Open, but not quite accountable
While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has i ncluded reforming question period in the House of Commons in his democratic reform agenda, the changes he’s making in the Senate affect that chamber’s question period as well. Put together, the changes to both Houses’ QPs could have the adverse effect of undermining the ability of parliament to hold the government to account — even though this is supposed to be a new age of openness and transparency.
Trudeau pledged to create a prime minister’s question period in the Commons — one day a week where the PM would answer all the questions put to him, as they do in the U. K. It’s an idea that gets floated every now and again, but the Liberals put into their platform, and one of the only committees that was struck in the week- long sitting of parliament this month was the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, which was charged with looking at how to implement these changes to the standing orders, possibly before MPs return at the end of January. One has to wonder, however, why it’s actually necessary?
As it stands, there is nothing preventing Trudeau from choosing a day every week and answering everything. Weeks into his mandate, he already has a QP record that outstrips Stephen Harper’s, showing up four days in a row ( something Harper never once did in his nine years in office) and taking all the questions put to him, albeit mostly those from opposing leaders. What concerns me, however, is that the establishment of a PMQP means that Trudeau won’t feel compelled to show up more than that single day every week. Trudeau has said that he wants to spend more time on the road to engage with Canadians, and that means fewer opportunities to buttonhole him on issues of the day. There has also been the notion floated that they would theme other QP days around certain ministries, so all questions would be put to those ministers, again, as they do in the U.K.
We live in a 24- hour news cycle, and events now happen at the speed of Twitter. The great thing about the way that our QP is structured, in theory at least, is that it allows the opposition to react to events and put questions to the PM or any of the ministers daily, with no prior notice as to what the questions will be. If QP is the main forum by which government accountability happens, it’s a pretty effective one, especially if those questions can come day after day when the situation demands it. Saving them up for a week can blunt the effectiveness of that accountability, and makes it harder for the government to answer for things that happen on days that are not themed.
The U.K., incidentally, got around this by reviving the system of urgent questions under Speaker John Bercow, whereby he could determine if an issue is important enough for ministers can be called to the chamber at any point to answer about them. There was some discontent with ministers having to drop everything to answer the summons, but it at least allows for there to be a mechanism to hold government to account in a timely manner. As it stands, there are no such provisions in the Canadian Standing Orders, meaning that we would be getting less accountability under a revised PMQP system, not more.
Meanwhile, down the hall in the Senate, question period is about to face its extinction with the seeming intransigence of Trudeau to avoid naming a proper government leader in the Senate as part of his plan to make the chamber “non- partisan.” Traditionally, because the government leader is in cabinet, he has access to the prime minister’s briefing book, and is the conduit by which the Senate holds the government to account on a daily basis. While Harper made the decision not to put Claude Carignan in cabinet, Carignan nevertheless had access to the briefing materials and support from the Privy Council Office, making him a de facto minister without the title or salary. Trudeau, however, has stated that when he names a government leader from one of his first five independent appointments, that person will not be in cabinet, and will simply act as leader for the purpose of co- ordinating government legislation — nothing more.
This blows a hole in the Senate’s ability to hold government to account. While senators are currently floating the idea of calling ministers to the bar of the Senate to answer questions put to them, it’s not timely, nor is simply calling ministers before committees. Greater independence in the upper chamber may be one thing, but hampering their ability to do their jobs is another. Trudeau should think carefully about the direction he’s taking.