Ministerial Irresponsibility

INTRODUCTION

Canada over the last decade has been a model government for many nation-states. With continuous government surpluses, drops in the national inflation rate, and the ever-increasing worth of the Canadian dollar many developing countries have a great model to follow. Canada has developed into a great model for the rest of the world in regards to governing because of the government's main governing principle of responsible government. Responsible government is a political convention adopted from the British parliamentary system. It has three components; cabinet solidarity, the party in power must keep confidence in the House of Commons, and ministerial responsibility. Cabinet solidarity means that all cabinet ministers will support the decision the cabinet has made regardless of their personal views. The second component refers to confidence votes in the House of Commons. If the party in power loses a vote of confidence in the house, then they must resign and call an election. Finally the principle of ministerial responsibility means that every cabinet minister is responsible for everything that goes on within their department. The principle also suggests that individual cabinet ministers should resign from their post if a conflict occurs in their department until the conflict has been rectified. The principle of responsible government is the foundation by which the Canadian government governs. However there are critics who feel that aspects of the principle of responsible government are not followed in Ottawa such as the principle of ministerial responsibility.

The principle of ministerial responsibility is important to Canadian politics as it holds the individual minister accountable to their department and their respective constituents. But many people feel that this principle has never been practiced in parliament because it is a convention and it has not legitimized through legislation. This paper will argue that the principle of ministerial responsibility is not practiced in Canadian federal politics. This will be proven by examining past examples of political corruption within the government, the existence of political patronage in Canada, and by the lack of reform to the conflict of interest rules in Canada.

PAST POLITICAL CORRUPTION

Due to the existence of political corruption in Canada the principle of ministerial responsibility is not practiced in Canadian federal politics. This will be proven by examining two recent incidents of political corruption to show how the principle of ministerial responsibility was not practiced in both of the cases. The two incidents that will be examined are the Pearson Airport Deal, and the Airbus Affair.

The Pearson Airport deal occurred during Kim Campbell's years as prime minister of Canada. In 1993, Transport Canada was about to sign off on a deal that would give the Pearson Development Corporation a fifty-seven year lease on Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 at Pearson. The government's plan was to delegate control of Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 to local municipalities however when that deal could not be brokered, the government looked to privatize the two terminals as well as seeks contracts offers for building a new privatized terminal for Air Canada flights.

Donald Matthews was the chair of the Progressive Conservative Party during the previous election; he owned a property management company but had no prior experience with airports. He along with one other candidate, the Bronfman family in Montreal was considered to be the main candidates in getting the contract for the new Pearson terminal. The ministry of transportation was unable to decide whom to award the contract to so they set up an elaborate evaluation process for both bids. The Bronfman family's proposal came out of the evaluation process five criterion points ahead of Matthew's proposal. However after the evaluation process the ministry of transportation wanted to conduct a comparative model of the costs and benefits of keeping the terminals under government control. However the minister of transportation, Jean Corbeil decided against creating a comparative model because it would further delay the process. Corbeil then announced that the contract would be awarded to the Matthews group. Jean Corbeil violated the principle of ministerial responsibility by not stepping down during the investigation of the Pearson Airport Deal. He awarded the contract to a Progressive Conservative Party supporter not to the candidate that would generate the most revenue for the crown. There was a legitimate conflict within a ministry department and that individual minister did not step down until the conflict was resolved. This shows how the principle of ministerial responsibility is not practiced in Ottawa.

The other example of political corruption in Ottawa where the principle of ministerial responsibility was not practiced was during the purchase of a new thirty-four Airbus fleet for Air Canada. In 1998 the ministry of transportation began inquiring about upgrading their fleet of Air Canada aircrafts. The board of directors for Airbus hired Frank Moores as a lobbyist in Ottawa to lobby the government to award them the contract. Frank Moores lobbied the ministry of transportation until they awarded the contract to airbus in 1988. Three years later it was reported by the CBC and a German media source that Airbus had paid bribes to certain Canadians to ensure that the contract for the new fleet of planes would be awarded to Airbus. The RCMP began to investigate the allegations, however during this time the minister of transportation did not step down. Once again the principle of ministerial responsibility was violated, as it was not practiced during this scandal. This shows how past political corruption in Ottawa, leads to the non-practice of the principle of ministerial responsibility.

POLITICAL PATRONAGE IN CANADA

The practice of political patronage still exists in Canadian federal politics, which is why the principle of ministerial responsibility is not practiced in Ottawa. This will be shown by examining two high-profile incidents of political patronage and how there are limited regulations for cabinet ministers in regards to what they can and cannot do.

Political patronage refers to the tendency of political parties to reward their friends and supporters, particularly those who are making financial contributions to the party. Government's practice political patronage usually by giving public service jobs to those friends or award them with lucrative government contracts. Max Weber a German political scientist who is notorious as one of the founders of bureaucracy believes that every public service job and contract should be awarded according

...