I kick off with thanks to Speaker Andy Daniel: ever since last month’s precedential House sitting when he ruled opposition leader Philip J. Pierre’s motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Allen Chastanet (not in the government) constitutional, I have taken particular interest in the Standing Orders of the House, in our Constitution itself and in the Interpretation Act.
Daniel had also advised that Section 53 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the House Standing Orders together armed him with the irrefragable “authority to make our own rules on any matter that we so deem.” I took Speaker Daniel to be informing House members about his authority under the supreme law to toss both mentioned documents and conduct parliament according to whatever whims and fancies he considered appropriate on any given day. Let readers look up the cited sections of the Constitution and the House Rules and determine for themselves the validity of the Speaker’s conclusions. Readers might also wish to look up “deem” and decide if the word as employed above by the Speaker makes sense!
Since the earlier mentioned Pierre motion I have become more than ever appreciative of the consequences of using words in the fashion of Humpty Dumpty. Who could’ve imagined sixty years ago the ongoing war over the meaning of “as soon as convenient”—as if MPs had never heard of the Interpretation Act? Still we continue to fight one another over the above four quoted words from Section 36 of our Constitution. Meanwhile we seem to have no difficulty with “as soon as practicable” when it comes to filling a vacancy in the office of the Speaker.
Under the rubric “Language,” the Standing Orders couldn’t be more precise: “The proceedings and debates of the House, inclusive of the records of such proceedings, shall be in the English language—provided that a member may offer occasional (defined as ‘infrequent or irregular intervals . . . now and then’) explanation in Kweyol.”
Upon reading the immediately above I wondered: What member of parliament would require a Kweyol explanation of words spoken in English, even twice a year? I came up with more than one possibility. But then I could not imagine them openly acknowledging their ignorance. To do so would be completely out of synch with Looshan kolcha. My guess is no local MP would willingly confirm the public suspicion that much of what’s said in parliament might just as well have been delivered in Greek.
Then there are those who, even after a quarter of a century in parliament, still cannot properly pronounce devastate, irrevocable and unequivocal. For them it’s always de-vah-state, e-re-voke-arble, on-ec-qui-voke-al. (I’m almost certain I read somewhere that chances are that a man who habitually mispronounces words knows not their meaning. Of course, I may have imagined this!)
Our dear recently retired governor general comes to mind. You’d think her feathered chapeaus are what her fans miss most. It turns out (surprise! surprise!) her Kweyol read-outs of the Throne Speech were what rocked their boats. But then, what about Section 6.1 of the Standing Rules and Orders? What about Section 32.11 that clearly states “a member shall not read his speech, but he may read extracts from written or printed papers or books in support of his argument, and may refresh his mind by reference to notes?” What about that is so difficult to understand, whether or not for a former magistrate?
Someone most familiar with such matters assured me the governor general is not a member of the House, therefore is not restricted by its rules. I took that to mean the governor general is free to address parliament in whatever language she chooses. Still it would’ve kept at bay nitpickers such as I, had someone thought to note the exception to Sections 6.1 and 32.11 of the House rules. In any event it’s been some time since a member, other than the MP for Southeast Castries, stood on his feet to speak from his heart. Rather than upbraiding members who read hour-long speeches, the House Speaker continues to provide them with a varnished lectern, thereby ensuring their comfort while flouting the regulations. There’s a word for that but suddenly I find myself in the grip of a severe attack of lethologica. By the way, the Speaker is empowered to order a member to take his seat “who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate.” Imagine that!
Section 35 (4-6): “It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about members of either chamber of parliament. No member shall impute improper motives to any member of either chamber of parliament. No member shall refer to any other member by name.” Evidently, Section 35.4 might’ve been improved with the following caveat: “Save for motions of no confidence in Allen M. Chastanet, Prime Minister of Saint Lucia.”
It occurs to me that the House Standing Rules and Orders says nothing about live and unedited TV coverage of parliamentary sessions. Where that’s concerned it seems anything goes. Not so with the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Perhaps the current situation will be given some thought only when some touchy “stranger” decides to test before the courts how far MPs are permitted to take their “privileged” speeches.
But enough. It remains to be seen whether the current House Speaker will continue to conduct the people’s business in the usual fashion, or by the book. Occasionally a local parliamentarian is reminded that Section 88 effectively empowers Speakers to make words mean whatever they choose . . . nothing more, nothing less. And therein lies the problem!
