Like (I’d wager) most Canadians, question period was not part of my daily diet before being elected to the House of Commons in April last year.

Most of my exposure was through news clips and I came into my role with no strong opinions about it. But quickly it became one of my least favourite parts of the job: shallow questions, shallow answers, mad applause on both sides as though we were hitting oratory high scores in 35-second exchanges about procurement.

Too often, it feels like noise, not insight.

This Friday, the House of Commons will debate changes to its the Standing Orders — the rules that govern how Parliament works. This gives us a rare opportunity to ask a basic question: is question period doing what it’s supposed to do?

I’d argue no. At least not well.

Canada’s system is built on the idea that the government must answer to Parliament routinely and in public. That’s a good thing — a deteriorating executive cannot hide here.

But beyond serving as a daily wellness check, the current format of question period falls short. True accountability is not measured in decibels or sound bites. It’s measured in whether Canadians learn something they didn’t know before.

So, as we debate the rules under which Parliament runs, here are four proposals that I hope me and my colleagues can consider for our most important accountability mechanism:

HAVE LONGER EXCHANGES

In Canada — and........

© iPolitics