Talk:Peter Milliken

Untitled
Someone recently edited the article to remove the title "Honourable" suggesting that with the dissolution of the 38th Parliament, there was no longer a Speaker, and as such Mr. Milliken was no longer entitled to the title. This was reverted because the Parliament of Canada Act clearly contradicts this. Section 53 of the Act states that, "53. On a dissolution of Parliament, every member of the Board and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker shall be deemed to remain in office as such, as if there had been no dissolution, until their replacement." Consequently, Mr. Millken remains Speaker until such time as a new one is elected, and as such is entitled to use the title. Also, should he not be re-elected as Speaker, he may still receive permission from the Governor General to continue using the title, in accordance with s.13 of the Table of Titles.

No Honorifics please
According to the Wikipedia style manual we should not be using honorifics such as The Honourable at the beginning of entries. Please see the section of the style book on honorifics. Thanks. Homey 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, while I think that's ridiculous, I will respect it.

We should remove the honourific immediately. It is against the Wiki style guide and this particular title is not part of the Canadian honours system. It is essentially an artificial title. If Milliken is entitled to this term then whats to stop anyone from doing the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.42.243 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rodolphe Lemieux
Someone added in Rodolphe Lemieux as the first opposition Speaker to serve in the House of Commons, and indicating that should Mr. Milliken be re-elected as Speaker, he would be the third opposition Speaker. While this is technically correct (Lemieux, a Liberal, served as Speaker during Meighen's brief second tenure as PM), the circumstances were so different, I wonder if they truly merit inclusion.

Whereas Jerome was appointed by Clark, and should be Milliken be re-elected, it would be under Harper, in the case of Lemieux, he was appointed not by Meighen, but by Mackenzie King. When Mackenzie King resigned and Meighen formed a government, the Ministry changed, but the 15th Parliament continued and Lemieux continued as Speaker. It is Meighen's becoming PM (see King-Byng affair), not Lemieux being Speaker that is remarkable in that situation.

I'd appreciate hearing thoughts from others as to whether or not this reference should remain as I frankly consider it to be irrelevant. [unsigned]

I've adjusted the wording, maintaining Jerome's reference in the main text while relegating Lemieux to a footnote. I trust this will be satisfactory to all parties. CJCurrie 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect as far as I'm concerned. PoliSciMaster 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?
I was just reading over this page, and it seems somewhat lacking in a professional and encyclopedic tone. In early life and career, for example, it says that Miliken worked at a "prestigious" Kingston law firm, but doesn't even say the name of the law firm. Perhaps some editing is in order? Mllefantine (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point. I think the fact it does not let itself become an advertisement for his former firm makes it more, not less, encyclopedic.  If the name of the firm would help, it can easily be added in.PoliSciMaster (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that actually makes it more professional. On Wikipedia some user might complain that "prestigious" is a subjective term where a professional writer can use the term if s/he feels it is appropriate.  Wikipedia is thus usually more colourless, one of our main failings. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 18 Question of Privilege
Recently, the article was edited to include a reference to the Question of Privilege raised with respect to the Afghan detainee documents. Specifically, the addition suggests that the opposition parties have teamed up to try to get Milliken to force the government to comply with the order, and to rule that they had violated parliamentary privilege.

I removed the new section for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, it is inaccurate. Milliken has no power to compel the government to comply -- that power belongs to the House. Further, he has not been asked to rule that the government has violated parliamentary privilege or is in contempt of the House, as that is not his call to make. What he has asked to do is rule whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. It is then up to the House, not the Speaker, to make a determination of whether the government or any person is in contempt, and whatever corrective action should be taken. Secondly, given the foregoing, I do not think it is worthy of an inclusion in his page. When he rules, should there be something remarkable about that ruling, perhaps a mention should be returned. But at this point, I don't believe his connection to the issue is sufficient for its inclusion.PoliSciMaster (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings PoliSciMaster,


 * Issue One: Political Science:


 * Thank you for clarifying the exact powers of the Speaker. I stand corrected, or more accurately, the press that I took the information from should stand corrected. All I did was take the information directly from the press. Here is a quote from this link from the Globe and Mail: "The three opposition parties made the first move yesterday morning to persuade the Speaker, Peter Milliken, to force the government to comply with the will of the majority of MPs."


 * Issue Two: Inclusion in Wikipedia:


 * This Wikipedia article on notability in Wikipedia states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.




 * The topic of Peter Milliken and the "prima facie question of privilege" has already been covered in enough press to meet the above criteria: Now at least four articles from four different sources mention Milliken by name.


 * Also see this Wikipedia guideline: Notability


 * Since the topic is already notable, I will now reword it to reflect the exact duties of Peter Milliken.


 * Thank you again for your attention to detail. It is much appreciated.


 * Sincerely - Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made one change to better reflect the particular issue of privilege at hand. "Collective privilege number 5" makes reference to an enumerated list in a wikipedia article, not an enumerated privilege.  I have therefore made a more specific reference to the issue at hand.


 * With respect to the notability issue, I had no question that the issue itself was notable, but was unsure whether it meritted specific mention in Milliken's personal biography. However, with the revisions that have been made, I am comfortable leaving it in.20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliSciMaster (talk • contribs)

Facts on contempt rulings
I read this statement: On March 9, 2011, Milliken made two historic rulings holding the government of Stephen Harper in contempt of Parliament.[38] and check the reference [38]. The reference is to a Globe and Mail article which has a title: "With contempt rulings, Milliken caps career filled with firsts ". However, the article gives no details about the contempt issue or Millken's role in it.

At best, this is a very poor reference. At worst, it is a false or misleading statement, as it was my understanding that parliamentItalic text found the government in contempt, not the speaker.

Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.230.22 (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Honourable?
Is Peter Milliken still styled The Honourable? He is no longer an M.P. or the Speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.165.152 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Privy councillors keep the style permanently. A Speaker doesn't keep it if he hasn't been inducted into the Privy Council, either by serving as a cabinet minister at another time in his political career or by being inducted as an honour for his service, but if he has been inducted into the Privy Council (as Milliken has) then he keeps the style on that basis rather than losing it after he leaves office. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

word missing
There is a word missing in the sentence in the second paragraph under early life. It reads " He also often canoes". Or if not this sentence should just be corrected - remove the also: i.e. He also canoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxisme (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peter Milliken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015022914/http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1147275.html to http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1147275.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150915203959/http://www.stlawrencecollege.ca/about/college-administration/honorary-diplomas/details-on-past-recipients/ to https://www.stlawrencecollege.ca/about/college-administration/honorary-diplomas/details-on-past-recipients/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427124758/http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/senate/honorarydegrees/MasterList.pdf to http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/senate/honorarydegrees/MasterList.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)