records, Motherwell’s resignation from the House of Commons was necessary because of his “acceptance of [an] emolument under the Crown.” An emolument is simply a salary, fee, or profit from employment or an office. So, Motherwell received employment from the federal Crown necessitating his resignation from Parliament.
What was the federal appointment that constituted a conflict with his role as a member of a Parliament which he was elected to less than a month prior?
On October 11, 1926, Prime Minister Mackenzie King appointed Motherwell to his cabinet as minister of agriculture. The acceptance of this emolument under the Crown necessitated that Motherwell resign his recently acquired seat in the House of Commons. The seemingly strange convention of the day was that a newly appointed minister had to resubmit his candidacy to his constituents in a by-election to determine if he still had their support. And so, Motherwell was forced to resign his seat and run again. He did so and was re-elected.
Today, it would appear inconceivable that a riding would not want to be represented by a powerful cabinet minister. But this interesting parliamentary anecdote is an important reminder of the distinction and potential conflict that exists between being a member of the legislature and being a member of the executive government.
The House of Commons was created to represent and defend the English commoners from the excessive demands and needs of the Crown. The monarch would have to submit his request for taxes to the House of Commons. The House existed to ensure that the king’s requests were reasonable and that the taxpayers were not overly burdened.
The House exists to represent the citizens who elect it. The executive government was disassociated from the elected Parliament. As a result, an MP asked to sit as a cabinet minister would have conflicting roles, a situation requiring him to seek reconfirmation of his legislative role from his constituents.
Remember from Chapter 2 that in British North America the governor in the colonies was appointed by Great Britain; thereafter, the governor appointed his executive council. However, the emolument rule prohibited members of the legislature from becoming cabinet ministers unless and until they resigned and then were re-elected in a by-election. The maintenance of this convention was an express attempt to reduce British executive influence in the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada (which would later become Ontario and Quebec). This convention was carried on and codified after Confederation by the act appropriately named The Independence of Parliament Act, 1867.
This rule, maintained until 1931, members of the Canadian House of Commons were prohibited from serving as cabinet ministers, unless and until they resigned and then were re-elected in a by-election. The convention was an express attempt to reduce British executive influence in the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada. (Remember from Chapter 2 that the governor in the Colonies was appointed by Great Britain and thereafter, the governor appointed his executive council.)
This convention was carried on and codified after Confederation by the act appropriately named “The Independence of Parliament Act, 1867.”
Accordingly, this convention, then codified in statute, represented an attempt to manage the inherent conflict that exists between the ministers of the executive, who spend money appropriated to it by the legislative branch, and the legislative branch itself. It was thought that perhaps the taxpayers in a riding might prefer to be represented by a legislator who was a fiscal hawk rather than by a free-spending minister. Accordingly, that question was put to them in a by-election.
Followers of American politics understand this concept, and conflict, as the American Constitution establishes a complete separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Accordingly, Barack Obama had to resign his Senate seat upon being elected president, and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both had to do likewise on being called as successive Secretaries of State.
In Canada, becoming a cabinet minister is the pinnacle of career advancement for most MPs. Cabinet ministers are referred to by a variety of monikers: Minister, Honourable, Privy Councillor, and member of the executive council. However, despite these grand-sounding titles, the reality is that the importance of the position has continually declined as more and more power is concentrated in the Prime Minister’s Office.
The decline in ministerial input inside the Ottawa Bubble has been evolving for nearly a half-century and has been commensurate with the growth in size of government and in the size of the cabinet itself. Originally, the Canadian cabinet consisted of twelve ministers. The number of members has ballooned since then. Brian Mulroney had the largest Canadian cabinet with forty ministers. In July 2013, Prime Minister Stephen Harper increased the size of his cabinet to thirty-nine. Add thirty-one parliamentary secretaries, who are not currently sworn to the Privy Council but serve an executive function (in that they answer for the government in the House in the absence of their respective minister), and the current executive numbers seventy. With a caucus of approximately 160 members, the odds of an MP eventually being promoted to the executive are better than one in three. When one adds the positions of committee chairs and vice chairs, which also come with an emolument, the odds improve to almost one in two. Clearly, the odds of reaching the executive ranks are pretty good for loyal soldiers, i.e., those who serve the interests of the executive rather than hold that executive to account.
Over time, increasingly large cabinets have proven themselves too unwieldy. Anyone who has ever tried to have a board meeting with thirty-nine people seated at the table appreciates the frustration. Decision-making requires units of a workable size, and as a result, a secretariat and cabinet committee system have developed. The secretariat for the cabinet and its committees is provided by the Privy Council Office, which reports to the prime minister.
The most powerful cabinet committees are the Treasury Board and the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet. Senior non-elected public servants participate in cabinet committee meetings but are generally excluded from actual cabinet meetings. Given the increased size of the cabinet, the reliance on committees attended by senior public servants has facilitated the transfer of power from the cabinet to the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office.
There is rarely a more anticipated event in Ottawa then the day a new cabinet is unveiled at Rideau Hall. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in choosing a ministry the first minister is cognizant of many factors unrelated to merit. Every region, and ideally every province, requires representation. Linguistic and ethnic considerations are also taken into account. The number of women in cabinet is important as is the number of francophone individuals; Aboriginal representation and the presence of visible minorities are all matters of great interest to those respective communities. Given the desire to include as diverse a group as possible around the cabinet table, it is hardly surprising that talent is not always the most prominent consideration and that cabinets have grown dramatically in size.
Compare how Canada’s government is chosen to how Canada’s national hockey team is chosen. On January 7, 2014, Hockey Canada announced the lineup for the 2014 men’s Olympic hockey team. Not a single member of the Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, or Toronto Maple Leafs was named to the roster. This choice stands in marked contrast to that made for the All-Star team, where great care is taken to attempt to assure that all NHL teams have at least one representative. Of course, the NHL All-Star game is a show game — there is no hitting and little defence, it’s just a glitzy performance. In contrast, the Olympic hockey team represents the best of Canadian hockey, with its members chosen on the basis of merit and individual talent and the contribution a member can bring to the team. At the Olympics, a gold medal is on the line; the All-Star game is mostly for show.
For those in charge of the political system, a Canadian cabinet will ideally be a microcosm of Canadian society, with as many identifiable groups as possible represented. This priority has been the largest contributing factor
