll focus on the NDP's leadership race and look to the Alliance for their on-going build for support. And of course, Joe Clark's activities will warrant some attention. So without the House in session, we won't see the rancorous activity of MPs during the infamous Question Period.
The House is governed by the Standing Orders. Those are the rules that the Speaker upholds, and the Members adhere to. Standing Order 30(5) states that at 2:15 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and 11:15 a.m. on a Friday "oral questions shall be taken up." Unlike their American counterparts, the prime minister and his cabinet face questions from Members of Parliament, as to the direction, activities and actions of the government. Former prime minister John Turner called the process ‘Bullshit Theatre'. Another former prime minister, Kim Campbell, called his assessment "an apt if not altogether polite description."
Question Period is often regarded as a hallmark of our parliamentary system. For 45 minutes, MPs are allowed to prod and question the actions of the government. Standing Order 37(1) states that questions on "matters of urgency may... be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown." That rule is one of many that is honoured in the breach rather the observance. In actuality Turner and Campbell were right to note that Question Period has become a time during the day when politics, rather than good governance, reigns supreme. Sure the government's feet are held to the fire, but opposition members utilise the attention of the press and public to score political points.
MPs yell and heckle, and perhaps more so in that segment during the day, because people are prone to watching Question Period rather than a stirring debate on an obscure bill on fishing regulations or amending the statutory instruments of government. The press like Question Period, because due to the sometimes tedium of parliamentary process, Question Period affords the House and its members moments of animation. Erik Neilsen, a former deputy prime minister to Brian Mulroney, who spent a couple of decades in the House, said "Question Period has become the existence of the House of Commons."
Over the years the general public has regarded this scene as merely a waste of time and an affront to politeness and respect for the institution of governance. I've heard folks complain that since they live on the public teat, politicians should regard Parliament with less heckling and yelling. Alas, they've got it wrong.
It is perhaps less desirable that the House act so, but that is the reality of democracy. The government is forced publicly, and is politically required to answer the queries of the opposition. Of course, governments are good at side-stepping questions. Some ministers in this current government are good at acknowledging a simple question with a lengthy, verbose and convoluted answer that shirks the actual premise of the opposition query. Sometimes the public, when watching re-runs of Question Period on CPAC or on Don Newman's Politics program, will become politically motivated upon witnessing performances of the like. And sometimes the skill at asking a good question can impress the average viewer of the proceedings of our Parliament.
Jean Chrétien's skill at speaking in either of the official languages is lacklustre at best, as often his sentences are mangled. Ditto in French, since I don't speak French, I've heard he is equally incomprehensible in the other official language. Though, what Chrétien lacks in oral expression, he makes up for with political instinct. He's a good deflector of questions, and I think that's blamed on his nearly 40 years as an MP.
Stockwell Day is still good at asking questions. Preston Manning used to stack books on his desk using them as a lectern (since lecterns are forbidden in the House). Day, used to memorise questions and use his hands to emote even more. Deb Grey, Day's immediate predecessor as leader of the official opposition, used to act as a pit bull in the House, turning her back to the Speaker, confronting ministers head on with a ferocity that would sometimes throw minister's off. Stephen Harper is good at asking questions. His nose is clean and he keeps on the issues, facing the heckles with an unaccustomed dignity and toughness. Of course, Joe Clark has some significant experience of those currently sitting in the House. For 8 years he faced Pierre Trudeau in opposition, whilst another 9 as a minister in the Tory government, not to mention his own tenure as prime minister during his own short-lived ministry in 1979. Bill Blaikie of the NDP is a good questioner, as is Elsie Wayne of the Conservative party, who is always entertaining.
In Britain, where our system of Parliament was born, the atmosphere is generally more collegial. Ministers there face questioning certain days of the week, whilst the Prime Minister himself (or herself, as was the case with Mrs. Thatcher) comes in twice a week. There is yelling and heckling, but the questions are often more pointed and a prime minister must be on their toes as with one misspoken phrase, the opposition will jump like wolves to a freshly shorn piece of flesh. The Earl of Stockton (the former Harold Macmillan) when he was prime minister, would reportedly get "physically ill" prior to answering questions.
The process in Britain is different however. Opposition MPs are required to table their questions in advance. This allows the government to see them, in the hope of preparing proficient answers or the often agile rebuttal. Questions tabled on the order paper are often harmless like, ‘Mr. Speaker, I wish to know the schedule of appointments of the Right Honourable Prime Minister for today.' Then the PM would arise and rattle off the events on his diary for that day. Now, the opposition is set to pounce. After the harmless pro forma exchange, opposition MPs go for the kill asking biting queries on government policy or scandal. The congeniality at Westminster is replaced with the often witty and erudite set-tos of MPs, who practice with the proficiency of skilled QCs or your average rabble-rouser.
When the BC Liberal government here, refused to confer official opposition status to the two lone NDP MLA's, there was much criticism of the Speaker, Claude Richmond; and the perceived influence meddled by the Premier himself. However, beyond the politics of it all, the lack of an official opposition should worry us. The scene of two NDP MLA's amidst the sea of Liberals that fill-out the Legislature, is sheer cruelty. How could a government be opposed properly, by an opposition that is lacking of funds for a proper office? Also, this precedent goes in the face of the parliamentary tradition at Westminster and elsewhere in the British Commonwealth.
What truly got the dander of parliamentarians and other political watchers up, was the fact that since the opposition to the Campbell government would go unrecognised in the BC Legislature officially, opposition would be brought to the streets of the province. The Premier has become a most unpopular figure on the streets of BC or on Air Canada flights, but that's what happens when a parliament refuses to honour the rights of an opposition in its house. Now we see protesters running around, we see fire bombings at the Premier's office and at the office of his wife. That shouldn't happen, but there is no recourse when the government did not have the decency and magnanimity to recognise an ‘official' opposition in the Legislature.
Of course they are mere titles, but in a truly democratic system, a government is opposed in principle, in the confines of its House. Yes, citizens ought to (and must) march in the streets, but our democracy works with the laws of the land being drawn up in our houses of parliament rather than on the street. That is why the government and the opposition sit two-sword lengths apart in the House. The government and the opposition are two-sword lengths apart to signify the distaste towards using violence in the settling of the affairs in our democracy. Previously parliamentarians would physically hurt, maim or harm one another. Since the time of King John, physical outbursts have been replaced by more tolerated heckles and clamour from the ‘honourable members.'
Therefore, to those that say Question Period is a disgrace to democracy, I suggest taking a look at the history of it all. To those that claim Question Period is a waste of time and an abdication of dignity, I suggest realising it is a much better condition to spill figurative and verbal blood on the floor of the House, than to shed actual blood on the streets of our land.
Sure it's bullshit and a sham, but only because we've let it become that. Voters are to be blamed for the kind of performers they send to the House. Federally, voters have sent a Liberal lot that has nothing in nine years of governance to show but a ‘culture of corruption'; and an avoidance and evasion that is typified in their performance during Question Period.
***
What I didn't know nearly one year ago was, that though the Queen was to visit Canada in the fall, she did not in fact, read the Speech From The Throne. You'll recall that a week before H.M. arrived, the Prime Minister dispatched his Governor General to read what has become, his final Throne Speech as Prime Minister instead.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .