Political Parties

Political Parties History

Introduction

Political history in Canada, as distinct from constitutional history, may be described as the history of political parties. In a sense, there have been political parties in Canada ever since, in 1608, some of Champlain’s men plotted to murder him, and hand over the newly founded settlement of Quebec to the Basques. At a later date, there was a widespread division of opinion in New France between those who supported Frontenac’s attitude toward the use of firewater among the Indians and those who supported Laval’s opposition to it; and in the early days of British rule in Canada there was a violent cleavage between those who wished to see French laws and institutions continued in Canada and those who wished to see English laws and institutions introduced. But it was not until the establishment of representative institutions (an event which took place in Nova Scotia in 1758, in New Brunswick in 1784, and in [Upper and Lower] Canada in 1791) that organized political parties began to make their appearance in what is now Canada . The character of the old colonial constitution, with its concentration of power in the hands of the governing class, was such that there sprang up at an early date an organized opposition to the government party. Signs of opposition to the government and its supporters were apparent in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick long before 1800, and in Upper and Lower Canada shortly after that date. The name by which the opposition party came to be known was that of ” Reformers “; though in Lower Canada at a later date, because of the racial twist given to the political struggle, they came to be known as “Anti-bureaucrates” or ” Patriotes “. At various times, the Reformers obtained a majority in the Legislative Assemblies of the various provinces of British North America , and in such cases they were able to elect the speaker of the Assembly ¾ a fact which predicated a certain amount of organization. On the other hand, when the ” Tories ,” or government party, had control of the Assembly, they put a nominee of their own in the speaker’s chair.

Source: W. Stewart WALLACE, “Political History”, in W. Stewart WALLACE, The Encyclopedia of Canada , Toronto , University Associates of Canada , 1948, 396p., pp. 175-186.

Political Parties

Originally, political parties[169] were variously described as groups which sought to elect governmental office holders under a given label;[170] as bodies which competed “to obtain political power in legislative and executive institutions and the subsequent political debate and enactment of public policy in those institutions”;[171] and as organizations designed to gain control of the levers of government in order to realize their policies or programs.[172]

Although political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution Act, they are defined in other selected statutes for certain administrative purposes. For example, political parties may seek registration under the Canada Elections Act[173] which, among other things allows them to issue official receipts entitling contributors to a tax credit under the federal income tax system;[174] to have their candidates’ affiliation reflected on the ballot in an election; to incur election expenses; and to claim their share of free air time from network broadcasters during a general election campaign.[175]

In 2004, new legislative measures on the registration of political parties were introduced in the Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. This Act included, for the first time, a definition of a political party: an “organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election”.[176]

The Parliament of Canada Act and the By‑laws of the Board of Internal Economy (the administrative governing body of the House of Commons) make a distinction between political parties which are “recognized” in the House of Commons and those with fewer than 12 sitting Members. With regard to financial benefits, the Parliament of Canada Act provides additional allowances to the Leader, the Whip, the Deputy Whip, the House Leader, the Deputy House Leader, and the Chair of the Caucus of a party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons.[177] The Board of Internal Economy also provides financial support to the caucus research units of “recognized parties”, again defined as parties with a membership of at least 12 Members.[178] With regard to procedure, recognized parties are also extended certain considerations,[179] though the definition of what constitutes a “recognized party” is not as clear in this case as it is with financial benefits. Since the Standing Orders have never provided a definition for recognized parties, Speakers have relied on practice or a decision by the House.[180] However, in recent practice, a procedural interpretation of the definition “recognized party” has come to mean any party with 12 or more Members in the House.[181]

Parliamentary Caucuses

Throughout Canada’s history, most parliamentarians have been members of political parties. In fact, Canada’s system of responsible government is predicated on the ability of the governing party (usually the party with the most seats in the House of Commons) to win votes in the legislature. Members of the House of Commons belonging to the same party, together with their counterparts in the Senate, are collectively referred to as that party’s parliamentary caucus. The government retains the confidence of the House mainly through the support of its caucus.
Parliamentary caucuses meet regularly, typically on Wednesday morning when Parliament is in session, and at other times when the party’s parliamentary leadership deems it necessary.[182] Although each caucus operates differently, most limit attendance to parliamentarians.

Because they are held in camera, caucus meetings allow Members to express their views and opinions freely on any matter which concerns them.[183] Policy positions are elaborated, along with, in the case of the government party, the government’s legislative proposals. Caucus provides a forum in which Members can debate their policy differences among themselves without compromising party unity.

The Whip enforces party discipline. This party official ensures that Members discharge their caucus responsibilities (that is, attendance at committee meetings and in the Chamber, and, in a division, voting with the party in accordance with the Whip’s instructions).[184] Whips manage committee membership, allocate office space and choose who will represent the party at various special activities or functions. They are the critical communication link between the party leadership and the backbenchers.[185]

In addition to a Whip, each party has a House Leader[186] who is responsible, in conjunction with the other House Leaders, for coordinating the day‑to‑day business of the House. The House Leaders of all the recognized parties meet regularly to consult one another on the sequence and transaction of parliamentary business. This practice has evolved over time to ensure that the business of the House is conducted in an organized manner. Should the House Leaders not agree on a schedule, the government retains the right, subject to the rules of the House, to decide unilaterally the order of its business.[187]

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

Recognition of Political Parties in Law

The Canadian constitution does not recognize the existence of political parties. Nevertheless, the freedoms of association and peaceful assembly are explicitly entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 2) and may only be restricted on the basis of (as stated in section 1) “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Before 1970, the Canada Elections Act also did not recognize the existence of political parties. However, this situation was examined in 1966 by the Committee on Election Expenses (the Barbeau Committee), which contended that such legal recognition could be used to enable:

• equalization in the money available to electoral candidates
• access to information by requiring disclosure of electoral financing
• wider participation in politics by the electorate through a tax credit system

Barbeau considered these objectives fundamental to the development of the democratic system

Following Barbeau’s recommendations, the Canada Elections Act was amended in 1970 to include a process by which political parties could register and thereby receive legal recognition. This was an attractive innovation for party leaders because, by registering, a party was for the first time allowed to place its name on the ballot under that of its candidate in any electoral district. Given that candidate support is strongly influenced by party affiliation, this was an important piece of information to have on the ballot.

Registration became all the more significant a few years later, when, following recommendations from both Barbeau and the 1972 report from the Special House of Commons Committee on Elections Expenses (the Chappell Committee), Parliament adopted Bill C-203, the Election Expenses Act, in 1974. This was a significant new piece of legislation because, on the one hand, it required political parties to limit their election spending and report the sources of their contributions, but at the same time, it made them eligible to receive reimbursements for a portion of their election expenses.

Once political parties are recognized in law and become recipients of public funding, it is necessary to devise a means to determine what kind of entity qualifies for such benefits. The first approach to this came in the 1970 legislation, which stipulated that for a political party to qualify for registration and the associated benefits, it had to run candidates in at least 50 electoral districts.

This requirement stood for many years before being challenged under the Charter by Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party of Canada. Founded in 1921 and registered under the Canada Elections Act since party registration began in 1974, the Communist Party was deregistered in 1993 because it failed to run 50 candidates in that year’s general election. The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2003 decision in Figueroa v. Canada struck down the 50-candidate requirement as an unjustifiable restriction on the rights guaranteed under the Charter. The court determined there was no reason to believe that a political party running fewer than 50 candidates could not act as an effective outlet for the meaningful participation of individual candidates. The ruling also declared that restricting the ability of political parties to register was an unwarranted infringement on the right of citizens to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

Thus in 2004, Parliament adopted Bill C-3Footnote 4: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, implementing new criteria for the registration of political parties. The intent of the bill, supported by both the government and the opposition parties, was to strike an appropriate balance between fairness to parties and the integrity of the electoral system.

Among the legislation’s innovations was the country’s first legal definition of a political party, which it described as “… an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election.”

The bill also included new provisions for measuring political activity. Parties were required to maintain, at all times, the presence of a leader, three other officers and at least 250 members. Furthermore, parties had to submit an updated members list and signed declarations every third year and annually file a statement outlining the party’s fundamental purpose. Failure to meet any of these conditions brought the risk of deregistration.

At committee stage in the House of Commons, a sunset provision was added to Bill C-3 to accommodate concerns with the new legislation. According to that provision, the amendments made by C-3 to the Canada Elections Act would retire two years after the legislation came into effect. On April 24, 2006, the government introduced Bill C-4, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. Bill C-4 received royal assent on May 11, 2006. It replaces the sunset provision in Bill C-3 with a requirement for a mandatory review of the legislation, within two years, by a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House of Commons.

Source: “A History of the Vote in Canada” (Ottawa, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 2007)

Resources

See Also

• Elections
• Vote
• Confederation
• Durham Report
• Meech Lake Accord
• Aboriginal Peoples
• Chief Electoral Officer
• Act of Union

Notes

169. Originally, the Sovereign along with the prominent nobles selected to advise the Crown were effectively both the government and the “party” permanently in power. It was generally the case that certain factions opposed the Crown; the strength of that opposition depended in large part on the personality of the Monarch and varied from reign to reign. The first recognizable political parties emerged as a result of the Civil Wars in England when, in 1679, the Cavaliers and the Roundheads became the Tories and the Whigs, respectively (Wilding and Laundy, 4th ed., pp. 545‑6).

[170] Leon D. Epstein, quoted in Van Loon and Whittington, 4th ed., p. 305.

[171] McMenemy, 4th ed., p. 269.

[172] Jackson and Jackson, 6th ed., p. 377.

[173] There is no limitation on the formation of political parties; however, parties must satisfy certain criteria in order to be registered under the Canada Elections Act (S.C. 2000, c. 9, ss. 366 to 392). A political party that complies with certain administrative requirements may be registered if it fields at least one candidate in a general election or by‑election. See also Elections Canada, “Registration of Federal Political Parties”, Backgrounders, www.elections.ca, June 8, 2007.

[174] Elections Canada, “Contributions and Expenses at a Federal Election or By‑election: Candidates and Registered Parties”, Backgrounders, www.elections.ca, January 1, 2007, p. 5.

[175] Elections Canada, “Registration of Federal Political Parties”, Backgrounders, www.elections.ca, June 8, 2007, pp. 6‑7.

[176] Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, S.C. 2004, c. 24, s. 1. This Act introduced new registration requirements for political parties, accountability measures and offences that could result in the deregistration of a party. See Elections Canada, “New Law for Registering Political Parties”, Backgrounders, www.elections.ca, July 28, 2006, pp. 1‑2.

[177] R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, s. 62.3(1)(h), (j), (j.1), (l), (m) and (o).

[178] By‑laws of the Board of Internal Economy, By‑laws 101, s. 1 and 302, ss. 1 and 3(2). In 1990, a question of privilege was raised relating to a request refused by the Board for funding for a political party with fewer than 12 members. In his ruling, Speaker Fraser stated that the decision of the Board stood unless the House itself wished to overrule the decision (Debates, December 13, 1990, pp. 16703‑7).

[179] For example, the order of participation in debate and Question Period (Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, and Chapter 11, “Questions”); the allocation of opposition supply days (Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”); and the deferral of recorded divisions by Whips (Standing Order 45(7), and Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”).

[180] In 1963, Speaker Macnaughton cautioned that the recognition of parties in the Chamber must ultimately be resolved by the House itself (Journals, September 30, 1963, pp. 385‑8). On February 18, 1966, Speaker Lamoureux was asked to pronounce on the right of a party with fewer than 12 Members to respond to a statement by a Minister. In his ruling, he concluded that until the House defined more precisely who could respond, the Chair would be guided by practice (Journals, February 18, 1966, pp. 158‑60). For further information on Statements by Ministers, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”. In 1979, 1994 and 2000, Speakers Jerome and Parent also commented on the issue of the recognition of parties in the House (Debates, October 10, 1979, pp. 49‑51; October 11, 1979, p. 69; June 16, 1994, pp. 5437‑40; March 27, 2000, p. 5261).

[181] In a ruling on the status in the House of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition (PC/DR), Speaker Milliken listed the identifying features of a party or a recognized party: there are at least 12 Members in the group; they appoint a slate of House Officers as their official spokespersons; they work as a cohesive unit; and they serve under the same banner. However, this practice relates not to the recognition of groups but to that of parties. In this case, the PC/DR Coalition had 20 Members: there were 12 Members of the recognized Progressive Conservative Party and 8 independent Members who comprised the Democratic Representative Caucus. The Chair was unable to grant full party recognition to the PC/DR Coalition since he could not extend party recognition to a group which disavowed that title and which was clearly an amalgam of a party and a group of independent Members (Debates, September 24, 2001, pp. 5489‑92).

[182] On Wednesday, because of caucus meetings, the House does not sit until 2:00 p.m. For further information, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.

[183] In 1973, a question of privilege was raised in the House concerning the discovery of a bugging device in a caucus meeting room (Debates, October 17, 1973, pp. 6942‑4). In 2004, a question of privilege was also raised in the House concerning the disclosure of confidential proceedings of an Ontario Liberal caucus meeting. In his ruling, the Chair stated that the concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all Members. He therefore found that there was a prima facie breach of privilege (Debates, March 25, 2004, pp. 1711‑2). The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study and for the Committee to report to the House on its findings. The Committee concluded that, through human error, the equipment was left in “lock-in” mode by mistake and then someone in the room inadvertently activated the broadcast mode. The Committee was satisfied with the corrective measures taken to minimize the chances of a similar leak in the future. See the Twenty‑Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on April 26, 2004 (Debates, p. 2394).

[184] McMenemy, 4th ed., pp. 268‑9.

[185] Backbenchers are Members of the House of Commons who are neither Ministers, nor Parliamentary Secretaries, nor one of their party’s House officials.

[186] The Government House Leader is a Minister, officially titled Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. From 1867 until 1944, Prime Ministers usually organized the business of the House by themselves, their contacts being the Whips of the other parties. In October 1944, Prime Minister Mackenzie King chose to delegate those duties and openly recognized the position of Government House Leader in July 1946. In 1968, it became a full‑time position. It was common practice at that time for the Government House Leader to hold the title of President of the Privy Council. Since 1988, the Government House Leader is usually a Minister of State. The position of Opposition House Leader evolved gradually in the 1950s and has been remunerated since 1974. See An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, S.C. 1974‑75‑76, c. 44, s. 3. The House Leaders of parties with 12 or more Members have been remunerated since 1981. See An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, S.C. 1980‑81, c. 77, s. 3.

[187] For further information, see the information on this legal encyclopedia about the Daily Program.