It’s called Question Period not “Answer Period”

I just got the latest issue of Policy Dialogue from the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy. Among the many interesting articles was one by Heather MacIvor entitled “Question Period – More sound than substance?”

In this article she traces back the history of Question Period. Did you know that the first recoded question by a British parliamentarian was in 1721 in the House of Lords? Around the 1850’s the practice of setting aside time for MP questions was established with Standing Orders established in 1902 that prescribed oral responses to written questions. That’s right, questions had to be submitted in writing. In the UK, questions to the PM were limited to two 15 minute periods a week (Tuesdays and Thursdays) as a “concession to Winston Churchill’s declining health.” In 1997, Tony Blair changed this to one 30 minute session per week. Ms. MacIvor notes that “until recently, British MPs had to provide written notice of oral questions.” That is not a lot of time to ask questions of the PM, especially as compared to the practice in Canada.

I remember a Minster saying to me once that this was called “question period” not “answer period”. It seems that though QP can be a significant accountability mechanism in Canada, QP has devolved into something more akin to a verbal sumo match. Each side is trying to score political points. The questions are really statements to the effect that the government is either incompetent or corrupt, with a “don’t you agree?” at the end to make it a question. Similarly, responses are usually about what the opposition did when they were in power however many years ago (though that starts to get stale after a while). No one really answers questions. It is not really a forum for a civilized debate that could possibly change public policy. Was it better before the advent of television? I guess, both questioners and respondents did not have to worry about the 20 second sound bite. There was probably more mingling between the political parties in those days than there is now. Have we devolved in extreme partisanship and polarization, where real debate and consensus cannot be achieved? I hope not. The best ideas are generated through civilized discourse and where a consensus is reached.