Queen’s Park Speaker Suspending Any MPP From the Legislature Until the End of the Sesson is Anti-Democratic
Speaker Peters action in suspending two MPPs from the legislature until the end of the session (after the next Throne Speech) is anti-democratic and hurts the interests of all Ontarians, especially those whose representatives are forbidden from entering the House, or participating in debates on their behalf. The Speaker preventing an MPP from doing their job for a period that could last until the next election makes all other matters of Parliamentary privilege seem trivial.
The saddest part of this story? This was all because they were relentless in calling for public hearings into the HST – something the Liberals are still refusing to allow. Liberals refuse to listen to Ontarians at hearings and now have MPPs suspended for fighting for them on it.
Yes defying the Speaker is bad – I get it. But it is not without precedent. In fact – Former Speaker Alvin Curling created the precedent for defying the Speaker’s order and what was his punishment? Nothing. He left when he felt like it. The Harris Government’s response? As far as they were concerned the crisis had been averted and Curling was able to take his seat again the next sitting day. When these two MPPs rise – they will be forbidden from re-entering the House for the remainder of the session.
I have never heard of the Speaker suspending an MPP from the House before for more than the remainder of the sitting day, let along until the session ends. I find that I can sympathize with William Lyon Mackenzie for seeking to throw out the whole system after having been expelled from the Legislature by his political opponents, winning the by-election to replace him only to be expelled again. They essentially ended any facade of democracy by routinely denying his constituents the right to send him to the Legislature and rail on against the government of the day.
Exclusionary politics is a dangerous thing, and something the majority needs to recognize. Something this Liberal majority has forgotten.
The Speaker has gone too far here in denying these MPPs the ability to do their job. They have a right to be in that legislature, and for the Speaker to deny the will of those who sent those representatives to Queen’s Park is probably the most anti-democratic thing I’ve ever seen happen out of that legislature in my life. Ejecting MPPs for the session and preventing them from carrying out their duties because of their attacks on the Government is a new kind of low in anti-democratic behaviour.
I often wonder how far Ontarians will let their democracy erode before they do anything about it – and sadly I think Speaker Peters took a major step in that direction today and it will go unnoticed unless the Progressive Conservatives do something about it.
My advice would be pretty simple. They eventually have to leave the legislature. Even with access to a bathroom and food, this can’t go on too long. When they do, MPPs Murdoch and Hillier should thumb their noses at the Speaker – resign their seats and work full time to re-gain them – while hammering the Liberals on the HST, and their anti-democratic behaviour. Turn it into a William Lyon Mackenzie-esque ’screw you’ with a taste of his Grandson’s ‘Byng-King’ thrown in for fun.
I am sure each would win their seats back, and probably by higher margins – and they’d get to batter the Liberals in the process, slamming the HST, defending democracy and neutering the Speaker that went too far. Not only that, but they’d wake Ontarians up, because this is the kind of political blood and guts the media loves and that the Tories have been having difficulty dishing out since McGuinty has been Premier.
Let’s put it this way, if I was an MPP and I found myself expelled until a new Throne Speech – I would be out on the hustings, defying the Speaker and the Government and working to remind everyone it is the people, not someone elected by a Liberal majority that decides who sits in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Liberal MPPs should remember that if they would like to continue having the responsibility of sitting in the legislature themselves.
Tags: Bill Murdoch, Expelled from the legislature, Ontario Speaker, Randy Hillier, Randy Hillier and Bill Murdoch, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Speaker Peters, Steve Peters, suspended from Queen's Park, suspended from the legislature
December 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am
I don’t know how useful that stunt by Murdoch and Hillier was. Just hours before, Duncan actually agreed to public hearings on the HST before the Legislative session began and they performed their sit in. The Tories’ recent behaviour is reminiscent of how the teabaggers down in the U.S. are behaving: like misbegotten children who have to yell and scream to get attention.
You said that these MPPs have a right to do their jobs. But last I checked, I don’t know where in their job description it saids that they have to yell and scream and grind legislative business to a halt. Then they aren’t really doing a job that their constituents voted them to do. People in Owen Sound and Lanark voted those two guys in to go to Toronto and work, not go to Toronto to yell and scream and call people liars.
And one more thing. You know how this is also comparable to the Republicans in the States? The Ontario PCs have not stated even ONCE that they would repeal the HST. They have not stated what the alternative would be to the HST. Are they going to cut it in five years? What are THEY going to do? I would really love to hear you defend the Tories on that point.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
I have some sympathy for your point, John, but some sort of action was necessary on the Speaker’s part. As Alan K points out, the MPPs in question were simply disrupting the session — not making any useful sort of contribution to the HST debate. (Murdoch even called the Premier a liar, which everyone knows is pretty much an unforgivable sin in Parliament.) Expelling them for the duration of the session is a little extreme, but I do think they needed to be suspended from the House for a time until they remembered what “decorum” means.
Worth noting in passing that there is one party in the House that has consistently opposed the HST and hasn’t pulled ridiculous stunts in doing it.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Guess what – we expect our MPP’s to act like adults. You do have to be an adult to be elected don’t you?
I’d go further. I’d penalize their salaries for the days they aren’t there.
You know, we have rules for a reason. If you don’t have rules and don’t live by them, you get this pathetic grandstanding.
It’s not undemocratic – it’s about rules, respect and doing your job.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Uh Huh – I expect our legislature to be the heart of our democracy and the sustainer of our democratic spirit.
Alan – I’m not defending the PC position and think the NDP has a far more compelling case to present as the clear opposition to the HST.
ADHR – I agree that punishment is necessary, but this goes too far. 2emoving them for the day or following day might be reasonable as it limits, but does not prevent them from doing their jobs.
Peters handling of this has been terrible. It demonstrates why someone should just run for Speaker because they were dumped from cabiniet.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
What don’t you understand about democracy? You need laws and rules to keep order.
They had a choice – that’s democracy. They know the rules.
There is NO defence whatsoever for acting against the rules of democracy and grandstanding.
Try to have a democracy without any rules!
December 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Speaker Peters did not go too far – he was simply applying the rules of the House. You seem to imply in your post that he had a choice here. He did not. The rule on the naming of members was first added to the Standing Orders in 1929. In 1939, the rule on naming was expanded and a clause was added that exists to this day. It clearly states that when a member is named and asked to leave the Chamber, any refusal to do so amounts to use of force (even though the Sargeant-at-Arms never actually uses forces to remove anyone) and this amounts to an automatic suspension for the duration of the session. Had Hillier and Murdoch left the Chamber immediately after being named, their suspension would have been for the duration of that sessional day only. By refusing to leave, they brought upon themselves an automatic suspension for the duration of the Session.
Whether or not you agree with this rule is not the point. The point is that the Speaker’s first and foremost duty is to apply the rules of the House. He had no choice but to suspend them for the duration of the session – had he not done that, he would have been violating the Standing Orders. Murdoch and Hillier were not defying the Speaker – they were defying the Rules of the House. The Speaker was simply applying the Rules.
That said, the Speaker can always adjust the penalty and lift the suspension at any time. However, given the games that both Hillier and Murdoch (and the rest of the PC caucus) continue to play, this isn’t likely to happen.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
John, have you filled out your Ontario PC membership yet? I think you are a great advocate for them on this blog and should really consider doing it! Here’s hoping…
December 1st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Drummer – I hold no party memberships and have only ever been a member of the Liberal party for the period of nine years I did.
I ended that association over McGuinty’s attack on my community and democracy. His attempt to have me arrested for organizing a protest to at a partisan liberal event for hacks in Scarborough made it clear to me this guy could trip over the bar for what he considers democratic.
I get that you’re a partisan Liberal and if McGuinty told you to crawl to work – you’d at least try – but my support for democracy and democratic prinicples should not brand me as a member of any party.
Between 1999 and 2009 I have campaigned provinicially on one NDP campaign, severial Liberal campaigns and one PC campaign.
Just one question – is the scandal ridden koolaid all that good?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
For the record, you have your facts wrong re: Curling. He did not resume his seat the next day – his suspension was for the remainder of the session, and was only lifted (after about 10 or so days) following the intervention of the three party House Leaders. They’d reached an agreement amongst themselves to address the situation and presented their case to the Speaker. The Speaker considered their arguments and agreed to lift Curling’s suspension. The same could happen here with Murdoch and Hillier, but given the Curling precedent, it is a fairly safe bet the the current Speaker would ensure that they remain suspended at least as long as Curling did.
The reason why you have never heard of a named Member being suspended for more than the remainder of the sitting day is because the vast majority of members who are named do leave the Chamber as required, and thus are suspended only for the remainder of that sitting day. It is a fairly common occurrence. Only Curling in 1995 and now Murdoch and Hillier have refused to leave the chamber after being named, and where thus suspended for the remainder of the session, as per the Standing Orders.