Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Reid, for being here.
I must tell you that I'm looking forward to the examination of your private member's motion and the study for a number of reasons.
The current system has its flaws. Certainly, even if we don't change the current system, I think there would still have to be—at least, I would recommend it—some changes to the Standing Orders. It doesn't make any sense to me that we would continue to have a system where if you do not want to be Speaker, you have to inform the House, rather than informing it that you do want to be Speaker.
Every time we have an election of a Speaker when a new session of Parliament starts, invariably there are one or two people who forget that they're supposed to take their names off the ballot. They get embarrassed because they have to stand up in the middle of the House and inform people that they screwed up and that they don't want to be Speaker.
I think it's going to be an enjoyable study and also a very important study. Clearly, the election of a Speaker is one of the most important functions of a working democracy. You have to ensure that the person who occupies that chair is impartial, and I know that's sometimes a difficult thing. We all are partisan creatures.
I think in some cases it takes a while before the Speaker can get his mind around the fact that he or she has to be completely, truly, and honestly impartial when making rulings and listening to arguments, from all members of the House. So the study itself is important.
I tend to agree with you, Mr. Reid, on the preferential ballot aspect. I think the most important thing that you pointed out was the consensual nature of the results. Even though it may not be perfect, I think that at the end of the day the person who is finally elected, after however many counts, would have the majority of the support from the people in the House. I think that's incredibly important.
I know there will be some discussion as to maintaining the status quo. Again, all of us being partisan creatures, there's something to be said for having an election where it takes multiple ballots. You can do your campaigning between ballots. You try to cut deals. You have the excitement of a political convention and the atmosphere. With a preferential ballot, you mark your ballot once and that's it. It may take a while to count and get the final results, but there's only one ballot. I think the study will be very interesting and enjoyable to conduct.
My question for you is simply this. This goes a little beyond what your private member's motion speaks to. You're talking only about the election of a Speaker. What about the associate speakers, or the Deputy Speaker? Do you have any comments on whether the current system should be altered, or are you satisfied that the current system of appointments, frankly, to those secondary speaker roles is sufficient?