I have considered the arguments of Stingray, and I have done more research. Stringray's argument is centered around the role of the speaker and whether his impartiality means that he cannot have a political affiliation and thereby be considered as a secured vote for a formal agreement. Of all I have come across, this article written for the Canadian Parliamentary Review Winter 1996/97 by Dale Lovick former Speaker of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly, seems to tackle the issue best from my perspective.
You can read the full text
here and see the original
here. I would highly encourage you read the full text, but if you do not have time the following is a quick snippet:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dale Lovik
The arguments for a non-partisan Speaker do not appear to stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that membership in or connection with a political party renders one incapable of impartiality is a non sequitur. Second, the tradition of more or less automatic re-election of the Speaker in return for absolute non-partisanship which has been established at Westminster does not obtain in British Columbia, or Canada, or in most other Commonwealth parliaments. Third, the duties of the Speaker at Westminster are significantly different from those performed by her/his counterpart in the British Columbia Legislature, and I suspect in other Commonwealth parliaments as well.
There are other reasons, too, why I do not think we need to transplant the Westminster convention of non-partisanship.
The impartiality of the Speaker is in fact already satisfactorily protected by the normal procedures, practices and traditions of a modern parliament. I suspect that every Speaker becomes aware very early of what the office of Speaker requires and deserves. I cannot, frankly, imagine any Speaker with any modicum of understanding and appreciation of parliament who would not be mindful of his or her responsibilities to parliament, to parliamentarians, and to self. The Speaker who demonstrably favoured one side or faction over the other would have a career reminiscent of Hobbes’ state of nature – nasty, brutish, and short.
|
From Dale's argument and other Canadian Speakers, I am inclined to believe that the Greens and NDP have a more favourable chance than Stringray predicts. Secondly, I am doubtful that they would form such an agreement if they did not feel they could draft an agreement with enough constitutional backbone that the Lieutenant Governor would not permit them the chance to hold the confidence of the House.
On the issue of MLA's having to showing up to vote, I think that is a good thing. Taking on the role of a MLA is a big responsibility and I have every expectation of my MLA to not miss a single vote, sick or not. 25,000 people voted for that MLA to have that seat and missing a vote is a disservice to those 25,000 people and unacceptable in my eyes.
Prev
But that's only after the legislature first meets and incumbent gov't defeated.
Linear Mode
