Horizontal Accountability
#21Key Findings
In the category of horizontal accountability, Canada falls into the lower-middle ranks internationally (rank 21).
Well-funded auditors-general operate at both the provincial and federal levels, and are independent of the governments. There is no generalized data protection office or privacy legislation.
Judicial independence is a key aspect of Canada’s legal system. The judiciary effectively steps in if the government oversteps legal boundaries or infringes on individual rights. A Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental civil and human rights, but provinces can opt out in some cases.
The parliament has adequate resources, and is able to vet bills. However, under the majority governments that are common, governing parties control parliament and its committees. This leaves limited opportunity for opposition parties to scrutinize government activities effectively.
Well-funded auditors-general operate at both the provincial and federal levels, and are independent of the governments. There is no generalized data protection office or privacy legislation.
Judicial independence is a key aspect of Canada’s legal system. The judiciary effectively steps in if the government oversteps legal boundaries or infringes on individual rights. A Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental civil and human rights, but provinces can opt out in some cases.
The parliament has adequate resources, and is able to vet bills. However, under the majority governments that are common, governing parties control parliament and its committees. This leaves limited opportunity for opposition parties to scrutinize government activities effectively.
Graph View
Graph View
Is there an independent audit office? To what extent is it capable of exercising effective oversight?
10
9
9
There exists an effective and independent audit office.
8
7
6
7
6
There exists an effective and independent audit office, but its role is somewhat limited.
5
4
3
4
3
There exists an independent audit office, but its role is considerably limited.
2
1
1
There is no independent and effective audit office.
All the provinces and the federal government have independent auditor-generals, responsible to parliaments and legislatures, not the government. These entities are well-funded and effective. In addition, it is typical for an auditor general to be appointed for a fixed term and to be removed only under specific conditions outlined in the Auditor General Act (Taft 2016).
The Auditor General of Canada plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and good governance within the Canadian federal government. The position is an independent officer of the Parliament of Canada, and the auditor general reports directly to the House of Commons rather than to the government. The auditor general submits annual and other reports to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who then tables them in Parliament. Due to this relationship with the House rather than with the government, the auditor general is expected to operate independently from the government. This independence is crucial for maintaining the credibility and integrity of audit findings.
The role and responsibilities of the auditor general include auditing the federal government’s financial statements and its entities to ensure compliance with best practices in public finance. This involves examining the financial transactions and reporting of government departments, agencies, and crown corporations.
The auditors general also conduct performance audits to assess whether government programs are managed effectively and achieve their intended objectives. These audits focus on areas such as efficiency, effectiveness, and compliance with laws and regulations. The auditor general typically evaluates whether government programs and operations provide value for money. This involves examining whether resources are used efficiently and whether the expected outcomes are achieved in a cost-effective manner.
The auditor general may also conduct special examinations of crown corporations and other entities as requested or on its own initiative. These examinations assess the entities’ financial management, control systems, and compliance with laws and regulations. The auditor general also monitors and reports on the government’s progress in implementing recommendations from previous audit reports. This follow-up process is intended to ensure that the government takes corrective action and is held accountable for addressing identified issues.
Citations:
Taft, Jordan. 2016. “From Change to Stability: Investigating Canada’s Office of the Auditor General.” Canadian Public Administration 59 (3): 467–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12176
The Auditor General of Canada plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and good governance within the Canadian federal government. The position is an independent officer of the Parliament of Canada, and the auditor general reports directly to the House of Commons rather than to the government. The auditor general submits annual and other reports to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who then tables them in Parliament. Due to this relationship with the House rather than with the government, the auditor general is expected to operate independently from the government. This independence is crucial for maintaining the credibility and integrity of audit findings.
The role and responsibilities of the auditor general include auditing the federal government’s financial statements and its entities to ensure compliance with best practices in public finance. This involves examining the financial transactions and reporting of government departments, agencies, and crown corporations.
The auditors general also conduct performance audits to assess whether government programs are managed effectively and achieve their intended objectives. These audits focus on areas such as efficiency, effectiveness, and compliance with laws and regulations. The auditor general typically evaluates whether government programs and operations provide value for money. This involves examining whether resources are used efficiently and whether the expected outcomes are achieved in a cost-effective manner.
The auditor general may also conduct special examinations of crown corporations and other entities as requested or on its own initiative. These examinations assess the entities’ financial management, control systems, and compliance with laws and regulations. The auditor general also monitors and reports on the government’s progress in implementing recommendations from previous audit reports. This follow-up process is intended to ensure that the government takes corrective action and is held accountable for addressing identified issues.
Citations:
Taft, Jordan. 2016. “From Change to Stability: Investigating Canada’s Office of the Auditor General.” Canadian Public Administration 59 (3): 467–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12176
Is there an independent authority that effectively holds government offices accountable for their handling of data protection and privacy issues?
10
9
9
An independent and effective data protection authority exists.
8
7
6
7
6
An independent and effective data protection authority exists, but its role is somewhat limited.
5
4
3
4
3
A data protection authority exists, but both its independence and effectiveness are considerably limited.
2
1
1
There is no effective and independent data protection office.
Most provinces and the federal government have privacy acts that protect much data. However, there is no generalized data protection office or legislation, as there is in Europe.
Canada does not have a comprehensive federal-level data protection law similar to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Instead, it has a patchwork of privacy laws and regulations that govern the protection of personal information in specific sectors and industries.
Most of this legislation applies to the public sector, but the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) extends these protections to private-sector organizations engaged in commercial activities across Canada. It sets out principles for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information and requires organizations to obtain consent for the collection and handling of personal data. PIPEDA applies to businesses such as banks, telecommunications companies, and private-sector organizations engaged in interprovincial or international trade.
Several provinces in Canada have enacted their own privacy laws for organizations within their jurisdictions. For instance, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec have private-sector privacy laws that apply to organizations operating within those provinces.
The absence of a federal law with broad jurisdiction has led to discussions and calls for reform to enhance privacy protections, especially in light of the evolving digital landscape and increasing concerns about data breaches and online privacy (Canada – Data Protection Overview).
This led to the introduction of Bill C-27, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, also known as the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. The bill passed second reading in 2023 and is currently under committee review. It is not yet in effect and may not pass.
The Consumer Privacy Protection Act is Part 1 of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. The act would repeal parts of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and replace them with a new legislative regime governing the collection, use and disclosure of personal information for commercial activity in Canada. This would maintain, modernize and extend existing rules and impose new rules on private sector organizations for the protection of personal information. The act would also continue and enhance the role of the Privacy Commissioner in overseeing organizations’ compliance with these measures. Provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act addressing electronic alternatives to paper records would be retained under the new title of the Electronic Documents Act.
Part 2 of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, includes the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act. This act establishes a new administrative tribunal to hear appeals of orders issued by the Privacy Commissioner and to implement a new administrative monetary penalty regime created under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act.
Part 3 of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, outlines new measures to regulate international and interprovincial trade and commerce in artificial intelligence systems. It establishes common requirements for the design, development, and use of artificial intelligence systems, including measures to mitigate risks of harm and biased output. It also prohibits specific practices with data and artificial intelligence systems that may cause serious harm to individuals or their interests.
(“Department of Justice – Statement of Potential Charter Impacts).
Citations:
DataGuidance. 2022. “Canada – Data Protection Overview.” https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/canada-data-protection-overview
Government of Canada, Department of Justice. 2022. “Department of Justice – Statement of Potential Charter Impacts.” https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c27_1.html
Canada does not have a comprehensive federal-level data protection law similar to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Instead, it has a patchwork of privacy laws and regulations that govern the protection of personal information in specific sectors and industries.
Most of this legislation applies to the public sector, but the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) extends these protections to private-sector organizations engaged in commercial activities across Canada. It sets out principles for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information and requires organizations to obtain consent for the collection and handling of personal data. PIPEDA applies to businesses such as banks, telecommunications companies, and private-sector organizations engaged in interprovincial or international trade.
Several provinces in Canada have enacted their own privacy laws for organizations within their jurisdictions. For instance, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec have private-sector privacy laws that apply to organizations operating within those provinces.
The absence of a federal law with broad jurisdiction has led to discussions and calls for reform to enhance privacy protections, especially in light of the evolving digital landscape and increasing concerns about data breaches and online privacy (Canada – Data Protection Overview).
This led to the introduction of Bill C-27, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, also known as the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. The bill passed second reading in 2023 and is currently under committee review. It is not yet in effect and may not pass.
The Consumer Privacy Protection Act is Part 1 of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. The act would repeal parts of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and replace them with a new legislative regime governing the collection, use and disclosure of personal information for commercial activity in Canada. This would maintain, modernize and extend existing rules and impose new rules on private sector organizations for the protection of personal information. The act would also continue and enhance the role of the Privacy Commissioner in overseeing organizations’ compliance with these measures. Provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act addressing electronic alternatives to paper records would be retained under the new title of the Electronic Documents Act.
Part 2 of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, includes the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act. This act establishes a new administrative tribunal to hear appeals of orders issued by the Privacy Commissioner and to implement a new administrative monetary penalty regime created under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act.
Part 3 of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, outlines new measures to regulate international and interprovincial trade and commerce in artificial intelligence systems. It establishes common requirements for the design, development, and use of artificial intelligence systems, including measures to mitigate risks of harm and biased output. It also prohibits specific practices with data and artificial intelligence systems that may cause serious harm to individuals or their interests.
(“Department of Justice – Statement of Potential Charter Impacts).
Citations:
DataGuidance. 2022. “Canada – Data Protection Overview.” https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/canada-data-protection-overview
Government of Canada, Department of Justice. 2022. “Department of Justice – Statement of Potential Charter Impacts.” https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c27_1.html
Graph View
To what extent does an independent judiciary ensure that the government, administration and legislature operate in accordance with the constitution and law?
10
9
9
The judiciary effectively ensures that the government and legislature act in accordance with the law.
8
7
6
7
6
The judiciary usually manages to ensure that the government and legislature act in accordance with the law.
5
4
3
4
3
The judiciary fails to ensure effective legal compliance in some crucial cases.
2
1
1
The judiciary fails to ensure effective legal control.
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the Canadian legal system. Judges are expected to decide cases impartially, without interference from the government or other external pressures. This independence strengthens the judiciary’s ability to hold the government accountable.
Canada has an independent and impartial judiciary, with many steps taken to ensure it remains that way, including appointment and disciplinary procedures that are at arm’s length from the government. The judiciary plays a crucial role in holding the government accountable by ensuring that government actions and decisions comply with the law, particularly since 1982 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Russell 1982 and 1983).
The primary mechanism through which the judiciary holds the government accountable is judicial review. Courts have the authority to review the constitutionality and legality of laws, regulations, and government actions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to all Canadians. The judiciary – particularly the Supreme Court of Canada – is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Charter. Individuals and groups can challenge government actions they believe violate Charter rights, and the courts can strike down laws or government decisions that are inconsistent with these rights.
Canada’s nine Supreme Court justices are appointed based on the advice of a non-partisan advisory board. Although the provinces are consulted about these appointments, the final decisions remain essentially unilateral.
The judiciary reviews administrative decisions made by government agencies, boards, and tribunals. Courts scrutinize these decisions to ensure they are within the scope of the law and that the decision-making process is fair and reasonable.
The judiciary ensures that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government do not exceed their constitutional authority. Courts can intervene if they find the government is overstepping its legal boundaries or infringing on the rights of individuals.
Citations:
Russell, Peter. 1982. “The Effect of a Charter of Rights on the Policy-Making Role of the Canadian Courts.” Canadian Public Administration 25 (1): 1–33.
Russell, Peter. 1983. “The Political Purposes of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Canadian Bar Review 61: 30–54.
Canada has an independent and impartial judiciary, with many steps taken to ensure it remains that way, including appointment and disciplinary procedures that are at arm’s length from the government. The judiciary plays a crucial role in holding the government accountable by ensuring that government actions and decisions comply with the law, particularly since 1982 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Russell 1982 and 1983).
The primary mechanism through which the judiciary holds the government accountable is judicial review. Courts have the authority to review the constitutionality and legality of laws, regulations, and government actions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to all Canadians. The judiciary – particularly the Supreme Court of Canada – is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Charter. Individuals and groups can challenge government actions they believe violate Charter rights, and the courts can strike down laws or government decisions that are inconsistent with these rights.
Canada’s nine Supreme Court justices are appointed based on the advice of a non-partisan advisory board. Although the provinces are consulted about these appointments, the final decisions remain essentially unilateral.
The judiciary reviews administrative decisions made by government agencies, boards, and tribunals. Courts scrutinize these decisions to ensure they are within the scope of the law and that the decision-making process is fair and reasonable.
The judiciary ensures that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government do not exceed their constitutional authority. Courts can intervene if they find the government is overstepping its legal boundaries or infringing on the rights of individuals.
Citations:
Russell, Peter. 1982. “The Effect of a Charter of Rights on the Policy-Making Role of the Canadian Courts.” Canadian Public Administration 25 (1): 1–33.
Russell, Peter. 1983. “The Political Purposes of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Canadian Bar Review 61: 30–54.
How well does the executive branch and its members uphold and safeguard civil rights, and to what extent do the courts effectively protect citizens against rights violations?
10
9
9
There are no limits or constraints on the realization of civil rights.
8
7
6
7
6
There are no significant limits or constraints on the realization of civil rights.
5
4
3
4
3
There are some significant limits or constraints on the realization of civil rights.
2
1
1
There are multiple significant limits or constraints on the realization of civil rights.
The main protector of human and civil rights in Canada is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed in 1982. It is enforceable by the courts, and the judiciary plays an important role in protecting these rights. However, these rights are not absolute, and a “notwithstanding” clause allows provincial governments to opt out of Charter protections, which they do fairly often. In recent years, that clause has been invoked more frequently by provincial governments – in this case, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan – a situation that has become a key source of political controversy in Canada. The Charter also only applies to relationships between citizens and governments and does not cover other areas of life, such as links between citizens and private businesses unless those links involve government, such as regulation or licensing, for example (Heritage Canada 2017).
Individuals and groups can bring legal challenges to contest laws, policies or government actions that they believe infringe on their civil rights. Courts provide a forum for these challenges and have the authority to strike down or modify laws that are inconsistent with the Charter.
The Charter guarantees fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, assembly, association, and religion. It also includes sections on equality rights, prohibiting discrimination on various grounds, including race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Courts play a crucial role in addressing cases of discrimination and interpreting the scope of equality rights to promote a more inclusive and equitable society.
However, none of these rights are absolute, and courts may limit them in accordance with practices they deem compatible with a free and democratic society. Other exemptions, in addition to the general notwithstanding clause cited above, also exist (Library of Parliament, 2018). Courts play a key role in enforcing and protecting these freedoms, ensuring that individuals can exercise their rights without undue interference. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, is responsible for interpreting the Charter’s provisions. Judicial review of relevant statutes allows the courts to assess the constitutionality of laws, regulations, and government actions.
If a law or government decision is found to violate the rights and freedoms protected by the Charter, the courts have the power to declare it invalid or strike it down. Through its decisions, the court clarifies the meaning and scope of specific rights and freedoms. Remedies may include declarations of unconstitutionality, damages, or other measures aimed at rectifying the harm caused by the violation.
Citations:
Library of Parliament. 2018. “The Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter: Background Paper.” Marc-André Roy, Legal and Social Affairs Division Laurence Brosseau, Legal and Social Affairs Division, Publication No. 2018-17-E.
Canadian Heritage. 2017. “Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html
Individuals and groups can bring legal challenges to contest laws, policies or government actions that they believe infringe on their civil rights. Courts provide a forum for these challenges and have the authority to strike down or modify laws that are inconsistent with the Charter.
The Charter guarantees fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, assembly, association, and religion. It also includes sections on equality rights, prohibiting discrimination on various grounds, including race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Courts play a crucial role in addressing cases of discrimination and interpreting the scope of equality rights to promote a more inclusive and equitable society.
However, none of these rights are absolute, and courts may limit them in accordance with practices they deem compatible with a free and democratic society. Other exemptions, in addition to the general notwithstanding clause cited above, also exist (Library of Parliament, 2018). Courts play a key role in enforcing and protecting these freedoms, ensuring that individuals can exercise their rights without undue interference. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, is responsible for interpreting the Charter’s provisions. Judicial review of relevant statutes allows the courts to assess the constitutionality of laws, regulations, and government actions.
If a law or government decision is found to violate the rights and freedoms protected by the Charter, the courts have the power to declare it invalid or strike it down. Through its decisions, the court clarifies the meaning and scope of specific rights and freedoms. Remedies may include declarations of unconstitutionality, damages, or other measures aimed at rectifying the harm caused by the violation.
Citations:
Library of Parliament. 2018. “The Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter: Background Paper.” Marc-André Roy, Legal and Social Affairs Division Laurence Brosseau, Legal and Social Affairs Division, Publication No. 2018-17-E.
Canadian Heritage. 2017. “Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html
To what extent are public officeholders prevented from abusing their position for private interests?
10
9
9
Legal, political and public integrity mechanisms effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Most integrity mechanisms are effective and provide disincentives for public officeholders to abuse their positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Few integrity mechanisms are effective and provide disincentives for public officeholders to abuse their positions.
2
1
1
Public officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
Most Canadian governments have conflict-of-interest rules and ethical guidelines that legislatures use to discipline their members and control behavior within the civil service. Members of government do not necessarily have to abide by these rules, except when they receive media coverage and negatively affect a government’s election prospects. However, the rules enforced within the civil service are more binding and can lead to dismissal or, in rare cases, criminal charges.
Conflict-of-interest rules are designed to ensure public officials act impartially and make decisions in the best interest of the public rather than for personal gain. Specific regulations vary among federal, provincial, and municipal levels, but common principles guide conflict-of-interest standards in Canada. Commissioners or ethics officials typically conduct investigations, and penalties for violations can include fines, reprimands, or other measures.
At the federal level, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner oversees compliance with conflict-of-interest rules for members of Parliament, Senators, and certain public officeholders. Similar roles exist at the provincial and territorial levels, often under the title ethics commissioner or a similar designation.
The federal government operates under the Conflict of Interest Act, which establishes rules and guidelines for public officeholders. The act outlines prohibited activities, disclosure requirements, and measures to prevent and address conflicts of interest. Public officeholders are generally required to recuse themselves from any decision-making process where they have a private interest that could reasonably be seen to conflict with their public duties.
Public officeholders are typically required to publicly disclose their financial interests, including assets, liabilities, and other financial arrangements. This disclosure is intended to provide transparency and allow for scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest. Other rules govern the acceptance of gifts and benefits. In general, these are discouraged, and public officeholders are required to disclose gifts and benefits received in their official capacity. There are often restrictions on accepting gifts that could reasonably be seen as influencing the individual’s decision-making.
To prevent potential conflicts of interest after leaving public office, post-employment restrictions are often imposed. These may include limitations on working for organizations that were subject to the individual’s official responsibilities or lobbying the government for a specified period after leaving office (Parliament of Canada).
Citations:
Parliament of Canada. “Overview of the Conflict of Interest Act.” https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/CoIA-LCI.aspx
Conflict-of-interest rules are designed to ensure public officials act impartially and make decisions in the best interest of the public rather than for personal gain. Specific regulations vary among federal, provincial, and municipal levels, but common principles guide conflict-of-interest standards in Canada. Commissioners or ethics officials typically conduct investigations, and penalties for violations can include fines, reprimands, or other measures.
At the federal level, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner oversees compliance with conflict-of-interest rules for members of Parliament, Senators, and certain public officeholders. Similar roles exist at the provincial and territorial levels, often under the title ethics commissioner or a similar designation.
The federal government operates under the Conflict of Interest Act, which establishes rules and guidelines for public officeholders. The act outlines prohibited activities, disclosure requirements, and measures to prevent and address conflicts of interest. Public officeholders are generally required to recuse themselves from any decision-making process where they have a private interest that could reasonably be seen to conflict with their public duties.
Public officeholders are typically required to publicly disclose their financial interests, including assets, liabilities, and other financial arrangements. This disclosure is intended to provide transparency and allow for scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest. Other rules govern the acceptance of gifts and benefits. In general, these are discouraged, and public officeholders are required to disclose gifts and benefits received in their official capacity. There are often restrictions on accepting gifts that could reasonably be seen as influencing the individual’s decision-making.
To prevent potential conflicts of interest after leaving public office, post-employment restrictions are often imposed. These may include limitations on working for organizations that were subject to the individual’s official responsibilities or lobbying the government for a specified period after leaving office (Parliament of Canada).
Citations:
Parliament of Canada. “Overview of the Conflict of Interest Act.” https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/CoIA-LCI.aspx
Graph View
Do members of the legislature possess sufficient personnel and structural resources to effectively monitor government activities?
10
9
9
As a group, legislative members have access to a range of resources that are suited for effectively monitoring all government activity.
8
7
6
7
6
As a group, legislative members have access to a range of resources that are suited for effectively monitoring a government’s key activities.
5
4
3
4
3
As a group, legislative members have access to a range of resources that are suited for selectively monitoring some government activities.
2
1
1
The resources provided to legislative members are not suited for any effective monitoring of the government.
In British parliamentary systems of government, legislatures play a crucial oversight role over the executive branch, ensuring accountability, transparency, and responsible governance. The oversight functions of legislatures in these systems involve various mechanisms designed to better scrutinize the actions, policies, and decisions of the government (Stewart 1974).
Members of the legislature, especially those from the opposition, have the opportunity to question government ministers during question periods. These sessions provide a platform for holding the government accountable for its decisions and actions. Debates on proposed legislation, policies, and government initiatives also allow for thorough examination and scrutiny.
Federal members of Parliament each receive a budget to support their activities and hire staff, typically 4-5 per member of Parliament. Some of these staff members work in the House of Commons, while others are based in local constituency offices (House of Commons of Canada, 2021).
Committees are another essential component of parliamentary oversight. Composed of members of the legislature, committees specialize in specific policy areas or functions. They conduct inquiries, investigations, and hearings, producing reports that scrutinize government activities, propose recommendations, and hold ministers to account.
Legislatures in Canada typically have research offices that aid legislative committees in their work. Individual MPs and others also have research allowances, which allow them to hire staff to research public policy issues. However, Westminster-style government means that, barring a minority government situation, a majority government controls Parliament during its time in office. This includes key committee assignments and appointments, allowing the majority government to quash or ignore criticisms and complaints as it wishes.
The legislature also has the power to approve the government’s budget, providing a significant avenue for fiscal and program oversight. Budget debates and reviews allow members to examine government spending priorities, fiscal policies, and the allocation of public funds. The legislature can question ministers on financial decisions and hold them accountable for effective financial management. Public Accounts Committees – a subset of parliamentary committees – focus specifically on overseeing government expenditures and auditing government financial reports. These committees examine the effectiveness of government programs and ensure fiscal responsibility.
In a parliamentary system, the government must hold the confidence of the majority in the legislature to remain in office. A vote of no confidence can lead to the government’s resignation or the calling of new elections. The prospect of such votes provides a powerful mechanism for the legislature to express approval or disapproval of the government’s performance.
Legislatures also have the authority to launch investigations and inquiries into specific issues, policies, or government actions. This can involve summoning witnesses, requesting documents, and conducting hearings. Inquiries serve to uncover information, assess the government’s conduct, and recommend changes or reforms. Legislatures facilitate public engagement by providing a forum for representatives to express the concerns and interests of their constituents. Public input, inquiries, and petitions contribute to the oversight process and help ensure that government policies align with public expectations.
The legislature also reviews or confirms certain appointments made by the government, including the Speaker of the House. This process ensures scrutiny of individuals chosen for key positions, such as judges or heads of independent agencies.
Most Canadian legislatures also have independent officers, such as ombudsmen and auditors general, who report directly to the legislature. These officers conduct audits, investigations, and reviews of government operations, finances, and administrative practices, providing impartial assessments to the legislature.
Citations:
House of Commons Canada. 2021. “Members’ Allowances and Services.” https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/MAS/mas-e.pdf
Stewart, J. 1974. The Canadian House of Commons. Montreal: Publisher Name.
Members of the legislature, especially those from the opposition, have the opportunity to question government ministers during question periods. These sessions provide a platform for holding the government accountable for its decisions and actions. Debates on proposed legislation, policies, and government initiatives also allow for thorough examination and scrutiny.
Federal members of Parliament each receive a budget to support their activities and hire staff, typically 4-5 per member of Parliament. Some of these staff members work in the House of Commons, while others are based in local constituency offices (House of Commons of Canada, 2021).
Committees are another essential component of parliamentary oversight. Composed of members of the legislature, committees specialize in specific policy areas or functions. They conduct inquiries, investigations, and hearings, producing reports that scrutinize government activities, propose recommendations, and hold ministers to account.
Legislatures in Canada typically have research offices that aid legislative committees in their work. Individual MPs and others also have research allowances, which allow them to hire staff to research public policy issues. However, Westminster-style government means that, barring a minority government situation, a majority government controls Parliament during its time in office. This includes key committee assignments and appointments, allowing the majority government to quash or ignore criticisms and complaints as it wishes.
The legislature also has the power to approve the government’s budget, providing a significant avenue for fiscal and program oversight. Budget debates and reviews allow members to examine government spending priorities, fiscal policies, and the allocation of public funds. The legislature can question ministers on financial decisions and hold them accountable for effective financial management. Public Accounts Committees – a subset of parliamentary committees – focus specifically on overseeing government expenditures and auditing government financial reports. These committees examine the effectiveness of government programs and ensure fiscal responsibility.
In a parliamentary system, the government must hold the confidence of the majority in the legislature to remain in office. A vote of no confidence can lead to the government’s resignation or the calling of new elections. The prospect of such votes provides a powerful mechanism for the legislature to express approval or disapproval of the government’s performance.
Legislatures also have the authority to launch investigations and inquiries into specific issues, policies, or government actions. This can involve summoning witnesses, requesting documents, and conducting hearings. Inquiries serve to uncover information, assess the government’s conduct, and recommend changes or reforms. Legislatures facilitate public engagement by providing a forum for representatives to express the concerns and interests of their constituents. Public input, inquiries, and petitions contribute to the oversight process and help ensure that government policies align with public expectations.
The legislature also reviews or confirms certain appointments made by the government, including the Speaker of the House. This process ensures scrutiny of individuals chosen for key positions, such as judges or heads of independent agencies.
Most Canadian legislatures also have independent officers, such as ombudsmen and auditors general, who report directly to the legislature. These officers conduct audits, investigations, and reviews of government operations, finances, and administrative practices, providing impartial assessments to the legislature.
Citations:
House of Commons Canada. 2021. “Members’ Allowances and Services.” https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/MAS/mas-e.pdf
Stewart, J. 1974. The Canadian House of Commons. Montreal: Publisher Name.
Are legislative committees able to exercise oversight of government activities in practice?
10
9
9
The legislature is able to exercise its oversight function.
8
7
6
7
6
The legislature is able to exercise its oversight function most of the time.
5
4
3
4
3
The legislature faces constraints in exercising its oversight function in a significant number of cases.
2
1
1
The legislature’s oversight function is frequently and severely compromised.
In the Canadian version of Westminster government, legislative committees should play a crucial role in scrutinizing government actions, policies, and legislation. While committees were originally intended to operate independently, the government – typically formed by the majority party or coalition in the legislature – can exert influence over committees in various ways (Savoie 1999).
Committee members, particularly those from opposition parties, often strive to scrutinize government actions, policies, and legislation but may not be able to do so.
The majority party or coalition in the legislature typically maintains a dominant position in committee assignments. Members of the majority party chair committees, and their members typically outnumber those from opposition parties. This structural advantage impacts the committee’s agenda and decisions. By controlling these leadership positions, the government can shape the direction and priorities of the committee’s work. Governments strategically place members on committees who are more likely to support government positions.
And while committees have the authority to set their own agendas, the government may attempt to influence the topics and issues taken up by committees. This can be done through informal channels, discussions with committee leaders, or public statements expressing government priorities. Party whips play a role in ensuring party discipline and use their influence to guide committee members in line with the party’s position. Members may be expected to adhere to party policy and vote in a manner consistent with the government’s preferences.
Parliamentary committees have the right to receive government documents during their deliberations, and committee members frequently ask ministers and officials who give testimony to provide additional information in writing.
However, these requests may be ignored or delayed by the government. Ministers, for example, are normally expected to appear before parliamentary committees, but they too may decline a committee invitation or send a representative, even when receiving a formal summons approved through a committee motion. A deputy minister may appear instead of a minister for questions linked to departmental operations. Alternatively, a parliamentary secretary may stand in for the minister if the matter at hand is legislative in nature.
The government has the ability to influence committee proceedings by suggesting or providing witnesses for committee hearings or refusing to do so. This impacts the information presented to the committee and shapes the narrative around government policies. Additionally, the scheduling of committee meetings is influenced by the government.
Citations:
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 635–64.
Committee members, particularly those from opposition parties, often strive to scrutinize government actions, policies, and legislation but may not be able to do so.
The majority party or coalition in the legislature typically maintains a dominant position in committee assignments. Members of the majority party chair committees, and their members typically outnumber those from opposition parties. This structural advantage impacts the committee’s agenda and decisions. By controlling these leadership positions, the government can shape the direction and priorities of the committee’s work. Governments strategically place members on committees who are more likely to support government positions.
And while committees have the authority to set their own agendas, the government may attempt to influence the topics and issues taken up by committees. This can be done through informal channels, discussions with committee leaders, or public statements expressing government priorities. Party whips play a role in ensuring party discipline and use their influence to guide committee members in line with the party’s position. Members may be expected to adhere to party policy and vote in a manner consistent with the government’s preferences.
Parliamentary committees have the right to receive government documents during their deliberations, and committee members frequently ask ministers and officials who give testimony to provide additional information in writing.
However, these requests may be ignored or delayed by the government. Ministers, for example, are normally expected to appear before parliamentary committees, but they too may decline a committee invitation or send a representative, even when receiving a formal summons approved through a committee motion. A deputy minister may appear instead of a minister for questions linked to departmental operations. Alternatively, a parliamentary secretary may stand in for the minister if the matter at hand is legislative in nature.
The government has the ability to influence committee proceedings by suggesting or providing witnesses for committee hearings or refusing to do so. This impacts the information presented to the committee and shapes the narrative around government policies. Additionally, the scheduling of committee meetings is influenced by the government.
Citations:
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 635–64.
Do legislative committees have the capacity to investigate unconstitutional or illegal activities carried out by the executive branch?
10
9
9
The legislature is able to exercise its investigation function.
8
7
6
7
6
The legislature is able to exercise its investigation function most of the time.
5
4
3
4
3
The legislature faces constraints in exercising its investigation function in a significant number of cases.
2
1
1
The legislature’s investigation function is frequently and severely compromised
In majority situations, the government controls committee and parliamentary agendas and can block any inquiries it wishes.
In Canada, parliamentary and legislative committees are dominated by the government and provide some scrutiny but rarely criticize the government.
In the Canadian version of Westminster government, legislative committees should play a crucial role in scrutinizing government actions, policies, and legislation. While committees were originally intended to operate independently, the government – typically formed by the majority party or coalition in the legislature – can exert influence over committees in various ways (Savoie 1999).
The majority party or coalition in the legislature typically maintains a dominant position in committee assignments. Members of the majority party chair committees, and their members typically outnumber those from opposition parties. This structural advantage impacts the committee’s agenda and decisions. By controlling these leadership positions, the government can shape the direction and priorities of the committee’s work. Governments strategically place members on committees who are more likely to support government positions.
Party whips play a role in ensuring party discipline, and they use their influence to guide committee members to align with the party’s position. Members may be expected to adhere to party policy and vote in a manner consistent with the government’s preferences.
The government also controls access to the information, resources, and expert advice that committees may require to carry out their work effectively. Limited access to information can hinder a committee’s ability to scrutinize government actions independently. While committees have the authority to set their own agendas, the government may attempt to influence the topics and issues they take up. This can be done through informal channels, discussions with committee leaders, or public statements expressing government priorities.
The government also has the ability to influence committee proceedings by suggesting or providing witnesses for committee hearings or refusing to do so. This impacts the information presented to the committee and shapes the narrative around government policies. The scheduling of committee meetings is also influenced by the government.
Committees often produce reports with recommendations or findings. The government has the opportunity to respond to these reports – or not – and the tone and substance of the government’s response influence the public, media, and legislative perception and impact of the committee’s work.
Members of legislative committees enjoy parliamentary privilege, protecting them from legal consequences for statements made during committee proceedings. However, concerns about party discipline or potential repercussions can influence committee members’ willingness to openly challenge government positions.
Committee members, particularly those from opposition parties, often strive to scrutinize government actions, policies, and legislation but may not be able to do so.
These dynamics between the government and legislative committees can be complex, but in general, committees have limited abilities to investigate governments.
Citations:
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 635–64.
In Canada, parliamentary and legislative committees are dominated by the government and provide some scrutiny but rarely criticize the government.
In the Canadian version of Westminster government, legislative committees should play a crucial role in scrutinizing government actions, policies, and legislation. While committees were originally intended to operate independently, the government – typically formed by the majority party or coalition in the legislature – can exert influence over committees in various ways (Savoie 1999).
The majority party or coalition in the legislature typically maintains a dominant position in committee assignments. Members of the majority party chair committees, and their members typically outnumber those from opposition parties. This structural advantage impacts the committee’s agenda and decisions. By controlling these leadership positions, the government can shape the direction and priorities of the committee’s work. Governments strategically place members on committees who are more likely to support government positions.
Party whips play a role in ensuring party discipline, and they use their influence to guide committee members to align with the party’s position. Members may be expected to adhere to party policy and vote in a manner consistent with the government’s preferences.
The government also controls access to the information, resources, and expert advice that committees may require to carry out their work effectively. Limited access to information can hinder a committee’s ability to scrutinize government actions independently. While committees have the authority to set their own agendas, the government may attempt to influence the topics and issues they take up. This can be done through informal channels, discussions with committee leaders, or public statements expressing government priorities.
The government also has the ability to influence committee proceedings by suggesting or providing witnesses for committee hearings or refusing to do so. This impacts the information presented to the committee and shapes the narrative around government policies. The scheduling of committee meetings is also influenced by the government.
Committees often produce reports with recommendations or findings. The government has the opportunity to respond to these reports – or not – and the tone and substance of the government’s response influence the public, media, and legislative perception and impact of the committee’s work.
Members of legislative committees enjoy parliamentary privilege, protecting them from legal consequences for statements made during committee proceedings. However, concerns about party discipline or potential repercussions can influence committee members’ willingness to openly challenge government positions.
Committee members, particularly those from opposition parties, often strive to scrutinize government actions, policies, and legislation but may not be able to do so.
These dynamics between the government and legislative committees can be complex, but in general, committees have limited abilities to investigate governments.
Citations:
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 635–64.
To what extent are the organization and operations of legislative committees effective in guiding the development of legislative proposals?
10
9
9
The organization and operations of legislative committees are well-suited for effectively monitoring ministry activity.
8
7
6
7
6
The organization and operations of legislative committees are, for the most part, suited for effectively monitoring ministry activity.
5
4
3
4
3
The organization and operations of legislative committees are rarely suitable for monitoring ministry activity.
2
1
1
The organization and operations of legislative committees are not at all suitable for monitoring ministry activity.
Governments control parliamentary committees and do not act as an effective check on the executive (Savoie 1999). However, they do play an important role in vetting legislation (Glenn 2018).
Parliamentary committees have the right to receive government documents during their deliberations, and committee members frequently ask ministers and officials giving testimony to provide further information.
in writing.
However, these requests may be ignored or delayed by the government. Ministers, for example, are normally expected to appear before parliamentary committees, but they too may decline a committee invitation or send a representative in their place.
A representative, even when receiving a formal summons approved through a committee motion, may be substituted. For example, a deputy minister may appear instead of a minister for questions related to departmental operations. Alternatively, a parliamentary secretary may stand in for the minister if the matter at hand is legislative in nature.
Parliamentary committees have the right to summon any expert they choose to provide testimony, and experts are frequent contributors to the work of committees. However, committees cannot compel experts to appear.
Documents often arrive incomplete and are redacted due to confidentiality considerations, further reducing the effectiveness of committees in this role.
Citations:
Glenn, Ted. 2018. “Canadian Legislatures, Public Policy and Policy Analysis.” In Policy Analysis in Canada, eds. Laurent Dobuzinskis and Michael Howlett. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447334910.003.0010
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 635–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900016930
Parliamentary committees have the right to receive government documents during their deliberations, and committee members frequently ask ministers and officials giving testimony to provide further information.
in writing.
However, these requests may be ignored or delayed by the government. Ministers, for example, are normally expected to appear before parliamentary committees, but they too may decline a committee invitation or send a representative in their place.
A representative, even when receiving a formal summons approved through a committee motion, may be substituted. For example, a deputy minister may appear instead of a minister for questions related to departmental operations. Alternatively, a parliamentary secretary may stand in for the minister if the matter at hand is legislative in nature.
Parliamentary committees have the right to summon any expert they choose to provide testimony, and experts are frequent contributors to the work of committees. However, committees cannot compel experts to appear.
Documents often arrive incomplete and are redacted due to confidentiality considerations, further reducing the effectiveness of committees in this role.
Citations:
Glenn, Ted. 2018. “Canadian Legislatures, Public Policy and Policy Analysis.” In Policy Analysis in Canada, eds. Laurent Dobuzinskis and Michael Howlett. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447334910.003.0010
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 635–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900016930