The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended. While the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible, members are expected to be mindful of their words and behaviours within the realm of what would be considered parliamentary.
I wish to echo the words of Speaker Milliken, which can be found at page 3719 of the October 5, 2006, Debates:
But the exercise of that freedom of speech ought to be based on the underlying principle of respect to the House and to other members. Conduct should not cause a disruption to proceedings.
It would be an understatement to say that we have been plagued in recent weeks by what any observer would have to admit is an unusually noisy chamber, particularly during question period. Some of the disorder is being triggered by questionable language or provocative statements.
But much of it also appears to be generated by interruptions, interjections or other demonstrations...actions that seem to be designed to drown out or plainly disrupt those asking questions or those answering them. But when the noise reaches levels where no one, not even the Speaker, can hear what is being said, the House as a whole loses some credibility.
So I appeal to all hon. members for cooperation. I will continue to try to give members wide latitude in expressing their points of view, but I ask for all members' assistance in ensuring that we can all hear the member who has been recognized and who has the floor.
Going forward, I will be fair and will ensure that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can freely speak their minds, vigorously hold the government to account, challenge each other’s ideas and thoroughly consider public business. However, as your Speaker, I will equally be looking for ways of improving the overall decorum in the House and I will be dogged in that pursuit.
I commit to doing this as your servant, to enforce the rules that you yourselves have given the House on your behalf. I will do so with humility and with an outreached hand. Within our purview, all the Chair occupants will work collectively to ensure that the rules of order and decorum are respected, applied consistently and applied to the same standards.
As another of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, stated on December 12, 2012, at pages 13215 and 13216 of Debates:
My task as Speaker is to ensure that the intensity of feeling expressed around some issues is contained within the bounds of civility without infringing on the freedom of speech that members enjoy. The Chair tries to ensure that our rules are adhered to in a way that encourages mutual respect.
However, all members will recognize that ultimately the Speaker must depend on their collective self-discipline to maintain order and to foster decorum. My authority to enforce the rules depends on the co-operation of the House.
Our electors expect all members to make greater efforts to curb disorder and unruly behaviour. So I urge all members to reflect on how best to return the House to the convivial, co-operative atmosphere I know all of us would prefer.
Because of the collegial character of the House and the broad privileges enjoyed by its members, no one—not even the Speaker—can act unilaterally to improve the level of decorum in the chamber.
Despite my own strong individual determination to maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House, ultimately those efforts will come to naught without members themselves taking responsibility for their behaviour and conduct, and showing their own personal efforts in comporting their business in an appropriate and civil manner. I will therefore need your help in order to succeed.
From what I have observed over the years as a member, the following issues have deteriorated and need to be addressed.
First, excessive, disruptive and loud heckling must be toned down. Occasional heckling has always been a part of our proceedings, and a lighthearted or clever comment will often enhance debate rather than detracting from it. However, far too often, heckling is boorish and rude, designed to intimidate, insult or drown out others. Members have a right to be heard and to hear the proceedings going on around them. The frequent and time-consuming disorder that heckling creates must stop. Excessive interruptions must be curtailed.
Second, while I am committed to protecting the individual privilege of freedom of speech necessary for our debates, too frequently our ideas and thoughts are expressed in provocative terms leading to tense exchanges that harm the necessary collegiality for our work. We have, in the past, had members likening their colleagues to Mussolini or calling each other racists or shouting obscenities. Latitude in expressing one's point of view will be given, but questionable language and unnecessarily provocative statements will no longer be tolerated.
Finally, the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.
I would also include comments designed to draw attention to the absence of members as a means of embarrassing them, even though this is against our rules. As many of my predecessors have underscored, members must go to multiple places to fulfill their duties.
I will point out that there are examples of these sorts of comments on all sides of the House. Insofar as personal attacks can be limited, I will use whatever tools I have at my disposal to do this.
The above-mentioned issues tend to be displayed most prominently during statements by members and the daily question period. This is unfortunate, because it is when our proceedings receive the most attention from those watching, or from the public in the galleries, and from which clips are most widely circulated on social media.
These are the issues I will focus most of my efforts on resolving.
While the House is the master of its own proceedings and the Speaker its servant, the Chair has the authority to enforce rules of debate to maintain order and decorum so that the House can conduct its business in an orderly fashion. The Standing Orders of the House state explicitly that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and decide questions of order. This duty, which extends to the other chair occupants, carries with it a wide-ranging authority covering matters as diverse as the behaviour and attire of members, the conduct of proceedings, the rules of debate and disruptions on the floor of the Chamber and in its galleries.
As such, any challenge to the authority of the Chair by refusing to respect a call to come to order, to withdraw language ruled to be unparliamentary, to cease irrelevance and repetition in debate or to stop interrupting a member who has the floor can be addressed through recourse to a number of options. For instance, the Chair may recognize another member or refuse to recognize a member until the offending remarks are retracted and the member apologizes immediately in person, or at a later time in writing, to the Speaker. As a last resort, the Chair may name a member, which is the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker's disposal.
In the days and weeks ahead, as I proceed as outlined above, I will continue my discussions with individual members, as well as with House officers in the different parties, to see how we can join forces in our collective objective of improving the decorum in our proceedings.
I thank all members for their attention and invite them to reflect on the statement I have made today. I also wish to indicate that members are always free to come and see me if they wish to discuss the matter further.
