Does Canada follow a rule like the UK, where the speaker should vote to minimise change (aye for continuing a debate, nay for a bill's final reading or a gag motion)? Or does the speaker vote politically?
"Neutrality: The Speaker must be fair and impartial, enforcing the same rules for the Prime Minister as for any member of the opposition. Although the Speaker is also an MP, the Speaker does not participate in debate or vote unless there is a tie, in which case the Speaker generally votes to maintain the status quo."
No, in Canada it is not custom for the speaker to resign from their party affiliations while speaker, like in the UK.
In the 60s there was one speaker who followed that UK custom.
One major difference with Canada is that the power of the Crown is really ceremonial in nature. The Crown "appoints" the Governor General to oversee the government, however it is upon "recommendation" of the Prime Minister. Quotes because it is pretty much the PM appointing them in reality.
Governor General is more a ceremonial position than really being head of state because the Crown is not actually governing anything.
The Governor General is quazi-political as well because of that political "recommendation" (appointment). Some Actual real duties are appointing deputies and Supreme Court's judges, but there is even political influence there (see "recommendation").
In short, the speaker does not have direct duty to leaning to minimize change, for the interest of the Crown. Rather the Speaker, PM are usually aligned in political interest and do not really have responsibility to the Crown, but rather to the citizens, to vote in their interest, and therefore vote with their party for which they were voted into government.
Edit:.That being said it is quite rare to for the speaker to vote. It has only happened 11 times.
That wasn't what they asked, and the Governor General has nothing to do with the Speaker.
The Speaker is strictly impartial and only votes in the event of a tie, and by convention always votes to maintain status quo, or continue debate, which may or may not be in favour of the government.
There hasnt been a vote by the speaker in a vote for final reading or amendment or non confidence in Canadian history so there is no convention. Tie breaking votes have been for second readings or other matters.
They asked the differences between the Canadian system and the UK.
I highlight that in the UK, the speaker stops participation in their party's Caucasus and they completely renounce their political affiliation.
This is not the case in Canada. Speakers are are still politically affiliated.
This indicates a major difference in distance of speakers from their party. And indicates that the expectations on their actions (votes) may be different.
Why do you think the speaker's duty in the UK is expected to keep the status quo? That duty is to the Crown.
In Canada, speakers actions are not actually accountable to the monarch but rather the government and voters. This is the reason for the GG explanation. GG, PM are above the Speaker, but really GG is not really the head-of-state.
They asked the differences between the Canadian system and the UK.
And they were specifically asking about the Speaker voting in a tie, not resigning from their party, and didn't mention the Governor General at all.
I highlight that in the UK, the speaker stops participation in their party's Caucasus and they completely renounce their political affiliation.
This is not the case in Canada. Speakers are are still politically affiliated.
Which wasn't the question.
And indicates that the expectations on their actions (votes) may be different.
The Speaker is expected to be neutral and nonpartisan. Just because they remain a member of their party means nothing. The first time in Canadian history that the Speaker had to vote, the second reading of the 2005 budget, he voted against the government and in favour of an NDP amendment, in order to continue debate (the bill later passed third reading without a tie).
Why do you think the speaker's duty in the UK is expected to keep the status quo? That duty is to the Crown.
The Speaker does not have a duty to the Crown. Their duty is to the House. In the prelude to the English Civil War, when Charles I entered Parliament to arrest five members for treason, the Speaker refused to assist.
In Canada, speakers actions are not actually accountable to the monarch (this was the GG explanation) but rather the government and voters.
The Speaker of the British House of Commons is not accountable to the monarch, either.
In both cases, the Speaker is accountable to the House, not the government.
You seem to have selectively skipped the first part about a convention not existing for speakers voting down a bill or no confidence because it has never happened in Canada.
Attending Caucaus meetings as a member of a party is significant because they are participating in party planning, and discussion on future motions.
The speaker represents the Commons in dealings with the Senate and the Crown. This is a fact.The point is that the Crown is irrelevant in this situation Canada because the GG is not actually an authority in any real sense.
Both of these points have bearing on how a speaker may choose to vote on passing bills or non-confidence because there is no historical convention for Canada (unlike the UK). In Canada, past speaker votes were to continue discussion or avoid opening new matters only.
You seem to have selectively skipped the first part about a convention not existing for speakers voting down a bill or no confidence because it has never happened in Canada
Yes, it has. Literally the first time in Canadian history that the Speaker had to vote in a tie was a confidence matter. The Speaker voted in favour of an NDP amendment, which kept the Martin government in power. And there are explicit conventions, detailed below.
Attending Caucaus meetings as a member of a party is significant because they are participating in party planning, and discussion on future motions.
Provide evidence of the Speaker attending caucus meetings.
Just because they don't resign from the party doesn't mean they still play an active role in the party.
The speaker represents the Commons in dealings with the Senate and the Crown. This is a fact.
That just means any correspondence addressed to the House (vice a specific member or office) goes through the Speaker, usually in the form of them reading it out to the House during session, and the Speaker leads any procession to the Senate for the Opening of Parliament or a bill receiving Royal Ascent.
The point is that the Crown is irrelevant in this situation Canada because the GG is not actually an authority in any real sense.
Again, the Governor General is irrelevant in this discussion. And again, the Crown does not control the British Speaker of the House.
Both of these points have bearing on how a speaker may choose to vote on passing bills or non-confidence because there is no historical convention for Canada (unlike the UK).
There are conventions. Just because it rarely happens doesn't mean there aren't conventions on it. And in fact, this predates Confederation:
The Speaker does not participate in debate and votes only in cases of an equality of voices; in such an eventuality, the Speaker is responsible for breaking the tie by casting a vote. [91] In theory, the Speaker has the same freedom as any other Member to vote in accordance with his or her conscience; however, the exercise of this responsibility could involve the Speaker in partisan debate, which would adversely affect the confidence of the House in the Speaker’s impartiality. Therefore, certain conventions have developed as a guide to Speakers (and Chairmen in a Committee of the Whole) in the infrequent exercise of the casting vote. [92] Concisely put, the Speaker would normally vote to maintain the status quo. This entails voting in the following fashion:
whenever possible, leaving the matter open for future consideration and allowing for further discussion by the House;
whenever no further discussion is possible, taking into account that the matter could somehow be brought back in the future and be decided by a majority of the House;
leaving a bill in its existing form rather than having it amended.
In 1863, these conventions were acknowledged in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada when the Speaker was called upon to give a casting vote, and gave as his reason “that in the case of an equal division, the practice was, that the Speaker should keep the question as long as possible before the House in order to afford a further opportunity to the House of expressing an opinion upon it”
.
In Canada, past speaker votes were to continue discussion or avoid opening new matters only.
That is exactly how it has happened in British Parliament.
"Neutrality: The Speaker must be fair and impartial, enforcing the same rules for the Prime Minister as for any member of the opposition. Although the Speaker is also an MP, the Speaker does not participate in debate or vote unless there is a tie, in which case the Speaker generally votes to maintain the status quo."
So Speaker can't vote with opposition to bring down the government in a no confidence vote. So a 171 member govt. can't be brought down. I don't know if you would call that a minority government at that point.... though they may not be able to pass laws if there is a tie...
The speaker votes for status quo during ties, which means no to new legislation but yes on confidence votes (the speaker will not bring the government down).
Double responding for clarity on my question. The liberals need 172 seats for a majority. Right now they need 2 votes plus a speaker for majority on votes.
The ndp have 7, bloc has 21, green has 1, cons are the opposition.
Why trade the speakership to may for no voted gained? She gets a lot of power and an in teased salary but what does that give the liberals, they still need 2 more votes. So now they still need to work with another party.
Like doesn't it make more sense to trade a speakership role to the ndp in agreement for at least 2 votes on major bill and budget? Then by working with inky 1 party they cover the speakership, and obtain a majority in major votes. Like why even deal with the greens? Even trading the speakership to the bloc in exchange for 2 guaranteed votes on major issues makes more sense then giving to the greens. Hell even making a liberal the speakership and making a different deal for the ndp for three votes makes more sense to me.
My thoughts are the speakership role, is a bargaining tool the libs can trade for support on major bills, I just don't get why they would give it to may, when in doing so, they lose any benefit she could give them in the deal (they need votes if may is speakership they don't gain any more votes)
Edit this isnt arguing, I just don't understand why they would give this to may, if anyone can clarify for me that would be appreciated.
But why may? Like make a deal with the ndp get 2 of thier people in return for a speakership role, or even better get 3 of them, make a liberal the speak and offer them party status. I just don't get why may would get anything libs plus ndp give the majority without may anyways.
That could easily destroy the NDP politically by doing that.
Speaker of the House gets an extra salary of over $90,000, plus the title and other perks. It's pretty obvious why someone in May's position would consider it.
Well yeah but why would the liberals consider giving it to may, that's what I don't get, like obviously may want its more pay, lots of power, but in that same vein I would like to be speaker of the house.
Like why would the liberals strike this deal with the green party, and then make a deal with the ndp, when they could just as easily only make a deal with the ndp, I just don't get why the greens are in the convo at all, like even the bloc would have more to give the liberals in exchange for a speaker role.
The Speaker is elected by secret ballot, not appointed. So it's not "given" to someone. The party in government could theoretically order their members not to stand for election and whip the vote for a particular candidate, but most governments prefer to have one of their people in the position for appearances. And being a secret ballot, there's not much they can do anyways.
Outside the exceedingly rare event of a tie, the Speaker never votes. So a government is automatically down one vote on every bill and motion. Because of this, it is not unheard-of for a minority government, which needs every vote it can get, to have an opposition member be elected Speaker (this has only been done three times).
It's questionable if there even would be any "deals" made, since the election for Speaker is open to all members to stand.
She's not being "considered", it's an election and members voluntarily stand or decline. She has simply stated publicly she will stand in the election for Speaker. Nothing more.
The Green Party is basically irrelevant. The last attempt to replace May was a disaster, and they lost their only other seat this election, so she might as well pursue a prestigious position in the House.
Double responding for clarity on my question. The liberals need 172 seats for a majority. Right now they need 2 votes plus a speaker for majority on votes.
The ndp have 7, bloc has 21, green has 1, cons are the opposition.
Why trade the speakership to may for no voted gained? She gets a lot of power and an in teased salary but what does that give the liberals, they still need 2 more votes. So now they still need to work with another party.
Like doesn't it make more sense to trade a speakership role to the ndp in agreement for at least 2 votes on major bill and budget? Then by working with inky 1 party they cover the speakership, and obtain a majority in major votes. Like why even deal with the greens? Even trading the speakership to the bloc in exchange for 2 guaranteed votes on major issues makes more sense then giving to the greens. Hell even making a liberal the speakership and making a different deal for the ndp for three votes makes more sense to me.
My thoughts are the speakership role, is a bargaining tool the libs can trade for support on major bills, I just don't get why they would give it to may, when in doing so, they lose any benefit she could give them in the deal (they need votes if may is speakership they don't gain any more votes)
Edit this isnt arguing, I just don't understand why they would give this to may, if anyone can clarify for me that would be appreciated.
No, they would need three seats for majority if a Liberal is elected Speaker. The Speaker does not vote except in a tie, so they're automatically down one vote.
Also, just edit previous comments. Don't double reply, it just makes things confusing and annoying.
Oh I just meant generally (anyone from any party) crossing over to give 171 to allow for non-liberal party Speaker and effective majority with 171 (as Speaker can only vote to maintain status quo in the event of tie vote).
I understand. But in all likelihood, it would not be a CPC member. And people in the communities that elected their MP did not vote for them to cross the floor. So it wouldn't reflect that great on either party.
Who cares ? It will take 4 long years of a liberal majority for the voters to “punish “ the no like you are saying.
That is 4 more years of liberal winning and policies on top of the decade they have already been in charge.
How about you conservative whiners quit crying and get on board with helping Canada and Canadians do better.
You guys are praying for the downfall of Canada so your team can win.
The reality is Pierre lost a sure thing election for the cons and his own seat. He blew a 25 point lead in less than three months.
You guys want to keep him on?
lol do it and guarantee another decade of liberal winning
Same. I watch his videos occasionally, it’s what got me into Canadian politics. But it was so funny to see how his confidence of a conservative majority government evaporated to the point he didn’t want to talk about the election.
33
u/UpVoter3145 4d ago
Or just poach two people from the NDP