We use the words “House of Commons” very often without pausing to reflect upon what those words
mean… . The word “Commons” means the people. This is the house of the people. Sitting
on both sides of this house and on both sides of the Speaker are representatives of every constituency of
Canada. Collectively, those of us who meet in this chamber represent all Canadians. That is our
responsibility; that is our duty.
The Hon. George Drew, Leader of the Opposition
(Debates, June 4, 1956, p. 4644)
T
he House of Commons is the elected assembly of the Parliament of Canada.
Its 301 Members are elected by popular vote at least once every five years to sit in the House of Commons.
For that purpose, the country is divided into electoral districts, also known as ridings or constituencies,
and each is entitled to one seat in the House of Commons. The composition of the House has grown
considerably since 1867 when 181 Members sat in the House for the very first time.
The Canadian electoral system is known as the single-member, simple-plurality voting system, or “first
past the post” system. [1]
In this system, Canadian citizens 18 years of age or older are eligible to vote. Elections at the federal
level are simultaneous and nation-wide. Voting is by secret ballot and a voter may cast only one vote and
vote for only one person on the ballot. To be elected, the candidate who gains the most votes wins, even if
he or she has received fewer than half of the votes. [2]
The electoral process, rules regarding membership, and the number and distribution of seats are governed by
various acts of Parliament. The main body of Canadian election law is found in the Canada Elections Act,
which sets down the conditions in which parties and candidates engage in the election process and ensures
the free expression of political choice by electors. Other statutes such as the Criminal Code and
the Dominion Controverted Elections Act also contain provisions governing the electoral process.
The Representation Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act establish the
processes for determining the number of Members each province is entitled to and the boundaries of each
electoral district. The Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act include
provisions governing membership in the House and the various responsibilities and obligations of Members.
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the By-laws of the Board of Internal Economy also set down
rules and regulations affecting the conduct and responsibilities of Members of the House of Commons. These
matters are discussed in detail in this chapter.
Composition of the House
Canada is divided into 301 electoral districts, each of which sends one Member to the House of Commons. [3]
An electoral district can be defined as any place or territorial area in Canada entitled to return a person
to serve in the House of Commons. The boundaries of an electoral district are determined by an electoral
boundaries commission following each decennial census when the number of seats to be apportioned among the
provinces is decided. These districts or constituencies are grouped by province and territory, and the
population serves as the main basis for assigning the seat total to each.
The composition of the House has expanded greatly since 1867. At the time of Confederation, representation
was based on Quebec having the same number of seats that it had in the Legislature of the Province of Canada,
with the other provinces being granted representation in proportion to that number. At the opening of the
First Parliament, 181 Members sat in the House of Commons, representing the following provinces: 82 for
Ontario, 65 for Quebec, 19 for Nova Scotia, and 15 for New Brunswick. [4]
Soon after, new provinces began to seek admittance to Confederation; representation in Parliament was
considered negotiable and often did not reflect representation by population. [5]
When Manitoba joined Canada in 1870, four Members were added to the membership of the House. [6]
British Columbia and Prince Edward Island each got six Members upon joining Confederation in 1871 and in
1873 respectively. [7]
In 1886, the Northwest Territories received four seats and in 1902, the Yukon Territory was granted one seat. [8]
When Saskatchewan and Alberta were established out of the Northwest Territories in 1905, they were allotted
10 and seven Members respectively. [9]
The Northwest Territories no longer had a seat in the House. Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 and
was granted seven seats. [10]
In 1952, the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories was granted one seat and, in 1962, the
Representation Act was amended to give the entire Northwest Territories one seat. [11]
In 1975, the number of seats in the Northwest Territories grew to two. On April 1, 1999, the Nunavut
Territory was established out of the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories and was given one of the
two seats. [12]
Today, there are 301 Members from 10 provinces and three territories: 34 for British Columbia, 26 for Alberta,
14 forSaskatchewan, 14 for Manitoba, 103 for Ontario, 75 for Quebec, 10 for New Brunswick, 11 for Nova
Scotia, four for Prince Edward Island, seven for Newfoundland, and one each for the Yukon Territory, the
Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. (See Figure 4.1 for changes in representation from 1867 to the present.)
Representation
The Fathers of Confederation adopted the principle of representation by population. Each province was
allotted a number of seats on the basis of its share of the total population in relation to that in the
province of Quebec, which had been guaranteed 65 seats, the same number it had in the Province of Canada
legislature. [13]
On the basis of this principle, a formula was derived to calculate the number of seats each province would
be allocated in the House of Commons. The Constitution Act, 1867 stipulated that in order for the
population of each province to be accurately represented in the House of Commons, the number of seats for
each province was to be recalculated after each decennial census, starting with the census of 1871. [14]
The total number of seats was to be calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed
number referred to as the “electoral quota” or “quotient”. This quotient was
determined by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65. There was one exception to this
formula, the one-twentieth rule as it was known, whereby no province could lose seats unless its share of
the national population had decreased by at least 5% (one-twentieth) between the last two censuses.
Because of the growing population of the country, the one-twentieth clause caused no problems for the first
25 years of Confederation. In 1872, representation in the House increased after the decennial census of 1871:
Ontario received six additional Members, Nova Scotia two, and New Brunswick one. With the readjustment of
representation in 1882, Ontario received four extra seats and Manitoba one, bringing the total to 211
Members. However, in 1892, the three Maritime provinces lost four seats in total, causing some concern,
particularly in Prince Edward Island. Although the population was growing in the Maritime provinces, it was
becoming relatively smaller in proportion to the national total. In 1903, the readjustment of representation
saw the number of seats in Prince Edward Island reduced. In arguments before the Supreme Court, Prince
Edward Island claimed that it should be entitled to the six seats it was allocated when it joined
Confederation. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld that representation must be based on the total
population of Canada and that no exception could be made for Prince Edward Island. [15]
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, there was dissension among some of the provinces whose population was
declining. A constitutional amendment was proposed in 1914 and adopted the following year. Still in effect
today, the “senatorial clause”, as it is referred to, guarantees that no province can have fewer
seats in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate and was added to the Constitution to protect the
smallest provinces from losing any more seats because of a declining population. [16]
Following the census of 1941, a constitutional amendment was adopted to postpone the redistribution process
until the first session of Parliament after the end of the war. [17]
This constitutional amendment came about because the Western provinces were concerned that the dislocation
of population caused by the war would affect their representation. There was also widespread dissatisfaction
among the provinces with the rules for redistribution, which would have seen four of the nine provinces
being allocated representation in accordance with their population; the other five provinces would have been
guaranteed extra seats either because of the senatorial clause or the one-twentieth formula. [18]
The demand for representation by population, in particular by Quebec, led to the repeal of the one-twentieth
clause in 1946. [19]
The total number of seats was fixed at 255, one for the Yukon and the other 254 divided among the provinces
on the basis of their share of the country’s total population, rather than on the average population
per electoral district in Quebec. [20]
However, under this new formula, it was soon discovered that with provincial populations not increasing at
the same rate, representation in some provinces declined. With Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan all
scheduled to lose seats after the 1951 census, the Constitution Act, 1867 was amended again to
prevent a rapid decline in the number of seats of some provinces. [21]
In this instance, the amendment stipulated that no province could lose more than 15% of the number of seats
it was entitled to under the last readjustment, nor could a province have fewer seats than a province with
a smaller population. Nonetheless, after the 1961 census, these same three provinces as well as Quebec lost
seats, and following the 1971 census, Newfoundland was added to the list of provinces scheduled to lose
seats.
In 1974, legislation was introduced to remedy this problem. A new formula, the amalgam formula, was proposed
in the Representation Act, 1974 to ensure that no province lost any seats. [22]
As in the original representation formula, Quebec was allocated a set number of seats, 75, and its average
constituency population was used to calculate the number of seats in the other provinces. In each subsequent
readjustment, there would be an automatic increase of four seats for Quebec to compensate for population
growth and decrease the average constituency population in Quebec, the basis on which the allocation of
seats among the other provinces would be calculated. In addition, three categories of provinces were
created: large provinces (population of 2.5 million or more); intermediate provinces (population between 1.5
and 2.5 million); and small provinces (population under 1.5 million). Only the large provinces would be
allocated seats in strict proportion to Quebec; separate rules for calculating the number of seats were
established for the small and intermediate provinces. [23]
The amalgam formula was applied only once, in 1976, establishing 282 seats in the House.
Following the 1981 census, calculations revealed that there would be substantial increases in the
representation in the House both immediately and after subsequent censuses. Indeed, it was projected that,
by the year 2001, there would be 396 Members in the House. The Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections was mandated to study the issue of representation in both the Thirty-Second (1980-84) and
Thirty-Third (1984-88) Parliaments [24] ,
and new representation legislation was passed in 1986. The Representation Act, 1985 [25]
set down a new formula for calculating representation, starting with 282 seats, the number of Members
resulting from the previous distribution (see Figure 4.2):
- One seat each is allocated to the Northwest Territories, Nunavut [26]
and the Yukon.
- The total population of the 10 provinces is divided by 279 to obtain the electoral quotient.
- The number of seats to be allocated to each province is calculated by dividing the total population
of the province by the electoral quotient. If the result leaves a remainder higher than 0.50, the number
of seats is rounded off to the next whole number.
- Once the number of seats per province is obtained, adjustments are made by applying the senatorial and
grandfather clauses. The senatorial clause guarantees that no province has fewer Members than it has
Senators, while the grandfather clause ensures that no province has fewer seats than it had in 1986 when
this legislation came into force. [27]
As a result of this new formula, the House grew to 295 seats after the 1988 federal election and to 301
seats following the 1997 election.
Readjustment of Boundaries
While Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, sets out the formula for the allocation of seats
in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census, the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act provides for the drawing of the constituency or electoral district boundaries within
each province. The boundaries of electoral districts need to be adjusted whenever a province’s
representation changes or when there have been significant population fluctuations within a province, such
as movement from rural to urban areas. The readjustment of boundaries is a federal matter controlled by
Parliament.
In the early years of Confederation, the government would introduce a bill describing the boundaries of
each electoral district and then have the bill adopted like any other piece of legislation. This was
subject to criticism as being a highly biased task focussed on maximizing the governing party’s
electoral successes, often referred to as “gerrymandering”. [28]
In 1903, this legislative process was altered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when the readjustment of constituency
boundaries was placed in the hands of a special committee of the House of Commons on which Members from all
parties were represented. [29]
Each time a redistribution was to occur, as provided for by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the
latest census, the government brought in a bill which would not contain any details on individual ridings.
After the bill was read a second time, it would be referred to a special committee instructed to
“prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return Members
to this House”. [30]
This process remained highly partisan and was lacking guidelines to instruct Members on how to base their
decisions. [31]
This system remained in place until 1964 when non-partisan electoral boundaries commissions were established
to draw and readjust the boundaries of electoral constituencies.
Even before Confederation, suggestions had been made to place the drawing of electoral boundaries into the
hands of an impartial body, and not with Members. [32]
This continued to be a concern after Confederation and, on a number of occasions, it was recommended that the
process be moved away from Members into the hands of judges. [33]
In 1963, the decision was taken to assign the drawing of electoral boundaries to non-partisan commissions
operating under specified general principles and, in 1964, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
as passed. [34]
Today, there is an electoral boundaries commission appointed for each province. No commission is appointed
for the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut. Each commission consists of a chairman,
normally a provincial court judge, who is appointed by the chief justice of the province, [35]
and two other individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons “from among such persons
resident in that province as the Speaker deems suitable”. [36]
No sitting member of the Senate or of the House of Commons or of a provincial or territorial legislature
can be appointed to a commission. [37]
As soon as possible after the completion of each decennial census, the Chief Statistician provides the Chief
Electoral Officer, an officer of Parliament who is responsible for the administration of federal elections,
with the population figures. [38]
The Chief Electoral Officer then calculates the total number of House of Commons seats and their
distribution among the provinces and territories. [39]
This information is published in the Canada Gazette [40]
and then the process begins to appoint the chairman and members of each commission. When the electoral
boundaries commissions have been established, the Chief Electoral Officer provides the chairman of each
electoral boundaries commission with the population figures. The commission has up to one year from that
date to recommend constituency boundaries. [41]
Each commission is required to draw constituency boundaries in such a way that the population of each
constituency is as close as possible to the quotient obtained by dividing the provincial population by the
number of seats allocated to the province. No constituency is permitted to have a population smaller than
75% of this figure or greater than 125%, although in extraordinary circumstances a commission may exceed
this limit. Commissions may vary the size of constituencies within this range on the basis of special
geographic considerations, such as density of population in various regions of the province, and the
accessibility, size and shape of such regions. Because accessibility, transportation and communications are
often seen as obstacles both to effective representation and to ease of campaigning, electoral boundaries
commissions generally draw boundaries so that there are fewer voters in rural constituencies than in urban
constituencies. Variations may also occur on the basis of a special community of interest or the historical
background of a particular district. [42]
Before writing its report, each commission publishes in the Canada Gazette, as well as in
newspapers in the province, a map or drawing showing the proposed electoral boundaries for the province and
invites electors and Members of Parliament to public meetings held in locations that will encourage the
attendance of as many interested people as possible. The commission’s proposals must be published at
least 60 days before the date of the first hearing. Interested persons wishing to make a representation
must submit their notice in writing to the commission within 53 days after the date of publication of the
commission’s advertisement. [43]
Following the hearings, each commission reviews its proposals, prepares a report and forwards it to the
Chief Electoral Officer before the end of its one-year mandate, unless the Chief Electoral Officer has
granted an extension of not more than six months. [44]
The Chief Electoral Officer transmits a copy of each report to the Speaker of the House of Commons who
tables them in the House and ensures that they are referred to a committee designated to deal with electoral
matters. [45]
If reports are received between sessions, the Speaker of the House will have the reports published in the
Canada Gazette, and a copy of that Canada Gazette will be sent to the Members representing
the electoral districts inthat province. [46]
Members of Parliament have 30 days following the tabling or publication to file objections in writing with
the clerk of the committee designated to deal with electoral matters. Members must specify the provisions
objected to in the reports and the reason for the objection. These representations are made in the form of
a motion signed by at least 10 Members. [47]
Following the filing deadline, the committee has 30 sitting days to review the Members’ representations, [48]
unless the committee asks the House for an extension. [49]
At the conclusion of its consideration of the reports and the objections thereto, the committee returns the
reports to the House along with a copy of the objections and its minutes of proceedings. The reports and
attached documents are then sent by the Speaker to the Chief Electoral Officer for distribution to the
various electoral boundaries commissions. [50]
No discussion of the reports or the objections thereto takes place in the House. [51]
The commissions must consider the objections but they are not compelled to make any changes as a result
of the objections. Each commission then submits a final report, with or without amendment, to the Chief
Electoral Officer who forwards it to the Speaker of the House. [52]
Tabled in the House by the Speaker, [53]
the commission’s decision is final and without appeal.
After each commission has submitted its final report, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft
representation order. The draft representation order specifies the number of Members to be elected in each
province and territory, divides each province and territory into electoral districts, describes the
boundaries of each district and specifies the population of and the name to be given to each district. [54]
Within five days after its receipt by the Minister designated by the Governor in Council as being
responsible for implementing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the draft representation
order must be proclaimed by the Governor in Council. [55]
The new boundaries cannot be used at the time of an election unless one year has passed between the date
the representation order was proclaimed and the date that Parliament is dissolved for a general election. [56]
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act also requires the Chief Electoral Officer to publish maps
showing the new electoral district boundaries resulting from the readjustment process. [57]
Suspension of the Readjustment Process
In each decade since the 1960s, Parliament has adopted legislation either to suspend or to amend the
redistribution process for one reason or another. After both the 1971 and 1981 censuses, the readjustment
process was suspended to permit amendments to Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867,setting out
the formula for representation in the House and to make some changes to the readjustment process itself. [58]
The redistribution process has been suspended twice since the 1991 census.
In 1992, Parliament agreed that in light of the proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act made
by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, as well as the probability that the
readjustment process could not be completed before the next federal election, the Act should be suspended. [59]
In 1994, the government believed that it was time for a full review of the Act, given the dissatisfaction
being expressed by Members about certain aspects of the process and the continual increase in the number of
seats in the House after each census. [60]
The readjustment process was subsequently suspended by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
Act, 1994, which provided for the suspension of the readjustment process until the earlier of the
enactment of new electoral boundaries readjustment legislation or June 22, 1995. It also temporarily
discharged the existing electoral boundaries commissions of their duties once their reports to the House of
Commons on electoral districts had been completed. [61]
In the interim, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to draft a bill
respecting the system of readjustin electoral boundaries. [62]
The Committee was also asked to consider a formula to cap or reduce the number of seats in the House and to
review the method of appointing members for electoral boundaries commissions, the rules surrounding their
powers and methods of proceeding, and the involvement of the public and the House of Commons in the work of
the commissions.
On November 25, 1994, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its report which
included draft legislation to repeal the existing statute and to abolish the electoral boundaries
commissions. [63]
While the Committee did not recommend a change in the manner of assigning seats among the provinces after
each decennial census nor a formula for capping the number of seats in the House, it did propose a new
method of drawing electoral boundaries. As a result, Bill C-69, Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act,
1995, was introduced by the government on February 16, 1995. [64]
The objective of the bill was to stop the redistribution plans and to start the process all over again,
allowing the next election to be held on the basis of the 1981 boundaries. The bill would have also brought
about a redistribution every five years in provinces where the shift in population warranted it, a new
triggering mechanism for holding a decennial redistribution which would have eliminated an unnecessary
redistribution in provinces without a significant change in population, and parliamentary oversight of
appointments to electoral boundaries commissions. However, amendments subsequently proposed to the bill by
the Senate and rejected by the House prevented the bill from being passed. [65]
Since new electoral boundaries readjustment legislation had not been passed by the stipulated June 22, 1995
deadline, the Speaker tabled the reports of all the electoral boundaries commissions in the House as
required and the electoral boundaries were adjusted accordingly. [66]
The general election of 1997 was held on the basis of the post-1991 redistribution and revision of
boundaries.
Naming of Constituencies
At the time of Confederation, the electoral districts for each province were established in the
Constitution Act, 1867. [67]
The electoral districts existing at that time were named after counties, cities, parts of cities, and towns
in each province. From 1872 to 1964, the names of the ridings were provided in legislation to enact seat
redistributions and to fix electoral boundaries.
Since 1964 and the adoption of the modern process for drawing electoral boundaries, the names of electoral
districts are decided by the electoral boundaries commissions and included in their reports. The names are
set down in the representation orders giving legal effect to those reports. The alteration to the name of
an electoral district after the publication of the representation order can be effected by the passage of a
private Member’s bill. A Member usually introduces legislation to change the name of the electoral
district in response to concerns expressed by constituents that the name does not accurately describe the
boundaries of the riding. [68]
Such a bill is typically entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of (electoral
district)”. Once the bill is before the House for second reading, it is dealt with quickly, typically
being read a second time, considered in a Committee of the Whole, reported without amendment, concurred in
at the report stage, read a third time and adopted in the same sitting by unanimous consent. [69]
Rules of Membership for the House
With few exceptions, anyone who is qualified to vote can run for a seat in the House of Commons. The
qualifications and disqualifications for candidacy in a federal election are set down in the Canada
Elections Act, [70]
the Parliament of Canada Act [71]
and the Constitution Act, 1982. [72]
As stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “every citizen of Canada has the right to
vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein”. [73]
Thus, any Canadian citizen at least 18 years of age on polling day, who is qualified as an elector, is
eligible to be a candidate in an election. [74]
A candidate must have established residency somewhere in Canada but not necessarily in the constituency
where he or she is seeking election. [75]
A candidate may seek election in only one electoral district. [76]
Historical Perspective
The qualifications for candidacy for persons seeking election to the House of Commons have been revised on
numerous occasions and have always been closely linked with the right to vote. During periods when groups
of citizens were disenfranchised, they were also disqualified from seeking election. [77]
In 1867, the Constitution Act stated that all laws in force in the provinces respecting
qualifications and disqualifications of persons seeking election to provincial legislatures would apply to
the election of Members to the House of Commons until the Parliament of Canada enacted its own legislation. [78]
Although the Constitution Act, 1867 did stipulate (as did the provincial laws) that candidates had
to be male, British subjects, 21 years of age and property owners, [79]
the qualification provisions in each province were not necessarily the same and there was no uniformity of
qualifications for the first Members returned to the House. Indeed, candidates did not have to reside in the
country. For more than one session in the First Parliament, some Members sat not only in the House of
Commons, but also in the legislative assemblies of Ontario and Quebec. [80]
In 1873, a private Member successfully sponsored a bill to make the practice of dual representation illegal. [81]
In 1874, Parliament passed its own legislation providing for the election of Members. The Dominion
Election Act abolished the property qualification for candidates and declared that any British-born or
naturalized male subject of Great Britain, Ireland, or Canada or one of its provinces was eligible for
candidacy in an election. [82]
In 1919, women received the franchise and the right to be candidates in an election. [83]
In 1948, the election laws were amended to ensure that candidates were Canadian residents and qualified
electors; amendments also eliminated disqualification from voting on the basis of race (status Indians
excepted), which in turn opened up candidacy to people of Oriental origin, in particular to Japanese-Canadians. [84]
In 1955, revisions to the Act gave the franchise to various religious groups, in particular to Doukobours,
who had previously been disenfranchised. [85]
Aboriginal persons received the right to vote and seek election in 1960. [86]
In 1970, the voting age was lowered to 18 and, as an extension, so was the age requirement for candidacy. [87]
Disqualifications
The Canada Elections Act sets out a series of disqualifications that apply to electoral candidacy.
Inmates of penal institutions serving sentences of two or more years are disqualified from seeking election. [88]
Until 1993, patients suffering from mental disease were ineligible to be candidates during the period of
confinement or while under the protection and supervision of a guardian. [89]
Certain officials such as sheriffs, clerks of the peace, or county or judicial district crown attorneys may
not seek election. [90]
Similarly, federally appointed judges (citizenship judges excepted) and election officials are disqualified
from voting and seeking election. [91]
Members of provincial legislatures and territorial councils are also ineligible to run in federal elections. [92]
An appointment to the Senate disqualifies a person from being a Member; no violation of this has occurred,
although Senators have resigned their seats on occasion to seek election to the House. [93]
A person found guilty of any corrupt electoral practice under the Canada Elections Act within the
previous five years, such as knowingly making a false declaration respecting election expenses, exerting
undue influence upon a voter at an election, or inducing voters by promises of valuable consideration, food
or drink, is disqualified from seeking election for seven years following the date of the conviction. [94]
A person guilty of any illegal electoral practice under the Canada Elections Act, such as wilfully
exceeding the legal spending limit, failing to submit a return respecting election expenses, or consenting
to be a candidate when ineligible, is disqualified from seeking election for five years from the date of
conviction. [95]
Independence of Parliament
As noted by Professor Norman Ward, “It is an ideal of democratic government that representation should
be independent of undesirable forces that might bias their judgement on public matters. In particular, they
should be free of the executive, at least insofar as direct pecuniary benefit is concerned.” [96]
In order to preserve its independence, the Parliament of Canada re-enacted 1857 legislation from the
Province of Canada which disqualified from eligibility as a Member of the Assembly or from sitting or voting,
any person who had accepted or held “any office, commission or employment in the service of the
Government of Canada at the nomination of the Crown, to which an annual salary or any fee, allowance, or
emolument in lieu of an annual salary from the Crown [was] attached.” [97]
This disqualified Members appointed to the Cabinet: Cabinet Ministers had to resign their seats and seek
re-election in order to obtain the approval of the electors in their constituencies. Also disqualified from
eligibility were government contractors and officers of the navy and militia. In 1878, the Act was amended
to exempt from disqualification Members already holding a ministerial position and to further disqualify
sheriffs, registrars of deeds, clerks of the peace, and county Crown attorneys. [98]
In 1931, an amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act freed Ministers appointed after an
election from the necessity of vacating their seats and seeking re-election. [99]
In 1992, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, also known as the Lortie Commission,
recommended the removal of the office of profit or emolument disqualification from the Canada Elections
Act, [100]
arguing that public officers and employees had the right to a leave of absence to seek a nomination and
contest an election. [101]
Once elected to the House of Commons, the individual’s employment with the Crown would then be deemed
terminated in order to avoid any conflict of interest issues. In regard to the eligibility of a candidate
holding a government contract, the Lortie Commission recommended the removal of this disqualification,
reasoning that, if elected, the Member would then have to bring the contractual relationship in line with
the rules governing the conduct of Members. In 1993, these recommendations were included in legislation
introduced, and subsequently passed, to amend the Canada Elections Act. [102]
However, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, any person holding an office of emolument or
profit and any person holding government contractsare still ineligible to be a Member of the House
and to sit and to vote therein. [103]
Chief Electoral Officer
The Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of Parliament, appointed by resolution of the House of Commons,
responsible for the administration of federal elections and referendums, and the registration of political
parties and electors. This officer also provides support to the independent electoral boundaries commissions
which carry out the periodic readjustment of electoral boundaries. The Chief Electoral Officer heads
Elections Canada, an independent, non-partisan agency responsible, among other things, for the conduct of
federal elections and referendums.
The position of Chief Electoral Officer was created in 1920 with the adoption of the Dominion Elections
Act. [104]
The post was created largely to prevent political partisanship in the administration of elections. (Prior
to 1920, election officials were appointed by the government of the day.) The first incumbent of the
position was specifically named in the Act: Oliver Mowat Biggar held the position of Chief Electoral Officer
until 1927. [105]
In 1927, when Mr. Biggar announced his intention to vacate the office, the law was amended to remove any
reference to a specific office holder and to establish that the Chief Electoral Officer would be appointed
by resolution of the House rather than by the government of the day. [106]
Since that time, the position has been independent of the government and political parties, with the
incumbent reporting directly to the House of Commons. The Chief Electoral Officer communicates with the
Governor in Council through a member of the Queen’s Privy Council designated by the Governor in
Council for that purpose. [107]
There have been five incumbents of this office. [108]
With the exception of Mr. Biggar who was appointed by the government, all the incumbents have been chosen
by way of a resolution of the House after consultations among the various parties in the House. [109]
A motion setting out the appointment was moved by the Prime Minister in 1927 and 1949, after written notice
appeared on the Order Paper. [110]
A motion was moved by unanimous consent on behalf of the Prime Minister in 1966 [111]
and by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in 1990. [112]
In all four cases, the motion was debated only briefly and agreed to by all parties.
The Chief Electoral Officer’s appointment is without term. He or she serves until the age of 65,
unless he or she retires or is removed for cause by the Governor General, following a joint address of the
House of Commons and Senate. [113]
Responsibilities
The Chief Electoral Officer has the rank and power of a deputy minister. [114]
While the original focus of the job was the general direction and supervision of federal elections, today
the Chief Electoral Officer also administers federal referendums, provides support to commissions
established to study the readjustment of electoral boundaries, monitors election spending by candidates and
political parties, examines and discloses their financial reports and reimburses their expenses, and is
responsible for the registration of political parties and the establishment and maintenance of an automated
register of Canadians who are qualified electors. [115]
In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer oversees the work of the Commissioner of Canada Elections who
ensures that all provisions of the Canada Elections Act and Referendum Act are complied
with and enforced, [116]
as well as that of the Broadcasting Arbitrator who allocates paid and free broadcasting time for political
parties during a general election and for referendum committees during a referendum. [117]
The Chief Electoral Officer chairs an advisory committee composed of representatives of registered
political parties and Elections Canada officials. The advisory committee is a forum for sharing information,
fostering good working relationships and resolving administrative issues that do not require legislative
change but that may have an impact on parties and candidates.
Responsibilities at Time of a General Election or a By-election
The Chief Electoral Officer supervises and directs the conduct of federal elections and by-elections when
vacancies occur in the House. As soon as the election date is known, the Chief Electoral Officer issues a
writ of election to each returning officer who is ultimately responsible for conducting the election within
the electoral district. [118]
The Chief Electoral Officer directs each returning officer to hire staff and prepare for an election.
Following polling day, each time the Chief Electoral Officer receives a writ of election of a Member from
a returning officer, he or she enters it in a book kept for that purpose and immediately gives notice of
the name of the candidate elected in either an ordinary or special issue of the Canada Gazette. [119]
Within 60 days of the date set for the return of the writs, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a narrative
report to Parliament containing information on the conduct of the election and recommendations for
improvements to the electoral system. [120]
The report is submitted to the Speaker of the House who tables it in the House. [121]
It is then referred permanently to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. [122]
The Chief Electoral Officer prepares a similar report within 60 days of the date set for the return of the
writ for any by-election. [123]
After each general election, the Chief Electoral Officer also prepares and publishes a report of official
voting results. This report contains, poll by poll, the number of votes cast for each candidate, the number
of rejected ballots and the number of names on the final list of electors together with any other relevant
information. [124]
A similar report is prepared for any by-elections held during the year. [125]
When an automatic recount occurs, a candidate may apply to the Chief Electoral Officer for reimbursement of
any costs incurred as a result of the recount. The Chief Electoral Officer determines the amount of the
costs actually incurred by the candidate and submits a certificate showing the amount of the costs to the
Receiver General who reimburses the candidate out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. [126]
Relationship with Members
The Chief Electoral Officer provides advice and assistance to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs which is responsible for reviewing and reporting on matters relating to the election of Members. [127]
The Chief Electoral Officer and his staff provide the Committee with research material and, at the
Committee’s request, assist in the drafting of amendments to the Canada Elections Act [128]
and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. [129]
The Chief Electoral Officer also appears before the Committee at its invitation to discuss the Main
Estimates of Elections Canada [130]
and the reports on general elections. [131]
The Writ of Election
A writ is a formal written order instructing the returning officer in each electoral district to hold
an election to elect a Member of Parliament. The writ specifies the day by which the names of candidates
must be entered into nomination, and sets a polling date and a date on which the writ, with the name of
the successful candidate noted on the back, is to be returned to the Chief Electoral Officer. (See Figure
4.3.) The returning officer is responsible for the conduct of an election within an electoral district.
One returning officer is appointed by the Governor in Council for each electoral district. The returning
officer receives instructions from the Chief Electoral Officer and holds office as long as he or she meets
the requirements of residency within the electoral district, competency and non-partisanship, or until the
electoral boundaries for the riding are changed.
The election process has evolved considerably since 1867. In 1867 and in 1872, polling days were held on
different days in different locations over several weeks, so that the government could control the timing
of elections in each region. [132]
For example, in 1867, elections were held on different dates in different ridings over a period of six
weeks; during the next election in 1872 the process lasted three months. [133]
In 1874, Parliament passed a law stipulating that votes had to be cast on the same day in all electoral
districts. [134]
Since 1929, polling day is always on Monday, unless that day is a statutory holiday, in which case the
election is held the next day. [135]
In 1996, amendments to the Canada Elections Act rectified the long-standing grievance of western
voters who heard election results from eastern and central Canada while the polls in the west were still
open. The hours for voting are now staggered across Canada’s six time zones with polling stations
open 12 hours in each region. [136]
Issue of Writ for General Election
The Prime Minister begins the process of calling a general election by presenting the Governor General with
an Instrument of Advice recommending that the House of Commons be dissolved. The Governor General then
issues a proclamation dissolving Parliament. [137]
Subsequently, the Prime Minister presents an Order in Council addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer
requesting the issuance of writs of election, and the Governor General issues a Proclamation for the
issuance of writs of election. [138]
After having been notified by the Prime Minister that an election has been called, the Chief Electoral
Officer sends a writ of election to each returning officer. [139]
The writs cannot be issued or dated later than the 36th day before polling day, making the
minimum length of a federal election campaign 36 days. [140]
After the returning officer receives the writ, he or she prepares a public proclamation notifying the
electors of the important dates and other details related to the election, such as the date by which
nomination papers must be filed and the time and date for the official addition of the votes. [141]
(See Figure 4.4.)
No later than 2:00 p.m. on nomination day, which is Monday, the 21st day before polling day, [142]
each candidate must file with the returning officer several documents, including the nomination paper, a
declaration signed by the candidate stating that he or she accepts the nomination, a declaration of
acceptance signed by the candidate’s official agent and a statement of acceptance signed by the
candidate’s auditor. A $1,000 deposit is also required to ensure the candidate’s intention to
stand as an official candidate. [143]
Candidates who change their mind have until 5:00 p.m. on nomination day to withdraw. [144]
Where only one candidate has been officially nominated for an electoral district, the returning officer
immediately returns the writ of election to the Chief Electoral Officer stating that the candidate is duly
elected for that electoral district. [145]
Before polling day, each returning officer issues a proclamation stating, among other things, the time and
date for the official addition of the votes. [146]
That date must not be later than seven days following the polling date. [147]
Normally, no later than six days following the date set for the official addition, the returning officer is
required to complete the form on the back of the writ, declaring a candidate elected. [148]
The returning officer returns the writ of election, along with a post-election report and other
documentation, to the Chief Electoral Officer. [149]
A judicial recount of the ballots is automatically requested by the returning officer if there is an equality
of votes between two or more candidates with the highest number of votes, or if the winning candidate is
separated from any other candidate by less than one one-thousandth of the total votes cast. [150]
A recount may also take place when, within four days of the official addition, someone who witnessed that
addition applies to a judge claiming that there were irregularities in the addition of the ballots. [151]
The judicial recount is conducted by a judge and must take place no later than four days after the
application has been received by the judge. [152]
As soon as the recount is done, [153]
the returning officer completes the back of the writ, indicating the name of the successful candidate, and
returns the writ to the Chief Electoral Officer. [154]
The Chief Electoral Officer publicizes the results of the election in the Canada Gazette, [155]
provides Parliament with a report on the conduct of the election, [156]
and retains all electoral documents in the event an election is contested. [157]
The Chief Electoral Officer also provides the Clerk of the House with a certified list of Members returned
to serve in the House of Commons. The list is tabled in the House by the Clerk at the beginning of the
first session of the new Parliament and is included in the Journals. [158]
Issue of Writ for a By-Election
Whenever a vacancy in the representation of the House occurs, for whatever reason, the Speaker addresses a
warrant (a written authorization) to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election to
fill the vacancy. [159]
The writ for a by-election must be issued between the 11th day and the 180th day
after the receipt of the warrant by the Chief Electoral Officer. [160]
While the Parliament of Canada Act requires by-elections to be called within six months of a seat
becoming vacant, there is no limit on how far in the future the actual date of the by-election may be set.
The date of the by-election is fixed by the Governor in Council. [161]
A writ for a by-election would be superseded and withdrawn when a by-election has been ordered for a day
subsequent to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election. [162]
Election Expenses
Legislation on election expenses was first incorporated into the Canada Elections Act in 1974. [163]
Election expenses are defined as those costs incurred “for the purpose of promoting or opposing,
directly and during an election, a particular registered party, or the election of a particular candidate”. [164]
Sections of the Canada Elections Act require all registered federal political parties and
candidates to disclose the details of their election campaign financing. [165]
The Act sets down guidelines to control election spending by both parties and candidates according to a
formula based on the number of names on the preliminary voters list for each constituency. [166]
The amount of election expenses a candidate or political party may incur is limited, thereby ensuring that
no one candidate dominates due to wealth and that any eligible Canadian may consider becoming a candidate.
Under the Act, only the candidate and the candidate’s official agent may pay the candidate’s
personal expenses, whereas only the official agent may pay all other campaign-related expenses.
Within four months after polling day, all candidates, whether successful or not, must submit both a return
and a declaration respecting election expenses. [167]
If the elected Member fails to submit his or her report and declaration of election expenses within the
prescribed time, the Member will not be permitted to sit or vote in the House until the declaration is filed. [168]
Candidates who get at least 15% of the valid votes cast in their electoral district are reimbursed 50% of
their maximum allowed election expenses out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. [169]
In 1974, the position of Commissioner of Election Expenses was created to ensure that the election expenses
provisions of the Election Expenses Act were complied with andenforced. [170]
In December 1977, the statute was amended to extend the Commissioner’s responsibilities to cover all
provisions of the Canada Elections Act. [171]
The Commissioner ensures that candidates and their official agents fulfil their obligations under the
legislation, such as submitting their election expenses returns and official receipts within the legal time
frame and ensuring that corrective action is taken promptly when minor transgressions occur. When requested
to do so by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner also investigates complaints of alleged
infractions by election officers. [172]
Bribery and Corruption in Elections
Over the years, Parliament has passed several statutes touching on bribery and corruption in elections,
delegating to the courts the authority to decide breaches of this kind when they occur. [173]
These laws ensure that fair elections are held, free from corruption, intimidation and other actions which
may deter an elector, a candidate or an official involved in the election process. As such, where a
candidate has engaged in bribery or some other form of corruption in being elected, severe penalties are
provided for, including: several years’ disqualification from candidacy and voting in subsequent
elections; fines, imprisonment, or both; a voided election; the loss of the right to sit or vote in the House. [174]
Still, the House has never relinquished its power to act in matters affecting its membership in instances
other than those related to controverted elections. In addition, the House can always “receive
petitions setting forth grievances and praying for a remedy, provided they do not question the return of
a Member …” [175]
Since 1926, the House has not been asked to investigate claims of corruption or bribery in elections,
although suggestions have been made from time to time to do so. [176]
On at least one occasion, leave was granted for an emergency debate to discuss corruption in a specific
election. [177]
Dominion Controverted Elections Act
An election may be contested or controverted (i.e., challenged) if the announced results of the election
in an electoral district are very close, if there are allegations of irregularities in voting or in the
counting of ballots, or if there are allegations of corrupt or illegal practices. An election petition [178]
may be filed by a candidate or by any qualified elector who alleges irregularities or corruption in the
election that would disqualify an elected Member of the House of Commons. Such petitions are investigated
and tried under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. [179]
Trials are conducted without jury by two superior court justices for the province in which the disputed
election took place. The judges’ report is transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and may
result in the election being awarded to a candidate other than the one who was declared elected by the
returning officer; or the election could be declared null and void; or the petition could be dismissed by
the court.
Prior to Confederation, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada followed the example of the
British Parliament in dealing with electoral matters in their own legislatures. After Confederation,
between 1867 and 1873, the Speaker of the House of Commons regularly appointed six Members to serve on the
General Committee of Elections to adjudicate controverted elections. [180]
This committee routinely passed judgement on cases of bribery and corruption in electoral contests, usually
on partisan grounds and regardless of any findings of corrupt practices. Indeed, only one election was ever
voided. [181]
In 1873, the House transferred to the provincial courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the
election of its Members. [182]
The following year a new law was passed establishing the provincial supreme courts as election courts. [183]
With the introduction of the secret ballot, simultaneous elections across the country, and the enactment of
new election laws, the number of contested elections gradually dropped. [184]
Since 1949, only five elections have been declared void, all on the grounds that a number of ballots were
unlawfully cast. [185]
The Election Petition
A candidate or any qualified elector who wishes to contest the result of an election must file an election
petition with the office of the clerk of the provincial or territorial court designated in the Dominion
Controverted Elections Act to hear such cases. [186]
The election petition includes the particulars of the complaint whether it be of an undue (i.e., illegal or
improper) return or election of a Member, [187]
of no return, [188]
of a double return, [189]
of a special return, [190]
or of a corrupt or illegal practice pursuant to the Canada Elections Act. [191]
The petition must be signed by the petitioner or petitioners and a security deposit of $1000 must be left
with the court when the petition is filed. [192]
The Parliament of Canada Act provides that a Member, who has been declared elected, may not resign
his or her seat while his or her election is being contested. [193]
However, if the Member gives notice to the court or trial judges that he or she does not intend to oppose
the election petition, the Member cannot sit or vote in the House of Commons until the trial judges have
reported to the Speaker. [194]
Trial of the Election Petition
The election petition is heard by two superior court judges in the province and the electoral district where
the election has been challenged. [195]
The trial of the election petition is to determine whether a Member was duly elected or not, whether another
candidate should have been duly elected instead, or whether the election should be declared void. The judges
conduct an inquiry, scrutinizing the ballots for irregularities and investigating any claims of illegal or
corrupt electoral practices. The judges may also call and examine witnesses.
At the conclusion of the trial of an election petition, the trial judges render a decision which is
transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons by means of a certificate within 12 days of the decision
being rendered. [196]
If any party to the case is dissatisfied with the court’s decision, he or she may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada within eight days of the date on which the trial judges’ decision was given. [197]
If the trial judges determine that corrupt or illegal practices have occurred, the judges also provide the
Speaker with a report indicating the corrupt practice committed and naming the individuals involved; at the
same time, they may submit a special report outlining any matters which ought to be referred to the House of
Commons. [198]
It is up to the House of Commons to deal with the matter as it sees fit. No new writ for an election can be
issued unless the House orders it. [199]
Role of the Speaker
As soon as the Speaker receives the certificates and reports of the trial judges (or the Supreme Court if an
appeal had been made), he or she communicates the decision to the House. [200]
The Speaker then takes the necessary steps to confirm or alter the return or to issue a writ for a new
election. [201]
If the trial judges find that an election was a valid election and that the Member was duly elected, the
Speaker informsthe House accordingly and the certificate of judgement appears in that day’s
Journals. [202]
If the court has awarded the election to another candidate, the Speaker must take the necessary action to
alter the return [203]
and the other candidate takes the necessary steps to claim his or her seat. If the trial judges find that
the successful candidate or his or her agent has committed any corrupt or illegal practice, the election is
void. [204]
The seat becomes vacant when the Speaker receives the certificate of the trial judges or the Supreme Court.
Until that time, the person elected is entitled to all the benefits, services and allowances that come with
being a Member of Parliament. The Speaker addresses a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue
of a new writ of election in the electoral district in question. [205]
A by-election must be held to fill the vacancy, and the Prime Minister has six months from the date on
which the Chief Electoral Officer receives the Speaker’s warrant to announce the date of the
by-election. [206]
The Oath or Solemn Affirmation of Allegiance
Before a duly elected Member may take his or her seat and vote in the House of Commons, the Member must take
an oath or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance or loyalty to the Sovereign and sign the Test Roll
(a book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath). When a Member swears or solemnly affirms allegiance
to the Queen as Sovereign of Canada, he or she is also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the
institutions the Queen represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, a Member is making a pledge to
conduct him-or herself in the best interests of the country. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds a Member
of the serious obligations and responsibilities he or she is assuming.
The obligation requiring all Members of Parliament to take the oath is found in the Constitution Act,
1867, with the text of the oath itself outlined in the Fifth Schedule. [207]
The Act states: “Every Member of the … House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat
therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him … the Oath
of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act …” The wording of the oath is
as follows: “I, (Member’s name), do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.” [208]
As an alternative to swearing the oath, Members may make a solemn affirmation, by simply stating: [209]
“I, (Member’s name), do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.”
Historical Perspective
Great Britain
During the Middle Ages, there was no legal requirement for the taking of oaths of allegiance in the British
Parliament. [210]
The taking of an oath by a Member of Parliament as a legal prerequisite first arose as a result of the
political and religious conflicts in Great Britain in the sixteenth century, in particular the breach with
Rome and the struggle between Protestants and Catholics for power. The first oath was imposed upon Members
in 1563 following the adoption of the Act of Supremacy during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The
Act of Supremacy appointed the Sovereign the head of the Church: before taking their seat in the
House of Commons, Members of Parliament were required to testify to their belief that the Sovereign was the
only supreme governor of the realm, both in ecclesiastical and in temporal matters. [211]
Indeed, the oath of supremacy was primarily directed at preventing Roman Catholics from holding public
office. To this was added, in 1678, a declaration against transubstantiation which, with the oath of
supremacy, effectively barred Roman Catholics from Parliament. [212]
In 1701, in an attempt to strengthenProtestantism in response to the attempt by Jacobites, supporters of
James II, to restore Catholicism in England, English authorities devised three oaths of state designed to
exclude Catholics and Jacobites from public office. The first was one of allegiance to the King of England;
the second, known as the oath of supremacy, denounced Catholicism and papal authority; and the last, the
oath of abjuration, repudiated all rights of James II and his descendants to the English throne. [213]
More than one hundred years later, the British Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829,
which replaced the declaration against transubstantiation with a simple declaration of allegiance to the
Crown and provided a special form of oath acceptable to members of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1858, the
oaths of supremacy, allegiance and repudiation were replaced by a single oath for Protestants, and later the
same year the British Parliament passed another law allowing Jews to be admitted as Members of Parliament. [214]
By 1866, the British Parliament had established a single oath for Members of all religious beliefs and, by
1888, it permitted those objecting to the taking of the oath on religious grounds to make a solemn
affirmation. [215]
Canada
The requirement that Members of the Canadian House of Commons take an oath of allegiance before assuming
their seats in the Chamber stems from British practice; however, the oath taken in the Canadian colonies was
a very different one from the anti-papal oath taken by Members in the British House of Commons.
In 1758, the first election for a popular Assembly was held in Nova Scotia; Catholics and Jews were not
allowed to vote or seek election. [216]
The legislative assembly abolished religious discrimination in voter eligibility criteria in 1789, enabling
Catholics and Jews to vote. [217]
In 1823, the Nova Scotia Assembly adopted a resolution which granted the right to Catholics to take a seat
in the Assembly without taking the Declaration against Transubstantiation. [218]
The Quebec Act, 1774, which was passed by the British Parliament provided, among other matters,
that Roman Catholics no longer had to take the Oath of Supremacy, substituting an oath of allegiance, should
they wish to assume public office. [219]
The Constitutional Act, 1791 divided the original province of Quebec into two provinces — Lower
Canada and Upper Canada. Each was provided with a Legislative Council and an elected Assembly; Members had
to swear an oath of allegiance to the King before sitting in either the Legislative Council or Assembly. [220]
When the United Province of Canada was established, the provisions of the Constitutional Act, 1791
regarding the oath of allegiance were carried over into the Union Act, 1840. [221]
At Confederation, the requirement for Members of the House of Commons, Senate and provincial legislative
assemblies to swear an oath of allegiance was included in the Constitution Act, 1867.
While provisions for a solemn affirmation existed in the Province of United Canada pursuant to the Union
Act, 1840 [222]
and were later duplicated in section 5 of the Oaths of Allegiance Act [223]
passed in 1867, these provisions did not apply to Members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Members of
Parliament were not permitted to make a solemn affirmation until 1905 when the Governor General was
“authorized to administer the oath of allegiance or affirmation to persons who shall hold places of
trust in Canada in the form provided by an Act passed in the thirty-first and thirty-second years of the
Reign of Queen Victoria intituled An Act to amend the law in relation to Promissory Notes”. [224]
Swearing-in Process
Following a general election, the Chief Electoral Officer files a certificate with the Clerk of the House of
Commons which lists Members duly elected to serve in the new Parliament. Once this certificate is received by
the Clerk of the House, the process of administering the oath of allegiance commences. [225]
According to Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Governor General “or some person
authorized by him” may administer the oath of allegiance. Commissioners for this purpose are
appointed through Orders in Council. Up until August 1949, this was accomplished by naming specific persons
to hold this commission but since that time, the appointment has been made by virtue of office, thus
avoiding the need to repeat the Order in Council. The offices of Clerk of the House of Commons, Deputy
Clerk, Clerk Assistant, and Sergeant-at-Arms have been given this authority, although this function is
normally carried out by the Clerk. [226]
The present swearing-in procedure followed by the House is not governed by rules but has always been defined
by practice and precedent. Traditionally, Members have been sworn in on an individual, rather than
collective, basis. [227]
The Clerk of the House invites each Member to make an appointment to be sworn in and sign the Test Roll, a
book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath or affirmation, prior to the opening day of the new
Parliament. The Test Roll is signed by the Member in witness to his or her having taken the oath of
allegiance as required by the Constitution Act, 1867 or made the solemn affirmation. The Test Roll
is signed immediately after the oath or affirmation has been taken. [228]
Most Members take the oath either in the office of the Clerk or in another room in the parliamentary precinct
designated for the ceremony. Members may invite guests to attend the short private ceremony and arrange for
pictures to be taken. Members who have not been sworn in prior to the opening day of a new Parliament may
do so on the opening day itself. This ceremony is performed in the Commons Chamber at the Clerk’s
Table prior to the time designated for all the Members to assemble for the opening of Parliament. On this
occasion, guests are not invited nor are pictures taken. After the first day of a new Parliament, the
swearing-in ceremony takes place in the Clerk’s Office. Following by-elections, new Members take the
oath and sign the Test Roll in the office of the Clerk.
If a Member fails or refuses to swear the oath of allegiance or make a solemn affirmation, the Member may not
be allowed to take his or her seat in the Chamber and may be deprived of any entitlements. [229]
Thus, it is the taking of the oath or affirmation which enables a Member to take his or her seat in the
House and to vote. [230]
Breach of the Oath of Allegiance
Breaking the oath of allegiance is a serious offence and any Member whose conduct has been determined by
the House to have violated the oath could be liable to punishment by the House. [231]
Although there have been no cases of a Member having been found guilty of breaching the oath of allegiance,
the Speaker was asked in 1990 to rule on the sincerity of a Member’s solemn affirmation. [232]
Speaker Fraser ruled that the Chair was “not empowered to make a judgement on the circumstances or
the sincerity with which a duly elected Member takes the oath of allegiance. The significance of the oath
to each Member is a matter of conscience and so it must remain.” Since the Member stated very clearly
in the House that he had “never mocked the Canadian Parliament nor the Queen”, the Speaker
concluded that, in keeping with convention that the House accepts as true the word of the Member, there was
no breach of privilege. He did note, however, that “only the House can examine the conduct of its
Members and only the House can take action if it decides action is required”. [233]
No further action was taken.
Entrance in the House
After a Member’s election certificate has been received by the Clerk of the House and he or she has
sworn the oath of allegiance or made an affirmation and signed the Test Roll, the Member is ready to take
his or her seat in the Chamber. Members, whether they be newly elected or not, are not formally introduced
to the House at the opening of a new Parliament. Customarily, only when Members have been elected to the
House in by-elections do they receive formal introduction to the House. [234]
The introduction of a Member is ceremonial [235]
and a convention not mandated by any statute of Canada or rule of the House of Commons. [236]
The right of a Member to sit and vote in the House is in no way affected if an introduction does not take
place. [237]
Introductions typically are done at the beginning of a sitting or before Question Period. When a Member is
to be introduced, the Speaker begins by advising the House that: “I have the honour to inform the
House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the
election and return of (Member’s name), Member for the electoral riding of (Member’s riding).”
The Member, escorted by two Members of the House (generally the leader of the Member’s party and the
senior party representative from his or her province), is then ushered from the Bar of the House up the
centre aisle of the Chamber to the Table. [238]
At this point, the party leader will state: “Mr. (Madam) Speaker, I have the honour to present to you
(Member’s name), Member for the Electoral District of (Member’s riding), who has taken the oath
(or made an affirmation), signed the Roll and now claims the right to take his (her) seat.” The
Speaker directs: “Let the Member take his (her) seat.” The Member then approaches the Chair and
exchanges greetings with the Speaker. The Member is directed, by the party whip, to his or her seat. [239]
If other Members are to be introduced during the same sitting, the process is repeated. [240]
Customarily, if the Member being introduced is a party leader, he or she is escorted by two leading Members
of the party and the House allows the other party leaders to offer some brief words of welcome. [241]
Assignment of Seats in the House
Members are allocated their seats and desks in the House under the authority of the Speaker but on the
advice of the whips of the recognized parties (usually those parties with 12 or more Members [242])
following negotiations. In order to be recognized by the Speaker to participate in the business of the
House and to vote in any recorded division, a Member must be in his or her designated seat. [243]
Members representing the governing party traditionally occupy those seats to the right of the Chair,
with the Prime Minister and the other Ministers seated in the front rows. Private Members, otherwise known
as backbenchers, representing the governing party are customarily seated according to their seniority or
length of service in the House within their caucus. If the number of Members representing the governing
party exceeds the number of desks on the right side, the overflow, or “rump”, of government
Members occupies those seats across the aisle. This section may, at the discretion of the Speaker, be near
the Chair or at the far end of the Chamber. [244]
Members who represent parties in opposition to the government are seated to the left of the Chair. [245]
The Leader of the Official Opposition is seated immediately opposite the Prime Minister and is flanked by
Members of his or her party. Other opposition Members sit, according to party, in the remaining seats: the
second-rank opposition party gets the first choice of seats after the Official Opposition, the third-rank
party the next choice and so on. [246]
The leading Members of the opposition parties, including House Leaders, whips and critics, sit in the front
rows of their designated area. [247]
Those Members who do not have a party designation or who represent a party not recognized by the House are
seated subject to the discretion of the Speaker in whatever seats are remaining. These Members typically
occupy the desks to the left of the Speaker along the back rows, often but not necessarily near the end of
the Chamber. The Speaker allocates the seats for these Members pursuant to their seniority as elected
Members, while at the same time retaining a degree of latitude in determining these arrangements. [248]
Three desks immediately to the left of the Chair are reserved for the Deputy Speaker and the other Chair
occupants when they are not presiding over the House. There is no seat reserved for the Speaker. [249]
The seating plan is modified frequently during a Parliament, sometimes following changes within a party,
sometimes as a result of negotiations among the parties. Any changes in the seating of a Member or Members
within a party are made by the whip who then notifies the Speaker. If a Member is expelled from his or her
party, or chooses to leave to sit as an independent, then the Speaker reassigns a new seat to the Member. [250]
Crossing the Floor
Although most Members are elected with a party affiliation (a very small percentage of Members are elected
as independents), Members are not obliged to retain that party label during the whole of their mandate.
“Crossing the floor” is the expression used to describe a Member’s decision to break all
ties binding him or her to a particular political party. [251]
A Member who changes party allegiance is under no obligation to resign his or her seat and stand for
re-election; entitlement to sit as a Member is not contingent upon political affiliation. If a Member
decides to cross the floor and sit with another party, the Member’s new party whip determines the
seating arrangement for the Member.
Responsibilities and Conduct of Members
Members sit in the House of Commons to serve as representatives of the people who have elected them to that
office. They have wide-ranging responsibilities which include work in the Chamber, committees, their
constituencies and political parties. As Professor C.E.S. Franks has noted:
The member of parliament represents his constituency through service in the House of Commons. This does not
mean, however, that he spends most of this time sitting in the House, or even that attendance there is the
most important part of his work. An MP spends far more of his working life outside the House than in it … .
The job is people-oriented, involving talking about and listening to ideas, proposals, and complaints,
reconciling opposing viewpoints, explaining party or government policy to citizens and citizens’
views to party and government, getting action out of the government on problems of constituents, and
examining how the government uses or abuses the power it exercises on behalf of the people of Canada. [252]
Besides participating in debates in the Chamber and in committees, and conveying their constituents’
views to the government and advocating on their behalf, Members also have responsibilities in many other
areas:
- They act as ombudsmen by providing information to constituents and resolving problems.
- They act as legislators by either initiating bills of their own or proposing amendments to
government and other Members’ bills.
- They develop specialized knowledge in one or more of the policy areas dealt with by Parliament,
and propose recommendations to the government.
- They represent the Parliament of Canada at home and abroad by participating in international
conferences and official visits.
Members, once elected and sworn in, are bound to observe certain rules of conduct in carrying out their
parliamentary functions. Although there is no statute which dictates a code of conduct for parliamentarians
at the federal level, some provisions regarding conduct for Members and conflict of interest matters exist
in the Standing Orders of the House, [253]
the Parliament of Canada Act [254]
and the Criminal Code. [255]
Also in place is the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office-Holders, in
particular for Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, issued by the Prime Minister’s Office.
A number of these provisions are discussed later in this chapter.
Attendance
One of the Member’s primary duties is to attend the sittings of the House when it is in session,
unless the Member has other parliamentary or official commitments, such as committee meetings, constituency
work or parliamentary exchanges. [256]
Indeed, the Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence of another Member
from the House because “there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all of
the obligations that go with their office”. [257]
The Parliament of Canada Act provides for deductions for non-attendance from the Member’s
sessional allowance. [258]
At the end of each month and at the end of each session, each Member is required to provide the Clerk of
the House with a statement of the number of days of attendance during the month or session, as the case
may be, for which they are entitled to receive their sessional and expense allowances. [259]
For the purposes of this declaration, those days on which a Member was absent due to illness, a military
commitment, the adjournment of the House or because the Member was on “public or official business”,
are considered days of attendance. [260]
Since there is no regulatory mechanism to monitor Members’ attendance, calculations of Members’
allowances are made on the basis of their statements and deductions are made only when absences exceed 21
sitting days. [261]
While the Parliament of Canada Act gives the House the power to impose more stringent regulations
respecting Members’ attendance or deductions from sessional allowances, [262]
the presence of Members in the Chamber is largely a function of politics, not procedure or law. Consequently,
it has fallen to the whips to ensure an adequate representation of Members in the Chamber for debates and
votes. Thus, through the use of a roster system and other controls, the party whips are able to regulate
the attendance of Members in the Chamber, in committees and in other parliamentary functions.
Conflict of Interest Matters
On being elected, Members of the House of Commons become trustees of public confidence. Members must be seen
to be impartial and to derive no personal benefit or gain from their decisions. Various attempts have been
made over the past 25 years to define what constitutes a conflict of interest and to devise rules regarding
Members improperly using their influence, using insider information, and furthering their private interests.
Historical Perspective
In 1973, the Federal Government issued a Green Paper on Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest. [263]
During the next Parliament, the Green Paper was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections. [264]
The Committee reported it back to the House with numerous recommendations. [265]
In 1978, the government introduced Bill C-6, An Act respecting the independence of Parliament and
conflicts of interests of Senators and Members of the House of Commons and to amend certain other Acts in
relation thereof or in consequence,which would have extended the provisions in the Green Paper and
incorporated some of the recommendations made by the Committee. [266]
The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges after second reading, [267]
but Parliament was dissolved before the Committee could report back to the House.
In 1983, the government established a Task Force on Conflict of Interest to devise a regime dealing with
conflict of interest whereby public confidence would be ensured and the integrity of the political process
protected. In May 1984, the Task Force identified nine activities as involving conflicts of interest and
recommended that these forms of conduct be dealt with, depending on the severity of the conflict, by using
a code of conduct. [268]
In 1985, the Standing Committee on Management and Members’ Services was asked to consider matters
related to the establishment of a Register of Members’ Interests. [269]
The Committee concluded that such a Register was not warranted and that the current laws regarding conflict
of interest were adequate. [270]
At the end of 1987 came the Report of the Parker Commission on Conflict of Interests regarding the
allegations of conflict of interest involving the Hon. Sinclair Stevens. Mr. Justice Parker made a number of
recommendations, and in particular the requirement that conflict of interest guidelines include public
disclosure of a Minister’s assets, interests and activities. In 1988, the government introduced Bill
C-114, Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act, which was referred to
a legislative committee after the second reading, [271]
but Parliament was dissolved before the committee could report back.
Another conflict of interest bill (Bill C-46, Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of
Interest Act) was introduced during the Second Session (April 1989-May 1991) of the Thirty-Fourth
Parliament [272]
but was not proceeded with. Two similar bills were introduced during the Third Session (May 1991-September
1993): Bill C-43, Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act; [273]
and Bill C-116, Conflict of Interests of Public Office Holders Act. [274]
The House of Commons gave second reading to Bill C-116 and referred it to the Special Joint Committee of
the Senate and the House of Commons on Conflict of Interests on March 30, 1993. [275]
On June 3, 1993, the Special Joint Committee recommended to the House that the bill not be proceeded with. [276]
The Thirty-Fourth Parliament was dissolved shortly thereafter.
Each conflict of interest bill provided for an annual declaration of the private interests of Senators,
Members of the House of Commons, their spouses and dependent children to an independent three-member
conflict of interests commission. The bills also contained rules against using confidential information to
further one’s own private interests and against trying to influence others’ decisions from one’s
own private interests; rules on gifts and on post-employment conduct; and special rules for Ministers
regarding outside activities. Proposed penalties for non-compliance ranged from fines to loss of the
Member’s or Senator’s seat, but their imposition remained in the hands of the Member’s
Chamber.
During the First Session (January 1994-February 1996) of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament, a special joint
committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons was established to develop a code of conduct to guide
parliamentarians in reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal interests, including
their dealings with lobbyists. [277]
The Committee was re-established during the Second Session (February 1996-April 1997) [278]
and reported to the House on March 20, 1997 [279]
with the recommendation that the Senate and the House of Commons adopt a “Code of Official Conduct”. [280]
The Thirty-Fifth Parliament was dissolved a month later without the report being concurred in.
Governing Prohibitions
Statutory provisions and guidelines governing aspects of conflict of interest presently exist. The
Parliament of Canada Act contains several conflict of interest prohibitions. A number of them
govern the eligibility of Members to sit in the House of Commons and accept any other office, commission
or employment in the service of the Government of Canada, with exceptions such as the offices of Cabinet
Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or active service in the Armed Forces in wartime. [281]
Anyone who contracts with the government or who works for such a contractor is not eligible to be a Member
of the House of Commons and may not sit or vote in the House, although a Member may be a shareholder with a
company having a government contract that does not involve building any public work. [282]
If a Member contravenes these provisions, his or her seat is vacated, his or her election is declared void,
and the Member forfeits the sum of $200 for each day he or she sat or voted. [283]
All public office holders are subject to the Criminal Code’s general provisions on
corruption, including bribery, influence-peddling and breach of trust. [284]
For example, breach of trust occurs when a Member pays a person for work not performed, accepts payment
from a person in return for hiring that person as an employee or contractor, and uses public funds for
private travel. Should a person be convicted of one of these offences and sentenced to more than two years
of imprisonment, that person is incapable of being elected or sitting or voting as a Member of Parliament. [285]
Nonetheless, in terms of its membership, the House of Commons retains the right to regulate its own internal
affairs and procedures, free from any interference from the courts. This includes the right to enforce
discipline on its Members by suspension or expulsion. Even where a Member has been convicted of bribery, or
sentenced to imprisonment for an indictable offence for a period longer than the life of the Parliament,
the Member cannot be deprived of his or her seat unless the House decides so. [286]
In addition to statutory prohibitions, Prime Ministers have issued conflict of interest guidelines for
Ministers and other public office holders (Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public
Office Holders). [287]
The code is voluntary and applies to Cabinet Ministers, Secretaries of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and
other senior public office holders (full-time Governor in Council appointees). It requires that, on
appointment to one of these offices, the office holders are to arrange their private affairs so as to
prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts from arising. [288]
They are not to solicit or accept money or gifts; not to assist individuals in their dealings with
government in such a way as to compromise their own professional status; not to take advantage of
information obtained because of their positions as insiders; and, after they leave public office, not to act
so as to take improper advantage of having held that office. After leaving office, Ministers are prohibited
for two years, and other public office holders for one year, from certain activities in order to ensure
impartiality while in office and to avoid preferential treatment upon leaving office. These guidelines are
administered by an ethics councillor who is a public servant reporting directly to the Prime Minister. [289]
Bribery
Bribery, the most extreme form of conflict of interest, is a criminal offence. One of the parliamentary
privileges or rights Members enjoy is the freedom to carry out their parliamentary duties without fear of
intimidation or interference. An attempt to tamper with this privilege through bribery undermines the
independence of Members and, by extension, the independence of the House itself. The Standing Orders define
any attempt to offer a Member any advantage for promoting any matter before Parliament as a “high
crime and misdemeanour”, which “tends to the subversion of the Constitution”. [290]
There are few recorded instances of attempted bribery. In 1873, a Member rose in the House to say that
someone had attempted to buy his vote. The House immediately ordered the accused party taken into custody,
but Parliament prorogued before the individual could be questioned at the Bar and the matter was never again
taken up. [291]
In 1964, it was alleged that a bribe had been offered to a Member on condition that he change his party
allegiance by crossing the floor of the House. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections was
ordered to study and report on the charge, but on investigation concluded that the allegation was unfounded
and the matter went no further. [292]
Instances where a Member accepts the offer of a bribe or even arranges for one in consideration of his or
her work in Parliament are not foreseen by the rules of the House. However, there have been many cases in
which allegations of accepting bribes in exchange for favours or influence formed the substance of motions
against Members by their colleagues. [293]
The Parliament of Canada Act prohibits a Member from receiving outside compensation for services
rendered on any matter before the House, the Senate or their committees. [294]
Pursuant to that Act, a Member found guilty of such an offence is liable to a fine of $500 to $2000 and is
disqualified from being a Member of the House of Commons and from holding any office in the public service
of Canada for five years after conviction of that offence. [295]
In addition, the Criminal Code provides for 14 years’ imprisonment for a parliamentarian who
accepts or attempts to obtain any form of valuable consideration for doing or omitting to do anything in his
or her official capacity. [296]
Pecuniary Interests
While no legislation exists to enforce the disclosure of a Member’s financial interests, the Standing
Orders of the House provide that Members may not vote on questions in which they have direct pecuniary
interests; any such vote will be disallowed. [297]
The pecuniary interest must be immediate and personal, and belong specifically to the person whose vote is
contested. Measures with a wide application, such as matters of public policy, are not generally considered
in this light. Even voting a pay increase to Members themselves does not constitute direct monetary interest
because it applies to all Members. [298]
A Member with a pecuniary interest in a matter simply refrains from voting. In the event the Member votes,
the vote may be questioned and eventually disallowed. When a Member’s vote is questioned, his or her
word usually prevails, [299]
although the Member’s vote may be challenged by way of a motion to disallow it. [300]
While no Member’s vote has ever been disallowed by the House on grounds of direct pecuniary interests,
several Members have either voluntarily refrained from voting [301]
or have had their votes questioned. [302]
Registry of Foreign Travel
Members are sometimes called upon to travel outside Canada in their capacity as Members of the House of
Commons. When visits are made outside of Canada and are not paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund
(i.e., paid by individuals or organizations other than the Member personally, any registered Canadian
political party, or an inter-parliamentary association or friendship group recognized by the House of
Commons), the Member must register the trip and the name of the sponsoring individual or organization with
the Clerk of the House who keeps a public record of this information. [303]
The Member may register the trip before or after it takes place by sending the Clerk of the House a
personally signed letter [304]
and the Clerk enters the information into the registry. Staff members or other representatives may not
provide the information to the Clerk for the registry in the Member’s place.
Remuneration, Pensions and Entitlements
The compensation package for Members of the House of Commons consists of three main components: a sessional
indemnity (also known as a sessional allowance or salary), an incidental expense allowance, and a pension
plan. In addition, Members are provided with other benefits and allowances related to travel between Ottawa
and their constituency and within the constituency, a budget to staff the Parliament Hill and the
constituency offices, and goods and services provided for the Members’ use.
The Sessional Indemnity and Incidental Expense Allowance
The sessional indemnity, the equivalent of a salary, is stated as an annual amount and is paid monthly. [305]
Additional salaries are payable to Members of the House of Commons occupying certain offices and positions.
These include the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker and other Chair occupants, the Leaders of
recognized opposition parties, House Leaders, Whips, and Parliamentary Secretaries. [306]
Members also receive an incidental expense allowance which is non-accountable (i.e., Members do not have to
document their use of the allowance with receipts) and is not subject to income tax. Members representing
remote or difficult-to-access constituencies (as listed in the Canada Elections Act) receive a
slightly larger expense allowance. [307]
In 1990, an accountable travel expense allowance (often referred to as the housing allowance) was introduced
to compensate Members for the cost of meals, incidentals and accommodation expenses incurred while on
official business more than 100 kilometres from their principal residence. The accountable expense allowance
helps Members to offset some of the costs involved in maintaining two households, one in their constituency
and one in Ottawa. Expenses claimed under the travel status expenses provision cannot exceed the amount set
by the Board of Internal Economy. [308]
Pension
The pension plan for Members was first established in 1952. At that time, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent
expressed concern about the reluctance of some people to run for a seat in the House of Commons because of
their belief that long years spent in public service would not allow them to provide adequately for their
later years. The Prime Minister believed that the establishment of a pension plan would strengthen the
parliamentary institution and attract the right kind of person to public service. [309]
Under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, a retiring allowance (pension) is payable
to former Members who have contributed to the pension plan for a minimum of six years and who have attained
age 55. [310]
Should a Member retire with less than six years of service, the Member receives a withdrawal allowance in a
single payment. [311]
A former Member who is not entitled to a pension and who was a Member on the day of dissolution, but is not
re-elected or did not seek re-election, is entitled to a severance allowance equal to 50% of the total of
the basic annual sessional indemnity and any annual salary payable to Members occupying certain offices
(such as that of a Minister, House Leader, Whip, or Parliamentary Secretary). [312]
The severance allowance is also payable to a Member who is not eligible for a pension and who resigned
during an election period, following the dissolution of Parliament, or who resigned during a Parliament
because of permanent illness or disability which in the opinion of the Speaker prevented the Member from
performing his or her duties. [313]
The provisions of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act continue to apply between the
day of dissolution and election day. Contributions cease as of the day of the election for Members who are
not re-elected.
Commission on Members’ Salaries and Indemnities
Since 1975, the law has required that a commission be appointed by the Governor in Council after each
general election, within two months after the date fixed for the return of the writs, to determine the
adequacy of indemnities and various allowances payable to Members of the Senate and the House of Commons
and to report back with recommendations, if deemed necessary, within six months. [314]
Commissions to review Members’ allowances are generally known by the name of their chairs or
members. Since 1979, reports have been received from the Hales Commission (1979), [315]
the McIsaac-Balcer Commission (1980), [316]
the Clarke-Campbell Commission (1985), [317]
the St. Germain-Fox Commission (1989), [318]
the Lapointe Commission (1994) [319]
and the Blais Commission (1998). [320]
The Report of the Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament is tabled in the House by a
Minister, typically the Government House Leader, [321]
and permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. [322]
Every commission has recommended that the sessional indemnity be increased, but they have differed in how
the increase should be made and how much the increase should be. The incidental expense was treated
differently by each commission with no consensus on the amount, its status or how it should be changed.
Similarly, each commission has recommended changes to the amount of other allowances and services, but
recommendations were not consistent from one commission to another. [323]
Since 1980, following the tabling of each commission’s report, the government has subsequently
introduced legislation respecting the indemnities and allowances of Members of Parliament. [324]
Budgetary Entitlements
The Parliament of Canada Act authorizes the Board of Internal Economy to make by-laws with regard
to the use of funds, goods, services and premises provided to Members. [325]
The Members’ Manual of Allowances and Services, produced in accordance with the By-laws
of the Board of Internal Economy, contains administrative guidelines on the availability and use of
all the funds, goods, services and premises to which Members are entitled.
The Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1993-97) was the first Parliament to operate with a complete set of by-laws.
The By-laws were first enacted by the Board of Internal Economy in 1993 and are a series of guidelines
concerning the handling by Members of public funds put at their disposal to help them carry out their
parliamentary functions. Parliamentary functions are defined as duties and activities related to the
position of Member of the House of Commons and includes public and official business and partisan matters
but does not include the private business interests of a Member or of a Member’s immediate family. [326]
Each year, the Board of Internal Economy publishes a Finance By-law (By-law 501) which establishes the
financial provisions for the fiscal year (April 1 to March 31). These include the Members’ Budget
(including the Member’s Office Budget, the Constituency Furniture and Equipment Allowance and Members’
Travel Expenses), House Officers’ Budgets [327]
and Committees’ Budgets. [328]
The other By-laws set out the terms governing Members’ use of their budgets and other benefits
provided by the House including travel points, printing privileges, staff, and the purchase of goods.
The Board determines the terms and conditions of managing and accounting for the funds by the Members and
has exclusive authority to determine whether their use is or was proper. [329]
In the event the By-laws are contravened, the Board of Internal Economy may pursue a number of options,
including withholding money from one of the Member’s budgets or allowances, or freezing any budget or
allowance or payment that may be available to the Member. [330]
Each Member is entitled to an office in the precinct of Parliament, office furniture and furnishings and
equipment for this office. [331]
Every Member is also entitled to establish one or more offices in his or her respective constituency and is
provided with furniture and equipment for these offices. Furniture and equipment provided to Members are
the property of the House of Commons. Each Member is provided with several budgets, including an Office
Budget and a Constituency Furniture and Equipment Allowance. [332]
Members may spend their budgets as they choose so long as they conform to the regulations prescribed by the
Board of Internal Economy. The Members’ Office Budget is used to pay expenses for the Member’s
parliamentary precinct office, including staff remuneration. This budget also pays expenses incurred in
establishing and operating a constituency office, including staff remuneration, office rent and utilities,
and office furnishings, supplies and equipment. [333]
Each Member is the employer of all his or her employees and each Member has the prerogative to recruit,
hire, promote and release employees. [334]
A Member is allowed full discretion in the direction and control of the work performed on his or her behalf
by employees and is subject only to the authority of the Board of Internal Economy and the House of Commons
in the exercise of that discretion. Members determine the duties to be performed, hours of work, job
classifications and salaries, and are responsible for employee relations. Subject to specific terms and
conditions, Members may enter into contracts for services with individuals, agencies or organizations and
use a portion of the Member’s Office Budget for the payment of these contractors. Members may not
hire or enter into a contract for consulting and professional services with members of their immediate
family (spouses and children and their spouses and children).
The House covers the cost of printing newsletters, commonly known as “householders”, sent by the
Member to all constituents. Members have free mailing privileges to send out householders and other
materials. [335]
These mailing privileges are often referred to as “franking” privileges. “Franking”
is the process by which Members of the House of Commons, by affixing their signatures to an addressed piece
of mail, may have that mail delivered postage-free anywhere in the country. It is available only for mail
that is addressed to places in Canada and may not be used for parcels, special delivery or other special
services offered by Canada Post. Mail addressed to Members of the House is also delivered free of charge if
sent to a Parliamentary Hill address. These mailing privileges begin on the day the notice of the Member’s
election is published by the Chief Electoral Officer in the Canada Gazette and end 10 calendar
days after a dissolution of Parliament or 10 days after that person ceases to be a Member. [336]
The House of Commons provides Members with modern office equipment and services such as extensive
long-distance calling, electronic mail and internet facilities, internal mail and messenger services,
printing, security and language training. The Library of Parliament, through its research and reference
services, provides Members, upon request, with research papers, background information and press clippings.
Members are allowed regular return trips to travel between Ottawa and the constituency and on occasion
elsewhere in Canada. [337]
Members or persons representing the Member can be reimbursed for travel costs while travelling within the
constituency or within the province or territory in which the constituency is situated to a maximum amount
established by the Board of Internal Economy. [338]
Receipts must be submitted and the amount reimbursed is deducted from the Member’s office budget.
When Parliament is dissolved, Members of the House of Commons are discharged from their responsibility to
attend the sittings of the House and cease to be Members of Parliament. However, the Parliament of
Canada Act provides for the continuation of a number of provisions upon dissolution. For purposes of
the allowances payable, a Member is deemed to continue to be a Member of the House until the date of the
following election. [339]
Between the date Parliament is dissolved and the day of the election, budgetary funds, goods, services and
premises made available by the House to its Members are to be used to carry out Members’ parliamentary
functions.
Members who are defeated or who did not seek re-election are provided with travel benefits to come to Ottawa
to close their office. If a Member resigns before Parliament is dissolved, his or her travel benefits cease
as of the day of resignation. Household moving expenses from the constituency to Ottawa and back are covered
once per Parliament.
On behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, the Speaker tables in the House an annual report of Members’
expenses. Members receive a copy of their annual expenditures prior to disclosure. [340]
Vacancies in Representation
Once elected, Members are expected to serve for the duration of a parliament. Nonetheless, vacancies in
representation may, and often do, occur. A person ceases to be a Member of the House of Commons when:
- that person dies;
- that person resigns his or her seat;
- that person has accepted an office of profit or emolument under the Crown;
- that person has been elected to sit in a provincial legislative assembly;
- the Member’s election has been overturned in accordance with the Dominion Controverted
Elections Act;
- the House has, by order, declared that the Member’s seat is vacant and has ordered the
Speaker to address a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for a
new Member. [341]
Death of a Member
Should a Member die while in office, the Speaker is informed of the vacancy in one of two ways. A Member may
rise in his or her place and advise the House of the death; [342]
alternatively, two Members may notify the Speaker in writing. [343]
Typically at the beginning of the sitting, the Speaker informs the House that a communication has been
received giving notice of a vacancy in representation and that a warrant has been addressed to the Chief
Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election. [344]
In the absence of the Speaker, or if there is no Speaker, or if the seat vacated is that of the Speaker, two
Members may alert the Chief Electoral Officer in writing of the death of the Member. The Chief Electoral
Officer is then authorized to issue a new writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy. [345]
Death of a Member Following a General Election
If, following a general election but before the first session of the new Parliament and before the election of
a Speaker, a vacancy occurs in the representation of the House because of the death of a Member, any Member
may alert the Chief Electoral Officer in writing of this vacancy. [346]
The Chief Electoral Officer is then authorized to issue a new writ for the election of a Member to fill the
vacancy. On the opening day of the first session, after the election of a Speaker and after the House has
returned from hearing the Speech from the Throne in the Senate, the House is advised of the vacancy at some
point during the day’s proceedings. [347]
Resignation of a Member
A Member may give notice of his or her intention to resign by making a statement on the floor of the House. [348]
Immediately upon the recording of this notice in the Journals of the House, the Speaker addresses
a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a Member to fill the
vacancy. [349]
A Member may also resign his or her seat by delivering to the Speaker a written declaration of intention to
resign signed before two witnesses. On receiving the declaration, the Speaker addresses a warrant to the
Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy. [350]
A Member who wishes to resign when there is no Speaker or when the Speaker is absent from Canada may deliver
to any two Members his or her signed declaration of intention to resign. The same applies when a Speaker
wishes to resign as a Member. [351]
On receiving the declaration, these two Members address a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the
issue of a writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy. [352]
Once a Member has tendered his or her resignation, the seat is deemed to be vacated and the individual ceases
to be a Member of Parliament. [353]
No Member, however, may tender his or her resignation while his or her election is being contested or until
after the expiration of the time during which the election may be contested on grounds other than corruption
or bribery. [354]
Acceptance of an Office of Profit or Emolument Under the Crown
No person may hold an office of profit or of emolument under the Crown and become or remain a Member of
Parliament. Thus, the seat of a Member who has accepted an appointment to the Senate, the office of the
Governor General, a judgeship or any other such public office is automatically vacated. [355]
This provision does not apply to Members who occupy positions as Ministers or who are appointed to the
Ministry in the course of a session. [356]
A Member must also resign if he or she becomes a member of a provincial legislature. [357]
In the event a Member accepts an office after a general election but before Parliament first meets, any
other Member may notify the Chief Electoral Officer of the vacancy. The Chief Electoral Officer will then
issue a writ for an election of a Member to fill the vacancy. [358]
Controverted Election Result
A vacancy in the representation of the House may occur as a result of a controverted election. As discussed
earlier in this chapter, a judicial decision concerning a controverted election may void the election result,
depriving the person first declared elected of his or her seat. In this case, the Speaker informs the House
of the decision and then addresses a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ for the
election of a Member to fill the vacancy. [359]
Expulsion
Once a person is elected to the House of Commons, there are no constitutional provisions and few statutory
provisions for removal of that Member from office. The statutory provisions rendering a Member ineligible
to sit or vote do not automatically cause the seat of that Member to become vacant. [360]
Indeed, the laying of a criminal charge against a Member has no effect on his or her eligibility to remain
in office. By virtue of parliamentary privilege, the House has the inherent right to decide matters
affecting its own membership: the House decides for itself if a Member should be permitted to sit on
committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat. [361]
The power of the House to expel one of its Members derives from its traditional authority to determine
whether Members are qualified to sit. A criminal conviction is not necessary for the House to expel a
Member; the House may judge a Member unworthy to sit in the Chamber for any conduct unbecoming the character
of a Member. Even if convicted of an indictable offence, a formal resolution of the House is still required
to unseat a Member. [362]
Expulsion terminates the Member’s mandate: the House of Commons declares a seat vacant and orders the
Speaker to address a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election. [363]
The determination of whether a Member is ineligible to sit and vote is a matter initiated without notice and
would be given precedence by its very nature. [364]
When there has been a criminal conviction, the House of Commons has acted only when sufficient evidence
against a Member has been tabled (i.e., judgements sentencing the Member and appeals confirming the
sentence). [365]
Any Member may move to examine the conduct of another Member, and the Member whose conduct is in question
is permitted to make a statement and then withdraw from the Chamber while the motion to expel him or her is
being debated. [366]
Since Confederation, there have been four cases where Members of the House of Commons were expelled for
having committed serious offences. [367]
Three cases involved criminal convictions: Louis Riel (Provencher) was expelled twice, in 1874 [368]
and in 1875, [369]
for being a fugitive from justice; and Fred Rose (Cartier) was expelled in 1947 after having been found
guilty of conspiracy under the Official Secrets Act. [370]
In 1891, Thomas McGreevy (Quebec West) was expelled after having been found guilty of contempt of the
authority of the House. [371]
Expulsion does not disqualify a Member from standing for re-election, unless the cause of the expulsion
constitutes in itself a disqualification to sit and vote in the House (for example, such as being convicted
of an illegal or corrupt election practice). [372]
Indeed, on two occasions a Member who had been expelled from the House sought re-election: following his
first expulsion from the House in April 1874, Louis Riel was re-elected in a by-election in September 1874;
Thomas McGreevy was re-elected to the House in a by-election on April 17, 1895. [373]