Peter Milliken has had it made for almost ten years. He lives just down the hall from work, gets to throw lavish parties at a country estate, and makes a whole lot of money every year.

Such is the life of the Speaker of the House of Commons—according to the image propagated by most news sources, anyway. Canada’s parliamentary journalists love to play up the apparently extravagant lifestyle of whichever Member of Parliament is lucky enough to be elected to sit in the big chair.

They play up the Milliken’s Centre Block apartment, which is apparently actually quite cramped. They love reporting on the parties he throws at the Gatineau Park mansion, because most of them are guests at those parties. And they always make sure to note that the speaker earns almost $230,000.

What they don’t always report is the reluctance of many MPs to actually want the job.

Milliken recently announced that he won’t seek re-election as Kingston’s MP. That means the Commons will need a new speaker. So what does it take to be speaker?

First, the speaker has to be an MP. Second, they should be bilingual. And third, they need to earn the respect of their colleagues. After all, the speaker is elected by a vote of the House. Beyond that, there are some important intangibles.

In an interview, Liberal MP Glen Pearson said that the job takes moral courage. He respects what Milliken has done in the role, but said the next speaker has to be tough with each party and take no prisoners along the way. Political scientist Nelson Wiseman said the job takes patience and collegiality, along with a sense of humour to offer some relief to MPs during tense debates. NDP MP Denise Savoie, currently a deputy speaker (officially the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole), said it takes a profound respect for parliament and a flawless understanding of procedure and practice.

In sum: It’s a complicated job.

What we’ve also seen over the past few years is that minority parliaments, which are apparently becoming the norm in Canada at the federal level, force the speaker into the spotlight more often than during lazy days of majority governance.

During his tenure as speaker, Milliken broke a tie vote that saved Paul Martin’s Liberal government in 2005, and he also forced the current government to disclose secret documents to opposition MPs. Those decisions never would have seen the light of day in majority parliaments.

Although it might be more than a year before Milliken is officially retired, the race for the speaker’s chair is, according to Pearson, already in full swing. Given that our elected representatives are thinking about these kinds of things during the summer months, it’s only fair we give them some material to consider.

Below is a list of MPs who might be worth considering as speaker (even if they don’t want the job). It’s by no means exhaustive and, in the spirit of fairness, presented in alphabetical order:

Michael Chong (Conservative)

When MPs speak about parliamentary or electoral or democratic reform, it’s often not very substantive. But Chong has pushed for very specific reform to the operations of parliament that have been applauded by his peers across party lines. He has introduced a motion in the House, M-517, that looks to reform Question Period. Chong suggests that questions and answers should be longer; a certain day of the week should be devoted to questioning the Prime Minister; and remaining days of the week should be devoted to certain ministers of the Crown.

Chong seems committed to improved decorum in the House. If his motion passes, someone will need to enforce it. He didn’t return our calls, so his interest in the job remains unclear.

Joe Comartin (NDP)

The experts say a speaker has to earn the respect of their colleagues. Well, Comartin has twice been chosen by his peers as the Hill’s most knowledgeable MP in annual polls published by Maclean’s. He ran for speaker in 2008, finishing fourth after enduring four rounds of balloting (Milliken won on the fifth round, over two Tory MPs).

Kirsty Duncan (Liberal)

Duncan has only been an MP since 2008. She probably hasn’t been approached by anyone about running for the job. The job takes an intimate knowledge of the parliamentary system that takes time to develop, and Duncan is part of a class of MPs that is still learning the ropes. But for all the learning she would have to undertake, Duncan has some credentials that might pique the interest of more than a few progressive political observers.

She’s already won a Nobel Prize. It’s the same prize that Al Gore won, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, back in 2007. Although she wouldn’t be able to use the speaker’s chair as a pulpit—after all, the speaker could never get away with favouring issues or parties or people—it would be something of a coup for environmentalists to have one of their own in that chair. That most climate deniers would never trust her, though, means Duncan is a long shot.

Glen Pearson (Liberal)

When the news broke that Milliken was retiring, Pearson was approached by a group of Conservative MPs who took him out for a drink. They said they thought they could work with him as a speaker. After all, Pearson is known as a non-partisan MP who gives credit where credit is due (especially on his blog).

But he doesn’t want the job. He says his command of French is not sufficient, and he’s too much of an advocate to be speaker. He didn’t get elected to be impartial, and as speaker, he would leave it to his colleagues to pursue his interests. That’s not something that interests Pearson. He certainly spoke passionately about the position, though, and he seems to be trusted by his colleagues across the floor. His endorsement of a candidate could hold a lot of power.

Denise Savoie (NDP)

Savoie has experience sitting in the speaker’s chair, and in an interview, she didn’t rule out aspirations to take over for Milliken as speaker. If Savoie were elected, she would be the first speaker who didn’t hail from either the Liberals or Conservatives. She would also be only the second woman to sit in the chair (the first was former governor general Jeanne Sauvé, who was speaker from 1980 until 1984. And she would be the first New Democratic speaker (as would Comartin).

Michelle Simson (Liberal)

The speaker does more than sit in front of rowdy MPs every day. They have various other duties, including the chairmanship of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. It’s an all-party committee that meets secretly, far away from cameras and tape recorders, to set the budget of the House. Recently, the committee was thrown into the spotlight because it initially refused to allow auditor general Sheila Fraser to scrutinize MPs’ expenses.

MPs were mostly tight-lipped about their expenses, deferring to their masters on the Board of Internal Economy. But one came out ahead of the pack and fully disclosed her expenses online: Scarborough Southwest MP Michelle Simson. If Canadians want a champion of parliamentary transparency in the speaker’s chair, perhaps they ought to look in Simson’s direction.

If several high-profile individuals have their way, one of Canada’s major political parties could be on the way to a rebranding even before the summer is out. The New Democratic Party could enter the fall session of parliament with a new name, simply called the “Democratic Party.” The move has been promoted by a mounting number of MPs and other party members at the grassroots.

Two NDP riding associations have passed resolutions calling for a rebranding—simply dropping the “New” from the party name—that will be debated at the party’s national convention in August.

Victoria MP Denise Savoie recently made headlines for expressing support for the idea in Public Eye Online, but she is not the first sitting MP to call for such a rebranding.

Windsor MP Brian Masse says he has favoured a change since his first by-election win in 2002. His reasons are the same as his colleague from Victoria: the party is no longer new.

“Those that are coming into politics or getting interested in Canadian politics need to know that we’re a mainstream political party that has established itself in the Canadian system,” he says.

“This is not an attempt to rewrite our history. It’s an attempt to bring our history forward and to show confidence and pride in a party that has shaped Canadian politics and actually shaped the lives of Canadians—often punching above its weight.”

Masse says he expects other members of parliament and party operatives to come forward with support for the idea in the weeks leading to the convention.

Ian Capstick was for several years a member of Jack Layton’s inner circle. He has since moved into the private sector but remains an NDP member—and he aggressively supports the idea of a name change.

“To be blunt, we’re not new anymore,” he says, adding that he’s aware of support for the resolutions from one end of the country to the other.

MP Peter Stoffer, who has represented a riding on Nova Scotia’s eastern shore for 12 years, says he has advocated a name change for many of those years. He says he has also heard calls for the party to be renamed the Social Democratic Party of Canada.

“I don’t think it’s much of a major discussion that you have to worry about, but I think the grassroots would probably accept it once they’ve heard the arguments,” he says.

Stoffer believes that a name change would be almost purely cosmetic, but Capstick thinks a rebranding would—and should—get the party thinking about more than its name.

“That has to involve policy,” he says.

Capstick suggested that the NDP ought to re-examine its relationship with organized labour. He says that the party isn’t winning the labour vote and that there is no “labour” party in Canada.

“Does it make sense to have so many of the party’s decisions—particularly the leadership—weighted towards the organized labour movement in Canada?” he asks. “I don’t know. I think there is a healthy discussion to be had around that.”

He added that he didn’t want to advocate shutting labour out.

Masse emphasizes that he wants the name-change debate to be a positive one.

“There are a lot of people who like the current acronym, so there will be those who are tied to that,” he says. “But at the same time, once [members] start to think things through, I’m hopeful that we can see some unity on this.”

Recently, long-time party activist Gerald Caplan wrote in the Globe and Mail that, at the party’s August convention, “the only faux-excitement will be an elite-led attempt to change the name.” Capstick disagrees with the assessment that this move is elite-driven.

“Quite frankly, I think the leadership of the party is not entirely impressed with this,” he says, because the change will be costly. It will also spark discussions among provincial parties, some of which have had considerable success with the current name.

Masse says that his riding association’s resolution doesn’t directly impact any provincial NDP.

“We don’t want to force this upon any of the provincial parties, because they are different organizations affiliated together,” he says.

Stoffer expects a name change—if it happens—to coincide with the NDP’s fiftieth anniversary in 2011, but he added that any decision about that is up the party’s members.

Nick Taylor-Vaisey is an Ottawa-based freelancer who writes about federal politics and higher education. His work has appeared in print and online publications across the country, including University Affairs, Capital Xtra and Maclean’s OnCampus. He writes about the effects of the recession on arts groups in the July-August 2009 issue of This Magazine.