Cabinet

The Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons: Role, Structure, and Powers

Jay Makarenko — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:32:54 -0700

The opposition is an important element of the Canadian parliamentary tradition and the day-to-day operation of government. This article examines the role, structure and powers of the opposition in Canada’s premier national legislature, the House of Commons. This includes discussions of the basic nature of opposition politics, the powers of the opposition in the House, the role of the Official Opposition (as a component of the opposition), and the disadvantages faced by the opposition in its relationship with the government.

Introduction to Opposition Politics in Canada

What is the opposition and what does it do?

Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons

How does the House opposition “oppose” the government?

The Official Opposition in the House of Commons

Overview of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader

Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons

Can the House opposition effectively oppose the government?

Sources and Links to Further Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Introduction to Opposition Politics in Canada

What is the opposition and what does it do?

Parliamentary System and the Opposition

Opposition politics in Canada stems from the nation’s basic parliamentary system of government. Central to this system is the specific way governments (that is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) are chosen. In Canada, citizens do not directly elect their Prime Minister. Instead, citizens elect representatives to the House of Commons, who then select a Prime Minister from amongst themselves. Who becomes Prime Minister and forms the government thus depends on who can muster the most support amongst members of the House.

This process of choosing a Prime Minister operates within a strict political party system. Elected representatives in the House usually belong to a federal political party, such as the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada or the New Democratic Party of Canada. In selecting who will become Prime Minister and form the government, elected representatives usually support the leader of the political party to which they belong. As such, who becomes Prime Minister, and forms the government, depends on which political party has the most elected members in the House.

For more information on Canada’s parliamentary system:

Mapleleafweb: Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

The House of Commons, therefore, is divided along an important line. On the one hand, there is the government side. This includes the Prime Minister, his/her Cabinet ministers, and all those other members of the legislature who share party allegiance with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In the 39th Parliament, for example, the Conservative Party of Canada formed the government side in the House.

On the other hand, there is the opposition side (also referred to as the “opposition” or the “opposition parties”). This includes all those representatives in the House who belong to political parties not in government. In the 39th Parliament, this included those representatives belonging to the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois.

The Opposition’s Basic Function

Under Canada’s parliamentary system, the basic function of the opposition is to oppose the government on a day-to-day basis (hence, the term “opposition”). In this role, the opposition takes on an adversarial role vis-à-vis the government. This includes routinely criticizing government legislation and actions, as well as providing the Canadian public with alternative policies. In some cases, the opposition may even organize to bring down the government, by voting against key pieces of government legislation, such as the annual budget (this is formally referred to as a vote of non-confidence).

See the Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more information on precisely how the opposition may oppose the government.

In theory, then, the opposition acts as a check on the government’s power. In practice, however, it can usually do little more than criticize and attempt to publicly embarrass the government. This is due to the level of control the government has over the parliamentary process, as well as the prevalence of majority governments in Canadian politics, which enable the governing political party to dominate votes in the House.

See the Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more on the opposition’s ability to act as a check on government power.

The Opposition versus the Official Opposition

In Canadian politics, one often hears the terms “opposition” and “Official Opposition.” What is the difference? As stated above, the “opposition” refers to all those elected representatives in the House who belong to political parties not in government. The title of “Official Opposition,” by contrast, is reserved for the largest of these opposition parties; that is, the opposition party that has the most representatives in the House. In the 39th Parliament, for example, the Liberal Party of Canada was the largest political party not in government, and thus became the Official Opposition.

While the Official Opposition receives certain special privileges, it does not have any formal authority over the other opposition parties in the House.

See The Official Opposition in the House of Commons section of this article for more on the role and powers of the Official Opposition.

Powers of the Opposition in the House of Commons

How does the House opposition “oppose” the government?

Questioning and Debating the Government

As discussed above, the opposition criticizes government actions and policies, and offers alternatives to the general public. In this context, the opposition is given several opportunities to question and debate the government.

One of most important of these is Question Period, which is officially referred to as “Oral Questions.” During each sitting day of the House of Commons – that is, days in which members of the House convene to discuss business and vote on legislation – 45 minutes is allotted for Question Period. The opposition can use this time to pose questions to the government and to state any criticisms they might have regarding the government’s actions and policies. The government, in turn, is given a chance to respond to these opposition questions and criticisms. These exchanges are typically very adversarial and often lack substantive political debate. The opposition will often attempt to trip up the government into making statements that will make it look bad in public, while the government will often respond in a manner that sidesteps the opposition’s questions. Moreover, Question Period can also involve personal attacks between opposition and government members, as well as heckling on both sides.

In addition to Question Period, the opposition may also debate the government during readings of proposed bills in the House. Before any piece of legislation (or “bill”) becomes law, it must undergo several stages of debate (or “readings”) in the House. During these readings, opposition members are usually given an opportunity to debate the government on the merits or weaknesses of the proposed legislation. In some cases, this may involve opposition members criticizing bills proposed by the government; in other cases it may involve supporting bills proposed by the opposition itself.

Opposition members may also regularly criticize the government in informal “media scrums” that occur outside of the chamber after a sitting of the House. During these scrums, members of the opposition make statements directly to reporters about House business and the conduct of the government, and also address questions posed to them by the media.

Finally, in organizing their questioning of the government, opposition parties often form shadow cabinets, where opposition spokespersons are responsible for criticizing specific cabinet ministries or portfolios. There will be, for example, a recognized opposition critic for national defence, foreign policy, finance, and so forth. Each opposition party usually forms its own shadow cabinet.

Introducing Legislation in the House

Opposition members also have the power to introduce legislation for consideration by the House of Commons through private members’ bills. Members of the House not in Cabinet are referred to as “private members” – hence the term “private members’ bill.” This includes members of opposition parties, independent members (members that do not belong to a political party), and government backbenchers (members that belong to the governing political party but who are not in Cabinet).

Normally, private members’ bills may include any sort of legislation except those dealing with the appropriation of public revenues or taxation. These financial bills may only be introduced by the government; that is, by the Prime Minister or a Cabinet minister. In some rare cases, however, a private member may get special permission to introduce a piece of legislation dealing with government finances.

Like any legislation introduced in the House of Commons, private members’ bills go through the normal legislative cycle. In order for them to become law, they must go through several readings and debates within the House. A private members’ bill may also be given to a parliamentary committee for more detailed review. Finally, the bill must be formally approved in both the House and the Senate, as well as receive Royal Assent (approval from the Monarchy or his/her representative, the Governor General).

For more information on private member’s bills:

Opposition Days in the House

Opposition members also have the opportunity to influence the formulation of laws and policies during Opposition Days in the House of Commons (also referred to as “Supply Days”). Normally, the government controls the House’s daily agenda, including what motions will be discussed and voted upon by all members. During Opposition Days, however, opposition motions have precedence over government motions. As such, opposition members can effectively control the House’s agenda (hence the term “Opposition Days”). This power to control the agenda, however, does not mean that opposition motions will be passed, it simply means that the opposition members are able to control what motions will be discussed and voted upon.

Opposition Days are another holdover from the British or Westminster parliamentary system. Originally, Opposition Days were associated with debates over “supply” and were held prior to the release of budget estimates – hence the interchangeable “Supply Days” moniker. They were created so that opposition members could advance ideas for what should, and should not, be funded by the government. In more recent years, Opposition Days have become known as opportunities for opposition members to draw attention to issues and policy positions the government would not normally discuss.

Votes of Non-Confidence

One of the opposition’s most important powers is the ability to undertake votes of non-confidence against the government. Central to Canada’s parliamentary system is the requirement that the government maintain the support (or “confidence”) of the House. This support, or lack thereof, is regularly expressed through votes in the House. If a majority of House members vote against a key piece of government legislation, such as the annual budget, then one would say the government has lost the confidence of the House. This usually results in the fall of the government and a general election being held to elect a new government. Opposition members may also initiate a vote of non-confidence by simply introducing a motion declaring the House no longer supports the government, which is then voted upon by all members of the House.

Normally, the governing political party has a clear majority in the House, meaning that more than 50 percent of the members of the House belong to the same political party as the Prime Minister and Cabinet (this is referred to as a “majority government”). In these cases, votes of non-confidence are very difficult for the opposition to orchestrate. The Prime Minister can simply use party discipline to ensure that all of his/her party’s members vote in favour of key pieces of government legislation or against opposition motions of non-confidence.

In minority governments, however, votes of non-confidence are a much more powerful tool for the opposition. This is because the government only has a minority (less than 50 percent) of the members in the House. As such, the opposition parties can work together to vote down a key piece of government legislation or to pass a vote of non-confidence against the government. In order to protect themselves against votes of non-confidence, minority governments will often work closely with one or more of the opposition parties to ensure that proposed legislation will be acceptable to them, and that they will support it when it comes time to vote in the House.

Parliamentary Committees

Another way in which the opposition may influence legislation and policy is through the parliamentary committee system. The House of Commons has committees made up by members from all political parties; however, they are usually administered and controlled by the members in the governing political party. The purpose of these committees is to review proposed legislation and government actions, and to offer advice on how to strengthen them.

Parliamentary committees do not have the power to force the government to change legislation it proposes. It may only make suggestions, which the government is free to heed or ignore. This is not to suggest that the government will never listen to parliamentary committees, but simply that it is not required to do so. In cases of minority governments, however, the work of parliamentary committees can become much more significant. This is because the governing political party alone does not have enough members in the House to pass legislation, but must rely on the support from one or more opposition parties. As such, it may take seriously the suggestions made by opposition members in parliamentary committees as a way of ensuring that government legislation will be passed when it reaches a final vote in the House.

The Official Opposition in the House of Commons

Overview of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader

Who Forms the Official Opposition?

Opposition politics in Canada is also characterized by the existence of an Official Opposition. As stated earlier, the title “Official Opposition” is usually given to the largest opposition party. Following the 2006 Canadian federal election, for example, there were three parties in opposition: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois. Of those three opposition parties, the Liberals had the most seats in the House of Commons, and were thereby recognized as the House’s Official Opposition.

It is important to note, however, that a political party can refuse the title of Official Opposition, in which case the next largest opposition party takes on the role. This occurred in 1921 when the Progressive Party of Canada (a distinct party, separate from the Conservative Party at the time) was the largest opposition party, but turned down the chance to form the Official Opposition. Consequently, the Conservative Party, the next largest opposition party, assumed the role.

The Official Opposition’s Function

The Official Opposition’s function is to take the lead in holding the government accountable for its actions and policies. The Official Opposition does not have authority over the other opposition parties, nor does it control their criticisms of the government. Instead, opposition parties (whether they are the Official Opposition or not) usually review and attack the government independently. The notion of “taking the lead” here simply means that the Official Opposition is often given the first and most extensive opportunity to criticize government policies and actions. This is facilitated through the granting of special rights and privileges to the Official Opposition over other opposition parties (see below).

Another important role of the Official Opposition is to take on the image of “government in waiting,” by presenting itself to the public as a viable alternative to the government of the day. The Official Opposition will usually advocate a set of policies which are significantly different from those of the government. Moreover, key members of the Official Opposition, such as the Leader and senior party members, will often present themselves as government leaders in waiting, ready to take over as Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers should the current government fall.

The Official Opposition’s Special Privileges

The Official Opposition is granted special rights and privileges above those granted to other opposition parties.

First, the leader of the political party that forms the Official Opposition is formally recognized as the “Leader of the Opposition” (or “Opposition Leader”). Following the 2006 general election, for example, the Liberal Party became the Official Opposition. As a result, the leader of the Liberal Party becomes the Leader of the Opposition. The position of Opposition Leader was first officially recognized in Canada in 1905, when the occupant of that position was granted a salary equal to that of a Cabinet minister. Although the function of the Opposition Leader is not governed by statute, the role is officially recognized in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Opposition Leader does enjoy certain privileges, which are not extended to other opposition party leaders. S/he has special status at official functions and in parliamentary ceremonies, as well as international standing with foreign governments; foreign dignitaries will often meet with the Opposition Leader during state visits to Canada. In addition to a salary and expense allowance as a Member of Parliament, the Opposition Leader receives other perks, such as a car allowance and an official residence in Ottawa, which is referred to as Stornoway. The Opposition Leader, like the Prime Minister, also receives a large staff and offices in the House of Commons, which other opposition party leaders do not receive.

During Question Period, the Official Opposition is permitted to ask more questions of the government more often. The Opposition Leader gets to question the government first, and the Official Opposition’s questions usually come before those of any other opposition party. Moreover, the Official Opposition receives more funding than any other opposition party, which enables it to better organize its opposition to the government.

One of the greatest assets of being the Official Opposition is the accompanying publicity that such prominence affords. The Official Opposition and the Opposition Leader usually draw large and regular media and public attention. This, in turn, enables the party and its leader to keep a high public profile, and to more effectively communicate to the public its policies and criticisms of the government. Other opposition parties, especially those with limited members in the House, often struggle to draw public attention.

Limits on the Opposition in the House of Commons

Can the House opposition effectively oppose the government?

To say that that the adversarial relationship between the government and the opposition is a fair fight would be an exaggeration; this is particularly the case when there is a majority (as opposed to a minority) government. This section examines some of the advantages enjoyed by the government, and disadvantages faced by the opposition, in their relationship.

Government Power over the Parliamentary Process

One key disadvantage the opposition faces is the government’s control over the parliamentary process. For example, with the exception of those limited times and days set aside for the opposition parties, the government controls the parliamentary timetable. As such, the government dictates what sorts of motions and bills the House will hear, debate and vote upon. Moreover, through the use of certain parliamentary powers, such as closure, the government can limit parliamentary debate. This is a particularly powerful tool for the government when it holds a majority in the House because it can close debate, and then use its majority to quickly pass or defeat a motion or bill. Furthermore, as the government has power over key positions in parliamentary committees, it is often able to control the outcomes of the committee process. In addition, the government can simply disregard any advice or conclusions offered by a committee if it so chooses.

Government Access to Departments and Ministries

Another disadvantage faced by the opposition stems from the government’s access to its department and ministries. As the head of the executive branch of government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers have unlimited access to the staff, resources, and knowledge of their governmental departments and ministers. Moreover, the government can use these large resources when dealing with the criticisms and questions posed by the opposition parties, either in the House or publicly through the media. While opposition parties are provided with publicly funded staff and resources for their own partisan activities (and can also draw on their own internal funds and staff), these never come close to the resources at the disposal of government.

Fragmentation of the Opposition in the House

Making matters even more difficult for the opposition is the reality that very little solidarity exists between the opposition parties when opposing the government in the House. Each opposition party is its own entity, with its own policies, ideologies, members, and leaders. This, in turn, can degrade cooperation between opposition parties, and even create outright inter-party conflict within the opposition. For example, during the Liberal governments of the 1990s and 2000s, the opposition comprised two right-of-centre conservative parties (which often fought between themselves), a left-wing social democratic party, and a Quebec regional party whose primary purpose was to promote Quebec independence from Canada. As such, there was very little common ground between the opposition parties, and these parties often vigorously opposed one another on key policy questions.

By contrast, the government (particularly in the case of a majority government) is a single political party, which is usually very manageable through party discipline. As such, the government can present itself as a united and focused front against the opposition parties, and attempt to take advantage of sharp disagreements and conflicts within the opposition.

It is important to note, however, that circumstances can arise in which the governing political party becomes fragmented itself, with particular individuals or groups within the party fighting for control over leadership or party policy. This, in turn, can leave the government open to manipulation by the opposition parties, especially if the opposition can introduce legislation or raise the public profile on issues that will cause a wedge between members of the government. One recent example of this sort of fragmentation was the later stages of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s tenure, in which the governing Liberal Party was highly divided over the rivalry between Prime Minister Chrétien and the Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Competition with Other Political Actors

Not only does the opposition often face fragmentation within its ranks, it also has to compete with other political actors in society in its opposition to government. Modern Canadian democracy is characterized by the existence of a wide range of well-organized and financed interest groups, lobby and advocacy organizations, and research institutes. These actors, moreover, regularly engage in the activity of publicly criticizing the government and offering alternative public policy choices. In doing so, they will frequently offer well articulated and publicized reports and public policy statements. Opposition parties can find it difficult to compete in this environment, and have their voice and ideas heard above the general hubbub of other political actors.

Sources and Links to Further Information

Lists of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

Jackson, R. & Jackson, D. Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public Policy, 6th Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc., 2006.
Dyck, R. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, 3rd Edition. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning., 2000.
“Supply Periods.” Parliament of Canada. March 2006. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_supplyperiods-e.htm>
“Types of Bills.” Parliament of Canada. March 2006. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_typesbills-e.htm>
“Private Members’ Bills - Notice, Introduction and First Reading.” Parliament of Canada. May 2007. 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_privatemembersbillsnoticeintroduction1read-e.htm>
“Questions.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2000 Edition). 31 October 2007. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch11&Seq=2&Lang=E>

Links to More Information

Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

Jay Makarenko — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:11:51 -0600

Canada’s parliamentary system is a central component to its government. This system frames the relationship between Canadians and their political leaders, the manner in which laws are passed, and the organization and authority of key government positions and institutions. This article introduces the concept of Parliamentary government and provides an overview of how Canada’s parliamentary system operates at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

Introduction to Parliamentary Government

Basic concepts of parliamentary government

Institutions of the Canadian Parliament

The Monarchy, House of Commons, and Senate

Practices of the Canadian Parliament

Rules and processes in the operation of Canada’s Parliament

Parliamentary Government in the Provinces/Territories

Comparison of federal and provincial/territorial parliaments

Links to More Information

Lists of links for more on this topic

Introduction to Parliamentary Government

Basic concepts of parliamentary government

Basic Definition of Parliamentary Government

What is a parliamentary government? Generally speaking, parliamentary governments are defined by an absence of clear separation between two key branches of government: the legislative branch, which is responsible for enacting laws, and the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing laws. Instead, in parliamentary governments, the executive branch is “fused with” and “dependent upon” the legislative branch.

In Canada’s parliamentary system, this interrelationship between the legislative and executive branches is expressed in several ways. First, key members of the executive, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are usually drawn directly from the legislative branch. The Prime Minister, for example, is usually an elected member of the House of Commons. As such, s/he performs the dual functions of leading the government, as well as representing his/her riding as a regular member of the House of Commons.

Second, and more importantly, the executive branch is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot decide the direction of government or administer enacted laws if it does not enjoy the continual support of the majority of members in the House of Commons. If the executive loses majority support in the legislature, then typically the government will fall, and elections will be held to select a new executive.

Comparison to Other Systems of Government

The parliamentary system of government can be contrasted to other sorts of government; in particular, presidential systems found in countries such as the United States. Presidential governments have a clear separation between the executive and legislative branches of government.

In the US, for example, the leader of the executive branch, the President, is not drawn from the legislative branch, but is elected separately in presidential elections. Moreover, the President does not depend upon the legislative branch for his/her authority. S/he does not need majority support in the legislature in order to maintain power, but instead governs until the next presidential election. (However, in the US, the legislative branch can remove the President if he/she found guilty of committing certain wrongdoings.)

The parliamentary system of government can also be contrasted with hybrid systems that include aspects of both the parliamentary and presidential governments. France, for example, has both a President, who exercises power independent of the legislative branch, and a Prime Minister, who is directly dependent upon the support of the elected members of the French legislature.

Institutions of Canada’s National Parliament

The Monarchy, House of Commons, and Senate

British Westminster Model of Parliament

While all parliamentary governments are the same in that they fuse the executive and legislative branches of government, they often differ substantially otherwise. Canada’s parliamentary system is referred to as a “Westminster Model.” This model was first developed by the British and is named after the Palace of Westminster, which houses the British Parliament. Many former colonies of Great Britain, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, adopted this British parliamentary model once they became independent nations.

The Westminster parliamentary model is distinctive in several ways. First, most Westminster parliaments include a monarch; that is, a king or queen who represents the national sovereign. In most modern Westminster models, however, the monarch is primarily a symbolic figure with little actual political power. Second, most parliaments based on a Westminster model are bicameral, meaning they have two legislative houses or chambers. This generally includes a “lower” house made up of members elected directly by citizens, and an “upper” house made up of appointed or hereditary members.

Under a Westminster model, typically each of these components must approve legislation for it to become law. In other words, the monarch, as well as both the lower and upper legislative houses must pass it. The precise procedure for enacting legislation can differ somewhat between different Westminster-based parliamentary systems.

The Monarchy in Canada’s Parliament

In Canada’s Parliament, the national sovereign is the Canadian Monarch, which the country shares with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations. Most of the monarch’s day-to-day parliamentary responsibilities, however, are performed by the Governor General, the Monarch’s representative in Canada.

Before any legislation becomes law, the Monarch (or, in practice, the Governor General) grants “Royal Assent,” that is, formal approval. In addition to approving legislation, the Governor General (as the Monarch’s representative) also has the power to appoint key parliamentary officers and leaders, including the Prime Minister, Cabinet, and leaders of the legislatures. The Governor General opens and closes parliamentary sessions (periods when the legislative houses sit and undertake parliamentary business), and to dissolve a particular parliament (which usually leads to an election and the forming of new parliament).

It is important to note, however, that while the Governor General (as the Monarch’s representative) holds these parliamentary powers in theory these powers are rarely exercised independently of the Prime Minister and the elected legislature. It is general custom that the Governor General always grants Royal Assent to legislation passed by the legislative houses. Moreover, the Prime Minister usually decides when to open and dissolve parliaments, with the Governor General simply carrying out the Prime Minister’s decision.

For more information on the Canadian Monarch and the Governor General of Canada:

Legislative Houses in Canada’s Parliament

In Canada’s Parliament, there are two legislative houses or chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is an elected house, which is constituted by representatives elected at the local constituency level. The Senate, in contrast, is an appointed house consisting of members appointed by government.

The House of Commons is the primary legislature in Canada’s Parliament. All legislation must be approved by the House of Commons (by majority vote) in order for it to become law. Moreover, the government of the day is highly dependent upon the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are usually drawn from the elected members of the House, and the government must maintain majority support in the House in order to stay in power (cabinet minister have also been drawn, in rare cases, from the Senate).

The Senate also plays an important role in Parliament, albeit a less politically powerful one. All legislation must be approved by the Senate (again, by majority vote) in order for it to become law. It is, however, generally customary for the appointed Senate to automatically approve legislation that has been passed by the elected House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Senate does engage in extensive review of parliamentary legislation and will, on rare occasion, reject legislation passed by the House. Moreover, the Senate does not enjoy the same level of interaction with the government of the day as the House. Rarely are Cabinet members drawn from the Senate, and the government does not need to maintain majority support in the Senate in order to remain in power.

For more information on the Canadian Senate:

Practices of Canada’s National Parliament

Rules and processes in the operation of Canada’s Parliament

Written and Unwritten Constitutional Rules

The basic framework of Canada’s parliamentary government is set out by the national Constitution. Central to this is the Constitution Act, 1982, which forms the core of Canada’s written Constitution. The Act sets out such things as the different components of the national Parliament, their basic mode of operation, as well as their specific powers and authority.

Much of Canada’s parliamentary system, however, is also governed by unwritten constitutional conventions and customs. These are rules and practices regarding the operation of the Parliament, which have been developed incrementally over time, and have never been formally codified in writing. This does not mean they are any less binding – only that they are based upon historical practice instead of explicitly written principles.

Many of these unwritten customs have been borrowed from Britain, the original model of the Westminster Parliament. The British practice of responsible government, for example, was first adopted by Canadian colonies as they moved from authoritarian colonial governments to democratic governments. Other British customs were adopted by Canada in 1867, when the country was formed during Confederation.

Practice of Responsible Government

The concept of responsible government is at the heart of Canada’s parliamentary system of government. For many people, however, it is a confusing concept. When asked to define responsible government, most people intuitively believe it means that government (that is, the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is responsible to the citizens it presides over. While there is an element of truth to this, the technical meaning of responsible government is that the government is responsible to Parliament, and, in particular, the elected representatives of the House of Commons.

Under Canada’s system, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. This means that a majority of Members of Parliament (MP) must support the government. This support, or lack thereof, is most commonly expressed when the government submits legislation to the House for its approval. If a majority of MPs vote in favour of the legislation, then the government has maintained the confidence of the House; if a majority vote against the legislation, then the government has lost the House’s confidence.

Votes against important pieces of government legislation, such as the federal budget, will result in the government falling. In the event this happens, the Prime Minister usually submit his/her resignation to the Governor General, who, typically, calls for an election or, in rare cases, asks another Member of Parliament (customarily the Leader of the Opposition Party with the greatest number of sitting members) to try to form a government that will have the confidence of the House.

Another way in which confidence is expressed in a particular government is through direct votes on the government itself. A Member of Parliament may, for example, introduce a motion calling for the resignation of the government. If the motion passes with a majority of votes, then the government is deemed to have lost the confidence of the House, and the Prime Minister will submit his/her resignation to the Governor General.

In addition to votes on the government or its legislation, the House further holds the government responsible through the relentless review of individual cabinet ministers and their actions. Ministers must account to the House for the way they run their departments, their policies and budgets, and any mistakes made by department officials. This is what the daily Question Period is all about: it provides a forum for individual MPs to ask questions of Ministers. It is one of the most visible ways the government is held responsible to the House of Commons. The Standing Committee system also provides a series of parliamentary committees that “shadow” government departments and oversee their operations.

The idea of responsible government is infused throughout the parliamentary system. Interestingly, though, this idea does not appear anywhere in Canada’s written constitutional documents. It is, however, considered to be a constitutional convention – an unwritten rule that Canada’s political actors view as binding.

Practice of Parliamentary Supremacy

Another important characteristic of Canada’s parliamentary system is the practice of Parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty, which generally means that Parliament is to be regarded as the highest political institution in Canada’s political system, with no limits on its powers and authority. Essentially, Parliament may make or unmake any laws as it deems, and no other political institution may undermine Parliament’s ability.

The concept of parliamentary supremacy is rooted in British tradition and its democratic evolution. Britain was dominated early in its history by two non-democratic institutions: the Monarchy and the Church. As the nation moved towards democratic reform in the 16th and 17th centuries, it sought to undermine the power of these institutions and replace them with government by the people. As such, the democratic institution of Parliament was recognized as the highest political body in the nation – a body that would not be limited by other forms of authority, such as the Monarch or the Church. The practice was formally carried over to Canada at the time of Confederation in 1867.

In Canada, however, there are several important limitations on Parliamentary supremacy. One limitation stems from the organization of Canada as a federal state with multiple levels of government. The federal Parliament is not the only legislature in the country; there are also several provincial legislatures with their own constitutionally protected powers and jurisdictions. This means that parliamentary sovereignty is limited in Canada, with the federal Parliament having to share law-making supremacy with its provincial counterparts. This differs from non-federal parliamentary nations, such as Britain, where there is only one level of government and the British Parliament does not share law-making supremacy with any provincial or state counterpart.

Another limitation on parliamentary supremacy stems from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which was formally included within the Canadian Constitution in 1982. The Charter provides all citizens with certain rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by the federal Parliament or provincial legislatures, such as freedom of speech, democratic rights, and the right not to be discriminated against. Accordingly, the judiciary has the power to review any legislation passed by Parliament to ensure it is consistent with these Charter entitlements. This represents an important limit on the Parliament and juxtaposes the courts as an important check on the law-making ability of parliamentarians.

Official Opposition in the House and Senate

Canada’s Parliament exhibits a wide variety of parliamentary processes and events, some of which are briefly reviewed here. Firstly, central to the operation of parliament is the existence of an Official Opposition in each legislative chamber, the House of Commons and the Senate. The Official Opposition is usually the political party with the most seats in a particular legislature after the party that forms the government. The leader of the party will usually become the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition’s purpose is to be critical of government decisions, and to provide alternative policies for political debate and public consumption. In performing this role, the Official Opposition is provided with resources, employees, offices, and special status in Parliamentary debate.

Parliamentary Committee System

Another important element in the operation of Parliament is the parliamentary committee system. Both the House of Commons and the Senate have their own committees, comprising members of the respective houses. In some cases, there are also joint committees consisting of members of both legislative houses. The general role of these committees is to review government legislation and policies and to recommend possible improvements to them. Parliamentary committees, however, may only offer advice to the government, which it may or may not heed. Committees, in of themselves, cannot reject or hold up government initiatives. There are standing or permanent committees, which are assigned to key policy fields such as finance, defence, foreign affairs, etc. There are also ad hoc or temporary parliamentary committees which are formed for short periods of time to review a particular government initiative or policy field.

Federal Government Budget

A key event of in parliamentary life is the passing of the federal budget. The budget sets out two elements of the government’s finances. It provides an estimate of future government revenues, and from where it will be collecting these monies. The budget also provides details on government expenditure, such as how much money it will be spending and where it will be spending that money. The federal budget is presented to Parliament each year, usually around February. In order for the budget to be implemented, it must be passed by majority vote in both the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as receive Royal Assent from the Monarch (or Governor General). A vote against the budget in the House of Commons is recognized as a vote of non-confidence for the government, which can lead to the fall of the government and the holding of general elections.

For more information on the federal budget:

Mapleleafweb: The Federal Budget in Canada

Speech from the Throne

Another important event in the parliamentary life is the annual Speech from the Throne (or “Throne Speech”). The Throne Speech outlines the current government’s agenda for the upcoming parliamentary session. It will detail such things as the government’s priorities, the sorts of legislation it will introduce, and the government initiatives it will pursue. The Throne Speech is delivered by the Monarch or his/her representative in Parliament (the Governor General of Canada). The Speech itself, however, is not written by the Monarch, but by the government (usually the Prime Minister’s office). Moreover, the Throne Speech is delivered to a combined sitting of the both legislative houses, the House of Commons and the Senate. Once delivered, members of the legislatures have the opportunity to debate the government’s agenda outlined in the Throne Speech and vote on whether or not they approve of it. A vote against the Throne Speech in the House of Commons can be interpreted as a vote of non-confidence in the government (and could lead to the fall of the government and an election).

Parliamentary Government in the Provinces/Territories

Comparison of federal and provincial/territorial parliaments

Canada has two levels of legislatures. The first is the national or federal Parliament, which includes the Monarch, House of Commons, and the Senate. The second are regional legislatures, which includes provincial legislatures (which are provided for under the Constitution) and territorial legislatures (which are creations of the federal government). Like their federal counterpart, these provincial/territorial legislatures operate under a parliamentary system of government. The following provides a brief overview of their operation.

Fused Executive and Legislative Branches

As with the federal level of government, provincial and territorial governments operate under a parliamentary system in which the executive branch of government is fused with, and dependent upon, the legislative branch. Members of the executive branch, which includes a Premier and Cabinet, are drawn from their respective legislatures. Moreover, provincial/territorial premiers and cabinets are dependent upon their legislatures in order to stay in power. A Premier and their Cabinet must maintain majority support amongst members of the legislature in order maintain power and exercise their authority. If they lose this support, usually the government falls and a general election is held.

The Monarch in Provincial Legislatures

Moreover, like the federal Parliament, the Monarch plays a key role in the operation of provincial legislatures. Similar to the federal Parliament, the Monarch must grant Royal Assent to all provincial legislation before it becomes law. Moreover, the Monarch has the power to appoint key legislative and government officials, as well as to open and close legislative sessions, and to dissolve legislatures.

The day-to-day activities of the Monarch are performed by Lieutenant-Governors his/her representative in the provincial legislature. These representatives are formally appointed by the federal Governor General on the advice of the provincial Premier and Cabinet.

As is the case at the federal level, these powers of the Monarch are mainly ceremonial, and are exercised in practice by the provincial Premier and Cabinet.

Commissioners in Territorial Legislatures

Territorial legislatures also have a ceremonial figure similar to a Lieutenant-Governor, referred to as a Territorial Commissioner. However, while appointed by the Governor General of Canada, territorial Commissioners are not official representatives of the Monarch. Instead, they are simply the official representatives of the federal government, which is due to the fact that territories are creatures of federal legislation with no constitutional autonomy of their own. Territorial Commissioners perform many of the same functions as the Monarch’s representative at the federal and provincial levels, such as approving legislation before it becomes law, which is referred to as granting “Commissioner’s Assent”. In other aspects, however, these Commissioners have less responsibility. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, for example, it is the federal Governor General, and not the respective Commissioner, that dissolves the legislature.

Unicameral versus Bicameral Legislatures

A central difference between parliamentary governments at the provincial/territorial and that at the federal level is the number of legislative bodies. The federal Parliament is a bicameral legislature, meaning there are two legislative bodies: the House of Commons and the Senate. At the provincial/territorial level, however, there is only one legislative body, usually referred to as a provincial assembly. Members of these assemblies are elected at the local constituency level and are responsible for passing all legislation under their respective jurisdictions. Moreover, provincial/territorial governments, which include the Premier and Cabinet, are responsible to their respective assemblies for their executive authority.

Key Legislative Processes and Events

Many of the processes and events that occur in the federal Parliament are also evident at the provincial/territorial level.

Provincial and territorial legislatures usually have Official Oppositions, formed by the political party with the largest number of seats not in government. The territories of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are exceptions; they practice consensus government in their legislatures. Under this approach, members of the legislature are not organized in political parties, but operate, instead, as independents with informal allegiances to other members. As such, there is no Official Opposition in these legislatures. Instead, legislative members not in government organize into an unofficial opposition, and fill the role of criticizing government legislation and policies.

Most provincial legislatures also operate some form of a committee system, in which legislative members review and offer advice on government legislation. Provincial and territorial legislatures also have a Speech from the Throne, which is delivered by the Lieutenant-General in the case of provincial legislatures, and the Commissioner in the case of territorial legislatures. Finally, all provincial/territorial legislatures have an annual budget process, in which the government of the day must present financial estimates, and which must be approved by the legislature and the Monarch.

Links to More Information

Lists of links for more on this topic

The Prime Minister & Cabinet in Canada

Jay Makarenko — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:00:00 -0600

The Prime Minister and Cabinet sit at the pinnacle of executive political power in Canada. They are responsible for leading the nation and deciding the direction of national public policy. This article provides an introduction to Prime Minister and Cabinet as institutions in the Canadian government. More specifically, this article discusses the roles and powers of the federal Cabinet and the Prime Minister of Canada, the practices that govern the operation of Cabinet, as well as debates and issues surrounding the political offices.

What is the Federal Cabinet?

Role and powers of the Cabinet in Canada

What is the Prime Minister of Canada?

Role and powers of the Prime Minister of Canada

Federal Cabinet Rules and Practices

Practices that govern the operation of Cabinet

Issues and Debates on the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Responsible government, power of the prime minister, and representation

Links for Further Information

List of links for more on this topic

What is the Federal Cabinet?

The role and powers of the Cabinet in Canada

Cabinet as Government

The Cabinet is a body of political officials that decides the policies and direction of the nation and administers the day-to-day operation of its government. When political scientists and commentators speak of the “Canadian government,” what they are, in fact, referring to is the Cabinet. Interestingly, the Constitution, which sets out the structure of Canada’s governing system, makes no explicit reference to this powerful political institution. Instead, it invests executive political power and authority in the Monarchy and his or her representative in Canada (the Governor General). In practice, however, it is customary for the Cabinet to exercise this power (albeit, of the in the name of the Monarchy), while the Monarch and Governor General act primarily as ceremonial figures.

For more information on Canada’s system of government:
Mapleleafweb: Canada’s Parliamentary Government

Cabinet Ministers

The modern Cabinet consists of political officials called “Cabinet Ministers” or “Ministers of the Crown.” These Ministers are given the responsibility of overseeing specific areas of public policy (such as finance, national defence, or foreign affairs). The most important Cabinet Minister is the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the head of government and the leader of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister has special powers that allow him or her to dominate Cabinet deliberation and control the direction of government.

See the What is the Prime Minister of Canada? section of this article for more information on the history, powers and responsibilities of the Prime Minister.

A Cabinet may also include “Ministers of State." These are junior Cabinet officials that do not have their own government department. They are, instead, often given the responsibility for aiding a senior Cabinet Minister, and will have specialized duties within that Minister’s department. It may also be the case that Ministers of State are given responsibility over some temporary government agency or program that is expected to last only a short period of time.

History of the Cabinet

In understanding why the Cabinet has come to play such a pivotal role in Canadian government, it is important to examine its historical development. When Canada was formed in 1867, it simply adopted the British system of government (often referred to as the Westminster parliamentary system). An important component of the British system is based on unwritten constitutional customs and conventions that have been adopted over hundreds of years. The practice of cabinet government is one of these unwritten customs.

So where did the Cabinet come from? Early in its history, Britain was an absolute monarchy with political power residing within a hereditary King or Queen. The monarch, however, did not govern alone, and usually relied on the aid of a royal court or council. These were special bodies of advisors that would council the monarch on public policy and oversee the day-to-day administration of the kingdom. The origins of the modern Canadian Cabinet can be traced back to these first royal courts and councils.

As Britain developed its Parliamentary system in the 13th and 14th centuries, it institutionalized these royal courts into a special body of advisors called the Privy Council. By the 16th century, however, the Privy Council had grown too large to be of any use as a day-to-day advisory body. As such, British Monarchs began the practice of relying on a smaller committee of the Privy Council, which eventually become know as the ‘Cabinet’.

As Britain moved away from its purely monarchical system, and towards a more democratic system, the role of the Cabinet, with respect to the functioning of government, changed substantially. Responsibility for actually leading government was transferred, over time, from the Monarchy to the Cabinet. Moreover, with the introduction of responsible government (or government responsible to the people), it became customary for the Cabinet to be dependent upon, and accountable to, the democratically elected legislature, instead of the Monarchy.

When Canada was formed upon Confederation in 1867, it simply adopted this British Parliamentary system and its cabinet government. Canada was given its own Privy Council – the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; the Canadian Cabinet was a special committee of this body. The Canadian Cabinet was given the power to govern day-to-day affairs, and was made responsible to the democratically elected legislature in Canada (better known as the House of Commons).

See the Cabinet Rules and Practices section of this article for more information on the operation of Canada’s Cabinet.

Powers & Responsibilities of the Cabinet

As the central body in Canada’s Executive branch of government, the Cabinet has many important powers and responsibilities.

Powers of the Crown: To begin with, the Cabinet enjoys several powers that were previously under the complete discretion of the Monarch. While these powers still technically belong to the Crown, it is customary for the Monarch or Governor General to exercise them according to the Cabinet’s wishes. These powers include: the power to submit money bills to Parliament; the power to summon and dissolve Parliament; the power to grant pardons; the power to appoint key state officials, such as Senators and Judges; and, several powers regarding foreign relations, including those governing the signing of international treaties and agreements, and those pertaining to declarations of war and peace.

For more information on the powers of the Crown:
Mapleleafweb: The Monarchy in Canada

Legislative Process Powers: The Cabinet also has powers which stem from from the leadership role it enjoys within the Canadian legislative process. The Cabinet has the power to create and submit legislation to Parliament for approval by Canada’s two legislative chambers – the House of Commons and the Senate. The Cabinet also has considerable powers over the manner in which legislation is deliberated upon by these legislatures. The Cabinet, for example, can shorten or extend the time spent deliberating a piece of legislation at the various levels of the legislative process.

For more information on the legislative process in Canada:
Parliament of Canada: The Legislative Process
Mapleleafweb: Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

Administrative Powers: The Cabinet also enjoys key administrative powers, a product of the relationship between Cabinet Ministers and the state bureaucracy. Most Cabinet Ministers are the formal heads of a particular government department or agency, and, in this capacity, will act as the department’s chief director and administrator. In this context, Cabinet Ministers set departmental priorities, determine the department’s bureaucratic organization, and oversee the hiring and firing of key departmental personnel.

Quasi-Judicial Powers: Finally, the Cabinet also holds quasi-judicial powers. The Canadian state has a number of regulatory agencies and boards that oversee the operation of important sectors of the Canadian economy and society. The Cabinet is responsible for acting as a court of appeal for many of these regulatory bodies. A perfect example is the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (or CRTC), which regulates the Canadian broadcasting and communications industries. If a company or group disagrees with a particular decision of the CRTC, it may appeal that decision to the federal Cabinet (if the Cabinet so chooses to hear the appeal). That said, a Minister may not, however, intervene in the day-to-day workings of such regulatory agencies and boards.

What is the Prime Minister of Canada?

Role and powers of the Prime Minister of Canada

Head of Government

The Prime Minister is the most powerful political official in the Cabinet and is officially recognized as the Head of Government in Canada. This status stems from the special powers and responsibilities attached to the position, which allow the Prime Minister’s ability to dominate Cabinet deliberation and decision-making (see below for more on the Prime Minister’s powers).

It is important to recognize that, in Canada’s Parliamentary system, separate persons hold the titles of Head of Government and Head of State. While the Prime Minister is the official Head of Government, and is responsible for leading the day-to-day governing of the nation, the Canadian Monarch is the Head of State. The Monarch’s position, however, is mainly ceremonial; it comes with very little political power. This Parliamentary tradition differs significantly from other systems of government, such as the Presidential system that governs the United States; in that context, the US President is both the Head of Government and the Head of State.

For more on the Canadian Monarchy:
Mapleleafweb: The Monarchy in Canada

History of the Prime Minister

In the same way the Canadian Cabinet is rooted in British Parliamentary tradition, so too is the Office of the Prime Minister. Canada adopted the British practice of having a Cabinet led by Prime Minister when the country was formed in 1867. Interestingly enough, in the British tradition there was no official leader of the British Cabinet until the 19th century. Prior to that time, Cabinet Ministers, enjoyed control over their respective departments and worked in concert to address broad government matters. By the 1800s, however, it became customary to recognize a “senior” or “first” minister in the Cabinet, who was later given the title of Prime Minister.

Since Confederation, the role of Prime Minister has undergone considerable change in Canada. In the early years, it was customary for the Prime Minister to exercise very little control over other senior Cabinet Ministers. In fact, it was common to refer to the Prime Minister as simply the “First amongst equals.” Today, however, it is customary for the Prime Minister to dominate his or her Cabinet, and to play a much more central role in government decision-making.

The Powers & Responsibilities of the Prime Minister

The ability of the Prime Minister to dominate Cabinet and the direction of government is due, in large part, to powers and responsibilities that are uniquely associated with this position. These powers and responsibilities include:

Powers of the Crown: It is customary for the Prime Minister to exercise many of the powers that were formerly under the discretion of the Monarchy. While these powers technically still belong to the Monarchy, they are exercised completely on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, for example, decides when to dissolve Parliament and when to call a general election. It is even customary for the Prime Minister to choose who will be the Governor General (the Monarch’s representative in Canada).
Forming the Cabinet: Much of the power enjoyed by a Prime Minister stems from his or her authority to form the Cabinet. It is the Prime Minister who decides who will actually make up the Cabinet, and what portfolios will be assigned to each person. Accordingly, Ministers owe their allegiance to the Prime Minister, who can promote or demote them, ask for their resignation, and, if necessary, dismiss them from Cabinet altogether. These powers tend to keep Ministers both submissive and supportive of the Prime Minister and his/her policies and priorities.
Appointing Public Servants: In addition to appointing Cabinet Ministers, the Prime Minister also has the power to dictate who holds many key offices in the public service. This includes the appointment of Senators, Supreme Court judges, deputy ministers, and heads of government agencies, boards, and corporations. The ability to exercise such power helps keep a Prime Minister’s ‘followers’ on side, while allowing a Prime Minister to impose his/her ideological stamp on much of government. In this way, a Prime Minister who believes in a particular vision of how government should function can use the powers of the Prime Minister’s Office to appoint persons of like-minded thinking to key government positions.
Organizing Government: In addition to appointments, the Prime Minister also has significant powers over the actual organization of government. Subject to usual routine Parliamentary approval, the Prime Minister has the ability to create new departments and agencies, transform or abolish old ones, and privatize or nationalize industries and corporations. He or she also has the power to assign specific mandates and priorities to individual government departments and agencies, with or without the permission of the responsible Cabinet Minister.
Senior Diplomat: Finally, the Prime Minister is often seen as the nation’s chief diplomat. This is particularly true in the modern era of summit diplomacy when Heads of Governments regularly meet with one another on a face-to-face basis. (This includes bilateral summits with the US President, as well as G8 meetings, Commonwealth conferences, meetings involving La Francophonie, and occasional appearances at the United Nations.)

All told, these collective powers and responsibilities enable the Prime Minister to dominate government decision-making.

The Prime Ministers of Canada (1867-2007)

Name	Party	Tenure	Birth Place	Adult Residence	Age as PM	Occupation
Sir John A. Macdonald	Con	1867- 1873	Britain	ON	52-76	Law
Alexander Mackenzie	Lib	1873- 1878	Britain	ON	51-56	Journalist
Sir John A. Macdonald	Con	1878- 1891	Britain			Law
Sir John Abbott	Con	1891- 1892	QC	QC	70	Law/Lecturer
Sir John Thompson	Con	1892- 1894	NS	NS	48-50	Law/Lecturer
Sir Mackenzie Bowell	Con	1894- 1896	Britain	ON	70-72	Journalist
Sir Charles Tupper	Con	1896- 1896	NS	NS	74	Doctor
Sir Wilfred Laurier	Lib	1896- 1911	QC	QC	54-69	Law
Sir Robert Borden	Con	1911- 1920	NS	NS	57-65	Law
Arthur Meighen	Con	1920- 1921	ON	ON	46-52	Law/Business
W. L. Mackenzie King	Lib	1921- 1926	ON	ON	47-73	Civil Service
Arthur Meighen	Con	1926- 1926	ON			Law/Business
W. L. Mackenzie King	Lib	1926- 1930	ON			Civil Service
R. B. Bennett	Con	1930- 1936	NB	AB	60-65	Law/Business
W. L. Mackenzie King	Lib	1936- 1948	ON			Civil Service
Louis St. Laurent	Lib	1948- 1957	QC	QC	66-75	Law
John Diefenbaker	Con	1957- 1963	ON	SK	61-67	Law
Lester B. Pearson	Lib	1963- 1968	ON	ON	65-70	Civil Service
Pierre Elliott Trudeau	Lib	1968- 1979	QC	QC	48-65	Law/Lecturer
Joseph Clark	Con	1979- 1980	AB	AB	39-41	Journalist
Pierre Elliott Trudeau	Lib	1980- 1984	QC			Law/Lecturer
John Turner	Lib	1984- 1984	Britain	ON	55	Law
Brian Mulroney	Con	1984- 1993	QC	QC	45-54	Law/Business
Kim Campbell	Con	1993- 1993	BC	BC	46	Law
Jean Chrétien	Lib	1993- 2003	QC	QC	59-69	Law
Paul Martin, Jr.	Lib	2003- 2006	ON	QC	65-67	Law/Business
Stephen Harper	Con	2006-	ON	AB	47-	Economist/Writer

(Source: Jackson & Jackson, Politics in Canada, 6th Edition: 2006)

Federal Cabinet Rules and Practices

Practices that govern the operation of Cabinet

The Cabinet operates according to a number of important rules and practices that frame Canada’s basic system of government.

Practice of Responsible Government

One of the most important practices governing the operation of the Cabinet is that of responsible government. While the Cabinet sits at the pinnacle of executive political power, it is nevertheless democratically responsible. In Canada, however, the Cabinet is not directly responsible to the people; citizens do not elect their Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers in direct elections. Instead, the Cabinet is responsible to the people’s elected representatives in the House of Commons (referred to as Members of Parliament or MPs). The Prime Minister and Cabinet can only continue to stay in power so long as they have the support of a majority of MPs in the House. If they ever lose this support, it is customary for them to resign their positions and for a general election to be held.

For more information on the practice of responsible government:
Mapleleafweb: Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices

Appointing the Prime Minister

The power to appoint the Prime Minister is technically held by the Crown and is exercised by the Governor General of Canada. However, in practice, the Governor General has very little discretion in making the appointment. Instead, it is customary to simply ask the leader of the political party with the most MPs in the House of Commons to assume the mantle of Prime Minister. This custom is due, in large part, to the practice of responsible government (see above) and the need for the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet to have the support of a majority of MPs in the House. The leader of largest political party in the House should, in theory, always have the best chance of gaining and maintaining this support.

It is also customary for the Prime Minister to be an elected member of the House of Commons. There are, however, some exceptions to the rule. It may be, for example, that a Prime Minister steps down and his/her party selects a new leader who has not yet stood for election. In such a case, the new leader may still assume the office of Prime Minister, but only on condition that s/he immediately run in a by-election.

Selecting Cabinet Ministers

Once appointed, the Prime Minister selects persons to sit in the Cabinet. In making such selections, the Prime Minister often follows several different customs and traditions.

The Prime Minister usually appoints elected Members of Parliament to Cabinet, although, it is permissible to choose those who are not elected to serve. Moreover, a Prime Minister generally appoints MPs solely from his/her political party to serve (unless it is a coalition government). In this way, the Prime Minister often looks to the best and brightest members of his/her party. A Prime Minister may also look to use his/her power to smooth over divisions within the party by, for example, appointing a chief rival to a key Cabinet position.

It is also customary (although, not mandatory) for the Prime Minister to select a Cabinet that is representative of Canada’s regional and linguistic traditions. The Prime Minister will often look to have at least one Cabinet Minister from each province or region in Canada. This custom stems, in large part, from the fact that Canada is a federation and that the Senate has never adequately performed its intended role of representing provincial interests in the federal government. It is also tradition for the Prime Minister to attempt to strike an appropriate balance in Cabinet between the interests of French and English Canada; typically one-third of Cabinet Ministers are French, with the remainder being English. The precise regional and linguistic makeup of a Cabinet, however, often depends on the pool of MPs elected. It may be the case that the Prime Minister simply does not have enough qualified MPs from a particular region or linguistic group, and may not make a related Cabinet appointment.

Cabinet Solidarity & Secrecy

The Cabinet has traditionally been regarded as a collective decision-making body, although it is often the case that the Prime Minister, Cabinet committees, or individual Ministers, will make decisions alone. Regardless of which Ministers (or how many) are involved in making a decision, the Cabinet operates on the principle of Cabinet solidarity. According to this principle, all Members of the Cabinet must publicly defend all Cabinet policies or resign. A classic example of this practice occurred in 2005 when Joe Comuzzi, a Minister of State in the Martin Liberal government, resigned his post on the grounds that he did not support government legislation legalizing same-sex marriages.

In addition to the practice of solidarity, the Cabinet also operates under the principle of Cabinet secrecy or confidentiality. In this regard, Cabinet Ministers are not to disclose information about Cabinet deliberations. Such confidentiality is meant to protect state secrets, to prevent personal gain based on the privileged information available to Ministers, and to protect Cabinet deliberations (and possible discord) from being exploited by Opposition parties and the media. Accordingly, Cabinet documents are not normally made public for a period of 20 years.

Cabinet Committees

To this point, the Cabinet has been discussed as if a single body that meets to make decisions concerning government. While the Cabinet meets as a whole , much government business is also handled in specialized Cabinet committees. In organizing their Cabinets, many Prime Ministers have divided different Ministers into different committees based on their particular areas of public policy. For example, there may be an ‘Economic Committee,’ consisting of Cabinet Ministers who have portfolios related to the economy (such as the Trade Minister and the Minister of Industry).

Some Prime Ministers will also establish some form of a ‘Central’ or ‘Inner’ Cabinet committee, responsible for setting the general priorities and policies of government. This cabinet committee will be chaired by the Prime Minister him/herself, and will generally include only the most senior Cabinet Ministers. The Minister of Finance is almost always on this Inner cabinet committee. Others may include the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and other key ministers representing economic and social portfolios.

Issues and Debates on the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Responsible government, power of the prime minister, and representation

Weakening of Responsible Government

One important issue centres on the principle of responsible government and whether Canadians have an effective democracy in which government is democratically held accountable. As discussed earlier, Canada has a democratic system in which the government (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is responsible to citizens’ elected representatives, that is, their Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot govern unless they have the support of a majority of the elected MPs in the House.

Many political scientists and commentators, however, contend there is an imbalance of power between the Cabinet and the House of Commons. Moreover, they suggest this imbalance limits the ability of MPs to adequately hold the Prime Minister and Cabinet accountable for their actions. According to this view, one major cause of this power imbalance relates to the Cabinet’s ability to use party discipline to ensure it has the support of its party members. With party discipline, a party leader will use certain tactics (such as the threat of demotion or expulsion from the party) to force his/her MPs to ‘tow the party line.’ Hence, when the House of Commons votes on legislation, MPs generally do not vote according to their own personal views, or even those of their constituents. Instead, they will vote according to the views of their party. When the Prime Minister and Cabinet wants to pass legislation in the House, they will use party discipline to ensure all Members of Parliament affiliated with the Party vote in support of the government.

Critics of party discipline argue, however, that these tactics undercut the ability of MPs to hold the government accountable. They contend that Members of Parliament are supposed to act as a democratic check on the Prime Minister and Cabinet, withdrawing support from the government divergences on leadership arise. Because of party discipline, critics argue, MPs are largely incapable of performing this function properly for fear of retribution. They suggest that correcting this practice involves reforming Parliament in such a manner that MPs would have greater freedom to vote against the government. This would include holding more free votes in the House of Commons, occasions when MPs could freely vote outside party lines.

Others defend the current system, arguing that concerns about party discipline and the powers of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to those of Members of Parliament are overblown. This view contends the use of party discipline does not mean MPs may never disagree with party leadership. Dissent can be voiced in behind-closed-doors caucus meetings, or in one-on-one meetings with the Prime Minister and/or appropriate Members of Cabinet. To this end, proponents of this viewpoint suggest there are many cases in Canadian history where concerted dissent within the governing party has forced a Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet to reform a government initiative or policy, or drop it altogether. By contrast, those who in favour the party discipline approach often cite the US as an example of a model not to follow, noting that elected representatives have much greater independence from their political parties, resulting in a legislative process that is very slow and often stalled in political gridlock.

Increase in Prime Ministerial Power

Another important issue concerns the Cabinet as a decision-making body and the centralization of power at the hands of the Prime Minister. Prior to the 1960s, the Cabinet operated in a much more decentralized manner than it does today. Individual Cabinet Ministers had significantly greater autonomy and authority, largely administering their ministries and departments independently of one another, and from any Prime Ministerial interference. Strong Ministers could make many decisions without consulting their Cabinet colleagues, and tended to remain in charge of a single department for long periods of time. This system is referred to as a ‘departmentalized cabinet.’

After the 1960s, however, the departmentalized cabinet was replaced by the ‘institutionalized cabinet,’ in which Cabinet decision-making became far more centralized and individual Ministers lost much of their independence. This change was largely due to the enormous growth of the federation during this period, and the perceived need for government activities to become much more coordinated in addressing complex social and economic issues.

Moreover, as the Cabinet became more institutionalized, and less departmentalized, the Prime Minister became a much more dominant figure in government decision-making. The Prime Minister, either alone or in consultation with select Ministers, will often set the general priorities and direction of the government, and will then use his or her executive staff (at either the Prime Minister’s Office or the Privy Council Office) to oversee and coordinate the activities of Cabinet Ministers to ensure that those priorities are being met. Cabinet Ministers today make most of their important decisions in consultation with the Prime Minister and his/her executive staffers.

Some have argued that these changes in the operation of Cabinet have resulted in too much political power being centralized in the hands of the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is able to hire and fire Cabinet Ministers at will and plays such an important role in ministerial decisions, there is very little that acts as a balance against the exercising of these powers. Moreover, the argument goes that this centralization of power is made worse by the inability of MPs in the House to adequately hold the Prime Minister responsible for his/her actions (see the previous section). The result can be despotic behavior by the Prime Minister and/or acts of corruption in the operation of government. The 2006 Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, for example, concluded that a major cause of the scandal was a lack of adequate democratic oversight of the activities of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office.

Others, however, have argued in favour of greater power in the hands of the Prime Minister, asserting that such powers have been invaluable in helping to move away from the more ad hoc and incremental decision-making of the past, under the departmentalized cabinet system. With the leadership of the Prime Minister and his or her executive staffers, policy is conducted with more effective coordination, and with the broader picture in mind. It has also been argued that the Prime Minister is not as free of checks and balances as some might suggest, in that the Prime Minister must operate within the boundaries of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and judicial review of government legislation by the Canadian court system. The Prime Minister is also limited by Canada’s federal system, which grants many powers and jurisdictions to the provinces and their respective leaders. Finally, the Prime Minister is not completely immune from dissent within his or her own party.

Under-Representation in Cabinet

Another controversial issue pertaining to the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet concerns the social and ethnic make-up of the Cabinet. The selection of Cabinet Ministers is guided by several important customs and conventions. While these tenets provide for strong regional and linguistic representation in the Cabinet, critics argue they do not adequately address the representation of several other important social groups.

See the Cabinet Rules & Practices section of this article for more information on the customs regarding the selection of Cabinet Ministers.

Nearly all of Canada’s minority and vulnerable groups have been consistently un- or under-represented in Cabinet. In this regard, no significant room has ever specifically been made in Cabinet for women, Aboriginal Peoples, workers, the poor, and major visible minority groups. Moreover, there has consistently been an over-representation of white males, and those with business and legal backgrounds.

Critics have argued this under-representation can lead to narrowness in the ideological and political perspectives that originate from within Cabinet, as well as an inability to properly understand the needs and interests of many minority and vulnerable groups – and consequently, a diverse Canadian society. As such, these critics advocate key reforms, such as changing the conventions regarding the selection of Cabinet Ministers so there are certain thresholds for women and members of other groups represented in Canadian society. Others have argued against such reforms, asserting that full representation of Canadian society in Cabinet is impossible; in many cases there are simply not enough Members of Parliament with the relevant social characteristics to provide full representation. Those who hold this view would also suggest that Cabinet, and the government/state in general, can be sensitive to the interests and needs of minority and vulnerable groups without those groups being represented in Cabinet.