Talk:Peter Milliken

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.

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)