The Race for Kingsmere – I hate to disagree with my honourable colleague, The Commons …

by kadyomalley on Monday, November 17, 2008 1:55pm - 33 Comments

But ITQ cannot join with Aaron Wherry in endorsing Joe Comartin for Speaker of the House, for the very reasons that Aaron reiterates in his post — in a nutshell, he’s just too valuable a critic, committee member and cable news talking head to be silenced by the strict impartiality requirements of Chair.

Instead, we will be throwing our support behind the current associate deputy speaker, Conservative Andrew Scheer, who impressed us on the (admittedly, too few and far between) occasion that we actually paid attention to his performance of his speakertorial duties in the House, most noteably during our liveblogging of Committee of the Whole last May.

More importantly, he is, as yet, the only challenger to the current inhabitant who seems to be motivated not by a grim and joyless sense of duty (rather like the anti-”perk” Cromwellian Reformers of old), but by his unmistakable passion for parliamentary ritual and tradition, and for the Commons itself, in all its anachronistic and anarchic glory.

For that, and because we have a soft spot for anyone who dresses his toddler in miniature Speaker’s robes for Hill’o'ween, we’re backing Scheer.

You?

Bookmark and Share
  • http://mikeanddean.blogspot.com Dean P

    I’m with Kady, but only ‘cos she’s always right.

  • Dr Riff

    i think you got that mixed up , Kady, i think you love to disagree with your honourable colleague

  • Just visiting

    I think this might be the rare occasion when Kady’s correctness is less than optimal.

    Her contention that people should not vote for Comartin because he is such a good backbencher is like arguing that people should not have voted for Obama as President because the country needed good Senators.

    Truth is, we need a good speaker a lot more than we need one more capable MP. If Comartin is the best candidate, then he should get the job.

    - JV

  • Doohoo

    Scheer showed himself as very partisan last year. He applied an archaic section of the Standing Orders to allow a vote to occur before the bells stopped ringing – which meant only the Libearls and Conservatives, who were clearly in on the plan, were allowed to vote.

    As long as he’s going to play partisan games, Scheer shouldn’t be allowed in the Speaker’s chair.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Doohoo – Do you have a link to the Hansard? I’d like to see the context before I determine that his decision was based on base partisan instinct. JV: You know, I’m not sure if he’s the best candidate for the job. In the email in which he announced his candidacy, he talks a lot about restoring order – of course – as well as reducing the “administrative burden” on MPs — no idea what that’s about — along with a few other non-Chamber-centric priorities. We have no way of knowing how he would rule on any of the myriad disputes that arise outside of Question Period, which generally involve points of order and privilege, and competing interpretations of the Standing Orders, not objectionable and/or unparliamentary behaviour.

  • Dot

    I was going to use the same analogy as JV, but he beat me to the punch.

    Actually, if ITQ was covering the Chicago beat years ago, she’d have be extolling the virtues of Obama as a Community Organizer, pleading voters to keep him there.

  • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

    Actually, if ITQ was covering the Chicago beat years ago, she’d have be extolling the virtues of Obama as a Community Organizer, pleading voters to keep him there.

    These analogies only work if “Speaker” is to “Opposition Critic” what “President of the United States” is to “Community organizer”. I think you’re endowing the speaker with entirely too much importance, considering that his or her main role is to be entirely impartial an unopinionative. Dueling analogies! Giving the speaker this much credit is like saying the referee is the most important player on the ice.

    Side bar: Is unopinionative a word, because if it’s not, it really should be.

  • Dot

    Giving the speaker this much credit is like saying the referee is the most important player on the ice.

    I’m not a big hockey fan, but it seems to me the quality of NHL has improved over the past couple of seasons since the holding and interference rules were more strictly enforced. The lesser skilled players who relied upon clutching etc. are no longer needed – in fact probably now liabilities when the rules are better enforced.

    So, same thing in that sense.

  • Dot

    italics off

  • Alan

    The Speaker’s importance is based largely on who the Speaker is. Milliken showed that the Speaker has almost no importance simply because he refused to get involved and get his hands dirty. An ‘activist’ Speaker can have a huge impact on what is said and how it is said.

  • Dr Riff

    no activists on the bench. it’s to be an unbiased proceeding

  • Alan

    Activist and biased are not the same thing. I simply want someone who is willing to get into it. For example, a Speaker willing to eject a Member from the room because the Member is not following the rules is an activist. One who throws out a Member (or ignores an unruly Member) for their own political motives is biased.

    Kady, any liveblogging of the festivities tomorrow?

  • http://www.bluelikeyou.com/ Jo

    Check out Lawrence Martin for an insight into how Standing Orders 16 and 18 have been routinely ignored by Milliken.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Funny you should ask, Alan! I plan on being in the gallery, liveblogging madly, from 10am onwards.

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    Kady

    Have an obscure parliamentary question for you because you’re knowledgeable enough to know. Do we have something called Speaker’s Conference? I was reading about one that was convened in UK and is due to report soon and I was curious to know if we have similar tradition here in Canada.

    What is a speaker’s conference? From UK Parliament site:

    “A Speaker’s Conference is convened by the Speaker of the House of Commons following an invitation from the Prime Minister. Under the impartial leadership of the Speaker, MPs from both the major and minority parties are brought together to consider issues within the electoral system.”

  • http://www.bluelikeyou.com/ Joanne (T.B.)

    FYI, I just noticed that Stephen Taylor has interviews posted with the candidates.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    JWL: I’ve not heard of such a thing, but I’ll see if I can find out. According to this link, it is “rarely used” even in the UK, and seems to be limited to investigating issues related to elections, which in our system would normally be handled by Procedure and House Affairs (if it was deemed a parliamentary matter, that is).

  • http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

    If I had a bus-sized time machine, I would take us all back to the time when people didn’t care about who the Speaker was. I blame Ms. O’Malley 100% for my genuine interest in a topic so objectively boring.

  • Two Cents

    Kady,

    Good for you! As I have commented at least four times previously on your blog, I have been supporting Anrew Scheer for some time. I’m delighted to see others coming around. He will make a great speaker and he’s a great guy as well.

    Two Cents

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    Thanks Kady. I was curious to know if we had something similar because of all the articles I’ve read recently about how we need new electoral system and was wondering how Parliament would change it, if it so desired. I think I read there have been 6 Speaker’s Conferences in the past 100 years.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Olaf: Just wait til I launch my campaign to make you and everyone else within reach care about Commons committees. Mwahaha. Hahaha. Hahaha. Etc.

  • http://www.truemuse.wordpress.com truemuse

    <a href=”http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/bios/01/michener_e.asp”Roland Michener was one of the great Speakers. The riding of St. Paul’s gave up representation for many years while he served as speaker and this is the sacrifice those voters made year after year while he served as speaker. I think Joe Comartin is the best choice.

  • http://www.bluelikeyou.com/ Joanne (T.B.)

    O.K. I just saw Andrew Scheer on MDL. Kady’s right. He’s good.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Kady -

    You are assuming that Comartin wants to follow Jack the ‘Tash in his putative attempts to become Prime Minister in waiting again…

    My sense is – Elder statesmen of the NDP – like Blaikie and now Comartin – have had enough of Mr. & Mrs. Layton and their little household and just want to bail out one way or another.

  • Bonnie N

    Sorry Kady

    If Joe is the best candidate for Speaker it seems to me that his disqualification on your part because he is so valuable is kind of weird.

    It seems to me that the premise of don’t vote for him because he is too good leads us to don’t vote for this guy cause he is competent

    To the current Speaker- I think you tried to be too Speaker and forgot that Canadians need order. A few more order’s were in order.

From Macleans