Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

The Speaker of the House of Commons is expected to rule Monday in the case of a Conservative MP who claims his privilege to speak freely has been breached, after the Tory whip removed him from the roster of members allowed to make statements before Question Period.

Andrew Scheer, the rookie Speaker, will decide on whether a prima facie breach of privilege took place when Mark Warawa was struck from the list because he intended to raise the issue of sex selective abortion, a debate which the Harper government has refused to re-open.

A number of the apparently growing ranks of dissident Conservative MPs are less interested in this issue. They know if the Speaker rules a breach of privilege did take place, the issue will then be referred to the committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where it will likely die, since neither the government nor the NDP has any interest in extending the power of backbench MPs or the Speaker.

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

In the longer-term, it would tilt power in the House away from party House Leaders and whips towards the individual backbench MPs.

The way the system works now is that the whips supply the Speaker with a list of MPs who will be making members’ statements on any given day. The Conservatives get eight one minute statements a day – of which around four are currently taken by the party to blast the opposition, rather than discuss the latest news in the riding.

The opposition parties hand in a similar list of their inquisitors during Question Period, while the government is allocated a number of questions to ask its own ministers, which are invariably puffballs urging the minister to confirm his or her own greatness.

Power shifted from the Speaker’s office in the 1980s, when Speaker Jeanne Sauvé asked party whips to supply lists of MPs, apparently because she had trouble remembering their names and ridings. One presumes she never imagined the whips would ever turn around and dictate what backbenchers were obliged to say.

If the Speaker refers to the British model, he would be confirming that any MP on any side of the House could rise at any time and have a reasonable expectation of being recognized by the chair.

Some MPs would like the Speaker to appropriate the whole allocation process for statements and questions from the whips’ offices. However, while 11 Conservative MPs have stood in the House to complain that party discipline has gone too far, the House has not voted to enhance the Speaker’s role. The beauty of the Westminster solution, as Conservative MP Michael Chong pointed out last week, is that it is widely accepted it is the Speaker’s job to determine and recognize which MPs get to make statements and ask questions.

It would be an elegant resolution that would put the onus back on the MPs in the House to stand up for their rights.

If Mr. Scheer does go down this route, and MPs on both sides of the aisle are bold enough to take advantage of the opportunity, we could see the start of a quiet revolution in the way the House of Commons operates.

Original Article
Source: fullcomment.nationalpost.com
Author: John Ivison