Expelling MLAs and flooded departments

Committee recommends P.E.I. Speaker should have power to kick MLAs out of legislature without vote; debates lengthy delays to written questions

It looks like the Speaker of the P.E.I. legislature may get some new powers to kick unruly MLAs out of the legislature when the house resumes in April.

A meeting of the legislative rules committee was held recently where rules for “suspension of members,” a.k.a. expelling MLAs from the legislature were among the items discussed.

The issue was sent to the committee by Speaker Buck Watts.

In a letter to committee chairwoman Kathleen Casey, Watts says it was brought to his attention at a recent conference that P.E.I.’s rules were not consistent with other provinces when it comes to the Speaker’s powers to remove an MLA from the legislature.

Watts carefully avoided actually asking for a rule change, but instead sent some research on the rules of other provinces to the committee “for its information, use and consideration, should it so choose.”

Opposition MLAs zeroed in on the obvious question — why was this even on the agenda? What pressing need is there to clarify rules about kicking MLAs out of the house?

After all, it’s not a common occurrence. It only happens if an MLA is being really disorderly or if someone is refusing to obey a direction from the Speaker. Which hardly ever happens. The last time it happened was in 2011.

P.E.I.’s rule says if an MLA is behaving badly, the Speaker must ask for another MLA to call for a motion to suspend. It then goes to a vote of the full assembly. Other provinces give the Speaker the direct power to expel an MLA from the house.

Opposition MLA James Aylward wanted to invite Watts to explain why he was so interested in this topic that he sent it to the rules committee for consideration.

But the Liberal members were prickly about Aylward’s request.

They argued in favour of changing P.E.I.’s rule. The biggest proponent was Casey, who was Speaker in 2011 when thenOpposition leader Olive Crane (purposely) got herself ejected from the house.

She accused the premier of lying, then refused to apologize for unparliamentary language — an act of political theatre on the closing day of the sitting.

Casey says the incident put her in a difficult position: if she asked for a motion to suspend Crane and no one moved it, this would be tantamount to a vote of non-confidence and she would have had to step down as Speaker.

Casey says she “lost sleep over that for days,” it was so upsetting.

Opposition MLAs argued against the change, but in the end, the committee went in camera and decided it would recommend the rule be changed to give the Speaker the power to kick out unruly MLAs without a motion.

If the committee report is adopted in the legislature in the upcoming sitting (which they generally always are), the rule change will be made.

Meanwhile, the committee deferred a decision on another request, this one for a 45-day time limit for answers to written questions by MLAs.

Opposition MLA Sidney MacEwen asked for this, raising concern about lengthy delays to responses.

Some written questions submitted by his caucus 18 months ago remain unanswered.

Liberal cabinet ministers on the committee argued their offices are being “flooded” with written questions by the Opposition.

Agriculture and Fisheries Minister Alan McIsaac was particularly cranky about the 161 written questions his department received last fall while fielding zero questions in question period.

Perhaps McIsaac should consult with his former cabinet colleague, Ron MacKinley, when it comes to flooding departments with written questions.

Back in 2001, MacKinley — who was the only Liberal Opposition MLA in the legislature at the time — tabled 499 written questions to various departments on the opening day of the spring sitting.

Tory government ministers of the day also complained, but in the end made a great show on the closing day of that same sitting of bringing back the majority of the answers, carrying them in boxes.

Let’s hope the Opposition’s written questions are answered soon because, as former P.E.I. privacy commissioner Maria MacDonald often stated in her rulings: access delayed is access denied.