>Former prime minister Justin Trudeau made it his practice to answer all questions in the House of Commons on Wednesdays, a gesture meant to improve accountability within the chamber.
Referring to whatever that was as „answering questions“ is incredibly charitable. You could ask if the sky was blue and his reply would have something to do with how the conservatives don’t support Ukraine.
Obligatory that does not excuse the opposition from levelling stupid questions, but how about we start somewhere? Carney seems to be the adult in the room and I have hope he can set the right example to fix QP.
Deadly-afterthoughts on
If he is able to fix the myriad of thing that Trudeau screw up. Its not a big deal.
Furthermore, this may even help to lessen the polarization in the house.
Hope I am right.
enki-42 on
I think Trudeau had a lot of genuine attempts to depoliticize things that were unfortunately very naive and backfired on him.
– Allowing anyone to ask questions makes the naive assumption that Question Period has anything to do with actually asking questions, seeking the truth, or trying to come to a consensus.
– Avoiding any sort of advertising that could be considered campaigning allowed the Conservatives to completely control the narrative on the carbon tax.
I can respect the ideals, but practically neither were successful in their goals.
Horror-Tank-4082 on
Carney’s style is the opposite of the theatre of question period so that’s good with me. It’s an embarrassing distraction and Poilievre can keep it.
>But Canadian prime ministers rarely answer questions posed by anyone other than fellow party leaders. Ministers or parliamentary secretaries are able to answer questions from opposition MPs, even if they directly address the prime minister. The British system, on the other hand, obliges the prime minister to answer questions from leaders, opposition critics and backbenchers alike once a week.
>Not only does this prevent the prime minister from avoiding a question, it also has the effect of forcing the prime minister to field questions on a wide variety of topics. This requires the prime minister to be briefed on more than just the major files, as the British prime minister often fields questions of regional or local concern.
Looking back, we can argue that this probably didn’t reward Trudeau politically, but even if it’s mostly theatre for 10 second soundbites, I think it’s probably better for parliamentary democracy to require the PM to respond to opposition critique. Other examples of this include [Norway’s monthly „Prime Minister’s Question Hour“ and the French National Assembly experiment with it in 2024](https://constitution-unit.com/2025/02/26/why-the-french-parliament-tried-to-introduce-prime-ministers-questions/).
Knight_Machiavelli on
Canada has a very curious form of Question Period. In the UK they have Prime Minister’s Questions, which is once a week and all questions are answered by the PM. This is presumably what Trudeau was basing this off of. While I think it’s a worthwhile concept, it should also be noted that the UK does not have a daily question period. That’s the reason we have ministers respond to questions, we have *more* accountability than the UK because the opposition gets this piece of theatre every day of the week, and many questions are more appropriately answered by ministers.
PineBNorth85 on
Chretien did it on Fridays. I think this is something PMs should do. The UK has done it for a long time too.
It’s ridiculous how little accountability our leaders have here.
GracefulShutdown on
God Question Period is a rough watch for anyone who isn’t a partisan political hack. But if you’ve watched PMQs before, it can fall so, so, so much further.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
8 Kommentare
>Former prime minister Justin Trudeau made it his practice to answer all questions in the House of Commons on Wednesdays, a gesture meant to improve accountability within the chamber.
Referring to whatever that was as „answering questions“ is incredibly charitable. You could ask if the sky was blue and his reply would have something to do with how the conservatives don’t support Ukraine.
Obligatory that does not excuse the opposition from levelling stupid questions, but how about we start somewhere? Carney seems to be the adult in the room and I have hope he can set the right example to fix QP.
If he is able to fix the myriad of thing that Trudeau screw up. Its not a big deal.
Furthermore, this may even help to lessen the polarization in the house.
Hope I am right.
I think Trudeau had a lot of genuine attempts to depoliticize things that were unfortunately very naive and backfired on him.
– Allowing anyone to ask questions makes the naive assumption that Question Period has anything to do with actually asking questions, seeking the truth, or trying to come to a consensus.
– Avoiding any sort of advertising that could be considered campaigning allowed the Conservatives to completely control the narrative on the carbon tax.
I can respect the ideals, but practically neither were successful in their goals.
Carney’s style is the opposite of the theatre of question period so that’s good with me. It’s an embarrassing distraction and Poilievre can keep it.
One piece of context the article is missing: Trudeau’s Prime Minister’s question period was based on the UK’s constitutional convention of [Prime Minister’s Questions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister%27s_Questions). In [2015](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-question-period-changes-1.3355531), arguments for it were that it would improve accountability:
>But Canadian prime ministers rarely answer questions posed by anyone other than fellow party leaders. Ministers or parliamentary secretaries are able to answer questions from opposition MPs, even if they directly address the prime minister. The British system, on the other hand, obliges the prime minister to answer questions from leaders, opposition critics and backbenchers alike once a week.
>Not only does this prevent the prime minister from avoiding a question, it also has the effect of forcing the prime minister to field questions on a wide variety of topics. This requires the prime minister to be briefed on more than just the major files, as the British prime minister often fields questions of regional or local concern.
Looking back, we can argue that this probably didn’t reward Trudeau politically, but even if it’s mostly theatre for 10 second soundbites, I think it’s probably better for parliamentary democracy to require the PM to respond to opposition critique. Other examples of this include [Norway’s monthly „Prime Minister’s Question Hour“ and the French National Assembly experiment with it in 2024](https://constitution-unit.com/2025/02/26/why-the-french-parliament-tried-to-introduce-prime-ministers-questions/).
Canada has a very curious form of Question Period. In the UK they have Prime Minister’s Questions, which is once a week and all questions are answered by the PM. This is presumably what Trudeau was basing this off of. While I think it’s a worthwhile concept, it should also be noted that the UK does not have a daily question period. That’s the reason we have ministers respond to questions, we have *more* accountability than the UK because the opposition gets this piece of theatre every day of the week, and many questions are more appropriately answered by ministers.
Chretien did it on Fridays. I think this is something PMs should do. The UK has done it for a long time too.
It’s ridiculous how little accountability our leaders have here.
God Question Period is a rough watch for anyone who isn’t a partisan political hack. But if you’ve watched PMQs before, it can fall so, so, so much further.