Betty Boothroyd: Just the Cure for the Canadian Commons?

[FiveParadox]

It is no secret that order and decorum in the House of Commons is in a steady decline. Despite the best efforts of The Honourable Peter Milliken M.P. (Kingston and the Islands), the Speaker of the House of Commons (who has presided over the House of Commons longer than any of his predecessors) has been unable to calm the sniping, grandstanding, unparliamentary language, and altogether poor behaviour on the part of our elected members of the House of Commons. Recently, Mr. Milliken announced his intention not to run for re-election--which means that the House is going to need to look to someone else to serve as its presiding officer once the next Parliament of Canada comes together.

Now, don't get me wrong--I think that Mr. Milliken has done (and continues to do) an excellent job as Speaker. His wealth of knowledge on parliamentary procedure has been an unestimable advantage for us during these successive minority governments, and his ability to promote compromise between the parties (for example, on the Afghain detainee documents issue) has helped to protect the parliamentary privileges that are key to the system of responsible government. However, nobody is going to argue that order and decorum have improved under his watch; it's going to take a different type of Speaker to do rein in the behaviour of both Her Majesty's Government, and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

On my web travels, I came across some video footage of The Right Honourable The Baroness Boothroyd O.M., P.C., then the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Baroness (then simply the Right Honourable Betty Boothroyd, before she was created a Life Peer) served as the Speaker of the British House of Commons for over seven years, and she was most definitely the master of her own House. She wasn't afraid to admonish the Government, or the Opposition, and she wasn't affraid to ruffle anyone's feathers.

Check out some of the videos below (they're all pretty short, basically examples of her interventions as Speaker), and let's discuss: Do we need a more authoritative Speaker? Do we need our own Betty Boothroyd?

YouTube - House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, sets the agenda!

YouTube - House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, constitution debate

YouTube - House of commons, Betty Boothroyd - points the finger

 

[Bar Sinister]

Some of the antics of MPs in the House of Commons are a real blot on our democracy. I have a hard time understanding why rules of decorum similar to those of the US House of Representatives are not instituted. If the Americans can engage in civil discourse, why can't Canadians?

 

[Bcool]

Betty B. was wonderful! She made watching the UK parliament in session really interesting & highly entertaining often. What I really liked was being able to listen to reasonable debate, well as reasonable as a traditional UK House can get :iconbiggrin:, with her refusing to let the shouting down make it impossible.

We had a neighbour just like her when I was a kid in the UK, even looked like her. She'd come out and give us wot fer if we got too noisy playing to suit her, but always had sweets or biscuits. lol

Yes, indeed. IMHO we could definitely do with a Canadian Betty B., order & courtesy to some degree in the House would make a nice change & watching CPAC less hard on the ears and far more interesting. Pointlessly shouting, interrupting & banging things just in an attempt to get camera time has really made it very unpleasant at times.

Thanks for the videos, really enjoyed watching her in action again.

 

[L Gilbert]

Misbehaving children should be treated like they are misbehaving children.

Bar seems to think we have democracy in Canada. That's funny. lol

 

[Colpy]

Well, if we adopted British precedent, there would be no more damned whipping over private member's bills, that's for sure!

 

[Bcool]

Well, if we adopted British precedent, there would be no more damned whipping over private member's bills, that's for sure!

Oh dear! I'm obviously not as well informed as I should be on this. :confused4: :scratch: :confused5: I thought the Brit system relied more heavily on whipping than the Canadian - watching too many "Yes Minister" shows maybe? Anyway, best place to get the facts, Colpy?

Misbehaving children should be treated like they are misbehaving children.

Bar seems to think we have democracy in Canada. That's funny. lol

Why do you say that? Alright, I don't like the creeping invasion of erosion of rights using the excuse of "terrorism" which is becoming more rampant and blatant. But the system itself is still our fundamental democratic system, something our Court system on the whole is upholding pretty well so far. As in the case of it overturning the former Brit MP George Galloway's barring from Canada by Can Immigration last year after Immigration Minister Kenney declared that Galloway should not be allowed into Canada because he had provided support to the Palestinian Hamas government, which Ottawa considers a terrorist organization. (Justice Richard Mosley called the move "a flawed and overreaching interpretation of the standards under Canadian law for labelling someone as engaging in terrorism or being a member of a terrorist organization.")

What Galloway stands for is a matter of opinion, irregardless Can law upheld our democratic constitution against a political decision made by the P.M. & a Parliamentary Minister.

I suppose your point is well made if we have to resort to the courts on every decision made by the party in power. That would not be good.

 

[Cliffy]

Oh dear! I'm obviously not as well informed as I should be on this. :confused4: :scratch: :confused5: I thought the Brit system relied more heavily on whipping than the Canadian - watching too many "Yes Minister" shows maybe? Anyway, best place to get the facts, Colpy?

Why do you say that?

Let's see, we can only vote for Larry, Curly or Moe who are heavily sponsored and promoted by big corporations and usually put the will of corporations before the will or the well being of people. Other than voting for corporate shills, there is no representation of and for the people. It is called corporate dictatorship and our foreign policy is based on economics and cow towing to American interests. Democracy is a movie they play to entertain us while they go about doing whatever the hell they please, thank you very much!

 

[Colpy]

Oh dear! I'm obviously not as well informed as I should be on this. :confused4: :scratch: :confused5: I thought the Brit system relied more heavily on whipping than the Canadian - watching too many "Yes Minister" shows maybe? Anyway, best place to get the facts, Colpy?



Why do you say that? Alright, I don't like the creeping invasion of erosion of rights using the excuse of "terrorism" which is becoming more rampant and blatant. But the system itself is still our fundamental democratic system, something our Court system on the whole is upholding pretty well so far. As in the case of it overturning the former Brit MP George Galloway's barring from Canada by Can Immigration last year after Immigration Minister Kenney declared that Galloway should not be allowed into Canada because he had provided support to the Palestinian Hamas government, which Ottawa considers a terrorist organization. (Justice Richard Mosley called the move "a flawed and overreaching interpretation of the standards under Canadian law for labelling someone as engaging in terrorism or being a member of a terrorist organization.")

What Galloway stands for is a matter of opinion, irregardless Can law upheld our democratic constitution against a political decision made by the P.M. & a Parliamentary Minister.

I suppose your point is well made if we have to resort to the courts on every decision made by the party in power. That would not be good.

Actually, the British use a 3 line system.........and the only hard discipline whipping is done on budget bills and items in the party's election manifesto. British MPs are much freer to express their own opinion, or those of their constituents, on the vast majority of votes.

http://www.parlcent.ca/publications/pdf/reform_e.pdf (about page 12)

I completely disagree with your evaluation of the Galloway episode. Galloway is on film handing Hamas $45,000. This is in clear violation of Canadian law. Personally, as he likes Canada so much, I'd arrest him, try him, and give him free room and board at Renous for a couple of years.

Take a look at Galloway....go to youtube and google him. WOW! A piece of garbage.

That aside, even if (for the purposes of debate) Galloway had broken no Canadian law..........foreigners can be kept out of Canada on a whim. That is the way it should be. They have no right to be in Canada, and if Mr. Kenney, the government, or some minor Border Servives agent decides they want to keep them out because they are short, obnoxious, stupid, brown-eyed, too good looking, rich, tanned, or simply because they had a spat with the wife and feel like taking it out on someone, that is FINE! The courts have no place criticizing the decision. The courts have been wildly overstepping their bounds of late, IMHO.

It is our sandbox.....we don't have to let the obnoxious kid in to play.

 

[Bcool]

Actually, the British use a 3 line system.........and the only hard discipline whipping is done on budget bills and items in the party's election manifesto. British MPs are much freer to express their own opinion, or those of their constituents, on the vast majority of votes.

http://www.parlcent.ca/publications/pdf/reform_e.pdf (about page 12)

Thank's for the link, I have not been keeping up on my Can vs Brit systems as well as I should lately, so will definitely check it out.

I completely disagree with your evaluation of the Galloway episode. Galloway is on film handing Hamas $45,000. This is in clear violation of Canadian law. Personally, as he likes Canada so much, I'd arrest him, try him, and give him free room and board at Renous for a couple of years.

Take a look at Galloway....go to youtube and google him. WOW! A piece of garbage.

Oh, he's the scum of the earth, noooo doubt about it. I don't want him in Canada. Nasty!

That aside, even if (for the purposes of debate) Galloway had broken no Canadian law..........foreigners can be kept out of Canada on a whim. That is the way it should be. They have no right to be in Canada, and if Mr. Kenney, the government, or some minor Border Servives agent decides they want to keep them out because they are short, obnoxious, stupid, brown-eyed, too good looking, rich, tanned, or simply because they had a spat with the wife and feel like taking it out on someone, that is FINE! The courts have no place criticizing the decision. The courts have been wildly overstepping their bounds of late, IMHO.

It is our sandbox.....we don't have to let the obnoxious kid in to play.

But constitutionally our courts can over-rule Ministerial decisions as in this case. I guess I feel a little more comfortable than you maybe in having a 'fall-back' system dictated by law not politics. Like it or lump it, CSIS fouled up & the Immigration bods didn't cover their backs &, knowing who they were taking on, didn't do the official research that would have satisfied any judge. They had to know that a sleaze like Galloway wouldn't let it go & losing his seat over it (according to him - that's going to be up to another judge) made him even more money hungry & looking for a fight.

Judge Mosley, in part: "Mosley cited events that began on March 16, 2009, when Velshi conducted online research of open sources about Galloway's activities. Within a few hours of conducting that research, emails circulated among Immigration Department staffers in which Velshi deemed Galloway inadmissible to Canada. "Apart from the open sources cited by Mr. Velshi in his e-mails, it does not appear from the record what, if any, additional research was conducted. When consulted, CSIS advised CBSA that they had no concerns with Mr. Galloway's visit from a security perspective," Mosley wrote." George Galloway allowed into Canada - CTV News

I guess one has to wonder WTH goes on in CSIS. Seems like they drop the ball too darned often or something. Anyway, it stinks, I don't like it but its legal.

BTW, too tan & good looking? They'd have never let me back into Canada from the US if those had been the rules back then. ROTFLOL

 

[taxslave]

Unless the party leaders are onside with having a little respect and decorum in the house the spoilt brats will continue to misbehave. Since none of them have much to offer either the show is a cover for lack of substance and intellect.