Mr. Speaker, the primary objection that has been raised to changing to a preferential ballot is that there is a benefit to being able to spend a day, mostly in this room and in the corridors around this room, getting to know each other as the various ballots are under way.
While I do not doubt that there was some conviviality at the time—I was there, being convivial—I have to say that my enthusiasm diminished with the hours, and I think that I reflect the views of others. It seemed to a number of us that ballots were taking longer than we might have wanted them to.
I would say that the real value of that sharing of time with one another lies in establishing an intelligent opinion on the different candidates for Speaker. I want to ask my colleague if he has any views on the system that is used in the United Kingdom for the speakership elections there. As I understand it, the House of Commons uses our system, and the House of Lords uses the same preferential ballot that I proposed in this motion.
Is he aware of the fact, and what does he think about the fact, that the Hansard Society in Britain holds a series of debates between candidates for the speakership in order to give them time to express their points of view and to have members of the chamber express the concerns that they have in order to establish a mandate, in a sense, for that Speaker going forward?
What are his thoughts on that?