Talk:Speaker of the Canadian Senate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
	This article is part of the Government of Canada WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Government of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Overhaul

I overhauled the entire article today. It was too short, and implied that the Speaker of the Senate carried the same role as the Speaker of the House of Commons — an entirely untrue statement. Feedback and criticism would be highly appreciated.

P.S., is the table okay? FiveParadox 20:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall, pretty good. I made a few changes that I hope you'll agree with. First, I downplayed the difference between the two Speakers in the intro. It's true that the two postions are different, but "equivalent" can be read a few different ways. True, the Speaker of the Senate can participate in debate, vote, have rulings overturned, and is not responsible for the Senate's administration (as the Speaker of the House is in the case of the House of Commons through the Board of Internal Economy), the fundamental role of presiding over debate is the same - even if the machanics are different.

Second, I removed the comment about responsibility to enter debate, as the participation of the Speaker in debate is virtually unheard of now, and when it does occur is almost exclusively restricted to tributes and other "soft" issues, as opposed to policy debates.

Finally, I removed "in all cases" with respect to the Speaker's voting rights. I know what you were going for, but the Speaker faces the same restrictions on voting (ie. fiduciary interests) that other Senators face, so he does not necessarilly hold that vote in "all cases."

I also think I'll add two more things. One, a comment on the fact that in contrast to the Speaker of the House, the Speaker does not hold the management responsibility for the Senate's administration. Also, I'll add something on the performance of the duties in the absence of the Speaker. PoliSciMaster 06:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback! Yes, I entirely agree with the changes you have made; it makes the article significantly more clear. In regards to highlighting the right of the Speaker to enter into debate, I meant to highlight the de facto differences with more prominence than the de jure differences; I wanted to make sure that people were aware that the Senate was styled more in line with the House of Lords of the U.K. (as a point of history and heritage) than our own Canadian House of Commons. FiveParadox 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)