House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

2. Parliaments and Ministries

[1] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49. See also Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[2] 
For example, the bulk of House time is allocated to government business, which is called in such sequence as the government determines (Standing Orders 30 and 40). Furthermore, to name but a few examples, it is the government that requests a recall of the House when it stands adjourned (Standing Order 28); that moves the extension of sitting hours in June (Standing Order 27); that causes a special Order Paper to be issued (Standing Order 55); that initiates time allocation (Standing Order 78) and closure (Standing Order 57); that proposes the referral to committees of the government’s Estimates (Standing Order 81); that gives notice of and designates Orders of the Day for the consideration of Ways and Means motions (Standing Order 83); and that initiates debate on the Standing Orders at the beginning of each Parliament (Standing Order 51).
[3] 
Examples may be found in the rules governing Supply (Standing Order 81); questions (Standing Orders 37, 38 and 39); petitions (Standing Order 36); and the tabling of documents (Standing Order 32).
[4] 
See in particular Eugene A. Forsey and G.C. Eglington, “The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government”, study prepared for the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (Ottawa: 1985). Also of interest are the First and Third Reports of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (the McGrath Committee), respectively presented on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211), and June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[5] 
See, for example, Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings, Journals, May 4, 1970, pp. 742-3, and March 6, 1973, pp. 166-7. See also Debates, October 20, 1981, p. 11974, and March 4, 1988, p. 13400.
[6] 
See Philip Norton, “Government Defeats in the House of Commons: The British Experience”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Winter 1985-86, pp. 6-9.
[7] 
See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1973, pp. 212-3. Certain opposition motions have been adopted on days allotted for the Business of Supply which were not framed as confidence matters; see, for example, Journals, February 12, 1992, pp. 1010-2, and March 8, 1994, pp. 220-3.
[8] 
See statement of Prime Minister Clark, Debates, December 13, 1979, p. 2362.
[9] 
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554, 557 (1968 Standing Order 58(9)).
[10] 
See the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 372-6), and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). The House adopted a Supply motion for the first time under this rule on February 12, 1976 (Journals, p. 1016). See also the comments of the President of the Privy Council, Mitchell Sharp, Debates, February 12, 1976, p. 10902.
[11] 
Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910-9. This change had been proposed in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (Journals, December 20, 1984, p. 211), and the government had expressed support for the proposal (Debates, April 18, 1985, pp. 3868-9).
[12] 
See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211), and the government response to the First Report, tabled on April 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 486).
[13] 
Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910-9. These are now Standing Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
[14] 
Standing Order 6.
[15]
For a detailed description of the practicalities of convocation and dissolution of Parliament, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[16] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 50; Constitution Act, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44, ss. 4(1), 5. The question of the duration of Parliament was thoroughly discussed in the talks leading to Confederation. In the end, it was decided to follow the New Zealand example of a five-year maximum. (See comments of Sir John A. Macdonald in Confederation Debates, 1865, p. 39.)
[17]
For the actual dates for the return of the writs and of dissolution for each Parliament, see Appendix 12, “Parliaments Since 1867 and Number of Sitting Days”.
[18] 
This was accomplished by way of a constitutional amendment (British North America Act, 1916, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 24). Since 1949, the Constitution has provided for an extension if no more than one third of the Members oppose it (British North America Act (No. 2), 1949, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 33; see also Constitution Act, 1982, s. 4(2)).
[19]
For actual dates of terms of office for each Ministry, see Appendix 8, “Government Ministries and Prime Ministers of Canada Since 1867”.
[20] 
Failure to be re-elected as a Member of the House does not result in the Prime Minister being obliged to resign automatically. Prime Ministers Macdonald and King both suffered personal defeat but not party defeat and were subsequently elected in by-elections. (See The Canadian Directory of Parliament 1867-1967, edited by J.K. Johnson, Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1968, pp. 305-6, 399.)
[21] 
See, for example, Journals, December 13, 1979, pp. 345-7; December 14, 1979, p. 350.
[22]
See, for example, the Seventh, Twenty-Seventh, and Thirty-Fourth Parliaments.
[23]
For a full description of the procedural effects of prorogation and dissolution, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[24] 
Journals, June 8, 1891, p. 208. See also the Speaker’s statement to the House, Debates, June 8, 1891, col. 883. In keeping with ancient practice, when the House stands adjourned during a session, the Speaker, in robes, can attend the funeral procession or the state funeral accompanied by the Mace, as authorized by an express resolution of the House, or by reliance on parliamentary usage. The Mace may not be used for such a purpose when Parliament is prorogued. See Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 176, footnotes c) and e). The organization of state occasions, such as state funerals, is the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
[25] 
For descriptions of the circumstances of these two deaths, see Donald Creighton, John A. Macdonald, The Old Chieftan, Toronto: MacMillan Co. of Canada, 1955, pp. 564-78 and P.B. Waite, The Man From Halifax, Sir John Thompson, Prime Minister, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985, pp. 415-31.
[26]
See, for example, the Turner (1984) and Campbell (1993) Ministries.
[27] 
See Appendix 11, “General Election Results Since 1867”. A similar case occurred in Ontario in 1985 when the Progressive Conservative government of Frank Miller won the largest number of seats, but resigned in favour of the second-place Liberals who, with the support of the New Democrats, were able to govern with the confidence of the Legislature. The numbers were PC: 52; Lib.: 48; NDP: 25 (Canadian Parliamentary Guide, 1986, edited by Pierre G. Normandin, Ottawa, pp. 979, 1066-7).
[28] 
Forsey and Eglington list a large number of pre-and post-Confederation examples of provincial government resignations without dissolution (pp. 253-8).
[29] 
See, for example, Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 6, 1973, pp. 166-7. See also, Debates, October 20, 1981, p. 11974.
[30] 
Journals, July 1, 1926, pp. 508-9.
[31] 
Journals, February 5, 1963, pp. 474-5.
[32] 
Journals, May 8, 1974, pp. 175-6, and December 13, 1979, pp. 345-7.
[33] 
Forsey and Eglington, pp. 253, 261-3.
[34] 
Journals, June 28, 1926, p. 483.
[35]
See Appendix 11, “General Election Results Since 1867”, footnote 8.
[36]
See Appendix 11, “General Election Results Since 1867”.
[37] 
Journals, June 18, 1926, pp. 444-9; June 22, 1926, pp. 461-2; June 23, 1926, p. 465; June 25, 1926, pp. 475-81.
[38] 
Journals, June 28, 1926, p. 483.
[39] 
Journals, June 29, 1926, pp. 485-6.
[40] 
Journals, July 1, 1926, pp. 508-9.
[41] 
In 1973, Prime Minister Trudeau stated that his minority government would not consider every defeat on a vote as a matter of confidence (Debates, January 8, 1973, p. 61). The government did, in fact, lose several votes in the 1973-74 period (see, for example, Journals, March 26, 1973, pp. 212-3).
[42] 
Journals, pp. 702-3.
[43] 
Journals, February 28, 1968, pp. 719-21.
[44] 
See Journals, February 20, 1968, to February 28, 1968, pp. 705-21.
[45] 
Debates, December 20, 1983, p. 352.
[46] 
See Debates, December 20, 1983, from p. 352, especially pp. 354-6.
[47] 
Debates, December 20, 1983, pp. 367-8.
[48] 
See, for example, Debates, June 16, 1993, pp. 20890-4.
[49] 
See Debates, November 5, 1873, p. 781, and Forsey and Eglington, p. 258. See also Journals, November 4 to 7, 1873, pp. 139-42.
[50] 
Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava, My Canadian Journal, 1872-78, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1891, p. 133. See also Debates, November 6 and 7, 1873, pp. 783, 785.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page