It's a lot, but this power can’t be exercised absolutely without the support of the party in question. I’ll give you an example. I won’t name the former member involved, because he’s still around, and he could come back one day.
A member had accused the Prime Minister of being a liar. Mr. John Fraser, at the very beginning of his term, had decided that he would not name members, that he would bring back some degree of dignity through his exercise of impartiality and his sense of justice in the conduct of debates. The member squarely refused, and Mr. Fraser decided not to name him. He called me over, as you often see a Speaker do.
“Help, Monsieur Marleau. Please take your message to the House leader of that party and tell him that I will not be recognizing the honourable member in debate for as long as he chooses to not apologize to the House.”
Two weeks went by. The member was present for Question Period every week, and his name was not on the party list, which created some brouhaha within the party in question. At the beginning of the third week, I received a message informing me that that day; the only name on the list of the party in question would be that of the member who had been suspended by the Speaker.
The message? The party no longer recognized the Speaker’s authority to carry out such acts. I advised Mr. Fraser not to let the situation drag on indefinitely, because the right to speak in the House, which one earns when elected, is very precious.
Until what point can the Speaker continue to not recognize a member?