UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Role of house leaders in the Canadian House of Commons Carter, Wendy L. 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 C36_7.pdf [ 6.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101330.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101330-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101330-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101330-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101330-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101330-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101330-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101330-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101330.ris

Full Text

THE ROLE OF HOUSE LEADERS IN THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS by WENDY L. CARTER B.A. , Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of P o l i t i c a l Science We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1973 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date AugustIS, 1973. i i A B S T R A C T This t h e s i s deals w i t h the r o l e of House leaders In the o r g a n i z a t i o n and conduct of business i n the Canadian Parliament. The p o s i t i o n of House leader i n the p a r l i a -mentary p a r t i e s has emerged out of a complexity of f a c t o r s and pressures placed upon the parliamentary system during the l a s t t h i r t y years. I t may now be s a i d that House l e a -ders form the primary communication channel between the p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s concerning the business of the Canadian House of Commons. The adversary system i n parliament, r e i n f o r c e d by the t r a d i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of the o p p o s i t i o n , r e q u i r e s that the p a r t i e s cooperate i n o r g a n i z i n g the conduct of parliamentary business. The House leaders meet i n f o r m a l l y and p r i v a t e l y to negotiate and to arrange the t i m i n g of debates and other matters. The House leaders perform other important d u t i e s w i t h i n t h e i r p a r t i e s . The Government House leader i s r e -sponsible to the prime m i n i s t e r and cabinet f o r the o v e r a l l management of the House, management of the government's l e g i s l a t i v e schedule, and a s s i s t a n c e i n the development of l e g i s l a t i o n . The contemporary Government House leader i s a l s o i n v o l v e d i n long-range l e g i s l a t i v e planning. Opposi-t i o n House leaders keep t h e i r p a r t i e s informed about House a c t i v i t i e s and perform important s t r a t e g y and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i l l d u t i e s . A l l House l e a d e r s are Involved In p r o c e d u r a l debates and p a r l i a m e n t a r y reforms. House l e a d e r s are appointed from w i t h i n the p a r l i a -mentary p a r t y and any a u t h o r i t y they possess f o r making l n t e r p a r t y agreements comes from the p a r t y . That they are no r m a l l y s e n i o r and r e s p e c t e d members and have unique con-t a c t s w i t h the o t h e r House l e a d e r s are f a c t o r s which u s u a l l y enhance t h e i r i n f l u e n c e and p e r s u a s i v e powers over the p a r t y . The development of the p o s i t i o n of House l e a d e r s has decreased the I n f l u e n c e of p a r t y whips; yet the whips remain and the r o l e s of House l e a d e r s and p a r t y whips may now be seen as complementary. House l e a d e r s n a t u r a l l y must operate w i t h i n the formal r u l e s o f the House, and changes i n these r u l e s a f f e c t the r o l e of the House l e a d e r s . The i n a b i l i t y t o develop a working time a l l o c a t i o n mechanism f o r Commons l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i v i t y l eaves i n f o r m a l communications between the House l e a d e r s as the c r u c i a l method of s c h e d u l i n g and l i m i t i n g these debates. The r o l e performed by House l e a d e r s has become more s i g n i f i c a n t and i t i s now r e c o g n i z e d t h a t House l e a d e r s h o l d powerful p o s i t i o n s i n t t h e Canadian House o f Commons. As government busi n e s s Increases yet f u r t h e r ln&amount and complexity the r o l e o f House l e a d e r s may be expected to become s t i l l more s i g n i f i c a n t In the Canadian p a r l i a m e n t a r y p r o c e s s . T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: THE SETTING 6 A. The Parliamentary Adversary System 6 B. Restraints within the Adversary System.... 7 C. T r a d i t i o n a l Communication Links Between the Parties 8 CHAPTER 2: EVOLUTION OF THE ROLE OF HOUSE LEADERS 11 A. B r i t i s h Origins of the Position of Leader of the House 11 B. Factors Leading to the Appointment of the F i r s t Canadian Government House Leader.... Ik C. Early Evolution of the pos i t i o n of Govern-ment House Leader 16 D. I n i t i a l Steps i n the Creation of the Positio n of Opposition House Leaders 18 E. The Era of Minority Governments and Further Evolution of the Position of House Leaders 21 F. Appointment of a Full-time Government House Leader and Other Recent Developments 26 CHAPTER 3: THE ROLE OF THE HOUSE LEADERS Jk A. Co l l e c t i v e Role 35 B. Individual R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 38 1. The Government House Leader 38 2. The Opposition House Leader k? CHAPTER k: HOUSE LEADERS' MEETINGS 53 PAGE CHAPTER 5: THE HOUSE LEADERS' SOURCE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PARTY STRUCTURE ' 63 A. The Government House Leader* 63 B. The Opposition House Leaders 69 C. Cross-pressures on the House Leaders' Role 76 CHAPTER 6: THE HOUSE LEADER AND THE PARTY WHIP.. 79 CHAPTER 7: THE INFLUENCE OF PROCEDURAL REFORM ON THE ROLE OF THE HOUSE LEADERS 90 A. Recent Procedural Reforms 90 B. Time A l l o c a t i o n on Government L e g i s l a t i o n 9 2 1. T r a d i t i o n a l Methods f o r Shortening Debate 93 2. Rule 32-A 93 3. Rule 15-A 96 k. Rule 16-A 99 5. Standing Order 75 A, B, and C 100 6. Problems w i t h the New Rule 102 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY 109 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T While the shortcomings i n t h i s t h e s i s belong t o the author alone, thanks must be expressed t o the many people without whose a s s i s t a n c e i t would not have been completed. My g r a t e f u l thanks go t o those i n d i v i d u a l s who granted me the p r i v i l e g e o f an i n t e r v i e w . The number i s too great to l i s t here, but t h e i r names can be l o c a t e d i n the b i b l i o -graphy. To the Pa r l i a m e n t a r y I n t e r n s h i p Program, and p a r t i c -u l a r l y t o my nine f e l l o w i n t e r n s , go my thanks f o r a most s t i m u l a t i n g e x p e r i e n c e . I t was d u r i n g my year i n Ottawa t h a t I was a b l e t o c a r r y out the r e s e a r c h f o r t h i s paper. S i n c e r e thanks must a l s o go t o Dr. A l a n C a i r n s and Dr. P a u l Tennant who s u p e r v i s e d the w r i t i n g o f t h i s paper. A p a r t i c u l a r note of thanks goes t o Donna McGuinness who typed the t h e s i s i n superb and r e c o r d f a s h i o n . F i n a l l y , t o those s p e c i a l people who stood by me wit h constant encouragement go my unspoken but g r a t e f u l thanks. I N T R O D U C T I O N "Parliament may be compared to a r i c h diamond lode, s t i l l worth mining, and many f a c e t s of parliament are r e l a t i v e l y unstudied and unrecorded". This statement i s even more tru e of the Canadian Par-liament than of the B r i t i s h Parliament t o which i t was a p p l i e d . Studies c e n t e r i n g on the Canadian Parliament have d e a l t t r a d i t i o n a l l y w i t h the formal c o n s t i t u t i o n a l powers and components of that i n s t i t u t i o n . A.D.P. Heeney wrote i n 19&6: " I t i s my impression t h a t , while we are reasonably fortunate i n having i n Canada a considerable l i t e r a t u r e i n the h i s t o r y and law of the c o n s t i t u t i o n , we have not, as yet, achieved a comparable product on the humbler l e v e l of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l prac-t i c e and procedure." Since Heeney's admonition, a number of books and a r t i c l e s have been w r i t t e n d e a l i n g w i t h parliament on a more p r a c t i c a l and r e a l i s t i c l e v e l . S e v e r a l exhaustive s t u d i e s of the Senate have been produced. ^ Parliamentary procedures have been s c r u t i n i z e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o the various attempts at reforming the House of Common's r u l e s . In a d d i -t i o n , s e v e r a l f a i r l y dry and l e g a l i s t i c books of parliamentary procedures and p r a c t i c e s have been w r i t t e n or updated f o r use p r i m a r i l y at the Table i n the Parliamentary chambers. ^ Other c o n t r i b u t i o n s have been made on p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the House of Commons such as parliamentary committees and 7 the Speakership. One unexamined area i s the operation of the House of Commons - how, i n e f f e c t , business i s con-ducted In the partisan p o l i t i c a l chamber. This thesis ex-amines the important role of House leaders i n the conduct of parliamentary business. The po s i t i o n of House leaders i s a r e l a t i v e l y new aspect of the House, and i s one which has evolved with the increase i n amount and complexity of govern-ment business and with the development of parliament into a fu l l - t i m e operation. This thesis analyzes the development of the role of House leaders. Chapter one discusses the adversary nature of the House of Commons and t r a d i t i o n a l methods for handling the conduct of business. Chapter two describes the evolution of the pos i t i o n of House leaders. Chapter three deals with the House leaders 1 role and with t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e and in d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Chapter four i s concerned with the House leaders' meetings. Chapter f i v e deals with the House leaders' source of power and authority within the party structure and also includes a b r i e f discussion of the cross-pressures on the House leaders' r o l e . Chapter s i x contains a discussion of the rel a t i o n s h i p between the House leader and the Party whip. Chapter seven discusses theiiinfluence of procedural reform on the role of the House leaders. Because t h i s paper encroaches on v i r g i n t e r r i t o r y , heavy reliance f o r source materials Is necessarily and na t u r a l l y placed on parliamentary papers and documents, on lengthy Interviews and i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s I conducted w i t h present and past House leaders and other persons f a m i l i a r w i t h the House l e a d e r s ' r o l e . In conducting these i n t e r -views I followed an open and f l e x i b l e approach. I prepared f o r my own use a l i s t of broad questions to provide some guidance and u n i f o r m i t y ; however, these were adjusted t o f i t the climate of each i n t e r v i e w and the personal i n c l i n a -t i o n s of those i n d i v i d u a l s being i n t e r v i e w e d . As Lewis Dexter comments, "...the great advantage of the e l i t e and s p e c i a l i z e d i n t e r v i e w technique i s that the i n t e r v i e w e r can adapt h i s comments and questions t o the u n f o l d i n g i n t e r a c t i o n g between himself and the inte r v i e w e e " . As House l e a d e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s are g e n e r a l l y considered h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e and p r i v a t e , most i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r r e d t o have t h e i r e x p l i c i t comments " o f f the r e c o r d " . However, i n t h i s t h e s i s I have quoted d i r e c t l y from these i n t e r v i e w s without s p e c i f y i n g pre-c i s e sources. The genesis of t h i s t h e s i s occurred d u r i n g my year as a Parliamentary I n t e r n . As a p a r t i c i p a n t - o b s e r v e r i n the Canadian Parliament I was able to observe and converse w i t h the House leaders and other parliamentarians over an extended p e r i o d . Observation and d i s c u s s i o n heightened my a p p r e c i a t i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the House l e a d e r s ' r o l e i n the organ-i z a t i o n and conduct of parliamentary business. This t h e s i s i s of course not an exhaustive study of parliamentary o p e r a t i o n , but i t may provide a beginning to a most f r u i t -f u l and i n t e r e s t i n g area of parliamentary study. FOOTNOTES; Intro-duct Ion 1 Young, Roland, The B r i t i s h Parliament. London, Faber and Faber, 1962, p. 9 . 2 Heeney, A.D.P. "Cabinet Government i n Canada", Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, ( h e r e a f t e r c i t e d as CJEPS). V. 12. n. 3 . August. 1946. p. 282. 3 These s t u d i e s include B r i g g s , E.D., "The Senate: Reform or Reconstruction?", Queens Q u a r t e r l y . V. 75, n . l . S p r i n g I 9 6 8 ; Kunz, E.A., The Modem Senate of Canada. 1923-63: A  Re - a p p r a i s a l , Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press; 1965; MacKay, R.A., The Unreformed Senateiaof Canada, r e v i s e d e d i t i o n , Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1963; Turner, J.N., "The Senate of C a n a d a — P o l i t i c a l Conundrum", i n R.M. C l a r k (ed), Canadian Issues; Essays i n Honour of Henry F. Angus. Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 19^1. . 4 Major s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h Canadian parliamentary procedures include B l a i r , Ronald, "What Happens to Parliament?", i n T.O. Ll o y d and J . McLeod (eds), Agenda 1970. Toronto U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1968, pp. 217-240; Dawson, W.F., Procedure i n the Canadian House of Commons. Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 196S; Hockin, Thomas A., "The 1965 Parliamentary Reforms and the Future of Canada's House of Commons", Paper presented  to the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, Sherbrooke, Quebec, June 8 - 1 0 , I966; J e w l t t , P a u l i n e , "The Reform of Parliament", J o u r n a l of Canadian S t u d i e s , V . l , I966; Laundy, P h i l i p , "Procedural Reform i n the Canadian House of Commons", The P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n , V. 50, n. 2, A p r i l , 1969; L l o y d , Trevor, "Reform of Parliamentary Proceedings", i n Abraham R o t s t e i n (ed), The Prospect of Change: Proposals f o r Canada's Future, Toronto, McGraw-Hill, 1965. PP« 23-69; MacDonald, The Honourable Donald S., "Change In the House of Commons—New Rules", Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V. 13, 1970, pp. 30-39; Page, Donald, "Streamlining the Procedures of the Canadian House of Commons", CJEPS. V. 33, N. 1, February, 1967, PP. 2 7 - ^ 9 . 5 The major Canadian reference book produced s i n c e 1946 i s Beauchesne, Arthur, Rules and Forms of the House of Commons  OF Canada. Toronto, The Carswell Co. of Canada L t d . , 1958. Of c o n t i n u i n g use i s Boumiot, S i r John George, Parliamentary  Procedure and P r a c t i c e i n the Dominion of Canada, f o u r t h e d i t i o n , Toronto, Canada Law Book Co., 1916. See a l s o Dubroy, J . Gordon, r e v i s e d e d i t i o n of Bourlnot's Rules of Order, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1963. 6 See, f o r example, Franks, C.E.S., "The Dilemma of the Standing Committees of the Canadian House of Commons", Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Science. V. 4, N. 4, December 1971• PP. 461-476; Hockin, Thomas A., "The Advance of the Standing Committees i n Canada's House of Commons: 1965-70", Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . V. 13. n. 2, Summer, 1970. 7 Papers on the Canadian Speaker include A i t c h i s o n , J.H., "The Speakership of the Canadian House of Commons", i n R.M. Clark (ed), Canadian Issues. Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, I96I, pp. 23-56; Smith, D., "The Speakership of the Canadian House of Commons: Some Proposals", A Paper  presented l o r the House of Common's S p e c i a l Committee on  Procedure and Or g a n i z a t i o n , Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1965. 8 Dexter, Lewis, E l i t e and S p e c i a l i z e d I n t e r v i e w i n g , Evanston, Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1970, p. 50. C H A P T E R 1 The Setting Adversary a c t i v i t y i s very much a part of the Canadian House of Commons, fo r provision of an opportunity to express opposition to government p o l i c i e s and a c t i v i t i e s i s an estab-l i s h e d practice i n the Canadian Parliament. Because of the desire of the government to command a constant majority i n the House and because of the development of highly d i s c i p l i n e d parliamentary parties t h i s opposition may be discerned within the inner confines of the government party and i n the a c t i v i t i e s of the opposition p a r t i e s . In the contemporary House, most government proposals run the gauntlet of the government cau-cus before b i l l s are introduced and debated i n parliament. Having received an opportunity to express concern or disapproval over these p o l i c i e s and other government a c t i v i t i e s , the govern-ment member i s expected to support his side of the House. Public opposition i s l e f t to the opposition p a r t i e s . The government i s anxious to have i t s p o l i c i e s and f i n a n c i a l ex-penditures approved with minimum c o n f l i c t and as ra p i d l y as possible. The opposition i s equally desirous of exposing any weak points i n these matters through f u l l debate. Any flaw may t r u l y be bad f o r the country; they may also provide ammunition against the government i n the next general e l e c t i o n . A tension therefore exists between the government, which has a reasonable right to have the country^s business accomplished, and the opposition, which has an established right to oppose measures i t considers are not i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . This t e n s i o n i s f u r t h e r complicated i n the Canadian Parliament by the existence of t h i r d , f o u r t h , and even f i f t h p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , each of which expects to take a f u l l p art i n the o f f i c i a l a c t i v i t i e s of the House. I f p o l i t i c a l controversy between the p a r t i e s were un-c o n t r o l l e d , the House of Commons could not f u n c t i o n . There are, however, a number of r e s t r a i n t s w i t h i n the parliamentary adversary system. F i r s t , the House operates through an estab-l i s h e d set of r u l e s , the Standing Orders, most of which are accepted by the members as reasonable and b e n e f i c i a l . These r u l e s provide f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the House and of i t s committees, and f o r a weekly schedule of House business. They a l s o provide standards of House decorum, r u l e s of r e l e -vancy, and time l i m i t a t i o n s on the members1 speeches. The Standing Orders are r e g u l a t e d by the Speaker and appeals against h i s r u l i n g are now p r o h i b i t e d . Another r e s t r a i n t i s provided by precedents e s t a b l i s h e d i n previous parliaments and which reach f a r back i n t o B r i t i s h parliamentary h i s t o r y . Speaker's r u l i n g s are an accepted part of such precedents. A t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n i s found i n c e r t a i n conventions and p r a c t i c e s of the House - f o r example, that i n any round of speeches i n the House, the O f f i c i a l Opposition w i l l normally f o l l o w the government and w i l l be followed by the other p a r t i e s i n order of s i z e . One f i n a l r e s t r a i n t on parliamentary controversy i s s u p p l i e d by t h e , p a r t i e s themselves. In the House, the government may be anxious to get i t s programs through, but i t i s a l s o aware of the place i n parliamentary democracy of the o p p o s i t i o n . Attempts to accommodate the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s are not only p o l i t i c a l l y expedient, both i n terms of a v o i d i n g the appearance of an a u t h o r i t a r i a n government and i n terms of hastening the progress of business, but they a l s o r e f l e c t a r e a l i s t i c assessment of the place of the oppo-s i t i o n and the c o n t r i b u t i o n s i t can make to improving govern-ment business. The o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s , f o r t h e i r p a r t , are conscious of the f a c t that i t i s the government's r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y t o govern, and t h a t they too are held r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the r e s u l t s of an incomplete l e g i s l a t i v e program. They are a l s o anxious not t o appear unduly o b s t r u c t i v e . Much of the parliamentary business i s t h e r e f o r e organized through i n f o r m a l communication channels e s t a b l i s h e d between the opposing groups. At the present time, the House leaders form the most s i g n i f i c a n t communication l i n k f o r the conduct of House business, a l i n k p r e v i o u s l y f u r n i s h e d by the leaders of each p o l i t i c a l p a r t y and by the p a r t y whips. The whip was recognized by each p o l i t i c a l p a r t y as i t s i n f o r m a t i o n l i n k w i t h the wider House of Commons. The whip has been r e f e r r e d t o as an executive o f f i c e r of the b a t t l e s h i p , a keeper of the hounds, a f a t h e r confessor, or more contemporarily, as a den mother or shop steward. I t was h i s duty to keep the members informed of the current business and events, ensure t h a t they were present f o r debates and votes, and arrange f o r p a i r i n g . While appointed by the p a r t y leader and thus expected to keep him apprised of the members1 a t t i t u d e s , the whip was a l s o the defender of the I n t e r e s t s of p r i v a t e members. Most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , he was the channel of communication be-tween the p a r t i e s concerning t o p i c s f o r debates, the order of business, and the s e l e c t i o n and order of speakers. He would meet i n f o r m a l l y and i r r e g u l a r l y w i t h h i s opposite numbers to arrange these and other procedural matters. Depending on the seriousness of an i s s u e , two avenues were open i f the whips were unable to r e s o l v e a c o n f l i c t . The most common was to shelve a b i l l u n t i l the end of the s e s s i o n when members were anxious to r e t u r n to t h e i r con-s t i t u e n c i e s , o r e l s e to permit the MP's to debate the matter u n t i l they and the subject matter were exhausted. The second avenue, used i n rare parliamentary c r i s e s , was a p r i v a t e meeting at the top l e v e l between the Prime M i n i s t e r and the Leader of the Opposition. Here, s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i c y informa-t i o n would be exchanged e i t h e r i n an attempt to convince the o p p o s i t i o n leader of the issue's seriousness, or to convince the Prime M i n i s t e r that c e r t a i n changes were necessary to remove any o b s t r u c t i o n . Over the l a s t s e v e r a l decades the House leaders have come to provide a new communication l i n k i n the House of Commons. In conjunction w i t h the party whips and party l e a d e r s , i t i s t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to arrange the business of the House. In doing so, they have taken over some of the duties previously performed by the other channels. The present separation of tasks lends f a i r l y d i s t i n c t duties to each group and the House leaders would now be placed be-tween the party leaders but above the whips i n any hierarchy of party authority. The major factors leading to the creation of t h i s new l i n k , most of which can be d i r e c t l y related to the recent explosion of government business, w i l l be analyzed i n the remaining parts of t h i s t h e s i s . C H A P T E R 2 E v o l u t i o n o f the Role of House Leaders The present s t a t u r e and r o l e o f House l e a d e r s can best be a p p r e c i a t e d through some knowledge of how the p o s i t i o n s of House l e a d e r e v o l v e d . The f o l l o w i n g account of t h e i r development must be co n s i d e r e d p r e l i m i n a r y i n nature, s i n c e more thorough h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r c h would probably uncover a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d t o the e v o l u t i o n . The p a r l i a m e n t a r y system has a way of c r e a t i n g p o s i t i o n s Without l e g i s l a t i o n o f conscious d e c i s i o n . They evolve through a chaos of f a c t o r s which i n r e t r o s p e c t seem t o have a c e r t a i n l o g i c o r p a t t e r n but a t the time o f t h e i r appearance re p r e s e n t ad hoc d e c i s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o the immediate p o l i t i c a l s i t u a -t i o n . C e r t a i n l y such i s t r u e o f the p o s i t i o n of House l e a d e r . F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g i t s development i n c l u d e p a r l i a m e n t a r y t r a -d i t i o n , extended and momentary c r i s e s , p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s , s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the government and parliament, and the amount and complexity o f House b u s i n e s s . O r i g i n a l l y the p o s i t i o n of "House l e a d e r " was not present w i t h i n the Cana-d i a n p o l i t i c a l system. As wit h the bulk of our p a r l i a m e n t a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s i t d e r i v e d from the Mother of Parliaments i n Great B r i t a i n . But as with most of these borrowings, the p o s i t i o n o f House l e a d e r has been adapted t o f i t our unique p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n r a t h e r than having been copie d unchanged. The term "Leader of the House" i n B r i t a i n was o r i g i n a l l y a p p l i e d to the c h i e f spokesman f o r the Government i n the House of Commons when the Prime M i n i s t e r was a member of the House of Lords. When the Prime M i n i s t e r was a member of the lower House he l e d the Government h i m s e l f . Norman W i l d i n g and P h i l i p Laundy i n t h e i r Encyclopedia of Parliament s t a t e that the t i t l e "Leader of the House" was not recognized i n parliamentary terminology u n t i l the middle of the 1 9 T H Cen-t u r y , although the i n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f had e x i s t e d f o r some time p r e v i o u s l y . They w r i t e : "As l a t e as 1840, Lord John R u s s e l l , who was the c h i e f M i n i s t e r of the Crown i n the House of Commons when the Prime M i n i s t e r (Lord Melbourne) was i n the House of Lords, i s r e -f e r r e d t o i n a debate as the 'noble Lord who has to conduct, on the part of the Crown, the business of the country i n t h i s House 1." 1 The term Leader of the House had two senses. I t was meant to apply t o the Prime M i n i s t e r ' s p o l i t i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n the Commons I f the par t y leader himself was a member of the upper House. ( P r i o r t o the 2 0 T H Century, the leader of the Government f r e q u e n t l y was seated i n the House of Lords.) The term a l s o r e f e r s to an i n d i v i d u a l who performs a s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the Commons. In Gladstone's words, the Leader of the House "suggests, and i n a great degree f i x e s , the course of a l l p r i n c i p a l matters of business, supervises and keeps i n harmony the a c t i o n s of h i s colleagues, takes the i n i t i a t i v e i n matters of ceremonial procedure, and advises the House i n every d i f f i c u l t y as i t a r i s e s " . T h i s l a t t e r sense that r e f e r r i n g t o the managing of the business of the House of Commons, has been dominant i n B r i t a i n . The l a s t Leader of the House to be so designated because the Prime M i n i s t e r was i n the House of Lords was B a l f o u r who acted on behalf of Lord S a l i s b u r y from 1895 t o 1902. 3 s i n c e that time, a l l Prime M i n i s t e r s have been from the Commons. In Canada, only two of our Prime M i n i s t e r s have l e d the Government from the Senate. S i r John Abbott had as h i s l i e u -tenant i n the House of Commons the M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e , S i r John S.D. Thompson, who a c t u a l l y assumed the p o s i t i o n of F i r s t M i n i s t e r f o l l o w i n g Abbott's death i n 1893. He, i n t u r n , was f o l l o w e d as Prime M i n i s t e r i n 1895 hy Senator, the Honour-able Mackenzie Bowell, who had as h i s Commons' lea d e r , the M i n i s t e r of Finance, George F o s t e r . Both prime m i n i s t e r s from the Senate had only b r i e f terms of one year each. From 1902 u n t i l the 1940's the B r i t i s h Prime M i n i s t e r himself g e n e r a l l y acted as the Leader of the House, although he f r e q u e n t l y appointed a deputy leader to c a r r y out some of the day-to-day d u t i e s . The only break i n t h i s p a t t e r n occurred during the F i r s t World War when Ll o y d George confided the House l e a d e r s h i p to Bonar Law, and l a t e r to Austen Chamberlain. When Bonar Law replaced L l o y d George as Prime M i n i s t e r i n 1922, he r e v e r t e d t o the former p r a c t i c e of handling the House d u t i e s h i m s e l f . ^ During the Second World War, the B r i t i s h Prime M i n i s t e r again appointed one of h i s m i n i s t e r s t o per-form some of h i s House d u t i e s . Since that time, the post of B r i t i s h Leader of the House has e x i s t e d s e p a r a t e l y from that of the Prime M i n i s t e r . It was not u n t i l a f t e r World War II that the position of Leader of the House, as d i s t i n c t from the Prime Minister, be-came r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e i n Canada. P r i o r to that, the Prime Minister had kept f u l l reins on events i n the House of Commons for the government, although, when he was absent, another mini-ster would perform such duties as announcing the next day's business. The war i t s e l f was one of the major contributing factors to an e x p l i c i t d i v i s i o n of the Prime Minister's r o l e s . The newly created war cabinet met almost continuously requiring a reorientation of Prime Minister MacKenzie King's time and p r i o r i t i e s . ^ Increasingly the Minister of Pensions and National Health, Ian A l i s t a r Mackenzie, assumed the duties of managing the House business. ? At f i r s t the Minister's role i n t h i s area was u n o f f i c i a l . As Jack P i c k e r s g i l l , at that time the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, and l a t e r a Government House leader him-s e l f , commented: "When I came to Ottawa 35 years ago, nobody had ever heard of such a thing as a house leader. The only person on the government side of the House who had any authority, parliamentary authority, apart from the Prime Minister was the Government Whip. I think the position of House Leader developed i n large part because Mr. MacKenzie King got old and t i r e d , and he didn't want to go to the House of Commons i n the even-ing. And Ian Mackenzie ... just took over the function of announcing what the government's business was. Before that, when the Prime Minister wasn't there, whatever senior minister was i n the House did i t . " ° In 1946, the Prime Minister announced obliquely that he had turned over some of h i s parliamentary d u t i e s to a House lead e r . His f i r s t reference to t h i s d i v i s i o n of r o l e s i s recorded i n the Parliamentary Debates: '...when I have been absent on recent occasions, the M i n i s t e r of Finance has been A c t i n g Prime M i n i s t e r . As Mr. I l s l e y w i l l not be here during my absence on t h i s o ccasion, I have asked my colleague the M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e ( S t . Laurent) i f he would take on the d u t i e s of A c t i n g Prime Minister...my colleague, Mr. Mackenzie, the Min-i s t e r of Veterans A f f a i r s , w i l l be a c t i n g p r e s i -dent of the c o u n c i l and w i l l a l s o continue to  e x e r c i s e . .In the very e f f i c i e n t manner i n which  he has i n the past, s u p e r v i s i o n over the o r g a n i -z a t i o n of the business of the house, as house l e a d e r . . . " ? I t should be noted t h a t while Mackenzie now supervised the House business and was probably i n v o l v e d i n any back room d i s c u s s i o n s between the p a r t i e s , the customary communication l i n k s remained between the whips, and, i f necessary, the party l e a d e r s . T h i s has been documented i n the: o f f i c i a l debates of the House. 1 0 The separate p o s i t i o n of Government House l e a d e r , then, arose from the need to organize and announce the House business when the prime m i n i s t e r was absent. The war was an extended c r i s i s which created the need. The amount of business r e q u i r i n g the government's a t t e n t i o n was another f a c t o r . A.D.P. Heeney, i n h i s study of cabinet government used one rough i n d i c a t o r to i l l u s t r a t e the increased workload of that body during the war p e r i o d . According t o h i s study, 92,350 items of business were passed by the Governor-in-Council between 1939 and 19^5, an increase of more than two-and-a-half times over the pre-war l e v e l . H Jack P i c k e r s g i l l c i t e d another probable f a c t o r . MacKenzie King's age. Postwar r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and the begin-ning of the p o s i t i v e or welfare s t a t e a l s o occupied the prime m i n i s t e r and l e d him to delegate some House r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o another m i n i s t e r . As the Government House l e a d e r s h i p was not a s t a t u t o r y o f f i c e , nor i s the Leader f o r m a l l y appointed 12 by the Grown i n e i t h e r Great B r i t a i n or Canada, the p o s i t i o n f e l l t o another cabinet member, Ian Mackenzie. When Mackenzie r e t i r e d from the House l e a d e r s h i p s h o r t -l y before being summoned t o the Senate i n January, 19^8, there was no automatic successor to h i s p o s i t i o n . For s e v e r a l months the prime m i n i s t e r once again undertook these d u t i e s , although he d i d a l l o t the evening announcement of business to h i s v a r i o u s m i n i s t e r s . ^  The second Canadian House lea d e r , Alphonse F o u r n i e r , s l i p p e d i n t o the p o s i t i o n i n much the same way as had Mackenzie. P i c k e r s g i l l , according to h i s own r e c o l l e c t i o n , was asked by the Prime M i n i s t e r one day how Fournier had come to be the "spokesman of the government". S h o r t l y afterwards, King a c t u a l l y asked Fournier to assume these d u t i e s . ^ This i n s i d e perspective r e v e a l s that the existence of a d i s t i n c t House leader had not yet reached a point where i t was considered inconceivable by the Prime M i n i s t e r to be without i t . I t was up to one of the cabinet m i n i s t e r s t o perceive a gap and attempt to f i l l i t , w i t h o f f i c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n f o l l o w i n g afterwards. One of the t e s t s of the permanency of any newly estab-l i s h e d p o s i t i o n i s i t s a b i l i t y to surv i v e a change i n s e n i o r l e a d e r s h i p . T h i s t e s t o c c u r r e d f o r the House l e a d e r s h i p l a t e i n 19^8 when L o u i s S t . Laurent r e p l a c e d King as the L i b e r a l p a r t y l e a d e r ; a n d l a t e r as Prime M i n i s t e r . S t . Laurent had o b v i o u s l y l e a r n e d the r u l e s , procedures, and p r a c t i c e s o f the House d u r i n g h i s a p p r e n t i c e s h i p f o r the prime m i n i s t e r s h i p and he could have handled the House d u t i e s w i t h r e l a t i v e ease. L i k e h i s predecessor, however,.his time was consumed elsewhere; and he was probably r e l i e v e d t o f i n d a m i n i s t e r w i l l i n g t o undertake some of the more unwelcome chores. F o u r n i e r ' s c o n t i n u a t i o n i n the p o s i t i o n was f a c i l i -t a t e d by the simple f a c t t h a t he was a l r e a d y performing ade-q u a t e l y and l i t t l e would be gained from d i s r u p t i n g a workable arrangement. T h i s i s an obvious example of p e r s o n a l i n c l i n a -t i o n s i n f l u e n c i n g the development of a separate Government House l e a d e r . S t . Laurent continued the d e l e g a t i o n of House r e s p o n s i b l l i t i e s by a p p o i n t i n g Walter H a r r i s , I n i t i a l l y M i n i s t e r of C i t i z e n s h i p and Immigration, to the post at the commencement of the new parliament i n 1953. He was w e l l q u a l i f i e d f o r the p o s i t i o n , having a s s i s t e d F o u m i e r i n these d u t i e s f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . ^ <pne d u t i e s c o u l d not have been viewed as p a r t i c u l a r l y onerous f o r two years l a t e r he assumed as w e l l one of the h e a v i e s t p o r t f o l i o s , t h a t of Finance. One of H a r r i s ' t a s k s as Government House l e a d e r was to a s s i s t i n the c r e a t i o n of a s u c c e s s f u l l e g i s l a t i o n committee i n the c a b i n e t . With l e g i s -l a t i o n i n c r e a s i n g i n volume and the s e s s i o n s s t r e t c h i n g to e i g h t months i n s t e a d of the t r a d i t i o n a l three o r f o u r , the government had perceived the need to study proposed l e g i s -l a t i o n w i t h greater care and to schedule t o some extent i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n to the House of Commons. The committee, s i m i l a r to one that had "been created i n B r i t a i n a few years before, was composed of s e v e r a l s e n i o r m i n i s t e r s , i n c l u d i n g H a r r i s , and met when the need r e q u i r e d . This represented a s t r u c t u r a l change i n the government which a s s i s t e d i n the development of the p o s i t i o n of Government House l e a d e r . During h i s tenure, H a r r i s began to develop ad hoc channels of communication w i t h the O f f i c i a l Opposition through such s e n i o r o p p o s i t i o n members as Howard Green and E. Davie F u l t o n . These channels supplanted, t o some degree, communi-ca t i o n s between the par t y l e a d e r s . The age and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of S t . Laurent was one c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o t h i s e v o l u t i o n , as was h i s general lack of concern f o r t h i s aspect of House business. ^ Another f a c t o r was the personal hos-t i l i t y to S t . Laurent of Opposition Leader George Drew; t h i s deterred the prime m i n i s t e r from meeting w i t h him f r e -q u ently. The main channel f o r making arrangements, however, remained the party whips. I t was during t h i s parliament that the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s began t a k i n g steps to counteract the growing powers of the government regarding House business. Opposition concern was p r e c i p i t a t e d f i r s t by the Defence Production Act which had passed through the House w i t h o n l y a few concessions made and w i t h the Government House Leader moving that "the previous question be put" to end debate. The second event was the h i s t o r i c p i p e l i n e debate. The p i p e l i n e debate concerned not so much the m e r i t s of the pr o p o s a l as the method employed by the government t o speed i t s passage through the House of Commons: c l o s u r e . When the f i n a l votes were taken, the Government r e c e i v e d i t s b i l l , but the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s now had a group of MPs h i g h l y tuned t o the procedures and p r a c t i c e s o f the House. They were to use t h i s knowledge i n n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h the Government i n . t h e f u t u r e . Any l i n k s between the government and o p p o s i -t i o n ceased t o operate d u r i n g the p i p e l i n e debate. Instead, the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s c r e a t e d t h e i r own channels, w i t h S t a n l e y Knowles and E. Davie F u l t o n t a k i n g a l e a d i n g p a r t . (Knowles was the CCF whip at the time, h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d i s c u s s i o n s was q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of the ot h e r whips.) These quasi-House l e a d e r s met under the i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e i r p a r t y l e a d e r s and caucuses t o p l a n co-17 o r d i n a t e d s t r a t e g i e s to counteract the government a c t i o n . The p i p e l i n e debate l e f t many b i t t e r f e e l i n g s between the government and o p p o s i t i o n but the whips were soon ab l e t o resume any nece s s a r y d i s c u s s i o n s f o r a r r a n g i n g speakers, p r i v a t e members' days, and the l i k e . Communication l i n k s , however, remained i n a s t a t e of f l u x f o r s e v e r a l years w i t h changes i n the incumbents of a l l p a r l i a m e n t a r y p a r t y p o s i t i o n s o f a u t h o r i t y . George Drew, the Conservative l e a d e r , r e t i r e d i n December, 1956, and was r e p l a c e d by John Diefenbaker. I t was Diefenbaker who a c t u a l l y i n i t i a t e d the concept o f o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r by a s s i g n i n g Howard Green t o take charge o f House busi n e s s f o r the p a r t y , although Green was not a t the time r e f e r r e d to as ' o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r ' . Then came the g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n o f 1 9 5 7 and the defeat of the L i b e r a l government. S t . Laurent r e t i r e d s h o r t l y a f t e r -wards and L e s t e r Pearson took charge., of the o f f i c i a l o p p o s i -t i o n . Walter H a r r i s , the former Government House l e a d e r , had been def e a t e d i n the e l e c t i o n , and n e i t h e r S t . Laurent nor Pearson appointed an o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r . Diefenbaker appointed Howard Green, now M i n i s t e r of P u b l i c Works, t o the House l e a d e r s h i p f o r the Conservative Government, becoming the t h i r d prime m i n i s t e r to appoint a separate Government House l e a d e r . The 1 9 5 8 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n saw the defeat o f a l l S o c i a l C r e d i t candidates, l e a v i n g the p a r t y without r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n parliament f o r the next f o u r y e a r s . M.J. C o l d w e l l , CCF p a r t y l e a d e r , and S t a n l e y Knowles, l o n g - r e c o g n i z e d p r o c e d u r a l expert of the CCF, were a l s o defeated, l e a v i n g t h a t p a r t y with e i g h t h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c MP's and no c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e . Although they commanded an overwhelming m a j o r i t y of 208 mem-bers i n comparison t o the L i b e r a l ' s 4 9 and the CCF's e i g h t , the C o n s e r v a t i v e s soon found themselves f a c e d w i t h a David and G o l i a t h s i t u a t i o n In the House. L e s t e r Pearson, concerned with a t t a c k i n g the government's p o l i c i e s , turned the d u t i e s r e l a t i n g t o House busi n e s s over t o h i s deskmate, L i o n e l Chev-r i e r . C h e v r i e r , a s s i s t e d by P l c k e r s g i l l and o c c a s i o n a l l y by Paul M a r t i n and Pearson, undertook t o ch a l l e n g e the govern-ment on every move i t made i n the House. One of the t a c t i c s employed by C h e v r i e r which annoyed both Green and h i s su c c e s s o r i n 1 9 5 9 . Gordon C h u r c h i l l , was h i s h a b i t of a s k i n g the House l e a d e r each evening what busi n e s s was planned by the government f o r the next and f o l l o w i n g days. i 0 P r i o r t o t h a t , i t had been customary f o r the Government House leader to announce the business without any questions or d i s c u s s i o n from the other s i d e . This simple t a c t i c had the e f f e c t of p u b l i c i z i n g many of the backroom d i s c u s s i o n s that had taken p l a c e , and brought many of these n e g o t i a t i o n s onto the f l o o r of the House i t s e l f . In the i n t e r e s t s of g a i n i n g a f a i r l y smooth progression of business through the House, the Government House leader sought out someone i n the O f f i c i a l Opposition w i t h whom he could r e s o l v e minor wrangles and undo procedural knots. The whips during t h i s p eriod were inexperienced and not p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v o l v e d i n developing party s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s . Chevrier was an obvious choice and the Government House leader took to meeting him "behind the c u r t a i n s " , or i n room 16 across the h a l l from the House, when the need r e q u i r e d . Chevrier had no o f f i c i a l t i t l e , but was known as the spokesman f o r the o p p o s i t i o n on these matters. The Govern ment House leader's contacts w i t h the CCF-NDP were l e s s f r e -quent, but on those occasions i t was u s u a l l y necessary f o r him to canvass the views of each member. A f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r l e a d i n g to the establishment of a d i s t i n c t t h i r d l e v e l communication l i n k among the p a r t i e s was the s e r i e s of m i n o r i t y governments i n the mid-1960's, p a r t i c u l a r l y a f t e r the r e t u r n of a L i b e r a l government i n 1963. In the past, the Government House leader had considered i t wise, although not e s s e n t i a l , to a s c e r t a i n the sentiments of the o p p o s i t i o n before arranging some aspects of the government program. I t was now necessary to know t h e i r views and plans before any steps were taken. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance were the n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h the two, and then t h r e e , minor p a r t i e s . Rather than l e a v i n g most i n t e r p a r t y d i s c u s s i o n s t o the whip, the new L i b e r a l Government House l e a d e r , Jack P i c k e r s g i l l , began meeting f r e q u e n t l y w i t h members of o t h e r p a r t i e s , e i t h e r 20 s i n g l y or c o l l e c t i v e l y . His c o u n t e r p a r t i n the O f f i c i a l O p p o s i t i o n was Gordon C h u r c h i l l , now appointed to the formal post of C o n s e r v a t i v e House l e a d e r by Diefehbaker. A l e x P a t t e r s o n was appointed the S o c i a l C r e d i t House l e a d e r and, w i t h the s p l i t i n t h a t p a r t y i n October, 1963. G i l l e s G r e g o i r e became the C r e d i t i s t e House l e a d e r . S t a n l e y Knowles, a g a i n the NDP whip, i n e f f e c t wore two hats by a t t e n d i n g both types of g a t h e r i n g s . He was appointed both House l e a d e r and p a r t y whip by the NDP caucus i n 1965. The whips' r o l e now became l e s s t h a t of p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s and more one of keeping t r a c k of the MP's. Such a f u n c t i o n was c r u c i a l as a poor t i m i n g of v o t e s , o r a s u r p r i s e vote i n Committee-of-the-whole when no advance warning had to be g i v e n , c o u l d d e f e a t the government. One f a c t o r a s s i s t i n g i n the development of the p o s i t i o n of House l e a d e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the o p p o s i t i o n , was the r e t u r n to the House of S t a n l e y Knowles. Knowles i s unique i n h i s deep understanding of p a r l i a m e n t a r y procedure and i n h i s a b i l i t y t o manipulate the r u l e s . During t h i s p e r i o d he used every occa-s i o n p o s s i b l e to f o r c e a meeting between the House l e a d e r s and to p a r t i c i p a t e v i g o r o u s l y i n these g a t h e r i n g s . The Government House l e a d e r ' s p o s i t i o n , too, was s t r e n g -thened by Prime M i n i s t e r Pearson. Pearson was content to leave the o r g a n i z a t i o n and conduct o f House bu s i n e s s to another m i n i s t e r . T h i s e r a was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s t r o n g adversary f e e l -ings i n the House, epitomized i n the constant c l a s h between the Prime M i n i s t e r and Leader of the O p p o s i t i o n . Top l e v e l d i s c u s s i o n s were not frequent and were u s u a l l y u n s u c c e s s f u l ; and i t was l e f t t o the House l e a d e r s to m a i n t a i n communica-t i o n s between the p a r t i e s . Another important f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g the development of the p o s i t i o n and r o l e of House l e a d e r s was the massive i n c r e a s e i n p a r l i a m e n t a r y b u s i n e s s . In 1964, S t a n l e y Knowles wrote, "Today's agenda {pf parliament] bears no r e i t i o n s h i p a t a l l to the amount of b u s i n e s s b e f o r e Parliament a century ago, o r even back a few decades..." 2 1 To support h i s statement, Knowles r e f e r r e d t o the i n c r e a s i n g l e n g t h of p a r l i a m e n t a r y s e s s i o n s . In the n i n e t e e n t h century, the t y p i c a l s e s s i o n l a s t e d two and a h a l f months, and "even d u r i n g World War I the s e s s i o n s ran f o r o n l y f o u r o r f o u r and a h a l f months". During the Second World War, the number of s i t t i n g days never exceeded s i x months. Since t h a t time the t y p i c a l s e s s i o n had been running e i g h t months or more. In a paper prepared i n I967, 2 2 Gordon Robertson used s e v e r a l other i n d i c e s to i l l u s -t r a t e the expanded workload of government and p a r l i a m e n t . Comparing the f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d 1957 t o I962 w i t h the f o l l o w i n g f i v e years, he found t h a t the g r e a t e s t number of. days; per s e s s i o n d u r i n g the f i r s t p e r i o d was 174. In c o n t r a s t , between 1963 and I 9 6 7 there were sessions of 248 and 250 days. In the f i r s t p e r i o d , the l a r g e s t number of b i l l s passed i n any one s e s s i o n was 64; i n I967 Parliament passed 97 b i l l s . He continued: "The l a r g e s t p r i n t e d volume of s t a t u t e s i n the f i r s t f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d had 583 pages of l e g a l t e x t ; i n 1964-65 Parliament passed 751 pages of s t a t u t e s , and i n 1966-67, 1273 pages". To i l l u s t r a t e the workload of the cabinet Robertson c a l c u l a t e d the number of documents r e q u i r i n g cabinet c o n s i d e r a t i o n : "In the years 1957 to 1959 they averaged 382 per year; from 1964 to 1966 the average was 656 - an increase of 70 per cent. By August of 1967 the Cabinet had 532 docu-ments before i t , so the prospect was f o r 800 f o r 1967". As he s t a t e s , "The increased mass of business i s not the whole s t o r y . I t i s a l s o f a r more complex than i t used to be". The constant n e g o t i a t i n g and o r g a n i z i n g of an i n c r e a s i n g l y voluminous and complex government program played h e a v i l y on the Government House leader who, as a m i n i s t e r , was a l s o r e -sponsible f o r h i s own department. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , then, that Pearson had f o u r House leaders i n f i v e years. P i c k e r s g i l l , l e f t a f t e r a year to become M i n i s t e r of Transport. His successor, Guy Favreau, was already overworked as the M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e and leader of the f e d e r a l p a r t y i n Quebec and w i t h i n e i g h t months asked to be removed. The t h i r d Government House leader, George M c l l r a i t h , had the longest tenure f o r the p e r i o d — o v e r two years. He began as the President of the P r i v y C o u n c i l (a p o r t f o l i o without a m i n i s t r y and reserved f o r s p e c i a l respon-s i b i l i t i e s assigned by the Prime M i n i s t e r ) and was t r a n s -f e r r e d to the m i n i s t r y of P u b l i c Works i n J u l y I 9 6 5 . A l l a n Mac-Eachen, M i n i s t e r of N a t i o n a l Health, was appointed to the post i n the f i n a l year of Pearson's l e a d e r s h i p . Of these f o u r men, three were experienced parliamentarians w e l l versed i n House procedures. 2 3 Favreau was the only novice; and i t i s gener-a l l y conceded t h a t , while h i s r e l a t i o n s w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n House leaders were more than c o r d i a l , he was i n e f f e c t i v e i n av o i d i n g procedural jams i n the House. The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s , c a r r y i n g p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y fewer r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , remained longer i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . The Conservatives made one change, r e p l a c i n g C h u r c h i l l w i t h Michael S t a r r i n I965. Gerard L a p r i s e c a r r i e d the d u t i e s f o r the C r e d i t i s t e s when Gregoire r e t i r e d . With the stepped-up need f o r i n t e r p a r t y d i s c u s s i o n s and the eyes of the n a t i o n focussed on the House of Commons, i t was i n e v i t a b l e that the existence of House leaders and t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s would become a matter of p u b l i c knowledge. One a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r which probably c o n t r i b u t e d to a p u b l i c r e c -o g n i t i o n of t h e i r r o l e was the i n t e r e s t taken by the var i o u s media i n t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . Every time a House leader was appointed o r r e t i r e d , broadcasters and j o u r n a l i s t s would analyze the motives behind such a move and dis c u s s the strengths and weaknesses of the i n d i v i d u a l concerned. Open disputes between the House leaders were a l s o emphasized. J The House leaders became recognized as u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n sources f o r the media on what was to happen i n the House; and they, i n t u r n , o c c a s i o n a l l y sought out the media t o put forward t h e i r p arty p o s i t i o n s . During most of the m i n o r i t y government p e r i o d concentrated attempts were made to reform the antiquated House procedures. The House leaders were instrumental i n developing and imple-menting v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n a l reforms; and t h i s a c t i v i t y heigh-tened t h e i r value and c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e i r f u r t h e r e v o l u t i o n . The s t r i n g of m i n o r i t y governments ended i n 1968 w i t h the e l e c t i o n of P i e r r e Trudeau as Prime M i n i s t e r . One of h i s f i r s t tasks was to reorganize the cabinet and i t s system of committees and to complete the s e r i e s of parliamentary reforms which had p r o v i s i o n a l l y begun i n the e a r l y 1960's. To that end, he appointed Donald Ma6Donald to the House l e a d e r s h i p and assigned him the cabinet post of President of the P r i v y C o u n c i l . T h is was the r e s u l t of an e x p l i c i t p o l i c y d e c i s i o n made t o f r e e the House leader from cumbersome departmental r e -s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . As the f i r s t f u l l - t i m e Government House lead e r , MacDonald was able to devote h i s time t o studying procedural reforms and planning the government's program and i t s parliamentary schedule. He had one a s s i s t a n t , Dr. John Stewart, who, before h i s defeat In the 1968 e l e c t i o n , had been vice-chairman of the S p e c i a l Committee on Procedure. Stewart had a l s o a s s i s t e d M c l l r a i t h i n h i s House d u t i e s as h i s P a r l i a -mentary Sec r e t a r y and proved an Invaluable a i d t o MacDonald who, l i k e Pavreau, was inexperienced i n t h i s area. 2 ^ Although the government commanded a m a j o r i t y i n the House and was not dependent on any o p p o s i t i o n p a r t y f o r numerical support, the channel of communications between the House leaders continued to o p e r a t e . The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s would never have t o l e r a t e d a decrease i n t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , nor would Mac-Donald have j e o p a r d i z e d p r o c e d u r a l reform by s u g g e s t i n g such a move. He needed the support of S t a n l e y Knowles, Ged Baldwin, the C o n s e r v a t i v e House l e a d e r , and G i l b e r t Rondeau, the C r e d i -t i s t e House l e a d e r , 2 ? to convince t h e i r p a r t y caucuses of the op value of suggested reforms. The communication channels between the House l e a d e r s were advantageous to a l l concerned. The Government House l e a d e r was a b l e t o use these channels to g a i n an advance r e a c t i o n from the o p p o s i t i o n t o government pr o p o s a l s and so p l a n t h e i r i n t r o -d u c t i o n i n the House a c c o r d i n g l y . The o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s were a b l e to l e a r n about most pr o p o s a l s and t h e i r t e n t a t i v e schedu-l i n g ahead of time and were a b l e to p l a n more e l a b o r a t e s t r a t -e g i e s . The major d i f f e r e n c e between the pre-1968 d i s c u s s i o n s and the post-1968 d i s c u s s i o n s was t h a t now the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s c o u l d ' o n l y t h r e a t e n to o b s t r u c t , and not t h r e a t e n to d e f e a t , the government. MacDonald began the p r a c t i c e of weekly announcements of b u s i n e s s f o r the f o l l o w i n g week t o r e p l a c e the r o u t i n e of d a i l y evening announcements f o r the f o l l o w i n g day. T h i s l e d to more r e g u l a r meetings wi t h the House l e a d e r s f r e q u e n t l y d i s c u s s i n g the proposed schedule on Tuesday, r e p o r t i n g to t h e i r Caucuses on Wednesday morning, and a g r e e i n g or d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the p r o p o s a l s b e f o r e Thursday. The government h e l d the ad-vantage, however, as i t c o u l d change the p l a n without n o t i c e , i n c o n t r a s t to the B r i t i s h system where a schedule, once 29 announced, cannot be r e v i s e d u n l e s s a l l the p a r t i e s agree. The Government l e a d e r c o u l d a l s o choose to w i t h h o l d informa-t i o n . MacDonald i n c l u d e d h i s a s s i s t a n t i n the more formal d i s -c u s s i o n s , a procedure never c o n s i d e r e d i n the p a s t , o r , i f c o n s i d e r e d , r e j e c t e d w i t h the thought t h a t the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r would never t o l e r a t e s t a f f i n these p r i v a t e mee-30 t i n g s . The a s s i s t a n t kept minutes f o r the Government House l e a d e r ' s use. He was a l s o the i n f o r m a t i o n contact p o i n t f o r the o p p o s i t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i f the Government House l e a d e r was u n a v a i l a b l e . The House l e a d e r s h i p was assumed once a g a i n by A l l a n MacEachen i n September, 1970. He, too, was a b l e to devote f u l l time to these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as P r e s i d e n t o f the P r i v y Coun-c i l . MacEachen brought one major i n n o v a t i o n w i t h him. Through an o r d e r - i n - c o u n c l l a u t h o r i z e d by the prime m i n i s t e r , he was a b l e to c r e a t e the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t , a cadre of experts to a s s i s t him i n the House d u t i e s . The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a -ders were not p l e a s e d w i t h t h i s development as they had n e i t h e r a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f nor the f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o provide them. U n l i k e the two major p a r t y whips who r e c e i v e a y e a r l y honor-arium and s e v e r a l a s s i s t a n t s i n r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n p a rliament, the House l e a d e r s are a l l o t t e d o n l y the same resou r c e s as a p r i v a t e member. The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s viewed the S e c r e t a r i a t as g i v i n g the Government House l e a d e r an u n f a i r advantage In p r e p a r i n g f o r p r o c e d u r a l debates and i n d i s c u s s i n g p r o c e d u r a l reforms. They d i s l i k e d the c o n f i d e n t i a l nature of any r e p o r t s prepared, and f e l t t h a t such s t a f f should be more p r o p e r l y a t t a c h e d to the Standing Committee on Procedure and O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the b e n e f i t o f a l l members. The government saw the S e c r e t a r i a t as a form of department f o r the Government House l e a d e r whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were to p l a n and organize the government's p a r l i a m e n t a r y program and to speed up i t s passage through the p a r l i a m e n t a r y p r o c e s s . With the massive i n c r e a s e i n b u s i n e s s , the government f e l t t h a t the Leader of the House should be g i v e n s t a f f t o a s s i s t him i n these d u t i e s . One of the a s p i r a t i o n s of the S e c r e t a r i a t members was to i n c r e a s e the Government House l e a d e r ' s involvement i n p l a n n i n g the l e g i s l a t i v e program. I f t h a t o c c u r r e d , some i n d i v i d u a l s saw the f u t u r e e v o l u t i o n o f l h i s r o l e as p a r a l l e l i n g the B r i -t i s h system where the Leader of the House de l e g a t e s t o h i s Chief Government Whip the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d i s c u s s i n g and n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s . Given time, and the c o n d i t i o n s of m a j o r i t y government, such a development might have taken p l a c e . But the e l e c t i o n of another m i n o r i t y govern-ment i n 1972 has r e t a r d e d t h i s p r o c e s s . Once a g a i n , the Government House l e a d e r has been p l a c e d i n the p o s i t i o n of n e g o t i a t i n g f o r the l i f e o f the government. The c o n d i t i o n s f o r s u r v i v a l r e s t not o n l y on the t i m i n g of a p a r t i c u l a r l e g i s -l a t i v e p r o p o s a l o r on making minor concessions to the o p p o s i -t i o n House l e a d e r s , as they were d u r i n g the m a j o r i t y government p e r i o d , but a l s o on the a c t u a l p r o p o s a l s and t h e i r c o n t e n t s . The n e g o t i a t i o n s between the p a r t i e s have become much more open as i n d i v i d u a l House l e a d e r s take t h e i r cases b e f o r e the pub-l i e . The Opposition House le a d e r , furthermore, has responded to the existence of the S e c r e t a r i a t by h i r i n g an a s s i s t a n t (who i s o f f i c i a l l y part of the Opposition Leader's O f f i c e ) . The House l e a d e r s , then, have become the e s t a b l i s h e d chan n e i of communication between the p a r t i e s . The whips continue to meet to decide on the order of speakers, organize p a i r s , arrange the t i m i n g of votes, and so on; but they are r a r e l y i n v o l v e d i n the more i n t r i c a t e n e g o t i a t i o n s . The party l e a -ders are u t i l i z e d only as a channel f o r emergencies and as a l a s t r e s o r t . FOOTNOTES; Chapter 2 1 Laundy, P h i l i p , and Norman Wilding, An Encyclopedia of  Parliament. fourth e d i t i o n , London, Cas s e l l , 1972, p. 427. For other h i s t o r i c a l references, see Abraham, L.A., and S.C. Hawtrey, Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary, London, Butterworth, 1970, p. 117; May, S i r Thomas Ersklne, Treatise  on the Lawp P r i v i l e g e s , Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, eighteenth e d i t i o n , London, Butterworth, 1971. P. 289; and Redlich, Josef, The Procedure of the House of Commons; a study  of Its history and present form. London, A. Constable and Co Ltd, 1908, p. 120. 2 Gladstone, Gleanings I. London, John Murray, 1879. P« -11• 3 Abraham and Hawtrey, op. c i t . , p. 117. 4 Canada., Parliament,. House of Commons, the Debates (hereafter ci t e d Can. H7~of C. Debates). 1892-96 5 Abraham and Hawtrey, op. c i t . , pp. 117-8. See also May, S i r Thomas Ersklne, op. c i t . , p. 239. 6 This Is shown In a speech MacKenzie King gave to the House of Commons in February, 1942: "...I am t r y i n g to give a l l the time I possible can to the very important matters immediately concerned with the war e f f o r t of the country. That involves of necessity my absence from the house a good part of the time during the course of...debate...." Can. H. of C. Debates. February 2, 1942, p. 216. 7 For example i l l u s t r a t i n g Mackenzie's involvement i n House business see Can. H. of C. Debates. 1942, pp. 1360-61; 1944; P. 3565; and 1945, pp. 760-2. 8 Interview with the Honourable Jack P i c k e r s g i l l , August, 1972. Hereafter I have only footnoted Interviews where the name of person Interviewed i s not obvious from the body of the text. A l l interviews, as indicated i n the bibliography, were conducted between February and-August, 1972. 9 Can. H. of C. Debates. July 12, 1946, p. 3394. My emphasis. 10 See, f o r example, Can. H. of C. Debates. 1942, p. 3102. 11 Heeney, A.D.P., "Cabinet Government i n Canada", CJEPS, V. 12, n. 3. August, 1946, p. 286. 12 May, op. c i t . , p. 239. 13 See Can. H. of C. Debates, 1948-49. 14 Interview with Jack P i c k e r s g i l l . 15 Interview with the Honourable Walter Harris. 16 See, f o r example, Can. H. of C. Debates. June 23, 1954, p. 6521-31; July 6, 1955, p. 574?; June 1, 1956, p. 4607. 17 Interview with Stanley Knowles. 18 The Honourable Gordon C h u r c h i l l to the author, August 12, 1972. 19 The Twenty-fifth Parliament (1962-3), with the Conservatives s t i l l i n power, was open for only four months and brought few v i s i b l e changes. C h u r c h i l l continued to function as the Govern-ment House leader and Chevrier acted f o r the L i b e r a l opposition. L i t t l e attempt was made by the Conservatives to gain the co-operation of the minor parties through these communication channels. 20 See, f o r example, Can. H. of C. Debates. May 22, 1963, p. 148. 21 Knowles, Stanley, "I Believe i n Parliament", An Open Lecture f o r Huron College, November 19, 1964, pp. 5-6. 22 Robertson, Gordon, "The Canadian Parliament and Cabinet i n the Face of Modern Demands", Canadian Public Administra-t i o n . V. 11, n. 3, 1968, pp. 272-9. 23 P i c k e r s g i l l assisted L i o n e l Chevrier as the "opposition spokesman" between 1958 and 1962; MacEachen had advised the party i n procedural matters as Pearson's assistant during that same period; and M c l l r a i t h , f i r s t elected to parliament in 19^0, had been an MP f o r twenty-five years. 24 Reference to the newspapers and news-clips during the period would i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point. See, f o r example, Jackson, Richard, " H i l l Talk", The Journal. June 29, 1963; Scanlon, Joseph, "New Quebec L i b e r a l Chief strong f o r Confederation", Toronto Star, A p r i l 27, 1964; Charpentler, Jean, "Un r e t r a i t stregique", Le Droit. June 11, 1964; Jackson, Richard, "An Accolade f o r the House Leader:, The Journal. February 18, I965; Fisher, Douglas, "The Controversial Jack P i c k e r s g i l l " , The Journal, March 16, 1965; Pepin, Marcel, "George M c l l r a i t h possede de b e l l e s qualites comme leader parliamentaire", Le Droit. March 27, 1965; E d i t o r i a l , "Starr Back i n Key Role and His Star S t i l l Rising", The Oshawa Times, November 25, 1965; A r t i c l e , "House leader quits", The C i t i z e n . May 3, 1967; A r t i c l e , " M c l l r a i t h Quits Commons Post, MacEachen to be House leader", The Montreal Gazette. May 4, I967. " 25 See, f o r example, Bai n , George, "PC Complaints a Fraud", The Globe and M a l l . October 9, 1964. 26 Interview w i t h the Honourable Donald MacDonald. 27 Rondeau was replaced by Andre F o r t i n i n 1969. 28 See Chapter seven f o r the major point of contention i n these procedural reforms. 29 Campion, G.F.M., An I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Procedure of the  House of Commons, t h i r d e d i t i o n , London, Macmillan, 1958, p. 185. 30 Interviews w i t h former Government House l e a d e r s . 31 Interviews w i t h members of L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t . C H A P T E R 3 The Role o f the House Leaders House l e a d e r s possess no handy guidebooks o u t l i n i n g t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The o n l y r e f e r e n c e t o the p o s i t i o n o f Lea-der o f the House i n o f f i c i a l Canadian p r o c e d u r a l manuals i s a q u o t a t i o n from R a d l i c h found i n Beauchesne's Rules and Forms  of the House of Commons of Canada. I t s t a t e s , i n p a r t : " I t i s h i s task i n the name of the govern-ment and the p a r t y i n o f f i c e to d i s t r i b u t e over the s e s s i o n the program of l e g i s l a t i o n announced i n the King's speech and to advo-cate i t i n the house. He assumes the duty of proposing a l l such motions concerning the agenda of the house as are deemed a d v i s a b l e by the government and i s t h e i r spokesman i n the debate thereon..." No mention i s made of the O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s . George B a i n , i n h i s s m a l l b o o k l e t d e s c r i b i n g the Canadian Parliament, i n c l u d e s t h i s b r i e f d e f i n i t i o n o f House l e a d e r : "The House l e a d e r - each p a r t y has one -f u n c t i o n s more o u t s i d e the House of Commons than i n i t . The Government House l e a d e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s c h e d u l i n g the flow o f govern-ment's busi n e s s through the House and to ensure t h a t I t does flow, he must seek the c o - o p e r a t i o n of the House l e a d e r s of the oth e r groups." The House l e a d e r ' s job i s b a s i c a l l y what he, w i t h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s t o be d e s c r i b e d l a t e r , chooses t o make i t . When c a r r y i n g out t h e i r v a r i o u s d u t i e s , the House l e a d e r s do not c o n s c i o u s l y c a t e g o r i z e t h e i r t a s k s . What f o l l o w s i s a compo-s i t e p i c t u r e o f the House l e a d e r s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , performed to a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r extent and w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of i n t e r e s t by each House l e a d e r . The major c o l l e c t i v e r o l e o f the House l e a d e r s i s to a s s i s t i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of bu s i n e s s i n the House of Commons. I t i s t h e i r duty t o attempt t o r e s o l v e any p a r t y and p r o c e d u r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s which may d i s r u p t the smooth flow of t h a t b u s i n e s s , s u b j e c t to the p o l i t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s o f t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r group. "House b u s i n e s s " r e f e r s not o n l y to. t h a t major con-sumer of time, government l e g i s l a t i o n , but to a l l d i s c u s s i o n s and debates which may be conducted i n the chamber. The Stan-d i n g Orders c o n t a i n a comprehensive weekly r o u t i n e of bu s i n e s s which e s t a b l i s h e s s p e c i f i c days and times f o r such matters as q u e s t i o n p e r i o d , w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s and orders f o r r e t u r n , p r i v a t e member's motions and b i l l s , the adjournement debate, committee r e p o r t s , and government motions and o r d e r s . In a d d i t i o n , they provide f o r standard debates such as the Throne Speech and Budget debates, and t w e n t y - f i v e O p p o s i t i o n Days, which, w i t h the r e f e r r a l of government estimates t o the s t a n -d i n g committees, have r e p l a c e d the o l d supply debates. Allowance must f u r t h e r be made f o r two s t a n d i n g o r d e r s which permit debates on matters o f urgency and importance. A l s o under the House l e a d e r s ' purview are government e s t i m a t e s , b i l l s , and s p e c i a l s t u d i e s r e f e r r e d t o the House committees. With the e x c e p t i o n of government l e g i s l a t i o n , a l l o f these matters are s u b j e c t t o s t r i c t time l i m i t a t i o n s . They do, however, r e q u i r e i n i t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and f u r t h e r arrange-ments throughout the s e s s i o n , and these are e f f e c t e d by the House l e a d e r s . One example i s the f o u r times weekly p r i v a t e members* hour. At the commencement of a new s e s s i o n , the House l e a d e r s must meet to a s s i s t the Speaker and House o f f i c i a l s i n s e l e c t i n g the o r d e r i n which p r i v a t e members' b i l l s and motions are t o bepdebated. At the present time, a l o t t e r y i s h e l d t o produce the l i s t f o r the o r d e r paper. While the order f o r p r i v a t e members* busi n e s s i s n o r m a l l y f o l l o w e d , o c c a s i o n a l l y the member o r the government speaker i s not prepared to pro-ceed on the a l l o t t e d day. Through agreement, i t i s decided to postpone t h a t debate and proceed down the l i s t . The House l e a d e r s are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e i r p a r t y members are aware of t h i s change and t h a t speakers are prepared to handle the new debate. The Government House l e a d e r must de-c i d e i f the Whip i s t o be a p p l i e d and convey t h i s message t o the C h i e f Government Whip who then arranges f o r enough speakers to t a l k the b i l l o r motion out. Without such c o - o p e r a t i o n be-tween the p a r t i e s , t h a t hour c o u l d be wasted. Another example of arrangements between the House l e a d e r s r e l a t e s t o the t w e n t y - f i v e o p p o s i t i o n days. These debates are a l l o t t e d t o t h r e e p e r i o d s i n the p a r l i a m e n t a r y y e a r — f i v e p r i o r t o December 1 0 , s i x p r i o r t o March 2 6 , and t h i r t e e n b e f o r e June 3 0 — b u t the a c t u a l days are not s p e c i f i e d i n the Standing Orders. I t i s the government's p r e r o g a t i v e t o s p e c i f y the days. Customarily, the Government House l e a d e r c o n s u l t s w i t h h i s o p p o s i t i o n c o u n t e r p a r t s b e f o r e d o i n g s o . T i m i n g f r e q u e n t l y becomes a t o o l i n t h e House l e a d e r s ' nego-t i a t i o n s , t h e Government House l e a d e r a g r e e i n g on a p r e f e r r e d day i n r e t u r n f o r o t h e r c o n c e s s i o n s o r t h e o p p o s i t i o n ' s o f f e r i n g t o a c c e p t a l e s s p r e f e r r e d day f o r o t h e r agreements by the government. The use o f t h i s t o o l and t h e temper o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n s a r e dependent upon t h e i s s u e p l a n n e d f o r debate and t h e s t a t e o f o t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s a t t h a t t i m e . N e g o t i a t i o n s must a l s o o c c u r among t h e t h r e e o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s t o a p p o r t i o n o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s e d e b a t e s . By f a r t h e g r e a t e s t p o r t i o n o f t h e House l e a d e r s ' t i m e i s spent on government l e g i s l a t i o n . U n l i k e p r i v a t e members' b u s i n e s s , w h i c h has an e s t a b l i s h e d o r d e r o f p r e c e d e n c e , th e o r d e r and c a l l i n g o f government b i l l s i s s o l e l y a t t h e d i s c r e -t i o n o f t h e government. The o n l y l i m i t a t i o n t o t h i s freedom i s t h a t t h e b i l l s must be on t h e o r d e r paper, p l a c e d t h e r e i n r o u t i n e f a s h i o n . The government i s t h u s under no o b l i g a t i o n t o c o n s u l t w i t h t h e o p p o s i t i o n about t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e s e d e b a t e s . I t i s s i m p l y a c o u r t e s y o f t h e House t h a t t h e g o v e r n -ment announces i n advance what l e g i s l a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o come up f o r debate on t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y s . However, a l s o u n l i k e t h e more s t a n d a r d d e b a t e s , t h e r e i s no f o r m a l l i m i t a t i o n o f t ime on government l e g i s l a t i o n u n l e s s one i s imposed by t h e government t h r o u g h c l o s u r e o r t i m e a l l o c a t i o n . There has always been a h e a l t h y d i s r e s p e c t , perhaps even f e a r , i n t h e Canadian P a r l i a m e n t f o r t h e a r b i t r a r y i m p o s i t i o n o f t ime l i m i t s on government d e b a t e s . As c h a p t e r seven d i s c u s s e s , various attempts have been made t o provide an acceptable time a l l o c a t i o n mechanism f o r government orders, none of which has proved s u c c e s s f u l . The only workable method f o r speeding up the progress of most government business i s , as George Bain p o i n t s out, through c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the oppo-s i t i o n House l e a d e r s . Together, they negotiate t o f i n d the best p o s s i b l e use of the House time. How these n e g o t i a t i o n s are conducted, and the t a c t i c s employed, i s the subject of the f o l l o w i n g chapter. In a d d i t i o n to t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s i s t i n g i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of House business, the House leaders have s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l d u t i e s to perform f o r t h e i r own p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s which a f f e c t the conduct of t h e i r business. The Government House leader has the most extensive d u t i e s , and i t i s t o h i s r o l e t h a t we t u r n f i r s t . The Government House leader i s now a cabinet member charged by the Prime M i n i s t e r w i t h s e v e r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s r e l a t e d t o the business of the House of Commons. In Donald MacDonald's words, he i s b a s i c a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r "making the parliamentary machine work". As. noted i n the h i s t o r i c a l s e c t i o n , the House l e a d e r s h i p i s not a s t a t u t o r y o f f i c e ; t h e r e f o r e , i t has always been combined w i t h another m i n i -s t e r i a l p o r t f o l i o , e i t h e r the prime m i n i s t e r s h i p or another cabinet p o s i t i o n . A v a r i e t y of departments have had the honour of sha r i n g t h e i r m i n i s t e r w i t h the House d u t i e s — p e n -sions and n a t i o n a l h e a l t h , veterans a f f a i r s , p u b l i c works, c i t i z e n s h i p and immigration, f i n a n c e , s e c r e t a r y of s t a t e , j u s t i c e , and h e a l t h and welfare have a l l had t h i s p r i v i l e g e . In 1968 the House leadership was assigned to the post of President of the Privy Council, a recognition that i t had indeed become a f u l l - t i m e job. Like that of the B r i t i s h Lord President of the Council, t h i s p o s i t i o n was o r i g i n a l l y attached to that of the Prime Minister. The d i r e c t duties of the o f f i c e r elate to one s p e c i f i c function: chairing the formal meetings of the privy council. As such f u l l scale meetings rarely occur, the President of the Privy Council i s respon-s i b l e f o r chairing meetings of the Special Committee of Cabinet, a group of three or four ministers who gather weekly to pass thousands of orders-in-council. In addition to the House duties and orders-ln-councll, the present President i s responsible f o r such matters as e l e c t i o n expenses and c o n f l i c t of interest l e g i s l a t i o n , e l e c t o r a l r e d i s t r i b u t i o n , the study of procedural reform, and the Public Service S t a f f Relations Board. He i s also a member of the Commission of Internal Economy dealing with members' prerequisites. The Government House leaders' major duties f o r the cab-inet and government party f a l l into three areas: o v e r a l l supervision and management of the House of Commons, management of the government's l e g i s l a t i v e schedule, and assistance i n the development of government l e g i s l a t i o n . The present Govern-ment House leader i s also involved i n long-range planning and government l e g i s l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s , an increasingly complex area of government a c t i v i t y . Managing the Commons involves an o v e r a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r many routine matters such as or-ganizing private members' hour and the adjournment debate, and r e q u e s t i n g r e p l i e s from departments to w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s and requests f o r government documents asked f o r i n the House. The present House l e a d e r has f o r s e v e r a l years delegated these d u t i e s to h i s P a r l i a m e n t a r y s e c r e t a r y . I t a l s o r e -q u i r e s o r g a n i z i n g the mechanics of c a l l i n g f o r the opening of a s e s s i o n and p r e p a r i n g f o r i t s adjournment. The Government House l e a d e r must make d e c i s i o n s as t o the date and t i m i n g of v o t e s when p o s s i b l e , and he holds some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i t h the whip f o r e n s u r i n g t h a t government members are aware of these dates and are present to c a s t t h e i r v o t e s . While the C h i e f Government Whip i s s t i l l n o m i n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e to the Prime M i n i s t e r f o r such t a s k s , i n r e a l i t y he r e p o r t s t o the Government House l e a d e r and c a r r i e s out arrangements i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h him. House committees f a l l under the purview of the Government House l e a d e r . At the b e g i n n i n g of a new p a r l i a m e n t , he and the whip work w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h the p a r t y composition f o r these committees. The e x i s t e n c e of a m i n o r i t y makes these arrangements more complex. The Government House l e a d e r then s e l e c t s the committee chairmen and the two decide which government backbenchers w i l l be a s s i g n e d t o each committee. M a i n t a i n i n g the membership and quorums i s a duty of the whip; however the Government House l e a d e r must co - o r d i n a t e the r e f e r e n c e of b i l l s , e s t i m a t e s , and s p e c i a l s t u d i e s to the committees and s u p e r v i s e t h e i r p r o g r e s s . He a l s o arranges the schedu-l i n g of these committees. Managing the House includes making arrangements f o r Throne Speech, Budget and Opposition Day debates. I t a l s o i n c l u d e s o r g a n i z i n g government debates. Based on h i s l e g i s -l a t i v e schedule, p a r t i c u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n s from the cabinet, and c o n s u l t a t i o n s and agreements made w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s , the Government House leader s e l e c t s the b i l l s to be debated both on a weekly and a day-to-day b a s i s . He must advise the cabinet and m i n i s t e r s concerned that c e r t a i n l e g i s l a t i o n i s going forward, estimate how long i t w i l l take, arrange time f o r m i n i s t e r s ; speeches, advise the caucus of any t a c t i c a l p l ans, and work w i t h the whip i f any votes are planned. He i s a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r arranging the c o n t i n u i t y of business so tha t i f debate on one b i l l f i n i s h e s ahead of schedule, there w i l l be another m i n i s t e r a v a i l a b l e to b r i n g on the next piece of l e g i s l a t i o n . Making the parliamentary machine work i n v o l v e s d e a l i n g w i t h the government caucus as w e l l . At each Wednesday caucus meeting the Government House leader o u t l i n e s the business t o be debated the f o l l o w i n g week and describes any arrangements made w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n . As the members have l i k e l y voiced any o b j e c t i o n s to c e r t a i n l e g i s l a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y , they normally accept h i s schedule without comments. The Government House leader may use t h i s o p p ortunity to advise the caucus about members p e r q u i s i t e s or House decorum. One House leader, f o r example, abhorred the reading of newspapers i n the House and he used h i s p o s i t i o n as Government House leader to request a h a l t to t h i s p r a c t i c e . I f a member has a problem o r a complaint, he no r m a l l y takes i t t o the whip. I f s e r i o u s , i t i s passed on t o the Government House l e a d e r f o r d i s c u s s i o n w i t h the Prime M i n i s t e r or i t i s r a i s e d i n the c a b i n e t . On o c c a s i o n , the whip may be un r e c e p t i v e o r there may be a p e r s o n a l i t y c l a s h , and the member w i l l t u r n t o the House l e a d e r i n s t e a d . The Government House l e a d e r i s a l s o i n v o l v e d i n s e l e c t i n g members f o r s p e c i a l t r i p s and d e l e g a t i o n s , a u s e f u l p e r s u a s i v e power t o g a i n t h e i r support. Another duty of the Government House l e a d e r i s a r g u i n g p r o c e d u r a l matters when they are r a i s e d i n the House. Be-cause of h i s involvement i n a r r a n g i n g the b u s i n e s s , h i s know-ledge o f the r u l e s and precedents must be e x t e n s i v e . Thus on p o i n t s of or d e r , q u e s t i o n s o f p r i v i l e g e , motions to debate a matter of urgency o r any o t h e r p r o c e d u r a l q u e s t i o n , i t i s the Government House l e a d e r who speaks f o r the government. One f i n a l duty of the Government House l e a d e r i n House management i s the study of p r o c e d u r a l reforms. How q u i c k l y the business progresses through the House depends i n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e on the formal r u l e s f o r debate. S e a r c h i n g f o r new and ac c e p t a b l e r u l e s t h a t w i l l f u r t h e r organize and hasten the passage of l e g i s l a t i o n i s a constant p r e o c c u p a t i o n of the Government House l e a d e r . In t h i s , he i s a s s i s t e d by r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s prepared by the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t . The o r g a n i z i n g o f government debates d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i s a l s o p a r t of the Government House l e a d e r ' s second f u n c t i o n of managing the government's l e g i s l a t i v e schedule. P r i o r t o each new s e s s i o n , the cabin e t must decide what l e g i s l a t i o n i t would l i k e debated and passed that session. Arguments can be long and hot as ministers vie f o r a place i n the leg-i s l a t i v e program. After the decision has been taken, the Government House leader draws up a tentative schedule and submits i t to cabinet f o r approval. He also has a hand i n preparing the Throne Speech, which outlines the government's planned program. Once the session opens and b i l l s are on the order paper, the Government House leader assumes t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for c a l l i n g government business in the House. He needs a certain amount of f l e x i b i l i t y so that he may negotiate with the oppo-s i t i o n House leaders and schedule the business i n a manner i n which i t i s most l i k e l y to be accomplished. Scheduling of government business i s an i n t r i c a t e operation. The Govern-ment House leader must take into account the p r i o r i t y which the government places on a b i l l , statutory expiry da ties f or renewing some l e g i s l a t i o n , new p r i o r i t i e s , opposition objec-tives and t a c t i c s , general sentiment as i t i s expressed In the country, and other a c t i v i t i e s of the ministers and p a r t i e s . Trying to get a b i l l out of the d r a f t i n g process and printed i n both languages i n time for introduction to the House Is another problem he continually faces. As the b i l l s pass through the House, he must keep track of the stages they have reached. For t h i s purpose, his s t a f f prepares a monthly progress ta b l e . The Government House leader must push the standing committees to complete t h e i r stage of a b i l l ; and must remind the whip when l e g i s l a t i o n i s to be debated i n coramlttee-of-the-whole as votes can be c a l l e d without warning at any time. He must a l s o keep the government caucus informed as to when b i l l s are t o be debated. Once b i l l s have passed through the House, the Government House l e a d e r must then s u p e r v i s e t h e i r pro-gress through the Senate, p r e s s i n g the Government Leader of the Senate t o hasten t h e i r passage. He must a l s o s u p e r v i s e b i l l s o r i g i n a t i n g i n the Senate and arrange f o r t h e i r i n t r o -d u c t i o n i n the House i f ne c e s s a r y . A f t e r the b i l l s have passed both Houses, he must arrange f o r t h e i r Royal Assent. The t h i r d major duty of the Government House l e a d e r i s a s s i s t i n g i n the development of government l e g i s l a t i o n . To t h i s end, he i s the chairman of the Cabinet Committee on L e g i s l a t i o n and House P l a n n i n g . When a new p r o p o s a l a r i s e s out o f the e l e c t o r a l program, o r from a m i n i s t e r , a department, o r another source, i t i s normally presented t o the c a b i n e t . I f t h a t body f e e l s t h a t the p r o p o s a l has some m e r i t , they request t h a t a "head" be prepared by the r e l e v a n t department or i n t e r - d e p a r t m e n t a l committee o u t l i n i n g the p r o p o s a l and any a l t e r n a t i v e p r o p o s a l s . T h i s then goes t o the a p p r o p r i a t e c a b i n e t committee f o r d i s c u s s i o n and a p p r o v a l . I f necessary, i t r e t u r n s to ca b i n e t f o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . A b i l l must then be d r a f t e d , and f o r t h i s purpose i t i s sent to the d r a f t i n g s e c t i o n of the J u s t i c e Department. The r o l e o f the Cabinet Committee on L e g i s l a t i o n and House Planning i s to study d r a f t l e g i s l a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e , l e g a l wording, f a i r n e s s , a c c e p t a b i l i t y as a working measure, and to ensure t h a t i t r e f l e c t s government p o l i c y . I f a b i l l passes t h i s examination and there i s a l i k e l i h o o d of i t s being i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the l e g i s l a t i v e schedule at some p o i n t , i t i s then sent f o r p r i n t i n g . These b i l l s are o f t e n presented t o the government caucus and caucus committees f o r d i s c u s s i o n . The Government House l e a d e r ' s task i s t o arrange w i t h the m i n i s t e r to have the d r a f t b i l l Inspected by the back benchers. I t i s through t h i s c a b i n e t committee and the impressions of the government caucus t h a t the Government House l e a d e r gains an Intimate knowledge of the l e g i s l a t i o n and any areas of s e n s i t i v i t y and p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t y . T h i s knowledge, p l u s h i s experience i n l e g i s l a t i v e s c h e d u l i n g and understanding of the g o a l s and s t r a t e g i e s o f the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s , makes the Government House l e a d e r very i n f l u e n t i a l i n middle-range government l e g i s l a t i v e p l a n n i n g . U n l i k e the B r i t i s h Cabinet, the Canadian Cabinet has no f u t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n committee t o s o r t out government l e g i s -l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s and perform a " s l a u g h t e r of the innocents", keeping excess b i l l s back i n the departments i n s t e a d of 3 p u t t i n g them on the order paper. The P r i o r i t i e s and P l a n n i n g Committee of c a b i n e t , c h a i r e d by the Prime M i n i s t e r , w i t h the Government House l e a d e r as a member, does look a t long-range government p r i o r i t i e s but not i n the sense of l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s . Two r e s u l t s occur from t h i s l a c k . F i r s t , t here are always f a r more b i l l s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the House than the government can hope o r expect to pass; and, second, l e g i s l a -t i v e p l a n n i n g i s a haphazard p r o c e s s . At the present time, a great d e a l of p l a n n i n g i s c o - o r d i n a t e d by the P r i v y C o u n c i l Office (PCO). Eighteen months before a new session the Secretary to the Cabinet writes to a l l departments requesting proposals for government l e g i s l a t i o n , to be submitted within three or four months. These items are reviewed by the PCO and sent to cabinet through the Prime Minister with recommen-dations attached. While making some changes, the cabinet generally approves the prepared l i s t . The departments with items to be considered send p o l i c y memorandums within seven or eight months. At another cabinet meeting, the proposals are approved or rejected, and those approved are sent for further study and d r a f t i n g . In.addition to t h i s l i s t , the cabinet may have further proposals, since i n d i v i d u a l ministers may advocate new p o l i -cies and there are numerous shelved b i l l s from the previous sessions. The cabinet has many immediate problems to face, p a r t i c u l a r l y near the end of the ex i s t i n g session, and i s i l l -equipped to handle the lengthy i n - f i g h t s between the ministers over l e g i s l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s . The Prime Minister, too, given his other r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , may not have studied the s i t u a -t i o n i n depth. It i s the cabinet's decision, however, and although the Government House leader may be very i n f l u e n t i a l at t h i s point i n o u t l i n i n g p o t e n t i a l hazards and p i t f a l l s , he has no control over t h i s p r e - l e g i s l a t i v e process. In 1972 an ad-hoc committee of cabinet was formed, i t s membership i d e n t i c a l to that of the Cabinet Committee of Le g i s l a t i o n and House Planning, to consider these l e g i s l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s i n greater d e t a i l . A s t a f f committee, comprising two members each from the Privy Council O f f i c e , Department of J u s t i c e , and L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t , was a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d by c a b i n e t o r d e r t o study the q u e s t i o n of p l a c i n g the l e g i s -l a t i v e u n i t of the PCO and the l e g i s l a t i v e d r a f t i n g s e c t i o n of the Department of J u s t i c e under the a u t h o r i t y of the P r e s i d e n t o f P r i v y C o u n c i l . While the f i r s t committee i s not yet permanent and the second has reached no c o n c l u s i o n , the p l a n n i n g of the l e g i s l a t i v e process may yet undergo substan-t i a l changes. ^ The Government House l e a d e r thus has e x t e n s i v e d u t i e s to perform f o r the government and p a r t y i n o f f i c e which a f f e c t the o r g a n i z a t i o n and conduct of House b u s i n e s s . I t Is h i s a b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n a smooth flow of business and hasten i t s progress through the House which i s the government's major p a r l i a m e n t a r y concern; and f o r t h i s he r e q u i r e s a communication l i n k w i t h the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s . O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s possess none o f the l e g i s l a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the Government House l e a d e r . They r e a c t to government p r o p o s a l s r a t h e r than a c t ; and t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y d u t i e s mainly Involve o r g a n i z i n g t h e i r p a r l i a m e n t a r y caucuses and a d v i s i n g them on how and when to r e a c t . The O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r i s con s i d e r e d the g e n e r a l manager o r the c a p t a i n o f the p a r t y i n s o f a r as House bu s i n e s s i s concerned. Through h i s c o n t a c t s and arrangements wi t h the o t h e r House l e a d e r s and House o f f i c i a l s , and by keeping a c l o s e eye on the Order Paper, the O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r should be aware at a l l times of what i s be i n g debated and what i s planned f o r debate i n the House and i n committees. His f i r s t duty, then, i s t o pro v i d e an i n f o r m a t i o n source t o h i s l e a d e r and p a r t y members on the House a c t i v i t i e s . A second major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s o r g a n i z i n g the p a r t y to take p a r t i n these debates. When a p a r t y member has a p r i v a t e b i l l scheduled f o r debate, f o r example, the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r must ensure, e i t h e r through h i m s e l f o r the p a r t y whip, t h a t the member i s aware of t h i s f a c t and has.other members to a s s i s t him i n the debate. S i m i l a r l y , i f a member i s scheduled to speak i n the adjournment debate, t h i s message must be con-veyed to him. Members must be informed i f a s u b j e c t of par-t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o the p a r t y i s being d i s c u s s e d i n committee. The p a r t y ' s o p p o s i t i o n days a l s o r e q u i r e a great d e a l of p l a n n i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n . The House l e a d e r takes p a r t i n s e l e c t i n g a t o p i c , a s s i s t s i n d r a f t i n g the motion, and sends i t t o be p l a c e d on the o r d e r paper twenty-four hours i n advance. As the number of speakers a l l o t t e d t o each p a r t y i s normally l e s s than those who wish to speak, the House l e a d e r and whip, f r e q u e n t l y i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the l e a d e r , must s e l e c t the speakers. They must a l s o ensure t h a t the members are present to g i v e the speeches. Fo r government l e g i s l a t i o n , the members are informed at the Wednesday caucus of which b i l l s w i l l l i k e l y be brought forward and of any suggested arrangements between the House l e a d e r s . Each Thursday, the Government House l e a d e r announces the t o p i c s to be debated the f o l l o w i n g week. The whip arranges l i s t s o f speakers f o r these debates and reminds the members, but the House l e a d e r must s u p e r v i s e the progress of b u s i n e s s so t h a t he can develop f u r t h e r p a r t y s t r a t e g i e s or perhaps arrange w i t h the o t h e r House l e a d e r s to complete the debate. I f any new arrangements have been made, he must convey these to the members present i n the House and request t h e i r support. L i k e the Government House leader, the o p p o s i t i o n House leader keeps t r a c k of a l l government l e g i s l a t i o n and the var-ious stages i t has reached. In t h i s manner, he can f o r e c a s t the government's l i k e l y i n t e n t i o n s and prepare the caucus f o r f u t u r e debate. The o p p o s i t i o n House leader supervises the d i s t r i b u t i o n of b i l l s t o caucus committees and t o the r e -search s t a f f f o r s c r u t i n y , and hastens t h e i r study i f the l e g -i s l a t i o n appears ready f o r debate. He may a l s o suggest f u r t h e r research p r o j e c t s on p o t e n t i a l p o l i c y matters. I f amendments are to be proposed, he i s f r e q u e n t l y c a l l e d upon f o r d r a f t i n g to ensure that they are t e c h n i c a l l y p e r f e c t and p r o c e d u r a l l y acceptable to the House. Another a c t i v i t y of the o p p o s i t i o n House leader i s to take part In the d i s c u s s i o n and development of questions f o r the d a i l y question p e r i o d . He may advise members on the pre p a r a t i o n of motions of urgency and w r i t t e n questions and requests f o r government documents. The o p p o s i t i o n House leader i s one of the major party s t r a t e g i s t s f o r House business. Through h i s contacts w i t h the other House le a d e r s , he i s not only aware of what i s l i k e l y to be discussed i n the House but a l s o of many of the s t r a t e -g i e s and t a c t i c s planned by the government and the other o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s . He i s th e r e f o r e i n an i d e a l p o s i t i o n to advise the caucus about the s t r a t e g i e s they should adopt towards the various government proposals: which b i l l s should .take p r i o r i t y , how long the attack should be, and which areas are of prime s e n s i t i v i t y to the government, to the other p a r t i e s , and t o t h e i r own party as w e l l . The o p p o s i t i o n House leader may have to c a j o l e some of h i s own members to drop one a t t a c k i n favour of another. Or he may suggest i n c r e a s i n g the a t t a c k i f i t appears p o l i t i c a l l y astute or the government i s weakening and preparing to compromise. When there i s a m i n o r i t y government, the p a r t y must a l s o decide, o f t e n based on the i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by the other o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s through the House l e a d e r s , whether i t w i l l support the govern-ment on c e r t a i n p o l i c i e s r e g a r d l e s s of any perceived weaknesses or whether i t w i l l j o i n the other o p p o s i t i o n groups to defeat a measure and perhaps even the government i t s e l f . The opposi-t i o n House leader i s deeply i n v o l v e d i n such s t r a t e g y d i s c u s s -i o n s , both to provide advice and to r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n he can use i n f u t u r e House l e a d e r s ' n e g o t i a t i o n s . Taking part i n procedural debates i n the House i s another duty of the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r . I t i s h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to ensure t h a t the party does not lose p o s i t i o n o r momentum through an i n a b i l i t y to use the r u l e s . O c c a s i o n a l l y these debates are simply open attempts by the House leaders to reach agreements on the conduct of business. The House leader i s normally the procedural expert of the p a r t y . He provides the members w i t h advice on the proper procedures f o r debate, on preparing amendments, on presenting questions of p r i v i l e g e or p o i n t s of order, on r u l e s of relevancy, on matters of decorum and so on. He i s u s u a l l y the party member most in v o l v e d i n the study of procedural reform. The o p p o s i t i o n House leader i s the f o c a l point of the party f o r matters r e l a t i n g to the conduct of House business. His most s i g n i f i c a n t f u n c t i o n from the party's p e r s p e c t i v e , however, i s h i s l i n k w i t h the other p a r t i e s . How the comm-u n i c a t i o n channel between the House leaders operates i s the t o p i c of the f o l l o w i n g chapter. FOOTNOTES: Chapter 3 1 Redlicfa, J o s e f , The Procedure of the House of Commons, London, A. Constable and Co L t d , 1 9 0 8 , quoted i n Beauchesne, A r t h u r , Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, Toronto, the Car s w e l l Co of Canada L t d , 1 9 5 8 , p. 82. 2 B a i n , George, Canada 1 Parilament, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1 9 7 2 , p. 1 2 . 3 Morrison, the Right Honourable Lord Herbert, Government and Parliament, London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964, ( c . 1954 and 1 9 5 9 ) . chapter 1 1 . 4 This i n f o r m a t i o n flame from a seminar held by the P a r l i a -mentary Interns w i t h Gordon Robertson, Secretary to the Cabinet, S p r i n g , 1 9 7 2 . 5 Interviews w i t h members of the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t . 53 C H A P T E R 4 House Leaders' Meetings C o l l e c t i v e l y i t i s the House l e a d e r s 1 r o l e t o d i s c u s s , n e g o t i a t e and arrange the b u s i n e s s of the House so t h a t i t w i l l flow c o n t i n u o u s l y and as smoothly as i s f e a s i b l e i n the p a r t i s a n chamber. The t i t l e "House l e a d e r s ' Meetings" may be a misnomer f o r there i s no f o r m a l i t y to o r set schedule f o r communications between the House l e a d e r s . Such f l e x i b i l i t y i s p r e f e r r e d f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t , the House l e a d e r s need meet o n l y when the need a r i s e s , t h i s may be o n l y once a week o r i t may be c o n t i n u o u s l y on the f l o o r of the H 0use, depending upon the time of year, the s u b j e c t of debate, and many o t h e r f a c t o r s . F u r t h e r as v a r i o u s House l e a d e r s have observed, i f the Government House l e a d e r chooses not t o c a l l a meeting f o r s e v e r a l weeks o r i f an o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r o r p a r t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f a i l s t o r e g u l a r l y a t t e n d these g a t h e r i n g s , undue concern i s not expressed by the oth e r House l e a d e r s , the p a r t i e s , o r the press over some seemingly unusual s i t u a t i o n . A t h i r d reason f o r such f l e x i b i l i t y i s t h a t i f communications do break down between the House l e a d e r s , as they d i d d u r i n g the p i p e l i n e and f l a g debates, d i s c u s s i o n s may resume a t the end of h o s t i l i t i e s without f o r m a l i t y o r p o l i t i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n . The communication channel between the House l e a d e r s can be s a i d t o be o p e r a t i n g whenever two o r more House l e a d e r s are d i s c u s s i n g the busi n e s s of the House. Telephone conver-s a t i o n s are one form of communication. The House l e a d e r s are f r e q u e n t l y i n contact w i t h one another by phone to c l a r i f y an agreement or t o accept or r e j e c t a suggested arrangement. There are frequent d i s c u s s i o n s "behind the Speaker's C h a i r " , behind the c u r t a i n s , or on the f l o o r of the House. Attempts to formulate agreements are o f t e n made i n the debate i t s e l f . In a d d i t i o n t o these r a t h e r spontaneous forms of communi-c a t i o n , the House leaders hold more formal and lengthy meetings to d i s c u s s the general order of business or to work out some problem r e l a t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r piece of l e g i s l a t i o n . Notwith-standing the remarks made above, si n c e the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the r e g u l a r weekly announcement of business the House leaders have g e n e r a l l y held at l e a s t one of these more lengthy meetings each week. Meetings tend t o increase i n frequency as the House nears an adjournment. The more formal meetings are c a l l e d by the Government House leader and are conducted i n h i s House of Commons o f f i c e . They are normally attended by the House leaders of the three l a r g e r p a r t i e s , the Government House l e a -der's Parliamentary S e c r e t a r y , and a member of the Government House leader's s t a f f . The C r e d i t i s t e s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y ex-pressed l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the conduct of House business and one can expect t o f i n d any member of that p a r t y , i n c l u d i n g the l e a d e r , a t t e n d i n g on behalf of the C r e d i t i s t e House l e a -der. For the l a s t s e v e r a l years, the C r e d i t i s t e member has normallybeenaccompanied by a Parliamentary I n t e r n who serves to t r a n s l a t e the d i s c u s s i o n and t o prepare a memo on the t r a n s a c t i o n s f o r the p a r t y . Other i n d i v i d u a l s attend from time to time, i n c l u d i n g , r e c e n t l y , an a s s i s t a n t t o the Conserva-t i v e House l e a d e r . During these g a t h e r i n g s , minutes are taken by the Government House l e a d e r ' s s t a f f member. These notes are f o r the Government House l e a d e r i s use o n l y , and cannot be r e f e r r e d t o by the o t h e r House l e a d e r s . The meetings i n v a r i a b l y bear the imprint of the Govern-ment House l e a d e r f o r he i s i n c o n t r o l of the l e g i s l a t i v e pro-gram. Donald MacDonald, f o r example, was v e r y o r g a n i z e d and me t h o d i c a l . He would o u t l i n e on a blackboard a proposed schedule f o r the month—when o p p o s i t i o n days should be h e l d , where v a r i o u s b i l l s should be debated, when the budget debate would b e g i n , and so o n — b a s e d on government p r i o r i t i e s and the v a r i o u s comments made by the O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s . He would then attempt t o have the House l e a d e r s agree t o t h a t schedule. The present Government House l e a d e r , A l l a n Mac-Eachen, uses a s o f t - s e l l approach. Leading g r a d u a l l y i n t o the purpose a t hand, he asks the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s what thoughts they may have on the conduct o f b u s i n e s s . He then produces a l i s t of l e g i s l a t i o n o r , i f the d i s c u s s i o n r e l a t e s to one p a r t i c u l a r b i l l , a proposed o r d e r of c l a u s e s , t h a t the government wishes debated. The c o n v e r s a t i o n c e n t e r s on which or d e r would l i k e l y be the l e a s t o f f e n s i v e t o the p a r t i e s and how l o n g each House l e a d e r f e e l s t h a t h i s p a r t y plans to devote t o the v a r i o u s s u b j e c t s . The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s d i s c u s s the schedule w i t h t h e i r p a r t i e s and then r e p o r t back on the p r e f e r r e d arrangement. With some accommodations made, the schedule i s t e n t a t i v e l y s e t . Many of the former Government House leaders express a d i s l i k e f o r the recently implemented weekly announcement of business and for the increased r e g u l a r i t y of more formal House leaders' meetings. They f e e l that these procedures decrease the u n i l a t e r a l authority of the government to order the business as i t chooses.one House leader mentioned that his favourite t a c t i c was to s l i p i n r e l a t i v e l y uncontroversial b i l l s near the end of a s i t t i n g f o r quick passage. This i s no longer possible with the convention of announcing the schedule i n advance. Several of them said that these meetings give the opposition parties too much advance warning and they were there-fore able to prepare a more strenuous attack. To some extent, these comments are v a l i d . However, the present House leaders f e e l that more progress can be gained by allowing the opposition parties some influence on the schedule. Realizing that a more s i g n i f i c a n t b i l l w i l l be c a l l e d f o r debate, they may decrease the length of time spent on that l e g i s l a t i o n immediately before the House. Advance warning on the b i l l s may allow the opposition time to c l a r i f y i t s attack and concentrate on the points at issue rather than a general attack on the b i l l . The government, too, can learn a great deal i n these meetings about potential areas of con-tention and the strategies planned by the opposition groups, and i t can then prepare a more cogent defence or a l t e r n a t i v e l y a graceful compromise. It i s d i f f i c u l t to generalize about the communications between the House leaders. Every occasion on which they meet i s somewhat unique and b r i n g s i n t o p l a y a v a r i e t y of c o n d i t i o n s which a f f e c t t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s . The immediate i s s u e , p r e c e d i n g b u s i n e s s , the b u s i n e s s to f o l l o w , the time of day o r the time of year, p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s of o t h e r p a r t y members, p e r c e i v e d f e e l i n g s i n the country, the g e n e r a l mood of the House, even the mood of the House l e a d e r s and t h e i r p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l l a f f e c t the way i n which the d i s c u s s i o n s are conducted. What may seem a matter f o r g e n e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n on one o c c a s i o n can r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d n e g o t i a t i o n on another. Many of the House l e a d e r s ' t a l k s r e l a t e t o n e c e s s a r y matters of o r g a n i z a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g example of a problem a r i s i n g near the end of the l a s t s e s s i o n i n the Twenty-Eighth Parliament, a l t h o u g h perhaps more complex than the norm, i s t y p i c a l of the need to make some arrangements. The House l e a -ders had arranged to c a r r y the Family Insurance S e c u r i t y P l a n (FISP) B i l l through i t s r e p o r t and t h i r d r e a d i n g stages on the same day. As the O p p o s i t i o n had s e v e r a l amendments to put forward, they assumed t h a t the debate on t h i s b i l l would continue u n t i l the end of the day. However, when the Speaker asked f o r the unanimous consent of the House, r e q u i r e d i f more than one stage i s to be d e a l t w i t h on the same day, they found t h a t they had not considered the views of the independent Members of P a r l i a m e n t . One of these members r e f u s e d t o give the needed consent; and debate ground t o a h a l t . The govern-ment t h e r e f o r e brought forward the Farm C r e d i t B i l l ; but de-bate had o n l y begun when a member rose to remind the House t h a t the A g r i c u l t u r e Committee was meeting s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h the 58 Wheat Board; and the most knowledgeable and most concerned members on the Farm C r e d i t B i l l were a t t e n d i n g t h a t committee. The House l e a d e r s then agreed to stop t h a t debate and b r i n g forward the Labour Code B i l l . T h i s r e q u i r e d c o n t a c t i n g mem-bers who had been p r e p a r i n g f i r s t f o r the FISP debate and then f o r the farm c r e d i t debate. I t a l s o r e q u i r e d c o n t a c t i n g those members concerned w i t h the l a b o u r code and r e o r g a n i z i n g the order of speakers. I f there had been no agreement among the p a r t i e s , the o p p o s i t i o n s c o u l d have spent the a f t e r n o o n a r g u i n g t h a t they were not prepared and t h a t the government had been u n f a i r i n b r i n g i n g on new b i l l s without warning. T h i s example i l l u s t r a t e s not o n l y an immediate problem which the House l e a d e r s f a c e d , but i t h i g h l i g h t s both the r o l e of the House l e a d e r s and the need f o r c o n t i n u i n g f l e x i b i l i t y i n a r r a n g i n g the House agenda. Many of the House l e a d e r s d i s c u s s i o n s r e l a t e t o the b u s i n e s s immediately b e f o r e the House. The House l e a d e r s may agree to l i m i t the members' speeches f u r t h e r than t h a t p r o v i d e d i n the s t a n d i n g o r d e r s ; they may agree t o end a debate and h o l d the vote at a c e r t a i n hour. They may decide to have o n l y a c e r -t a i n number of speakers from each p a r t y f o r a stage of a b i l l . They may even t r y to have a l l stages of a b i l l passed i n the same day. Some d i s c u s s i o n s are h e l d to see i f a House l e a d e r can persuade a p a r t i c u l a r l y obstreperous member to leave the House; o r to see i f the House can rush through s e v e r a l c l a u s e s while the o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s concerned w i t h those c l a u s e s are out of the House. The t a l k s may simply c o n s i s t of warning the Government House l e a d e r t o keep a cabi n e t m i n i s t e r q u i e t i f h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i s under p a r t i c u l a r l y severe c r i t i c i s m . As one former o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r p o i n t e d out: "I t h i n k a m i n i s t e r should have enough godd sense to r e a l i z e t h a t he i s there f o r the purpose of g e t t i n g h i s l e g i s l a t i o n through. He has got to be i n s e n s i t i v e to the c r i t i -cism. I f he f i g h t s back, he arouses f o u r more members who never intended t o speak a t a l l . The government gets i t s l e g i s l a t i o n , but the o p p o s i t i o n has to have the l a s t word of c r i t i c i s m . That i s what we are here f o r " . U n d e r l y i n g a l l of the House leaders' d i s c u s s i o n s and agree-ments i s a sense of n e g o t i a t i o n . One whip i n t e r v i e w e d des-c r i b e d the House l e a d e r s * t a l k s as based on a " c a r r o t and s t i c k p r o c e s s " . The government knows t h a t i t may have l e g i s -l a t i o n which i s a t t r a c t i v e t o the o p p o s i t i o n , f o r example, an o l d age pension b i l l which i s of i n t e r e s t t o a l l p a r t i e s o r a pi e c e of farm l e g i s l a t i o n which Is of i n t e r e s t t o the p r a i r i e b l o c k s i n both the Conservative p a r t y and the NDP. T h e r e f o r e , foremost i n the Government House leader's., thoughts when he t a l k s about s e t t i n g up the agenda of the House i s what he can t r a d e . In the whip's words: " I f you l e t me make progress w i t h t h i s d i s t a s t e f u l b i l l , I w i l l g ive you t h i s l i t t l e b i l l whichyyou want so t h a t you can boast back home t h a t you f o r c e d t h i s measure on the Government". The o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s , too, have n o t i o n s of trade w i t h the government. They p e r c e i v e b i l l s which are p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e t o the government and ot h e r s which may be of l e s s e r o u importance t o the government but s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e i r own p a r t y ' s p o l i c i e s . They t h e r e f o r e n e g o t i a t e w i t h the government to hasten the progress o f one b i l l i f another t h a t they want goes forward as w e l l . A more l i k e l y n o t i o n of trade f o r the o p p o s i t i o n i s t o o f f e r t o speed up the passage of one b i l l important t o the government i f c e r t a i n concessions and amend-ments are made to another pi e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n . The d i s c u s s i o n s move back and f o r t h i n t h i s way, the government g i v i n g a l i t t l e here, the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s g i v i n g something t h e r e . And i t i s the House l e a d e r s who present the v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s and co - o r d i n a t e the arrangements. Ar r a n g i n g the bu s i n e s s of the House i s not a s c i e n c e , and when the House l e a d e r s are d i s c u s s i n g the b u s i n e s s , they can never be c e r t a i n how a debate w i l l r e a l l y go. I t i s o f t e n n e c e s s a r y t o l e t the debate run f o r a p e r i o d of time and then reassess the f e e l i n g s o f the members. The mood of the House may change o r new f a c t o r s may come to l i g h t which can r e o r i e n t both the debate and the f o c a l p o i n t of d i s c u s s i o n s . T h i s , too, i s another reason f o r the i n f o r m a l i t y w i t h which the House l e a d e r s c a r r y out t h e i r communications. House l e a d e r s ' d i s c u s s i o n s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by fr a n k n e s s . As one House l e a d e r put i t , "We a l l get to know each ot h e r p r e t t y w e l l and you know how f a r you can go and you know how f a r the o t h e r s i d e i s b l u f f i n g . And I suppose they know t h a t about you". Another s a i d t h a t the frankness i s u s u a l l y t h e r e because when i t i s not forthcoming, the o t h e r House l e a d e r s r e c e i v e a message e q u a l l y c l e a r about what i s going t o happen. Such frankness e x i s t s because there i s a s i l e n t understanding among the House l e a d e r s t h a t t h e i r t a l k s are p r i v a t e and o f f the r e c o r d . I t i s p a r t of the p a r l i a m e n t a r y honour code t h a t comments made i n these meetings are n o n - a t t r i b u t a b l e and are kept w i t h i n the meetings themselves and w i t h i n the p a r t y caucus. P r i v a c y i s r e q u i r e d because a l l s i d e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t i n o r d e r to make the p a r l i a m e n t a r y machine work, concessions have to be made. P u b l i c l y , the government must defend i t s p o l i c i e s ; e q u a l l y , the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s must a t t a c k those p o l i c i e s which they c o n s i d e r weak and d e t r i m e n t a l . I f one s i d e o r the o t h e r i s known t o make a co n c e s s i o n o r i s seen to back down, i t may be accused of weakness. F u r t h e r , the p u b l i c a t i o n of one c o n c e s s i o n made would tend to d i s t o r t the whole p i c t u r e . I f , f o r example, i t were known t h a t the government had made c e r t a i n amendments t o a b i l l o r had agreed to review a p o l i c y as a r e s u l t of a House l e a d e r s 1 meeting, the government would appear to have weakened. I t may a l s o appear to be c a t e r i n g t o one o p p o s i t i o n group over the o t h e r s . In r e a l i t y , however, the government may have gained more by making t h a t c o n c e s s i o n as they may have r e c e i v e d c e r t a i n agreements from the o p p o s i -t i o n on s e v e r a l o t h e r matters. The making of a c o n c e s s i o n cannot be c o n s i d e r e d i n i s o l a t i o n from what was r e c e i v e d i n r e t u r n . The r a p p o r t between the House l e a d e r s w i l l t o l e r a t e o n l y a s m a l l degree of p u b l i c i t y before the disadvantages of h o l d i n g such meetings b e g i n to outweigh the advantages. In the mid 1960's, f o r example, one of the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a -ders accused another of r e v e a l i n g some i n f o r m a t i o n a r i s i n g from these p r i v a t e t a l k s , and he r e f u s e d t o a t t e n d any f u r -t h e r meetings. The Government House l e a d e r was f o r c e d i n t o the p o s i t i o n of meeting s e p a r a t e l y w i t h each House l e a d e r , n e c e s s i t a t i n g a great d e a l of a d d i t i o n a l time and energy on h i s p a r t . T h i s hardening of a t t i t u d e s decreased the smooth flow of b u s i n e s s through the House and p r e c i p i t a t e d the re t i r e m e n t o f an a l r e a d y overworked Government House l e a d e r . I f the contents of these meetings became p u b l i c on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , the type o f n e g o t i a t i o n s would change d r a s t i c a l l y . A new channel o f s e c r e t communications would undoubtedly be c r e a t e d . The House l e a d e r s as a group have no c o l l e c t i v e power to enforce any agreements theyimay make. Chapter seven d i s c u s s e s the problems inh e r e n t i n Standing Order 75 which prevents i t s use f o r time a l l o c a t i o n . On o c c a s i o n , the H 0use l e a d e r s suggest t h a t a c e r t a i n arrangement be made an or d e r of the House, a process r e q u i r i n g unanimous consent. Whether the House accepts such an agreement depends on the mood of every member. The m a j o r i t y o f agreements, however, hinge on whether the i n d i v i d u a l House l e a d e r has assessed c o r r e c t l y the mood of h i s p a r t y , whether he has f o l l o w e d p a r t y i n s t r u c t i o n s , and, f i n a l l y , whether the p a r t y i s w i l l i n g t o back up the commitments he has made. C H A P T E R 5 The House Leaders' Source, of Power and A u t h o r i t y Within the P a r t y S t r u c t u r e  The communication channel between the House l e a d e r s i s simply a convention of the House. As s t a t e d i n Chapter one, House l e a d e r s are s u p p l i e d by the p a r t i e s to a s s i s t i n making the p a r l i a m e n t a r y adversaryasystem a workable one. The a u t h o r i t y they possess t o n e g o t i a t e about the House business and make arrangements comes s o l e l y from t h e i r p a r t i e s and not i n any formal way from the House I t s e l f . The Government House l e a d e r i s appointed d i r e c t l y by the prime m i n i s t e r . His p o s i t i o n i n the m i n i s t r y i s unique, f o r he i s c a r r y i n g out d u t i e s which are s t i l l v e r y much of d i r e c t concern to the prime m i n i s t e r . Most Government House l e a d e r s , when Interviewed, were quick to p o i n t out t h i s uniqueness. A c c o r d i n g to Walter H a r r i s , "He i s a servant of the prime m i n i s t e r , and what he says and does c a r r y w i t h i t the prime m i n i s t e r ' s t a c i t consent. And o n l y i n t h a t way can he have any a u t h o r i t y . " Gordon C h u r c h i l l viewed h i s p o s i t i o n as " s i m i l a r to t h a t of an Adjutant who, on o c c a s i o n , passes on to the o f f i c e r s and men of the regiment the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the Commanding O f f i c e r " . In theory, any prime m i n i -s t e r may choose not to f i l l the p o s i t i o n of Government House l e a d e r , although the p r a c t i c a l l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s o c c u r r i n g , g i v e n the expanded r o l e of the prime m i n i s t e r , ^ i s now r e l a t i v e l y , s l i g h t . Even so, the prime m i n i s t e r r e t a i n s the u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r l e a d i n g the House because t h i s i s h i s t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e and because he must take f i n a l r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v e r y t h i n g a m i n i s t e r does. R e l a t i o n s be-tween prime m i n i s t e r and Government House l e a d e r must t h e r e -f o r e be v e r y c l o s e . Walter H a r r i s s t a t e s t h a t although he had few fo r m a l meetings w i t h the prime m i n i s t e r he saw him almost h o u r l y throughout the day. George M c l l r a i t h , on the othe r hand, e s t a b l i s h e d the r o u t i n e o f meeting w i t h the prime m i n i s t e r a t 8 : 5 0 every morning t o d i s c u s s the day's b u s i n e s s . The two have always had seats c l o s e t o g e t h e r i n the House of Commons and may c o n s u l t t h e r e . Cabinet meetings provide another o p p o r t u n i t y . The present Government House l e a d e r i s a member of the Cabinet Committee on P r i o r i t i e s and P l a n n i n g c h a i r e d by the Prime M i n i s t e r , which i s another forum f o r the exchange of i d e a s . How much a u t h o r i t y ghe Government House l e a d e r a c t u a l l y possesses i s f r e q u e n t l y dependent on how much a u t h o r i t y he i s w i l l i n g t o t a k e . Donald MacDonald, f o r example, s a i d t h a t he never sat down wit h the prime m i n i s t e r t o d i s c u s s a d i v i -s i o n of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . He was appointed t o the p o s i t i o n and went ahead t o carve out the r o l e as he p e r c e i v e d i t . George M c l l r a i t h s a i d , "I was g i v e n the a u t h o r i t y , and I e x e r c i s e d i t . " A l l a n McEachen, too, appears t o have assumed a great d e a l of a u t h o r i t y over the House b u s i n e s s . An impor-t a n t f a c t o r i s the amount of i n t e r e s t taken by the prime m i n i s t e r i n the a c t i v i t i e s of the House and how much a u t h o r i t y 65 he h i m s e l f wishes to have over the conduct of b u s i n e s s . L o u i s S t . Laurent l e f t a great d e a l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o h i s House l e a d e r and on numerous oc c a s i o n s he was even c h a s t i z e d by the o p p o s i t i o n In the House f o r a b d i c a t i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l 2 r o l e of l e a d e r of the House. L e s t e r Pearson a l s o gave h i s House l e a d e r s a g r e a t d e a l of a u t h o r i t y . In h i s i n t e r v i e w , he s a i d , "When I became Leader of the House as Prime M i n i s t e r , I l e f t the conduct of b u s i n e s s and the n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h the o t h e r p a r t i e s t o my House l e a d e r . . . I used to l e t the House l e a -der run the whole show. As long as he was doing h i s job, i t wasn't necessary f o r me t o i n t e r v e n e . But he would t e l l me, of course, what was going on; and he would operate under g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s . . . . Unless there was something important, I'd leave i t to him to contact me when he wanted t o , which he d i d n e a r l y every day; and I kept i n very c l o s e touch with him." John Diefenbaker, on the o t h e r hand, took a much g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t i n e v e r y t h i n g t h a t o c c u r r e d i n the House. Gordon C h u r c h i l l was quoted as s a y i n g , "The House l e a d e r s h i p Is a job w i t h a l o t of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but not much power." ^ His p e r c e p t i o n of the r o l e as b e i n g t h a t of an Adjutant g i v e s support to the amount of a u t h o r i t y r e t a i n e d by h i s prime m i n i -s t e r . P i e r r e Trudeau appears content t o leave most of the a u t h o r i t y f o r House business to h i s House l e a d e r . One check on the power of the Government House l e a d e r i s the c a b i n e t . The c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r s are I n t e r e s t e d i n h i s a c t i v i t i e s because he i s Involved In d e v e l o p i n g the o r d e r i n which b i l l s w i l l be c a l l e d and o c c a s i o n a l l y i n making conces-s i o n s to the o p p o s i t i o n i n the form of amendments to these b i l l s . Although most government p r i o r i t i e s are s e t t l e d i n the c a b i n e t , the House l e a d e r s t i l l has some leeway i n the c a l l i n g of b i l l s . Most amendments are made i n the c a b i n e t o r by the i n d i v i d u a l m i n i s t e r concerned, although the Government House l e a d e r may take the I n i t i a t i v e t o concede a minor p o i n t i f i t means t h a t the b u s i n e s s w i l l proceed more r a p i d l y . I f the m i n i s t e r s do not have confidence i n h i s judgment he may have great d i f f i c u l t y i n persuading them to present t h e i r l e g -i s l a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to h i s t i m e t a b l e . He may a l s o spend a great d e a l of time e x p l a i n i n g h i s d e c i s i o n s and s o o t h i n g the f e e l i n g s of those m i n i s t e r s who are anxious to have t h e i r l e g i s l a t i o n completed. Most Government House l e a d e r s s a i d t h a t once the p r i o r i t i e s f o r the s e s s i o n were e s t a b l i s h e d , they attempted to keep cabi n e t d i s c u s s i o n s on the conduct of b u s i n e s s to a minimum. I f they foresaw major d i f f i c u l t i e s i n p a s s i n g a b i l l , they would l e t the cabinet decide whether to s t i c k to i t s p o s i t i o n o r make some accommodation. On such o c c a s i o n s the Government House l e a d e r would r e c e i v e e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c -t i o n s from the c a b i n e t . The Cabinet Committee on L e g i s l a t i o n and House Pla n n i n g may a l s o have some i n f l u e n c e over the Government House l e a d e r . Having been i n v o l v e d i n the study of d r a f t l e g i s l a t i o n m i n i s t e r s on the committee may have many u s e f u l ideas about the l e g i s l a t i v e s chedule. T h e i r i n f l u e n c e comes mainly i n the form of a d v i c e and suggestions, however, and not as d i r e c t c o n t r o l . I f they were not s a t i s f i e d w i t h the House l e a d e r ' s performance, t h e i r complaints would be d i r e c t e d t o the prime m i n i s t e r . Another c o n t r o l on the Government House l e a d e r i s pro-v i d e d by the caucus. At the weekly meeting the Government House l e a d e r ' s statements.is n o r m a l l y the f i r s t on the agenda. He o u t l i n e s the b u s i n e s s to be conducted the f o l l o w i n g week. I f the members' d i s c o n t e n t over some of the l e g i s l a t i o n has not been a l l e v i a t e d , they may v o i c e an o b j e c t i o n . The prime m i n i s t e r must then decide i f the b u s i n e s s w i l l go ahead as planned o r i f the m i n i s t e r i n v o l v e d should make another review. Normally most d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l have then been c l e a r e d i n ad-vance, both through the caucus committees and g e n e r a l d i s c u s s -ions i n caucus, and through i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d beforehand from the whip who, as the l i s t e n i n g post on the backbenchers 1 views, w i l l have r e p o r t e d to the Government House l e a d e r . The Government House l e a d e r w i l l have developed h i s schedule i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e i r views; and would l i k e l y have d i s c u s s e d any problems w i t h the prime m i n i s t e r and c a b i n e t so t h a t the l e g i s l a t i o n e i t h e r would not appear on the schedule o r the d e c i s i o n to go ahead would have been made and supported by the c a b i n e t . Once i n the House, the Government House l e a d e r attempts to keep the number of government speakers to the minimum r e q u i r e d ; although he cannot prevent a government member from speaking i f the member i s determined to take the o p p o r t u n i t y . Yet another group which may i n f l u e n c e the Government House l e a d e r ' s a c t i v i t i e s i s the House committee chairmen. I f they are unable t o f o r c e t h e i r committees t o complete the committee stage of a b i l l w i t h i n the time d e s i r e d ( J O by the House l e a d e r , he may have to r e v i s e h i s schedule s i g n i f i c a n t l y . T h e i r i n f l u e n c e i s i n d i r e c t as they possess no c o n t r o l s over the e v e n t u a l t i m i n g of the r e p o r t stage i n the House. The Government House l e a d e r ' s a u t h o r i t y , then, d e r i v e s from the prime m i n i s t e r who app o i n t s him. The prime m i n i s t e r e x e r t s great c o n t r o l over the Government House l e a d e r through the i n t e r e s t the prime m i n i s t e r takes i n s u p e r v i s i n g and pefchaps d i r e c t i n g the conduct of House b u s i n e s s . The c a b i n e t , too, c o n t r o l s the Government House l e a d e r by e s t a b l i s h i n g the l e g i -s l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s f o r the s e s s i o n and f u r t h e r l i m i t h i s power on important l e g i s l a t i o n by p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r I t s passage through the House. To be e f f e c t i v e , however, the Government House l e a d e r must have enough f l e x i b i l i t y w i t h i n c e r t a i n g i v e n s t r a t e g i e s to develop the t a c t i c s n e c e s s a r y t o get the bu s i n e s s through the House. His i n f l u e n c e comes from h i s c o n t a c t s w i t h the other House l e a d e r s . As long as the prime m i n i s t e r and c a b i n e t r e c o g n i z e t h i s f a c t and t r u s t h i s judgment, the Goveimment House l e a d e r may e x e r c i s e h i s power. The caucus e x e r t s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o n t r o l over the Govern-ment House l e a d e r . The members' concern i s w i t h the l e g i s l a -t i o n i t s e l f and t h i s i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the r e l e v a n t c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r s . Once the cabinet decides to move ahead on the l e g i s l a t i o n , p a r t y d i s c i p l i n e takes over and the Government House l e a d e r need o n l y prepare f o r those members who a b s o l u t e l y must speak on the b i l l . Very r a r e l y does a government back-bencher attempt t o f i l i b u s t e r a government b i l l as d i d Ralph Cowan w i t h the support of the C r e d i t i s t e s on the 1969 c r i m i -n a l code amendments. The source of the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r ' s a u t h o r i t y i s more d i f f i c u l t t o l o c a t e f o r h i s powers are extremely f l u i d . A c c o r d i n g to NDP l e a d e r David Lewis, an o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r i s r e a l l y an " i n t e r l o c u t o r y " : "He i s a n e g o t i a t o r w i t h the power t o n e g o t i a t e but not n e c e s s a r i l y the power to d e c i d e " . A l l o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s are s e l e c t e d by t h e i r p a r t y l e a -ders, but because of the i n c r e a s i n g democracy i n the caucuses, these appointments are n o r m a l l y approved by the members. In the NDP, the l e a d e r ' s recommendation' i s confirmed by vote; i n the Conservative and C r e d i t i s t e caucuses, a "concensus o p i n i o n " i s taken. Through t h i s a p p r o v a l , the e n t i r e caucus assumes some c o n t r o l over the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r ' s power and a u t h o r i t y although the l e a d e r , as head of the p a r t y , must accept the u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the House l e a d e r ' s a c t i o n s . T h i s type of a p p r o v a l i s simply a r e a l i s t i c r ecog-n i t i o n of the p o s i t i o n which the House l e a d e r o c c u p i e s , f o r d i s c i p l i n e i n the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s i s l e s s s t r i n g e n t and l e s s e f f e c t i v e than i n the government p a r t y . L i k e the Govern-ment House l e a d e r , the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r has no formal c o n t r o l s over the p a r t y members. But u n l i k e the government p a r t y MPs the i n d i v i d u a l o p p o s i t i o n MPs are more l i k e l y t o a s s e r t t h e i r freedom by not a g r e e i n g to planned arrangements. His o n l y i n f l u e n c e over the caucus comes from h i s knowledge of the n e g o t i a t i o n s , h i s p o s i t i o n as a s e n i o r and r e s p e c t e d p a r t y member and h i s t i e s w i t h the p a r t y l e a d e r . The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r and p a r t y l e a d e r work very c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r ; they are i n constant contact throughout the day, and t h e i r desks are adjacent i n the House t o all o w easy c o n s u l t a t i o n . The NDP caucus e x e c u t i v e gathers at 9 : 3 0 every morning, and the House l e a d e r and p a r t y l e a d e r meet f o r a few minutes beforehand i n case a n y t h i n g has a r i s e n on which they should c o - o r d i n a t e t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . The morning Conser-v a t i v e meeting on the q u e s t i o n p e r i o d p r o v i d e s those l e a d e r s w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s the House b u s i n e s s . Another o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n between the House l e a d e r and p a r t y l e a d e r occurs before the Wednesday caucus meetings. How much r e a l a u t h o r i t y the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r r e -c e i v e s from h i s p a r t y l e a d e r o f t e n depends, as i n the case o f the government p a r t y , on how much a u t h o r i t y he i s w i l l i n g t o ta k e . S t a n l e y Knowles s t a t e d t h a t he made numerous d e c i s i o n s without c o n s u l t a t i o n s w i t h the l e a d e r o r caucus, but t h a t "I have t o know when I have enough a u t h o r i t y t o s e t t l e t h i n g s o r when I have t o go back". I t was h i s view t h a t "the p a r t y l e a d e r has t o leave t o the House l e a d e r t h a t person's f u n c t i o n , but the House l e a d e r has to r e a l i z e he i s not the p a r t y l e a d e r " . Ged Baldwin f e l t t h a t there was a r a t h e r constant c r o s s f l o w of i n f o r m a t i o n between h i m s e l f and the l e a d e r and "we know how we each t h i n k , what our views a r e " . I f a d e c i s i o n had to be taken inbetween the caucus meetings, he would normally check w i t h the p a r t y l e a d e r , the whip, and the chairman of the caucus committee concerned w i t h the i s s u e . But i f none of these was a v a i l a b l e , he would make the d e c i s i o n on h i s own. (*-More important i s the degree to which the p a r t y l e a d e r i s w i l l i n g t o delegate a u t h o r i t y t o h i s House l e a d e r . The present Conservative l e a d e r appears to leave a great d e a l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o h i s House l e a d e r . Ged Baldwin s t a t e d t h a t , "He r e s p e c t s my judgment and has confidence inJne."The C r e d i -t i s t e l e a d e r , Real Caouette, leaves many of the minor d e t a i l s t o h i s House l e a d e r but assumes a u t h o r i t y over those i s s u e s i n which he and the caucus are p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d . On many o c c a s i o n s , he s a i d , "I a c t as the House l e a d e r myself". NDP l e a d e r David Lewis d i v i d e s the a u t h o r i t y i n t o two c l a s s e s of s i t u a t i o n ' . The f i r s t , which makes up the m a j o r i t y , c o n s i s t s of the n o n - c o n t r o v e r s i a l s i t u a t i o n s i n which the House l e a d e r knows t h a t i f he makes an agreement th e r e w i l l be no problem. For these, "he j u s t goes ahead and uses h i s best judgment". The second c l a s s of s i t u a t i o n i s where the House l e a d e r knows t h a t more i s involved} 1 "whether the p a r t y supports the l e g i s -l a t i o n and whether the p a r t y supports i t but wants a long debate; whether the p a r t y opposes i t to the p o i n t of wanting to b l o c k i t , o r whether the p a r t y opposes i t merely to make i t tough f o r the government". For these a r e a s , where the i s s u e i s not merely agenda, but p o l i c y and t a c t i c and p a r t y s t r a t e g y , the House l e a d e r w i l l r e p o r t t o the l e a d e r and then t o the caucus to r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s . G e n e r a l l y , i f the House l e a -der and p a r t y l e a d e r d i s a g r e e , the House l e a d e r i s l i k e l y to f o l l o w the a d v i c e of the p a r t y l e a d e r . The caucus e x e c u t i v e or shadow cabin e t p r o v i d e s another check over the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r . The shadow gabinet n o r m a l l y c o n s i s t s of s e n i o r members—for the C o n s e r v a t i v e s , many of these are former c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r s — m o s t of whom are a l l o c a t e d p o l i c y areas which p a r a l l e l the government cabi n e t and who f r e q u e n t l y c h a i r caucus committees d e a l i n g w i t h the p o l i c y a r e a s . As w e l l as conducting t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l d u t i e s , the shadow cabinet members are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a r t i c u l a t i n g many of the p a r t y p o l i c i e s and s t r a t e g i e s . From t h e i r meetings, the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r i s able t o gauge the p a r t y sentiments on c e r t a i n p o l i c y i s s u e s and can a d j u s t h i s t a c t i c s a c c o r d i n g l y . On o c c a s i o n the e x e c u t i v e may o v e r r u l e the House l e a d e r ' s plans and suggest a l t e r n a t i v e s . The House l e a d e r w i l l a l s o c o n s u l t w i t h the caucus committee chairman r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a p o l i c y a r e a scheduled f o r debate to g a i n the views of the committee members and t h e i r suggestions f o r p a r t y s t r a t e g i e s . The shadow cabin e t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important f o r the Conserva-t i v e and NDP House l e a d e r s . The C r e d i t l s t e e x e c u t i v e i s much s m a l l e r and has a l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r u c t u r e because of the s m a l l s i z e o f the p a r t y and because the C r e d i t l s t e members tend to devote the m a j o r i t y of t h e i r time to the advocacy of S o c i a l C r e d i t monetary p o l i c i e s and to c o n s t i t u e n c y b u s i n e s s . House s t r a t e g i e s are normally d e a l t w i t h by the e n t i r e caucus. O v e r r i d i n g these o t h e r checks on the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r i s the caucus i t s e l f . At the r e g u l a r Wednesday caucus the House l e a d e r ' s statement i s n o r m a l l y the f i r s t on the agenda. I t i s h i s duty to put forward any arrangements suggested by the Government House l e a d e r and to e x p l a i n the views expressed by the o t h e r o p p o s i t i o n groups towards these s u g g e s t i o n s . He may then suggest t a c t i c s which the p a r t y c o u l d f o l l o w o r he may simply request comments from the members. In the NDP caucus a motion i s n o r m a l l y passed to confirm the d e c i s i o n on t a c t i c s . In the Conservative and C r e d i t i s t e caucuses, a consensus view i s summed up by the House l e a d e r , caucus c h a i r -man, o r the p a r t y l e a d e r . I f no consensus can be reached t h i s f a c t i s r e p o r t e d t o the Government House l e a d e r . As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , the House l e a d e r has l i t t l e f o r -mal power over the caucus. His comments are u s u a l l y accorded a g r e a t d e a l of a t t e n t i o n because of h i s c o n t a c t s w i t h the o t h e r p a r t i e s and h i s experience i n d e a l i n g w i t h the House b u s i n e s s . C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y whip Tom B e l l says t h a t the House l e a d e r i s not t h a t a c t i v e i n the caucus. He l i s t e n s t o t r y and g a i n the consensus of the p a r t y . But "a good House l e a -der should not t r y and mold p u b l i c o p i n i o n " . Ged Baldwin says that he o c c a s i o n a l l y has to ask the caucus t o do t h i n g s which they f e e l should not be done. The s e c r e t , a c c o r d i n g to him, i s not to do i t o f t e n and to make c e r t a i n t h a t he has a good s u p p o r t i n g case to back him up. The l e a d e r may a l s o express h i m s e l f f o r c e f u l l y t o g a i n a caucus agreement. In the NDP, i f a vote i s taken, any d i s s i d e n t members w i l l l i k e l y f o l l o w the m a j o r i t y . I f , however, they i n t e n d to take independent a c t i o n , the normal procedure i s to warn the House l e a d e r i n advance. Even i f an agreement has been reached i n the caucus, the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r may have d i f f i c u l t y YD i n e n f o r c i n g t h a t d e c i s i o n . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n a l a r g e caucus, some of the members may not have attended the meeting and o f t e n c o n s i d e r t h a t they are not p a r t y t o the agreements made. The d e c i s i o n s made In the Conservative caucus are never f i r m d e c i s i o n s , and members may change t h e i r minds a t a l a t e r p o i n t i n the debate. Strong i n d i v i d u a l i s t s i n the p a r t y , r e g a r d l e s s of the caucus consensus, may move i n t o the House and make an i s s u e out of something the p a r t y would p r e f e r to see passed q u i e t l y and q u i c k l y . When making arrange-ments through the communication channels, the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s u s u a l l y remind the Government House l e a d e r t h a t any agreements are always s u b j e c t t o the i n d i v i d u a l member r e f u s i n g t o accept the agreement. The o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r ' s a u t h o r i t y i s r e c e i v e d from the p a r t y l e a d e r who s e l e c t s him and the caucus which approves the appointment. His immediate powers are dependent upon the degree of conf i d e n c e , independence, and support accorded him by the p a r t y l e a d e r . H is powers may be f u r t h e r l i m i t e d by the amount of involvement d i s p l a y e d by the shadow ca b i n e t i n the pa r t y ' s s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s . More s i g n i f i c a n t l y , h i s pow-ers a re l i m i t e d by the views of the caucus, the degree of par-t y cohesion, and the House l e a d e r ' s i n c l i n a t i o n t o use pe r s u a s i o n and h i s a b i l i t y t o be e f f e c t i v e l y p e r s u a s i v e i n h o l d i n g h i s p a r t y members to an agreement. Most o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s do not c o n s i d e r i t t h e i r r i g h t to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the p r i v i l e g e s of the Member of Parliament and t h e i r power t o arrange House bus i n e s s through the communication channels, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n to the t i m i n g of debates, i s l i m i t e d by the i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c o p p o s i t i o n MP. What the House l e a d e r , both Government and o p p o s i t i o n , can accomplish i s f r e q u e n t l y l i m i t e d by i n d i v i d u a l s and groups w i t h i n h i s own p a r t y . However, the House l e a d e r n o r m a l l y possesses c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s which enhance h i s p o s i t i o n . He i s u s u a l l y a s e n i o r and experienced p a r t y member w i t h an ex t e n s i v e knowledge of how parliament operates and how the r u l e s are a p p l i e d and a knowledge o f c u r r e n t and c o n t r o v e r s i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . They u s u a l l y enjoy the confidence of the p a r t y l e a d e r and most members. The b e t t e r House l e a d e r s n o r m a l l y have a good supply of p o l i t i c a l i n t u i t i o n , some s k i l l i n n e g o t i a t i o n and compromise and are o r d e r l y and o r g a n i z e d . They possess honesty, s i n c e r i t y , good judgment, and t a c t -a l l the q u a l i t i e s of a diplomat. Two of the most important a t t r i b u t e s o f a s u c c e s s f u l House l e a d e r are an a b i l i t y t o get along w i t h people and an a b i l i t y to r e s p e c t and accommodate the views of others while b e i n g a good s t r a t e g i s t . House l e a d e r s p o s s e s s i n g these q u a l i t i e s n o r m a l l y have a gr e a t d e a l of i n f l u e n c e i n t h e i r p a r t y but a t the same time experience a s i g n i f i c a n t t e n s i o n o r cross pressure as they perform t h e i r r o l e . The House l e a d e r i s f i r s t and foremost a p a r t y member; he i s expected t o do a l l t h a t he p o s s i b l y can to advance the i n t e r e s t s o f h i s p a r t y . However he i s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d a quasi-o f f i c i a l o f the House; l i k e the p a r t y l e a d e r s and whips, he f ( must submerge many of h i s p a r t i s a n sentiments i n the i n t e r e s t s of making the adversary system a workable one. T h i s means t h a t when the House l e a d e r p e r c e i v e s t h a t the p a r t y has done a l l i t can to support o r a t t a c k some l e g i s l a t i o n o r i f he f e e l s t h a t p a r t i s a n v i n d l c t i v e n e s s i s t h r e a t e n i n g t o des-t r o y the o p e r a t i o n of the House, he may have t o persuade h i s own p a r t y members to go a g a i n s t t h e i r view of what i s best f o r t h e i r p a r t y . I t may a l s o mean t h a t he w i l l choose to w i t h h o l d i n f o r m a t i o n gained from the oth e r House l e a d e r s i f the absence of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l keep p a r t y sentiments at a lower key. E q u a l l y , i n the House l e a d e r s ' meetings, he must be a b l e t o judge how f o r c e f u l l y he can present h i s p a r t y ' s case and when concessions should be made i n the i n t e r e s t s of the House. T h i s assessment i n c l u d e s the d e c i s i o n as t o how much i n f o r m a t i o n on p a r t y s t r a t e g i e s and plans he should d i v u l g e t o the oth e r House l e a d e r s . These c r o s s p r e s s u r e s on the House l e a d e r are an i n e v i t a b l e p a r t of the system i n which he o p e r a t e s . R a r e l y i s i t p o s s i b l e t o s a t i s f y both pre s s u r e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ; and when the House l e a d e r appears more p a r t i s a n i n one s i t u a t i o n i t may i n d i c a t e t h a t he has been l e s s p a r t i s a n i n another. I f he i s unable t o submerge h i s p a r t y l o y a l t y t o some exten t , the communication channel cannot f u n c t i o n . But i f he g i v e s i n too e a s i l y , the p a r t y may soon r e p l a c e him. 78 FOOTNOTES; Chapter 5 1 Marc Lalonde, then P r i n c i p a l S ecretary t o the Prime M i n i s t e r , explored the extensive d u t i e s of the contemporary prime m i n i s t e r i n "The Changing Role of the Prime M i n i s t e r ' O f f i c e " , Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V. 14, w i n t e r , 1971. 2 See, f o r example, Can. H. of C. Debates. June 2 3 , 1 9 5 4 , pp. 6521-31; J u l y 6 , 1 9 5 5 . P. 5747; June 1, 1 9 5 6 , p. 4 6 0 7 . 3 Quoted i n Stewart, Walter,. "Guy Favreau, Our Next Prime M i n i s t e r ? " , Canadian Weekly. June 2 0 , 1 9 6 4 , p. 2 . C H A P T E R 6 The House Leader and the P a r t y Whip A study of the r o l e of House l e a d e r s In the Canadian Parliament would "be incomplete without some r e f e r e n c e to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the House l e a d e r and t h a t o t h e r p a r l i a m e n t a r y f u n c t i o n a r y , the Whip. Both the House l e a d e r and the whip are i n v o l v e d i n the o p e r a t i o n of parliament and i n o r g a n i z i n g the p a r l i a m e n t a r y p a r t y t o handle the b u s i n e s s of the House of Commons. The whips have t r a d i t i o n -a l l y formed the i n t e r - p a r t y communication l i n k i n the Canadian P a r l i a m e n t . The e v o l u t i o n of the House l e a d e r s and the c r e a t i o n of a new communication channel has tended to decrease the power and i n f l u e n c e of the whips. Although the House l e a d e r s ' p o s i t i o n s have i n c r e a s e d i n s t a t u r e and have become an i n d i s p u t a b l e p a r t of the House o r g a n i z a t i o n , they have not yet been o f f i c i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d . The Government House l e a d e r has always been a c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r , and he r e -c e i v e s a f u l l c a b i n e t s a l a r y and a m i n i s t e r ' s complement of s t a f f . The present incumbent has a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f h i r e d on c o n t r a c t to form the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t . O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s r e c e i v e no p a r t i c u l a r p r i v i l e g e s . The whips, on the other hand, have long been co n s i d e r e d q u a s i - o f f i c i a l s of the House; and the C h i e f Government Whip and C h i e f O p p o s i t i o n Whip r e c e i v e an a d d i t i o n a l $4,000 per annum and e x t r a s t a f f i n r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . ^ S e v e r a l 80 former Government House l e a d e r s view the apparent d i s c r i m -i n a t i o n a g a i n s t o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s as j u s t i f i e d . They f e e l t h a t too much emphasis i s b e i n g p l a c e d on the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r who i s , i n t h e i r terms, simply a " g l o r i f i e d whip". Reference t o the B r i t i s h i n t e r - p a r t y communication channels would tend t o support t h i s view. In Great B r i t a i n i t i s the whips who meet wit h the a s s i s t a n c e of a n o n - p a r t i s a n o f f i c i a l t o d i s c u s s and arrange the House b u s i n e s s . There are no o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s . The Leader of the House per-forms what c o u l d be c a l l e d a l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e while h i s C h i e f Government Whip performs the f l o o r manager's r o l e . The B r i t i s h p a r t i e s have e l a b o r a t e systems of whips to c a r r y out the more r o u t i n e t a s k s and the Chief Government Whip attends a l l c a b i n e t meetings r e l a t e d t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f House b u s i n e s s . Thus the B r i t i s h whips co u l d e q u a l l y be c a l l e d misnamed House l e a d e r s , the major d i f f e r e n c e b e i n g t h a t the Canadian Government House l e a d e r combines a l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e w i t h some of the d u t i e s of a f l o o r manager. Most House l e a d e r s and whips i n t e r v i e w e d saw t h e i r r o l e s as complementary; l e a v i n g a s i d e the p a r t i c u l a r l e g i s l a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the Government House l e a d e r , the d u t i e s of the House l e a d e r and whip i n t e r t w i n e t o such an extent t h a t a c l e a r d i v i d i n g l i n e between t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i s d i f f i c u l t t o l o c a t e . In the New Democratic P a r t y , the d u t i e s are a t present completely meshed i n one i n d i v i d u a l . e i When ques t i o n e d about t h i s phenomenon w i t h i n the NDP, most people i n t e r v i e w e d a t t r i b u t e d i t to two f a c t o r s : the s i z e of the p a r t y and the nature of the i n d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f . Both David Lewis and Knowles h i m s e l f f e l t t h a t i f the p a r l i a m e n t a r y p a r t y were to i n c r e a s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n s i z e (e.g. to over 50 members) the d u t i e s would l i k e l y be d i v i d e d . The s i z e of the caucus i s a d e f i n i t e f a c t o r i n the amount of work r e -q u i r e d of the House l e a d e r and whip. However, the S o c i a l C r e d i t P a r t y w i t h o n l y f i f t e e n members, h a l f the s i z e of the NDP, has at l e a s t n o m i n a l l y , both a House l e a d e r and a whip. The p o i n t remains t h a t the NDP House l e a d e r and whip i s one of the most s e n i o r and experienced p a r l i a m e n t a r i a n s i n the present House. He i s , as G e o f f r e y Stevens once c a l l e d ' h i m , 2 the "Commons Master Craftsman", and i f S t a n l e y Knowles were to r e t i r e from p a r l i a m e n t a r y l i f e , the NDP, g i v e n the present emphasis on the r o l e of the House l e a d e r , would l i k e l y appoint two members t o r e p l a c e him. The p a t t e r n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s shared between the House l e a d e r and whip can be c l a r i f i e d by a b r i e f study of the whip's major a c t i v i t i e s . The f i r s t duty of the whip at the commencement of a new parliament i s t o a l l o c a t e o f f i c e s and seats i n the H Quse of Commons to members of P a r l i a m e n t . The whips meet to make the i n i t i a l d i v i s i o n of o f f i c e s and s e a t s , and then the i n d i v i d u a l whip d i s t r i b u t e s these among h i s own members. A second t a s k i s t o a s s i s t i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the House committees. The whip r e p r e s e n t s h i s p a r t y on 82 the S t r i k i n g Committee which d i v i d e s the committee member-s h i p a c c o r d i n g to the p a r t i e s ' n u m e r i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the House. How the membership i s a l l o t t e d i s of some i n t e r e s t t o the House l e a d e r s and they s u p e r v i s e t h i s t a s k as w e l l as a s s i s t i n g In the i n i t i a l s e l e c t i o n of p a r t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f o r the committees. The Government House l e a d e r , with the a p p r o v a l of the m i n i s t r y , n o r m a l l y s e l e c t s the committee chairmen. The C h i e f Government Whip i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a s s i g n i n g rooms t o the House committees and f o r r e p o r t i n g any membership changes, the o p p o s i t i o n whips sending requests f o r t h e i r p a r t y ' s changes to him as w e l l . He: should m a i n t a i n quorums f o r each committee and ensure that government members make up the m a j o r i t y when any d e c i s i o n s have to be taken. Keeping a c l o s e watch over the committees' a c t i v i t i e s and r e p o r t i n g any p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s to the Government House l e a d e r i s another of h i s d u t i e s . To a s s i s t him In h i s commit-tee r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the C h i e f Government Whip has a deputy whip, one of ,the government backbenchers. The whip's s t a f f a l s o handles a l a r g e p o r t i o n of the d u t i e s . The o p p o s i t i o n whips, too, f o l l o w the a c t i v i t i e s of the House committees. Each morning, f o r example, the C h i e f O p p o s i t i o n Whip and h i s s t a f f remind the members about t h e i r meetings and encourage at l e a s t a minimum coverage of a l l committees s i t t i n g , par-t i c u l a r l y those d e a l i n g w i t h c o n t r o v e r s i a l s u b j e c t s . As mentioned, o p p o s i t i o n membership changes go f i r s t t o the p a r t y whip and then to the C h i e f Government Whip. 83 Another r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the C h i e f Government Whip i s to m a i n t a i n a quorum i n the House t o prevent the o p p o s i t i o n from c a l l i n g f o r an adjournment. For t h i s purpose, he pre-pares a House duty r o s t e r f o r the government members and keeps a d a i l y attendance r e c o r d . I t i s the government whip's duty t o keep t r a c k of the members at a l l times i n the event of a s u r p r i s e vote b e i n g c a l l e d i n the House. With h i s knowledge of the l o c a t i o n of the members, the government whip pr o v i d e s a d v i c e t o the Government House l e a d e r as t o when votes on government l e g i s l a t i o n can s a f e l y be taken. Opposi-t i o n whips have l e s s c o n t r o l over the attendance of t h e i r members. However, they do keep t r a c k of t h e i r whereabouts i n case o f emergency. In a m i n o r i t y government s i t u a t i o n , knowing the l o c a t i o n of the members can be c r i t i c a l . When a vote i s c a l l e d , the whips are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t a k i n g a count of t h e i r members. I f they're s a t i s f i e d w i t h the number, they may stop the b e l l ahead of time and proceed w i t h the v o t e . To s i g n a l the Speaker, the C h i e f Government Whip and the C h i e f O p p o s i t i o n Whip walk t o g e t h e r down the ce n t e r a i s l e of the Commons t o t h e i r s e a t s . Before a vot e , the whips may a l s o a s s i s t some o f t h e members i n f i n d i n g " p a i r s " I f they p l a n to be absent from the House. Concerning the day-to-day a c t i v i t i e s of the House, the whips r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r House l e a d e r s about the 84 b u s i n e s s t o be debated. The whips a s s i s t i n a l e r t i n g the members about t h a t business and i n reminding them about the p a r t y ' s g e n e r a l p o l i c i e s and planned s t r a t e g i e s . Each whip i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r keeping l i s t s of members who wish t o speak. I f time on a debate i s l i m i t e d , the o p p o s i t i o n whips normally c o n s u l t w i t h t h e i r House l e a d e r s and, i f necessary, the l e a -d e r s , t o decide which members w i l l be g i v e n p r i o r i t y . The government whip checks w i t h the Government House l e a d e r and f r e q u e n t l y w i t h the m i n i s t e r s concerned. The i n s t r u c t i o n s from the House l e a d e r s may have i n c l u d e d a s p e c i f i c number of speakers t o be a l l o t t e d t o each p a r t y . I f t h i s i s not the case, the whips meet and n e g o t i a t e a r a t i o . They then p r e -pare a speakers' l i s t which i s g i v e n t o the Speaker o f the House. The Speaker i s under no o b l i g a t i o n t o f o l l o w the l i s t and, on o c c a s i o n he may recognize a p e r s i s t e n t member, thus throwing the arrangement awry. In g e n e r a l , however, the members are aware of the l i s t and accept i t ; and the Speaker can then f o l l o w the order suggested. One of the whip's i n t e r e s t s i s t o see t h a t the debate flows smoothly, and f o r t h i s purpose he i s i n constant contact w i t h the o t h e r whips on the f l o o r o f the House. On debates not s u b j e c t t o any time l i m i t a t i o n s , they make assessments as t o how many speakers each p a r t y has remaining, how much lo n g e r the debate could continue, i f the House would g i v e unanimous consent t o extend the debate i n t o p r i v a t e members' hour o r past adjournment, when the vote could be c a l l e d , and so on. O c c a s i o n a l l y the whips w i l l agree t o ask the Speaker t o l i m i t the time allowed f o r each member's speech. Such a request must r e c e i v e the unanimous consent of the House. In areas such as these, the r o l e of the whip and t h a t o f the House l e a d e r tend t o o v e r l a p . The whip has a r o l e t o p l a y i n the caucus as w e l l . A f t e r the House l e a d e r has o u t l i n e d the busi n e s s planned f o r the f o l l o w i n g week and d i s c u s s e d any suggested arrangements and p a r t y s t r a t e g i e s , the whip i n d i c a t e s to the members when they must be a v a i l a b l e f o r v o t e s , when oth e r votes could p o s s i b l y be h e l d , and what i s expected i n the way of House attendance. He may a l s o remind the members to contact him i f they wish t o speak i n any p a r t i c u l a r debate. The whip i s the c h i e f p a r t y d i s c i p l i n a r i a n . He i s a l s o f r e q u e n t l y the c o n f i d a n t o f the members about t h e i r p e r s o n a l problems. He should be a l e r t t o r e c u r r i n g absences on the pa r t of a member o r h i s l a c k of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n those a c t i v i t i e s to which he"has been a s s i g n e d . He w i l l contact the member and attempt t o have the problem r e s o l v e d so t h a t the MP may a t t e n d t o h i s p a r l i a m e n t a r y d u t i e s . The whip has some patronage to enforce d i s c i p l i n e . With the House l e a d e r , he a s s i s t s i n the s e l e c t i o n of r e p r e -s e n t a t i v e s f o r the many d e l e g a t i o n s , t r i p s , and conferences which the MPs are expected t o a t t e n d , and i n choosing speakers f o r the v a r i o u s debates. The p o s i t i o n of Ch i e f Government Whip i s one which i s f i l l e d by p e r s o n a l appointment of the prime m i n i s t e r , and one O O of h i s t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e s has been to provide a l i a i s o n be-tween the prime m i n i s t e r and h i s backbench. He keeps the l e a d e r informed of the members 1 a t t i t u d e s and of t h e i r l o y -a l t y t o him; and he defends p r i v a t e members' i n t e r e s t s a g a i n s t those of the Cabinet. With the s t r e n g t h e n i n g p o s i -t i o n of the Government House l e a d e r , t h i s duty has been d i v i d e d . On the one hand, the whip i s a l i a i s o n o f f i c e r between the prime m i n i s t e r and the members concerning t h e i r l o y a l t y and adherence to the prime m i n i s t e r ; and on the o t h e r hand, he i s a l i a i s o n o f f i c e r between the members and the Government House l e a d e r concerning t h e i r support of the l e g i s l a t i o n on the f l o o r of the House. Former government whip Grant Deachman s a i d t h a t he met w i t h Prime M i n i s t e r Trudeau on an ad hoc b a s i s when the need r e q u i r e d . Because Deachman saw the prime m i n i s t e r as a man w i t h so many r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , he t r i e d t o reduce these meetings to a minimum. However, he was i n d a i l y oontact w i t h the prime m i n i s t e r ' s s t a f f . James Walker, a C h i e f Government Whip under Prime M i n i s t e r Pearson, f e l t t h a t he had much g r e a t e r contact w i t h the prime m i n i s t e r than do the present whips. The contemporary government whip meets f r e q u e n t l y w i t h the Government House l e a d e r on House b u s i n e s s ; and i n c r e a s i n g l y the views of the backbench reach the cab i n e t through t h i s channel. The o p p o s i t i o n p a r t y whips are appointed by the p a r t y l e a d e r s ; and t h e i r appointments are n o r m a l l y approved by 8 7 the caucuses. T h e i r l i a i s o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r the party-members are now d i v i d e d between d e a l i n g w i t h the p a r t y l e a -ders and the House l e a d e r . As a g e n e r a l r u l e , any p e r s o n a l complaints are taken d i r e c t l y t o the l e a d e r , but problems r e l a t i n g t o the House busi n e s s go to the House l e a d e r . R e l a t i o n s between the three f u n c t i o n a r i e s are much more c l o s e i n the o p p o s i t i o n than i n the government and i n f o r m a t i o n i s passed f r e e l y among them. Before these d u t i e s were assumed by the House l e a d e r , the whip was much more i n v o l v e d i n the development of p a r t y s t r a t e g i e s and t a c t i c s than he i s now. I t was through the whips, too, t h a t the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s c o u l d g a i n some ideas about the government's plans and the government co u l d g a i n some assessment of the o p p o s i t i o n ' s s t r a t e g i e s . Attempts t o reach accommodation were made through the whips and, i f necessary, the l e a d e r s . The communication channels were much l e s s s o p h i s t i c a t e d a t t h a t time. The development of the House l e a d e r s ' p o s i t i o n has removed these f u n c t i o n s from the whips' r o l e and l e f t the whips wi t h b a s i c a l l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s . T h i s i s the major d i s t i n c t i o n between the House l e a d e r s * r o l e and the whips' r o l e . The contemporary House l e a d e r i s the major p a r t y s t r a t e -g i s t and the c h i e f n e g o t i a t o r i n the conduct of House b u s i n e s s j the whip i s i n v o l v e d i n the more mechanical aspects of organ-i z a t i o n . Tom B e l l , the Conservative whip, e x p l a i n e d t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t h i s way: "The whips d e a l more o r l e s s w i t h the p h y s i c a l p a r t whereas the House l e a d e r s seem to be the ones who are the b r a i n s " . Donald MacDonald saw t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p 88 as t h a t of a commissioned o f f i c e r and a sergeant: "You are the c a p t a i n of the p l a t o o n but the sergeant goes around and a c t u a l l y t a l k s t o them." S t a n l e y Knowles viewed the whip's d u t i e s as "a l i t t l e l e s s l e a d e r s h i p and a l i t t l e more house-keeping arrangements". His p e r c e p t i o n of the two r o l e s was t h a t "the House l e a d e r makes the k i n d of p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s — w h a t we are going t o d o — a n d n e g o t i a t e s and so on; he then passes to the whip such d u t i e s as the l i n i n g up of a c t u a l speakers". The House l e a d e r depends on the whip to c a r r y out many of the arrangements t h a t have been made and f o r t h i s reason the whip f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t s t o the House l e a d e r . In the government, the House l e a d e r i s a s e n i o r c a b i n e t m i n i s t e r , and h i s r e l a -t i o n s h i p w i t h the whip tends t o be viewed as s u p e r i o r t o a s u b o r d i n a t e . In the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s , the two are appointed i n a s i m i l a r manner, and are of more equal s t a t u s . The o p p o s i -t i o n whip appears to have more i n f l u e n c e i n the a f f a i r s o f the p a r t y than h i s government c o u n t e r p a r t . The d i v i s i o n o f House and p a r t y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i s u l t i m a t e l y a matter of accommodation between the House l e a d e r and the whip. Grant Deachman surmised, "I t h i n k you w i l l f i n d some House l e a d e r s who tend t o p l a y a l l t h e i r cards c l o s e t o t h e i r v e s t , and ot h e r ones who do i t i n a much f r e e r and e a s i e r s t y l e ; and i n the l a t t e r case, the whip's r o l e tends t o expand". He f e l t t h a t a great d e a l a l s o depended on the whip's a t t i t u d e . I f the whip p e r c e i v e d h i s r o l e as a v e r y narrow one, the House l e a d e r would tend t o absorb some work which would otherwise be done by the whip. FOOTNOTES: Chapter 6 1 A re c e n t a d v i s o r y committee on p a r l i a m e n t a r y s a l a r i e s recommended t h a t the O f f i c i a l O p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r be g i v e n an honorarium s i m i l a r to t h a t of the whips. The r e p o r t s t a t e s : "The s a l a r y o f the Member who i s desi g n a t e d t o a c t as House l e a d e r of the o f f i c i a l o p p o s i t i o n be e s t a b l i s h e d at $6000 per annum. Although no compensation i s now p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n , In our o p i n i o n , the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the r o l e warrants s p e c i f i c remuneration." Report of the A d v i s o r y Committee on P a r l i a m e n t a r y S a l a r i e s  and Expenses, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1970, p a r a . 131, p. 42. No a c t i o n was taken on t h i s recommendation, o s t e n s i b l y be-cause the i s s u e would have complicated the debate on Members * s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s . 2 Stevens, G e o f f r e y , "The Commons' Master Craftsman", Time (Canadian e d i t i o n ) , October 1 9 , 1 9 7 0 , p. 1 5 . 90 C H A P T E R ? The I n f l u e n c e of P r o c e d u r a l Reform on the Role of the House Leaders Chapter one d e s c r i b e d the Standing Orders of the House as one of the major r e s t r a i n t s w i t h i n the adversary system i n p a r l i a m e n t . I t i s on the b a s i s of these Orders t h a t the House l e a d e r s arrange and n e g o t i a t e the conduct of House b u s i n e s s . Reforms of the r u l e s and procedures are bound to a f f e c t the House l e a d e r s * a c t i v i t i e s . Concern over pro?? cedure has always e x i s t e d i n the Canadian Parliament, but i t was the development of the p o s i t i v e s t a t e and the massive i n c r e a s e i n the amount of complexity of government work which l e d t o s i g n i f i c a n t reforms. Almost a l l r u l e changes have r e v o l v e d around f i n d i n g the best u t i l i z a t i o n of time i n the House. The f i r s t change was to i n c r e a s e the l e n g t h of the s e s s i o n s from the t r a d i t i o n a l t hree or f o u r months t o a f u l l -time o p e r a t i o n . I t i s not unusual now f o r the House to s i t w e l l i n t o the summer months and perhaps through the f a l l and w i n t e r without a r e c e s s . When the House co u l d not keep pace w i t h the amount of b u s i n e s s coming before i t f u r t h e r reforms were undertaken. Today a l l spheres but one of p a r l i a m e n t a r y a c t i v i t y are s u b j e c t t o e x p l i c i t time l i m i t a t i o n s . The debate on the Speech from the Throne i s l i m i t e d t o e i g h t days and the Budget debate to s i x days. W i t h i n each of these time p e r i o d s amendments and sub-amendments proposed by the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s a l s o have an a l l o t t e d time p e r i o d . 91 P r i v a t e members b u s i n e s s , which used to command a s i g n i f i -cant p o r t i o n o f the p a r l i a m e n t a r y week, i s now d i s c u s s e d f o r o n l y f o u r hours a week; and agreements are not i n f r e -q u e n t l y made to expend debates on government b i l l s i n t o t h i s time. The q u e s t i o n p e r i o d , which used t o extend un-t i l members had run out of q u e s t i o n s , i s now l i m i t e d t o f o r t y minutes. Speeches f o r a l l types of debates are a l s o l i m i t e d . A r e v o l u t i o n a r y reform implemented i n I968 was the c a l e n d a r i z i n g o f the p a r l i a m e n t a r y year and the removal of the s c r u t i n y of the main estimates from the House t o i t s s t a n d i n g committees. Supply was p r e v i o u s l y granted o n l y a f t e r l e n g t h y debate i n the House, but now the government t u r n s i t s e s timates over t o the committee a t the b e g i n n i n g of March and they are r e t u r n e d a t the end of May to be voted upon by the House of Commons. In the place of supply days are t w e n t y - f i v e o p p o s i t i o n days, s i x of which may be used f o r non-confidence v o t e s , as w e l l as an a d d i t i o n a l three days f o r d e a l i n g w i t h any estimates from a pr e v i o u s s e s s i o n . These p r o v i s i o n s and procedures provide o t h e r e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l s over time. The reform of House committees and the r e f e r r a l to these committees of most government l e g i s l a t i o n , r e p l a c i n g an e x t e n s i v e use of the Committee-of-the-Whole, was a l s o intended t o decrease the l o a d on the House. The a d d i t i o n of a report: stage f o r government l e g i s l a t i o n , however ( d e s p i t e the r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d upon amendments d u r i n g t h i s s t a g e ) , has decreased the Impace of t h i s reform on House time. Other t i m e - s a v i n g reforms f o r the l e g i s l a -t i v e process were the e l i m i n a t i o n of the r e s o l u t i o n stage p r e c e d i n g money b i l l s , the a b o l i t i o n of the committee on ways and means, and removal of the debate on budget r e s o l u -t i o n s . The l a t t e r r e s o l u t i o n s are put to a vote a f t e r the c o n c l u s i o n of the budget debate o r at another a p p r o p r i a t e time. With some r e s e r v a t i o n s , the House l e a d e r s of a l l p o l i t i c a l groups had been a d v o c a t i n g such reforms f o r many y e a r s . S p e c i a l committees had been e s t a b l i s h e d and p r o v i s i o n a l r e -forms t e s t e d throughout the 1960's; the main problem was t h a t of c o n v i n c i n g r a n k - a n d - f i l e p a r t y members t h a t the advantages of these changes would outweigh the disadvantages of time a l l o c a t i o n . In December o f . 1 9 6 8 the p r o v i s i o n a l r u l e s which remained were made permanent by a unanimous vote of the House. These changes e f f e c t i v e l y withdrew from the House l e a d e r s ' c o n s u l t a t i o n s many of the t o o l s of n e g o t i a t i o n t h a t had been used by the o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s t o g a i n concessions from the government. The a r e a of g r e a t e s t c o n t r o v e r s y t h a t remained u n r e s o l v e d , however, was, and remains, time a l l o c a t i o n f o r government l e g i s l a t i o n . U n t i l I 9 6 5 , the o n l y formal ways the govern-ment could shorten a debate were by moving the p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n or by imposing c l o s u r e . The f i r s t method meant l i m i t i n g debate to the main q u e s t i o n of a b i l l . I f the even-t u a l vote on t h a t motion was a f f i r m a t i v e , the o t h e r c l a u s e s were voted on without f u r t h e r debate. The advantage of moving the previous q u e s t i o n was t h a t i t l i m i t e d d i s c u s s i o n to the main q u e s t i o n of the b i l l ; however t h i s d i d not pre-vent e x t e n s i v e debate on the s u b j e c t and the Speaker became i n v o l v e d i n many wrangles as to whether members were l i m i t i n g t h e i r speeches to the s u b j e c t - a t - h a n d . The o t h e r method, c l o s u r e , ended d i s c u s s i o n a f t e r a day's debate on each stage of a b i l l t o which i t was a p p l i e d . T e r m i n a t i o n of debate i n t h i s manner has always been considered d i s t a s t e f u l even to government members, and i t has r a r e l y been used f o r f e a r of c r e a t i n g the p u b l i c image of an a u t h o r i t a r i a n government. The d e f e a t of the L i b e r a l government i n 1957 has f r e q u e n t l y been a t t r i b u t e d to i t s use of c l o s u r e i n the p i p e l i n e debate. In the s p r i n g of 1964, a sub-committee of the S p e c i a l Committee on Procedure and O r g a n i z a t i o n proposed a new S tanding Order 32-A to provide f o r a s e s s i o n a l Business Committee t o a l l o c a t e i n advance of debate the time to be a l l o c a t e d t o government b i l l s . 1 Composition of t h i s commit-tee was the matter of some d i s p u t e , suggestions r a n g i n g from one r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r each p a r t y (there were f i v e p a r t i e s i n the House at t h a t time) to two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f o r the o f f i c i a l o p p o s i t i o n , one f o r each of the o t h e r o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s , and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f o r the government equal i n number o f the number o f o p p o s i t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . The Speaker would appoint members to t h i s committee on the 94 nomination of the p a r t y l e a d e r s ; and the Deputy Speaker would c h a i r the committee but have no v o t e . I f , p r i o r to the c a l l i n g o f an order f o r c e r t a i n stages of debate, a m i n i s t e r requested t h a t the matter of time be r e f e r r e d t o the Business Committee, t h a t committee would endeavour to reach agreement on the maximum number of s i t t i n g days to be a l l o t t e d f o r debate on any stage o r stages r e f e r r e d . I f the committee was a b l e t o r e p o r t agreement, the House would vote on t h a t recommendation without debate, and the agreement would become an order of the House. Allowance was made to s i t beyond the adjournment hour on the l a s t day of the ordered debate i f the committee's recommendation was not unanimous. I f , however, the Business Committee was unable to make a r e p o r t t o the House, the debate would then proceed as i f no r e f e r e n c e had been made. The v i r t u e o f the p r o p o s a l , as S t a n l e y Knowles emphasized l a t e r , was t h a t time would be a l l o c a t e d t o a measure one stage a t a time. "Thus i f d u r i n g the f i r s t o r second stage of debate something f a r - r e a c h i n g developed, or i f the government produced unacceptable propo-s a l s or amendments, the House c o u l d r e f u s e t o accept a time p l i m i t on the t h i r d o r f o u r t h stage of debate". The Business Committee p r o p o s a l was t a c i t l y agreed t o by the main committee and was then r e f e r r e d t o the p a r t y l e a d e r s f o r t h e i r comments. At t h a t time, however, p a r l i a -ment was embroiled i n the f l a g debate and the mood of the House was not conducive t o d i s c u s s i n g p r o c e d u r a l reform, p a r t i c u l a r l y a measure which threatened to l i m i t the " f r e e 95 speech"of the members. The Conservative l e a d e r , then c r e a t i n g the s t r o n g e s t o p p o s i t i o n to a new f l a g , r e f u s e d t o accept the p r o p o s a l . In August, 1964, Knowles agai n t r i e d t o reach an a l l - p a r t y agreement on the Business Committee. In an open l e t t e r t o the l e a d e r s he implored them t o r e c o n s i d e r the pro-p o s a l . ^ .p n e r e p l y came from Conservative House l e a d e r Gordon C h u r c h i l l : " A l l o c a t i o n of time i s a form of c l o s u r e and i t i s the s t r a i t j a c k e t o f the order of the House t o which 4 I o b j e c t " . He reminded Knowles of the numerous oc c a s i o n s on which t h e r e had been agreement i n the past t o l i m i t the time on c e r t a i n measures, an obvious r e f e r e n c e to the House l e a d e r s ' c o n s u l t a t i o n s : " L i m i t a t i o n of debate by i n f o r m a l agreement, as i s now be i n g done on o c c a s i o n , i s an ac c e p t a b l e and time-honoured p r a c t i c e o f the House. No formal o r d e r s of the House are r e q u i r e d " . He o b j e c t e d t o the expecta-t i o n t h a t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a p a r t y c o u l d b i n d h i s group t o a l i m i t a t i o n of debate before t h a t debate had even com-menced. C h u r c h i l l ' s r e f e r e n c e t o b i n d i n g the o p p o s i t i o n members was i n p a r t a r e f e r e n c e t o what the sub-committee members had been p r o p o s i n g . They were l o o k i n g f o r some p r o c e d u r a l machinery which would give the House l e a d e r s ' agreements some c l o u t i f any members t r i e d t o break an agree-ment a t a l a t e r p o i n t . The procedure committee, i n i t s August r e p o r t , was f o r c e d to admit t h a t "While i t has not yet been p o s s i b l e t o reach a l l - p a r t y accommodation...there seems t o be wide-spread yo agreement t h a t g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n needs t o be p a i d to e n s u r i n g the best p o s s i b l e use of p a r l i a m e n t a r y time 1 1. ^ The commit-tee a l s o warned: " . . . t h i s i s not an area f o r l e g i s l a t i o n or u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n oh the p a r t of the Govern-ment. Any change i n the r u l e s to provide machinery f o r the a l l o c a t i o n of time should, i n our view, be worked out through c o n s u l t a -t i o n among a l l p a r t i e s s i n c e the s u c c e s s f u l implementation of any scheme w i l l r e q u i r e good f a i t h on a l l s i d e s . A s o l u t i o n by p a r t y ^ agreement presupposes a w i l l t o make i t work". The Government, anxious to r e s o l v e t h i s a l l o c a t i o n of time problem, d i d e x a c t l y as the procedure committee had f e a r e d ; and on May 11, I 9 6 8 l e g i s l a t i o n appeared on the o r d e r paper pro p o s i n g , among o t h e r p r o v i s i o n a l reforms, the c r e a t i o n of s t a n d i n g o r d e r 15A t o c r e a t e a b u s i n e s s committee f o r 7 a l l o c a t i n g time. The committee would be composed of one member from each p a r t y appointed by the Speaker on recommen-da t i o n s from the p a r t y l e a d e r s . During debate a m i n i s t e r c o u l d propose t h a t any item of b u s i n e s s o r stage t h e r e o f be r e f e r r e d t o the committee f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n and r e p o r t w i t h i n t h r e e days as to the time f o r debate. If i t produced an unanimous recommendation, t h a t n o t i o n would be decided w i t h -out debate and become an o r d e r of the House. I f , however, no agreement was reached or the committee f a i l e d t o r e p o r t w i t h i n the time s p e c i f i e d , a m i n i s t e r c o u l d i n t r o d u c e w i t h n o t i c e a t i m e t a b l i n g motion and a f t e r a day's debate i t would be put t o a v o t e . In the l a t t e r event, the a l l o c a t i o n of time c o u l d not be s h o r t e r than two days f o r each of second r e a d i n g and the committee stage and one day f o r t h i r d r e a d i n g . Standing Order 15A a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r the Speaker to extend debate f o r not more than two days i f i n h i s o p i n i o n a proposed amendment r a i s e d any new i s s u e s which had not been d i s c u s s e d . The C o n s e r v a t i v e s once a g a i n l e d the a t t a c k on the proposed r u l e ; however on June 8 they agreed t o r e f e r the i s s u e to a s p e c i a l procedure committee w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r e p o r t back on June 11. The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t change made by the committee was to provide f o r a four-hour e x t e n s i o n of debate on the f i n a l day of the a l l o c a t i o n o r d e r i f a l l members who wished to do so had not had an o p p o r t u n i t y to speak. The committee r e p o r t was adopted on d i v i s i o n , the C o n s e r v a t i v e s and one NDP member remaining opposed. Fears of t h i s g u i l l o t i n e c l a u s e proved unfounded as, i n the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e y e a r s , o n l y two matters were r e f e r r e d to the bu s i n e s s committee. The Armed Forces U n i f i c a t i o n B i l l was one such measure. When d e l i b e r a t i o n s i n the bu s i n e s s committee broke down (June I965), Government House l e a d e r M c l l r a i t h proposed h i s own time a l l o c a -t i o n motion and the debate ended a f t e r three days. The b r o a d c a s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n was a l s o r e f e r r e d t o the bu s i n e s s committee but concessions agreed to through the i n f o r m a l House l e a d e r s ' channels removed the need f o r a r e p o r t or government motion. The major advantage of the bu s i n e s s committee f o r the House l e a d e r s was that i t would provide the Speaker with the power to en f o r c e time a l l o c a t i o n agreements reached by them. yu Informal agreements had the h a b i t of b e i n g broken, frequently-through an i n a d v e r t e n t e r r o r or a p r i v a t e member, and'a House Order would remove such o b s t r u c t i o n . But Standing Order 15A a l s o c o ntained p r o v i s i o n f o r the government t o propose i t s own motion i f the business committee f a i l e d t o r e p o r t . That one motion c o u l d cover o n l y one stage o r a l l remaining stages of the b i l l . The committee c o u l d a l s o be used a f t e r a debate had begun, u n l i k e the proposed St a n d i n g Order 32A, an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i t would l i k e l y o n l y be used i f the debate became bogged down. T h i s i n f a c t i s what o c c u r r e d on the two b i l l s f o r which i t s use was attempted. Thomas Hockin, i n h i s study of the 1965 r u l e s reforms, touched upon the immediate flaw of the b u s i n e s s committee which rendered i t u s e l e s s : " I f the Government i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s f e a r f u l of mere 'gentlemen agreements' and asks f o r the a p p r o v a l of the b u s i n e s s committee, i t may f i n d i t s request l u d i c r o u s l y c o u n t e r - p r o d u c t i v e . The O p p o s i t i o n might f i n d the request s u s p i c i o u s and i n o r d e r t o a l l e v i a t e t h i s newly-fanned appre-hension the Government may f i n d i t s e l f g r a n t i n g f a r more time f o r debate by i t s use of the b u s i n e s s committee than the O p p o s i t i o n might o r i g i n a l l y have thought of a s k i n g f o r before the Government fanned an a i r o f i n t r i g u e by a s k i n g f o r a s t r i c t time a l l o c a t i o n . O p p o s i t i o n s can be perverse when Governments g i v e i n t i m a t i o n s t h a t perhaps there i s reason to be. Informal gentlemen agreements are o f t e n f a r more u s e f u l t o busy Governments because they g i v e l e s s cause f o r O p p o s i t i o n s u s p i c i o n . " ^ S t a n d i n g Order 15A was a p r o v i s i o n a l r u l e which l i k e many o t h e r reforms disappeared f o l l o w i n g the e l e c t i o n i n I 9 6 8 . A 99 further attempt at time a l l o c a t i o n f o r government l e g i s l a t i o n was made by the new Special Committee on Procedure and Organ-i z a t i o n which presented an extensive report on December 6 of that year. 1 0 Rule 16A was the only reform not to receive the unanimous approval of the House. Rule 16A c a l l e d f o r a con-tinuing committee of party r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s — i n e f f e c t , the House l e a d e r s — t o make arrangements f o r the c a l l i n g , consider-ation and disposing of House business. I f the committee could not reach agreement on the time allotment f o r a p a r t i c u l a r measure, a minister could then introduce a time a l l o c a t i o n motion; and a f t e r two hours of debate, i f at least ten members demanded i t , the motion would come to a vote. The irony of the r u l e , as pointed out during the f i e r c e debate which followed, was that no provision had been made f o r a quorum of House leaders on the committee. The Government House l e a -der would be v i r t u a l l y free to e s t a b l i s h the timetable him-s e l f . A l l three opposition parties were strongly opposed to Rule 1 6 A ; and f o r a time i t appeared as i f agreement would be l o s t f o r the other reform proposals as w e l l . With a House majority,tthe Liberals could have waited out the storm and eventually passed the procedure committee motion. However, recognizing the sensitive nature of procedural re-forms, the government offered to make the proposal more palatable by agreeing to al l o c a t e time f o r only two of the four stages of a b i l l at one time. When t h i s was not accepted by the opposition, the government decided to withdraw the JLUU measure. A l l a n MacEachen, a former Government House l e a d e r , soon t o be p l a c e d In t h a t post a g a i n , handled the r e t r e a t . The government would withdraw the time a l l o c a t i o n r u l e and r e f e r i t back to committee i f the r e s t of the reforms c o u l d be passed b e f o r e the Christmas r e c e s s . I t was through the House l e a d e r s ' communication channel t h a t an agreement was reached. The most re c e n t attempt a t d e v e l o p i n g an a l l o c a t i o n of time r u l e began w i t h the House procedure committee and ended w i t h Standing Order 75A, B and C, 1 1 passed under c l o s u r e i n J u l y , I969. Rule 75A p r o v i d e d t h a t i f there was agreement among "the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of a l l p a r t i e s " t o a l l o t a s p e c i f i e d time to the proceedings a t one or more stages of a p u b l i c b i l l , a m i n i s t e r c o u l d propose such a motion without n o t i c e and i t would be decided without debate. The second r u l e s t a t e d t h a t i f a m a j o r i t y of the p a r t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s came to a time a l l o c a t i o n agreement f o r any stage of a p u b l i c b i l l , a m i n i s t e r c o u l d , a g a i n without n o t i c e , propose such a motion. Debate on the motion c o u l d extend to a maximum of two hours b e f o r e the q e u s t i o n was put, any member speaking o n l y once and not f o r more than t e n minutes. The t h i r d r u l e allowed f o r time a l l o c a t i o n proposed by the government i f agreement co u l d not be reached under 75A or B. A m i n i s t e r , having g i v e n n o t i c e on the p r e v i o u s s i t t i n g day, could then propose a time a l l o t m e n t f o r the stage then under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h a t a l l o t m e n t to be not l e s s than one s i t t i n g day. The same r u l e s as a p p l i e d under r u l e 75B f o r a two-hour debate on the motion would then a p p l y . Before the government moved c l o s u r e 101 to a chieve the time a l l o c a t i o n r u l e , debate had been s t r o n g and a c r i m o n i o u s . A c c o r d i n g t o the Canadian Annual Review, the House l e a d e r s met numerous times i n an attempt t o r e -12 s o l v e the i s s u e . Concessions were o f f e r e d by a l l s i d e s , and on J u l y 22, " o p p o s i t i o n House l e a d e r s expressed optimism t h a t a s o l u t i o n was a t hand". J u s t f i v e hours l a t e r , the Government House l e a d e r announced t h a t c l o s u r e would be a p p l i e d , i n e f f e c t , l o wering the boom on any immediate use of the time a l l o c a t i o n measure. Rules 75A and B have never been used, but r u l e 75C has been a p p l i e d o n c e — t o the income t a x b i l l . Although the o p p o s i t i o n expressed i t s d i s l i k e f o r the r u l e , shouts of dismay d i d not reach the f e v e r p i t c h o f the p i p e l i n e o r f l a g debates. Debate was c e r t a i n l y l e s s i n t e n s e than the debate which p r o v i d e d the r u l e . Bruce Hutchison, i n a percep-t i v e a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "A Yawn Beside the G u i l l o t i n e " i n t e r -p r e t e d the p u b l i c ' s r e a c t i o n as: "The people, I b e l i e v e , are not i n d i f f e r e n t but i n the case of a v a s t l y complicated p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n are confused, t i r e d , and bored by a d u l l , incomprehensible argument. They c o u l d e a s i l y grasp the simple b u s i n e s s of the p i p e l i n e c l o s u r e and r e j e c t i t s authors a t the f i r s t chance. They c o u l d not hope t o grasp more than 700 pages of l e g a l phraseology and amendments innumerable which b a f f l e d the best lawyers and t h e r e f o r e they l e f t i t to the government i n a b l i n d a c t of f a i t h o r, more a c c u r a t e l y , o f d e s p e r a t i o n . " ^ T h i s argument c o u l d e q u a l l y be a p p l i e d t o the p a r l i a m e n t a r -i a n s who had been debating the b i l l f o r months. The House l e a d e r s had attempted t o f a c i l i t a t e the debate by d i v i d i n g the l e g i s l a t i o n into sections and v o l u n t a r i l y agreeing to l i m i t the amount of debate for each section. By December, they were only one-third of the way through the b i l l i n committee-of-the-whole, and although the opposition House leaders pro-tested that the voluntary arrangements were operating smoothly and should not be destroyed, they may have been s e c r e t l y r e l i e v e d to see the debate ended through government action and therefore government p o l i t i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The use of 75C may not come as e a s i l y on a less complex b i l l . This time a l l o c a t i o n measure, l i k e the many other proposals attempted, has a number of inherent problems which prohibit i t s e f f e c t i v e use by the House leaders. One of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the present rule i s a dr a f t i n g error i n Standing Order 75B. Since the Government House leader i s not stated to be a necessary member of the "majority" of party representatives, the three opposition House leaders may unite against the government and propose a very extensive a l l o c a t i o n of time f o r some l e g i s l a t i o n . However the rule also states that a minister must propose the time a l l o c a t i o n motion, and the question becomes: how would the opposition House l e a -ders get t h e i r motion before the House? Rule 75B was obviously intended f o r use i n f i l i b u s t e r s conducted by only one opposition party such as the 1964 f l a g debate or the C r e d i t i s t e s ' blockade of criminal code amendments i n the spring of 1969* The Conservatives are p a r t i c u l a r l y f e a r f u l of t h i s time a l l o c a t i o n measure as i t would be r e l a t i v e l y easy f o r the two smaller opposition parties to unite with the government against them. One 103 must q u e s t i o n whether the House l e a d e r s would use t h i s r u l e as i t c o u l d mean a lengthy breakdown of t h e i r communication channel. Rule 75A i s s i m i l a r t o past p r o p o s a l s i n t h a t i t would pro v i d e f o r c e t o any House l e a d e r s agreements made under i t . U n l i k e attempts to c r e a t e House ord e r s through unanimous consent, the i n d i v i d u a l MP would be h e l p l e s s t o break an arrangement. Used a g a i n s t any independent Members of P a r l i a -ment, the r u l e would be most e f f e c t i v e . However, i t a l s o presupposes t h a t the House l e a d e r has canvassed h i s caucus f o r support; and i f there are s e v e r a l members who s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , the i n d i v i d u a l House l e a d e r may h e s i t a t e to commit the p a r t y f o r f e a r of c r e a t i n g i n t e r n a l d i s s e n t and a l i e n a t i n g some of the members. His a b i l i t y t o work w i t h i n the caucus would be j e o p a r d i z e d . The r u l e does g i v e the House l e a d e r some power, but i t a l s o heightens the ambiguity of the source of h i s a u t h o r i t y . I f there were g e n e r a l agreement among the p a r t i e s , the p o i n t s r a i s e d by Thomas Hockin would s t i l l a p p l y . Would the s u s p i c i o n s of the o p p o s i t i o n not be r a i s e d by the govern-ment going beyond an i n f o r m a l House l e a d e r s agreement? F u r t h e r , maximums tend to become minimums, and a debate which could c o n c e i v a b l y have ended e a r l i e r through i n f o r m a l agreement may expand t o f i l l the time a l l o t t e d t o i t . In r e a l i t y , the s t r o n g e s t reason t h a t c o u l d be advanced f o r the f a i l u r e of r u l e s 75A and B i s t h a t they are a t t a c h e d to r u l e 75C which g i v e s the government u n i l a t e r a l a u t h o r i t y t o impose time a l l o c a t i o n . The o p p o s i t i o n have b u i l t up great r e s i s t a n c e to t h i s concept over many years of argument; and they are not l i k e l y t o give up the major t o o l which they possess f o r con-104 t r o l l i n g the government. Rule 75 i s looked upon as a d i s -t a s t e f u l package. At the present time, Informal communica t i o n between the House l e a d e r s i s the o n l y workable method f o r l i m i t i n g debate on government l e g i s l a t i o n . 105 FOOTNOTES: Chapter 7 1 Unpublished memoranda to the House of Commons Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, Spring, 1 9 6 4 . 2 Knowles, Stanley, Letter to the Editor, The Journal. August 2 5 , 1 9 6 4 . 3 Knowles, Stanley, "An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Parties i n the House of Commons", The Journal, August 14, 1 9 6 4 . .4 C h u r c h i l l , the Honourable Gordon, Letter to the Editor, The Journal, August 20, 1 9 6 4 . 5 Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Special Committee  on Procedure and Organization, Tenth Report, August 19. 1964. p. 4. This document i s located i n the Library of Parliament. 6 Ibid., p. 4 . 7 Material f o r t h i s and the following two paragraphs i s located i n Canada. Parliament, House of Commons, the Journals, June 1 1 , 1 9 6 5 , pp. 2 1 9 - 2 2 3 . 8 Can. H. of C. Debates. I 9 6 5 to I968. 9 Hockin, Thomas A., "The I965 Parliamentary Reforms and the Future of Canada's House of Commons", A Paper presented  to ;the Annual Meeting of the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science  Association, Sherbrooke, Quebec, June 8-10, 1966, p. 8. 10 Can. H. of C. Debates. December 6, I968. 11 Canada, Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Queen's Printer,I969, pp. 83-85. 12 Saywell, John and Paul Stevens, Canadian Annual Review 1^68, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, I969, p. 12. 13 Hutchison, Bruce, "A Yawn Beside the G u i l l o t i n e " , The C i t i z e n , December, 1 9 7 1 . 106 C O N C L U S I O N T h i s t h e s i s has d e s c r i b e d and analyzed the e v o l u t i o n of the r o l e and p o s i t i o n of House l e a d e r s i n the o p e r a t i o n of the Canadian House of Commons. The need f o r the r o l e arose out o f the adversary nature of p a r l i a m e n t . The p r o v i s i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o express o p p o s i t i o n t o the government has a l -ways been an e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t of the Canadian p o l i t i c a l t r a -d i t i o n . With the development of d i s c i p l i n e d p o l i t i c a l p ar-t i e s , open o p p o s i t i o n moved i n t o a c o n f l i c t between the govern-ment, supported by i t s l o y a l members, and the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s . T e n s i o n between these groups was heightened by the phenomenal i n c r e a s e i n the amount and complexity o f government .business, which has made time the major s c a r c e commodity of the House. The p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e i r c o n t r o v e r s y must be o r g a n i z e d t o make f u l l use of t h i s time and th a t the p o l i -t i c a l b a t t l e has to be kept w i t h i n manageable p r o p o r t i o n s so tha t parliament can f u n c t i o n . The House l e a d e r s are respon-s i b l e f o r a c c o m p l i s h i n g these g o a l s . The communication channel p r o v i d e d by the House l e a d e r s i s an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the f u n c t i o n i n g of p a r l i a m e n t . Through i t the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s can l e a r n i n advance the major t o p i c s f o r debate and they are thus a b l e t o organize t h e i r p a r t i e s and prepare a more cogent a t t a c k . The government, too, can use the channel t o d i s c o v e r the p o t e n t i a l areas o f c o n t e n t i o n and the degree of o p p o s i t i o n l i k e l y t o be expressed. I t can then prepare a s t r o n g e r defence and, i f necessary, a g r a c e f u l compromise. The channel can a l s o be used t o n e g o t i a t e the 10? order i n which the b u s i n e s s w i l l be debated. I f an a c c e p t -a b l e mix of c o n t r o v e r s i a l and n o n - c o n t r o v e r s i a l b i l l s can be a c h i e v e d , the b u s i n e s s w i l l flow more r a p i d l y and more smoothly. One advantage of the House l e a d e r s 1 meetings Is t h a t they are p r i v a t e . Both the government and o p p o s i t i o n can make concessions while m a i n t a i n i n g an o u t s i d e appearance of s t r e n g t h . Another advantage i s t h a t they are i n f o r m a l . The House l e a d e r s meet when the need a r i s e s and are thus a b l e c o n s t a n t l y to, r e a s s e s s the s i t u a t i o n as i t develops. House l e a d e r s are d e a l i n g w i t h a very f l u i d s i t u a t i o n . A consensus a r r i v e d at one morning could d i s s i p a t e t h a t a f t e r n o o n i f new f a c t o r s a r i s e t o change the focus of debate. One of these f a c t o r s Is the t r a d i t i o n a l r i g h t of the Member of Parliament t o speak when he f e e l s i t is. necessary and c r u c i a l t o do so. The House l e a d e r s have no formal powers to commit t h e i r p a r t i e s to an agreement. T h e i r o n l y t o o l i s t h e i r p e r s u a s i v e power as a s e n i o r and r e s p e c t e d member of t h e i r p a r t y . Chapter seven d e s c r i b e d s e v e r a l attempts to develop r u l e s f o r the a l l o c a t i o n of time on government l e g i s l a t i o n . U n t i l now, none of these e f f o r t s has proved s u c c e s s f u l . The o p p o s i t i o n c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e i r r i g h t to s t a l l the passage of government b i l l s i s t h e i r o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t t o o l f o r i n f l u e n c i n g the government. The o n l y method of time a l l o c a t i o n which the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s support i s agreement among the House l e a d e r s . I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t government bus i n e s s w i l l decrease i n volume and complexity. Nor i s i t l i k e l y i n the f o r s e e a b l e 108 f u t u r e t h a t formal time a l l o c a t i o n w i l l become the method of conducting business i n the Canadian House. Thus the o n l y workable method of o r g a n i z i n g the conduct of business and e n s u r i n g i t s smooth and r a p i d flow i s through i n f o r m a l c o n s u l t a t i o n s between the House l e a d e r s . The r o l e they perform i s u n l i k e l y t o become more formal i n terms of r e g u l a r meeting hours, p u b l i c a t i o n of d i s c u s s i o n s o r p r o v i s i o n of e x p l i c i t powers, but i t w i l l become more e s t a b l i s h e d and more i d e n t i f i a b l e . The importance of the House l e a d e r s ' r o l e i n p a r l i a m e n t a r y a c t i v i t i e s w i l l i n c r e a s i n g l y be re c o g -n i z e d . 109 B I B L I O G R A P H Y No books or a r t i c l e s have been w r i t t e n on Canadian House l e a d e r s . As most of the m a t e r i a l f o r t h i s t h e s i s came from i n t e r v i e w s and i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s , I am l i s t i n g these i n t e r v i e w s f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by g e n e r a l works r e l a t i n g to the Canadian p a r l i a m e n t , newspaper a r t i c l e s , and g e n e r a l works on the B r i t i s h p a r l i a m e n t . I. P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w s and Other D i r e c t Sources of E n q u i r y . A t k i n s o n , M i c h a e l , Member of the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t , 1971- 2; J u l y 26, 1972. Baldwin, G e r a l d , C o n s e r v a t i v e House l e a d e r , 1968 to the p r e s e n t ; June 29, 1972. B e l l , Thomas, C o n s e r v a t i v e Whip, 1968 to the p r e s e n t ; June 29; 1972. Blue, Sandy, Member of the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t , 1971 to the p r e s e n t ; J u l y 28, 1972. Caouette, R e a l , Leader of the R a i l l i m e n t s des C r e d i t i s t e s , 1963-72, and the S o c i a l C r e d i t P a r t y of Canada, 1972 to the p r e s e n t ; J u l y 5, 1972. C h e v r i e r , the Honourable L i o n e l , L i b e r a l House l e a d e r , 1958-63, J u l y 13, 1972. C h u r c h i l l , the Honourable Gordon, C o n s e r v a t i v e House l e a d e r , (the government, 1959-63; and the o p p o s i t i o n , 1963-65); correspondence w i t h the author, August 12, 1972. Deachman, Grant, L i b e r a l C h i e f Government Whip, 1972- 3; June 28, 1972. F a i r n e y , Robert, S e c r e t a r y to the C o n s e r v a t i v e Whip, 1958 to the p r e s e n t ; J u l y , 1972. Fa i r w e a t h e r , Gordon, C o n s e r v a t i v e Member of P a r l i a m e n t ; June 29, 1972. F o r t i n , Andre, C r e d i t i s t e House l e a d e r , 1969 to the p r e s e n t ; June 29, 1972. F r a s e r , A l i s t a i r , C l e r k o f the House of Commons, 1967 to the p r e s e n t ; s e v e r a l i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s , 1972. Green, the Honourable Howard, C o n s e r v a t i v e House l e a d e r , ( i n f o r m a l l y 1955 to 1957; and the government, 1957-59); August, 1972. 1 1 0 H a r r i s , the Honourable Walter, L i b e r a l Government House l e a d e r , 1953-57; August 13, 1972. Jackson, Robert, D i r e c t o r of the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t , 1971-2; J u l y 14, 1972. Jerome, James, P a r l i a m e n t a r y S e c r e t a r y to the P r e s i d e n t of the P r i v y C o u n c i l , 1970-72; June 30, 1972. Knowles, S t a n l e y , NDP House l e a d e r and Whip, (whip f o r the CCF from the e a r l y 1940; s to 1958; whip f o r the NDP, 1962 to 1965; and the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n from 1965 to the p r e s e n t ) ; March 25, 1972. Laundy, P h i l i p , D i r e c t o r o f the Research Branch, L i b r a r y of P a r l i a m e n t ; J u l y 5, 1972. Lewis, David, Leader of the New Democratic P a r t y , 1971 to the p r e s e n t ; J u l y 7, 1972. MacDonald, the Honourable Donald S., L i b e r a l Government House Leader, 1968-70; J u l y 13, 1972. M c l l r a i t h , the Honourable George, L i b e r a l Government House Leader, 1964-7; Fe b r u a r y 24 and March 28, 1972. Olson, the Honourable Horace, M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1968-72; August 22, 1972. Pearson, the R i g h t Honourable L e s t e r B., Prime M i n i s t e r , 1963-68; J u l y 28, 1972. P i c k e r s g i l l , the Honourable Jack, L i b e r a l Government House Leader, 1963-4; August 17, 1972. Robertson, Gordon, S e c r e t a r y to the C a b i n e t ; seminar with P a r l i a m e n t a r y I n t e r n s ; S p r i n g , 1972. Rowland, Douglas, NDP Member of P a r l i a m e n t ; d i s c u s s i o n s on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s ; 1971-2. S t a r r , the Honourable M i c h a e l , C o n s e r v a t i v e House Leader, 1965-8; August 14, 1972.. Stewart, John, A s s i s t a n t to the Government House Leader, 1968-9; telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n , J u l y , 1972. Walker, John, L i b e r a l C h i e f Government House Leader, 1965-68; June, 1972. Yanover, J e r r y , Member of the L e g i s l a t i v e S e c r e t a r i a t , ( a s s i s t a n t to the Government House l e a d e r , 1969-71; and c o n t i n u i n g those d u t i e s from w i t h i n the S e c r e t a r i a t , 1971 to the p r e s e n t ) ; March 23, 1972. I l l In a d d i t i o n to these more fo r m a l i n t e r v i e w s , I d i s c u s s e d the r o l e of the House l e a d e r w i t h many Members of P a r l i a m e n t and o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s d u r i n g my term as a P a r l i a m e n t a r y Intern.. „ I I . Canada. A. G e n e r a l Works. 1. The Canadian P a r l i a m e n t . A i t c h i s o n ^ J.H., "The S p e a k e r s h i p of the Canadian House of Commons", i n R.M. C l a r k (ed), Canadian Issues, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1961, pp. 23-56. Bain, George, Canada!s P a r l i a m e n t , Ottawa, I n f o r m a t i o n Canada, 1972. B r i g g s , E.D., "The Senate: Reform or R e c o n s t r u c t i o n ? " , Queen's Q u a r t e r l y , V. 75, n. 1, S p r i n g , 1968. Canada, P a r l i a m e n t , House of Commons, the Debates Dawson, R. MacGregor, and Norman Ward, The Government of Canada, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y o f ; T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1970. Heeney, AABSP/ "Cabinet Government i n Canada", Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , V. 12, n. 3, August, 1946. Hockin, Thomas A. (ed), The Apex of Power: The Prime  M i n i s t e r and P o l i t i c a l L e a d e r s h i p i n Canada, Scarborough, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1971. Hopkins, E.R., How P a r l i a m e n t Works: An Examination of  the F u n c t i o n s of P a r l i a m e n t i n Canada, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. Johnson, J . K . r ( e d ) , The Canadian D i r e c t o r y of P a r l i a m e n t , 1867-1967, Ottawa, P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada, 1968. Knowles, S t a n l e y , "How P a r l i a m e n t Works" A Paper p r e s e n t e d to the annual E d u c a t i o n a l Conference  of the O n t a r i o F e d e r a t i o n of Labour, N i a g a r a F a l l s , F e b r uary 13, 1965. "I B e l i e v e i n P a r l i a m e n t " , An Open L e c t u r e f o r Huron C o l l e g e , November 19, 1964. Kunz, E.A., The Modern Senate of Canada, 1923-63: A R e - A p p r a i s a l , Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1965. 112 Lalonde, Marc, "The Changing Role of the Prime M i n i s t e r ' s O f f i c e " , Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V. 14, Winter, 1971. MacKay, R.A., The Unreformed Senate of Canada, r e v i s e d e d i t i o n , Toronto, M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart, 1963. M a l l o r y , J/R., The S t r u c t u r e of Canadian Government, Toronto, Macmillan of Canada, 1971. Normandin, P i e r r e G. (ed), The Canadian P a r l i a m e n t a r y Guide, Ottawa, c. P i e r r e G. Normandin. Annual p u b l i c a t i o n . Robertson, Gordon, "The Canadian P a r l i a m e n t and C a b i n e t i n the Face of Modern Demands1.'-, Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V. 11, n. 3., 1968. "The Changing Role of the P r i v y C o u n c i l O f f i c e " , A Paper p r e s e n t e d to the 23rd Annual Meeting of the I n s t i t u t e of P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Canada, Regina, September 8, 1971, Ottawa, I n f o r m a t i o n Canada, 1971. Smith, D., "The Speakership of the Canadian House of Commons: Some P r o p o s a l s " , A Paper p r e s e n t e d f o r the House of Common's S p e c i a l Committee on Procedure and O r g a n i z a t i o n , Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1965. Thorburn, H.G., " P a r l i a m e n t and P o l i c y - M a k i n g : The Case of the Trans-Canada Gas P i p e l i n e " , Canadian J o u r n a l o f £ - E c o n o m i c s and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , November, 1957. Turner, J.N., "The Senate of C a n a d a — P o l i t i c a l Conundrum", i n R.M. C l a r k , ( e d ) , Canadian I s s u e s : Essays i n Honour  of Henry F. Angus, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1961. Walker, James E., "How the Whips' F u n c t i o n " , The P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n , December, 1971. Weir, W.G., "Minding P a r l i a m e n t ' s B u s i n e s s " , QueenssQuarterly, Winter, 1957. 2. Procedur.es and Rules of the House of Commons. Beauchesne, A r t h u r , Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, Toronto, The C a r s w e l l Co. of Canada L t d . , 1958. BourinQt, S i r John George, P a r l i a m e n t a r y Procedure and  P r a c t i c e i n the Dominion of Canada, f o u r t h e d i t i o n , Toronto, Canada Law Book Co., 1916. 113 Canada, P a r l i a m e n t , Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969. Canada, P a r l i a m e n t , L i b r a r y of P a r l i a m e n t , C o m p i l a t i o n of  Speakers' R u l i n g s , 1867-1970, Unpublished document. Dawson, W.F., Procedure i n the Canadian House of Commons, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1962. Dubroy, J . Gordon, B o u r i n o t ' s R u l e s of Order, r e v i s e d e d i t i o n , Toronto, M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart, 1963. 3. P r o c e d u r a l Reform. B l a i r , Ronald, "What Happens to Parliament?"., i n T.O. L l o y d and J . McLeod (eds), Agenda 1970, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1968. Bishop, Peter V., " R e s t o r i n g P a r l i a m e n t to Power", Queens Q u a r t e r l y , Summer, 1970. Canada, P a r l i a m e n t , House of Commons, The J o u r n a l s . Canada, P a r l i a m e n t , House of Commons, S p e c i a l Committees  on Procedure and O r g a n i z a t i o n , Reports, 1944-45, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1964-65, 1967-68, 1969. C h u r c h i l l , the Honourable Gordon, L e t t e r to the E d i t o r , The J o u r n a l (Ottawa), August 20, 1964. Fox, P a u l , "Canada—A New P a r l i a m e n t with New Ru l e s " , P a r l i a m e n t a r y A f f a i r s , V. 10, 1956-7. Franks ,C dEitfS,* "The Dilemma of the Standing Committees of the Canadian House of Commons", Canadian J o u r n a l of  P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , V. 4, n. 4, December, 1971. F u l t o n , E. Davie, " G e t t i n g Things Done i n P a r l i a m e n t " , i n Gordon Hawkins? (ed) , Order and. Good. Government: The T h i r t y - t h i r d C o u c h i c h i n g Conference, Canadian I n s t i t u t e f o r P u b l i c A f f a i r s , Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1965. T h i s volume i n c l u d e s other u s e f u l a r t i c l e s by authors such as R i c h a r d Crossman, G e r a l d Baldwin, P a u l i n e J e w i t t , and S t a n l e y Knowles. Gordon, the Honourable Walter, "The Need t o S t r e a m l i n e Our P a r l i a m e n t a r y Procedures", J o u r n a l of L i b e r a l  Thought, V. 3, n. 1, Winter 1966-67. H a r r i s , the Honourable Walter, "A More B u s i n e s s - L i k e P a r l i a m e n t " , Queens Q u a r t e r l y , V. 63, n. 4, Winter, 1957. 114 Hockin, Thomas A., "The 1965 P a r l i a m e n t a r y Reforms and the F u t u r e of Canada's House of Commons", Paper  p r e s e n t e d to the Canadian P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c - i a t i o n Annual Meeting, Sherbrooke, Quebec, June 8-10, 1966. "The Advance of the Standing Committees i n Canada's House of Commons: 1965-1970", Canadian P u b l i c  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V. 13, n. 2, Summer, 1970. Hopkins, E.R., " S t r e a m l i n i n g P a r l i a m e n t " , Canadian Banker, S p r i n g , 1953. "Saving P a r l i a m e n t ' s Time", Queens Q u a r t e r l y , Winter, 1955. J e w i t t , P a u l i n e , "The Reform of P a r l i a m e n t " , J o u r n a l o f Canadian S t u d i e s , V. 1, 1966. Knowles, S t a n l e y , "Some Thoughts on P a r l i a m e n t a r y Procedure", Queens Q u a r t e r l y , V. 63, n. 4, Winter, 1957. "An Open L e t t e r to the Leaders of the P a r t i e s i n the House of Commons", The J o u r n a l (Ottawa), August 14, 1964. L e t t e r to the E d i t o r , The J o u r n a l (Ottawa), August 25, 1964. Laundy, P h i l i p , "The V i s i t of the Canadian Procedure Committee to Westminster", The Table, V. 36, 1967. " P r o c e d u r a l Reform i n the Canadian House of Commons" The P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n , V. 50, n. 2, A p r i l , 1969. L l o y d , T r e v o r , "Reform of P a r l i a m e n t a r y Proceedings", i n Abraham R o t s t e i n (ed), The Pr o s p e c t of Change:  P r o p o s a l s f o r Canada's F u t u r e , Toronto, McGraw-Hill, 1965. MacDonald, the Honourable Donald S., "Change i n the House of Commons—New Ru l e s " , Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V. 13, 1970. Page, Donald, " S t r e a m l i n i n g the Procedures of the Canadian House of Commons", Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics and  P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , V. 33, n. 1, February, 1967. Research Branch, L i b r a r y of P a r l i a m e n t , "How P a r l i a m e n t Uses i t s Time", Unpublished study, May 29, 1970. Stewart, John, "Canadian Committee on Procedure", The P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n , J u l y , 1968. 115 U n p u b l i s h e d memoranda to the House of Commons S p e c i a l Committee on Procedure and O r g a n i z a t i o n , S p r i n g , 1964. B. Newspapers and Weekly Magazines. B a i n , George, "PC Complaints A Fraud", The Globe and M a i l ( T o r o n t o ) , October 9, 1964. Burns, John, "A House slowdown has L i b e r a l s f i r e d up", The Globe and M a i l , ( T o r o n t o ) , January 3, 1970/ C h a r p e n t i e r , Jean, "Un r e t r a i t s t r a t e g i q u e " , Le D r o i t (Ottawa), June 11, 1964. F i s h e r , Douglas, "The C o n t r o v e r s i a l Jack P i c k e r s g i l l " , The J o u r n a l (Ottawa), March 16, 1965. Hut c h i s o n , Bruce, "A Yawn Beside the G u i l l o t i n e " , The C i t i z e n (Ottawa), December, 1971. "House l e a d e r q u i t s " , The C i t i z e n (Ottawa), May 3, 1967. Jackson, R i c h a r d , " H i l l T a l k " , The J o u r n a l (Ottawa), June 29, 1963. "An A c c o l a d e f o r the House l e a d e r " , The J o u r n a l (Ottawa), February 18, 1965. " M c l l r a i t h Q u i t s Commons Post, MacEachen To Be House Leader", The M o n t r e a l G a z e t t e , May 4, 1967. Pepin, M a r c e l , "George M c l l r a i t h possede de b e l l e s q u a l i t e s comme l e a d e r p a r l i a m e n t a i r e " , Le D r o i t (Ottawa), March 27, 1965. Scanlon, Joseph, "New Quebec L i b e r a l C h i e f s t r o n g f o r C o n f e d e r a t i o n " , Toronto S t a r , A p r i l 27, 1964. " S t a r r Back i n Key Role and H i s S t a r S t i l l R i s i n g " , The Oshawa Times, November 25, 1965. Stewart, Walter, "Guy Favreau, Our Next Prime M i n i s t e r ? " , Canadian Weekly, June 20, 1964. Stevens, G e o f f r e y , "The Commons' Master Craftsman", Time (Canadian e d i t i o n ) , October 19, 1970. 116 I I I . Great B r i t a i n . The Canadian p a r l i a m e n t a r y system and p a r l i a m e n t a r y procedures are grounded i n B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n s . Academics and p r a c t i t i o n e r s a l i k e r e f e r to B r i t i s h works f o r background and guidance'. The f o l l o w i n g s t u d i e s p r o v i d e u s e f u l r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l . A. G e n e r a l Works. 1. The B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t . Abraham, L.A. and S.C. Hawtrey, Abraham and Hawtrey's P a r l i a m e n t a r y D i c t i o n a r y , London, But t e r w o r t h , 1970. Bagehot, Walter, The E n g l i s h C o n s t i t u t i o n , London, C A . Watts and Co. L t d . , 1964. ( c o p y r i g h t , 1867). Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the i n t r o d u c t i o n by RHS Crossman. B e l o f f , Max, "The Leader of the O p p o s i t i o n " , P a r l i a m e n t a r y A f f a i r s , V. 11, S p r i n g , 1958. B u t t , Ronald, The Power of P a r l i a m e n t , second e d i t i o n , London, C o n s t a b l e and Co. L t d . , 1969. C r i c k , Bernard, "Two T h e o r i e s of O p p o s i t i o n " , New Statesman, V. 59, June 18, 1960. Dowse, Robert E. and T r e v o r Smith, " P a r t y D i s c i p l i n e i n the House of Commons—A Comment", P a r l i a m e n t a r y :  A f f a i r s , V. 16, n. 2, 1963. Gladstone, W.E., G l e a n i n g s I, London, John Murray, 1879. Gordon, S t r a t h e a r n , Our P a r l i a m e n t , London, C a s s e l l , 1964. G r i f f i t h , J j A G G . , " T h e P l a c e of P a r l i a m e n t i n the L e g i s l a t i v e P r o c e s s " , Modern Law Review, V. 14, J u l y to October, 1951. Jackson, Robert, Rebels and. Whips: An. A n a l y s i s , of  D i s s e n s i o n , D i s c i p l i n e , and Cohesion i n B r i t i s h  P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s , London, Macmillan, 1968. Jennings, S i r I v o r , C a b i n e t Government, t h i r d e d i t i o n , London, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959. P a r l i a m e n t , London, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969 (c. 1957). 1 1 7 Laundy, P h i l i p , The O f f i c e of the Speaker, London, C a s s e l l , 1964., and Norman Wilding, An Encyclopedia of Parliament, fourth e d i t i o n , London, C a s s e l l , 1972., Morrison, The Right Honourable Lord Herbert, Government and Parliament, London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964, (c. 1954 and 1959). This study i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g for i t s references to the B r i t i s h Leader of the House. Morrison f i l l e d t h i s p o s i t i o n for many years. Taylor, Dr. E r i c , House of Commons at Work, London, Pelican, 1958. Walkland, S.A., The L e g i s l a t i v e Process i n Great B r i t a i n , London, George A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., 1968. Wheare, K.C., Legislatures, London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963. >r4 "TA V i n d i c a t i o n of the B r i t i s h Constitution" Public Administration, V.s 32, n. 4, 1954. "Whips of Parliament", The Economist, V. 200, July 15, 1961. Wiseman, H.V., Parliament and Executive, An Analysis with  Readings, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966. Young, Roland, The B r i t i s h Parliament, London, Faber and Faber, 1962. 2. Procedures and Rules of the House of Commons. Campion,GGF.^. An Introduction to the Procedure of the  House of Commons, t h i r d e d i t i o n , London, Macmillan, 1958. H a t s e l l , J., Precedents of -Proceedings i n the House of  Commons, with Observations, London, 1818. May, S i r Thomas Erskine, Treatise, on .the Law, P r i v i l e g e s , Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, eighteenth e d i t i o n , London, Butterworth, 1971. Redlich, Josef, The Procedure of the. House..of Commons:  a study of i t s h i s t o r y and present form, London, A. Constable and Co. Ltd., 1908. 118 3. P r o c e d u r a l Reform. Barker, Anthony, " P a r l i a m e n t a r y S t u d i e s , 1961-65", P o l i t i c a l Q u a r t e r l y , V. 36 ( s p e c i a l volume on p a r l i a m e n t ) , July-September, 1965. Comprehensive b i b l i o g r a p h y . Bromhead, P., "How Should P a r l i a m e n t Be Reformed?", P o l i t i c a l Q u a r t e r l y , V. 30, n. 3, 1959. Chapman, Donald, M.P., "The S e l e c t Committee on Procedure at Westminster", The P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n , V. 51, n. 2, 1970. Chapman, R i c h a r d A., "The S i g n i f i c a n c e of P a r l i a m e n t a r y Procedure',', P a r l i a m e n t a r y A f f a i r s , V. 16, n. 2, 1963. C r i c k , Bernard, The Reform of Pa r l i a m e n t , r e v i s e d second e d i t i o n , London, W e i d e n f e l d and N i c h o l s o n , 1970. and A.H. Hanson,(eds), The Commons i n T r a n s i t i o n , a book p r e p a r e d f o r the Study of P a r l i a m e n t Group, London, F o n t a n a - C o l l i n s , 1970. Hansard S o c i e t y , P a r l i a m e n t a r y Reform, 1933-1960: A Survey of Suggested Reforms-, London, 1967, (c. 1961). Hanson, A.H. and H.V. Wiseman, P a r l i a m e n t a t Work:  A Case-Book of P a r l i a m e n t a r y Procedure, London, Stevens and Son L t d . , 1962. I n t e r p a r l i a m e n t a r y U n i o n , P a r l i a m e n t s : A Comparative Study  on the S t r u c t u r e and F u n c t i o n i n g of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  I n s t i t u t i o n s i n F i f t y - f i v e C o u n t r i e s , London, C a s s e l l and Co. L t d . , 1962, (c. 1961). Laundy, P h i l i p , " P r o c e d u r a l Reform i n the House of Commons", C o n s t i t u t i o n a l and P a r l i a m e n t a r y I n f o r m a t i o n , t h i r d s e r i e s , n. 66, A p r i l , 1966. Research Branch, Canadian L i b r a r y of P a r l i a m e n t , " A l l o c a t i o n of Time Procedures i n the B r i t i s h House of Commons", Study prepared f o r the Standing  Committee on Procedure and O r g a n i z a t i o n , May 2, 1969. Unpub l i s h e d document. Wiseman, H.V., " P a r l i a m e n t a r y Reform", P a r l i a m e n t a r y A f f a i r s , V. 12, n. 2, S p r i n g , 1959. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101330/manifest

Comment

Related Items