![]() |
The Speaker ensures that debate conforms to the rules and practices that the House has adopted in order to protect itself from excesses. While the House is the master of its own proceedings and the Speaker its servant, the Speaker has extensive powers to enforce rules of debate and maintain order so that the House can conduct its business in an orderly fashion. Indeed, the Standing Orders state explicitly that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and decide questions of order.[333] In addition, the Standing Orders empower the Speaker to call a Member to order if the Member persists in repeating an argument already made in the course of debate or in addressing a subject which is not relevant to the question before the House.[334] The preservation of order and decorum has been a duty of the Speaker since 1867, but the task was never more difficult than during the early years of Confederation. Speakers at that time were regularly confronted with rude and disorderly conduct which they were unable to control. The throwing of paper,[335] books,[336] and other missiles, including firecrackers in one case,[337] combined with the noises Members made imitating cats,[338] making music[339] and generally being loud, made for a very riotous assembly.[340] The early twentieth century House was calmer and more austere, although in 1913, during the debate on the Naval Aid Bill, disorder in the Chamber grew to a point almost beyond control.[341] Subsequent occasions of turbulence were infrequent and usually occurred in connection with the imposition of closure.[342] It was not until 1956, during the Pipeline Debate, that the Speaker again had great difficulty preserving order.[343] The 1960s with a succession of minority governments and the late 1970s with the introduction of televised sittings also proved to be challenging. Speakers Jerome, Sauvé, Francis and Bosley all had to contend with scores of language breaches and other violations of order and decorum.[344] During the 1990s, both Speakers Fraser and Parent were obliged to deal with a number of incidents of disruptive behaviour.[345] During the minority Parliaments of the following decade, the decline in decorum continued to the extent that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was asked to consider recommending changes to the Standing Orders in order to strengthen the disciplinary powers of the Chair. While admitting that “drastic options” might prove necessary in the future, the Committee recommended that the parties assist and support the Speaker in maintaining decorum and encouraged the exercise of “the full extent of [the Speaker’s] disciplinary powers”.[346] Accepted conventions of parliamentary conduct and respect for the authority of the Chair are normally sufficient to permit order and decorum to be maintained during debate and other proceedings. However, if a rule of debate is being breached,[347] the Speaker will intervene directly to address a Member or the House in general and to call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive.[348] The Speaker’s declarations on disorderly or indecorous conduct are typically made quickly before any discussion takes place. Members rarely defy the Speaker’s authority or risk evoking the Chair’s disciplinary powers. If a Member challenges the authority of the Chair by refusing to obey the Speaker’s call to order, to withdraw unparliamentary language, to cease irrelevance or repetition, or to stop interrupting a Member who is addressing the House, the Chair has recourse to a number of options. The Speaker may recognize another Member,[349] or refuse to recognize the Member until the offending remarks are retracted and the Member apologizes.[350] As a last resort, the Chair may “name” a Member, the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker’s disposal.
|
![]() ![]() |