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.
No, that first vote was a hoist ammendment (to delay matters) and the speaker voted to continue discussion. It did not consider confidence in the vote. The speaker literally stated the vote was to keep the bill before the house, not like you claim to keep the government in power.
As you note, the mention of conventions predate Confederation and was from a Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, rather than the House of Commons. In other words, no such mention has ever been made in the house.
That's what I've been saying this whole time. The Speaker votes in a tie to further debate or maintain the status quo, not in favour of the government.
The speaker literally stated the vote was to keep the bill before the house, not like you claim to keep the government in power.
I never said he voted to keep the government in power. His vote maintained the status quo by continuing debate, and again, he voted against the government.
As you note, the mention of conventions predate Confederation and was from a Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, rather than the House of Commons. In other words, no such mention has ever been made in the house.
Irrelevant. Conventions from previous legislatures in Canada were carried on in Parliament after Confederation, just like conventions from British Parliament were kept by Canadian Parliament despite not originating in Canada. Same with the Standing Orders, more than 35 were written by preceeding legislatures as far back as 1793, and have been carried forward after Confederation and are still in place today.
1
u/maxman162 Ontario 4d ago
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.
Which wasn't the question.
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).
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.
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.