Francis Scarpaleggia elected speaker of Canada's House of Commons
Xinhua
26 May 2025, 22:45 GMT+10
OTTAWA, May 26 (Xinhua) -- Canada's Liberal member of parliament Francis Scarpaleggia was elected the 39th speaker of the country's House of Commons on Monday as the newly-elected members of parliament returned after a five-month break to choose a new Liberal leader and hold a general election.
Scarpaleggia, born in June 1957, represents the riding of Lac-Saint-Louis in Quebec. He was first elected to the House of Commons in the 2004 federal election, and was re-elected consecutively for seven times.
Elected by fellow members of parliament through a secret ballot, the speaker oversees the sittings and proceedings of the House, maintaining order and decorum in the chamber, providing impartial interpretation of its rules, and defending the rights and privileges of its members.
The speaker also oversees the House of Commons administration, serves as its spokesperson in its relations with the Senate, the Crown, and other bodies outside the parliament, and fulfills various ceremonial and diplomatic duties.
Mark Carney's Liberal Party has won the parliamentary elections in Canada last month. The Liberals are sitting at 169 seats and Conservatives remain in official opposition, with 144 seats.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___ AP college sports:
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Kelly McParland: Poilievre needs to earn an extension as leader
Canada's federal Conservatives are stuck with a dilemma as they consider whether to do anything different in the next two years than they did in the last two. Article content At the centre of the dilemma are a host of riddles. As in, did they actually lose the last election? Sure, they didn't win, but did they lose lose? Like, did Canadians actually reject them, or did something else happen that got in the way of the victory they anticipated? Article content Article content Article content If they did lose, what do they do about it? And if they didn't lose lose, what do they do about that? Article content Article content Depending on the answers to those questions is another of equal weight: do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who didn't quite win if they maybe didn't lose? And how do you answer that question when you don't know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn't respond effectively enough when the playing field changed? Article content As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there's nothing to decide. 'We had the biggest vote count in our party's history, the biggest increase in our party's history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we're going to continue to work to get over the finish line,' he replied when asked. That same argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them once again in second place. Article content The 'nothing to see here' case goes like this: In any previous election dating back 40 years the Tory results would have put them in power, likely with a majority. The fact this one didn't was the result of unprecedented exterior factors, specifically, the timing of Justin Trudeau's departure and the coinciding emergence of a U.S. president even his most fervent detractors didn't foresee as being quite this nuts. Alarmed and unnerved, voters opted for continuity and incumbency over the very real practical policies they'd been firmly embracing until then. Article content It's not a bad argument, but also not entirely convincing. In the Liberal bastion of greater Toronto, it sounds a lot like the local NHL team's annual excuses for once again failing to deliver the goods. 'Hey, at least we did better than our last collapse,' doesn't quite cut it. Article content Article content To its credit, the conservative universe isn't ready to simply roll over and accept the excuses. In this the party shows itself once again to be more independent-minded than the rival Liberals, who — after refusing to give themselves the power to oust Justin Trudeau, and living to regret the fact — made the same decision over his replacement. A majority of the caucus voted not to accept the rules of the Reform Act, meaning Prime Minister Mark Carney knows he can rule as he sees fit, safe in the knowledge the minions can't get rid of him. Would any other party in the democratic world vote to remain minions? Article content Conservatives not only adopted the Reform rules, but are discussing whether Poilievre should face a leadership review. A decision could be made as early as this month, with a review to take place next spring. It's possible they'll reject the option, but it would be a mistake. The world a year from now may look a lot different than it does today. Given the level of international uncertainty and the daily madhouse in Washington, it would be a shock if it didn't. Locking themselves into a recently-defeated leader when circumstances could easily demand an entirely different set of calculations would not be a show of confidence but an act of denial.
Calgary Herald
3 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
'They're worried': Liberal MP plans to raise concerns about Modi visit to Carney
OTTAWA — A Liberal MP says he intends to raise concerns to Prime Minister Mark Carney about the decision to invite India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Canada as part of a meeting of G7 leaders later this month. Article content Sukh Dhaliwal represents the Surrey, B.C., riding that was home to Sikh activist and Canadian citizen Hardeep Singh Nijjar, whom Canada said in 2023 was killed by agents acting on behalf of the Indian government. Nijjar was gunned down outside a temple in June 2023. Article content Article content Article content India has denied the accusation but had considered Nijjar to be a terrorist. Nijjar was a prominent activist in the Khalistan movement, which has pushed to establish a separate Sikh state in India's Punjab province. Article content Article content The accusation from former prime minister Justin Trudeau in September 2023 sparked a wave of tension in the Canada-India relationship, including last fall when the RCMP said it believed Modi's government was linked to violence unfolding in Canada, including organized crime and murders. Article content 'They're worried. They're worried about their safety, they're concerned about the justice in Mr. Nijjar's case, as well,' he told National Post in an interview late Friday. Article content Article content Dhaliwal said he has heard from other Liberal MPs also expressing concern, but said he would not divulge details to protect their privacy. Article content Article content He said he intends to raise the concerns he has been hearing from constituents with Carney or members of his team, and will be in Ottawa next week for the ongoing sitting of Parliament. Article content 'He's willing to talk,' Dhaliwal said of the prime minister. Article content 'He's willing to listen to his MPs, that's what he has promised because he has always said that he's interested in the voice from the grassroots, not the message coming from the top to the grassroots.' Article content 'I will certainly raise this with him or his team.' Article content A statement from Carney's office in response to questions from National Post didn't directly address Dhaliwal's concerns, but said 'Canada's sovereignty and national security is paramount.'
