Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do not think I will be taking my full 10 minutes, but I do want to speak in support of my colleague who has brought forward a motion which, if adopted, would see a fundamental change in the way the House elects the Speaker every time there is a new Parliament.

Currently, as most members know, the first order of business when a new Parliament begins is to elect a new Speaker.

The system we currently use is that a number of members who wish to put their names forward can do so. Actually it is a bit of an archaic procedure that members must actually inform the House if they do not want their name put forward to run for the position of Speaker. Once that has been established, the remaining candidates are allowed to make brief presentations to the entire House and then a voting process ensues.

There needs to be a 50% plus one vote of support of the entire House to be elected as the Speaker. Over the course of the last number of times that we have elected a new Speaker, it has gone anywhere from three hours to sometimes as high as 10 or 11 hours before a final determination has been made.

There seems to be two sets of arguments here either for or against the status quo. Those in favour of the status quo point to the fact that it is almost a convivial bonding moment for new members of Parliament who perhaps are unsure of exactly how Parliament works. I can imagine that a number of the members on the NDP side who were first elected in the 2011 election really had no clear idea of what to expect when they came into this place. Those who would argue in favour of the status quo say that first afternoon and evening when we elect the Speaker finally breaks down that intimidation barrier that a lot of new members face. It allows new members to interact with members on all sides of the House. It allows for some shared experiences to be told. It allows for perhaps a more convivial, less partisan approach to starting off their parliamentary careers. Others have pointed out as well that it has the excitement of a political convention that most of us have experienced at least once or twice in our political lifetimes. It is for those reasons primarily that members who are in favour of the status quo would like to see the status quo remain.

However, I am supporting a change in that system to a preferential balloting system for a very simple reason. If members are familiar with the preferential balloting system at all, they will realize that in all likelihood, every member of this place would have either his first or second choice sitting in the Speaker's chair at the end of the voting process. There is really no chance for a compromise candidate, or perhaps better put, a candidate who no one really wants to support to begin with to take ascension to the Speaker's chair.

I think that is extremely important because I believe as far as an officer of Parliament is concerned, there is no more important position in this place than the Speaker. The Speaker is the ultimate arbiter of discussion, of debate, of disagreements. The Speaker has to be wise, has to be knowledgeable, has to be learned, has to be impartial, and more importantly, has to have the confidence of this chamber.

We have all seen in leadership conventions, as an example, there have been times when neither the favoured nor the second favoured candidate has won the leadership because it becomes an anybody but campaign, where opposing factions get together and say they will gang up and vote for a third place candidate or a compromise candidate just to ensure that candidate X is defeated. We have seen it recently and we have seen it historically where candidates who were not expected to be in contention actually walked away with the leadership of a political party.

While that may be well and good for political parties, I do not believe that should be a process that we allow to happen here. A preferential ballot would quite simply ensure that every member in this place could point to the elected Speaker and say that was either his or her first or second choice. I think that ensures confidence in the House. I think it ensures that members' wishes are respected and it also respects the integrity of this place.

For those reasons, I will be supporting my colleague and encourage all members to do likewise when the vote is taken tomorrow.

Tom Lukiwski

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)