Category Archives: Government

Supply Procedures

Supply Procedures in Canada

The Public Business of Supply

The business of supply is the process by which the government asks Parliament to appropriate the funds required to meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already approved by Parliament. The Crown, acting on the advice of its responsible Ministers, transmits to the House of Commons the government’s projected annual expenditures, or “estimates”, for parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

The House of Commons has sole authority to grant the “supplies” needed to satisfy the government’s demands. All financial legislation (which includes all government expenditures) must originate in the House of Commons.[104] Once supply is granted, the government can draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet its financial obligations.[105]
Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Historical Perspective

The supply procedures established in 1867 remained basically unchanged for the first hundred years following Confederation. Deriving from a long‑standing rule of the British House of Commons, the business of supply was considered in a Committee of the Whole House, called the Committee of Supply. See more about the historical perspective of supply proceedings here.

The Continuing Order for Supply

In the Speech from the Throne, which begins each new session of Parliament, the Governor General traditionally advises Members of the House of Commons that they will be asked to appropriate (approve the spending of) the funds required to carry on the services and payments authorized by Parliament.[157]

Among its first items of business after the Speech from the Throne, the House considers a motion usually proposed by the Minister serving as President of the Treasury Board: “That the business of supply be considered at the next sitting of the House”.[158] By long‑established practice, the motion is not debatable and is traditionally decided without dissent. Once agreed to, the motion is an order of the House to add the business of supply on the Order Paper for the remainder of the session.[159] This process has the effect of establishing a continuing order of the day for the purposes of considering supply, which enables the government to call supply on any sitting day, within the framework laid out in the Standing Orders.

The business of supply consists of the consideration of motions:
* to concur in interim supply;

* to concur in main and supplementary estimates;

* to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates;

* to introduce or pass at all stages any bill or bills based on the estimates; and

* to be proposed by the opposition on allotted days.[160]

In any calendar year, 22 days are set aside under the Standing Orders for consideration of the business of supply and, on these days, supply has precedence over all other government business.[161] The business of supply can be divided into a general debate phase and a legislative phase. The general debate phase is taken up with the consideration of opposition motions proposed on allotted days.[162] During the legislative phase, the House considers and votes on the government’s proposed annual spending plans (the main and supplementary estimates)[163] and the legislation (appropriation bills) needed to authorize all consequential withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

General Debate Phase

Allotted Days

The setting aside of a specified number of sitting days on which the opposition chooses the subject of debate derives from the tradition which holds that Parliament does not grant supply until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused. Of the 22 days allocated in each annual supply cycle for the House to consider the business of supply, seven days are allotted during the period ending December 10, seven during the period ending March 26 and eight during the period ending June 23. Of these 22 days, no more than one‑fifth may fall on a Wednesday and no more than one‑fifth on a Friday (the shortest sitting days of the week).[164] The 22 days are designated as “allotted days”. On each of these days, the House will debate an opposition motion.[165]

The normal supply cycle can be disrupted by an extended adjournment, a prorogation or a dissolution. In these cases, the number of opposition days in each supply period may be increased or decreased.[166] If the number of sitting days in any supply period is fewer than the number prescribed under the House of Commons calendar, the number of allotted days in that period will be reduced by an amount proportional to the number of sitting days the House stood adjourned. The Speaker will determine and announce to the House the reduction in the number of allotted days for that period.[167]

Conversely, should the House sit more than the prescribed number of sitting days, the total number of allotted days will be increased by one day for every five additional days the House sits,[168] excluding the days when the House meets solely for the purpose of granting Royal Assent to a bill, pursuant to Standing Order 28(4).[169] The House may also decide that any unused days from the six days allotted to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, or from the four days allotted to the budget debate, be added to the number of allotted days in the supply period in which they would have been taken up.[170]

If, in the supply period ending June 23, concurrence is sought in supplementary estimates for the previous fiscal year, a further three sitting days will be allocated in that period for the consideration of a motion to concur in those estimates and for the passage at all stages of the related supply bill.[171] On occasion, changes have been made, with the consent of the House, to the length of a supply period or to the number of allotted days. For example, the House has agreed to extend the length of a supply period;[172] to add supply days;[173] to combine the supply days for two periods,[174] to eliminate one supply day[175] and to transfer unused supply days from one period to the next.[176] The House has also agreed that an allotted day in one supply period be deemed disposed of and one additional allotted day be designated in the subsequent supply period.[177]

Designating an Allotted Day

The government designates the days allotted to the consideration of the business of supply.[178] The established practice is for a Minister of the Crown, usually the Government House Leader, to rise in the House and designate a subsequent sitting day as an allotted day;[179] allotted days may also be designated during the “Thursday Statement” on the House business for the following week.[180] Furthermore, the Government House Leader may send a letter to the Speaker designating a subsequent day as an allotted day.[181] However, the date so designated is not binding on the government and may, like the scheduling of any other government order, be revised at any time.[182]

The designation is made orally by a Minister, usually the Government House Leader, during a sitting[183] or through a letter to the Speaker saying that a designated day will no longer be an allotted day.[184] If the government fails to designate the prescribed number of allotted days, the remaining days in that period will be designated by default.[185] When the sitting on a day designated as an allotted day ends before the House has reached Orders of the Day, the allotted day has not commenced, and therefore the sitting does not count as one of the days designated for the consideration of an opposition motion.[186] On the other hand, once the order for supply has been called, an allotted day is deemed completed if, subsequently, the proceedings are superseded.[187] If all supply business is exhausted, any other government order can be called.[188]

Opposition Motions

Opposition motions have precedence over all government supply motions on allotted days.[189] However, on the last allotted day for the period ending June 23, at not later than 6:30 p.m., the Speaker interrupts the proceedings on the opposition motion and puts, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion. Any recorded division requested is deferred to the end of the supply proceedings on that day, but not later than 10:00 p.m. Meanwhile, the House proceeds to consider a motion or motions to concur in the main estimates.[190]
Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada;[191] that is, they may express approval or condemnation of the government and government policy. The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (i.e., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.[192]

Concurrence motions on standing committee reports based on estimates may be considered under business of supply on an allotted day.[193] This is equally true for concurrence motions on standing committee reports relating to the expenditure plans and priorities of a government department or agency.[194]

Notice

Before an opposition motion can be taken up on an allotted day, a 48‑hour written notice of the motion must be given.[195] The notice must be filed before 6:00 p.m. during a sitting of the House (or before 2:00 p.m. on a Friday). The notice is effective for the sitting day on which it is submitted and appears in the following day’s Notice Paper. The item is transferred to the Order Paper the day after it appears in the Notice Paper.[196]
A Member may put an opposition motion on notice even though an allotted day has not yet been designated.[197] However, a decision by the government not to proceed with a designated allotted day is not in itself a reason for the Chair to remove a notice of an opposition motion from the Order Paper and Notice Paper.[198] It can remain on the Order Paper until it is proceeded with later or withdrawn by its sponsor or the sponsor’s House Leader. Only the sponsor or House Leader can have the motion removed, and the consent of the House to do so is not required.[199]

Speaker’s Power to Select

The Standing Orders are silent on the method of apportioning allotted days between the parties, when two or more recognized parties form the opposition. Although the government designates which days shall be used for the business of supply, the opposition parties decide among themselves which party will sponsor the motion.[200] The distribution has reflected the proportion of seats each recognized party occupies in the Chamber. It is not the purview of the Official Opposition to determine unilaterally who can propose a motion on an allotted day.[201] Notices of more than one motion may be given by one or several opposition parties.[202] Where notice of two or more opposition motions appears on the Order Paper for consideration on an allotted day and there is no agreement among the opposition parties as to which shall be taken up, the Speaker must decide which motion shall be given precedence.[203]

In deciding, the Speaker is not obliged to give any reason for his or her choice. However, most Speakers usually give a short explanation for their decision, once again usually (but not necessarily) based on the representation of the parties in the House; the distribution of sponsorship to date; fair play towards small parties; the date of notice; the sponsor of the motion; the subject matter; whether or not the motion is votable; and what has happened, by agreement among the parties, in the preceding supply periods.[204]

Votable Motions

All opposition motions considered on allotted days may be brought to a vote, unless the sponsor of such a motion informs the Clerk in writing that he or she wants the item designated non-votable.[205] Opposition motions on allotted days have occasionally been agreed to by the House.[206]

Proceedings on an Opposition Motion

Proceedings on non‑votable opposition motions expire at the conclusion of the debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.[207] However, a motion can be moved to extend the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.[208] If the debate on the opposition motion concludes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, the House may then consider other items of supply (opposition motions first) and, following that, any other government order.[209] In the case of votable motions, the Speaker will interrupt the debate 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders and proceed to put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion.[210]

On supply days, a recorded division on a votable opposition motion may be deferred by the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip, even if the Speaker interrupted proceedings and the bells are scheduled to ring only for a maximum of 15 minutes.[211] In addition, if the motion was sponsored by a Member of a recognized party other than the Official Opposition, the recorded division may also be deferred at the request of the Whip of that party.[212] However, recorded divisions on votable opposition motions on the last allotted day in a supply period cannot be deferred.[213] The only exception is that on the last supply day in the period ending June 23, the vote on an opposition motion is deferred to later that same sitting, after the House has considered motions relating to the main estimates.[214] Recorded divisions on opposition motions are automatically deferred from a Friday to a Monday if Friday is not the last allotted day in the supply period.[215]

The proceedings on a votable opposition motion may continue for more than one allotted day;[216] usually, such proceedings have taken place over two consecutive sitting days where both have been designated together as allotted days.[217] The duration of such proceedings must be stated in the notice respecting the day or days set aside.[218]
The mover of the motion, who is a Member of the opposition, speaks first on a supply day. No Member may speak for more than 20 minutes; a 10‑minute period is also provided after each speech to allow other Members to ask questions and make brief comments.[219] It is often the case that two Members of the same party will agree to share the 20 minutes, with each speaker receiving 10 minutes for the debate and 5 minutes for questions and comments.[220] Moreover, Members may speak only once. On allotted days, the party of the opposition Member sponsoring the motion may be recognized more frequently on debate than otherwise might be warranted, given their relative numbers in the House of Commons.

Only one amendment and one subamendment are permitted to opposition motions considered on an allotted day.[221] Amendments which have the effect of providing the basis for an entirely different debate are not in order.[222] When a party has been allocated an allotted day and a subject has been proposed for debate by way of an opposition motion, the day should not be taken away by way of an amendment.[223] The House has consented, despite the rules, to allow amendments which had been ruled inadmissible by the Chair.[224]

The House of Commons has also permitted an amendment to be withdrawn and replaced with another.[225] Since 2001, an amendment to an opposition motion may only be moved with the consent of the mover of the motion, the purpose being to prevent other political parties from changing the content of the debate (and any future decision of the House) during an opposition day.[226] For the same reason, a subamendment cannot be moved to an opposition motion without the consent of the mover of the motion.

Legislative Phase

Main Estimates

The main estimates provide a breakdown, by department and program, of planned government spending for the upcoming fiscal year. The estimates are expressed as a series of “votes”, or resolutions, which summarize the estimated financial requirements in a particular expenditure category, such as operations, capital or grants.

Interim Supply

Since the fiscal year begins on April 1 and the normal supply cycle only provides for the House to decide on main estimates in June, the government would appear to be without funds for the interim three months. For this reason, the House authorizes an advance on the funds requested in the main estimates to cover the needs of the public service from the start of the new fiscal year to the date on which the appropriation act based on the main estimates of that year is passed. This is known as “interim supply”,[251] a spending authority made available to the government pending approval of the main estimates.

The government must give 48 hours’ notice of a motion setting out in detail the sums of money it will require, expressed in twelfths of the amounts to be voted in the main estimates.[252] Most are three‑twelfths of the total amount, corresponding to the three‑month hiatus between the beginning of the new fiscal year and the final passage of the main estimates, but the government may request more.[253]

The motion for interim supply is considered on the last allotted day of the period ending March 26. Concurrence in the motion is followed by the consideration and passage at all stages of an appropriation bill based on interim supply and authorizing the prescribed withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.[254] The granting of interim supply does not necessarily constitute immediate House approval for the programs to which it applies in the main estimates. However, during the examination of the main estimates, neither the House nor its committees can reduce a vote to an amount less than the amount already granted in interim supply.

Supplementary Estimates

Should the amounts voted under the main estimates prove insufficient, or should new funding or a reallocation of funds between already authorized budgetary items be required during a fiscal year, the government may ask Parliament to approve additional expenditures or the reallocations, that it sets out in supplementary estimates.

Consideration of Estimates in Committee

When the estimates are tabled in the House of Commons, they are deemed referred to standing committees for consideration.[274] When a committee decides to consider estimates, each budgetary item, or “vote”, is called, proposed and debated as a distinct motion.

Report to the House

A committee is under no obligation to report the estimates back to the House; however, in the case of main estimates, committees that do not report are deemed to have done so on May 31 and, in the case of supplementary estimates, are deemed to have done so on the third sitting day before the last allotted day or the last sitting day in the supply period.

Consideration of Main Estimates in Committee of the Whole

Since 2001, the Standing Orders have allowed for the consideration of specific votes in the main estimates in Committee of the Whole.

Concurrence in Estimates

The estimates, as reported or deemed reported by the standing committees or Committees of the Whole, must be concurred in by the House in order for the government to introduce the appropriation bill authorizing the necessary withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Supply Bill or Appropriation Act

Concurrence in the estimates or in interim supply is an order of the House to bring in an appropriation bill or bills giving effect to the spending authority (amounts and their destinations) that the House has approved.
Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown”, is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons require that bills which appropriate (impose a charge on the public revenue) or levy any tax or duty (impose a charge upon the people) must first be introduced and passed in the House of Commons.

Borrowing Authority

The government exercises its borrowing authority when there is a shortfall between its expenditures, as authorized by Parliament in the main and supplementary estimates and in interim supply, and its revenues, whose projected levels are also approved by Parliament. The government borrows principally by issuing treasury bills, marketable bonds and Canada Savings Bonds, on domestic and foreign markets. The Financial Administration Act states that the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

Governor General’s Special Warrants

In special circumstances, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant permitting the government to make charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not otherwise authorized by Parliament.

The Business of Ways and Means

In 1968, the House agreed to abolish the Committee of Ways and Means in order to do away with the Committee’s role in considering resolutions to authorize any withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund following the adoption of supply, and to eliminate the repetitive process of debating budget proposals initially on the motion to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means, again in the Committee of Ways and Means, and yet again during the various stages of the bills subsequently introduced.

The Budget

By tradition, the Minister of Finance annually makes a formal budget presentation, offering a comprehensive assessment of the financial standing of the government and giving an overview of the nation’s economic condition. The Minister also declares if and where the burden on the taxpayer will be increased or reduced.

The Public Accounts of Canada

Under the Financial Administration Act, the Receiver General is responsible for ensuring that accounts are kept for each department and agency of the Government of Canada. These accounts must show all expenditures made under each appropriation, all government revenues, and all other payments into and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, together with the assets and liabilities, the contingent liabilities of Canada and the related reserves that are deemed necessary to present a fair picture of the country’s financial position.

The Auditor General of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of Parliament, appointed by the Governor in Council under the Auditor General Act, to audit the accounts of Canada and investigate the financial affairs of the federal government. The position was first established in the Audit Act, 1878.

Resources

Notes

[104] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53; Standing Order 80(1).

[105] The Financial Administration Act states that no payment shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of Parliament (R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 26).

[157] See, for example, Debates, October 5, 2004, p. 12; April 4, 2006, p. 10. There have been occasions where the traditional request for funds was not included in the Speech from the Throne: September 8, 1930; January 25, 1940; October 9, 1951; December 12, 1988; April 3, 1989; October 16, 2007; November 19, 2008. In 1989, a question of privilege was raised contending that, since the Crown had not requested supply, the House had no obligation to consider it (Debates, April 6, 1989, p. 177). In his ruling, Speaker Fraser noted that the Standing Orders do not require that a request for funds be included in the Speech from the Throne and that its inclusion has been a matter of tradition, not procedural necessity (Debates, May 2, 1989, p. 1177).

[158] Standing Order 81(1). See, for example, Journals, October 5, 2004, p. 15; April 4, 2006, p. 12; October 16, 2007, p. 4.

[159] On March 30, 1990, an allotted day, the House was adjourned for lack of quorum. At that time, the lack of quorum and the subsequent adjournment of the sitting superseded the supply proceedings then underway (Debates, p. 10050). The continuing order for supply was lost and removed from the Order Paper. Speaker Fraser subsequently ruled that losing the order for supply did not nullify all of the House’s previous decisions respecting supply. The order could be redesignated on a non‑debatable motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown (Debates, April 3, 1990, pp. 10119‑21). A motion to redesignate the continuing order for supply was moved and agreed to (Journals, April 3, 1990, p. 1486). In 1991, the Standing Orders were amended so that loss of quorum no longer had the effect of superseding proceedings then before the House (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910). For further information on quorum and superseded orders, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”, and Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[160] Standing Order 81(3).

[161] Standing Order 81(2) and (10)(a).

[162] Standing Order 81(3).

[163] Standing Order 81(7) also permits standing committees of the House to study and report on the future expenditure plans and priorities of the departments and agencies whose estimates they are considering. Such studies have previously been permitted under Standing Order 108(2), which sets out the general mandate for standing committees, but the inclusion of an explicit Standing Order for this purpose indicates the House’s willingness to empower its committees accordingly.

[164] Standing Order 81(10)(a). When the new supply procedures came into effect in 1969, the rules provided for 25 allotted days, 5 in the period ending December 10, 7 in the period ending March 26 and 13 in the period ending June 30 (Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554, 557). Effective June 8, 1987, the distribution was changed to 6, 9 and 10, respectively (Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1023). On May 13, 1991, the end date of the third period was changed to June 23 from June 30, the number of allotted days was reduced from 25 to 20 and the distribution was changed to 5, 7 and 8, respectively (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905‑6, 2917, 2931). The total number of days was increased to 21 to accommodate four opposition parties, seven to be allotted in each of the three periods, effective September 21, 1998 (Journals, June 12, 1998, p. 1028). This distribution was changed most recently on March 7, 2005, to 7, 7 and 8 days, respectively (Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451‑5, in particular p. 453).

[165] Standing Order changes approved in 1998 (Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027‑8) made provision to discuss an opposition motion on the last supply day in the period ending June 23. Before this change, that day was set aside entirely for the consideration of a motion or motions to concur in the main estimates.

[166] In reply to a point of order raised regarding the admissibility of this proposed amendment to the Standing Order in April 1991, Speaker Fraser stated that it was very difficult to see these changes as any more than an adjustment to the supply process, and went so far as to say that the proposed changes, by establishing a set formula to determine how adjustments are to be made, would add an element of certainty to what had until then been an ad hoc process (Debates, April 9, 1991, pp. 19233‑5).

[167] Standing Order 81(10)(b). See, for example, Journals, September 30, 2002, p. 2; February 2, 2004, p. 2; October 5, 2004, p. 15; October 16, 2007, p. 5; November 19, 2008, p. 12. The number of days the House sits is determined according to the House of Commons calendar set out under Standing Order 28(2).

[168] Standing Order 81(10)(c). See, for example, Journals, January 30, 2001, p. 13. In the fall of 2005, the House found itself in the unusual situation where both formulae could be applied. Since the end of the previous supply period, the House had sat two additional days, namely June 27 and 28. Moreover, the House had resumed its sittings on Monday, September 26, five sitting days later than usual. The Speaker ruled that a reduction of three sitting days was insufficient to cause a reduction in the number of supply days (Debates, September 26, 2005, p. 8015).

[169] See footnote No. 138.

[170] Standing Order 81(11).

[171] Standing Order 81(12).

[172] See, for example, Journals, November 30, 1970, p. 164, Debates, p. 1598.

[173] See, for example, Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 376; June 17, 1975, p. 641; April 30, 1993, p. 2884; September 23, 1997, p. 14; October 10, 2002, pp. 57‑8; October 5, 2004, p. 15.

[174] See, for example, Journals, April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4. The Standing Orders were temporarily amended so that 15 sitting days were allotted to the business of supply for the period ending December 8, 2006, provided that eight were allotted before June 23.

[175] Notwithstanding the Special Order of April 4, 2006 (Journals, pp. 13‑4), cited in the previous footnote, the number of supply days was reduced by unanimous consent from 15 to 14 on November 9, 2006 (Journals, p. 673).

[176] See, for example, Journals, June 2, 1971, p. 600; December 4, 1975, p. 911. See also Debates, March 14, 1975, p. 4115; June 17, 1975, p. 6829.

[177] Journals, June 3, 1991, p. 132.

[178] On Thursday, October 6, 2005, in response to a question from the Opposition regarding the designation of the seven opposition days for that period, the Leader of the Government informed the House that the business of supply would be considered following the Remembrance Day break (Debates, p. 8515).

[179] See, for example, Debates, February 26, 2008, p. 3329; March 14, 2008, p. 4197; June 3, 2008, p. 6449. Supply days have been designated by a Minister rising on a point of order. See, for example, Debates, February 16, 2000, p. 3604; May 16, 2001, p. 4102; September 17, 2001, p. 5147; March 10, 2005, p. 4243. On one occasion, the House agreed to consider the business of supply although the day had not been designated previously (Debates, May 28, 1987, p. 6467).

[180] See, for example, Debates, February 28, 2008, pp. 3440‑1; April 3, 2008, pp. 4448‑9. For further information about the “Thursday Statement”, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.

[181] When a point of order was raised concerning the method by which two opposition days were designated, the Speaker stated that he had checked the precedents and ruled that the Standing Orders had been followed to the letter. See Debates, February 3, 1986, pp. 10353‑5; Order Paper and Notice Paper, January 31, 1986, p. 7; February 3, 1986, p. 7. See also the letter from the President of the Privy Council and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dated March 12, 1982. See Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 2, 1982, pp. 6, V; March 18, 1982, pp. 7‑8, XXI‑II. See also the letter from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, dated April 24, 2008. See Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 18, 2008, p. 25; April 28, 2008, p. 25.

[182] See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 11, 1982, pp. 14899‑900; Deputy Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, October 27, 1983, p. 28375; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, March 26, 1990, p. 9759; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 29, 2007, pp. 8136-8, in particular p. 8137.

[183] See, for example, Debates, February 22, 2000, p. 3868; May 6, 2002, p. 11197; March 17, 2003, p. 4215; April 8, 2003, p. 5263; May 15, 2007, p. 9541. On occasion, the announcement has been made in the House on a point of order. See, for example, Debates, October 4, 2000, p. 8859; April 18, 2005, p. 5237. Exceptionally, the announcement by the Government House Leader, on April 18, 2005, was made after the Official Opposition had given notice of a motion which, if it had passed, would have designated the other supply days for the period, which by convention is the prerogative of the government (Notice Paper, April 19, 2005, pp. III‑IV). Similarly, on April 22, 2005, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House its Thirty-Fifth Report, in which it recommended that, if the government had not designated any of the remaining six allotted days so that an opposition motion could be considered on or before May 18, 2005, that May 19, 2005, be designated a supply day (Journals, p. 673). The report’s recommendation was not implemented. The six remaining days were designated May 31, June 2, 3, 7, 9 and 14, 2005, respectively (Status of House Business at Dissolution, November 29, 2005, pp. 68‑9).

[184] See the letter from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, dated November 28, 2008. See also the Projected Order of Business and the Projected Order of Business (revised) dated December 1, 2008.

[185] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, March 22, 1990, p. 9628.

[186] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 4, 1986, pp. 1811‑2. On one occasion, the House agreed that the debate on a question of privilege should be adjourned to the following day so that the House could move on to the consideration of the opposition motion (Journals, February 5, 2002, pp. 1006‑7, Debates, p. 8680).

[187] See, for example, Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, April 3, 1990, pp. 10119‑20. See also Journals, March 30, 1990, pp. 1476‑7, Order Paper and Notice Paper, p. 13; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 2, 1990, p. 13; April 4, 1990, p. 13.

[188] Standing Order 40. See Journals, November 16, 1999, p. 189.

[189] Standing Order 81(15).

[190] Standing Order 81(15) and (18).

[191] Standing Order 81(13).

[192] See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 6, 1973, pp. 166‑7; Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Journals, November 14, 1975, pp. 861-2; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1987, p. 6820; Speaker Milliken’s rulings, Debates, March 20, 2001, pp. 1873‑5, in particular p. 1875; October 31, 2002, pp. 1147‑50, in particular pp. 1149‑50. It is clear from previous rulings that the Chair was not disposed to interfere with the use of the allotted day “except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.” For instance, the Speaker has ruled out of order an opposition motion moving passage at all stages of four public bills sponsored by the government (Debates, March 29, 2007, pp. 8136‑8). He stated that the proposed motion would have the effect of imposing closure or time allocation on the four bills, and noted that the precedents, with the exception of cases dealing with the reinstatement of bills, would not permit the Chair to allow a government motion to deal with more than one bill. On another occasion, the Speaker refused to rule in favour of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who believed the use of the word “condemn” in an opposition motion brought the confidence convention into play (Debates, March 6, 2008, pp. 3707‑8, 3754), and went on to say that confidence was not a matter of parliamentary procedure, nor was it something on which the Speaker could be asked to rule.

[193] Standing Order 81(9) and (13). See, for example, Journals, December 6, 1973, pp. 725‑6; Debates, December 10, 1979, p. 2189.

[194] Standing Order 81(7), (8) and (9).

[195] Standing Order 81(14)(a). The suspension of a sitting, as opposed to an adjournment, does not prevent Members from filing notices of motions. See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, January 27, 1969, p. 4813.

[196] Standing Order 54(1). An opposition motion which had not been filed in time to appear on the Order Paper was taken up with the agreement of the House. See Debates, October 5, 1998, p. 8729, Order Paper and Notice Paper, p. 13. On another occasion, the House agreed that an opposition motion that had not been placed on the Notice Paper be taken up instead of the one that had been placed on notice (Journals, March 19, 2001, p. 185, Order Paper and Notice Paper, pp. 15, III). During an adjournment period, notices may be filed any time up to 6:00 p.m. on the Thursday before the next scheduled sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 54(2). The notice will appear on both the Notice Paper and the Order Paper for that sitting. See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 29, 2006, pp. 15‑6, IV‑V; March 31, 2008, pp. 25, VI‑VII.

[197] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5. See also, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, January 30, 2008, pp. 19, IV.

[198] See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 15, 1982, pp. 14997‑8. See, for example, Debates, April 18, 2005, p. 5237; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 19, 2005, pp. III‑IV; Debates, May 15, 2007, p. 9541; Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 16, 2007, p. III.

[199] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5.

[200] See Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 12, 2002, pp. 9547‑8. In the absence of an agreement between the House Leaders on the number of votable motions for the PC/DR Coalition, the Speaker told the Members that the interests of the House would not be well served if the Speaker were drawn into disputes among parties. He stated that it would be prudent for the Chair not to accept the designation of any motion as votable until an agreement had been reached. An agreement was introduced in the form of a motion and was passed by unanimous consent the following day (Journals, March 13, 2002, p. 1172). See also the statement on this matter by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Debates, April 1, 2003, p. 5002.

[201] See the Acting Speaker’s ruling, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223‑4.

[202] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, November 5, 2002, pp. 1263‑4. See also Debates, October 30, 2002, pp. 1081‑2. On May 30, 2005, there were three notices of opposition motions on behalf of Conservative Members on the Order Paper, all of them with notice of 48 hours or more. They could therefore all be chosen for debate on the next supply day. However, at the request of the Conservative Party, the motion that was to take precedence on the supply day was the one that had been placed on the Notice Paper first (Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 30, 2005, pp. 25‑6). The next day, the three opposition motions were in the order in which they had been placed on notice (Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 31, 2005, p. 23). The motion that had been highlighted on May 30, 2005, was ultimately the one that was debated on the supply day.

[203] Standing Order 81(14)(b). See Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings, Debates, March 3, 1969, p. 6121; Journals, December 10, 1973, p. 734. See also Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 18, 1982, p. 15143; the Acting Speaker’s ruling, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223‑4; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 12, 2008, pp. 4055‑7. In the latter case, there were 30 opposition motions on the Order Paper and all had been placed on notice with more than 48 hours’ notice and were therefore eligible to be chosen for debate on days that had been awarded to the party that had placed them on notice (Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 12, 2008, pp. 23‑8). The New Democratic Party objected to the fact that the Liberal Party had only made its final decision regarding the motion for debate at 2 p.m. that day, just one hour before the period set aside for Government Orders. The Speaker ruled that, no matter which motion was chosen for debate, the motion had met the notice requirements of the Standing Orders.

[204] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5; Speaker Milliken’s rulings, Debates, November 5, 2002, pp. 1263‑4; November 13, 2007, pp. 773‑6. See also the Acting Speaker’s ruling, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223‑4.

[205] Standing Order 81(16)(a). See, for example, Notice Paper, March 5, 2008, p. III; Order Paper, March 6, 2008, p. 28. Initially, only two votable motions were provided for in each supply period. That was changed in 1987 to provide for a maximum of eight in any annual supply cycle but not more than four in any supply period (Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1023). That was changed again in 1991 to reduce to three the maximum number of votable opposition motions that could be considered in any supply period (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905‑6, 2918). In 1998, another amendment provided that a total of 14 opposition motions could be votable in the course of a year, with no limit on the number of votable motions in each period (Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027‑8). The House has, on occasion, agreed to increase the number of votable opposition motions in a supply period. See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 14. When the Standing Orders in relation to supply were changed in 1968, the wording respecting votable opposition motions referred to motions of “no‑confidence” in the government. However, this is no longer the case. In June 1985, the House introduced changes to the Standing Orders which modified the wording to remove the reference to “no‑confidence” (Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910, 914, 919). For further information on non‑confidence opposition motions, see the section in this chapter entitled “Supply Proceedings Since 1968”.

[206] See, for example, Journals, February 12, 1992, pp. 1010‑2; March 8, 1994, pp. 220‑2; October 28, 1997, pp. 155‑7; October 30, 1997, p. 175; February 9, 1999, pp. 1482‑3; June 8, 1999, pp. 2064‑6, 2069‑71. This occurs more frequently when there is a minority government. See, for example, Journals, November 2, 2004, pp. 182‑3; November 30, 2004, pp. 275‑6; November 21, 2005, pp. 1301‑3; November 28, 2005, pp. 1352‑3; November 13, 2007, p. 144; December 6, 2007, p. 271; March 3, 2008, pp. 501‑3; March 31, 2008, pp. 611‑2, 621‑2; April 8, 2008, pp. 665‑7; June 5, 2008, pp. 919‑21.

[207] Standing Order 81(19). On occasion, the question on a non‑votable motion was put by unanimous consent and agreed to (Journals, May 14, 1987, pp. 917‑8, Debates, p. 6093; Journals, November 24, 1989, pp. 880‑2). See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, May 14, 1987, p. 6112.

[208] Standing Order 26(1). See, for example, Journals, June 23, 1969, pp. 1222-3; March 19, 2002, p. 1189 (deemed withdrawn); March 19, 1976, p. 1134 (adopted). On one occasion, the House agreed that the period set aside for supply proceedings be extended by the period of time corresponding to the time taken for Royal Assent the same day, and that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment be delayed accordingly (Debates, May 11, 2006, pp. 1222, 1280).

[209] Standing Order 81(2). On one occasion, the proceedings ended just before Statements by Members. Following Question Period, the government called the order for second reading and reference to a committee of Bill C‑10, An Act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Unanimous consent was sought twice for the House to return to the supply day motion, but on both occasions it was instantly denied (Debates, November 16, 1999, pp. 1321, 1335‑6, 1338).

[210] Standing Order 81(16)(c). The Speaker interrupts the proceedings even if the House has already passed a motion to concur in the opposition motion at the end of the debate (Journals, March 14, 2002, p. 1176), or a motion stating that, at the conclusion of the day’s debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred. See, for example, Journals, May 4, 2006, pp. 131‑2; April 19, 2007, pp. 1238‑9; November 1, 2007, pp. 130‑1.

[211] Standing Order 45(5)(b). The recorded division is deferred to an appointed time, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday.

[212] Standing Order 45(5)(a)(iii).

[213] Standing Order 45(5)(b).

[214] Standing Order 81(18)(b).

[215] Standing Order 45(6)(a). See, for example, Journals, March 7, 2008, p. 547.

[216] Standing Order 81(16)(b).

[217] See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1969, p. 4716; Journals, January 29, 1969, p. 637; January 30, 1969, p. 646; Debates, November 17, 1970, p. 1250; Journals, November 18, 1970, p. 113; November 19, 1970, pp. 116‑7; Debates, April 20, 1989, pp. 739‑40, 760; Journals, April 21, 1989, pp. 124, 128; April 24, 1989, pp. 132, 134‑5.

[218] Standing Order 81(16)(b). See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 21, 1989, p. V.

[219] Standing Orders 81(22) and 43(1)(b). During the supply period ending December 10, 1997, when five recognized parties were present in the House, the time allocated to all speakers in the first round of debate, with the exception of the Member proposing the motion, was reduced to 10 minutes, with a five‑minute period reserved for questions and comments (Journals, September 26, 1997, p. 30). Subsequently, the House agreed to continue that order indefinitely during the session (Journals, February 9, 1998, p. 427).

[220] See, for example, Debates, February 2, 1990, p. 7755; February 8, 1990, p. 8070; March 15, 1990, p. 9315; October 20, 1998, p. 9136; October 26, 1998, p. 9372; November 19, 1998, pp. 10174‑7. Frequently in the past, where a party had signalled to the House that Members would be sharing their time, the Member following the Member who moved the motion had proposed an amendment to prevent the content of the debate from being changed. See, for example, Debates, October 20, 1998, pp. 9136‑9; October 26, 1998, pp. 9372‑6; March 15, 1999, p. 12839. This practice has fallen into disuse since the Standing Orders were amended in 2001 to provide that amendments to supply day motions could only be moved with the consent of the mover of the motion. See footnote No. 146.

[221] Standing Order 85. The subamendment must amend or clarify the amendment and not change the original question (Debates, February 8, 2001, pp. 430‑1).

[222] See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1971, p. 4306; November 3, 1971, pp. 9304‑6; October 12, 1989, p. 4588; February 1, 1990, p. 7731; March 12, 1991, p. 18378.

[223] See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1971, p. 4306; November 3, 1971, pp. 9304‑6; December 10, 1984, p. 1071; March 26, 1992, p. 8877.

[224] See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1992, p. 6878; April 2, 1992, p. 9268.

[225] See, for example, Journals, May 8, 2001, p. 374.

[226] See footnote No. 146. See also Debates, May 16, 2006, p. 1475; February 1, 2007, pp. 6259, 6263; February 22, 2007, p. 7184 (sponsor’s consent denied); November 22, 2005, p. 10015; June 15, 2006, pp. 2431‑2; April 8, 2008, p. 4598 (sponsor’s consent given). In the absence of the sponsor, it is permissible for consent to be either given or denied by the House Leader, the Deputy House Leader, the Whip or the Deputy Whip of the sponsor’s party. See Debates, February 8, 2007, p. 6558.

[251] See, for example, Journals, March 22, 2007, pp. 1145‑6; March 12, 2008, pp. 579‑81.

[252] See, for example, Notice Paper, March 20, 2007, p. IV; March 11, 2008, pp. IV‑V.

[253] See, for example, Debates, March 20, 1975, pp. 4357‑8; Journals, May 3, 2006, pp. 124‑5; March 22, 2007, pp. 1145‑6.

[254] Standing Order 81(17).

System of Government

Leave a reply

Canadian System of Government in Canada

Definition of Federal System of Government

Federal System of Government meaning or descrpition: a division of law-making powers between the national (federal) and provincial governments according to subject matter (Source of this concept of Federal System of Government: emp.ca/books/479-3)

The System of Government

Canada is a parliamentary democracy: its system of government holds that the law is the supreme authority. The Constitution Act, 1867, which forms the basis of Canada’s written constitution, provides that there shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of three distinct elements: the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons. However, as a federal state, responsibility for lawmaking in Canada is shared among one federal, ten provincial and three territorial governments.

The power to enact laws is vested in a legislature composed of individuals selected to represent the Canadian people. Hence, it is a “representative” system of government. The federal legislature is bicameral: it has two deliberative “houses” or “chambers”—an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house, the House of Commons.[1] The Senate is composed of individuals appointed by the Governor General to represent Canada’s provinces and territories. Members of the House of Commons are elected by Canadians who are eligible to vote.[2] The successful candidates are those who receive the highest number of votes cast among the candidates in their electoral district in this single‑member, simple‑plurality system.

Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, in that its executive authority is vested formally in the Sovereign through the Constitution.[3] Every act of government is carried out in the name of the Crown, but the authority for those acts flows from the Canadian people.[4] The executive function belongs to the Governor in Council, which is, practically speaking, the Governor General acting with, and on the advice of, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[5]

Political parties play a critical role in the Canadian parliamentary system.[6] Parties are organizations, bound together by a common ideology, or other ties, which seek political power in order to implement their policies. In a democratic system, the competition for power takes place in the context of an election.

Finally, by virtue of the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that Canada is to have “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”, Canada’s parliamentary system derives from the British, or Westminster, tradition. The Canadian system of parliamentary government has the following essential features:

Parliament consists of the Crown and an upper and lower legislative Chamber;
Legislative power is vested in “Parliament”; to become law, legislation must be assented to by each of Parliament’s three constituent parts (the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons);
Members of the House of Commons are individually elected to represent their constituents within a single electoral district; elections are based on a single‑member constituency, first‑past‑the‑post or simple‑plurality system (i.e., the candidate receiving more votes than any other candidate in that district is elected);
Most Members of Parliament belong to and support a particular political party;[7]
The leader of the party having the support of the majority of the Members of the House of Commons is asked by the Governor General to form a government and becomes the Prime Minister;
The party, or parties, opposed to the government is called the opposition (the largest of these parties is referred to as the Official Opposition);
The executive powers of government (the powers to execute or implement government policies and programs) are formally vested in the Crown, but effectively exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, whose membership is drawn principally from Members of the House belonging to the governing party;
The Prime Minister and Cabinet are responsible to, or must answer to, the House of Commons as a body for their actions; and
The Prime Minister and Cabinet must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office. Confidence, in effect, means the support of a majority of the House.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Resources

Notes

Although this was not always so, all provincial legislatures are now unicameral. For further information, see Kitchin, G.W., “The Abolition of Upper Chambers”, Provincial Government and Politics: Comparative Essays, 2nd ed., edited by D.C. Rowat, Ottawa: Carleton University, Department of Political Science, reprinted 1974, pp. 61‑82.
For further information, see the sections in this chapter entitled “The Governor General”, “The Senate” and “The House of Commons”. See also Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 9. In practical terms, however, the powers belonging to the Crown are exercised through an executive committee of Ministers (Cabinet), chosen and led by a Prime Minister, and “responsible” to the House of Commons for their policies and for the activities of government. See the section in this chapter entitled “Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility”.
Forsey, 6th ed., p. 1.
For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “The Executive”.
For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Political Parties”.
A political party is defined as “any group, however loosely organized, seeking to elect governmental office holders under a given label” (Leon Epstein, quoted in Van Loon and Whittington, 4th ed., p. 305). Official party designation for the purposes of the electoral system is made by the Chief Electoral Officer, while official party status, for the purposes of parliamentary procedure, has been associated with having at least 12 Members in the House of Commons. For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Political Parties”.

Borrowing Authority

Leave a reply

Borrowing Authority in Canada

Prior to 1975, it was the custom to include requests for borrowing authority in one of the first appropriation or supply bills of a new fiscal year.[359] The primary justification for including new borrowing authority in an appropriation act was the contention that borrowing powers to cover any shortfall between revenues and expenditures should be authorized almost automatically, given that both the shortfall and the borrowing requirements were a consequence of actions already approved by Parliament. Where circumstances necessitated increasing the level of borrowing authority, the increases were sought by way of subsequent appropriation bills, such as those enacting supplementary estimates or interim supply.

The 1968 changes to supply procedures made the inclusion of borrowing authority in appropriation bills problematic. The revised process usually offered no opportunity for Members to debate the borrowing provisions; the borrowing clauses were not part of the estimates, which were discussed in standing committees, and the supply bills containing the borrowing clauses were generally passed without debate.[360] In 1975, the Speaker ordered a borrowing clause struck from a supply bill related to supplementary estimates on the grounds that, under the rules, its inclusion in a supply bill based on supplementary estimates virtually precluded discussion of the borrowing provisions.[361] Later, in 1981, the Speaker found no objection to including a request for borrowing authority in a tax bill based on a ways and means motion, provided that the government also gave the regular 48 hours’ notice for the introduction of a bill in order to cover the borrowing provisions.[362]

Though borrowing authority bills could occasionally be dealt with expeditiously, other times debate became prolonged and the government resorted to time allocation.[363] The Standing Orders were amended in April 1991 to limit debate at second reading on borrowing bills to two sitting days.[364] Though the limitation applies only to second reading, on two occasions since 1991, the House agreed to refer the bill to a Committee of the Whole in order to expedite its passage.[365] The most recent borrowing authority legislation was introduced either when the budget was presented or shortly thereafter.[366]

Prior to 2007, the Financial Administration Act gave the government standing authority to refinance its market debt, while specific authority was to be granted by Parliament to undertake additional borrowing beyond an existing $4 billion of non-lapsing borrowing authority. The Act also required the Minister of Finance to table annually in Parliament a report on the plan for managing the public debt for the upcoming fiscal year (the Debt Management Strategy),[367] and a separate report on actual results for the fiscal year recently ended (the Debt Management Report).[368]

In its Budget 2007, the government proposed to amend the Financial Administration Act to modernize Crown borrowing authorities and increase flexibility to meet future borrowing needs, particularly with respect to the consolidation of Crown borrowings.[369] Notably, the existing $4‑billion statutory non-lapsing limit on borrowing authority was replaced with a more flexible framework that consolidates the borrowing authority into one general provision, under the authority of the Governor in Council.[370] The amendments also provided for enhanced disclosure on anticipated borrowing and planned uses of funds through the Debt Management Strategy; enhanced disclosure requirements on actual borrowing and uses of funds compared to those forecast through the Debt Management Report; and detailed information on outcomes provided in the Public Accounts of Canada.[371]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

Notes

[357] S.C. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 43.1.

[358] S.C. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 43(2).

[359] See Debates, December 16, 1975, pp. 10054‑5.

[360] See Debates, December 10, 1974, pp. 2138‑9; December 11, 1974, p. 2143; March 20, 1975, pp. 4357‑62; March 21, 1975, pp. 4364‑5.

[361] See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Journals, December 9, 1975, p. 924, Debates, pp. 9880‑3. After the clause was struck from the appropriation bill, the government introduced a separate bill dealing solely with borrowing authority, which the House after a brief debate agreed to pass (Journals, December 16, 1975, p. 943). The bill was considered at second reading, in Committee of the Whole and at third reading in one sitting. In 1977 and 1978, the House agreed to a debate at second reading of a supply bill, based on interim supply, which contained a borrowing clause. See Journals, March 21, 1977, p. 598; Debates, March 24, 1977, p. 4298; Journals, March 13, 1978, p. 476; Debates, March 16, 1978, pp. 3837‑8.

[362] See Speaker Sauvé’s rulings, Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319; February 16, 1982, p. 15053.

[363] Time allocation was used at the second reading stage of borrowing authority bills in 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984 and 1990. In 1981 and 1983, the House also concurred in time allocation at report stage and at third reading stage.

[364] Standing Order 73(5). See Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2914. See also Journals, February 27, 1995, p. 1174; March 2, 1995, p. 1195; March 3, 1995, pp. 1199, 1202. In one case, when the Minister of Finance used the second reading debate on a borrowing bill to make a major economic statement, the House agreed to extend the hours of sitting for both days of the debate (Journals, December 1, 1992, pp. 2265‑6).

[365] Journals, April 30, 1993, pp. 2884, 2887; March 19, 1996, p. 114; March 21, 1996, pp. 129‑30.

[366] In 1985, the Minister of Finance tabled a paper which set out recommendations aimed at improving the borrowing process based on the basic principle that the government should not seek borrowing authority for a fiscal year without first providing Parliament with all relevant details relating to the financial requirements. The same paper stressed how important it was that borrowing bills be passed in a timely manner so that the government could carry out an orderly debt program. See pp. 9‑12 of “The Canadian Budgetary Process―Proposals for Improvement”, tabled in the House on May 23, 1985 (Journals, pp. 648‑9). See also Journals, February 23, 1994, p. 188; February 27, 1995, p. 1174; March 6, 1996, p. 55; February 18, 1997, p. 1146.

[367] See, for example, Journals, March 30, 2004, p. 236; March 21, 2005, p. 529; April 7, 2006, p. 36; March 19, 2007, p. 1111. In the last case, the “Debt Management Strategy” was appended in Annex 3 of The Budget Plan 2007, published by the Department of Finance, www.fin.gc.ca, 2007, pp. 318‑34.

[368] See, for example, Journals, December 8, 2004, p. 320; November 25, 2005, p. 1343; November 28, 2006, p. 830; December 6, 2007, p. 275.

[369] As of 2008, the government is proposing to consolidate the borrowings of the Business Development Bank of Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (not including the Canada Housing Trust), and Farm Credit Canada with the government’s own debt program. This measure will reduce overall borrowings costs, while enhancing the liquidity of the government bond market. See The Budget Plan 2007, pp. 328‑29.

[370] Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, received Royal Assent on June 22, 2007 (S.C. 2007, c. 29). See the Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, s. 43.1.

[371] Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-11, s. 49. The period within which the Debt Management Report must be tabled was shortened from 45 to 30 sitting days following the tabling of the Public Accounts of Canada.

Executive Power

Leave a reply

Executive Power in Canada

Executive Power

Definition of Executive Power by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The power of the executive branch of government to administer public policies and enforce laws.

The Executive

In Canada, executive authority is vested in the Sovereign and exercised by the Governor in Council.[144] Formally, this is the Governor General acting by and with the advice and consent of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; in practice, it is the Governor General acting with the advice and consent of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.[145] As provided for under the Constitution Act, 1867, the Privy Council is composed of individuals chosen by the Governor General to advise the Crown;[146] in practice, Privy Council nominations are made on the advice of the Prime Minister. Privy councillors are given the title “Honourable”, which they retain for life.[147] They serve “at pleasure”[148] but their term is effectively for life. Prime Ministers are designated “Right Honourable” for life from the moment they assume office.[149]

Once appointed, the Prime Minister selects a number of confidential advisors (usually from among the members of the government party) who are first made members of the Privy Council. The selected confidential advisors are then sworn in as Ministers.[150] Collectively, they are known as the “Ministry” or Cabinet.[151] Privy councillors are active in their capacity as advisors to the Crown only as part of a Ministry.[152] However, not all privy councillors are part of a Ministry and some may never have been Ministers.[153]

A Prime Minister’s choice of Ministers is influenced by political considerations respecting, for example, geography, gender and ethnicity. However, the Prime Minister alone decides on the size of the Ministry and what constitutes an appropriate balance of representation.

By custom, members of the Ministry have seats in Parliament and, apart from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, normally sit in the House of Commons.[154] Persons appointed to the Ministry from outside Parliament are expected to stand for election at the earliest possible opportunity. If they are unsuccessful at the polls, custom requires they resign from the Ministry.[155]

Although the terms “Ministry” and “Cabinet” are commonly used interchangeably, in fact a Ministry is composed of both Cabinet Ministers and Secretaries of State. Most Cabinet appointees are designated Ministers in charge of government departments (or ministries) although some may be given responsibility for an important policy portfolio.[156] Secretaries of State are assigned to assist Cabinet Ministers in specific areas within their portfolios.[157] They are members of the Ministry (sworn to the Privy Council) but not of Cabinet.[158] In addition, the Parliament of Canada Act provides for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries (Members who assist Cabinet Ministers but who are not members of the Ministry).[159] Finally, provision may be made for the appointment of an Acting Minister in the event a Minister is absent or incapacitated, or the office is vacant.

A Minister’s tenure in office depends solely on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may replace or ask for a Minister’s resignation at any time. The Governor General will not accept a Minister’s resignation without the approval of the Prime Minister. After the Prime Minister, members of Cabinet and Secretaries of State are accorded precedence[160] or seniority according to the date they were sworn in as privy councillors, regardless of portfolio.

The duration of a Ministry is measured by the tenure of its Prime Minister, which is calculated from the day the Prime Minister takes the oath of office to the day she or he resigns. The resignation of a Prime Minister brings about the resignation of the Ministry as a whole.[161] A Prime Minister who resigns but is subsequently restored to office is said to form a new Ministry.[162]

Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility

Responsible government has long been considered an essential element of government based on the Westminster model.[163] Despite its wide acceptance as being a cornerstone of the Canadian system of government, there are different meanings attached to the term “responsible government”. In a general sense, responsible government means that a government must be responsive to its citizens, that it must operate responsibly (that is, be well organized in developing and implementing policy) and that its Ministers must be accountable or responsible to Parliament. Whereas the first two meanings may be regarded as the ends of responsible government, the latter meaning—the accountability of Ministers—may be regarded as the device for achieving it.[164]

In terms of ministerial responsibility, Ministers have both individual and collective responsibilities to Parliament. The individual or personal responsibility of the Minister derives from a time when in practice and not just in theory the Crown governed; Ministers merely advised the Sovereign and were responsible to the Sovereign for their advice. The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts. Ministers exercise power and are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of government; Parliament holds them personally responsible for it.[165]

The principle of collective ministerial responsibility,[166] which is of a much more recent vintage, evolved when Ministers replaced the Sovereign as the decision‑makers of government. Ministers are expected to take responsibility for, and defend, all Cabinet decisions.[167] The principle provides stability within the framework of ministerial government by uniting the responsibilities of the individual Ministers under the collective responsibility of the Crown.[168]

Resources

144. Dawson, 6th ed., pp. 198‑9; Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 12 and 13.

[145] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 9, 12 and 13; McMenemy, 4th ed., p. 156. Cabinet comprises the Prime Minister and Ministers and constitutes the government of the day. Ministers are individuals chosen by the Prime Minister to provide policy advice, as well as administrative leadership for the various government departments and agencies (McMenemy, 4th ed., pp. 21, 220‑1). At the time Britain acquired the Canadian colonies, the monarch ruled at the head of an autonomous executive—a select group of privy councillors in whom the Crown placed its trust. In Parliament, the Lords represented the great landed interests and the Commons the interests of the propertied middle and commercial classes. Under this system, the Crown was presumed to operate as a check on the power of the legislature and Parliament on the power of the Crown. Over time, as more and more of the Sovereign’s executive powers shifted to the Ministers (now chosen increasingly from among the influential Members of Parliament), the contemporary model of Cabinet government began to emerge. In effect, the Crown’s business was carried out by Ministers who retained office by virtue of their ability to control and manage the House of Commons. From this emerged the modern notion of a Cabinet which fuses executive powers with those of the legislature to produce a government continuously responsive to the elected House (Mallory, rev. ed., pp. 8‑11). See Privy Council Minute, P.C. 3374, dated October 25, 1935, a “Memorandum regarding certain of the functions of the Prime Minister”, which stated that recommendations (to the Crown) concerning the convocation and dissolution of Parliament are the “special prerogatives” of the Prime Minister.

[146] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 11. Originally, the Privy Council was a more or less permanent executive body of nobles chosen by the Sovereign as counsellors. The Council was separate from the legislative body, or Parliament, of which the Sovereign was a constituent part. When the Council became too large for the practical purpose of consultation, the Sovereign selected from among its members his or her most trusted and intimate counsellors. The practice of forming from the larger group of privy councillors a small, specialized committee to advise the Crown has continued to this day (Wilding and Laundy, 4th ed., pp. 66, 602‑4).

[147] The Table of Titles for Use in Canada, approved by Queen Victoria in 1868, conferred the title of “Honourable” on privy councillors for life. This title is also conferred on the Speaker of the House of Commons while in office. After a Speaker has ceased to hold office, he or she usually becomes a member of the Privy Council and is eligible to retain the title of “Honourable”.

[148] The term “at pleasure” means at the will, desire or discretion. A privy councillor serves at the pleasure of, and may be removed at the discretion of, the Crown or Governor General.

[149] Until 1968, Canadian Prime Ministers, with the exception of Alexander Mackenzie, John Abbott, Mackenzie Bowell and Charles Tupper, were made Members of the Privy Council of Great Britain, which carried with it the lifetime title of “Right Honourable”. Lester Pearson was the last Canadian Prime Minister to be a member of the British Privy Council. In 1967, and again in 1968, the Table of Titles for Use in Canada was revised, with the result that Canadian Governors General, Prime Ministers and Supreme Court Chief Justices now all acquire the title of “Right Honourable” for life (Privy Council Minute, 1968‑419).

[150] Ministers who retain the portfolio they held under the previous administration are not sworn in again. They are presented to the Governor General by the Prime Minister. However, Ministers‑designate who are privy councillors and who are changing portfolios subscribe to their respective oaths of office in front of the Clerk of the Privy Council before being presented to the Governor General by the Prime Minister. See the fact sheet published by the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, “The Swearing‑In of a New Ministry”, February 2, 2006, available on the Web site at www.gg.ca.

[151] Originally, Ministry was the term applied to Ministers holding office at the pleasure of the Crown while the Cabinet was a place, provided by the Prime Minister, in which the Ministry met (Privy Council Office, Responsibility in the Constitution, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1993, p. 26). The Ministry and the Cabinet are not always identical; not all Ministers are members of Cabinet. For a large part of Canadian history, the Cabinet and the Ministry have been the same (Dawson, 6th ed., p. 196).

[152] For further information on the Privy Council, see Dawson, 6th ed., Chapters 10 and 11.

[153] There are two main categories of privy councillor: one group includes current and former Cabinet Ministers; the other includes those appointed as an honour but who have never been Cabinet Ministers. Among those in the second group have been leaders of opposition parties, Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons generally when they cease to hold office, and Chief Justices and distinguished Canadians (Jerome, J., Mr. Speaker, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1985, p. 53). For example, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, New Democratic Party leader Audrey McLaughlin was sworn in as a privy councillor so that she could be given secret information; members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee must, by statute, be privy councillors, and several have been appointed solely for that reason (Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S. 1985, c. C‑23, s. 34(1)).

[154] Forsey, 6th ed., pp. 40‑1. There have been Senators appointed to the Cabinet as Ministers of departments (for example, Robert R. de Cotret was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the Twenty‑First Ministry, and Michael Fortier was Minister of Public Works and Government Services in the Twenty‑Eighth Ministry) and Ministers without portfolio (for example, Andrew Olson was Minister of State for Economic Development in the Twenty‑Second Ministry).

[155] General Andrew George McNaughton was Minister of National Defence from November 2, 1944 until August 20, 1945 without a seat in either House. After failing to win a seat both in a by‑election and, subsequently, a general election, he resigned. He appeared, with permission, three times on the floor of the House during the period he served as Minister (Forsey, 6th ed., p. 40). In 1975, Pierre Juneau was appointed as Minister of Communications. He subsequently contested and lost a by‑election, following which he resigned from Cabinet.

[156] For example, in the Twenty‑Sixth Ministry, Ministers were assigned responsibility for “International Cooperation” and “Intergovernmental Affairs”. In the Twenty‑Fifth Ministry, Ministers were assigned responsibility for “Small Business” and “Small Communities and Rural Areas”. During the Twentieth Ministry, a number of Ministers were appointed “Without Portfolio”.

[157] The position of “Secretary of State” has been included in earlier Ministries, designated as Minister of State. Ministers and Secretaries of State are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Salaries Act (R.S. 1985, c. S‑3, ss. 2 and 4).

[158] This category of members of the Ministry was added in November 1993. They are sworn in as a group, taking the Oath of Allegiance, the Oath of the Members of the Privy Council, and a general Oath of Office. See the news release issued by the Office of the Prime Minister, “Members of the Privy Council and Cabinet”, November 4, 1993, and the fact sheet published by the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, “The Swearing‑In of a New Ministry”, February 2, 2006, available on the Web site at www.gg.ca.

[159] R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, ss. 46 and 47. In 2003, for the first time in Canadian history, Prime Minister Paul Martin had the Parliamentary Secretaries in his new Cabinet sworn in as privy councillors so they could be invited to Cabinet meetings. The next Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, did not continue this new practice, with the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Jim Abbott, who was sworn in as Privy Councillor on October 15, 2007. See the news release issued by the Privy Council Office, “Prime Minister announces appointment of Cabinet”, December 12, 2003, the news release issued by the Office of the Prime Minister, “Prime Minister announces Parliamentary Secretaries”, February 7, 2006, available on the Web site at www.pm.gc.ca, and the Historical Alphabetical List since 1867 of Members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada available on the Web site of the Privy Council Office at www.pco-bcp.gc.ca.

[160] The order of precedence of Canadian dignitaries and officials is set by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in turn, is advised on this matter by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Department of Canadian Heritage is custodian of the Table of Precedence of Canadian Dignitaries and Officials, as well as of the Table of Titles to be Used in Canada.

[161] For further information, see Chapter 2, “Parliaments and Ministries”.

[162] There have been 28 Ministries since 1867. See Appendix 6, “Government Ministries and Prime Ministers of Canada Since 1867”.

[163] In Canada, responsible government had been well established by the time of Confederation. For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Historical Perspective—The Years Preceding Confederation”.

[164] Birch, A., “Panel I: The Meaning of Responsible Government”, Responsible Government, Ottawa: Canadian Study of Parliament Group, October, 1989, p. 5.

[165] “Parliament used to bring Ministers to account by a semi‑judicial process. The King could do no wrong in the eyes of the law … and it was more satisfactory and expedient to attack his advisers for their evil counsel by charging them with high crimes and misdemeanours. The Commons were the accusers; the Lords the judges; the process was impeachment …. During the 18th century votes of censure against Ministers and Governments gradually replaced the cumbersome machinery of impeachment …. The process has never been abolished but it is in practice obsolete.” It survives in the United States (de Smith, quoted in Privy Council Office, Responsibility in the Constitution, pp. 14‑5).

[166] Commonly referred to as “Cabinet solidarity”.

[167] A number of Ministers have resigned over disagreements with government policy. For example: Paul Hellyer, Minister of Transport, resigned because he disagreed with the government’s housing policy (Journals, April 24, 1969, p. 939, Debates, p. 7893); Eric Kierans, Minister of Communications and Postmaster General, resigned in disagreement over the government’s economic priorities (Journals, April 29, 1971, p. 515, Debates, p. 5339); Lucien Bouchard, Minister of the Environment, resigned in disagreement over matters concerning the Meech Lake Accord on the Constitution (Debates, May 22, 1990, pp. 11662‑4); Joseph Comuzzi, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), resigned because he was opposed to the Civil Marriage Act that legalized same-sex marriage (Privy Council Office, “Prime Minister announces changes to the Ministry”, News Release, June 28, 2005; the order terminating the assignment of Joseph Comuzzi, P.C. 2005‑1296 in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 139, No. 14, July 13, 2005); and Michael Chong, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, resigned because he was opposed to the position taken by his party on the question of recognizing the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada (Office of the Prime Minister, “Prime Minister appoints Peter Van Loan to Cabinet”, News Release, www.pm.gc.ca, November 27, 2006; order terminating the assignment of Michael Chong, P.C. 2006‑1419 in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 140, No. 25, December 13, 2006; and Chong, M., Statement by Minister Michael Chong, www.mikechong.ca, November 27, 2006).

[168] Ministers and Secretaries of State are bound by their Privy Council oath of secrecy not to reveal the nature of Cabinet proceedings.

Cabinet Confidences

Leave a reply

Cabinet Confidences in Canada

An essential feature of parliamentary government is that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are responsible to, or must answer to, the House of Commons for their actions and must enjoy the support and the confidence of a majority of the Members of that Chamber to remain in office. This is commonly referred to as the confidence convention. This complex constitutional subject, a matter of tradition that is not written into any statute or Standing Order of the House, is thoroughly reviewed in other authorities more properly concerned with the subject.[1]

Simply stated, the convention provides that if the government is defeated in the House on a confidence question, then it is expected to resign or seek the dissolution of Parliament in order for a general election to be held. This relationship between the executive and the House of Commons can ultimately decide the duration of each Parliament and of each Ministry. The confidence convention applies whether a government is formed by the party or the coalition of parties holding the majority of the seats in the House of Commons, or by one or more parties holding a minority of seats. Naturally, it is more likely that the government will fail to retain the confidence of the House when the government party or parties are in a minority situation.

Confidence Convention in Canada

What constitutes a question of confidence in the government varies with the circumstances. Confidence is not a matter of parliamentary procedure, nor is it something on which the Speaker can be asked to rule.[2] It is generally acknowledged, however, that confidence motions may be:[3]

explicitly worded motions which state, in express terms, that the House has, or has not, confidence in the government;[4]
motions expressly declared by the government to be questions of confidence; and
implicit motions of confidence, that is, motions traditionally deemed to be questions of confidence, such as motions for the granting of supply (although not necessarily an individual item of supply[5]), motions concerning the budgetary policy of the government[6] and motions respecting the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Confidence and the Standing Orders

When the Standing Orders respecting supply were amended in 1968, it was specified that, in each of the three supply periods, the opposition could designate not more than two of the motions proposed on allotted days as motions of non‑confidence in the government.[7] This was the first time the notion of confidence found expression in the Standing Orders.

This rule was modified provisionally in March 1975 to remove the non‑confidence qualification; the motions would still be brought to a vote but the vote would not automatically be considered an expression of confidence in the government.[8] The provisional Standing Orders lapsed at the beginning of the following session and the term found its way back into the 1977 version of the Standing Orders. No further changes were made until June 1985, when the

Standing Orders were again modified to remove the non‑confidence provision with regard to supply.[9]

Meanwhile, in 1984, a recommendation was made that a change be made in the manner of electing a Speaker.[10] This proposal found favour and a variant of it was adopted by the House in 1985.[11] One of these rules still provides that the election of a Speaker shall not be considered to be a question of confidence in the government.[12]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Resources

Notes

For further information, see Forsey, E.A. and Eglington, G.C., “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 to the House on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211) and June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839), as well as Desserud, D., “The Confidence Convention under the Canadian Parliamentary System”, Canadian Study of Parliament Group: Parliamentary Perspectives, No. 7, October 2006.
See, for example, Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings, Journals, May 4, 1970, pp. 742‑3; March 6, 1973, pp. 166‑7. See also Debates, October 20, 1981, p. 11974; March 4, 1988, p. 13400, and Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, May 5, 2005, pp. 5725-7.
Norton, P., “Government Defeats in the House of Commons: The British Experience”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 1985‑86, pp. 6‑9.
See, for example, Journals, November 28, 2005, pp. 1352‑3.
See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1973, pp. 212‑3. A number of 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; March 8, 1994, pp. 220‑3. This tendency increased dramatically during the Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth minority parliaments when 17 opposition day motions were adopted during Paul Martin’s minority parliament, including the one that ultimately toppled his government, and a total of 27 such motions passed during Stephen Harper’s minority mandate in the Thirty-Ninth Parliament.
See statement of Prime Minister Joe Clark, Debates, December 13, 1979, p. 2362.
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554, 557 (1968 Standing Order 58(9)).
Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on March 14, 1975 (Journals, pp. 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.
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).
First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211), and the government response to the First Report, tabled on April 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 486).
Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910‑9. These are now Standing Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Standing Order 6.

Cabinet Confidences in French

In the French language, Cabinet Confidences means: documents confidentiels du Cabinet (there is related information on documents confidentiels du Cabinet in the legal Encyclopedia in French, about Canadian law, French law and other legal systems – the link is to the Encyclopedia).

Governor-General

Leave a reply

The Governor-General in Canada

Canadian Parliament Structure of parliament: The Governor-General

The Constitution Act of 1867 essentially made Canada an independent nation, but stated “the executive government of and over Canada is declared to continue to be vested in the Queen.” Today, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain is also recognized as the hereditary sovereign of Canada. She serves as Canada’s head of state. The governor-general is the queen’s representative in Canada. However, the governor-general has limited powers. No bill may become law without royal assent, but the governor-general has never withheld it. The governor-general follows the advice of the prime minister for almost everything he or she does even though the governor-general retains the right to encourage or warn ministers about their actions.

In short, the role of the governor-general within Parliament has become largely ceremonial, such as reading the Speech from the Throne, the announcement of the government’s legislative plans at the opening of a new Parliament. The governor-general can exercise his or her powers to check the prime minister and Cabinet if they flagrantly disregard the law or the unwritten conventions of the constitution, but this is very rare. (1)

The Governor-General and the Parliament

Although officially the Sovereign is the head of state, almost all of the Sovereign’s powers over Canada have been assigned to the Governor General,[87] with the notable exception of the power to appoint or dismiss Governors General. The Queen appoints the Governor General by Commission under the Great Seal of Canada[88] on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The term of office begins with the Governor General’s installation in the Senate Chamber by the Chief Justice of Canada or any other of the Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Tenure is “at pleasure”, generally five years, although terms have been extended to as long as seven years.[89] The incumbent bears the title “Governor General and Commander‑in‑Chief in and over Canada”.[90]

The Governor General may name one or more deputies, usually justices of the Supreme Court, to exercise on his or her behalf, any of the lawful powers, functions and authorities in respect of Canada that he or she deems necessary or expedient to assign.[91] A common example is the power to grant Royal Assent.[92] In the case of a Governor General’s death, incapacity, removal or absence from the country, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (or, in the case of death, incapacity, removal or extended absence of the Chief Justice, the senior judge of the Court) becomes “Administrator of the Government” and assumes the powers of the Governor General.[93] If the Governor General is to be absent for less than 30 days, he or she designates the Deputy Governor General to act on his or her behalf.[94] Deputy Administrators are named as a matter of course each time an Administrator assumes office.[95]

Until the 1950s, the Office of Governor General of Canada had always been held by a citizen of the United Kingdom—in the early years of Confederation, by members of the British royal family or nobility, and later by retired senior military officers. In 1952, Vincent Massey became the first Canadian to assume the office; since that time, all Governors General have been Canadian citizens.

Origins of the Institution

The Office of the Governor General is one of Canada’s oldest institutions. The Governor General was the chief dignitary in New France and was appointed by the King.[96] In the eighteenth century, the highest ranking official in the British North American colonies was given the title of “Captain General and Governor in Chief”.[97] At that time, wars and other hostilities were frequent occurrences and the Governor General truly exercised a military function in addition to his executive responsibilities. Over time, the powers of the office have declined or have been undertaken by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.[98]

At the time of Confederation, the Governor General was both the Sovereign’s personal representative and an agent of the British government.[99] This meant that, in matters deemed to be of “imperial” concern, the Governor General acted on the instructions of the British Colonial Office.[100] Between 1887 and 1937, the principal means of high‑level consultation between representatives from the United Kingdom, Canada, and other self‑governing parts of the British Empire/Commonwealth were the colonial and imperial conferences. The report on the conclusions of the 1926 conference (the Balfour Report) led directly to the recognition of dominion autonomy.[101] The Governor General ceased to be a representative of the British government and ceased to be appointed on the advice of the British Cabinet.[102]

In addition to the powers and jurisdiction of successive Governors General cited in the Constitution Act, 1867, others have been enumerated in a series of commissions, instructions and letters patent,[103] issued initially by the Sovereign, and later by the British Colonial Office. Of these, the letters patent issued in 1947, and still effective today, were the most crucial. The Letters Patent Constituting the Governor General of Canada, 1947[104] replaced all prior commissions, instructions and letters patent and established the right of the Governor General to exercise, with the advice of the duly‑elected government, all the powers and authorities of the Sovereign in right of Canada. However, not all the powers conferred by the 1947 instrument were exercised immediately. Canadian diplomatic appointments, for example, have been made by the Governor General, rather than by the Sovereign, only since 1977.[105]

Legislative and Executive Powers

The Constitution Act, 1867 accords the Governor General certain basic powers of government. In administering the executive authority of the government, the Governor General exercises his or her powers, almost without exception, upon the advice of the federal Cabinet.[106] A recommendation from the Governor General must accompany all spending measures[107] and it is the Governor General who gives Royal Assent to legislation adopted by both the Senate and the House. Under the Constitution, the Governor General (or Lieutenant Governor, in the case of a province) may also withhold Royal Assent.[108]

The Constitution stipulates that only Parliament can authorize the expenditure of public funds. However, under exceptional circumstances, the Governor General may be asked to issue a special warrant permitting the government to make expenditures which are not otherwise authorized.[109] This provision, for example, makes it possible for the government to meet its expenditures when Parliament is dissolved for a general election. Governor General’s “Special” Warrants are to be distinguished from Governor General’s Warrants which are issued and signed by the Governor General each time funds are withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

On the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the Governor General appoints Senators to the Upper House,[110] as well as the Speaker of the Senate,[111] summons Parliament into session[112] and prorogues and dissolves Parliament.[113] At the start of every new session of Parliament, the Governor General reads the Speech from the Throne which sets out the government’s agenda. All privy councillors,[114] which include Ministers, are appointed and may be removed by the Governor General, who also appoints court judges.[115] The Governor General is also Commander‑in‑Chief of the Armed Forces,[116] performs a number of ceremonial functions, and represents Canada in state visits abroad and in other international events.

The Governor General appoints provincial Lieutenant Governors.[117] As well, various officers, including commissioners, justices of the peace, and diplomats, may be appointed and likewise removed from office by the Governor General.[118] By the same authority, the Governor General presides over the administration of oaths of allegiance and oaths of office, issues exequaturs (that is, instruments for the recognition of foreign diplomatic representatives) and grants pardons.[119]

The Governor General also enjoys certain prerogative or discretionary powers.[120] One of the duties of the Governor General is to choose the Prime Minister. The individual selected must be someone who is willing to form a government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons. By convention, this is the leader of the political party that has won a majority of seats in the House of Commons in a general election. Where no party is given a majority, the defeated Ministry may choose to stay in office until defeated in the House, or it may resign. If it resigns, the Governor General will ask the leader of the opposition party most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House to form a government.[121] However, it is still correct to refer to the Governor General’s prerogative or discretionary powers in appointing a Prime Minister, subject to the selection being confirmed in the House of Commons, as this remains one of the few decisions the Governor General makes without ministerial advice.[122]

Among the other discretionary prerogatives is the power to dissolve Parliament for a general election, which is done normally at the request of the Prime Minister. Conventionally, where the government is in a majority position, the Governor General grants the Prime Minister’s request. However, when the Prime Minister leads a minority government (i.e., one that does not hold an absolute majority of the seats in the House of Commons), the Governor General may exercise personal discretion in whether or not to accede to the Prime Minister’s request.[123]
The discretionary prerogatives are invoked rarely and only in the most exceptional circumstances. The overwhelming majority of the Governor General’s powers are invariably exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.[124]

Governors General of Canada since 1867

Appointed by the Sovereign under the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor General usually holds office for five years. However, the term can continue beyond five years and is brought to an end by the installation or the swearing in of a successor. The Constitution Act, 1867 confers upon the Governor General certain basic powers of government: a recommendation from the Governor General must accompany all spending measures introduced in the House; it is the Governor General who gives Royal Assent to legislation; and it is the Governor General who summons, prorogues and dissolves Parliament. However, in administering the executive authority of the government, the Governor General acts solely upon the advice of the Ministry. In addition to these basic powers of government, the Governor General also has a number of ceremonial responsibilities. The list of Governors General of Canada since Confederation and the information on their appointment and term of office was kindly provided by Rideau Hall.

Charles Stanley Monck, Viscount Monck. Appointed date: June 1, 1867 . Term of Office:July 1, 1867 (installation date); November 14, 1868 (Last day in office)
Sir John Young, Lord Lisgar. Appointed date: December 29, 1868 . Term of Office: February 2, 1869 (installation date); June 21, 1872 (Last day in office)
Sir Frederick Temple Blackwood, The Earl of Dufferin. Appointed date: May 22, 1872 . Term of Office: June 25, 1872 (installation date); November 14, 1878 (Last day in office)
Sir John Douglas Sutherland Campbell, The Marquess of Lorne. Appointed date: October 7, 1878 . Term of Office: November 25,1878 (installation date); October 22, 1883 (Last day in office)
Henry Charles Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice, The Marquess of Lansdowne. Appointed date: August 18, 1883 . Term of Office: October 23, 1883 (installation date); May 30, 1888 (Last day in office)
Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, Lord Stanley of Preston. Appointed date: May 22, 1893 . Term of Office: September 18, 1893 (installation date); November 12, 1898 (Last day in office)
Sir John Campbell Hamilton Gordon, The Earl of Aberdeen. Appointed date: July 30, 1898 . Term of Office: November 12, 1898 (installation date); November 18, 1904 (Last day in office)
Gilbert John Murray Kynynmound Elliot, The Earl of Minto. Appointed date: July 30, 1898. Term of Office: November 12, 1898 (installation date); November 18, 1904 (Last day in office)
Sir Albert Henry George Grey, Earl Grey . Appointed date: September 26, 1904 . Term of Office: December 10, 1904 (installation date); October 12, 1911 (Last day in office)
H.R.H. Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, Field Marshall, and H.R.H. The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. Appointed date: March 6, 1911 . Term of Office: October 13, 1911 (installation date); October 11, 1916 (Last day in office)
Sir Victor Christian William Cavendish, The Duke of Devonshire. Appointed date: August 8, 1916 . Term of Office: November 11, 1916 (installation date); July 19, 1921 (Last day in office)
Sir Julian Hedworth George Byng, General Lord Byng of Vimy. Appointed date: August 2, 1921 . Term of Office: August 11, 1921 (installation date); September 29, 1926 (Last day in office)
Sir Freeman Freeman-Thomas, The Viscount Willingdon of Ratton. Appointed date: August 5, 1926 . Term of Office: October 2, 1926 (installation date); January 16, 1931 (Last day in office)
Sir Vere Brabazon Ponsonby, The Earl of Bessborough Appointed date: March 20, 1931 . Term of Office: April 4, 1931 (installation date); September 29, 1935 (Last day in office)
Sir John Buchan, Lord Tweedsmuir of Elsfield. Appointed date: August 10, 1935 . Term of Office: November 2, 1935 (installation date); February 11, 1940* (Last day in office)
Sir Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge, Major General The Earl of Athlone. Appointed date: June 2, 1940 . Term of Office: June 21, 1940 (installation date); March 16, 1946 (Last day in office)
Field Marshall. Appointed date: March 21, 1946 . Term of Office: April 12, 1946 (installation date); January 28, 1952 (Last day in office)
Sir Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, The Viscount Alexander of Tunis Appointed date: . Term of Office: (installation date); (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Vincent Charles Massey Appointed date: February 1, 1952 . Term of Office: February 28, 1952 (installation date); September 15, 1959 (Last day in office)
Major General The Rt. Hon. Georges Philias Vanier Appointed date: August 1, 1959 . Term of Office: September 15, 1959 (installation date); March 5, 1967* (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Daniel Roland Michener Appointed date: March 29, 1967 . Term of Office: April 17, 1967 (installation date); January 14, 1974 (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Jules Léger Appointed date: October 5, 1973 . Term of Office: January 14, 1974 (installation date); January 22, 1979 (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Edward Appointed date: December 28, 1978 . Term of Office: January 22, 1979 (installation date); May 14, 1984 (Last day in office)
Richard Schreyer Appointed date: . Term of Office: (installation date); (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Jeanne Appointed date: January 28, 1984 . Term of Office: May 14, 1984 (installation date); January 29, 1990 (Last day in office)
Mathilde Sauvé Appointed date: . Term of Office: (installation date); (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Ramon Appointed date: December 14, 1989 . Term of Office: January 29, 1990 (installation date); February 8,1995 (Last day in office)
John Hnatyshyn Appointed date: . Term of Office: (installation date); (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Roméo Appointed date: January 16, 1995 . Term of Office: February 8, 1995 (installation date); October 7, 1999 (Last day in office)
Adrien LeBlanc Appointed date: . Term of Office: (installation date); (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson Appointed date: September 28, 1999 . Term of Office: October 7, 1999 (installation date); September 27, 2005 (Last day in office)
The Rt. Hon. Michaëlle Jean Appointed date: September 10, 2005 . Term of Office: September 27, 2005 (installation date);

Introduction to Governor-General

Governor-General of Canada, senior representative of the crown in Canada. Canada is a constitutional monarchy; the Constitution of Canada recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as hereditary sovereign, but entrusts to the governor-general most of the tasks of the head of state.

In Canada, as in many constitutional monarchies, there is a clear distinction between the head of government and the head of state. The head of government, the prime minister, is an elected political, partisan leader. The head of state, the governor-general, is nonpartisan; he or she is therefore considered to be above politics and, thus, the representative of all Canadians and of the values they hold in common. The conventions of the Constitution grant political power to the prime minister and to his or her Cabinet, composed of members of Parliament. The office of governor-general is Canada’s oldest continuing institution and an important symbol of Canadian unity.

The governor-general is appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister. Although the governor-general’s term of office is not fixed and may vary, he or she usually remains in office for about five years. On taking office, a governor-general is accorded the title Right Honourable for life and the honorific His Excellency or Her Excellency for the period in office. The office also includes the use of two official residences: Rideau Hall in Ottawa, Ontario, and the Citadel in Québec City. The governor-general’s flag, or personal standard, flies whenever he or she is in residence and takes precedence over all other flags in Canada, except for the sovereign’s.

The governor-general acts as one of the three elements that make up the Canadian Parliament. The other two elements are an appointed Senate and an elected House of Commons. As part of Parliament, the governor-general has numerous responsibilities: He or she summons and prorogues (ends a session of) Parliament, opens sessions with a Speech from the Throne, gives royal assent to bills passed by the House and the Senate before they can become law, and dissolves Parliament to call for a general election.

The governor-general’s most important responsibility is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister. This is usually the leader of the majority in the House of Commons. The governor-general also presides over the swearing in of the prime minister, as well as that of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Cabinet ministers, and other high officials of state. The governor-general appoints senators, based on the prime minister’s recommendation. The governor-general is also the commander in chief of the Canadian Forces, and as such, approves the appointment of all senior officers.

In all of this, the governor-general almost always acts on the advice of the prime minister and the Cabinet. It is understood, however, that he or she may act independently in extraordinary circumstances and crises, particularly in the appointment of a prime minister and the dissolution of Parliament. But usually the governor-general strictly adheres to his or her three recognized rights “to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.” He or she does these in regularly scheduled meetings with the prime minister and other senior government officials.

The governor-general also performs a host of other important duties. He or she plays a significant role in Canada’s international relations by making state visits abroad, welcoming visiting heads of state and foreign dignitaries, and accepting the credentials of newly appointed ambassadors to Canada. The governor-general also promotes Canadian identity and unity, as well as cultural diversity. He or she presides over national celebrations and community events, lends national support to worthy organizations, and frequently visits Canadians in their work places across the country. The governor-general grants honors-including orders, decorations, and medals-that recognize the contributions and achievements of outstanding Canadian citizens.

Canada has had a crown-appointed governor-general as the head of state without interruption since the earliest European settlement nearly 400 years ago. Originally governors-general were French, then British. The first Canadian-born governor-general was Pierre Vaudreuil, appointed in 1755, but the tradition of appointing Canadian citizens really began in 1952 with the selection of Vincent Massey. The custom of alternating between English- and French-speaking Canadians followed.

Jeanne Sauvé became the first woman appointed governor-general in 1984. The second woman, Adrienne Clarkson, became governor-general in 1999. She was also the first immigrant and, being of Asian descent, the first member of a visible minority appointed to the office. In September 2005 Clarkson was replaced by Haitian-born Michaëlle Jean, the country’s first black governor-general.” (2)

Resources

Notes and References

Encarta Online Encyclopedia
Information about Governor-General in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

87. Letters Patent constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada, 1947, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, s. II; Governor General’s Act, R.S. 1985, c. G‑9. See Mallory, rev. ed., pp. 15‑22, 33‑75. See Appendix 1, “Governors General of Canada Since 1867”. See also the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, “The Governor General of Canada: Role, Duties and Funding for Activities,” presented to the House on April 2, 2004 (Journals, p. 264).

[88] The Great Seal of Canada signifies the power and authority of the Crown. It has both a ceremonial and an administrative purpose. Although the Governor General has formal custody of the Seal, its actual custodian is the Registrar General of Canada whose incumbent has been, since 1967, the Minister of Industry (formerly Consumer and Corporate Affairs). Prior to that time, it was the Secretary of State. The seal is affixed to official documents in accordance with the provisions of the Seals Act, R.S. 1985, c. S‑6, the Public Officers Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑31, and the Formal Documents Regulations, Consolidated Regulations of Canada, 1978, Vol. XIV, c. 1331. The Great Seal of Canada came into official use as of July 1, 1867.

[89] Dawson, 6th ed., p. 181. The appointment being made at the discretion of the Sovereign, the term or the extension of the term is not for a fixed period. Extensions were made for The Earl of Minto (1898‑1904), Earl Grey (1904‑11), The Viscount Alexander (1946‑52), Vincent Massey (1952‑59), Georges Vanier (1959‑67), Roland Michener (1967‑73), Jeanne Sauvé (1984‑90), and Adrienne Clarkson (1999‑2005). See Appendix 1, “Governors General of Canada Since 1867”.

[90] Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General, 1947, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, s. I.

[91] Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada, 1947, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, s. VII.

[92] To become law, a bill must be agreed to in the same form by all three of Parliament’s constituent parts: the House of Commons, the Senate and the Crown. Royal Assent signifies the agreement of the Crown.

[93] Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada, 1947, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, s. VIII.

[94] If the Governor General is to be absent for more than 30 days, he or she is replaced by the Deputy Governor General, who acts as the Administrator of the Government of Canada. Prior to 1947, the Sovereign appointed the Administrator as each occasion arose. The continuing designation of the Chief Justice or next senior judge of the Supreme Court in the 1947 Letters Patent makes that practice no longer necessary.

[95] Usually these are the judges of the Supreme Court, along with the Secretary and Assistant Secretary to the Governor General, the latter two for the purpose of signing documents.

[96] Cornell, Hamelin, Ouellet and Trudel, p. 60.

[97] For example, the Commission of James Murray designated him “Captain General and Governor in Chief” of the Province of Quebec, dated November 28, 1763 (Journals, 1907, Sessional Paper No. 18, p. 126).

[98] Van Loon and Whittington, 4th ed., p. 183.

[99] Mallory, rev. ed., pp. 15‑22.

[100] The Colonial Office was the department of the British Civil Service which managed the affairs of the colonies. The Colonial Secretary was responsible to Parliament for the government of British Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories, and was usually a member of the Cabinet (Wilding and Laundy, 4th ed., pp. 143‑4).

[101] Ollivier, M., (ed.), The Colonial and Imperial Conferences from 1887 to 1937, Vol. III, Imperial Conferences (Part II), Ottawa: Queen’s Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954, pp. 147‑8, 249‑50.

[102] In 1931, the Statute of Westminster gave legal effect to the principle that Great Britain and the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, and in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, although united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. See McMenemy, 4th ed., pp. 374‑5; The Canadian Encyclopedia: Year 2000 Edition, edited by J.H. Marsh, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 2000, pp. 184, 509.

[103] Letters patent are statutory instruments which give some power to act or to confer some right.

[104] R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31.

[105] Although the authority to appoint Canadian representatives abroad was transferred to the Governor General in the 1947 Letters Patent, that power was not exercised before 1977. Evidently, there was no particular reason why the change was made in 1977; it was merely part of an ongoing process of transference of practice from the Sovereign to the Governor General. The change was announced in a news release issued by the Prime Minister’s Office on December 30, 1977, and a question about the change was asked subsequently in the House (Debates, January 23, 1978, p. 2088).

[106] The Governor General is kept fully informed of Cabinet business and public affairs and receives minutes of all Cabinet meetings. It is very rare that a Governor General has gone against the advice of a Prime Minister. In 1896, Governor General Lord Aberdeen refused to agree to a number of senatorial and judicial appointments made by the defeated government of Sir Charles Tupper. Again, in 1926, Governor General Lord Byng refused to grant Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s request for a dissolution and asked the Conservative Leader Arthur Meighen to form a government (McMenemy, 4th ed., pp. 183‑4).

[107] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 54. These are legislative initiatives (typically bills) that will require a disbursement from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Appropriation acts set aside, or “appropriate” from the fund, the amount that Parliament has authorized the government to spend. A proposal to spend public money may only be initiated by the Crown. For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.

[108] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 55 to 57. Under the Act, Governors General were given the power to refuse or delay the Royal Assent until the British government approved of or disallowed the bill. By the same token, provincial Lieutenant Governors were empowered to reserve a bill for the pleasure of the Governor in Council (i.e., the Governor General acting with the advice of the federal cabinet). Since 1926, it has been unconstitutional for the British government to interfere in Canadian legislation rendering the Governor General’s power to reserve effectively moot. However, the disallowance power in section 56 remains unchanged (Hogg, 4th ed., pp. 48, 120). Federal powers to disallow provincial legislation also remain, although proposals for constitutional amendments have included their abolition (McMenemy, 4th ed., p. 335). The Governor General has never refused assent for a government bill (as opposed to reserving) and convention dictates a Governor General will always give assent to a bill which has passed both Houses of Parliament. Refusals clearly would be in competition with the principles of responsible government. It is less clear whether the powers of disallowance have been nullified by convention (Hogg, 4th ed., p. 253; Mallory, rev. ed., p. 23).

[109] Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 30.

[110] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 24 and 26.

[111] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 34.

[112] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 38.

[113] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 50. For further information, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.

[114] The Privy Council is the formal body, provided for under section 11 of the Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, to advise the Crown.

[115] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 96. On February 20, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced an interim process designed to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ad Hoc Committee to Review a Nominee for the Supreme Court of Canada was established to publicly interview the person nominated by the Prime Minister. Composed of parliamentarians, the Committee was struck shortly after a general election was held and before the opening of Parliament. The Committee was not, therefore, established under the Standing Orders or by special order of the House. See the news release issued by the Office of the Prime Minister, “Supreme Court nominee to face questions from Parliamentarians”, February 20, 2006, available on the Web site at www.pm.gc.ca.

[116] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 15.

[117] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 58. Lieutenant Governors are not subordinate to the Governor General or the federal government but are as much the representative of Her Majesty for all purposes of the provincial government as the Governor General is for all purposes of the federal government (Van Loon and Whittington, 4th ed., pp. 180‑1).

[118] Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada, 1947, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, ss. IV and V.

[119] Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada, 1947, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, ss. XI to XIII. Under the provisions of the Letters Patent, 1947, the right to exercise the prerogative of mercy was delegated to the Governor General. However, while this remains a personal decision on the Governor General’s part, the prerogative is exercised only upon the advice of the Minister of Public Safety.

[120] Hogg, 4th ed., pp. 256‑63.

[121] Forsey, 6th ed., pp. 3‑4. For further information, see Chapter 2, “Parliaments and Ministries”.

[122] As Governor General, Lord Aberdeen was twice placed in the position of having to select a Prime Minister. The first occasion followed the sudden death of Sir John Thompson in 1894, when several Cabinet Ministers were considered qualified to be successors (Sir Mackenzie Bowell was invited and agreed to become Prime Minister). The second occurred when Bowell resigned in 1896; Lord Aberdeen chose Sir Charles Tupper as his successor (Dawson, 6th ed., pp. 183‑4).

Ostensibly, the Governor General also has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. However, no Canadian Governor General has ever done so. When the Australian Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister in 1975, his power to do so under the Australian constitution was upheld (House of Representatives Practice, 5th ed., edited by I.C. Harris, Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives, 2005, pp. 5‑6).

[123] This happened in 1926 when Governor General Lord Byng refused Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s request for a dissolution and asked Opposition Leader Arthur Meighen to form a government (McMenemy, 4th ed., pp. 183‑4; Mallory, rev. ed., pp. 52‑7).

[124] This includes the ratification of treaties (Hogg, 4th ed., pp. 290‑1) and the declaration of war which, in countries that share the British tradition, are a prerogative of the Crown. When World War I broke out in 1914, for instance, the Governor General delivered a speech in the Senate Chamber that set out the measures the government would be taking. See Debates of the Senate, August 18, 1914, p. 1. Similarly, when World War II began, the Governor General read a Speech from the Throne. During the debate on the Address that followed, Prime Minister Mackenzie King explained how Parliament’s approval of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne would pave the way for a formal declaration of war. See Debates, September 9, 1939, p. 51.

More about the Canadian Parliament

Guide to Governor-General

Indians

Leave a reply

Indians in Canada

The aboriginal inhabitants of Canada were what are now known as “Indians” – a misnomer which was due to the mistaken belief of Columbus that he had in 1492 reached the Asiatic Indies rather than the West Indies. How long the Indians had been in America before the coming of Europeans is a matter of conjecture. Attempts have been made to prove that man reached America in inter-glacial times, since supposed traces of his occupation, such as worked flints and other remains, have been found in American interglacial deposits. There is no doubt that the American mastodons of inter-glacial times must have come from Asia by way of the land connection which once existed between Siberia and Alaska; and if mastodons came, man may have come also. On the other hand, no conclusive proof of the existence of man in America before the last glacial period has yet been found; and it is clear that, during this glacial period, man could not have existed in the northern part of the continent which now constitutes Canada.

From the time of the arrival of the first Europeans in America to the present, the origin of the Indians has been the subject of many speculations. The theory of Cotton Mather, a famous New England divine of the seventeenth century, was that they were an accursed race which the devil had inveigled to America to remove them, ‘beyond the tinkle of the gospel bells.’ Other writers have maintained that they were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel . More recently it was believed that the Indians were not the aboriginal inhabitants of America , but that they had been preceded by a race known as “the Mound Builders,” who had built mounds found in many parts of America, typically in the Ohio valley. It is now known, however, that these mounds were built by the Indians themselves, and not by any prior race. The theory now held most widely by anthropologists is that the Indians were not indigenous to America, but that they emigrated from Asia. With the melting of the glaciers and the gradual retreat of the ire that marked the close of the Pleistocene age, bands of nomads must have pushed their way into north-eastern Asia in their constant search for new areas in which the food resources had not been depleted. At Bering strait, Asia and America are separated by only fifty miles of water, and it must have been by this means that the greatest flood of immigration into America took place. The coast of Alaska is discernible on clear days from the Asiatic side, and natives to-day make their way in boats from one coast to the other, making use of the Diomede islands which lie midway between the two continents. It is probable that the migration continued for many thousands of years, since the Indians, lacking wheeled vehicles and beasts of burden, moved slowly. Moreover, because of the high development which was reached by the autochthonous cultures of central America, and because of the great diversity of linguistic stocks in aboriginal America, fifty-six occurring north of Mexico alone, and for kindred reasons, some writers have concluded that the migration to America began not less than fifteen thousand years ago. On the other hand, others would ascribe a much more recent date to the first migration of man into the western hemisphere.

Other theories tend to supplement rather than displace the Bering strait theory. For many years scientists toyed with the idea of a lost continent of Atlantis which might have served as a stepping-stone from Africa to America, but it is more probable that Atlantis had . no existence outside of classical legend. Some writers, however, believe that the [Black Africans] made frequent voyages to America in ancient times, although the American Indians appear to reveal no traces of mixture with that stock. Others again hold that the civilizations of central America were derived from Egypt by means of trans-Pacific contacts, so similar were they in several respects. According to another theory, many parallels exist between the grammatical structure of the Melanesian languages of the East Indies and that of the Rokan group in California. These parallels have been cited in support of the theory of trans-Pacific contacts between the Old World and the New. Another group of scientists, approaching the problem from a different angle, have claimed to discover certain similarities between the Melanesian type of skull and that type found in parts of America, notably at Lagoa Santa in Brazil, and in southern California . Some have attempted to explain these American and Asiatic similarities by asserting that a vast archipelago once stretched across the southern Pacific, bridging the gap between, the two continents. It is said that Easter island, the closest of the Polynesian group to the American coast, is a remnant of this once large and populous archipelago, which was inhabited by a people who built the large monolithic statues still to be seen on the island. Other students of the subject maintain that this archipelago never existed, since in their opinion the ocean floor is slowly rising rather than falling. But it is not difficult to assume, even under existing geological conditions; that Asiatic peoples may have reached America by way of the Pacific, when it is remembered that the Polynesians sometimes made ocean voyages of over a thousand miles in open boats, and that, two thousand years ago, some adventurous Malay groups are said to have made their way across the Indian ocean. to Madagascar.

However plausible many of these theories may be, it is certain that the American aborigines are closely akin in their physical features to the Mongoloid peoples of north-eastern Asia . Many of their cultural characteristics display a marked similarity, and the languages of some of the. Indian groups, such as the Athapaskan and the [Inuit], are in certain respects not unlike Tibetan, Turkish, Magyar, and Finnish. It used to be thought that the [Inuit], who inhabit the northern fringe of the American continent, and who were found in historical times as far south as the gulf of St. Lawrence, were a race quite distinct from the Indians. But recent investigations have established the fact that they too are largely of Mongoloid stock and not sharply distinct from many of the neighbouring Indian groups. It is thought that the [Inuit] and the Athapaskan of the North-West Territories represent recent migrations from Asia; whereas the Siouans of the Plains, and the Iroquoians and Algonkians of the eastern woodland areas, were perhaps among the earliest peoples to enter America.

During the many thousands of years which elapsed between the first coming of the Indians to America and the arrival of the Europeans, the Indians achieved in some parts of America a considerable civilization. The Peruvians, the Mayas, the Toltecs, and the Aztecs, of South and Central America, constructed magnificent stone buildings; they acquired the art of working the softer metals; they made elaborate and artistic pottery; they developed agriculture to a relatively high level; and they knew something of astronomy and surgery. But unlike the western European peoples who were closely connected by trade routes with Africa and Asia, the American aborigines were isolated in the western hemisphere from those important discoveries and inventions which permit a very high degree of civilization. They had no knowledge of the wheel and its uses; they did not learn how to make tools and weapons of iron and steel; fire-arms and paper were unknown to them; and they never acquired, save in a very elementary way, the art of writing. As for the Indians of Canada, the material aspects of their culture were still relatively simple when the first white men reached America in the sixteenth century. Their clothing was made of the skins of animals, sometimes ornamented with beads or porcupine-quill designs; and feathers were sometimes worn on the head by persons of a certain status for ceremonial and other purposes. They had no metal implements, but used stone hatchets, gouges, chisels, and scrapers, and stone and flint spear and arrow heads, together with other tools and utensils of bone, wood, bark, and antler. Some peoples, such as the Ojibwa and the Indians of southern British Columbia, made excellent baskets, but pottery was generally made from thick clay, crudely when compared with the higher developments of the Old World . All the Indians lived on fruit, nuts, fish, and game animals which the country afforded. Some, such as the Iroquoian peoples, cultivated corn, or maize, beans, pumpkins, and squash extensively, the seeds of which they planted in clearings in the forest. Wild d rice was an important food among the Ojibwa of the Great lakes . The dwellings of the Indians varied from the permanent houses of solid lumber on the Pacific coast, the bark longhouse of the Iroquois, and the snow but of the [Inuit], to the conical skin tipi of the Plains and the dome-shaped bark lodge of the Montagnais. It was in the realm of transportation that they excelled. Their most important invention, when considered in the light of colonial history, was the birch-bark canoe, in which they travelled far and wide over the natural waterways of the country. They also invented the snowshoe, which enabled them to travel over the deep snow in winter.

The clan system of society prevailed among such peoples as the Iroquois and the Pacific coast Indians; but whereas the Iroquois were essentially democratic, the Pacific coast tribes knew nobles, commoners, and slaves. In the league of the Five Nations, the Iroquois attained a more efficient political organization than the nations of western Europe have ever been able to achieve. Other Indians, such as those of Athapaskan and Algonkian stock, wandered about their territories in small bands of closely related families, and were generally without any clan organization. Polygamy was not uncommon among most of the Indian peoples. All possessed rich mythologies, and the curative properties of herbs were well-known. Their art was generally confined to bead, porcupine-quill, or moose-hair embroidery, painting, and wood-carving. The totem pole art of the Pacific coast attained its greatest development under European stimulus in the nineteenth century. A considerable variety of religious beliefs prevailed among the Indians. In general it may be said that they personified the mysterious forces of nature which they sought to placate or control in order to ensure abundant food, general well-being, and to avert disasters: The next world was conceived of as an idealized replica of this. The “Great Spirit” and the “Happy Hunting Ground” were largely the imputation of Europeans.

At the time of European discovery, the Indians of Canada numbered about 220,000, whereas to-day there are about half that number. Linguistically, they were divided into eleven distinct stocks; six of which were confined to British Columbia alone. The most widely distributed were the Algonkian which included among others, the Micmac , Abnaki, Montagnais, Ojibwa, Cree, and Blackfoot; the Iroquoian, which included also the Hurons anti the Neutrals; the Siouan, which was spoken by the Assiniboin; Athapaskan, which was the language of the Chipewyans, Slaves, Yellowknives, and others; and the [Inuit]. Notable among those of British Columbia were the Salish, Haida; and Tsimshian.

Source : A. G. BAILEY, “Indians”, in W. Stewart WALLACE, ed., The Encyclopedia of Canada , Vol. III, Toronto, University Associates of Canada, 1948, 396p., pp. 257-264.

The French Period

See Indians in the French Period.

The British Period (1763-1830)

See Indians in the British Period.

The Canadian Period (1830)

See Indians in the Canadian Period.

Supply Procedures in Canada

The Public Business of Supply

Historical Perspective

The Continuing Order for Supply

General Debate Phase

Allotted Days

Designating an Allotted Day

Opposition Motions

Notice

Speaker’s Power to Select

Votable Motions

Proceedings on an Opposition Motion

Legislative Phase

Main Estimates

Interim Supply

Supplementary Estimates

Consideration of Estimates in Committee

Report to the House

Consideration of Main Estimates in Committee of the Whole

Concurrence in Estimates

The Supply Bill or Appropriation Act

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

See Also

Notes

Canadian System of Government in Canada

Definition of Federal System of Government

The System of Government

Resources

See Also

Notes

Borrowing Authority in Canada

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

See Also

Notes

Executive Power in Canada

Executive Power

The Executive

Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility

Resources

See Also

Cabinet Confidences in Canada

Cabinet Confidences in Canada

Confidence Convention in Canada

Confidence and the Standing Orders

Resources

See Also

Notes

Cabinet Confidences in French

The Governor-General in Canada

Canadian Parliament Structure of parliament: The Governor-General

The Governor-General and the Parliament

Origins of the Institution

Legislative and Executive Powers

Governors General of Canada since 1867

Introduction to Governor-General

Resources

Notes and References

More about the Canadian Parliament

Guide to Governor-General

Indians in Canada