First of all, it is important to remember that both Speakers are technically neutral, as you know. The difference is that one of them is elected by his peers, by you, the members, whereas the other is appointed by the Prime Minister's Office.
That said, when I made my remarks, I said that giving them this type of mission to accomplish represented a challenge to their neutrality.
Please understand that I am not blaming them; it is not a criticism.
Fundamentally, I think that in the bill the two Speakers seem to be treated as though they were ministers. As you know, a minister's job is to judge, filter and establish the work plan of a department.
I find it unfortunate that the bill targets the two Speakers as though they were ministers who could fulfil this task, when that is not their role. Their role is to be neutral and to manage the House, the Senate and the House of Commons. Here they are being asked to meet an enormous challenge, and that challenge is also one for their administration. That was the gist of my comments.
Is the risk greater for one Speaker than for the other? I won't hazard an opinion on that. What I am saying is that their administrative structures are not identical.