Some of you may have wondered what all the fuss was about last week over Speaker Peter Milliken’s ruling in relation to the House of Commons adopting an order last Dec. 10 for the production of documents regarding Afghan detainees.

What it was about was the supremacy of Parliament, not the federal cabinet, not the government of the day, when push comes to shove, as it has on the issue of documents the Conservative government of Prime Minster Stephen Harper had refused to release on national security grounds to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan.

The government must now produce the documents or be found to be in contempt of Parliament, almost certainly forcing a confidence vote and an all but certain defeat leading to a second federal election in less than two years.

Milliken, a lawyer, Liberal MP from the eastern Ontario riding of Kingston and the Islands since 1988, and Speaker since 2001, was upholding the principle that Parliament is supreme in a constitutional monarchy. It is a principle that dates back to at least December 1689 and the Bill of Rights passed by “the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, assembled at Westminster” to “resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of England, France, and Ireland....”

Some would look back even further to King John of England signing the articles that would lead to the great council, forerunner of the British Parliament, with the Magna Carta on the meadow at Runnymede in June 1215.

Milliken, chosen by his MP peers from all parties to preside over the House of Commons, is widely considered to be one of the best, if not the best, Speakers in the history of the Canadian Parliament.

Quoting from Thomas Erskine May, the 19th Century clerk of the British House of Commons, whose Parliamentary Practice, originally called A Practical Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, is considered to be the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and British constitutional convention – the Parliamentary “bible” as it were, Milliken noted it “is the privilege of both Houses to the exclusive cognizance of their own proceedings.

“Both Houses retain the right to be sole judge of the lawfulness of their own proceedings, and to settle – or depart from – their own codes of procedure,” said Milliken. “This is equally the case where the House in question is dealing with a matter which is finally decided by its sole authority, such as an order or resolution, or whether (like a bill) it is the joint concern of both Houses.”

While making it clear Parliament is supreme, Milliken, in his historic ruling April 27, encouraged the government and opposition parties to find a compromise mechanism to grant MPs access to uncensored versions of Afghan detainee documents without breaching national security. Given the most likely alternative of an election no party wants to fight on the issue with their poll numbers, compromise seems inevitable, although stranger things have happened in Canadian politics.

This is not the first time Milliken has acted decisively – and we would argue correctly – in making important decisions from the Speaker’s chair. In November 2007, he issued the first speaker’s warrant, compelling Karlheinz Schreiber to appear before the House of Commons ethics committee to testify on his business dealings with former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, since February 1913 when R.C. Miller, of the Diamond Light and Heating Company in Montreal, was compelled to appear before the public accounts committee to testify about $41,000 in heating contracts.

Miller, who refused to testify, was summoned before the Bar of the House of Commons, a brass rod extending across the floor of the chamber inside its south entrance and beyond which non-members or House officials are not normally allowed. He was found in contempt of Parliament and jailed in the Carleton County jail for the duration of the session until Parliament was prorogued about three and a half months later. An instructive lesson perhaps to keep in mind.

Milliken is a parliamentarian’s parliamentarian, who takes the institution of the House of Commons seriously. On May 19, 2005 he cast the-tie breaking vote on a confidence motion determining whether the Liberal minority government of then prime minister Paul Martin would continue or fall when the House of Commons was deadlocked 152 to 152. The Speaker only votes in the case of a tie.

With classic precision and reserve, Milliken explained his vote simply by saying, "The Speaker should vote, whenever possible, for continuation of debate on a question that cannot be decided by the House." 

In the instant case, the House of Commons and its Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan have spoken and decided clearly on an order for the production of documents regarding Afghan detainees.

And so again, has House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken spoken and decided clearly.