“We do an early morning go-through…a quick scan of the news, and figure out some of the priorities for the party [in Question Period] all based on a theme that we work through with the leader and other key folks in the executive,” said Mr. Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.) of his party’s daily preparations.
And the formula seems to be the same across the House. It is typically, though not necessarily, the respective party House leaders who take charge of QP choreography and hold early morning meetings to review the day’s news and pinpoint the hot issues. Party Whips, deputy leaders, and even leaders may also be involved.
Former Liberal Cabinet minister and House leader Don Boudria said it hasn’t changed since he was in the House. “Just as the opposition would get up in the morning and they’d all get together and … structure whatever they think is topical in today’s news … for the government side they look at the same news, the same report, same everything and they say, ‘What are those guys bound to raise today?’” said Mr. Boudria, who was first elected in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Ont. in 1984 and, over his approximately 22 years in the House, sat on both the opposition and government sides of the Chamber.
Mr. Boudria explained that ministers are assigned to an anticipated issue ahead of Question Period. Once QP begins, Mr. Boudria said the government House leader “directs traffic” by pointing, or giving pointed looks, to remind a minister (or MP) they are meant to tackle a particular question, and by making on-the-go judgment calls to have a different person answer.
Neither Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.), nor his office, responded to multiple calls from The Hill Times.
Daniel Lauzon, director of communications for interim Liberal leader Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.), said the person leading Question Period, typically the party House leader, determines the party’s question roster—laying out the who, what, and when of that day’s questions—and bases these decisions on “what we feel are the most salient issues of either the day or themes that are very important to the party and that represent core values of the party.”
Question Period begins at 2:15 p.m. every day (except for Fridays, when it starts at 11:15 a.m.) and is intended to serve as a unique opportunity for opposition MPs to pose questions directly, and publicly, to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. As set out in House procedure, all MPs must attend unless otherwise occupied by other Parliamentary business. Generally speaking, only the recognized parties are allotted questions, the number of which is based proportionally upon the distribution of seats in the House Chamber.
Government backbenchers are also allotted a number of questions (typically three) to pose, though to be sure, they don’t carry the same ‘gotcha’ tone as opposition questions and are phrased in a favourable fashion to the government.
Question Period conduct has been the focus of a good deal of media attention over the years, and is often criticized for its ability to produce nasty, overly-partisan behaviour from all sides of the House.
In the 40th Parliament, Conservative MP Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills, Ont.) introduced a private member’s bill to reform QP, among other proposals, but it ultimately died on the Order Paper. At the beginning of this 41st Parliament, MPs made a commitment to clean up QP, but there has yet to be any visible improvement.
However, the way QP plays out can sometimes seem like a rigged and arbitrary process to observers. The opposition will pose a supposedly unexpected question to, say the Defence minister on the topic of a military procurement, and on the government side someone who isn’t that minister (or also, in this case, who isn’t the associate minister) will rise, prepared response in hand.
But both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Lauzon said the government does not get any indication of the questions that are going to be asked.
Yaroslav Baran, who served as chief of staff to former Government House leader Jay Hill—who served as House leader from 2005 to 2006 when the Conservatives were the official opposition, and currently is a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group, said the government will “over prepare” for Question Period.
“Every minister will walk into Question Period with potential responses to many more questions than will actually rise,” he said.
Mr. Baran explained that the government decides who the spokesperson will be on certain issues both in Question Period and in media interviews and if the responsible minister is not available, the House leader will assign someone else, for example a Parliamentary secretary or another minister.
It’s why Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont.) or Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) get up so often to answer questions during QP.
“That just is reflective of the fact that it was decided that that day they would be the lead spokesperson on a variety of issues. It’s an informal process, but it is very much still a process,” said Mr. Baran, who said the process is a daily collaborative effort between the House leader and senior staff.
“In some cases, it has to do with the government’s framing of an issue; pipelines, for instance. The opposition decides that it’s trying to frame it as a natural resources issue, or as an environmental issue or as an economic development issue. … Similarly, the government will decide how it wants to frame the issue in response, and that has bearing on which ministers are chosen to respond,” said Mr. Baran. “Question Period is a significant communications exercise for both the opposition and the government, so both sides are going to put quite a bit of work into preparing it.”
Throughout the day, opposition parties will ruminate on the possible subject, order, and person to be posing each of their allotted questions, ultimately providing House Speaker Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.) with a list of who will likely be asking questions (but not what they will be asking about) and in what anticipated order.
Mr. Lauzon said respective party leaders usually ask the first three questions of the day and the Prime Minister typically answers leaders’ questions. These questions receive the highest prominence and profile with the public as they are the ones generally aired by mainstream media, he said.
But Mr. Cullen said that even the best-laid QP plans can be changed on the fly, a decision he said can be based on the mood of the moment or the responses being given and which he said “throws off the Conservatives a little bit.”
On May 16, Mr. Cullen made such a decision. Nearly halfway through Question Period, after watching NDP environment critic Megan Leslie (Halifax, N.S.) pose two questions to Environment Minister Peter Kent (Thornhill, Ont.)—and after already having asked the first three questions of the day—NDP leader Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, Que.) once again rose to his feet. The reaction from the House was one of loud surprise.
“We had been watching the government handle questions on one particular issue—on the National Roundtable [on the Environment and the Economy]—and just how a sense of the responses were, and how weak the minister had become, and we just wanted to see if we could get the Prime Minister up,” said Mr. Cullen.
Though Mr. Kent fielded Mr. Mulcair’s first question on the environment, by his second question Mr. Van Loan could be seen making an on-the-fly decision of his own, as The Hill Times watched from the gallery. Catching Mr. Kent’s attention far down the government front bench, Mr. Van Loan, who is seated on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) immediate left, could be seen pointing adamantly at Mr. Harper’s desk—the Prime Minister, he decided, would field this question instead.
“It’s a bit of keeping the government on its toes,” said Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Baran, who said the QP prep Mr. Harper does is roughly the same as preparations done by everyone else, said “prudent” planning on the part of the government has meant he hasn’t seen “a case where an opposition MP asks a question and the minister clearly has no clue what the issue was, where it came from, and has no clue what to say about it, because every minister will be prepared.”
But both Mr. Lauzon and Mr. Cullen expressed frustration with prepared ministerial answers.
“You’ll notice that some ministers only read from text and some ministers only say the same responses,” said Mr. Cullen. “It’s an unfortunate thing that the more pointed the question, the more exact you look for information, the more vague and banal they get.”
On May 17, for example, in response to questions concerning the creation of a battalion at CFB Goose Bay, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue (Labrador, Nfld.) twice informed the House, word for word, that: “I can reaffirm that our government is working to fulfill our commitment for an operational mandate for 5 Wing Goose Bay that takes advantage of its unique location and enhances the protection of Canadian sovereignty, including in the Arctic. Since 2006, our government has consistently worked to ensure the future viability of Goose Bay through investments, such as runway resurfacing and decontaminating sites around the base.”
Mr. Lauzon said when the government responds with a “very partisan line with very little substance, that’s usually a good indication that the government was not ready for that question and that they don’t have a substantive answer.”
Mr. Boudria said even though sometimes Question Period isn’t pretty and can be “a little brutal,” he said the result ultimately “contributes to better governance and a better country.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment