Leadership Term Limits in Canada

An interesting question was raised by Samara Canada this morning over twitter:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

…without question something worth taking a look at, especially in light of recent rumours that Conservatives are looking to impose term limits on their leaders. Stephen Harper served as Prime Minister of Canada for nearly nine years after winning three elections as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. However, he is not the longest serving prime minister in Canadian history, that honour rests with William Lyon Mackenzie King who served just over 21 years after winning six elections as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Four prime ministers in Canadian history have served mandates that were not consecutive, meaning they stayed on as leader of their party (or in one case, briefly retired) regardless of a general election loss from an incumbency position. Over half of Canadian prime ministers have served over 5 years in office and of those eleven, only one managed in with only a single mandate (the average number of mandate for that top half was two).

This picture of our head of government in Canada is in stark contrast to the United States which, through constitutional amendment, have limited the terms of their Presidents to two four year terms. The exception would be in time of great needs, for example a time of war, which has only occurred once in the history of that country. The argument articulated in the United States justifying term limits rests on an overall check and balance that limits the control of a powerful personality occupying the White House.

But there are also arguments against terms limits which are entirely valid. For example, it is argued that an eight year cycle of leadership results in short-sighted executive government. There is also an argument to be made about an executive formulated on a mandated short term against a legislature that can have members re-elected for an indefinite period of time, and the power imbalance which is created in such a situation.

We can debate the merits of term limits back and forth, but the fact remains that in Canada the office of the Prime Minister is not an official office within the structure of our executive and legislature. In fact, the title of Prime Minister is not used once in any constitutional document in Canada (same for in the United Kingdom). This is significant and there are important reasons why this apparent oversight is in fact intentional. Primarily, the prime minister of Canada is first and foremost a member of the legislature. This is a fundamental tenant of responsible government in Canada; the practice of executive members of the government being drawn from elected members of Parliament. This is in contrast to the government system in the United States where the head of state is separate from the legislature, not infused as in our British parliamentary model. In the US system, the President is directly accountable to the people, in Canada the prime minister is directly accountable to the House of Commons which is composed of members who are directly accountable to the people (which include the sitting PM directly as a member).

In the United States, the president is chosen in an election which is separate from that of the legislature. Each of the two major political parties have established primary systems designed to determine their respective candidate for the presidential election. It is all done separate from the mechanisms that support the election of the legislature. In Canada, the prime minister is chosen based on which party is able to establish and maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Canadians play no role in choosing the prime minister aside from electing their respective member of Parliament. Our accountability of this system is based on the fact that the person chosen by our head of state (the Queen delegated to the Governor-General) will only come from the elected batch of members in the House of Commons. And the mechanisms of who goes forward from that batch is entirely based on partisan politics. We do not chose, as Canadians, who leads the various parties and thus has a chance of becoming Prime Minister. As members of the respective parties we may have a say, and the mechanism of that voice is determine through internal party constitutions and by-laws. A party could very well select a leader among only elected members of their own caucus (as was done in the United Kingdom for centuries).

In our current political system in Canada, it would be impossible and irresponsible to impose term limits on the prime minister. It would be terribly undemocratic to impose restrictions on who a group of Canadians formed as a political party can elected as their leader and for how long. Political parties themselves are free to impose limits on their leaders, and indeed can indirectly impose limits on the prime minister by having these limits internally. But there simply would be no statutory avenue for the legislature to establish law that would impose a limit on the prime minister without their being a limit within their own party.

Photo credit.

Brexit, Canada and Federalism

The Globe and Mail recently published an editorial by former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson on the topic of the European Union which called on Canada, as the great success-story of federalism, to stand up for Europe. Undoubtably, Robertson is referring directly to the recently ramped-up Vote Leave campaign in the United Kingdom, which seeks a withdrawal of that country from the European Union in general. I have personally been following the Brexit campaign half out of a desire for a good political story (look no further than Europe for great politics) and half because the outcome represents one front (of four) in which the European Union is facing a modern identity, and consequently, existential crisis. And, I can say, with confidence, that I disagree whole heartedly with the sentiment presented by Colin Robertson in his recent editorial. My disagreement is based on one chief complaint; the European Union is not a federalist experiment in Europe. And furthermore, a suggestion that it is as such is a prime reason why the United Kingdom, or any self-respecting democracy for that matter, should not advance membership in the European Union.

Robertson reaches back to the days of Trudeau to paint a very rosy picture of federalism. He is indeed correct when he reminds us of the strength Trudeau placed on federalism by claiming that it was a representation of great compromise between mature political actors. There is no question that within pluralistic states, federalism is a democratic option that presents the strongest case for stability and growth. There are not many politically minded people who would deny that fact. However, the crux lay in the fact that federalism requires an overarching state which can be composed of one or more nations. A state which would require the social contact between the people to exist in the first place. The European Union is not a state in this sense, and never was meant to be as such. I would concede that there are powerful European political forces who would like to see the European Union become a federalist super-state above the nation-states of Europe formerly known as countries. But the fact is that the European Union is first and last an economic union. It was conceived as such, it developed initial regulation as such and since has spawned into something that I absolutely do not slight Robertson for observing as being a federalist state from across the pond but at the end of the day is merely an economic union.

The chief organ of the European Union is the European Council which is composed of members who are at best unelected and at worst have been previously rejected in elections within their own countries. That is a fundamental democratic flaw within the European Union construct that would certainly prevent the country which founded the common law concept of responsible self-government from subscribing. There is absolutely no reason why the United Kingdom would require an unelected and foreign executive and legislative branch above the duly elected government and House of Commons to pass laws for their people. Any country that would allow the apparatus of the state and law to fall into the hands of a small and distant unelected body would be in breach of the social contract established between the people and the state. Federalism requires first and foremost the presence of democratically elected representatives and responsible government. Both of which are not present within the European Union.

The campaign currently underway within the United Kingdom is indeed historical. Not just because of the ramifications that will fall out in the future regardless of the outcome, but even in the very nature of the referendum itself. Robertson is correct in saying that here in Canada we have a unique connection to Europe and the United Kingdom and thus can draw a reason to enter into the fray. It was the United Kingdom that established British North America which eventually became Canada. But there is a lesson there as well, because the relationship that the United Kingdom has today with the European Union can be compared to that of a young Canada and a dying Empire. Rightfully, Canadians sought to shake off the powers and influence of a foreign and unelected power and we eventually grew and developed our own statehood. The United Kingdom has never lost statehood, but the waters have certainly become muddled as a member of the European Union. Just as it was abhorrent for Canadians to be under the direct control of European powers, the people of the United Kingdom have determined that it may be just as abhorrent to be under the direct control of European powers. We do have a common thread here, and we should be rallying behind our democratic big brothers and sisters.

Federalism lastly is about bringing the execution of government closer to the people. The devolution of powers from a federalist state down to the various states and municipalities stands as a system designed to address a fundamental principle of good government, namely that it is administered as closely to the people as possible. The European Union as a concept is the exact opposition of federalism. It seeks to remove the unique nature of each state within Europe and to blend a common economic body of regulations, monetary policy and, more recently, a common body of law. This removes fundamental executive powers of the government and state from the people and brings it closer to Brussels and not the British Isles.

 Image credit.

The Problem with Trump-like Campaigns

I am loath to contribute to the pile-on commentary on the subject of Donald Trump, the US presidential campaign and the state of American politics. I am almost certain that most of you will inevitably read the title, file in under the trove of other similar headlines you have read already today on the same subject, and move on, but I also might have something here worth reading. The focus of this piece will not be Donald Trump himself— I think that the jury is out among most progressive peoples concerning the utterly regressive nature of the politics of Mr. Trump— rather I would like to focus on the nature of regressive campaigns, especially seemingly successful ones as we are currently seeing in the United States. Specifically, I want to talk about why regressive campaigns are a threat to the democratic process.

Donald Trump has put forward many classically regressive policies on his road to the US presidency. He has proposed closing the US border entirely to Muslims around the world. He has advocated the building of a wall to prevent the illegal immigration of Mexican and Latin American people into the US. He has called woman terrible names; projecting the stereotypical image of a man who simply hates women. The problem with what he says however, from the standpoint of democracy, is not the outcomes of what he is proposing, but rather the fact he is able to propose them at all. The problem with what he says is that his inherently regressive policies are nothing new to Western society. Every-single one of them has been dealt with adequately in history and has been disposed of as unsuccessful and regressive. The problem with a campaign the likes of Donald Trump is that it forces the entire electoral machine to react and address issues which have already been put to rest.

Liken the US presidential race to a meeting of a generic club or organization. A major decision is on the table, say the election of candidates to run for the head of said club or organization. A debate is happening over who would best fill the roles. Among the group there is a very loud and very annoying member. This member insists on bringing up decisions of the club which have already been made. We have all been in this sort of situation personally no doubt. The coworker who insists the agenda must move their way. An insistence that they are entitled to be heard and forceful intercessions on how things ought to be done. Eventually the meeting concludes and although decisions have been made, there is no fidelity toward an overall plan. This loud member insisting on rehashing old business has impacted the efficiency of the organization. Meet Donald Trump.

When the organization, or in this case, the entire electorate, are forced to revisit old debates that were settled decades ago, they are forced to devote time and political energy that could otherwise be spent on better things. We can take a case example from the debate on US immigration. There is most certainly a problem with illegal immigration in the US, and the support that Trump gets from Americans who are legitimately worried about illegal immigration should not be completely written off. However, that the country should ban an entire group of people or build a wall is a solution that is not even worth debating. And yet here we are. Rather than have an actual debate on the merits of real solutions (albeit not sexy soundbite-ish ones), the entire electorate is forced to listen, react and eventually suppress regressive, go-nowhere solutions. That is a problem.

The American people deserve the highest fidelity in all debates concerning issues which are impacting the most important country in the world. Given the power and influence of the US, we could say that the entire world deserves candidates in a US election that can present real solutions to these problems. The problem with regressive campaigns in the democratic process is that they force us to have to (re)debate half-baked, already-proven-broken and dangerous solutions when we ought to be debating better solutions.

Author’s Note: This editorial is the first of a new series on this blog. Opinion pieces will be posted periodically on broad political topics that impact Canada (not nessarily always Canadian, as this piece is proof). They will be relevant to current events and my hope is to fill the gaps between my regular parliamentary procedure and law longreads.

Oath of Allegiance: An Historical Perspective

The Oath of Allegiance in Canada has a colourful history. Tracing its origins from the United Kingdom, the young British colonies that would eventually become Canada inherited deep European religious and social tensions that were reflected within the statutory oath of the particular time. In this post we will briefly explore the British roots of the oath of alligiance in Canada and we will trace the historical development of the modern oath.

A Snapshot of the Times: The Victorian Era British Oath

The first British North American colony to gain an elected assembly in what would become Canada was Nova Scotia. This historical body met for the first time in 1758 and, as a result of the fact that a Canadian law had not yet diverged from British statutory and common law, members swore the same oathes of office as MPs of the British parliament in London, England. At that time there were three oaths required of members who had gained elected office; “the oath of allegiance to the King, the oath of supremacy denouncing Catholicism and papal authority, and the oath of abjuration, repudiating all rights of James II and his descendants to the English Throne” (House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2nd Ed, 2009). Naturally, these oaths prevented Catholics and Jews from seeking elected office in the legislative assemblies of the British colonies. The cause of existence of each oath lay in a paranoid monarchy attempting to galvanize the Church of England against Papal authority. To some extent, these fears came with European settlers into the New World (even dipping toward modern times, for example the Kennedy campaign had to address his Catholic faith) but it is safe to conclude that the importance of personal religious faith was low to most British North American settlers. However, the English statutory requirement for the oaths remained and hence their introduction in immature legislative assemblies of British North America.

Prior to the establishment of elected legislative assemblies in North America, London passed the Popish Recusants Act of 1605 which established a new oath of allegiance establishing the spiritual authority of the English Crown. It read:

I, A.B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, that our sovereign lord, King James, is lawful and rightful King and that the pope neither of himself nor by any authority of Church or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, has any power to depose the king etc, or to authorize any foreign prince to invade him, or to give licence to any to bear arms, raise tumults, etc. Also I do swear that notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication or deprivation I will bear allegiance and true faith to his Majesty. And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position,–that princes which be excommunicated by the pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or by any other whatsoever. And I do believe that the pope has no power to absolve me from this oath. I do swear according to the plain and common sense, and understanding of the same words. (King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom, 2000)

In addition to the oath of allegiance, elected members were required to swear the oath of supremacy (preventing Catholics from seeking office):

I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen’s Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen’s Highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen’s Highness, her heirs or successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book [the Bible]. (Life in Elizabethan England)

A third, and final, oath was required, the oath of abjuration (preventing Jews from seeking office):

I ..; Do abjure and renounce the Pope’s Supremacy and Authority over the Catholic Church in General, and over my self in Particular; And I do believe that there is not any Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, or in the Elements of Bread and Wine after Consecration thereof, by any Person whatsoever; And I do also believe, that there is not any Purgatory, Or that the consecrated Host, Crucifixes, or Images, ought to be worshipped, or that any worship is due unto any of them; And I also believe that Salvation cannot be Merited by Works, and all Doctrines in affirmation of the said Points; I do abjure and renounce, without any Equivocation, Mental Reservation, or secret Evasion whatsoever, taking the words by me spoken, according to the common and usual meaning of them. So help me God. (British History Online)

The Canadian Model: Nova Scotia and the Oaths of Office

When the first legislative assembly met, it had conducted business in similar fashion to that of the Mother Parliament, and thus the three oaths of office were a requirement in order for elected members to take their seats. The result was that Catholics and Jews who were unwilling to take the public oath (and most were) did not take their elected seats or otherwise did not bother with standing for election. At any rate, until 1789 Catholics and Jews were not permitted to vote in the British colonies and “Catholics were not permitted to sit in the Assembly without first taking the declaration against transubstantiation; Jews were also barred from sitting in the Assembly because of the oath of abjuration” (House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2nd Ed, 2009). All of the British colonies at one point had a policy which prevented Catholics and Jews from seeking officer and/or voting in the legislative assembly as a result of the oaths of office.

It was not until the capture of Quebec City that the British Crown began to review the requirement for the oaths of office and offered a concession to the Catholic majority in the former French colony. In 1774, “the Quebec Act provided, among other matters, that Roman Catholics no longer had to take the oath of supremacy, substituting an oath of allegiance, should they wish to assume public office. The oath of abjuration still prevented Jews from assuming public office” (House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2nd Ed, 2009).

In 1832, Lower Canada passed a law which gave Jews the same rights and privileges as other citizens, the first jurisdiction in the British Empire to do so. When the United Province of Canada was established, the provisions of the Constitutional Act, 1791 regarding the oath of allegiance were carried over into the Union Act, 1840. At Confederation, the requirement for members of the Senate, House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies to swear an oath of allegiance was included in the Constitution Act, 1867. (House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2nd Ed, 2009)

The Modern Era: Canadian House of Commons

Regardless of the colourful past of the oaths of office in Canada which were inherited from our European parents, the Canadian House of Commons never had a discriminatory oath for Catholics or Jews. By 1867, and the passage of the British North America Act which established the Dominion of Canada among Upper Canada, Lower Canada and a handful of maritime colonies, the English parliament had departed from the practice of barring Catholics from office in North America. The legislative assemblies in turn broke down restrictions placed on people of the Jewish faith. A year after Confederation, the British parliament passed Promissory Oaths Act, 1868 which established a simple oath, void of references to religious faith. The oath read as follows:

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Victoria in the office of (Insert office of). So help me God. (Promissory Oaths Act, 1868)

Conclusion: Why Have an Oath?

It would seem odd that we even have an oath of office given the struggle for human rights when looking in the past. But the reason for the oath is simple and it is contained within a clause of the Magna Carta:

Once the terms had been finalised on 19 June, the rebels again swore allegiance to King John. The later Bill of Rights (1689) included the Oath of Allegiance to the crown, which was required by Magna Carta to be taken by all crown servants and members of the judiciary. (British Library)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamgerhard/1279261945/

Official Opposition: Three Contributing Factors

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice Ed 2 defines the official opposition (also know as Her Majesty’s Opposition) as “…the opposition party with the largest number of seats” in the House of Commons. The leader of this party is also conventionally styled the Leader of the Official Opposition (LOO). Every parliament since confederation has had an official opposition despite the fact that the institution itself is never once mentioned in any constitutional document. The existence of the official opposition is drawn from the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 which calls for a parliament “similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” And while there is no mention of the official opposition in any constitutional document, special rights and privileges are granted to the institution through the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. These special rights and privileges include the right for the leader (or another member of the official opposition) to have unlimited time during debate to respond to the prime minister and the privilege to ask the first question during Oral Questions.

Three Contributing Factors

Interestingly, while we have had an official opposition in Canada for as long as we have had a House of Commons and parliament, very little has been written or explored specifically about the institution and its role in parliament. David E. Smith in his seminal work on the opposition in Canada titled Across the Aisle: Opposition in Canadian Politics scratches the surface of the role and function of the opposition, including opposition members of third and fourth parties in the House of Commons and concludes that the institution itself is unique from parliament to parliament and its role is largely driven (1) by the current composition of the House of Commons (majority or minority government, for example), (2) the issue at hand  and (3) the personalities of the leaders within the House and government.

The Role of the Official Opposition in Canada

The first and obvious role of the official opposition in the House of Commons is to hold the government to account on all measures presented within the House and advanced by the government. It does not follow however that the opposition is forced to oppose all measures of the government despite the fact that such a situation would appear to undermine an institution charged with opposition. An example of such a situation would be a minority government being sustained with the support of a third party or, in the extreme, members from the official opposition. In order to maintain a degree of value of opposition in such an instance, official opposition leaders have advocated a vote abstaining from supporting or rejecting the government (and thus continuing confidence within the House). This is exactly what happened in 2005 when Stephen Harper (at the time the LOO) changed his stance on the budget presented by the governing Liberal Party and along with the NDP and Bloc abstained his caucus from voting, effectively allowing the government to advance in confidence of the House of Commons (notably, this was the largest abstention on any piece of legislation in Canadian history). However, for the most part, these moments are few and far between and more often than not the official opposition will oppose government legislation and initiatives. The mechanism by which the official opposition can constructively oppose the government is through amendments to legislation which are often tabled shortly after the prime minister or a minister presents a new piece of legislation. Another mechanism is through the presentation of minority reports from committees which are presented by the leader or a member of the official opposition immediately after the tabling of a report from a parliamentary committee. These minority reports often capture issues which the opposition drew from the investigation surrounding a piece of government legislation or initiative and may or may not propose an alternative course of action. And of course, the most direct means of opposition toward the government at the official opposition’s disposal is voting against government motions and legislation when divisions are called.

David E. Smith asserts in Across the Aisle that the “practice of opposition in the Canadian Parliament has never conformed to the theory of opposition found in political science textbooks” (p. 101). And this statement is strikingly accurate. As mentioned earlier, what drives the role and effectiveness of an official opposition are not the laws and conventions which enable it, but the composition of the House which contains it, the issues which drive it and the personalities who lead it. The official opposition has been as colourful, if not more so, than that of the government-of-the-day since confederation.

Case Studies: Medicare and the Afghanistan Engagement

A contemporary example of the changing role of opposition in Canada can be derived in the passing of a national health insurance program in Canada, known as Medicare. In was under a minority government parliament that medicare was passed with the support of the governing Liberals under Lester B. Pearson, the official opposition under the leadership of Progressive Conservative John Diefenbaker and the third party NDP under the leadership of T.C. Douglas. It was through previous legislation introduced by Diefenbaker for a national hospital insurance programme that modelled the provincial medical insurance programme introduced in Saskatchewan while Douglas was the CCF premier that was instrumental in providing the framework for a more robust federal programme. Also, the opposition found support among key government ministers, especially Paul Martin Sr. who was a long-time supporter of a national healthcare plan for Canadians. In this instance, the government was able to secure support from opposition parties in a minority government parliament and medicare was introduced. We see how the composition of the House of Commons (a minority government requiring the support of opposition parties in order to advance legislation), the issue of the day (an almost universally supported concept of a federal medical insurance programme) and the personalities (support from key government ministers) articulated the role of the opposition and enabled the creation of one of the most popular government programmes in Canadian history.

The detailed article on the official opposition in the Compendium of Procedure explains that “by law, [the leader of the official opposition] must be consulted before certain important decisions are taken by the Government” and this was made evident in the lead-up to sending Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Prime Minister Paul Martin Jr. (as he then was) sought support from the Leader of the Official Opposition Stephen Harper (as he then was) prior to sending troops into combat. The logic in gaining such support was driven by the importance of the issue at hand. The belief was that since sending Canadians into combat had been such a contentious issue in the past especially in the passage of conscription legislation during World Wars One and Two, it was important for the government to seek support from all parties in the House of Commons. Such an initiative on the face seems to go against of the role of the opposition to oppose the government, but realistically it provides the opposition parties a chance to influence federal policy. However, the question of when and how such action by the government is deemed so important as to warrant support or consolation from the opposition benches is left to the government itself and is a cause of disagreement among parties in the House of Commons themselves. This was evident in 2014 when Stephen Harper did not seek unanimous parliamentary support to authorize the use of CF-18s for airstrikes against Libya. The justification from the government was that the mission did not constitute a direct “boots-on-the-ground” campaign and thus was not important or grand enough to require all-party support. In this case study we again see how the role and effectiveness of the opposition is driven by the composition of parliament, the nature of the issue at hand and the personalities of the leaders within the House of Commons.

Conclusion

Smith is absolutely correct when he concludes that three main factors contribute to a changing role for the opposition in Canada. He is even more correct when he points out that no political science textbook can capture this changing role. However, despite this, there is no question that the role of the opposition is key to the democratic function of parliament. Or, as Sir Wilfred Laurier succinctly explained,

… it is indeed essential for the country that the shades of opinion which are represented on both sides of this House should be placed as far as possible on a footing of equality and that we should have a strong opposition to voice the views of those who do not think with the majority.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gorbould/4229750461/

Responsible Government

When Canada became a confederation of provinces of the British Empire, the Fathers of Confederation envisioned a system of government that was to be responsible in nature. This concept of a responsible government was not born  specifically out of the Confederation conferences, but rather was born out of decades of struggle between the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada as well as the United Province of Canada. Before we can understand what a responsible government look like in Parliament, one must understand the historical and legal concept of responsible government as a whole.

In broad political science terms the concept of responsible government states that Westminster democracies are accountable to Parliament. This is in contrast to a system where executive members of government are accountable to the monarch (often through an appointed representative).  In Canada, responsible government has been linked with the concept of self-government.  The idea  that functions of the executive, such as the administration of monetary bills, be conducted by members elected by citizens rather than elites appointed by the Governor-General.  The first executive Council of a Canadian colony to first achieve responsible government was in Nova Scotia on 2 February 1848. The government of Joseph Howe was formed by members of the elected legislature.  In the Province of Canada the structure of responsible government was put to the test under the strains of relations with French-Canadians from what was formerly Lower Canada.  These tensions became particularly evident in 1849 when the Rebellion Losses Bill was passed in the legislature. Despite having misgivings over the bill due to the fact that it had enraged English Canadians by compensating so-called rebels, the Governor-General, Lord Elgin, gave Royal Assent.  Regardless of the opposition of a large segment of Canadian society, the Governor-General gave way to the concept of responsible government.

In modern terms, responsible government in Canada manifests itself in several ways. First of all, members of the government are selected among elected members of Parliament. The person who selects these members is themselves selected among elected members of Parliament. This person is invited by the Governor-General as a result of them being able to form a government which could maintain the confidence of the legislature.  Once a government is formed in Canada responsible government is maintained through ministerial accountability to Parliament. What this means is that ministers are accountable for their actions before elected representatives. This has traditionally manifested itself in ministers making announcements within the House of Commons and subjecting them to scrutiny. The daily period reserved for Oral Questions in Parliament is also a manifestation of responsible government and ministerial accountability. Another aspect of responsible government while a government has been formed is that the Governor-General will not refuse to grant Royal Assent to legislation which is been duly read and ratified by Parliament. In order for a government in Canada to remain in power it must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. That means that at any time during the ministry the government can face a motion of non-confidence which would trigger the resignation of said ministry (which may or may not lead to an election). There are also certain pieces of legislation which are considered matters of confidence in and of themselves, these include the annual budget and the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne which opens Parliament.

One can see with a simplified explanation of responsible government in Canada that it is possible that today we do not have responsible government. This potential fact is not unique to the ministry which is currently in power nor is it unique to the ministry directly before it. The alleged slide away from responsible government within our parliamentary system has been gradual and started when the Prime Minister’s Office established regional desks in the 1960s and began to take parliamentary responsibilities away from Members of Parliament. It has been assisted with the growth of the party apparatus away from a system of patronage and towards a system of concentrated control power. Again, this is not unique to any one ministry or any one party in Canada at this time. Members of Parliament are asserted no longer act as representatives for the people who elect them. There are no longer incentives in place for representatives to serve the interests of the people but there are rather strong incentives or Members of Parliament to bend to the wills of a select few in exchange for a piece of the consolidated power.