Refine the Madness

Maclean's writer Paul Wells often provides ironic insights concerning Parliament and has created a large following as a result. A large article penned by him in the magazine this week titled "Stop the Madness" dug its talons in Question Period and took a clearheaded view of how that particular 45-minute period in the Parliamentary day could be improved. He made three good proposals:

1. Longer is better - lengthen the time for both questions and answers from the present 35 seconds. This would provide for better quality in the debate.
2. Stick to the question - opposition questions directed at certain ministers are often answered by others, thereby leaving an unsatisfactory conclusion. Wells suggests having questions for the PM on one day, the Foreign Affairs Ministers another, and so on.
3. Reduce Question Period's importance - so much of the parliamentary day is taken up with preparation for QP itself that it leaves little time for other venues necessary for keeping the government honest.

These are all helpful suggestions but would involve a fundamental restructuring of how the present practice in Question Period works. This is not to say it isn't worth it - anything is better than what we have. But before we reach that point, I would suggest two more actions that would provide their own positive influence but which involve a refining of what is now there instead of a wholesale restructuring.The first suggestion was brought up repeatedly at the beginning of the present parliamentary session when MPs had to vote for a new Speaker. It was pointed out repeatedly that Peter Milliken, the previous occupant, had perhaps permitted things to get out of control. There emerged a strong demand for a Speaker who would limit personal slights, restore more discipline, and in essence get the House back to the practice of respect. Milliken won again and for a time exerted more serious control. But original habits have returned and the resulting chaos is debilitating. In both the House and the media, pressure should be exerted on the Speaker again to take up the original challenge and make it stick.The second suggestion involves the power of the Speaker behind the scenes. On any given day you can see the various House leaders of the parties approach the Speaker, requesting certain indulgences that pursue there own partisan interest. Milliken has been particularly good at granted such requests and thus gains the support of the House leaders. Perhaps it's time he put an end to this practice - for a time. He should bring all the House leaders into his office and say: "All right, things are getting out of hand again. Unless you get control of your own respective teams, don't come to me asking that something be altered in procedure because I won't grant it. Those of you who accede to my request can expect to continue having their requests granted, but for those who won't abide, don't even bother approaching my chair until you reign in your people."If something like this were to happen, it wouldn't take too long for these leaders to understand that political advantage would be commensurate with proper and respectful behaviour.  And political advantage is what it's all about in that place.  Paul Wells wants to stop the madness and has put forward some concrete suggestions. I say, let's see if we can refine it first with the structure that already exists. Between these two forms of ideas, perhaps we can get back to civility.