Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
In 1965, many Canadian and British writers paid tribute to the seven hundredth anniversary of the founding of the British Parliament, and this year, Canadians celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of theirs. Criticism of parliament has been vigorous and almost continuous throughout all these years, and in the midst of these celebrations Canadians are conscious of an apparent decline in the time-worn institution. On October 8, 1963, the Globe and Mail reprinted excerpts from prominent Canadian newspapers describing parliament as “a farce,” “a wasteful bore,” whose members were “incompetents and buffoons” who “had played the role of clowns.” If parliament is to remain a vital and central part of our democracy, it must be resurrected from the morass of ineffectuality into which it has fallen. Although much of the criticism can be dismissed as irresponsible because the public does not understand its workings or functions, there still remains a hard core of difficulties that must be examined.
L'utilisation abusive par les députés de procédures parlementaires désuètes et le nombre croissant des champs d'activité avec les problèmes administratifs qui s'ensuivent et sur lesquels la Chambre des Communes a droit de regard ont rendu nécessaire une modernisation de la procédure. Surmontant les obstacles historiques et traditionnels, la Chambre a adopté les changements les plus considérables de son histoire. Ces changements émanaient des suggestions présentées d'un Comité sur la Procédure en 1964–65 et du Gouvernement en mai 1965.
Une analyse des effets de ces changements, à la lumière des appréhensions manifestées par les députés au cours de débats sur l'adoption de ces suggestions, fait l'objet de cet article. Le fait de siéger dix heures et demi de plus par semaine a permis de consacrer plus de temps aux débats, mais une analyse de la dernière session révèle qu'il y a assez peu de lien entre la longueur de la session et le nombre de projets adoptés. L'abolition des appels sur les décisions de l'Orateur et le rejet de certaines questions de privilège ont réduit les pertes de temps procédurières qui s'étaient développées récemment et qui dégénéraient en querelles partisanes.
Une utilisation efficace des périodes allouées a été rendue possible grâce à l'application stricte, par l'Orateur Lamoureux, des règles sur la pertinence et la répétition et par son rejet des questions orales qui n'étaient pas jugées essentielles. Contrairement à leur crainte initiale, ni les députés sans responsabilités ministérielles, ni les partis à faible représentation n'ont été frustrés par la réduction du débat général sur le Discours du Trône et les motions de Subsides. La nouvelle limite de trente jours aux débats sur les Subsides semble raisonnable lorsqu'on la compare aux débats passés. Il est à espérer que les limites imposées pour certains débats spécifiques forceront les députés à préparer des discours plus convainquants, de manière à permettre Vexpression d'autres opinions.
Le changement procédurier le plus important est la clause qui a trait à la formation d'un comité inter-parti en vue d'obtenir en trois jours un accord unanime sur un agenda pour chacune ou pour toutes les étapes d'un projet de loi. A défaut d'une décision unanime, on doit accepter un agenda déterminé par le Gouvernement. Ce pouvoir de réserve n'a pas été utilisé, mais plusieurs députés craignent qu'un abus en ce sens puisse détruire notre système parlementaire. Quoiqu'il en soit, une utilisation raisonnable et limitée de ce pouvoir peut transformer la Chambre des Communes en un organisme efficace sans, pour autant, sacrifier les droits d'une minorité.
Tous les changements procéduriers ont été discutés au moins deux ans avant adoption et ont été approuvés par les deux-tiers de la Chambre. La tâche qui reste à accomplir est de s'assurer qu'ils soient proprement évalués avant d'être rejetés ou adoptés en permanence. On devra donner suffisamment de pouvoir au nouveau Comité Permanent sur la Procédure pour accomplir cette tâche. Les réformes donnent d'excellents résultats et devraient continuer à le faire si l'Orateur remplit ses fonctions avec tact et si les députés siègent de façon assidue.
This paper was originally prepared under the direction of Professor J. E. Hodgetts as part of doctoral studies at the University of Toronto.
1 This was the time of the threatened Ralliement des Créditistes filibuster on interim supply. Globe and Mail, Oct. 8, 1963.
2 Vancouver Sun, quoted in ibid.
3 Globe and Mail, Oct. 8, 1963.
4 La Presse, quoted in ibid.
5 The Canadian Labour Congress presented a brief to the government demanding procedural reforms. Financial Post, Nov. 20, 1965.
6 1876, 1906, 1910, 1913, 1927, 1955, 1962, 1964, 1965.
7 House of Commons Debates (Canada), 03 18, 1946, p. 35.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as Debates.
8 “Speech of Prime Minister Pearson at Williamstown, Mass.,” June 12, 1966. Toronto Star, June 13, 1966.
9 Debates, 04 5, 1965, p. 2.Google Scholar
10 Mr. Diefenbaker undoubtedly had the protection of the active role of the opposition in mind. Ibid., March 9, 1964, p. 717.
11 The importance of minor party status in the House of Commons can be seen in the efforts of the Ralliement des Créditistes to secure recognition as an official party in October 1963. By implication, a party with twelve members has had its party status recognized because of the special treatment afforded its leaders. Before long an effort will have to be made to define legally what constitutes a political party within the House of Commons. At present the procedures are designed for the operation of a two party House. If a minority government compromises on procedural rules to win support from the minority parties, rule changes may conceivably perpetuate the multi-party system.
12 Debates, 06 7, 1965, p. 2063.Google Scholar
13 These figures do not take into account the large number of appeals on the Chairman's rulings in the Committee of the Whole House. Ibid., May 19, 1965, p. 1482.
15 Ibid.
15 Calculated on the basis that the average appeal takes twenty minutes.
16 Debates, 03 7, 1944, p. 1239.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., Jan. 14, 1955, p. 182, and April 13. 1965, pp. 331–5.
18 Dawson, W. F., Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons (Toronto, 1962), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 “A More Business-Like Parliament,” Queens Quarterly, LXIII (Winter 1956–1957), 547.Google Scholar
20 Prime Minister Pearson's speech at Williamstown, Mass., June 12, 1966, reported in the Toronto Star, June 13, 1966.
21 Mr. Diefenbaker advocated the retention of debate at the resolution stage ( Debates, 10 23, 1963, p. 3927)Google Scholar, but since then he has recommended its abolition. The NDP has recommended its abolition, unless requested by unanimous consent in its Ten Point Program (Globe and Mail, Sept. 23, 1964). Only Mr. Baldwin has resolutely maintained that the resolution stage should be kept as a time in which alternatives to legislation can be produced. ( Debates, 10 9, 1964, p. 8929 Google Scholar).
22 Debates, 05 25, 1966, p. 1642.Google Scholar
23 14th Report of the Special Committee on Procedure concurred in October 9, 1964. Ibid., 1964, p. 780.
24 Ibid., June 9, 1965, p. 2216.
25 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 02 4, 1966, p. ii.Google Scholar
26 Standing Order 6, adopted June 11, 1965. Ibid., pp. 3–6.
27 At the end of the 1964–65 session, the House sat continuously from 11.00 a.m. until 3.00 a.m.
28 Debates, 07 13, 1966, p. 7642.Google Scholar
29 Financial Post, 03 2, 1963.Google Scholar
30 Mr. J. Drysdale MP has been a consistent advocate of voting machines since 1959.
31 Michener, Roland, “What's Wrong with the Government,” Globe Magazine, 06 1, 1963.Google Scholar
32 Debates, 06 8, 1965, p. 2134.Google Scholar
33 Ibid., June 9, 1965, pp. 2177–9.
34 Standing Order 41A, adopted June 11, 1965. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 02 4, 1966, p. 35.Google Scholar
35 Debates, 05 19, 1965, p. 1482.Google Scholar
36 Ibid., Feb. 21, 1964, p. 316.
37 Ibid., June 8, 1965, p. 2139.
38 Toronto Telegram, Sept. 22, 1964.
39 Debates, 05 20, 1965, p. 1540.Google Scholar
40 Parliaments: A Comparative Study on the Structure and Functioning of Representative Institutions in Forty-One Countries (London: 1962), 108.Google Scholar
41 Beauchesne, Arthur, ‘What's Wrong with Parliament,” Canadian Banker, 23 (03 1950), 82.Google Scholar
42 Knowles, Stanley, “Parliamentary Rules and Procedures,” in Hawkins, Gordon, ed., Order and Good Government (Toronto, 1965), 73.Google Scholar
43 Campion, Lord, An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd ed. (London, 1958), 124–6.Google Scholar
44 Parliaments: A Comparative Study, 107.
45 Journals House of Commons (Canada), CXI, 12 14, 1964, p. 985.Google Scholar
46 Dawson, , Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, 94.Google Scholar
47 Debates, 03 18, 1965, p. 12547, March 19, 1965, p. 12582.Google Scholar
48 Debates, 02 24, 1964, p. 173.Google Scholar
49 Ibid., Feb. 26, 1964, p. 268.
50 1964–65 session, 76 speakers; 1965 session, 74 speakers; 1966 session, 91 speakers.
51 Debates, 04 21, 1966, p. 4108.Google Scholar
52 On May 6, 1966, Mr. Knowles asked Prime Minister Pearson when this committee would be set up; the reply was evasive.
53 Journals House of Commons, CXI, 10 7, 1964, p. 771.Google Scholar Mr.Knowles, , Debates, 10 9, 1964, p. 8928.Google Scholar
54 Debates, 03 9, 1964, p. 718.Google Scholar
55 Order and Good Government, 73.
56 Debates, 03 9, 1964, p. 718.Google Scholar
57 Ibid., May 19, 1965, p. 1478.
58 Journals House of Commons, CXII, 03 26, 1965, p. 1177.Google Scholar
59 1957–65 average of 243 hours in a 25½ hour week; 1966 maximum of 260 hours in a 36 hour week.
60 Debates, 07 14, 1966, p. 7727.Google Scholar
61 Ibid., May 19, 1965, p. 1479.
62 Standing Order 47(2), adopted on April 20, 1964, restricts the time to two hours and forty minutes.
63 Debates, 07 11, 1955, p. 5941.Google Scholar
64 O'Leary, Dillon, “The Sham Battle against Closure,” Star Weekly, 04 21, 1962.Google Scholar
65 june 11, 1965.
66 Debates, 12 19, 1962, p. 2835.Google Scholar
67 In a speech of Nov. 2, 1962, quoted by the Toronto Star June 10, 1964.
68 Knowles, , in Order and Good, Government, 72.Google Scholar
69 Globe and Mail, Sept. 23, 1964.
70 Debates, 01 21, 1965, p. 1572.Google Scholar
71 Ibid., April 25, 1966, p. 4215.
72 Campion, Lord, Sir Thomas Erskine May's Treatise on the Law Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 15th ed. (London, 1950), 467–8.Google Scholar
73 Ibid., 456.
74 Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons (United Kingdom), 11 25, 1948, p. 1452.Google Scholar
75 Ibid., pp. 1444–5.
76 Toronto Telegram, June 9, 1965.
77 Knowles, , in Order and Good Government, 70.Google Scholar
78 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 02 4, 1966, p. 26.Google Scholar
79 Former Deputy Speaker Pierre Sevigny maintained that this was one of his most difficult tasks while in the Chair. Toronto Star, April 29, 1959.
80 Standing Order 61A(2). Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 02 4, 1966, pp. 57–8.Google Scholar
81 Globe and Mail, Sept. 23, 1964.
82 Debates, 06 8, 1965, p. 2099.Google Scholar
83 Ibid., April 21, 1966, p. 4139.
84 In a speech to the Women's Auxiliary of the Toronto Western Hospital. Toronto Star, Jan. 26, 1959.
85 This has been tried by the Liberal party, but it has been a difficult struggle according to Deputy Whip James Walker. Ibid., May 24, 1963.
86 Debates, 04 20, 1964, p. 2347.Google Scholar
87 Two typical unnecessary interruptions of Mr. Diefenbaker occurred on June 3, 1965: “What is this, a speech?” “That is too general a statement.” Ibid., June 3, 1965, p. 1938 and p. 1941.
88 Knowles, , in Order and Good Government, 70.Google Scholar
89 Quoted in Dawson, , Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, 157.Google Scholar
90 Debates, 02 26, 1959, p. 1393.Google Scholar
91 Ibid., Oct. 16, 1962, p. 564.
92 Journals House of Commons, CXII, 04 20, 1965, p. 225.Google Scholar
93 One typical example: Mr. L. J. Pigeon asked, “I should like to ask him [Secretary of State] whether he feels that it is decent and proper for the wife of a minister of the crown to continue being mistress of ceremonies on a C.B.C. program.” Debates, 02 27, 1964, p. 286.Google Scholar
94 0n June 20, 1966, Mr. H. W. Herridge was stopped from asking a question on a pamphlet entitled Methodist Federation for Social Action. On June 21, 1966, Mr. Diefenbaker was stopped from quoting a newspaper and Mr. R. Basford told to put a question concerning the paving of the Alaska Highway on the order paper. (Ibid., 1966, pp. 6611, 6677, 6682).
95 Journals House of Commons, CXI, 04 20, 1964, p. 223.Google Scholar
96 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 02 4, 1966, p. 36.Google Scholar
97 Debates, 05 21, 1965, pp. 1564–5.Google Scholar
98 Ibid., June 10, 1965, p. 2242.
99 Quoted by Mr.Jorgenson, , Debates, 06 4, 1965, p. 2073.Google Scholar
100 Both reports of the 1966 Standing Committee on Procedures have dealt with petitions—June 16, 1966 and July 5, 1966.
101 The committee system is beyond the scope of this paper on streamlining procedures. If the anticipated use of committees comes into effect, it will reduce House time, provided that the House does not rehash committee work. The use of the committee has many merits and has become necessary if the House is to continue its scrutinizing role. More first-rate work can be done in less time, and the House will have more hours to spend on other matters. However, the committees must be given the means and time to operate efficiently and not be in competition with the House. The use of procedural rules in standing and select committees is a subject deserving its own special study.
