House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken delivers a ruling in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa March 9, 2011.CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters
Peter Milliken was back on Parliament Hill this week to mark the publication of his rulings – two volumes of decisions delivered over the decade he sat in the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons.
Many were day-to-day findings about the actions of Members of Parliament. But others have become lasting chapters in the story of Canada.
Such was the case when Mr. Milliken ruled in March 2011 that the Conservative government withheld information from a Commons committee, a move that ultimately resulted in the government being found in contempt of Parliament and led to the 2011 election.
The former Speaker and Liberal MP spoke to The Globe and Mail about the job he left two months after making that historic decision.
What was your hardest ruling, or your most controversial ruling?
Well I think the controversial ones were concerning the argument that the government was in contempt for not responding to a committee's demands for the production of documents.
Going into that ruling, did it put some butterflies in your stomach?
No, I felt pretty secure in the reasoning.
But you weren't going to make any friends on one side of the House.
No. Exactly. But, you know, you have to uphold the precedent and the practice of the House and that sort of thing. And if there is disagreement about it, you are the one that makes the decision.
What did you like best about being the Speaker?
I guess working with members on all sides. I think that was great fun and I always enjoyed that aspect of it. You had to not be partisan. So you had to work with members on a non-partisan basis ....
Some other members have real trouble doing that because they're expected to be partisan, and people expect them to be partisan, and other members expect them to be partisan. So sometimes it makes for a difficult working arrangement.
Is it difficult to play the role of House policeman, as the Speaker must sometimes do?
I don't think it's unusual and I think they expect somebody to do it.
You've now been out of politics for two and a half years. What do you miss most, the Speaker's job or the job of being a politician?
I guess generally the work of a politician, the things in the community that you get to do, the work with the people there is very important and useful and fun. So, in a way, I miss that. But there's plenty of it to do (still), perhaps more than I want ...
Do you remember any ruling that too an excessive amount of brain power, both on your part and the part of the clerks and lawyers?
I am sure there were a couple of them, maybe, but off the top of my head I don't remember what they were ....
The clerks and I would sit down after we heard arguments in the House. And they (the legal staff) would come in and say 'which way are you leaning on this?' And I would say (what he thought the result should be). And they would say: 'Yes, that sounds all fine with use, so we will get busy and draft something.' Then I would see a draft some time later and suggest changes or have a discussion with the clerk about it. And then changes would be made. And it would come back and I would read it again. If I was happy, I would give it in the House.
Was there ever a time when they looked at you and said: 'We don't think you're right about that sir'?
I don't think so. I don't think that happened.
If you had any advice for future Speakers, what would that be?
I think the trick is to read a fair bit of material, the books that are published on procedures and practice. It's important to know what's in those books and reading them is a huge help, I found. I read some of them when I was in high school. And they stick in your head a little better at that age than now ...
You have to make decisions on procedural matters from time to time. And the more you know about it, the easier it is to make a decision without the risk of making a big blunder which can get you into real trouble.
This interview has been edited and condensed