Introduction
In Canadian democracy, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister are at the apex of the executive power. The Cabinet is largely responsible for making important decisions regarding the direction of the national policies of the federal government. Additionally, the Canadian Federal Cabinet is also responsible for the formulation of government policies. In most cases, it is the Cabinet which often introduces and ensures the passage of the government bills and legislations. The Canadian Cabinet not only executes the policies of the federal government, but it also controls the finances of the government. All these powers have resulted in some form of Cabinet dictatorship in the Canadian political system (Savoie, 78).
It is, however, worth noting that despite the enormous powers wielded by the Canadian Federal Cabinet, it lacks both constitutional and statutory basis in the Canadian system of democracy. In this regard, the Cabinet only acts in its capacity as a Privy Council and derives its powers from the crown as a legal advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister (Dyck, 457). Such cases have often resulted in complaints, particularly with regard to the excesses of the Canadian Cabinet. Another important aspect of the Canadian Cabinet is the fact that its power over the political party significantly makes it difficult for the other members of the legislature to pass a vote of no confidence in the event the government has failed in some of its responsibilities. This is particularly evident when the ruling party has the majority in the legislature, and the Cabinet may use its majority privilege to manipulate the voting system in the parliament.
The nature of the Canadian Cabinet and the need for reforms
Although recent attempts to reform the Canadian Cabinet have seen some prime ministers downsizing the sizes of their cabinets, choosing the members of the Cabinet still remains a major political challenge on the part of the executive. This is particularly with regard to the fact that the members of the Cabinet are supposed to be drawn from all regions and social groups to ensure that the Canadian linguistic, regional and racial diversity are all equally represented. In this context, in the event that the winning political party has not elected members of parliament in particular regions or in some ethnic groups, the prime minister is often forced to select some cabinet members from the senate to achieve the necessary political balance. As a result, reforms are needed to ensure equal representation of all regions and social groups automatically without giving the prime minister such as difficult tasks.
Another significant challenge in the Canadian Cabinet that calls for reformation is the fact that all ministers are supposed to be included in the Cabinet. As a result, the Canadian Cabinet is bound to grow with an increase in the government departments. This often leads to a bloated cabinet, thereby making the government decision making processes more difficult. Consequently, recent attempts to reform the Canadian Cabinet have all taken into account the measures of addressing the problem of a bloated and unwieldy cabinet. There have been cases where some prime ministers have depended more on the coordinating committees in making government policies. On the other hand, prime ministers particularly who those belong to the conservative party have always favoured using inner cabinets rather than the committees.
Under the current government, the Cabinet is fairly smaller in size but seems to be following the British system of the Cabinet whereby the junior, ministers are also being incorporated in the government. Under this model, all the actions of the Cabinet ministers are bound by the collective oath of secrecy that they usually sign when they are sworn in. Critics have argued that the requirements of the cabinet oath should also be reformed to allow more freedom of expression on the part of the cabinet ministers without having to resign from the government.
Proponents, however, defend the secrecy oath on the premise that it allows the members of the Cabinet to forge a form of solidarity which is significantly important in the governance of the country (Mallory,16). Another potential challenge that calls for reform is that despite the enormous powers wielded by the Canadian federal Cabinet, it lacks both constitutional and statutory basis in the Canadian system of democracy. In this regard, the Cabinet only acts in its capacity as a Privy Council and derives its powers from the crown as a legal advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister (Mallory,16). The reforms should, therefore, work towards ensuring that the roles of the Cabinet are entrenched in the constitution.
In an attempt to dominate the legislative arm of the federal government, the Canadian Cabinet has always relied on its control of the political party by cultivating party loyalties among the party members. In this regard, the Prime Minister can sometimes use Cabinet and legislative committee appointments as a tool to manipulate and cultivate party loyalty. Such cases have often resulted in a public outcry over the excesses of the Canadian Cabinet. Another important aspect of the Canadian Cabinet is the fact that its power over the political party significantly makes it difficult for the other members of the legislature to pass a vote of no confidence in the event the government has failed in some of its responsibilities.
This is particularly evident when the ruling party has the majority in the legislature, and the Cabinet may use its majority privilege to manipulate the voting system in the parliament. As a result, the legislature may sometimes be unable to hold the executive and the Cabinet accountable for its actions. Additionally, as a result of the excessive powers of the Cabinet, imbalances often exist between the Cabinet and the legislature in such areas as passing government budgets. The general feeling in this regard is that the Canadian parliament is slowly being eaten away by the executive.
There have also been numerous instances where Cabinet dominates the legislature (Cairns, 103). Analysts agree that any reform in the Canadian executive should generally be designed towards holding the Cabinet accountable while, at the same time, introducing the necessary checks and balances. Other reforms should also ensure that the legislature is able to effectively scrutinize the proposed activities of the Cabinet without any hindrance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Canadian Cabinet urgently needs a number of reforms, particularly with regard to its current bureaucratic structures. For example, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is quite unreasonable and has instead only enhanced Cabinet dictatorship. There have also been cases where the Cabinet dominates the legislature. Consequently, the reforms should generally be designed towards holding the Cabinet accountable while, at the same time, introducing the necessary checks and balances.
Works Cited
Cairns, Alan. Charter versus Federalism: The Dilemmas of Constitutional Reform. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992. Print.
Docherty, David. Mr. Smith Goes to Ottawa: Life in the House of Commons. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997. Print.
Dyck, Rand. “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches,” Sixth Edition. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2011. Print. 455-489.
Mallory, John. The Structure of Canadian Government. Toronto: Gage, 1984. Print.
Savoie, Donald. Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers, and Parliament. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003, and pp.1-16,
Savoie, Donald. Governing from the Center: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999, 71-108.