Responsible Government

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.

Links for Further Information

List of links for more on this topic

Mapleleafweb Links

Prime Minister & Supreme Court of Canada Appointments

Government Links

Research Links

The Federal Budget in Canada

Jay Makarenko — Mon, 01 May 2006 00:00:00 -0600

The federal government is responsible for managing hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds every year. To effectively manage its money, the federal government, like all Canadians, needs a budget – a financial plan for the future. This article introduces the process and significance of the federal budget. In particular, it examines the nature of the federal budget, the process by which it is made and approved, and its importance to Canada's political and democratic system.

What is the Federal Budget in Canada?

A brief introduction to government finances and Canada’s two federal budgets.

The Budget & Canada's Democratic Government

An overview of the role of the budget in the Canadian democratic system.

Making a Budget: An Historical Perspective

An examination of historical changes to the budget-making process.

Making a Budget: Contemporary Process

An examination of the current budget-making process.

The Budget Cycle in Canada

Stages of budget planning and implementation over the course of a year.

Importance of the Federal Budget

Why is the Federal Budget important to Canada’s political system?

Links for More Information

List of links for more on this topic

What is the Federal Budget in Canada?

A brief introduction to government finances and Canada’s two federal budgets.

Finances & Budgets

The federal government is a very complex financial entity. Each year the federal government brings in hundreds of billions of dollars in the form of tax revenues, premiums, tariffs and duties, which it then spends on thousands of different programs and policies. This includes everything from keeping the Parliament buildings clean, to subsidizing the Canadian health care system, to buying new equipment for the military.

To manage all this money, the federal government, like most Canadians, needs to have a budget. A budget is simply a financial plan for the future. Just as an individual uses a budget to determine savings and spending and more effectively plan for the future, so, too, does the Government of Canada.

Two Federal Budgets

The federal government actually has two budgets that it makes every year:

The Revenue Budget: This budget concerns only government income, or how much money the government expects to collect over the course of the year (money coming into the federal government’s coffers). This includes money collected through federal income tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST), taxes on gasoline and cigarettes, and federal tariffs and duties.
The Expenditure Budget: This budget concerns only government expenses, or how much money the government expects to spend over the course of the year (money going out of the government’s coffers). This includes spending on social programs, government administration, police and defence, and maintaining the government’s debt.

With both the Revenue and Expenditure Budgets, the federal government has a reasonably clear picture of its future finances. The government knows (approximately) how much money it will be collecting and where it will be collecting it. It knows which government departments and agencies will be getting the money and how they will be spending that money. The government can also predict whether it will have a deficit (that is, whether it will spend more money than it collects) or a surplus (whether it will spend less money than it collects).

The Budget & Canada's Democratic Government

Overview of the role of the budget in the Canadian democratic system.

While the budget helps the federal government manage its finances and plan for the future, it also plays an important role in the Canadian democratic system. The federal government (symbolized by the Prime Minister and Cabinet) cannot simply collect and spend public money however it chooses. Rather, it must first get the permission of citizens' elected representatives in the Canadian Parliament.

The federal government must follow two steps to get this democratic permission. First, it must present its budgets for the next year to Parliament for review. This is usually done annually in early spring (February or March). Second, after Parliament has reviewed the budgets, it must vote on whether to support or reject them.

The following provides an overview of these two steps, as well other information on the budget and Canadian democratic tradition.

Step One: Presenting the Budgets

Every year, the federal government presents its budgets to Parliament in two ways: (i) with a Budget Speech given by the Minister of Finance, and (ii) with a Tabling of the Estimates by the President of the Treasury Board.

When the media refer to the "federal budget" they are usually referring to the Budget Speech. The Budget Speech is a financial statement made each year (usually in February) by the federal Finance Minister to Parliament (see Contemporary Budget Process for more information on the Finance Minister). In that statement, the Finance Minister provides Parliament with a general overview of the government’s financial picture, and its plans for the upcoming year.

There are usually three parts to the Finance Minister’s budget address:

Details of the Revenue Budget: This includes economic projections for the Canadian economy, the total amount of monies the government expects to collect, and any changes to federal tax rates or structures.
A General Overview of Spending: Specifically, the total amount of monies the government expects to spend, as well as its spending priorities (health, education, defence, debt) over the next year (or few years) are identified.
Overall Financial State: The government outlines its overall financial position for the next year (or few years). Of key importance is whether the government expects to record a deficit (spending more than it takes in) or a surplus (spending less than it takes in).

In addition to the details provided in the budget and Budget Speech documents, the President of the Treasury Board also provides Parliament with specifics concerning the government’s spending plans through what is known as a Tabling of the Estimates (see Contemporary Budget Process for more information on the Treasury Board).

The Estimates consist of three parts:

A General Overview of Spending: This section generally reflects statements made by the Finance Minister in the Budget Speech.
The Main Estimates: This entails a detailed listing of the money required by individual federal departments and agencies for the upcoming year in order to deliver the programs for which they are responsible. The Main Estimates also provides information on the Appropriation Bills the government will be asking Parliament to approve. (Appropriation Bills are pieces of legislation that request specific amounts of money for particular government activities.)
Department Expenditure Plans: While the Main Estimates provide information on the amount of money each federal government department and agency will need for the upcoming year, the Department Expenditure Plans provide specific details about how that money will actually be spent. The Department Expenditure Plans are divided into two components:
- Reports on Plans and Priorities: These include information on the specific programs and services a federal government department or agency will offer, and how much each intends to spend on specifics, such as labour and materials, in order to provide those programs and services.
- Department Performance Reports: These reports entail assessments of each federal government department or agency, and whether it meets the expectations as set out in the Reports on Plans and Priorities.

The President of the Treasury Board presents the General Overview of Spending and the Main Estimates to Parliament in late-February or early-March (soon after the Finance Minister presents his Budget Speech to Parliament and the nation). The Department Expenditure Plans are presented to Parliament at a later date in the year (usually in the fall).

Step Two: Parliamentary Vote on the Budgets

Following the Budget Speech, and the tabling of the Main Estimates, Parliament reviews the federal government’s budgets and votes on whether or not to support them.

This is a very important vote for the government. Not only is the parliamentary budget vote necessary for the government to begin collecting and spending public monies for the upcoming year, but it is also a measure of the confidence the government enjoys, and so it is aptly named a vote of confidence or a confidence measure. (A confidence measure is a vote on whether the government should continue to remain in power.) To win a vote of confidence, the government must get the support of a majority of Members of Parliament. If the government fails to get a majority of support (often called a ‘vote of non-confidence’), then the government may fall and the Prime Minister asks the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call a general election. The budget vote is thus also a vote on the government itself. If the government loses the budget vote, not only does it lose its spending powers, it also loses its right to govern.

In the case of majority governments, there is generally little chance that the government will fall. A majority government is one in which the governing political party has a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The government is usually assured of winning a budget vote by virtue of the fact that its own party has a majority of votes in the House. The practice of party discipline — when the Prime Minister and Cabinet Members can threaten their own party members with expulsion or demotion if they vote against the government’s budget — is always a factor during important votes such as passing the federal budget.

In the case of minority governments, however, the situation can be much trickier. A minority government is one in which the governing political party does not hold the majority of seats in the House of Commons. Accordingly, the government, cannot pass the budget on the strength of its own party’s votes, but must enlist the support of other political parties. The government will negotiate with other political parties during the development of the budget, and may grant major concessions to an opposition party in return for its support in the ever-crucial budget vote.

Budget Secrecy

Traditionally the federal budget was a very secretive process, and governments tended not to disclose any information on the budget until the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech in the House. In a famous and extreme example of this secrecy, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent required that his Finance Minister type the entire budget himself, so that not even the Minister’s secretary would know its details before they were public.

Governments pursued budget secrecy for many reasons. There was the worry that individuals would use inside information (information not known by the general public) from the budget to profit from upcoming government decisions. Governments also used budget secrecy to undermine the ability of opposition parties to criticize the government in an effective manner.

In recent years, and especially under Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, there has been less secrecy surrounding the federal budget process. Major budget initiatives are now revealed publicly in advance of their official presentation in the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech. This stems from a desire to get feedback from the populace and financial markets, and to forewarn the Canadian population as a whole about any major changes in the government’s financial policies, or shifts in savings or spending. A certain degree of secrecy, however, is still maintained; the government never divulges the full details of the budget until the document is formally presented to Parliament through the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech. At that time, despite selective leaks that may have taken place in advance of Budget Day, the government (as of late) often holds back one or two budget ‘surprises’ to maintain some degree of interest in the Minister’s Speech and in the budget "event," so to speak.

Alternative Budgets

Historically, the Official Opposition in the House of Commons usually prepares an alternative budget, which it presents to the general public along with the federal government’s budget. This practice traditionally served as a means of "taking issue" with the financial and spending decisions made by the government, and laying out an alternate agenda. In recent years, however, the opposition parties have been more likely to focus on certain aspects of the government’s budget, rather than presenting a complete alternative budget.

Some public policy institutes and advocacy groups also present alternative budgets as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction with government financial decisions and spending priorities.

Making a Budget: A Historical Perspective

An examination of historical changes to the budget-making process.

While Parliament reviews and votes on the sitting government's budget, it is the responsibility of the federal government to actually make or develop the budget. How does it actually go about doing this? Who is involved in setting budget priorities and making budget decisions?

The following provides a historical perspective on how federal governments make budgets. In sum, the process of making a federal budget has undergone radical change over the years. Whereas budget decision-making used to involve a very informal and decentralized process, it has evolved over the years into a highly formalized and centralized procedure.

Traditional Budget Processes

For most of the federal government’s history, the making of a budget was a very informal and decentralized process. The Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet, through informal consultation, would set general government objectives and priorities. Individual ministers and department heads, however, had a great deal of independence with respect to specific policy and budgetary decisions within their own areas of responsibility.

The result was a very decentralized (bottom-up) approach to government budgeting. Ministers would provide Cabinet with budgets for their particular departments. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would then compile these departmental budgets into an overall budget for the government.

Early Reform: The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System

In 1969, the federal government began to make significant changes to the federal budget-making process. These changes were the product of many factors.

First, there was recognition that the traditional approach to making a budget was highly inefficient. The traditional approach, which involved informal consultation amongst ministers and bottom-up budgeting, often resulted in the development of government policies and programs that had little regard for or consideration of the overall financial implications for the country. Second, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, many western governments began to adopt a ‘scientific’ or ‘rational’ approach to governance. This approach involved a high reliance on mathematics, statistics, the social sciences, and formalized decision-making procedures.

In the early 1970s, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Liberal government introduced the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (or PPBS). This system was intended to integrate the federal government’s policy planning and budgetary processes. Moreover, PPBS involved a shift in the focus of budget decisions. Traditionally, the federal government had been preoccupied with the costs of a specific program or policy, and whether or not the government had enough money to pay for it. Under this new system, however, the focus shifted to determining the ultimate effect government activities would have on the lives of Canadians. If a particular program or policy was deemed to have a highly positive effect, it was made a budget priority regardless of the cost. This explains, to some extent, why Canada’s social-welfare system grew so significantly during the 1970s.

The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System also involved a very centralized (or top-down) approach to budget making. Government departments were organized into broad policy groups (health, education, justice, national security, and the economy). Cabinet and the Privy Council Office would set policy and budgetary priorities for each group (see Making a Budget: Contemporary System for more information on the Cabinet and central agencies). Government departments in each group would then conduct internal analyses and submit budget requests, showing how their activities contributed to the priorities set out by Cabinet and the central agencies.

In operation, the new budget-making system never met expectations. This was largely due to the shortcomings of statistical analysis and the social sciences at the time, and the resulting inability to precisely gauge the effect of government activities on the lives of Canadians. For example, it was very difficult to determine how government spending for drug testing or health-related education actually affected the health and lives of individual Canadians. There was neither a practical, nor a precise way, to measure the ‘health’ of all Canadians, nor to determine to what extent a government drug-testing program advanced or deteriorated the quality of an individual’s health. Furthermore, the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System involved negotiating the government’s entire budget every year, meaning that, each year new priorities would have to be set for each policy group, and every department would have to perform an internal analysis and then justify its activities according to those priorities. Such an approach turned out to be a very impractical way to manage the government finances.

The budget-making approach employed by the Trudeau government, however, did have some lasting effects on the federal government’s budget-making process. Individual departments and agencies continue to be organized into broad policy categories. Analysis of the impacts of programs and activities is now commonplace. Most importantly, federal governments have carried on with the centralized (top-down) approach to budget making.

Later Reform: The Program and Expenditure Management System

In the late 1970s, the shortlived Progressive Conservative minority government led by Joe Clark again reformed the budget process, this time introducing the Program and Expenditure Management System (PEMS).

Under PEMS, individual government departments and agencies were again classified into broad policy groups. However, instead of providing policy priorities to each group, Cabinet and the central budget planners would only assign an expenditure (or spending) limit. It was then left to committees of Cabinet Ministers with responsibilities in each policy group to decide priorities among themselves, in addition to deciding how to divide the spending allocation. The intent was to force ministers in a common policy group to set priorities jointly, and to determine how best to finance those priorities.

Summary

Over the years, the federal government’s budget-making process has changed significantly. What had once been an informal and decentralized process has now become a very formal and centralized one. Successive reforms in the 1970s brought formalized decision-making structures to budget making. Moreover, the Cabinet, Prime Minister, and other key players have come to exert a much more dominant role in setting the federal government’s priorities and, accordingly, determining its budget.

Making a Budget: Contemporary Process

An examination of the current budget-making process.

In 1993, the Liberal government, led by Jean Chrétien, introduced the Expenditure Management System (EMS) as part of the budget-making process. The federal government continues to use this system today. At the time of its introduction, the federal government was committed to reducing the deficit. The design of EMS reflects the depth of commitment to this objective, as it gives the Prime Minister greater control regarding overall government spending.

There are three important characteristics of EMS:

Dominance by three key architects in the budget-making process;
A secondary role for Cabinet and individual government departments; and
Consultation with Parliament and the general public.

Dominance by Key Architects

Under EMS, three central government bodies are responsible for the overall control of the budget process: the Privy Council Office, the Department of Finance, and the Treasury Board. The following provides an overview of these entities, and the role each one plays in developing a federal budget:

The Privy Council Office: The Privy Council Office directly supports the Prime Minister across the full range of his/her responsibilities as head of government. With regard to the budget process, the Privy Council Office's primary role is to ensure that individual ministers and government departments take into account the overall budgetary priorities of the Prime Minister when making policy and financial decisions in their areas of responsibility.

See the Privy Council Office website

The Department of Finance: The Department of Finance is responsible for policy decisions such as federal tax rates and structures. With respect to the budget process, the Minister of Finance is responsible for establishing a fiscal framework within which all government departments and agencies must operate. The Minister often works in close cooperation with the Prime Minister to establish this fiscal framework.

See the Department of Finance website

The Treasury Board: The Treasury Board is a committee of Cabinet consisting of six ministers who are responsible for the management of government expenditures and human resources in the public service. While the Minister of Finance establishes budgetary targets for government departments and agencies, the Treasury Board ensures the targets are met. The Board reviews the Business Plans for each department and agency, and assesses whether they are using their resources effectively.

See the Treasury Board website

Secondary Role of Cabinet and Departments

Under the Expenditure Management System, the Cabinet and key players in individual departments and agencies are generally relegated to secondary roles in the budget-making process:

Cabinet (as a whole): The Cabinet is the federal government's executive decision-making body. It consists of all Ministers of the Crown, and is led by the Prime Minister. With regard to the budget-making process, the Cabinet reviews the budget strategies, policy priorities, and fiscal targets provided to it by the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board. Traditionally, the Cabinet has had a large say in the budget-making process. In recent years, however, it has been relegated to simply making recommendations or reviewing budgetary decisions already made by the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister (through the Privy Council), and the Treasury Board.
Cabinet (Policy Committees): Cabinet ministers are divided into separate policy committees based on specific policy areas (for example, economic policy and social policy). Under the Expenditure Management System these committees develop policy priorities, priorities that are in turn forwarded to the budget-making architects. Members of Cabinet policy committees also oversee the design and implementation of new programs announced in the budget.

Departments and Agencies: This grouping includes individual ministers and deputy heads of departments and agencies. The primary role of these individuals in the budget process is to develop and implement departmental business plans that reflect the priorities set out by the budget’s architects.

Consultation with Parliament

Part of the Expenditure Management System has involved attempts to open the budget-making process up to groups outside of the government, in particular, to Members of Parliament, as well as the appointed members of the Senate.

See Parliament of Canada website

Parliament participates in the budget-making process through Parliamentary Standing Committees. Throughout its history, the Canadian government has established specialized parliamentary panels to study matters of national importance.

For more information on Committees:

A ‘Standing Committee’ is a permanent parliamentary committee that reviews and makes recommendations in a specific area of government business. Standing Committees generally comprise MPs from all political parties represented in the House of Commons. Some examples of committees include the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

For more information on Standing Committees:

Standing Committees: Parliament of Canada website

It is important to note that these Standing Committees only have the power to review and make recommendations. The federal government (namely, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) is not legally required to take or implement committee recommendations.

With regard to the budget, Standing Committees review the spending of individual departments within their given area of responsibility. For example, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will review the spending of all departments related to Aboriginal affairs and the North. Again, while these Committees' reviews are non-binding on the government, they do provide an opportunity for Members of Parliament to provide their views on government finances, spending, and to some extent, direction.

In terms of the budget-making process, the Standing Committee on Finance is one of the most important. This Committee is responsible for reviewing overall government finances and budget decisions. Every year, the Committee holds pre-budget consultations that take the Finance Minister and a team of Parliamentarians across the country to solicit the budget views of experts, interest groups, and the general public, who provide suggested recommendations to the government. The Committee also examines the budget in great detail after it has been presented by the government to Parliament, and the Canadian people.

For more information on Standing Committees:

Standing Committee on Finance website

Consultation with the General Public

Members of the general public are also given other opportunities to provide input into the federal budget:

Groups and individuals can comment on proposed government spending plans during the meetings of Parliamentary standing committees. They can either do this when the Standing Committee on Finance holds pre-budget consultations, or when the various standing committees review individual departmental spending.
Groups and individuals can comment on budgetary decisions by interacting with individual government departments and agencies (for example, by offering comments on the quality of services a given department provides).
Finally, governments often release major parts of the budget to the general public prior to its official presentation in Parliament. This approach is often taken to get a pre-budget sense of the public reaction to proposals in the budget, and whether or not what the government is proposing will be politically successful or not. This idea, of publicly ‘testing’ government proposals with the public, is referred to as a trial balloon.

The Budget Cycle

Stages of budget planning and implementation over the course of a year.

The making of the federal budget does not occur only when the government officially unveils the budget and tables the Government Estimates. Instead, over the course of the year, the federal government is constantly working through various stages of budget development and implementation.

The following figure provides an overview of the various stages of the budget development and implementation process during the course of a given year.

* Note: See Making the Budget: Contemporary Process for more information on the various groups and processes discussed in this section.

Diagram of the Budget Cycle

(Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Spring (March to June)

Cabinet (as a whole) conducts a strategy session in late spring to assess the results of the latest federal budget it has released, and to identify high priorities for recommendation for the next federal budget.
Cabinet (Policy Committees) oversees the design and implementation of new policy and program initiatives announced in the previous budget.
Departments and Agencies prepare multi-year business plans based on the funding they were allocated in the previous budget. These business plans are then reviewed by the Treasury Board to ensure they are consistent with the budget targets.
Parliamentary Committees begin to review the program and financial plans of individual government departments and agencies.

Summer (June to September)

Central agencies (the Privy Council Office, Department of Finance and Treasury Board) consult with key personnel in individual government departments and agencies, Cabinet Policy Committees, and Parliamentary Committees, in order to develop budget strategies and options for the Minister of Finance to consider in the next federal budget.
The Department of Finance prepares an update of the fiscal and economic outlook, which is generally made public later in the fall in a mini-budget type presentation by the Minister of Finance.

Fall (September to December)

Cabinet considers and approves the strategies that the Minister of Finance has put forward for the next federal budget.
The Department of Finance, along with the other principal budget architects, prepares the Budget Consultation Papers for the next federal budget. These papers are the result of the consultation between the architects, Cabinet, and Parliamentary Committees, and include economic and fiscal outlooks for the next year, as well as prospective financial targets.
The Minister of Finance releases these Budget Consultation Papers and begins consultation with the Standing Committee on Finance, provincial finance ministers, the general public, and other stakeholders.
The Standing Committee on Finance submits its report on the government’s proposed strategy for the next federal budget to the Finance Minister.
The Minister of Finance develops a budget strategy, drawing on the results of the consultation process, the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance, and the recommendations of the Cabinet Policy Committees.

Winter (January to March)

Cabinet (as a whole) reviews the budget strategy, including fiscal targets, new spending initiatives, and reductions. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance make the final decisions.
The Department of Finance finalizes the budget documents relating to government revenues and spending priorities, while the Treasury Board Secretariat finalizes the budget documents relating to expenditures by individual departments and agencies.
The Minister of Finance delivers the Budget Speech and the President of the Treasury Board tables the Expenditure Budget (more commonly known as the Estimates).

Importance of the Budget

How important is the budget process to Canada’s system of government?

The budget process has become a very complex procedure involving many different participants, both within and outside the federal government. Under Canada’s democratic system, the federal government is obliged to present its budgetary approach to Parliament for review. Successive federal governments have come to evolve the formal budget-making procedure over the years, in terms of how a budget is created, what items become budget priorities, and who is involved in the decision-making process.

In all this, the question remains: How important is the budget process to Canada’s system of government?

The answer is that it depends on the national priorities the government of the day has set for itself, as well as the political position in which it finds itself.

The Budget & National Priorities

When a government is determined to control or reduce spending, such as the Liberal governments did in the 1990s, the budget becomes a critical part of this process, and its impact on decision-making is paramount. The budget process becomes highly centralized, in the hands of the Prime Minister and the key budget architects; much time and effort are spent ensuring that new programs and policies meet overall financial objectives. In this regard, the Budget Speech is of even greater importance to the government politically. If the public has an expectation that spending will be controlled and the books will be balanced, then the Budget Speech is an opportunity for the government to show that it is indeed meeting these expectations.

The Budget and the Government’s Political Position

The importance of the budget also depends on whether or not the government finds it is in a majority or minority position. If the Prime Minister presides over a majority government, then the government is always assured of passing a budget and of not falling to a vote of non-confidence (see The Budget & Democracy for more information). As such, the government really does not have to expend much effort to please the Opposition parties in any way, nor seek their input in the budget-making process in order to guarantee support so that the government does not collapse.

If, however, there is a minority government situation, then the whole budget process becomes very important. The minority government must seek the support of other political parties to ensure the budget will be passed and that there will not be a vote of non-confidence. This involves intense negotiations between political parties, and greater participation by Parliamentary Standing Committees. The Government may even be open to greater input by the general public, as a means of ensuring its budget will enjoy the widest possible political support.

Summary

The importance of the budget depends, in large part, on national priorities and the overall position of the government. During the 1990s, Liberal governments and a large portion of the Canadian public were committed to controlling spending, eliminating the deficit, and reducing Canada’s debt. As a result, all aspects of the budget process became very important, both politically and financially. At the time of this writing, the budget continues to play a key role in government direction, given that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have a minority government.

Links for More Information

List of links for more on this topic

Federal Government

Federal Parliament

Research and Advocacy Groups

Coalition Governments in Canada

Jay Makarenko — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0700

Coalition governments have been rare in Canadian history; however, the ones that have existed had have important impacts on Canadian politics. This article describes the nature of coalition governments in Canada, including a basic definition of coalition governments, an overview of different types of coalitions, and a historical perspective on coalition governments in Canada.

Introduction to Coalition Government in Canada

What are coalition governments?

Types of Canadian Coalition Governments

Why are coalition governments formed?

Canadian Coalition Governments in History

Important coalition governments in Canadian history.

Links to Further Information on Coalition Governments

Find more information on coalition governments.

Introduction to Coalition Government in Canada

What are coalition governments?

Generally speaking, coalition governments are ones in which two or more political parties enter into a formal agreement to govern together. The parties form a coalition with one another - hence the term "Coalition Government." In understanding this type of government further, it is important to examine key concepts in Canadian Parliamentary politics, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the notion of responsible government, and the role of political parties in forming governments .

Prime Minister and Cabinet as Government

In Canada, the term “government” refers to the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet (in the case of provincial/territorial legislatures, "government" refers to the Premier and their Cabinet). These persons lead the nation and decide important issues of governance; for example, how much money the state should tax and spend, what the nation's laws should be, and what programs and services the state should offer. In essence, the Prime Minister and Cabinet represent the pinnacle of executive political power in Canada.

For more information on the head of government in Canada:

Mapleleafweb: The Federal Cabinet and PM of Canada

Notion of Responsible Government

The Prime Minister and Cabinet, however, are not completely free to govern the country as they wish. Rather, they are responsible to Canadian voters indirectly through a process called "responsible government." Under this process, the Prime Minister and Cabinet can only govern so long as they the support of the majority of Members of Parliament (or "MPs") in the nationally elected legislature, which is called the House of Commons. These MPs, in turn, are responsible to the voters during general elections – voters may decide to re-elect their incumbent MP or vote for a new representative. It is through their democratically elected MPs, then, that the government in Canada is responsible to, and held accountable by, the Canadian people.

For more on information on responsible government in Canada:

Mapleleafweb: Practice of Responsible Government

Political Parties and Government

What does all of this have to do with coalition governments? The answer lies with the relationship between responsible government and another key political concept - political parties. Most MPs in the House of Commons belong to a particular political party, for example, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, or the New Democratic Party. Membership in a political party is not mandatory. Over time, however, political parties have developed in such a way as to become essential to persons desiring a successful political career. Moreover, political parties exert an incredible amount of control over their MPs in the House. This is due in large part to a practice called “party discipline,” in which the leadership of a political party will use certain tactics, such as the threat of demotion within the party hierarchy, to ensure that MPs ”toe the party line.”

Political parties thus play an important role in the process of forming and maintaining governments; the political party with the most MPs elected to the House usually forms the government, and the leader of that party usually becomes the Prime Minister. Why is this the case? Remember, under Canada's system of responsible government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must have the support the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. As such, the leader of political party with the most MPs in the House generally has the best chance of gaining this majority support. S/he can use party discipline to ensure the greatest amount of votes in the legislature.

Majority & Minority Governments

In most cases in Canada’s parliamentary history, a single political party has had more than half of all the MPs in the House of Commons. This is called a majority government because the governing political party has a “clear majority” in the House. Majority governments are usually very stable: since more than half of the MPs in the House belong to the same political party as the Prime Minister, s/he can simply use party discipline to ensure that the government always has majority support in the legislature.

In some cases, however, no single political party has a clear majority of MPs in the House. The political party with the most MPs, nevertheless, may decide to form the government on its own. This is called a minority government because the governing political party only has a “minority” of MPs in the legislature. A minority government governs much differently than majority ones: because it does not have a clear majority in the House, the government cannot simply use party discipline to guarantee support in the legislature. Instead, it must negotiate with opposition parties to gain their support for government legislation. This is usually done on a legislation-by-legislation basis. The government may, for example, strike a deal with one opposition party to gain the support it needs for one piece of legislation, and then negotiate with a different political party on another piece of legislation.

For more information on minority governments:

Mapleleafweb: Minority Government in Canada

Coalition Governments

Coalition governments are different from majority and minority governments in that they involve two or more political parties forming the government together (whereas the other two involve only one political party sitting as government). In coalition governments, members from each coalition party will fill government offices. It may be the case, for example, that the Prime Minister is from one political party, while the Minister of Finance is from another. The coalition parties will work closely together to develop government policy, and their MPs will vote in unison in the House of Commons.

Coalition governments can occur when no single political party has a majority of MPs - two or more parties will form a coalition and together exercise a majority in the House. These types of coalitions, however, should not be confused with minority governments. In the latter case, a single political party forms the government alone and then seeks the support of different opposition parties on a case-by-case basis. In coalition governments, two or more political parties enter into a long-term agreement to form the government together, to the exclusion of all other parties in the legislature.

Moreover, it is important to note that a coalition can be formed even when a single political party has a majority of MPs in the House. It may be the case that the majority party desires complete unity in the legislature, for example, during war or some national crisis, and, as a result, asks other political parties to join it in government.

Types of Coalition Governments in Canada

Why are coalition governments formed?

Coalitions to Form Government

Coalition governments, be it in Canada or in other parliamentary democracies, are formed for several different reasons. One sort of coalition government occurs in parliamentary systems when no single party holds a majority of seats in the national legislature. Instead of forming a minority government, two or more political parties enter into a formal agreement to form the government together. In most cases, such coalition governments will involve a major political party entering into a coalition with a minor party, or several minor parties, to gain the few seats it needs to enjoy a majority in the legislature. Such coalitions are often very unequal, with the larger, dominant coalition partner holding the majority of key government positions and exerting greater influence on government policy.

Why would a major political party in this situation prefer to form a coalition government instead of governing with a minority? Such decisions depend, in large part, on the make-up of the legislature following an election. If the major political party is only a few seats shy of a majority in the legislature, and there is a smaller potential coalition partner that holds a similar ideology and enough seats to make up the difference, then a coalition government may make more sense than a minority one. The major political party gets the benefit of playing the dominant role in a stable government, with a like-minded – but weaker – partner. The smaller party, in return, gets to participate directly in government decision-making to a greater extent than may have otherwise been the case.

Coalition governments are very common in countries that have long traditions with a proportional representation electoral system. This type of electoral system can often produce a fractured legislature in which no single political party has a majority of seats. In Germany, for example, the two major political parties, the Christian Democratic Union Party (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), have rarely been able to form majority governments. During the 1980s and 1990s, the CDU governed in a coalition with the smaller Free Democratic Party. Then, from 1998-2005, the SPD formed a coalition government with the smaller German Green Party.

Coalitions in National Crises

Coalition governments are also, on occasion, formed when a single party has a clear majority in the legislature. This type of coalition usually occurs as the result of a national crisis or emergency, such as war or widespread civil unrest, which requires difficult and potentially divisive political decisions. The governing party will seek complete unity in the legislature in dealing with the crisis by inviting opposition parties into government through a coalition. Members of the former opposition parties will take up key government positions and participate in government decision-making.

The purpose of this type of coalition government is quite different from those formed under minority situations. The objective here is not to secure enough seats to form the government; the governing party already possesses a majority in the legislature. Rather, the objective is to organize the legislature in such a way that it can deal with a national crisis in an effective and unified manner. By bringing all parties into government, partisan politics is temporarily removed from the legislative process, and responsibility for difficult policy decisions is spread amongst most or all of the political parties in the legislature.

Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden’s government during World War I serves as an example of this sort of coalition. The governing Conservative Prime Minister invited Liberal and independent members of Parliament to join his government to present a united front on the divisive issue of conscription.

Canadian Coalition Governments in History

Important coalition governments in Canadian history.

The Great Coalition (1864-1867)

Prior to Confederation, several coalition governments ruled throughout the Canadian colonies. One of the more important of these was the Great Coalition of 1864-67, which was formed in the Province of Canada. This was a large coalition involving most political parties in the Colony’s legislature at the time. It was formed in order to overcome legislative deadlock that had plagued the Colony for several decades, and eventually led the Colony into Confederation.

At that time, the Province of Canada consisted of Canada West (present day Ontario) and Canada East (present day Quebec), and was heavily divided along linguistic, religious, and ethnic lines. English-speaking Protestants, with strong ties to the British Empire, dominated Canada West. In contrast, Canada East was a former colony of France, and was predominately French-speaking and Catholic.

When the British formed the Province of Canada under the Act of Union, 1840, it gave the Colony a “unitary” parliamentary government in which there was only one level of government with a single legislative assembly. Moreover, the British instituted a double majority rule to govern the operation of the Colony’s assembly. Most parliamentary systems operate under a simple majority rule whereby the government only needs the support of a majority of all members of the assembly to pass legislation. Under the double majority rule, however, the Canadian colonial government needed two majorities. It had to gain the support of the majority of assembly members from Canada West, as well as the majority of members from Canada East.

The intent of this rule was to give each part of the Colony a veto on government legislation. At any time assembly members from either Canada West or Canada East could pool their votes together and defeat any piece of government legislation that they felt was against their interests. The effect of the rule, however, was legislative deadlock and the continual defeat of governments. The Colony’s linguistic and religious divisions resulted in assembly members from one part of the Colony constantly pooling their votes to block the legislative proposals of the other side.

In 1864, a consensus was reached in the Colony’s assembly to create a coalition government to reform the political system and end the legislative deadlock. This coalition government, commonly referred to as the “Great Coalition,” included the Conservative Party, the Clear Grits of Canada West, and the Parti Bleu of Canada East. John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative Party, and Étienne-Paschal Taché became joint heads of the government. The only party not to join the Great Coalition was the Parti Rouge of Canada East.

One of the most important outcomes of the Great Coalition was Confederation, which led to the creation of the Dominion of Canada. The Great Coalition saw confederation with the Maritime colonies as a means of reforming the politics of the Province of Canada and of ending its legislative deadlock. With Confederation, the colony would be dissolved and Canada West and Canada East would become separate provinces, each with their own provincial legislatures and jurisdictions. In 1864, representatives from the Great Coalition proposed the idea of confederation to the Maritime colonies. Three years later the new Dominion of Canada was proclaimed. The Coalition Government was disbanded immediately when Confederation was realized.

For more information on the Great Coalition:
Library and Archives Canada: The Great Coalition
Marianopolis College: The Great Coalition Government

The Union Government (1917-20)

Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I. This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents. The coalition was formed in order to broaden support for the Borden government and its controversial conscription policy.

In 1917, Prime Minister Borden announced that his government was going to introduce conscription to increase troops for the war in Europe. This policy was strongly opposed by many groups in Canada, in particular, French Canadians in Quebec and rural farmers. These groups resented being forced to participate in a British foreign war.

Prime Minister Borden hoped that a coalition government consisting of Conservatives and Liberals would help overcome these growing divisions within the country on this issue. Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the Liberal Party, was opposed to conscription; he refused to lead his party into a coalition with the Conservatives. Many English-speaking Liberals, however, disagreed with their leader and left the party to join Borden in a coalition commonly referred to as the “Union Government.” Ultimately, the Union Government was successful in wining the general election of 1917 and eventually pushing conscription through Parliament.

With the end of the war in 1918, the primary raison d’être for the Union Government ceased to exist and the coalition began to break apart. Many former Liberals returned to their original political party, and the coalition dissolved completely with Prime Minister Borden’s retirement in 1920.

For more information on the Union Coalition Government:

Links to Further Information on Coalition Governments

Find more information on coalition governments.