EDMONTON – Following a heated exchange regarding the role of the Alberta Legislature’s Speaker, a Wildrose MLA and Speaker Gene Zwozdesky exchanged a contrite apology Thursday.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, opposition MLAs accused Zwozdesky of being partisan, keeping the clock running while making lengthy interjections, and shutting down debate on controversial issues, including ethics investigations and expense scandals.
“What precedent is there for a Speaker frankly, dominating and wasting time of this Assembly with constant lectures and frankly, self-righteous interruptions that are costing us question after question in this Assembly?” asked Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson on Tuesday. “You are showing gross favouritism, sir. You are interfering with this House,” he added before being interrupted by Zwozdesky.
“I’ve been in this House a lot longer than you have,” Zwozdesky retorted. “If you want me to name you and ask you to leave, don’t think you’re going to mess around with me in that respect, because I’m prepared to accommodate a wish like that.”
He said Anderson’s question was very serious and described it as “almost in contempt.” He added that he has tried to be fair to both government and opposition members and feels he has been “more than tolerant on more than one occasion.”
However, after the fiery debate on Tuesday, and a tweet criticizing the Speaker, Anderson met with the Speaker to share his frustrations and then issued an apology in Question Period on Thursday.
“In the spirit of moving forward, I’m going to apologize to you and withdraw any comments or tweets regarding you on these matters made in or outside this House and look forward to high-quality, and fair Question Periods both today and in the future,” said Anderson.
“I do want to make clear in my comments, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear in our parliamentary tradition that statements made outside the House in the media or on Twitter are not commented on by the Speaker nor should they be. Obviously the rights of free speech must be respected… It is my sincere hope that we can move on to what Question Period should be about, and that is holding this government to account.”
Zwozdesky took a moment to respond to Anderson’s comments.
“A lot of unfortunate things have occurred over these past few days and many inappropriate comments have been made both inside and outside this Chamber… Once you’re elected to serve in this House… you step into a whole new world, a world full of traditions, customs, and practices.”
“If you have an issue with the Speaker or whoever is chairing, there is a process in place to accommodate that.”
“The issue of criticizing the Speaker is really one of respect or disrespect for the institution. The role of the Speaker is something that is fundamental to our parliamentary system and our entire system of responsible government.”
On Wednesday, Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith joined the debate, making a statement about the traditions relating to the Speaker’s role in Question Period, and offering suggestions on how to make QP function more efficiently.
“This Legislature exists as a check on executive power. Legislation first must be debated and passed here before it is declared law. And the government must daily defend itself and the actions of others who they have appointed to the duly elected opposition in order to ensure transparency and accountability.
“It is the Speaker’s job to ensure the integrity of these functions. And I think the Speaker would agree that it is not the Speaker’s job to stifle them. We have a job to do too, Mr. Speaker, and it’s an important one. Just as the government is elected to lead, we have been elected to hold them to account. Far too often when we attempt to do our jobs, in this Legislature, we are unable to ask the government the questions that need to be asked. We understand that these questions are often uncomfortable. They often deal with scandal, impropriety and personal misconduct. But they simply must be asked. If the fact that hard questions cause government members to become “disordered” becomes an excuse to prevent hard questions, then the fundamental purpose of Question Period is lost.”
(Read Smith’s full statement here.)
Smith added that this session has seen the opposition getting to ask fewer questions of the Executive than ever. Under the former Speaker of the House, she said, opposition members would get as many as 22 questions in a Question Period.
Comments