The Canadian news media have been a-flutter these past few days on rumours (and news) that the opposition parties will try to form a coalition government following the failure of an upcoming motion of confidence in the House of Commons. This is very exciting from a political perspective, but there are also some interesting observations to be made regarding the parliamentary procedure aspects.

A confidence motion (or a motion or vote of non-confidence or no confidence) is a motion that, if defeated (or adopted, respectively) would show that the government no longer has enough support in the House of Commons to carry on its political agenda. Usually, a motion of confidence will be a budgetary item, or a piece of legislation that the government considers essential to its continued existence as such. Alternatively, a motion may be moved by the opposition directly expressing a lack of confidence.

Strictly speaking, under the rules of parliamentary procedure, a motion of confidence (or no confidence) has no effect whatsoever, except to express an opinion. However, as a constitutional tradition, this opinion is always acted upon by the Governor General, who will either dissolve parliament and call a general election, or else appoint a new government from among the opposition parties—either one of which is definitely a significant side effect of the motion of confidence.

Unfortunately, many Canadians (and possibly many people from other countries as well) are under the mistaken impression that motions of confidence, or the lack thereof, have similar side effects when applied to the meetings of small voluntary bodies, such as local clubs and non-profit associations. A small-town club has no governor general, nor does it have hundreds of years of constitutional tradition. It has only what is written in its by-laws, and in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.

The disciplinary procedures available to most ordinary societies range from the simple to the complex, but in all cases they involve an honest motion to remove the offender from office, rather than relying on the euphemism of “no confidence.” As a result, a number of aspirant coup-masters have been thwarted on a technicality, after giving notice of the wrong motion, and discovering, at their moment of triumph, that they have merely caused the deliberative assembly to express an opinion with no actual effect!

The lesson here is to be careful when drawing analogies between the House of Commons and the ordinary deliberative assembly. While the two may have a great deal in common, it is easy to lose track of the forest for the trees.