Guest post by Simon Lono
The latest House of Assembly Twitter flap raises more issues that it first appears. Leaving aside the wisdom of the timing, it’s worth understanding why the point was raised at all.
The latest House of Assembly Twitter flap raises more issues that it first appears. Leaving aside the wisdom of the timing, it’s worth understanding why the point was raised at all.
The Telegram, in their Saturday thundering and mocking editorial condemned
the whole exercise because “We actually have a right to know if you or your
fellow MHAs don’t deign to come to work”.
This is true but ultimately irrelevant to the issue.
And like so many rules of parliament, pointing out absence or presence of
members just seems silly until you examine why it’s there.
A recap: Steve Kent re-tweeted from James McLeod that three MHAs (Gerry Byrne, John Finn and Sherry Gambin-Walsh) were not in the House for
a budget vote. Dale Kirby raised a Point of Privilege alleging that Kent
broke the rule regarding making reference to the absence of members.
First, Speaker Osborne noted that this was not a Privilege
issue but a Point of Order. And Osborne even said Kirby would have been
more successful if he had raised the right point in the first place.
It’s a point of order because the Canadian standard book on
parliamentary practice, O’Brien and Bosc, says it is: “Allusions to the presence or
absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber are unacceptable.” The
earlier version, Marleau and Montpetit, elaborated: “It is unacceptable to
allude to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber.
The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence
of another Member from the House because there are many places that Members
have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that go with their
office.”
I know this rule also applies to the British House of
Commons (Erskine May) and a little more digging will show it’s in place in just
about every province. And for good reason for reasons other than just
inheriting it from the federal House of Commons. In parliamentary
procedure, the reason for rules is often the product of many hard-learned
lessons over a long time.
The point of this rule, like so many others in Parliamentary
procedure, is to ensure that members stay impersonal, on point and relevant to
the topic under discussion. Just like rules prohibiting personal names
and insults and requiring relevant remarks, the rule prohibiting members
mentioning who is present or absent encourages members to stay relevant with
remarks on the business at hand rather than permitting irrelevant attacks on
members.
Would we approve of Steve Kent, MHA, launching into
persistent attacks on cabinet minister missing House sessions or votes because
they were on official business elsewhere and while they were not present to
defend themselves? No, we would prefer that he did his job and spend his
House speaking time on the issues at hand: legislation, committees and other
parliamentary business.
But in fact that’s exactly the attack he made by retweeting
MacLeod’s observation.
Do we have a right to know if MHA’s are missing sessions or
votes? Of course we do. And McLeod reported on that fact in his
tweet because that’s MacLeod’s job as a journalist. Kent
did not have the automatic right to jump in because he is subject to House
rules (at least while in the House for most purposes) where McLeod is not.
Do the Standing Orders need to be updated? They sure
do. They were adopted in haste shortly after confederation and only
lightly revisited since then despite much work by staff thus far ignored by the
elected members. Never mind the complexities added by social media, there
are sections opaque even to the professionals who have to deal with them on a
daily basis.
-srbp-
