Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

Do We Need New Legislation for Question Period?

By: Ryan Young

Most people don’t bother to watch the proceedings of the House of Assembly. They get highlights of the best exchanges during question period on the news. I envy these people, as they get to bypass the unavoidable rises in blood pressure and eye rolls that come from watching the spectacle on a daily basis.

It was our second premier, Frank Moores, that brought question period into our House of Assembly after his election in 1972. The idea was to bring more openness and transparency into the legislature. Although it did accomplish that goal to some extent, Moores always considered question period a colossal waste of time and avoided it whenever he could.

The idea behind question period is a good one. Opening the government up to questions about legislative issues seems like a no-brainier. It would be except for one thing, there is nothing in the legislation that requires a member to answer a question directly and/or truthfully. In fact, it is considered un-parliamentary to call another member a liar in the House of Assembly, or to question the truthfulness of their answers. Therefore, we often have opposition parties asking the same questions, over and over, but in a slightly different way.

To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, let me quote a couple of exchanges from the first day of the current sitting of the house. Let’s start with an exchange between Opposition House Leader Keith Hutchings and Finance Minister Cathy Bennett.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is receiving $10 billion in equalization while forecasting a $2 billion surplus. Nova Scotia is getting $1.7 billion; yet, Newfoundland is running a deficit and not seeing a penny in equalization.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Have you made any effort to advocate for equalization from the federal government for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to the incredible work that our Premier and our colleagues on this side of the House of Assembly have been doing with our federal counterparts – successfully, I might add – to help lighten the burden of the financial situation that we're faced with in our province. 

Recently, there was an announcement of a $2.9 billion enhanced federal loan guarantee which will help reduce the costs associated with the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, we've seen actions that are very broad, including things like removing the tariffs from the boats that were purchased by the former administration without even considering the tariffs on those boats. 

We have been working very hard with our officials and colleagues in Ottawa and we will continue to do that. We will continue to bring back results. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. 

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't indicate if she was advocating on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador. All that she referenced in regard to funding from the federal government, we certainly applaud that, but there's a federal program under equalization that we should have access to. 

In her fiscal update, the minister talked – it wasn't a supplementary budget, it was an update. The minister herself acknowledged the unfairness of the current equalization program. 

So, I ask her again: Why are you not talking to the federal government about a fair share of equalization for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. 

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, not only are we advocating, but we're getting results. I just listed a large number of them, including a $2.9 billion loan guarantee that this government has been able to bring to fruition for the people of the province against the Muskrat Falls Project which is a huge success. 

When it comes to equalization, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Member opposite that the equalization formula as it is implemented today was negotiated and agreed to by the former administration. 

As you can see, Mr. Hutchings asked very direct questions to the minister, but the minister responded in a round-about way that did not even remotely resemble an answer to the questions that he asked. Certainly, the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee is an important issue to discuss in the house, but Mr. Hutchings was asking direct questions about equalization. Unfortunately, this is not a rare incident. In fact, if you look through Hansard for any given day, you will be hard pressed to find an example of a government member directly answering a question from the opposition members.

Another example from question period on the second day of sitting came during an exchange between Opposition critic, David Brazil, and Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, Dale Kirby.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I ask the Minister of Education: What did the review of the library system cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House of Assembly will remember, last January all agencies, boards, commissions and departments of government were requested to try and find a certain amount of savings over a number of years. The provincial libraries board, in collaboration with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, came up with a plan. In fact, they exceeded the goal, some might argue, in terms of finding savings.

There were five proposals that were worked on. There was one that was accepted. That was incorporated into the budget. Following that, there was significant amount of public feedback about the need to have further consultation with the public about those decisions and also there was an interest in having a consultant review the system.

So that's what we did. If I have additional time, I'll continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

The minister didn't answer, so I'll answer it for him. It was $187,000 for the contract, but that didn't include travel, it didn't include taxes, associated fees, stakeholder agreements and third-party surveys.

So can the minister tell me – I'm assuming a quarter of a million dollars to this point – exactly what it cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador to have consultations around libraries after you determined that you were going to cut 54 of those in this province? 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development. 

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 

I appreciate the opportunity to continue. I don't know why the Member is asking me questions if he thinks he already knows the answer to them. 

After we listened to what people had to say, the feedback that they had provided, we used the consultant that was basically the agency of record to go out and do some work. It was a major undertaking that was done. There were 10 consultations that were held around the province; two in St. John's. Those concluded on November 8. 

There was a significant amount of opportunity for people to provide feedback. There was also an online form that people could provide feedback through. There was also a survey that people could provide feedback to. All that feedback is now going to be included into a final report, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we see a minister twice asked a direct question, and both times the minister talked around the issue without actually answering the question. Mr. Brazil asked for an exact cost to taxpayers for library consultations and Kirby just plain ignored the question and responded in the usual round-about manner. He didn’t answer the question. How can this be considered to be providing the people with an open and transparent account of governments activities? Is it any wonder that Moores called it a waste of time? Is it any wonder that Opposition Leader, Paul Davis asked almost 40 questions about Labrador hydro  developments in 3 days last week, trying to get a clear answer to his questions? I’m not saying that the opposition does not put forth some dumb questions from time to time, but it seems that you can ask until your face turns blue, but nobody is going to give an answer.

So, what can we do to make it better? We need to find a way to hold members of government accountable to the spirit of openness and transparency that question period was supposed to provide. I am not exactly sure what it would look like, but there must be a way to make our elected officials answer a damn question. It is a sad state of affairs that we even have to consider legislature to force politicians to answer questions, especially when they run their election campaigns on openness and transparency. It should be the foremost thing on the minds of every elected member. Unfortunately, as you can see from the examples above, this is not the case.

If our elected officials are not willing to be open and honest with us, then maybe we do need legislation to force them. People have grown tired of endless government spin and they want real answers for a change. The Liberals are not alone; this has been going on ever since Moores brought in Question Period more than 40 years ago. The difference is that people are more informed nowadays, and they don’t have to rely on the word of the premier or one of his ministers. They can find the information for themselves and bring it to the public eye. This is a very important change that politicians have not seemed to figure out yet, but they will learn the hard way. The people have made it clear that they are tired of business as usual, and as they say; the truth will always come out in the end.