SPEECH: Modernizing Question Period in the Senate

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the ninth report of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization dealing with our most favourite time of the day in the chamber, Question Period.

A number of senators have spoken to the ninth report, which was presented over a year ago. I have looked over the debates, and it seems to me there are two opposing points of view on this question of Question Period.

On the one hand, we have colleagues who feel that Question Period ought to be protected. They see oral questions as a key to holding the government to account and fulfilling their duty to represent their regions.

Other senators have argued that we ought to divest from Question Period entirely, because they see oral questions as an inefficient way of getting answers. From their perspective, the Senate would be better served if senators submitted more written questions and created as much time as possible, therefore, to scrutinize legislation.

So here we have two opposing points of view, and I actually think that the Modernization Committee’s ninth report finds a reasonable middle way forward. It does not do so without consideration of the other Senate modernization reports that have been put to us. I speak in particular about the eighth report on broadcasting our proceedings, and I think it connects very well to the ninth report. Televising our proceedings is bound to have an impact on the way we see Question Period and the way we interact with one other, and it’s bound to influence how Canadians perceive us.

As our small screen debut comes closer, it is our responsibility, I feel, to determine how our chamber proceedings ought to be presented to the public. Not only are we looking to change the channel on how the Senate is perceived, we’re also looking to turn up the volume on this institution’s best features.

Right now, Question Period is the focal point of every sitting day in both the House of Commons and in the Senate, and they typically occur once per sitting day in both chambers. Both are designed to hold the government to account and are largely governed by the same rules and procedures.

So we have to ask ourselves: What makes Senate Question Period different? How does the Senate add value to the legislative process? What are our institutional strengths and how are these strengths reflected in our Question Period?

Last year I had the privilege of launching Samara Canada’s latest report on heckling in the House of Commons here on Parliament Hill. Time and time again during this evening, individuals — and politicians, primarily — came up to me with an almost universal consensus. They said Senate question periods are far more cordial and far more substantive and place far more emphasis on the public record than on talking points and theatrics. There is far less heckling in this place, although we do have some, and I would not maybe go as far as calling it heckling. I would call it friendly jostling, but there is a little bit of that.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Omidvar: I think we have a fair amount on both sides. Let’s grant that.

We do not set limits to the time on the questions we ask, nor do we set a time limit on the answers that are given. I believe this is maybe both good and bad. On the one hand, everyone has a really long time — Senator Smith, I’m looking at you — to ask questions. Senator Harder, you have a really long time to respond to answers, or in this case, as a minister. This allows — no heckling, jostling only. No heckling, please. This allows for a deeper dive into policy issues.

However, I have also seen questions and answers that serve as proxies for statements and bafflegab. A solution to this, perhaps, should not be so much embedded in Senate rules but in modelling our own behaviour and asking focused, pointed questions and getting focused, pointed answers.

This holds true for our questions to ministers as well. While some ministers present their government through rose-coloured lenses, this hour is far more informative and cordial than what the House of Commons offers. I note from last week, in particular, the excellent Question Period where we had Minister Qualtrough. She got real questions and she gave us real answers.

Senator Harder, please inform her that we are happy to have her here any time again.

The recommendations found in the ninth report reflect those two qualities. The first two recommendations ask that we formalize the current practice of inviting ministers to appear in the chamber during Question Period and extend the invitation to officers of Parliament.

The recommendations in the ninth report also allow us to focus, in the chamber, on our committee work. We often hear, in the chamber and outside of the chamber, about the Senate’s proven track record when it comes to committees, but it is rarely reflected in Question Period. Committee chairs do not often get the opportunity to take questions from their peers and answer questions about special hearings or the latest committee reports. This ultimately prevents opportunities for senators to continue the conversations and propel committee recommendations forward. I must note on this point how much I personally miss Senator Fraser because she would ask committee chairs very good questions.

This was a comment made by many of the witnesses who went before Senate Modernization. I believe the gap needs to be closed now more than ever as we move to broadcast our proceedings. We must acknowledge that our committee work is a source of relevance for Canadians. It ought to be at the forefront of a modern, open and transparent Senate.

The ninth report’s third recommendation asks that the Senate limit Question Period to two days per week. This would allow senators to devote more time to scrutinizing legislation while leveraging multiple formats of Question Period. The first would be devoted to a minister or an officer of Parliament, and the other would be devoted to a government leader or a committee chair or possibly a mix of both.

Once again, this recommendation I think goes beyond its literal meaning and sets a new precedent for the Senate to ask that senators amplify important committee work in the chamber itself. It asks that we take the recommendations devoted in committee rooms and continue these conversations here in the chamber. In televising these proceedings, it asks us to invite the Canadian public to join us in these conversations.

The potential for these changes is tremendous considering the issues of the day when they are matched and are being addressed by a committee. Let’s take, for example, the Rohingya refugee crisis. If the Senate is unable to receive the Minister of Foreign Affairs to speak to new developments, such as the repatriation agreement that now exists between Myanmar and Bangladesh, the next best person to answer the question might just be Senator Munson, who was Chair of Human Rights when the Rohingya refugee study was done.

Honourable senators, frankly, Question Period is an acquired taste. You either love it or hate it. I vacillate between both points of view. I would much rather, as Senator Mercer has said, have an answer period. I’d like to turn this whole discussion from Question Period to answer period. One of the ways we can do that is, I believe, to either model and self-discipline ourselves as we ask questions and answer them or consider setting time limits. I’m not proposing an amendment, but I am proposing that this is something that the Rules Committee may want to consider along with all the other very good ideas that have been put on the chamber floor pertaining to this report.

In summary, I believe that the recommendations in the ninth report are a reasonable compromise. First, they differentiate our QP from that of the House of Commons. Second, they play to our institutional strengths. Third, they give us more time to focus on legislation. And fourth, they play up our collegiality and committee work.

Perhaps most important, it gets us ready for the new world in more ways than one. For these reasons, this report should be sent to the Rules Committee as soon as possible for consideration.