###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do think having a independent MP or someone that isn't a MP at all makes sense for this role. It's impossible to not be partisan if you're supporting a party.
> someone that isn't a MP
Would not fly, as it would be a violation of parliamentary privilege. In the HoC, MPs are supreme, and only answer to their peers. The Speaker is the enforcer of the rules, and having a non-MP tell an MP what to do in the HoC, would be a massive violation of their privilege as an MP.
I was replying to someone who suggested that a non-MP could be the speaker, and saying that wasn't possible, which you and others have mistaken as me saying that an independent MP couldn't be speaker.
The UK speaker is still an MP, just an independent one who doesn't rejoin their party afterwards and runs unopposed from then on. They are often really long serving (often 10 years).
The answer to this would be MMP, and you give a 'unelected' seat to leaders, possibly some ministers, and the speaker.
If Trudeau is you're MP you're getting pretty shortchanged for representation.
In the UK the Speaker resigns from their party, and all the other parties agree to not run candidates against them in the election.
Liberals and PCs agreed to something similar back in the day, but the NDP refused to agree, so it fell through in Canada, unfortunately.
The Liberals tried this in the 1960s with Lucien Lamoureaux. And you're right, the NDP ran a candidate against him. Cornwall has a park named after him. Cornwall is also home to Ontario's first Premier, who was arguable non-partisan.
Today they have Eric Duncan, the queer mouthpiece for Pierre's ax-the-tax campaign.
> The problem with that approach is that it effectively denies people in the speaker's riding proper representation.
We have the same thing with leaders (though the NDP doesn't respect that)
By elections where someone steps down to make room for a incoming leader without a seat.
The greens tried to play this card but without actually giving up a seat and of course everyone called bullshit and Paul lost.
I think there is a certain amount of caucus respect you earn winning fair and square in a election. You're also asking someone to give up the seat they won.
Probably comes down to how fast you need the leader in the HoC. If Trudeau loses and steps down and Carney wins the leadership I suspect they would do this - get him in fast, in the right riding and don't risk his leadership by losing a contested by election.
Maybe we go one step further then?
When an MP is elected Speaker they not only leave their party but vacate their seat as a Member of Parliament and a by-election is held to replace them.
In exchange the now ridingless* Speaker is allowed to remain Speaker as long as they wish (or they lose the confidence of the House) — even through elections.
*I’m not 100% sure if you can constitutionally be a ridingless MP, so alternatively Parliament could create a riding that’s explicitly only Parliament Hill with a population of 0, and the Speaker would be the Member of Parliament for Parliament Hill — that way they’d still vote in ties too.
> As long as the speaker is a MP, there will be claims they're partisan.
It doesn't mean Fergus needs to lean into the partisanship like he has.
Scott Reid was interviewed the other day by CTV and he made the analogy that when calls are made near the final whistle, the referee gets the blame whether or not they deserve it.
In this case the referee has gone out of their way to be seen wearing one team's jersey multiple times between games.
I think it would be great if we had a similar convention as the UK has where the speaker is officially independent and can run unopposed for re-election. But, short of that, the speaker needs to at least *try* to appear impartial otherwise any claim you are impartial becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation.
Fergus is reminding me of Payette in that he's publicly floundering at a job that historically flies under the radar and doesn't really ask too much of him. I think I'd be able to put my Canucks jersey in the closet in exchange for $100k a year. Why can't the speaker?
>It doesn't mean Fergus needs to lean into the partisanship like he has
So what is he supposed to do to run for office, just say his name and he's running? He needs to make a case for his candidacy, and that means contrasting and attacking the positions of others who are also running against him.
>But, short of that, the speaker needs to at least *try* to appear impartial otherwise any claim you are impartial becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation.
I'd like to point out that the largest group complaining about his supposed impartiality are the CPC, the group who like to feign outrage when it isn't warranted (see elbowgate)
>I think I'd be able to put my Canucks jersey in the closet in exchange for $100k a year. Why can't the speaker?
Because he has to campaign for his seat. That requires going through the campaign process, which is partisan.
>So what is he supposed to do to run for office, just say his name and he's running?
In Hull-Alymer? A riding that even given the current polls Fergus would *still* win by 30%? Yes.
>So what is he supposed to do to run for office, just say his name and he's running?
I didn't realize an election had been called. There is no need to be engaging in partisan campaigning when there is no election.
>I'd like to point out that the largest group complaining about his supposed impartiality are the CPC,
The BQ and NDP have also spoken out about his partisanship. The LPC has apologized for implicating him in partisan activities. Fergus himself has apologized for engaging in partisan activities.
Everyone thinks it's wrong, except for you apparently.
> Because he has to campaign for his seat. That requires going through the campaign process, which is partisan.
What is the length of the campaign period as given in the writ for the election he is campaigning for?
HE is the one who chose to run for this position. Nobody held a gun to his head and made him do it. If acting in a non-partisan way for an extra $100k is too much of a burden, he shouldn't have taken it on.
What I don't get is Fergus has personally apologized for his partisanship. The LPC has apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities. Everyone but *you* thinks that things were done wrong.
Why do you think Fergus apologized for his previous actions if he did nothing wrong?
Why do you think the LPC apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities if they did nothing wrong?
I look forward to your answers to the questions.
>I didn't realize an election had been called. There is no need to be engaging in partisan campaigning when there is no election.
The election will be held in October next year or sooner. I also don't see you calling out the CPC for their partisan campaigning when there is no election, either.
>The BQ and NDP have also spoken out about his partisanship. Can you think of a reason the LPC might have faith in him when other parties don't?
Because he's a Liberal MP, obviously.
>What is the length of the campaign period as given in the writ for the election he is campaigning for?
[An election period, which can last from 37 to 51 days, begins on the date the writs are issued and ends on election day. Most candidates start campaigning once the election is called, but some may start earlier.](https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/canadas-elections/canadas-election-process/election-campaigning)
So you can start campaigning the moment you're elected if you wish.
>What I don't get is Fergus has personally apologized for his partisanship. The LPC has apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities. Everyone but *you* thinks that things were done wrong.
Actually, I have said nothing on the rightness on his actions. I have pointed out that this is the side-effect of having an MP in a role where his position requires him to be neutral, but his political position requires him not to be. We have increasingly become polarized in recent years, this is just another symptom of that.
>Why do you think Fergus apologized for his previous actions if he did nothing wrong?
Because he accepted he did something wrong: [Fergus told MPs on the committee that he knows he "messed up" and promised that he would never do it again and has put protocols in place to ensure that promise is kept. ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071)
>Why do you think the LPC apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities if they did nothing wrong?
[The language was posted without Fergus's knowledge and "as a result of a miscommunication between the Party and the riding association," said the letter from Azam Ishmael, the party's national director.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fergus-must-resign-cpc-says-partisan-event-1.7209728)
>Are Fergus and the LPC generally people who bend a knee and apologize when there's nothing to apologize for?
Can't speak for Fergus, but to some, yes the LPC is the kind to apologize when they shouldn't (see the opposition to residential schools and Truth and Reconciliation). However, you seem to have missed my point.
It's not that Fergus didn't do anything wrong, it's we've placed him in an impossible situation and then blame him for not being able to be superhuman. Of he course he did wrong, the system as it is now, is setup to fail.
> It's not that Fergus didn't do anything wrong, it's we've placed him in an impossible situation and then blame him for not being able to be superhuman. Of he course he did wrong, the system as it is now, is setup to fail.
We have had plenty of speakers who managed to be reelected and also be nonpartisan. His riding is *very* safe, losing his seat next election really isn't a issue.
That wont be the case anymore. Like the US, our politics has become hyper polarized, with toxic political leaders, and media outlets that are driving division to generate engagement.
Get ready for the new world of Canadian Politics, where everything is an attack, everyone that isn't your chosen team is either a fascist or a communist, and everyone in the government will be called on to resign at least once a week.
Hire a British contractor to be the Speaker, or anyone else with legislative/Speaker experience from a country with the Westminster model. This person would be more like an independent, unaffiliated referee. Obviously the selection would have to be done by a parliamentary committee and not the PMO.
As long as the Speaker is an MP, an entire riding loses it's representation. Sometimes 2 ridings lose out because the opposition sometimes doesn't vote, because the Speaker can't vote. It's dumb.
Which means that the Speaker ***has*** to become an independent position that isn't an MP, the position is filled in a different manner, and yes, it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix it, but I don't think it'll be that much of an issue. A bigger problem would be laying out tie-breaking rules.
In another similar post, I suggested just getting a retiring judge to act as the Speaker for a term, like 5 years. We should have at least a few good candidates every 5 years.
~~Slight correction - It would not take a Constitutional amendment to fix. The role of Speaker, who can be elected to it, and so on is set by the Standing Orders of the House- which can be amended or modified by the House itself whenever they want (just doesn’t happen that often.)~~ (don’t reddit before coffee, folks.)
> 44 The House of Commons on its first assembling after a General Election shall proceed with all practicable Speed to elect One of its Members to be Speaker.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-1.html#h-6
At this juncture, I would not trust a single party to open up the constitution. Especially since it would require a majority from the provinces. And once it’s opened how easily would it be to start changing stuff?
Since it only impacts the HoC, the Provinces wouldn't be involved. This is a Section 44 type amendment, so only the HoC and the Senate would be involved. I think the Senate would rubber stamp it for sure, since it doesn't involve them. Although I'd hope they would also ask to be included, for altering who the Speaker of the Senate is going to be, it also shouldn't be a Senator.
> As long as the Speaker is an MP, an entire riding loses it's representation
By virtue of being a Member of Parliament, the Speaker gets an allotment from the House of Commons itself to operate their riding-level offices - including rent, utilities, telecoms, maintenance, insurance, staff salaries, and more. While they do give up nearly all of their voting rights in the House and on standing committees (as the Speaker chairs the Board of Internal Economy), they're still able to have full-time constituency staff to serve people who come in with federal issues, like immigration and passports. Fergus, along with Rota and Scheer, also have multiple constituency offices due to how physically large their ridings are.
> A bigger problem would be laying out tie-breaking rules.
This right here is why the House would _never_ agree to a constitutional amendment to elect a non-MP as Speaker. If a situation ever arose where a tiebreaking vote was needed on a vote of confidence (which happened once before), questions of legitimacy would absolutely come up - even if the Speaker is governed by Westminster conventions when it comes to tiebreaking votes. The only time a non-MP has any sort of Speaker's role is at the _very_ start of a new Parliament, where the Clerk of the House introduces the Dean to oversee the election of a Speaker; they also don't physically sit in the Speaker's chair.
> they're still able to have full-time constituency staff to serve people who come in with federal issues, like immigration and passports. Fergus, along with Rota and Scheer, also have multiple constituency offices due to how physically large their ridings are.
I mean it's the same deal if your MP is leader or a highprofile minister. Like you're not getting a sit down conversation with Trudeau or Poilievre to talk about a issue.
They also give up their rights to debate. Imagine a Speaker's riding is somewhere that is getting $5B to build a new EV plant, and they can't represent their riding vis-a-vis the debate on that plant. It's wrong to do that to the people of that riding, so much so that, imo, it should be illegal.
---
I'm gonna have to give the tie-breaking rules a nice long ponder, because there is a difference between MPs don't want to do it, and there being an actual real legal, ethical, moral issue to doing it that way. I don't particularly care if MPs like, or don't like, the rules that are applied to them. Usually I take the point that if MPs don't like it, it's probably the best thing for the rest of us.
The first thing I'll need to ponder is if we need a tie-breaker in the first place, are there ways we can run things without needing a tiebreaker, by making ties not possible, or automatically handled w/o human intervention.
> The first thing I'll need to ponder is if we need a tie-breaker in the first place, are there ways we can run things without needing a tiebreaker, by making ties not possible, or automatically handled w/o human intervention.
Ties are always a possibility, depending on how many MPs are physically able to vote. While pairing does exist to cover off MPs that can't vote for various reasons, those are one-for-ones. An example of when a vote pair might be used is if a Minister is travelling overseas, as you can't use the remote voting application outside of Canada - a Liberal might pair with a Conservative or Bloc MP in that situation.
Even though we've had an even number of MPs since 2004, there's an odd number of voting members when you exclude the Speaker. The opposite will happen after the next election, with 343 MPs and 342 with a "normal" vote.
If only! [Section 48 of the Constitution sets quorum at 20 members.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_09_2-e.html)
This came up in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, before virtual sittings were set up and where you _had_ to be in the House itself to count for quorum. Even with gathering restrictions and physical distancing, Table Officers and Administration made a determination that there was no way around this constitutional requirement - there _must_ be a quorum of 20.
Ah, but quorum only applies at the start of the day or when someone points it out. So there could be 20 MPs present, then 19 die of simultaneous heart attacks, and the remaining MP can pass motions by himself as long as he doesn't mention the lack of quorum.
The speaker can and does vote - but it's usually for breaking ties.
> In another similar post, I suggested just getting a retiring judge to act as the Speaker for a term, like 5 years. We should have at least a few good candidates every 5 years.
You need to actually have sat as a MP and understand not just the rules of the HoC but the culture of the HoC. Your peers need to respect you, a unelected outsider won't have that.
> You need to actually have sat as a MP and understand not just the rules of the HoC but the culture of the HoC. Your peers need to respect you, a unelected outsider won't have that.
You do have a point that an unelected outsider won't have the same kind of respect. However, since the MPs are the ones that changed the law, a constitutional law no less, there is no reason they shouldn't respect any person appointed to that position, especially a retired judge, possibly even SCC judges.
But in the end, respect doesn't matter when the law says "This is your speaker". An unrespected Speaker is still the Speaker, they can still enforce decorum, they can still punish rule breakers. Act like children, get treated like children.
> But in the end, respect doesn't matter when the law says "This is your speaker". An unrespected Speaker is still the Speaker, they can still enforce decorum, they can still punish rule breakers. Act like children, get treated like children.
That's just not realistic or reflective of the culture of the HoC. Sure the law is behind the speaker but if members don't agree with the ruling - well we saw what happened with Poilievre. Respect does matter.
Than the Speaker will just kick the MPs out.
MPs have to care more about how their ridings respect them, than how much respect they have for the Speaker.
If an MP is being constantly kicked out of the HoC, maybe to the point where they are removed for long stretches, they simply won't be voted back in after the next election, because the people aren't being represented.
What did we see happen with Poilievre? He got kicked out.
> What did we see happen with Poilievre? He got kicked out.
And his entire party walked out with him.
If that starts happening on a regular basis it's a serious problem and parliament doesn't function.
As long as there is quorum, everything is fine.
Sure, some MPs will walk out, but then the opposing side will use that advantage to pass shit. Risky manoeuvre.
> Sure, some MPs will walk out, but then the opposing side will use that advantage to pass shit. Risky manoeuvre.
Surely you don't really think that would fly? (or be acceptable)
It's absolutely allowed, as long as quorum is still held, than voting is allowed, regardless of why people left. That's how it is right now.
Now, if people were kicked out by the Speaker, and it didn't seem like they were removed legitimately. Sorta like the Speaker was intentionally removing people to give someone else an advantage. Yeah, it'd be stopped, rightfully. MPs would rightly call the GG to come fix shit, get rid of the Speaker if need be.
If quorum couldn't be held, because MPs refused to return. Than yeah, something else would need to be done. I'd start with a new person to the position, and if that still didn't work, than alter things so that the position is once again elected, but nominees aren't MPs. Either via the general election, or MPs electing, the Speaker would be chosen from a pool by the electorate. I'd say that party members, failed candidates, retired/removed MPs, shouldn't be allowed in the nominee pool.
> As long as the Speaker is an MP, an entire riding loses it's representation.
It depends on what you consider to be essential to representing a riding. As far as voting in the HoC goes, yes, the speaker seldom votes, and only votes in a very prescribed manner. In the realm of advocating for the riding to the federal government, that can still take place.
> Which means that the Speaker has to become an independent position that isn't an MP,
That would violate so much constitutional convention, that it's a total non-starter. MPs are not going to accept a non-MP telling them what to do in the HoC.
> It depends on what you consider to be essential to representing a riding.
Being able to act, debate, vote, on bills, on motions. The base requirements of an MPs job. That's what I consider representing a riding.
> That would violate so much constitutional convention, that it's a total non-starter. MPs are not going to accept a non-MP telling them what to do in the HoC.
It's not a Constitutional convention though, it's a written constitutional law. Section 44 states they have to be an MP.
So it would take a Constitutional amendment, and as such, no convention would matter, and the MPs could hoot and hollar til the end of time, they'd still have to follow the Constitution and do what the now non-MP speaker tells them to do.
It doesn't matter if the speaker is independent or not or how they conduct themselves. Current Canadian politics especially one party bases itself in a certain rhetorical mindset. It's beneficial in terms of talking points and optics to stir up trouble and then play the victim when called out. If Fergus went independent or never was an MP or even liberal it wouldn't change much. He'd still be the establishment. The current parties especially one love playing off the establishment and the backlash as part of their strategy. Poltiicans have gone after other independent institutions as is. The political climate is toxic for actually doing anything positive for the country and civility and cohesion but it is good for riling up your tribe.
Wherry has some good suggestions, and I agree that the UK speaker is a more explicitly non-partisan actor in the HoC, but it's probably too late to change things that drastically. Or at least now is the wrong time. Maybe in a couple decades things will be less heated, and the idea of party cooperation won't seem so laughable.
Scheer would like a talk. Actually no he won't. because reminding people of when his actions were seen as being on the partisan side while he was speaker, would deflect from what the CPC is doing to Fergus right now.
Provides some examples, he wasn't doing events in his robes or campaign fundraising with partisan slogans.
Rota managed to avoid this too.
Sure the CPC is playing this up but Fergus put himself in this position.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mulcair-challenges-speakers-neutrality-in-question-period
I remember there being more instances, but my google fu isn't strong enough to bring up the links.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do think having a independent MP or someone that isn't a MP at all makes sense for this role. It's impossible to not be partisan if you're supporting a party.
> someone that isn't a MP Would not fly, as it would be a violation of parliamentary privilege. In the HoC, MPs are supreme, and only answer to their peers. The Speaker is the enforcer of the rules, and having a non-MP tell an MP what to do in the HoC, would be a massive violation of their privilege as an MP.
That’s what they do in the Uk though
The Speaker of the HoC in the UK is absolutely an MP, as the article makes quite clear.
You can see be an MP AND independent as is the case in the UK. Other parties agree not to run against the speaker. 🔊
I was replying to someone who suggested that a non-MP could be the speaker, and saying that wasn't possible, which you and others have mistaken as me saying that an independent MP couldn't be speaker.
The UK speaker is still an MP, just an independent one who doesn't rejoin their party afterwards and runs unopposed from then on. They are often really long serving (often 10 years).
The answer to this would be MMP, and you give a 'unelected' seat to leaders, possibly some ministers, and the speaker. If Trudeau is you're MP you're getting pretty shortchanged for representation.
In the UK the Speaker resigns from their party, and all the other parties agree to not run candidates against them in the election. Liberals and PCs agreed to something similar back in the day, but the NDP refused to agree, so it fell through in Canada, unfortunately.
The Liberals tried this in the 1960s with Lucien Lamoureaux. And you're right, the NDP ran a candidate against him. Cornwall has a park named after him. Cornwall is also home to Ontario's first Premier, who was arguable non-partisan. Today they have Eric Duncan, the queer mouthpiece for Pierre's ax-the-tax campaign.
The problem with that approach is that it effectively denies people in the speaker's riding proper representation.
And because of that, we have to have a partisan speaker.
> The problem with that approach is that it effectively denies people in the speaker's riding proper representation. We have the same thing with leaders (though the NDP doesn't respect that)
Source? The Liberals and Conservatives ran candidates against each other's leaders in 2021.
By elections where someone steps down to make room for a incoming leader without a seat. The greens tried to play this card but without actually giving up a seat and of course everyone called bullshit and Paul lost.
Good point, although as far as I can tell, the last time that actually happened was for Stephen Harper in 2002.
I think there is a certain amount of caucus respect you earn winning fair and square in a election. You're also asking someone to give up the seat they won. Probably comes down to how fast you need the leader in the HoC. If Trudeau loses and steps down and Carney wins the leadership I suspect they would do this - get him in fast, in the right riding and don't risk his leadership by losing a contested by election.
Maybe we go one step further then? When an MP is elected Speaker they not only leave their party but vacate their seat as a Member of Parliament and a by-election is held to replace them. In exchange the now ridingless* Speaker is allowed to remain Speaker as long as they wish (or they lose the confidence of the House) — even through elections. *I’m not 100% sure if you can constitutionally be a ridingless MP, so alternatively Parliament could create a riding that’s explicitly only Parliament Hill with a population of 0, and the Speaker would be the Member of Parliament for Parliament Hill — that way they’d still vote in ties too.
As long as the speaker is a MP, there will be claims they're partisan. Especially in the modern polarized arena of politics Â
> As long as the speaker is a MP, there will be claims they're partisan. It doesn't mean Fergus needs to lean into the partisanship like he has. Scott Reid was interviewed the other day by CTV and he made the analogy that when calls are made near the final whistle, the referee gets the blame whether or not they deserve it. In this case the referee has gone out of their way to be seen wearing one team's jersey multiple times between games. I think it would be great if we had a similar convention as the UK has where the speaker is officially independent and can run unopposed for re-election. But, short of that, the speaker needs to at least *try* to appear impartial otherwise any claim you are impartial becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation. Fergus is reminding me of Payette in that he's publicly floundering at a job that historically flies under the radar and doesn't really ask too much of him. I think I'd be able to put my Canucks jersey in the closet in exchange for $100k a year. Why can't the speaker?
>It doesn't mean Fergus needs to lean into the partisanship like he has So what is he supposed to do to run for office, just say his name and he's running? He needs to make a case for his candidacy, and that means contrasting and attacking the positions of others who are also running against him. >But, short of that, the speaker needs to at least *try* to appear impartial otherwise any claim you are impartial becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation. I'd like to point out that the largest group complaining about his supposed impartiality are the CPC, the group who like to feign outrage when it isn't warranted (see elbowgate) >I think I'd be able to put my Canucks jersey in the closet in exchange for $100k a year. Why can't the speaker? Because he has to campaign for his seat. That requires going through the campaign process, which is partisan.
>So what is he supposed to do to run for office, just say his name and he's running? In Hull-Alymer? A riding that even given the current polls Fergus would *still* win by 30%? Yes.
>So what is he supposed to do to run for office, just say his name and he's running? I didn't realize an election had been called. There is no need to be engaging in partisan campaigning when there is no election. >I'd like to point out that the largest group complaining about his supposed impartiality are the CPC, The BQ and NDP have also spoken out about his partisanship. The LPC has apologized for implicating him in partisan activities. Fergus himself has apologized for engaging in partisan activities. Everyone thinks it's wrong, except for you apparently. > Because he has to campaign for his seat. That requires going through the campaign process, which is partisan. What is the length of the campaign period as given in the writ for the election he is campaigning for? HE is the one who chose to run for this position. Nobody held a gun to his head and made him do it. If acting in a non-partisan way for an extra $100k is too much of a burden, he shouldn't have taken it on. What I don't get is Fergus has personally apologized for his partisanship. The LPC has apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities. Everyone but *you* thinks that things were done wrong. Why do you think Fergus apologized for his previous actions if he did nothing wrong? Why do you think the LPC apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities if they did nothing wrong? I look forward to your answers to the questions.
>I didn't realize an election had been called. There is no need to be engaging in partisan campaigning when there is no election. The election will be held in October next year or sooner. I also don't see you calling out the CPC for their partisan campaigning when there is no election, either. >The BQ and NDP have also spoken out about his partisanship. Can you think of a reason the LPC might have faith in him when other parties don't? Because he's a Liberal MP, obviously. >What is the length of the campaign period as given in the writ for the election he is campaigning for? [An election period, which can last from 37 to 51 days, begins on the date the writs are issued and ends on election day. Most candidates start campaigning once the election is called, but some may start earlier.](https://electionsanddemocracy.ca/canadas-elections/canadas-election-process/election-campaigning) So you can start campaigning the moment you're elected if you wish. >What I don't get is Fergus has personally apologized for his partisanship. The LPC has apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities. Everyone but *you* thinks that things were done wrong. Actually, I have said nothing on the rightness on his actions. I have pointed out that this is the side-effect of having an MP in a role where his position requires him to be neutral, but his political position requires him not to be. We have increasingly become polarized in recent years, this is just another symptom of that. >Why do you think Fergus apologized for his previous actions if he did nothing wrong? Because he accepted he did something wrong: [Fergus told MPs on the committee that he knows he "messed up" and promised that he would never do it again and has put protocols in place to ensure that promise is kept. ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/speaker-greg-fergus-appears-committee-1.7055071) >Why do you think the LPC apologized to Fergus for implicating him in partisan activities if they did nothing wrong? [The language was posted without Fergus's knowledge and "as a result of a miscommunication between the Party and the riding association," said the letter from Azam Ishmael, the party's national director.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fergus-must-resign-cpc-says-partisan-event-1.7209728) >Are Fergus and the LPC generally people who bend a knee and apologize when there's nothing to apologize for? Can't speak for Fergus, but to some, yes the LPC is the kind to apologize when they shouldn't (see the opposition to residential schools and Truth and Reconciliation). However, you seem to have missed my point. It's not that Fergus didn't do anything wrong, it's we've placed him in an impossible situation and then blame him for not being able to be superhuman. Of he course he did wrong, the system as it is now, is setup to fail.
> It's not that Fergus didn't do anything wrong, it's we've placed him in an impossible situation and then blame him for not being able to be superhuman. Of he course he did wrong, the system as it is now, is setup to fail. We have had plenty of speakers who managed to be reelected and also be nonpartisan. His riding is *very* safe, losing his seat next election really isn't a issue.
How many other speakers have had to apologize at all for being partisan?
You did not take the time to read OPs response.
I did. You just disagree with my points, which is entirely your choice.
> As long as the speaker is a MP, there will be claims they're partisan We have had quite a few speakers and this issue hasn't come up often.
That wont be the case anymore. Like the US, our politics has become hyper polarized, with toxic political leaders, and media outlets that are driving division to generate engagement. Get ready for the new world of Canadian Politics, where everything is an attack, everyone that isn't your chosen team is either a fascist or a communist, and everyone in the government will be called on to resign at least once a week.
Hire a British contractor to be the Speaker, or anyone else with legislative/Speaker experience from a country with the Westminster model. This person would be more like an independent, unaffiliated referee. Obviously the selection would have to be done by a parliamentary committee and not the PMO.
As long as the Speaker is an MP, an entire riding loses it's representation. Sometimes 2 ridings lose out because the opposition sometimes doesn't vote, because the Speaker can't vote. It's dumb. Which means that the Speaker ***has*** to become an independent position that isn't an MP, the position is filled in a different manner, and yes, it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix it, but I don't think it'll be that much of an issue. A bigger problem would be laying out tie-breaking rules. In another similar post, I suggested just getting a retiring judge to act as the Speaker for a term, like 5 years. We should have at least a few good candidates every 5 years.
~~Slight correction - It would not take a Constitutional amendment to fix. The role of Speaker, who can be elected to it, and so on is set by the Standing Orders of the House- which can be amended or modified by the House itself whenever they want (just doesn’t happen that often.)~~ (don’t reddit before coffee, folks.)
> 44 The House of Commons on its first assembling after a General Election shall proceed with all practicable Speed to elect One of its Members to be Speaker. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-1.html#h-6
Since that provision only affects Parliament, it could likely be amended without needing provincial support.
Yep, which would make things a lot easier.
I appear to have forgotten that - will correct!
At this juncture, I would not trust a single party to open up the constitution. Especially since it would require a majority from the provinces. And once it’s opened how easily would it be to start changing stuff?
Since it only impacts the HoC, the Provinces wouldn't be involved. This is a Section 44 type amendment, so only the HoC and the Senate would be involved. I think the Senate would rubber stamp it for sure, since it doesn't involve them. Although I'd hope they would also ask to be included, for altering who the Speaker of the Senate is going to be, it also shouldn't be a Senator.
Fun fact, the speaker of the Senate is appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister.
> As long as the Speaker is an MP, an entire riding loses it's representation By virtue of being a Member of Parliament, the Speaker gets an allotment from the House of Commons itself to operate their riding-level offices - including rent, utilities, telecoms, maintenance, insurance, staff salaries, and more. While they do give up nearly all of their voting rights in the House and on standing committees (as the Speaker chairs the Board of Internal Economy), they're still able to have full-time constituency staff to serve people who come in with federal issues, like immigration and passports. Fergus, along with Rota and Scheer, also have multiple constituency offices due to how physically large their ridings are. > A bigger problem would be laying out tie-breaking rules. This right here is why the House would _never_ agree to a constitutional amendment to elect a non-MP as Speaker. If a situation ever arose where a tiebreaking vote was needed on a vote of confidence (which happened once before), questions of legitimacy would absolutely come up - even if the Speaker is governed by Westminster conventions when it comes to tiebreaking votes. The only time a non-MP has any sort of Speaker's role is at the _very_ start of a new Parliament, where the Clerk of the House introduces the Dean to oversee the election of a Speaker; they also don't physically sit in the Speaker's chair.
> they're still able to have full-time constituency staff to serve people who come in with federal issues, like immigration and passports. Fergus, along with Rota and Scheer, also have multiple constituency offices due to how physically large their ridings are. I mean it's the same deal if your MP is leader or a highprofile minister. Like you're not getting a sit down conversation with Trudeau or Poilievre to talk about a issue.
They also give up their rights to debate. Imagine a Speaker's riding is somewhere that is getting $5B to build a new EV plant, and they can't represent their riding vis-a-vis the debate on that plant. It's wrong to do that to the people of that riding, so much so that, imo, it should be illegal. --- I'm gonna have to give the tie-breaking rules a nice long ponder, because there is a difference between MPs don't want to do it, and there being an actual real legal, ethical, moral issue to doing it that way. I don't particularly care if MPs like, or don't like, the rules that are applied to them. Usually I take the point that if MPs don't like it, it's probably the best thing for the rest of us. The first thing I'll need to ponder is if we need a tie-breaker in the first place, are there ways we can run things without needing a tiebreaker, by making ties not possible, or automatically handled w/o human intervention.
> The first thing I'll need to ponder is if we need a tie-breaker in the first place, are there ways we can run things without needing a tiebreaker, by making ties not possible, or automatically handled w/o human intervention. Ties are always a possibility, depending on how many MPs are physically able to vote. While pairing does exist to cover off MPs that can't vote for various reasons, those are one-for-ones. An example of when a vote pair might be used is if a Minister is travelling overseas, as you can't use the remote voting application outside of Canada - a Liberal might pair with a Conservative or Bloc MP in that situation. Even though we've had an even number of MPs since 2004, there's an odd number of voting members when you exclude the Speaker. The opposite will happen after the next election, with 343 MPs and 342 with a "normal" vote.
> Ties are always a possibility Not if there's only one MP!
If only! [Section 48 of the Constitution sets quorum at 20 members.](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_09_2-e.html) This came up in the very early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, before virtual sittings were set up and where you _had_ to be in the House itself to count for quorum. Even with gathering restrictions and physical distancing, Table Officers and Administration made a determination that there was no way around this constitutional requirement - there _must_ be a quorum of 20.
Ah, but quorum only applies at the start of the day or when someone points it out. So there could be 20 MPs present, then 19 die of simultaneous heart attacks, and the remaining MP can pass motions by himself as long as he doesn't mention the lack of quorum.
the provinces are not going to agree on a new constitution.
It wouldn't be a new Constitution, and the Provinces wouldn't be involved in this change at all anyways, since it doesn't involve them.
The speaker can and does vote - but it's usually for breaking ties. > In another similar post, I suggested just getting a retiring judge to act as the Speaker for a term, like 5 years. We should have at least a few good candidates every 5 years. You need to actually have sat as a MP and understand not just the rules of the HoC but the culture of the HoC. Your peers need to respect you, a unelected outsider won't have that.
> You need to actually have sat as a MP and understand not just the rules of the HoC but the culture of the HoC. Your peers need to respect you, a unelected outsider won't have that. You do have a point that an unelected outsider won't have the same kind of respect. However, since the MPs are the ones that changed the law, a constitutional law no less, there is no reason they shouldn't respect any person appointed to that position, especially a retired judge, possibly even SCC judges. But in the end, respect doesn't matter when the law says "This is your speaker". An unrespected Speaker is still the Speaker, they can still enforce decorum, they can still punish rule breakers. Act like children, get treated like children.
> But in the end, respect doesn't matter when the law says "This is your speaker". An unrespected Speaker is still the Speaker, they can still enforce decorum, they can still punish rule breakers. Act like children, get treated like children. That's just not realistic or reflective of the culture of the HoC. Sure the law is behind the speaker but if members don't agree with the ruling - well we saw what happened with Poilievre. Respect does matter.
Than the Speaker will just kick the MPs out. MPs have to care more about how their ridings respect them, than how much respect they have for the Speaker. If an MP is being constantly kicked out of the HoC, maybe to the point where they are removed for long stretches, they simply won't be voted back in after the next election, because the people aren't being represented. What did we see happen with Poilievre? He got kicked out.
> What did we see happen with Poilievre? He got kicked out. And his entire party walked out with him. If that starts happening on a regular basis it's a serious problem and parliament doesn't function.
As long as there is quorum, everything is fine. Sure, some MPs will walk out, but then the opposing side will use that advantage to pass shit. Risky manoeuvre.
> Sure, some MPs will walk out, but then the opposing side will use that advantage to pass shit. Risky manoeuvre. Surely you don't really think that would fly? (or be acceptable)
It's absolutely allowed, as long as quorum is still held, than voting is allowed, regardless of why people left. That's how it is right now. Now, if people were kicked out by the Speaker, and it didn't seem like they were removed legitimately. Sorta like the Speaker was intentionally removing people to give someone else an advantage. Yeah, it'd be stopped, rightfully. MPs would rightly call the GG to come fix shit, get rid of the Speaker if need be. If quorum couldn't be held, because MPs refused to return. Than yeah, something else would need to be done. I'd start with a new person to the position, and if that still didn't work, than alter things so that the position is once again elected, but nominees aren't MPs. Either via the general election, or MPs electing, the Speaker would be chosen from a pool by the electorate. I'd say that party members, failed candidates, retired/removed MPs, shouldn't be allowed in the nominee pool.
> As long as the Speaker is an MP, an entire riding loses it's representation. It depends on what you consider to be essential to representing a riding. As far as voting in the HoC goes, yes, the speaker seldom votes, and only votes in a very prescribed manner. In the realm of advocating for the riding to the federal government, that can still take place. > Which means that the Speaker has to become an independent position that isn't an MP, That would violate so much constitutional convention, that it's a total non-starter. MPs are not going to accept a non-MP telling them what to do in the HoC.
> It depends on what you consider to be essential to representing a riding. Being able to act, debate, vote, on bills, on motions. The base requirements of an MPs job. That's what I consider representing a riding. > That would violate so much constitutional convention, that it's a total non-starter. MPs are not going to accept a non-MP telling them what to do in the HoC. It's not a Constitutional convention though, it's a written constitutional law. Section 44 states they have to be an MP. So it would take a Constitutional amendment, and as such, no convention would matter, and the MPs could hoot and hollar til the end of time, they'd still have to follow the Constitution and do what the now non-MP speaker tells them to do.
It doesn't matter if the speaker is independent or not or how they conduct themselves. Current Canadian politics especially one party bases itself in a certain rhetorical mindset. It's beneficial in terms of talking points and optics to stir up trouble and then play the victim when called out. If Fergus went independent or never was an MP or even liberal it wouldn't change much. He'd still be the establishment. The current parties especially one love playing off the establishment and the backlash as part of their strategy. Poltiicans have gone after other independent institutions as is. The political climate is toxic for actually doing anything positive for the country and civility and cohesion but it is good for riling up your tribe.
Wherry has some good suggestions, and I agree that the UK speaker is a more explicitly non-partisan actor in the HoC, but it's probably too late to change things that drastically. Or at least now is the wrong time. Maybe in a couple decades things will be less heated, and the idea of party cooperation won't seem so laughable.
> UK speaker is a more explicitly non-partisan actor in the HoC Past speakers haven't had this problem.
Scheer would like a talk. Actually no he won't. because reminding people of when his actions were seen as being on the partisan side while he was speaker, would deflect from what the CPC is doing to Fergus right now.
Provides some examples, he wasn't doing events in his robes or campaign fundraising with partisan slogans. Rota managed to avoid this too. Sure the CPC is playing this up but Fergus put himself in this position.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mulcair-challenges-speakers-neutrality-in-question-period I remember there being more instances, but my google fu isn't strong enough to bring up the links.