! What is the significance meant by a “Responsible Government” in terms of conventions
A responsible government means they follow conventions/manners as well as laws
- “manners are of more importance than laws”
- conventions are just as crucial as the written rules to the operation of Canadian government
! What is the significance of Montesquieu’s ideas to Canadian politics, and what resulted from this?
The Separation of Powers came from Montesquieu’s ideas
> idea is to prevent tyranny (oppressive government) by assigning executive and legislative power to different bodies
> Not concentrating power in any one actor/body so that we can check each other
ex. the US has the separation of powers and they complain about conflict/gridlock (but it’s supposed to work like that)
British Colonies:
- Governors and Advisors = executive power
- Assemblies = Legislative power
Result = friction
- In the colonies, this friction was actually detrimental and could’ve threatened the system
! Explain why the original separation of power was not working in early Canada and what this led to
The separation of powers works when both branches are elected (if not, friction results)
Upper and Lower Houses did not follow that:
- there were Legislative assemblies that were elected, and they wanted a responsible government where the government should be accountable to the elected assembly
- then there were the Family Compact and Chateau Clique which were wealthy elites who held power in appointed councils which meant they could control government decisions but were unelected > these groups really resisted reforms and responsible government
Result = Rebellions of 1837
What were the consequences of the rebellions?
- Britain sent Lord Durham to investigate the causes of rebellion and suggest solutions
Which is how we got The Durham Report:
- replace Separation of Powers with Responsible Government
- Governors choose advisors from the legislative assembly
- Executive is responsible to the legislature
What is the origin / first place where our government conventions are mentioned?
In the Preamble to the Constitutional Act 1867 > said that we will have a Constitution “similar in Principle to that of the UK”
Didn’t list out the conventions, but said we’re basically gonna use the same ones as the UK (this was the only place they’re mentioned)
The BNA Act didn’t have any written instructions or rules > conventions (common practice, precedent) evolved over time
*this was the constitutional origins of our conventions and responsible government
What is main definition/theme of Responsible Government? Contrast this to the American system
Responsible Government: Establishes parliamentary government
FUSION of PWR:
> Executive (cabinet) is part of legislature, the PM sits in parliament (Cabinet and PM are accountable to, and drawn from, the legislature)
> Cabinet sets policy
> Cabinet answers to legislature for its actions
THEME = power is married to responsibility
Contrasted with American presidential system:
- separation of powers
- branches check and balance each other
- founders: “set ambition against ambition”
- executive is not answerable nor responsible to the legislative branch (Trump’s mandate comes directly from the ppl)
List the 4 main conventions we talk about in class
- Confidence Convention
- Collective Responsibility
- Ministerial Responsibility
- Convention of Advice (Ministers provide advice to the Crown)
Explain what the Confidence Convention is
How can the government try to frustrate this convention?
Means that the cabinet/executive/government must have the confidence of the House (the legislative branch) at all times
- cabinet resigns if it loses confidence, and we usually have an election
The government can try to frustrate this convention
- delaying confidence votes and poaching opposition MPs
- Prorogue Parliament (shut down the House, go into recess)
Explain what the Convention of Collective Responsibility is
- Cabinet answers to the House collectively, and operates as a single unit
- Ministers speak and vote as one (cabinet solidarity)
- the Cabinet can’t dissent from their decision, once it’s made they have to get behind it
- Executive power cannot be divided because the cabinet can’t be held accountable if it speak with several voices (accountability means they can’t blame things on each other)
- If a minister outwardly disagrees, they must resign (doesn’t happen very often because they enjoy a lot of pwr)
Explain what the Convention of Ministerial Responsibility is
- Cabinet minsters head government departments (portfolios) or central agencies
- they are Accountable to Parliament for their department’s policies and actions (have to explain, rectify, and accept blame for anything that happens)
- Why? Otherwise it would be impossible to hold government accountable
- this form of accountability has become less important over time (rare to see ministers accepting responsibility and resigning, and rare to see PMs willing to fire ministers now)
Explain what the Convention of Advice is
- the Crown and Governor General have substantial executive powers (give royal assent to create laws)
- but they only act on the “advice” of their advisors/cabinet (including the first advisor, the PM)
- whereas back in the colonies, the Crown could actually choose whether to accept the advice, not the nature of this has changed, the advice is BINDING
- If the PM asks the governor general for something, 99.999% of the time, the answer is yes
- this is what constitutes our Constitutional Monarchy: we are Monarchical by law/constitution, democratic by convention/function
! List the main 4 implications of our Canadian government’s conventions
- Cabinet Government
- How governments are formed
- Majority and Minority Governments
- Institutional Logic:
- timing of elections
- cabinet membership
- party discipline
! Explain the implication of the Cabinet Government (what is the role of the Cabinet and the HOC now compared to constitutionally?)
- Constitutionally, legislative powers belong to the HOC, and executive powers belong to the monarch/governor general (PM and Cabinet are not even in the constitution)
Now/Conventionally: Because of Responsible Government and the Confidence Convention, the Cabinet/Executive is empowered with legislative powers and exercises real executive power
- Confidence Convention > Cabinet must retain tight control over MPs
- Leads to Fusion of Powers: Executive and Legislative powers are fused in the Cabinet, which is in turn accountable to the HOC/legislature
*important role of parliament/HOC is to hold the government accountable
! Explain how Majority and Minority Governments are an implication of convention
- implication of the confidence convention > electoral system awards big parties and punishes small parties
- result is that the vast majority of governments in Canada have been majority governments (starting to see more minority govs)
- when there’s a minority gov, the losers are usually hurt by the electoral system (have a smaller percentage of seats than their percentage of the vote) and the winning party usually gets a bonus (higher percentage of seats than their percentage of the vote)
! Explain how Government Formation is an implication of convention
What are the 4 rules of Government Formation?
What does this mean for elections?
Because of the Confidence Convention > Canadians don’t elect governments, instead government formation allows a government with the confidence of the House to be formed (the House’s confidence is the sole basis for forming government)
- Because candidates run with parties, we know exactly who is going to form the government / who our PM will be
Four rules:
1. The Crown selects the PM
2. The Crown selects the PM who is most likely to have confidence (from party with most seats)
3. PM resigns on behalf of the government
4. PM resigns if they lose confidence
In contrast with the US, this means that government formation doesn’t just occur after elections
- don’t always need an election to determine when/which leader will have the confidence of the HOC
ex. PM Martin > appointed PM after becoming Liberal Party leader (because Liberals had seat majority so we knew he’d have confidence
ex. PM Carney > (also wasn’t an MP) had the confidence of the House (because more liberal seats) so he became PM and formed a government without an election
Define majority and minority governments, and compare them
Majority: One party has over half the seats in the HOC > can basically pass any laws they want
- longevity (usually able to last about 4 years while minorities don’t last as long)
- stability
- decisiveness (able to get things done - we owe much of our political development in Canada to having mostly majority governments and their ability to make change)
Minority: No party has over half the seats - the party with the most seats forms government (not always) > have to get support from at least one other party in order to do anything
- accountability
- consensus
- moderation
! Explain how the Timing of Elections is an implication of convention
What is the usual length of government’s terms
- unlike the US, there is no predictable schedule of elections, since governments can fall at any time (unpredictable but often a result of the PMs wishes)
- provinces and the feds have passed statutes that fix election dates, but there is no real penalty for the government to ignore it
- Governor General dissolves Parliament on the advice of the PM (= significant partisan advantage) > the PMs ability to call an election whenever they want is a huge power *from the convention of advice > we’ve seen PMs calling for an election once their polling numbers rise and then right after the election their polling numbers plummet again (weird opposition to democracy?)
Term length:
- Constitutional imperative = 5 year term even if you still have confidence
- Convention = about 4 year terms
! Explain how Cabinet Membership is an implication of convention
Our system of Cabinet Membership contrasts from the US system, where there is a Separation of Powers dictating that anyone can sit in the cabinet EXCEPT members of Congress
In Canada, we have the opposite:
Responsible Government dictates that members of cabinet must sit in the HOC
> this is necessary for the cabinet to be held accountable by the House (can’t hold the government accountable unless the members of cabinet are sitting in the HOC)
> An issue that results from this = PM is restricted to a relatively small number of MPs - a very limited pool > he can only pick from elected MPs within his party (compared to Donald Trump who can pick from basically anyone except for members of Congress and the Senate)
SO, we have a very different executive in Canada as a result of this convention/responsible government (we can reasonably say it’s not as good)
*although, sometimes we have PMs pushing against this convention and selecting cabinet members who are not from the HOC - but this is a very rare thing
Explain how Party Discipline is an implication of convention
*we have party discipline because of the CONFIDENCE CONVENTION of responsible government
- parties use a variety of tools to get MPs to vote the same way (carrots and sticks) (ex. trips, benefits, or punishments like a shitty office)
- need party discipline so that governments can survive (only way the government can retain confidence is by disciplining their own members to consistently vote for the government’s agenda)
- The Whip (actual job title): job is to use the tools to get MPs to do what they want to - to maintain discipline (some of this is not rly necessary because people will whip themselves)
- Comparatively, Canada has very strong party discipline (not much rebellion happening)
What can the government do to you if you are not following party discipline?
- kick you out of your party > you would become an independent > big deal with this is that independents are not likely to be voted for > they’re basically ending your career
