Speaker Greg Fergus in the House of Commons on October 20, 2023.
Speaker Greg Fergus in the House of Commons on October 20, 2023. Credit: ParlVu Credit: ParlVu

Greg Fergus has been the Speaker of Canada’s House of Commons for only about three weeks, but he is not enjoying much of a honeymoon.

Fergus took over at a difficult moment. 

The tone of discourse in Canada’s Parliament has been growing steadily less civil over the past few years. Something of the hyper-partisan virus that afflicts our US neighbours seems to have seeped into Canada’s political discourse.

As he started his new job, Fergus thought he could move the needle at least a bit on the civility meter. After all, members of the House had just elected him, by secret ballot, on a non-partisan basis.

Well, it seems Fergus thought wrong.

Conservatives try to silence the Speaker

On October 18, last Wednesday, Fergus got up to address a few remarks to his fellow MPs at the beginning of question period.

Here’s what then happened.

Fergus started to speak: “As promised before the constituency week, the Chair would like to make a statement on order and decorum in the House. In a very simple way—”

The Conservative leader would not let the Speaker finish his sentence, let alone his statement. Instead, Pierre Poilievre launched into a question for the Prime Minister, on the economy:

“Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this government, the inflation rate in Quebec is the highest—”

Fergus stood his ground: 

“The honourable member will have an opportunity to start Oral Questions once I make this statement to the House. Question period will follow immediately after the statement.”

That did not mollify Poilievre and his crew. 

One Conservative shouted “It is question period!” to which Fergus turned to his table of expert of advisors, and replied:

“I will ask the honourable member to please take his seat for a moment while I consult with the table … Colleagues, the Speaker has the choice as to when to start question period. There will be a full question period that will follow after this declaration from the Speaker. It is important for us that the Speaker make this declaration.”

But before Fergus could go any further, the Conservative House Leader (and former speaker), Andrew Scheer, rose on a point of order. He cited the House rules known as Standing Orders:

“Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the Chair of Standing Order 30(5) … It states, ‘Not later than 2:15 p.m…as the case may be, Oral Questions shall be taken up.’ It does not say, ‘may be taken up’; it says, ‘shall be taken up’. It is well past 2:15 p.m.”

This did not deter Speaker Fergus, who pointed out there would be a full question period following his brief statement. He added that, in fact, the Standing Orders permit him to make such a statement.

Scheer immediately replied that “the Standing Orders are the property of the House. It is up to the House to decide when we are not going to follow a rule or when we are going to change a rule. You are a servant of the House … “

Fergus then started to expound on what he calls a “long tradition”, which presumably tolerated Speakers making statements when they thought it appropriate. But he didn’t get very far. A Conservative MP peremptorily cut him off. 

At that point, Fergus switched gears and tried a different tactic: the route of gentle and sweet reason. 

He almost pleaded with the Conservatives to let him speak:

“It is really important that we understand that the Speaker does have this ability to make a statement … It is an important message, which I think members would appreciate hearing, because it gives an indication as to how the Speaker is going to be proceeding in the months and years to follow.”

But even sweet reason did not work with the 2023 version of Canada’s official opposition. 

Indeed, rather than get it over with and allow Fergus to make his short statement, the Conservatives decided to escalate their efforts to keep the Speaker quiet. Their leader stepped in and led the charge. 

Pierre Poilievre intoned, in a display of full-blown rhetorical outrage:

“Mr. Speaker, every day in the House, the opposition has occasion to respond to the actions of the government and hold the government accountable for its actions on behalf of Canadians. That happens at 2:15 p.m. every single Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday … The Speaker has a plethora of occasions to stand on his feet to make any point he wants. He does not need to do it in the middle of the sacred period during which we hold the government to account … This is the first time in all of my years here that I have seen a speaker interrupt question period to make a speech.” 

But Fergus would not be put off, even by so fine an orator as the Conservative leader. In fact, he respectfully corrected Poilievre:

“This is not the first time that the Speaker has interrupted the proceedings to make a statement from the Chair just before Question Period … My immediate predecessor, for example, did this on at least two occasions, and it has also been done by Speakers in the past.” 

Speaker Fergus then invited all members to “listen to this statement in order to be able to improve order and decorum in this House.” 

The Conservatives finally gave in. They folded their arms and acted, more or less, like adults.

So noisy even the Speaker cannot hear

Fergus proceeded to tell his colleagues something they should know all too well:

“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.” 

Fergus pointed to a rash of “questionable language” and “provocative statements”. 

But his concern was not just with MPs’ choice of words. He also questioned their behaviour. 

Much of the recent chaos and disorder in the House, Fergus said, has been “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.”

When the noise level is so great that even the Speaker cannot hear what MPs are saying, Fergus said, with obvious exasperation, “the House as a whole loses some credibility.”

Fergus then called upon all members to personally exercise responsibility for their behaviour and conduct. The Speaker alone, he said, could not maintain “the dignity and decorum of the House.”

And that was pretty much that. 

South of the border, meanwhile, the US House of Representatives has been without a speaker for more than three weeks. 

On October 3, a majority of US House members voted to evict Kevin McCarthy from that job.

Since then, two Republican congressmen have tried and failed to get a majority in the House to select them. On Tuesday, October 24, a third House Republican made a brief, game effort, then threw in the towel.

There are, of course, big differences between the US House speaker and the Canadian version.

In Canada, the speaker is a neutral chairperson, who upholds parliamentary procedure and makes sure House rules are respected. 

In the US, speakers are powerful, partisan political figures. They control the legislative agenda in the House, and lacking a speaker, the House is currently unable to consider, let along pass, any measures.

In addition, constitutionally, the House of Representatives’ speaker is third in the line of succession to the presidency. 

If both the president and vice-president were to resign or die, the speaker would become president. 

Indeed, if the House were to impeach both the president and vice-president, and the Senate were then to vote by at least a two-thirds margin to remove them from office, the speaker would become president.

So, there is a lot at stake in the choice of a US House speaker. 

Here in Canada, we have the luxury to fret about good behaviour and decorum.

Karl Nerenberg

Karl Nerenberg joined rabble in 2011 to cover Canadian politics. He has worked as a journalist and filmmaker for many decades, including two and a half decades at CBC/Radio-Canada. Among his career highlights...