Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T21:25:36.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognition of Canadian Political Parties in Parliament and in Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

John C. Courtney
John C. Courtney
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 33 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Regier, E. in House of Commons Debates, July 12, 1955Google Scholar, 6002.1 wish to acknowledge my appreciation to Mr. J. B. Haaland and Mr. L. Seidle for their research assistance; to the Canada Council for a research grant in support of this project; and to two anonymous assessors for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. The paper was originally presented at the Xth World Congress of the Internationa] Political Science Association, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1976.

2 See ibid., March 11, 1955, 1958, for the speech of W. G. Weir, MP, who stated, in part: “We are elected as individuals. The party is only used as the machinery for the election.” See also remarks of J. M. Macdonnell and C. G. Power, ibid., 1958 and 1959.

3 Interview, C. B. Koester, second clerk assistant, Speaker's Office, House of Commons, Ottawa, November 25, 1975.

4 Throughout their six years in the Commons up to that point the Progressives had been unable to win approval for such a procedural alteration largely on the grounds that the rules had long before been designed to emphasize the duality of parliamentary politics: those with the government and those against it. The Progressives’ break-through on this matter represented the first acknowledgement by the older parties in Parliament that the rules needed to be changed to accommodate more than two parties. See Debates, March 18, 1927, 1369–78Google Scholar and March 22, 1927, 1426; Morton, W. L., The Progressive Party in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950)Google Scholar; and Beauchesne, Arthur, “The Two-Party System in Canada and its Relation to Parliamentary Procedure,” The Table 7 (1938), 159–60Google Scholar.

5 The Speaker, and through him the Hansard editor, is apprised of any changes in the party affiliation by the MPs themselves. See the comments of Réal Caouette at the time of his party's change of name in Debates, May 5, 1971, 5515Google Scholar. Information regarding the date of the introduction of the Hansard Appendix listing party affiliations was provided by Mr. Stanley Knowles, MP.

6 Typical of the printed guide information provided the visitors to the House of Commons is the following: “to the right of Mr. Speaker sit the Prime Minister, his Ministers and other Members of the Government Party (Liberals). To the left sit the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and his supporters (Progressive Conservatives). Further down the Chamber sit the leaders and members of the other Opposition parties—New Democrats, the Social Credit Rally and Social Credit.” Quoted from the brochure printed for the 27th Parliament, 1965–68 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1966).

7 “Independent” MPs and members who have withdrawn voluntarily or who have been forced out of a party caucus often tend to lose committee assignments. See Debates, March 19, 1968, 7783–92Google Scholar.

8 See Page, Donald, “Streamlining the Procedures of the Canadian House of Commons, 1963–1966,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 33 (1967), 41–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Young and Rubicam, Ltd., v. Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Superior Court of Quebec, 803–933, March 22, 1971Google Scholar. (Translation from original.)

10 Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-8, s. 41(2)Google Scholar.

11 Debates, September 30, 1963, 3007–09Google Scholar.

12 “A Political Party,” paper prepared by Maurice Ollivier, Parliamentary Counsel, Ottawa, January 31, 1966, 6Google Scholar.

13 Correspondence with the author from Pickersgill, Hon. J. W., December 19, 1973Google Scholar.

14 Correspondence with the author from Stanley Knowles, MP, January 22, 1974.

15 Sources of remarks not to be attributed. Facts for the paragraph were gathered from correspondence with, or interviews with, the author and former and present MPs: Pauline Jewett, Stanley Knowles, J. W. Pickersgill, and Mitchell Sharp. Information provided by a further eight cabinet ministers of the time reinforced the impression that J. W. Pickersgill played the key role in the whole matter. Pickersgill himself is certain that it was he who was responsible for choosing the number “twelve” strictly in keeping with the political exigencies of the moment.

16 Originally provisional Standing Order 15(2)(a), now S.O. 15(3).

17 Debates, February 18, 1966Google Scholar, 1435. Beauchesne's reference was to the speaking rights of “the Leader of the Opposition or the Chiefs of recognized groups.” See Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada (4th ed. rev.; Toronto: Carswell, 1958)Google Scholar, citation 91(1). The House had moved a considerable distance from the position articulated by W. L. Mackenzie King when, as prime minister in the 1940's, he argued forcefully against according any parliamentary recognition to third parties. See Debates, November 15, 1940, 132–35Google Scholar, and February 16, 1944, 553–54.

18 “A Statement of Policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with Respect to Controversial Broadcasting,” issued by the authority of the Board of Governors, July 8, 1939 (mimeo), 2–3. (Emphasis added.)

19 Ibid., 3.

20 Ibid., 4–5, 7.

21 Ibid., 3.

22 See Peers, Frank W., The Politics of Canadian Broadcasting 1920–1951 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), 278–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 342–44.

23 “Party Political Broadcasts,” CBC Board of Directors, Programme Policy pamphlet (revised; March, 1972), 4Google Scholar.

24 Ibid., 7.

25 Ibid., 4.

26 In discussing the entry of Quebec's “three wise men” into federal politics in the election of 1965, Gerard Pelletier has stated: “We [Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Marchand, and Pelletier] had been sympathetic towards the NDP but always at odds with them on their approach to Quebec. At every election they came to us and they said, ‘Yes, we'll help you if you concentrate on five or six ridings. You have very few resources. We might get one or two members elected if you want to concentrate.’ But the national direction of the party, the national authorities, always said, ‘No, no, we must have at least’ (I think it was) ‘thirty candidates, because you need that if you want to be on radio and television between elections. We need to say in the rest of the country that we have a chance of forming a government because we run forty candidates,’ which was total nonsense” (Stursberg, Peter, Diefenbaker: Leadership Lost 1962–67 [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976], 132)Google Scholar.

27 Under the amended Act, registered parties are entitled to consult with the CRTC regarding the allocation of the 6–1/2 hours broadcasting time. If, through consultations, agreement can be reached by representatives of all parties, such an agreement applies during the forthcoming election. If no agreement can be reached, the time is allocated by the CRTC. Canada Elections Act, 1974, ss. 99Google Scholar and 99.1. Ibid., and interview with Kerr, Mr. John, director of federal election broadcasts, CBC, Montreal, June 23, 1976Google Scholar.

28 Committee on Election Expenses, Report (Ottawa, 1966), 31Google Scholar, 33 and 39.

29 Ibid., 40.

30 Canada Elections Act, 1970Google Scholar and 1974, s. 13.

31 Ibid., ss. 13(4) (a) and (b). (Emphasis added.)

32 “Election Expenses and You” (published by the Chief Electoral Officer, 1974), 3Google Scholar.

33 “Contact” (published by the Chief Electoral Officer), number 12 (June, 1975), 19Google Scholar.

34 Interview, Hamel, J. M., chief electoral officer, Ottawa, June 11, 1975Google Scholar and subsequent correspondence, July 19, 1976.

35 Committee on Election Expenses, Report, 39 and 32.

36 Canada Elections Act, 1974Google Scholar, s. 13.8.

37 Adell, B. L., The Legal Status of Collective Agreements in England, the United States and Canada (Kingston: Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University, 1970), 7Google Scholar. See also p. 167 and Kahn-Freud, Otto, Labour Law: Old Traditions and New Developments (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin &Co., 1968)Google Scholar, and Labour and the Law (London: Stevens & Sons, Ltd., 1972)Google Scholar.

38 House of Lords, Appeal Cases [1901], Taff Vale Railway Company case, 429.

39 Canada Elections Act, 1974, s. 31(1)Google Scholar.

40 A thorough search of the Supreme Court of Ontario records indicates that no file was maintained on this case. Information has been gathered from correspondence with Elliott, M. R., assistant registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario (October 24, 1975)Google Scholar, and lan Wahn (October 16, 1975). See also the Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 22, 1968, 2Google Scholar, and the Toronto Star. The chief electoral officer listed Mr. Wahn as the “Liberal” candidate on ballots for the Canadian Armed Forces and in his election Report, 1968, with Mr. Taylor listed as an “independent Liberal.”

41 The chief electoral officer has stated categorically his opposition to any move to empower him to arbitrate in any intraparty disputes regarding nominations. Interview, June II, 1975.

42 Canada Elections Act, s. 23(2)(h). (Emphasis added.)

43 Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs, 1974, ed. by Saywell, John (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 57Google Scholar.

44 See the Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 27–31, 1974Google Scholar, and Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs, 1974, 57–58.

45 See Debates, September 12, 1968, 6Google Scholar.

46 Black, Edwin R., “Opposition Research: Some Theories and Practice,” Canadian Public Administration 15 (1972), 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Debates, November 15, 1968Google Scholar, 2791. See also Debates, November 15, 1968, 2790–99Google Scholar for statements of party spokesmen indicating some difference of opinion over the basic principle of the scheme. In the prime minister's phrase “this measure is to enable leaders of opposition parties to avail themselves of some technical facilities, to resort to the services of economists, sociologists, jurists, and to alleviate their difficult duty in criticizing the government's legislative measures” (2791). (Emphasis added.)

48 Star-Phoenix (Saskatoon), August 7, 1974, 33Google Scholar.

49 Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.M., 1970Google Scholar, c. L 110, S. 61 (1,2 and 6).

50 Legislative Act, S.Q., 1970Google Scholar, c.5, s.2; S.Q., 1971, c.9, ss. 10, 15; S.Q., 1974, c. 7, s. 9; and An Act Respecting the Legislature Act and the Election Act, S.Q., 1976–77.

51 Bill C-418 (1974–76), first reading, December 1, 1975.

52 Commissioners of Internal Economy, Minutes, October 22, 1974.

53 Correspondence with the author from Benson, D. W., assistant to the president, Air Canada, October 2, 1975Google Scholar, and interview with chief electoral officer, June II, 1975.