Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T09:51:44.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minority Government in Ontario, 1975–1981: An Assessment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Vaughan Lyon
Vaughan Lyon
Affiliation:
Trent University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ontario's two minority governments provide political scientists an opportunity to analyze how a government and legislature will function when executive control is curtailed by the electorate. It also affords an opportunity to observe the dynamics of legislative reform in a situation where backbenchers have unaccustomed clout. Relying on a survey of “insider” opinion, the article finds that MPPs showed little interest in reforms other than those which improved their services. Further, it finds that all the normal functions attributed to the legislature were performed better in a minority situation. However, while the majority of respondents had positive overall assessments of the minority experience, they had a variety of reservations about perpetuating it in some way. The article points up the dilemma that there appears to be no way to “capture” the widely recognized positive aspects of minority administrations within the norms of parliamentary government accepted by legislators and no willingness on their part to vary these norms.

Résumé

Les deux gouvernements minoritaires qu'a connus l'Ontario offrent aux politicologues I'occasion d'étudier le fonctionnement d'un gouvernement et d'une législature lorsque le pouvoir executif se trouve amoindri par l'electorat. lls offrent également I'occasion d'observerla dynamique de la réforme législative dans une situation où les députés sans portefeuille ont une influence peu habituelle. S'appuyant sur un sondage d'opinion chez ceux qui ont des renseignements privés, cette étude démontre que les députés provinciaux ne portaient guère intérêt a la question de réformes sauf là où il s'agissait de celles susceptibles d'améliorer les services dont ils jouissaient eux-mêmes. Par ailleurs, I'étude démontre que toutes les fonctions habituellement attributés à la législature s'effectuaient mieux dans une situation de gouvernement minoritaire. Cependant, même si la plupart des répondants estimaient de façon positive la situation minoritaire, ils étaient, pour diverses raisons. peu disposés à la voir durer de quelque maniere ou d'autre. L'étude signale le dilemme suivant: il semble qu'il n'existe aucun moyen d'assurer les traits positifs largement reconnus des administrations minoritaires dans le cadre des normes de gouvernement parlementaire que les législateurs acceptent tout en refusant de les modifier.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 685 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mailed questionnaires were sent to all backbench MPPs who were not interviewed as of December 8, 1980. The percentage return was Conservative. 16; Liberal. 29: NDP, 47. The MPP category is broken down by party to make it clear that the MPPs' reaction is primarily that of opposition members, and disproportionately of the NDP. The relationship of the total number of each party's responses (including cabinet) to its legislative membership is Conservative, 30 per cent: Liberal. 35 percent: NDP. 57 percent. The interest group sample's concerns included health and welfare, business and labour, environment, education, municipalities and agriculture. With the exception of the Ministry of Education, those ministries most active in implementing new policies during the minority were included in the sample.

2 Hodgson, J. S., “The Impact of Minority Government on the Senior Civil Servant,“ Canadian Public Administration 19 (1976), 229–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 In an early 1981 poll, William Davis enjoyed the support of 54 per cent of the electorate as the man who “would make the best premier“ (a record high for his personal popularity) compared to 15 per cent for Stuart Smith and 8 per cent for Michael Cassidy (Toronto Star, February 26, 1981).

4 Ontario, , The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, The Select Committee on Hydro Affairs, Report on Proposed Uranium Contracts, March 1978. 131–45.Google Scholar

5 Canadian Annual Review, 1975, 145

6 The Gallup Poll, December 12, 1979.

7 “The new rules package for the Legislature ... slipped through almost unnoticed on the last day of the session” (“Great Leap Forward.” Globe and Mail [Toronto]. December 31, 1976).Google Scholar Also see White, Graham, “Teaching the Mongrel Dog New Tricks: Sources and Directions of Reform in the Ontario Legislature,” Journal of Canadian Studies 14 (1979), 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 White notes that it was difficult to get “more than a handful of members to think seriously about the role of the MPP,” and that “the opposition evinced far greater interest in the Report's [Camp Commission's] proposals for improved services to members than in the more fundamental question of attaining an independent legislature” (ibid., 118–19).

09 Ontario, Ontario Commission on the Legislature, First Report, 1–2.

10 See White, Graham, “The Life and Times of the Camp Commission,” this JOURNAL 13 (1980), 357–75;Google ScholarDonald, Donald C. Mac (ed.), The Government and Politics of Ontario (rev. ed.; Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980), 81–101.Google Scholar

11 Formally, the Commission was charged with the responsibility to “study the function of the Legislative Assembly with a view to making such recommendations as the Commission deems advisable with respect thereto, with particular reference to the role of the Private Members and how their participation in the process of Government may be enlarged, including the services, facilities and benefits provided to the Members of the Assembly “ (Ontario Commission on the Legislature, First Report, preface).

12 White, “Teaching the Mongrel Dog, “ 18.

13 Ontario, , Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.235, s. 57.Google Scholar

14 Ontario, , Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Standing Orders, approved December 14, 1978, s 64(e)(i) and (ii).Google Scholar

15 MPP Hugh O 'Neil advised constituents: “the MPP... will now have the same power as a Cabinet Minister to introduce legislation which may subsequently be passed under his name “ (Belleville Intelligencer, February 24, 1977).Google Scholar Norman Webster wrote: “This may not sound like much, but in fact it is revolutionary. It breaks the Government 's lock on legislation “ (Globe and Mail [Toronto]. December 23, 1976).Google Scholar For a more realistic view, see, “Queen 's Park Reform a Snare and Delusion, “ Ottawa Citizen, January 3, 1977.Google Scholar

16 Ontario, , Legislature of Ontario, Debates, June 1, 1978, 3030–40.Google Scholar

17 Office of the Premier, “News Release, “ June 1, 1978.

18 “The Font of Power Displayed, “ Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 6, 1978.Google Scholar

19 See, Debates, March 13, 1980;Google Scholar and “Tories Gloat over Liberal Foul-up in Defeat of Procedural Change, “ Globe and Mail (Toronto), March 15, 1980.Google Scholar

20 Ontario, , Legislature of Ontario, Journal, April 3, 1980, 45.Google Scholar

21 Personal correspondence, David Peterson and Bob Rae with author, May 4, 1983 and May 5, 1983, respectively.

22 The opportunity was publicly advertised but even that did not stir the Legislature to more vigorous action. Harold Greer wrote:

23 Forsey, Eugene. “The Problems of Minority Government, “ The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 30 (1964). l–ll.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Harder, Vernon P., “A House of Minorities“ (unpublished M.A. thesis, Queen 's University, 1977);Google Scholar and Geller-Schwartz, Linda, “The Multi-Party System and Parliament: A Study of the Interrelationship in the Canadian House of Commons“ (unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, 1977).Google Scholar

25 Ibid., 242.

26 Ibid., 251. Also see Harder, “A House of Minorities, “ 93.

27 Standing Orders, S 56(c) and S 33(b).

28 See White, Graham, “Special Inquiries–The Ontario Experience. “Parliamentary Government 1 (1980), 8.Google Scholar

29 Journal, November 18, 1968, 213.Google Scholar

30 Canadian Annual Review, 1978, 244–45.Google Scholar

31 Journal, November 20. 1980. The Speaker is not bound to issue such a warrant. Having a “nongovernment “ Speaker in place was significant in this case.

32 Significantly, four Conservative committee members joined the opposition members to demand that the minister cooperate. See Speirs, Rosemary, “Drea May Face Charge of Contempt, “Globe and Mail (Toronto). December 4, 1980.Google Scholar

33 The average number of bills passed each year in the three “majority “ years 1972. 1973. 1974 was 162; for the “minority “ years 1978, 1979, 1980 the comparable figure was 101 (Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney-General, Annual Report for relevant years).Google Scholar

34 Grant, Douglas, “Ontario 's Minority Rule, “ Board of Trade Journal (Fall 1976), 45.Google Scholar Also see Canadian Annual Review, 1976, 169.Google Scholar

35 Canadian Annual Review, 1976.170.

36 Journal, 1980, xxiv.

37 Canadian Annual Review. 1978, III.

38 The government produced a White Paper on Property Tax Reform on January 4. 1978. which suggested that it intended to proceed with market value assessment, but then, on June 8. 1978. the treasurer “threw in the towel“ (Canadian Annual Review. 1978. 112). McKeough resigned on August 12. 1978.

39 Grant. “Ontario 's Minority Rule. “ 45.

40 Office of the Premier, “Statement by the Honourable Davis, William C., “ February 2, 1981, 5.Google Scholar

41 Canadian Annual Review, 1975, 139.

42 Ibid., 145.

43 “Tories Broke Promise on Severance, Opposition Says, “Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 22, 1981.Google Scholar Also see Canadian Annual Review. 1980, 245–46.

44 For a comprehensive review of changing public attitudes toward minority government at the federal level see, LeDuc, Lawrence, “Political Behaviour and the Issue of Majority Government in Two Federal Elections,“ this JOURNAL 10 (1977), 311–39.Google Scholar For the most recent study of strictly Ontario attitudes toward minority government, see Fletcher, F. and Drummond, R., “Ontario Provincial Election Study“ (Institute of Behavioural Research, York University, June, 1977).Google Scholar In this survey respondents were asked: “In this provincial election and the last one, the party forming the government has not had a majority of the seats in the legislature. Some people think that it is better when the government has a majority of seats in the legislature, while others feel that minority government can accomplish more. Which do you feel is better? “ Majority government better: 33.8 percent: Depends: 8.5 percent: Minority government better: 48.1 per cent: Don 't know: 9.0 percent (valid cases: 1.197).