Has Question Period become so uncivil it needs to be reformed? - Macleans.ca
 

Has Question Period become so uncivil it needs to be reformed?


 

 

Has Question Period become so uncivil it needs to be reformed?

  1. QP used to be an opportunity to get the PM and the government to answer legitimate questions. Only since it was televised has it deteriorated into this highlight-grabbing debacle we see today.

  2. What I resent most about about this televised debacle is the all too common smart-assed, smart-alecky replies that do not answer the question.

  3. as was discussed the other day on P and P, the behavior is worse without the cameras, and it was felt that more cameras on the benchers and their lack of attention and decorum might alert their constituents to what else goes on in QP. the behaviour is deplorable and childish. And yes, the questions are seldom answered, just diversionary tactics, -baffle me with bs.

  4. What a waste of time. I would never have a school class watch this to see 'democracy in action'
    In fact, no school class would (or should) be allowed to act like this!!

  5. It is not sensible to believe that parliamentary histrionics represent the value, the substance or the principles of a democratic system. Nor should we believe that voters themselves express the values and arguments of value to a democratic system.
    The place and value of the accursed hubbub has its place more within the form rather than the substance of democracy.
    The point is that whether or not debate sinks to the level of caterwauling, even that has its place.
    Of course, it is also much more entertaining, given that usually not much comes of it.

  6. It's time the tactics changed. As far as I know –no one wants to listen to the– "with in" fighting going one –for the viewers benifits. The whole problem is– none of the partys ask ligitmate questions!!! It's just become a –game–to them–all! Lets get back 2 the drawing board & each party tell the public what there agenda is– what they will do about it– & why!!! Perhaps –then– we will listen.

  7. Apparently, the constant increase in MPs salaries has failed to attract individuals that can act like professionals. Time to shift to merrit pay, I say.

  8. The behavior of our elected government at times is despicable, I have heard it said it is all a act. I dont believe that!!, if you act like a idiot, you are a idiot. I also heard discussion on removal of the cameras from Question Period, Never!!!. QP may be a circus at times, but if you have any sense of being able to read a person's mannerisms,body language and facial expressions, you can decipher the persons truthfulness, sincerity,disdain for MPPS and all Canadian constituents, and that is why , if Parliamentariens are actually advocating the removal of cameras,

  9. Don't take it on the Question Period. It's a useful, democratic tool. What we need is to disciplin those "actors" to behave respectfully and address with dignity to the issues which actually affect us, the voters.

  10. The party leaders bear heavy responsibility in this. If members can be controlled for a whipped vote, the same should apply to their behaviour. Presently there's another factor: when a government representing less than 20% of eligible voters constantly browbeats the opposition , when 5 parties contend for seats in a system made for 2, this is an inevitable result. Let's have proportional representation and formal coalitions.

  11. YES! Step one: get rid of the Reform party

  12. Well, as a Canadian who doesn't live in Canada, all of you who DO live in Canada need to realize one thing: it's Canada: nobody else in the world watches your Question Period, and, frankly, nobody else in the world cares.

    • As if we in Canada didn't know that nobody else may care…until they reach the age of 65 perhaps. But we care, as we should. So, what is your point ?

  13. Two words for ya: DREAM ON!

  14. Worse behavior than children in a sand box.These adults need to be spanked or suspended without pay.What a joke to watch these yahoos!!!!!!!

  15. Whatever happened to the elected Representatives working together for the good of the nation's people who elected them. It's always disgracefully "one-upmanship" ~ "look at me shout him/her down" ~ "I won't answer appropriately……"I'll just blither & sound like I know what I'm talking about"! Where's a Speaker of the House with some sense of decorum & control over these Bozos…..where's the professional courtesy & work ethics of a real, Patriotic, Politician who truly wants to accomplish something for the Canadian people and address THEIR goals, not the Party Heads' glory seeking goals because they assume they know what's good for Canada; but, are not 'in touch' with the people????

  16. Hello all; and especially Mr.Brazeau above: (due to length issues one comment has been split into two posts)

    With respect: Aren't there rules for decorum in the House of Commons? If there are, my understanding is that the Speaker of the House is responsible for enforcing them.

    So, why doesn't the Speaker simply do his job and enforce the rules of decorum? It seems to me that ordering the Sergeant at Arms to escort recalcitrant/repeat offenders out of the (our) House could go a long way to restoring the "civility" that is so sadly lacking.

    But then again, I learned all of this is school and admittedly that was 50 years ago. Maybe the "rules" have been changed since I was a kid in school . . .

    But if they have not been changed, "we" / "they" don't really need to do anything except request that the Speaker enforce the rules governing decorum respectfully, intelligently and consistently.

  17. second part of two:

    But then again, when did anyone really want to follow the rules, (especially of courtesy and decorum) when they can "bully", "distract", "confuse" "obfuscate" "get their own way" or "get away with it"?

    I think simply ordering the Sergeant at Arms to escort recalcitrant repeat offenders out of the House would go a long way to demonstrating the Speaker's commitment to fair, reasonable, rational, intelligent, respectful, thoughtful debate in the House.

    The point is, there is no point in having rules if the rules are not, or are refused to be, enforced. And if enforcing the rules breaks with "tradition" then I for one am all for breaking with that "tradition" in order to create a new "tradition" of fair, reasonable, rational, intelligent, respectful, thoughtful debate in the House that the citizens of this country (in my opinion) deserve.

  18. If you watch the BBC broadcast of the U.K House of Commons question period you get a sense of what the QP in our House of Commons could and should be like. The U.K. Speaker rules the roost, not like the lame duck non-approach that the speaker in Ottawa takes.

  19. If John Baird is the measuring stick of this Parliament, it's worse than ever. Given that he's been named Parliamentarian of the Year, best you not hold your breath for reform.