Let the desk-banging and shouting resume
Dignity be damned: B.C.’s MLAs are unlikely to follow Quebec’s example and tame the drama in the legislature
As B.C. MLAs rehearse their enthusiasms and fulminations in advance of next week’s reconvening of the B.C. legislature, the province of Quebec has thrown out a challenge of sorts by adopting new rules of civility during question period.
The change saw members on both sides of the national assembly forgo applause during the asking and answering of questions, under rules adopted unanimously in the name of “discipline, dignity and respectability” at the urging of a longtime member of the Parti Quebecois Opposition.
The change meant a tamer set of proceedings when the assembly resumed its fall session Sept. 15, the only glitch being a last-ditch flutter of applause during the adopting of the new rule.
“Let’s pretend I didn’t hear anything,” joked legislature Speaker Jacques Chagnon, as the guilty party slumped under a desk, according to an account by Philip Authier in the Montreal Gazette.
But the change of tone was not as dramatic as it would be if a ban on such displays during question period were adopted in the generally more raucous B.C. house.
For as Authier noted, the Quebec house way back in the 1970s ended the furious displays of desk-banging associated with Westminster-style parliaments in favour of relatively less noisy hand clapping.
Some B.C. members on both sides do show a preference for applause. But there is still much thundering of desks at the slightest opportunity.
Both Premier Christy Clark and John Horgan revel in the theatrics of question period, it being a preferred way for each of them to fire up the troops. It’s unlikely either leader would be inclined to follow the Quebec example; pleas for dignity, discipline and respectability notwithstanding.
Another question period innovation emerged recently from the mother of parliaments, during the first appearance in the British House of Commons by the new leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. Drawing on the new-way-of-doing-things theme of his improbable victory in the Labour party leadership fight, Corbyn announced he would crowdsource the questions for his initial matchup against Prime Minister David Cameron.
Some 40,000 correspondents suggested possibilities by email. Corbyn picked six from — as he identified the authors — Marie, Stephen, Paul, Claire, Gail and Angela.
Topics included affordable housing, extortionate rents, funding for mental health and, by all accounts, the prime minister didn’t work up a sweat in answering.
“Mr. Corbyn’s shortcoming was that while Marie, Stephen, Paul, Claire and Angela are presumably lovely people, they are not particularly good at asking questions that will hold the prime minister to account,” wrote Jim McDermott in a parliamentary sketch in the Financial Times.
“Perhaps they will be content to receive answers that could have been read from a departmental press release but in time, Labour supporters may want to see Mr. Cameron being seriously tested by rigorous, detailed queries.”
The B.C. Liberals, in their first term in government, experimented with fielding questions put to them by members of the public. But that was a response to the Opposition having been reduced to two members in the 2001 provincial election.
I doubt the exercise would be any more testing or less gesture-ridden if it were to be repeated today. But if the crowdsourced questions were reflective of the unparliamentary language on social media, there’d have to be a lot of judicious editing before they could be read out in public.
The weekly set-aside for prime minister’s questions is one of the worthy institutions in the British Parliament. And Justin Trudeau has promised to bring that innovation to our House of Commons, if he is successful in leading his Liberal Party of Canada to power on Oct. 19.
The B.C. house is arguably partway toward adopting the innovation, albeit without institutionalizing it into the rules or including such U.K. wrinkles as putting initial questions in writing and picking the order by random selection.
On those days when Premier Christy Clark is in the capital for question period — usually Wednesday and sometimes Tuesday or Thursday, as well — the Opposition will often target her for most or all of the questions.
She expects it, indeed revels in it, and has evidenced disappointment on those rare occasions when the New Democrats have left her alone.
But much as the tone and variety of the B.C. question period might be enhanced by a well-placed reform or two, not likely would the government effect truly substantive change by, say, getting in the habit of actually answering the questions as they are put.
Still, from the Japanese parliament comes a reminder that things could be worse. Twice recently, proceedings there were disrupted by physical confrontations between legislators.
Observers couldn’t resist the irony that the skirmishes were provoked by a debate over pacifism — specifically legislation that would to some degree militarize the country and dilute the constitutional renunciation of war and threats of force.
But it was scarcely the first time that the parliament of the “peace-fostering” nation had erupted in such a fashion. The Wall Street Journal recently posted six instances of physical confrontations between Japanese politicians over the years.
The denizens of the B.C. legislature have on rare occasions voiced physical threats toward each and I can recall a couple of memorable confrontations where MLAs came close to acting on them. But they’ve so far managed to confine such excesses to the rhetorical realm, much as the B.C. house lacks dignity and decorum in other ways.