1 Ward, Norman, Dawson's The Government of Canada (6th ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 216Google Scholar.

2 Franks, C. E. S., The Parliament of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, Final Report (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1979), called the Lambert Report after its chairman.

4 Marshall, Geoffrey and Moodie, Graeme C., Some Problems of the Constitution (5th ed.; London: Hutchinson University Library, 1971)Google Scholar; Marshall, Geoffrey, Constitutional Conventions: The Rules and Forms of Political Accountability (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Marshall, Geoffrey, ed., Ministerial Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Birch, A. H., Representative and Responsible Government: An Essay on the British Constitution (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1964)Google Scholar; Finer, S. E., “The Individual Responsibility of Ministers,” Public Administration 4 (1956), 335–350Google Scholar; and Marriott, J. A. R., English Political Institutions (4th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938)Google Scholar. On Canada, see Mallory, J. R., The Structure of Canadian Government (Toronto: Gage, 1984)Google Scholar as well as a series of articles published in this Journal through the years; Dawson, W. F., The Government of Canada (5th ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Norman Ward's re-edition cited in footnote 1; Franks, both The Parliament of Canada and a series of articles; Matheson, W. A., The Prime Minister and the Cabinet (Toronto: Methuen, 1976)Google Scholar; Thomas', Paul work, particularly “Theories of Parliament and Parliamentary Reform,” Journal of Canadian Studies 14 (1979), 57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Punnett, R. M., The Prime Minister in Canadian Government and Politics (Toronto: Macmillan, 1977)Google Scholar; Stewart, John, The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and Reform (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kemaghan, Kenneth, “Power, Parliament and Public Servants in Canada: Ministerial Responsibility Reexamined,” Canadian Public Policy 5 (1979), 383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hartle, Douglas, “The Report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability,” Canadian Public Policy 5 (1979), 366–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Heard, Andrew D., “Recognizing the Variety Among Constitutional Conventions,” this Journal 22 (1989), 63–81Google Scholar.

5 See Jones, David S. and Iyer, T. K. K., “The Nature of Political Conventions in a Written Constitutional Order: A Comparative Perspective,” Governance 2/4 (10 1989), 407CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Marshall, Constitutional Conventions, 4.

7 Marshall and Moodie, Some Problems of the Constitution, 52.

8 Ibid., 55. See also Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd ed.; Toronto: Carswell, 1985), 204Google Scholar.

9 Ellis, David L., “Collective Ministerial Responsibility and Collective Solidarity,” Public Law 367 (1980), 367–395Google Scholar.

10 Marshall, Constitutional Conventions, 61.

11 Marshall and Moodie, Some Problems of the Constitution, 65.

12 Kernaghan, “Power, Parliament and Public Servants in Canada,” 389, quoting Mr. Justice Leiff of the Ontario Supreme Court in a decision of April 13, 1978, to award Lawrence Stopforth damages of $10,000 caused by statements outside the House of Commons by a minister, Jean-Pierre Goyer. The minister's statements inside the House were not admissible as the basis for action in either a civil or criminal prosecution. See also House of Commons, Debates, June 1, 1976, 14030.

13 Lambert Report, 181–84.

14 The credibility of the practice is based on the prime minister's interest to protect the government from potential attacks regarding probity.

15 Britain, Great, Memorandum, Treasury, “The Committee of Public Accounts of the House of Commons,” 10 12, 1989, 13–19Google Scholar. See also the National Audit Office Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Financial Reporting to Parliament (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 07 1986)Google Scholar, for an explanation of British budgetary structures (“votes” along functional lines as contrasted to the Canadian programme budget) and the Financial Management Initiative. Kemp, Peter, “Next Steps for the British Civil Service,” Governance 3 (1990), 186–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar, sets out the relationship to Parliament of senior officers.

16 The Lambert Report recommended that an accounting officer be introduced here as a significant reform. For an argument that Canadian practice already constituted an effective “accounting officer” convention, see G. Bruce Doern, “The Relevance and Transferability of Selected British Institutions of Financial Accountability to Canada,” a Report and Briefing Document prepared for the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, August 1977; and “Recent Developments in the British Accountability Debate: An Update on the Accounting Officer Concept,”a Paper prepared for the Osbaldeston Accountability Study, National Centre for Management Research and Development, School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario,September 1987Google Scholar. For a different opinion see Franks, The Parliament of Canada, 251–56.

17 This does not mean that it is easy to find a balance between the rights of central agenda ministers versus those with substantial public-oriented portfolios. See Johnson, A. W., “The Treasury Board of Canada and the Machinery of Government of Canada of the 1970s,” this Journal 4 (1971), 346–366Google Scholar; and Veilleux, Gérard and Savoie, Donald J., “Kafka's Castle: The Treasury Board of Canada Revisited,” Canadian Public Administration 31 (1988), 517–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Simpson, Jeffrey, Spoils of Power: The Politics of Patronage (Toronto: Harper and Collins, 1989)Google Scholar, presents a nuanced discussion of the patronage game in Canada, including its role in consolidating partisan support. It can be noted that much of the Mulroney government's bad karma came from outside the cabinet: Simpson details (365–67) the case of the MP Michel Gravel, who had “responsibility” for handling patronage and contract recommendations in the Liberal riding of Hull. Mr. Gravel was first charged for conflict in May 1986, and had his trial postponed until after the November 1988 election, when he changed his plea to guilty. Bindman, Stephen, “Under Investigation,” The Citizen (Ottawa), 04 4, 1990, A4Google Scholar, reports 15 active RCMP investigations of backbenchers and senators.

19 Jones, George, “An Answer: Stand up for Ministerial Responsibility,” Public Administration 65 (1987), 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Mallory, The Structure of Canadian Government, 136–37.

21 Bibliographies and Compilations Section, Information and Technical Services Branch, Library of Parliament, “Ministerial Resignations 1867 to Date,” August 1989. Sources for the list include the Guide to Canadian Ministries; Canadian Directory of Parliament, 1867–1967; House of Commons Debates and Journals; Senate Debates and Journals; Canada Gazette; Dominion Annual Register and Canadian Annual Review; and Canadian News Facts.

22 Charles Tupper, Lionel Chevrier and Walter Gordon each resigned on two occasions from working cabinets.

23 A judicial inquiry under Judge William Parker found that Stevens had violated conflict of interest guidelines on 14 occasions. See Simpson, Spoils of Power, 370–72; McQueen, Rod, Blind Trust (Toronto: Macmilian, 1987) provides a chronologyGoogle Scholar; and Coyle, Jim et al. , Sinc (Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1987), provide much documentationGoogle Scholar.

24 See Nielsen, Erik, The House is Not a Home (Toronto: Macmillan, 1989)Google Scholar. Despite intensive police investigation, no charges were ever laid against the individuals he accused.

25 Finer, “The Individual Responsibility of Ministers,” 377.

26 Marshall, Constitutional Conventions, 78. Regarding Westland, see Marshall's contribution in his 1989 reader, Ministerial Responsibility, and Peter Hennessy in the same reader, “The Westland Affair,” 80–94. A number of ethical dilemmas of the 1980s in Britain appear to be rooted in ministers' instructions to officials to behave improperly in handling information. And while many have seen Dugdale's resignation as the model of a minister bowing out for official maladministration, it is now generally accepted that the officials in the case were boxed in by actions at the highest political level, as was perhaps Dugdale. What has always been clear is that Dugdale did not have the support of his own party's backbenchers, and the cabinet had to limit the damage. See Finer, “The Individual Responsibility of Ministers,” and Chester, D. N., “The Crichel Down Case,” in Marshall, , ed., Ministerial Responsibility, 106–111Google Scholar.

27 Butler, D. E. and Butler, G., “Ministerial Resignations,” in Marshall, , ed., Ministerial Responsibility, 102–106Google Scholar.

28 But both employees and private citizens can and have been charged with criminal responsibility for possession of budget documents. In late April 1989, four people were charged in connection with a leak earlier that month of information pertaining to the forthcoming federal budget. As of mid-1990, one of them, an employee of a government printing plant, had been found guilty and fired.

29 With regard to the question of identity, see the June 21, 1990, judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs v. Debora Bhatnager. The Federal Court had earlier found the two ministers in contempt of court for failing to produce an immigration file. An order had been served on the ministers' solicitor but not on the ministers personally. In the unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ministers could not be held criminally liable. Common law requires evidence of personal service or actual personal knowledge, which was not established. Criminal law, where natural persons are responsible roughly when they have been the primary actors or instigators, precludes vicarious liability. Further, the theory of identification in corporate law could not be used to establish a kind of vicarious liability for the ministers that is precluded by the criminal law.

30 Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons: Third Report (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 06 1985)Google Scholar, called the McGrath Report after the chairman.

31 Hartle, “Report of the Royal Commission,” 375.

32 Lambert Report, 54.

33 Ibid., 376, 371. The split of responsibilities between ministers and deputies is discussed at some length in chap. 9, and deputy minister accountability is discussed at 188 and 189.

34 Ibid., 370, 373.

35 McGrath Report, 20. Emphasis added.

36 Mr.Stevas, St. John, HC Deb, Vol. 969 c. 44, 06 25, 1979Google Scholar. The progress of the British committees is brought to date in Drewry, Gavin, ed., The New Select Committees (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), chap. 22Google Scholar

37 House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Issue No. 5, July 13, 1982, 5:59.

38 Ibid., Issue No. 14. Dye talks about his intentions for the advice audit on page 14:7 and passim. In this issue the OAG presents a master plan to restructure the House of Commons on rational lines.

39 1982 OAG Annual Report, para. 1.71. This is a strong programme budget position and would restrict politics to opportunistic partisan advantage plus perhaps ports, airports and building leases, that is, where we do not want it.

40 Ibid., para. 1.40.

41 1985 OAG Annual Report, para. 1.68, “Matters of Special Interest and Importance.”

42 The minister, Jean-Luc Pépin, had provided a letter saying that he took responsibility for the decision on the airport, to calm his officials' unease that they might be called upon to justify the airport in strict cost/benefit terms.

43 1985 OAG Annual Report, paras. 1.53 to 1.68.

44 House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Appendix PUBL-40, “Procedures and Practices of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts,” Issue No. 33, May 29, 1986. See para. 33:9 for the advice review. Because many federal Estimates “programmes” encompass whole departments, Defence and Transport being examples, the Committee's promise to stay within programme means less than one might assume. The new system of permissive references for standing committees does not apply to the Public Accounts Committee, whose formal terms of operation have not changed since 1977: “… to review and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Table…” (S.O. 108[3][f])). Emphasis added.

45 House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Issue No. 33, 05 28, 1986, 33:43 and 33:46Google Scholar.

46 1986 OAG Annual Report, paras. 14.35 and 14.36.

47 House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Issue No. 25, 10 20, 1987, 25:13Google Scholar.

48 Hawkes's resignation speech is in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Labour Employment and Immigration Committee, Issue No. 34, 05 7, 1987, 34:6Google Scholar.

49 House of Commons, Debates, 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament, Vol. 6, 06 2–30, 1987, 7383Google Scholar. Desrosiers spoke on June 19, demanding the immediate resignation of the deputy minister or his transfer to Privy Council, pending an “impartial” investigation of the alleged perjury.

50 On February 11, 1987, Jourdenais had spoken on a point of privilege, claiming that Lussier had fired John Quigley, an immigration officer, because Quigley had spoken to members of the House Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. See House of Commons, Debates, 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament, Vol. 3, 01 28-March 10, 1987Google Scholar.

51 Ibid., June 26, 1987, 7678.

52 Kennnedy, Mark, “New Questions in Gander Crash, The Citizen (Ottawa), 11 2, 1989, A4Google Scholar, notes that some documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show that an answer to an anticipated question in the House had been written for Bouchard as early as March 2, warning him that the de-icing theory could not be substantiated. Bouchard nonetheless endorsed the report on March 8, 1989. His office said that he had not seen the suggested answer. “Questions” are an accepted way of briefing ministers and their offices.

53 Koring, Paul, “Aviation Official Resigns Post as Furor Grows,” Globe and Mail, 03 22, 1989, A1Google Scholar, reports that “Sources in the government indicated that the idea Mr. Lafrance should resign came from Mr. Bouchard.”

54 House of Commons, Debates, 2nd Session, 34th Parliament, Vol. 131, no. 11, 04 17, 1989, 595Google Scholar. Flis said that Lafrance had apparently thought (wrongly) that a de-icing warning had in fact been issued to all airlines in January, whereas it appears that such a warning was sent out only after the Dryden crash. That Transport seems to have disagreed with the attribution of the Gander crash to ice on the wings could be consistent with a lack of urgency by his staff about warning airlines about de-icing.

55 Franks, The Parliament of Canada, 245–49.

56 Kernaghan, “Power, Parliament and Public Servants in Canada,” 393.

57 See Sutherland, S. L. and Baltacioglu, Y., Parliamentary Reform and the Federal Public Service (London: University of Western Ontario, National Centre for Management Research and Development, 1988), chap. 1Google Scholar. The number of standing committees was somewhat decreased in the 1988 Parliament, but backbenchers still typically have more than one committee responsibility. See also Franks, C. E. S., “The Dilemma of Standing Committees of the Canadian House of Commons,” this Journal 4 (1971), 461–476Google Scholar.

58 The comparisons are those of Auditor General Kenneth Dye. See House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Issue No. 3, 05 18, 1989, 3:35Google Scholar. For comparisons between the rate of growth of the OAG and governmental organizations, see Sutherland, S. L. and Doern, G. B., Bureaucracy in Canada: Control and Reform (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985)Google Scholar and Sutherland, S. L., “Federal Bureaucracy: The Pinch Test,” in Prince, Michael, ed., How Ottawa Spends Your Tax Dollars 1987–88 (Toronto: Methuen, 1987), 38–128.Google Scholar