GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING AND MINISTERIAL RESIGNATIONS DEBUNKING DECISION-MAKING: HOW DO GOVERNMENTS DECIDE WHEN MINSTERS MUST RESIGN? By: ROBERTO P. LEONE, B.A., M.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright Roberto P. Leone, April 2009 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2009) McMaster University (Political Science) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Debunking Decision-Making: How do governments decide when ministers must resign? AUTHOR: Roberto P. Leone, B.A. (McMaster University) M.A. (University of Guelph) SUPERVISOR: Barbara Wake Carroll NUMBER OF PAGES: x,246 11 ABSTRACT Commentators of parliamentary democracy in Britain and Canada tend to agree that parliament is an old institution that is in desperate need of renewal. Contrary to this perspective, there are those who believe that parliament is an evolving institution which has been susceptible to change over time. Given the disagreement posed above, there is a need to develop a method to measure which side has it right. This dissertation seeks to establish such a method. By using organization theory to explain organizational change, this research will establish both the rationale for why insti.tutions change and the decisions that led to that change. Change is defined as the difference between present organizational configuration from the original. If there is a difference, then change is present. To understand the original configuration of parliamentary institutions, the dissertation looks at "foundational principles" to parliamentary democracy. Of these foundational principles, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is the one analyzed here. In analyzing government decisions that lead to ministerial resignations, this dissertation builds a decision-making matrix that will compare organizational theories of decision-making and analyze the level of rationality applied when governments decide to require a resignation from one of its members. While the governments of Canada and the UK have both been built around the concept of ministerial responsibility, there are differences in how the government in each country is scrutinized. Contrary to these differences, the results show that both countries have nearly identical levels of rationality 111 when it comes to decisions that lead to ministerial resignations. This leads to the conclusion that ministerial responsibility is not a dead concept in either country, and the differences in levels of scrutiny by officers of parliament, size of legislature, and parliamentary committees are not significant. lV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing a PhD dissertation is a long and, at times, daunting endeavour. It is also said to be a rewarding experience that will be remembered for a lifetime. Through this journey, I have had the great pleasure of working with and speaking to many interesting individuals who have helped me in this undertaking. I would thus like to acknowledge the contribution of certain individuals in particular. My supervisor, Dr. Barbara Wake Carroll, has been with me on this journey since I was a Masters student at the University of Guelph. She and Dr. Mark Sproule-Jones convinced me to complete a PhD and were my referees to get into the PhD program at McMaster, which was the only program I sought to enter. Dr. Carroll helped me find the topic, as I circled from democratic reform to electoral finance policy to homelessness and right back to democratic reform. The reading course in organizational theory she offered provided the theoretical basis for my dissertation, and for this I must be forever grateful. The best part of her supervisory style was the fact that she spent many hours in airports and desired to read enlightening work while waiting for connecting flights. I am not sure that I would describe my work as an enlightening read, but these hard deadlines certainly ·helped me get this dissertation completed in a timely manner. My committee members also deserve acknowledgement. Dr. Michael Stein has been a mentor of mine since my undergraduate days at McMaster. He has helped me improve rpy grasp of Canadian politics and my writing style, both of which have improved immensely over the past decade. Dr. David Docherty from Wilfrid Laurier v really put the fine touches to my research proposal as he argued persuasively that my comparative country should be changed to the UK instead of Australia, as was originally planned. As it turned out, the comparison did prove to be useful. Dr. Peter Graefe was added to my committee rather late in the process, but he did provide advice to me throughout the process beginning with my PhD thesis proposal, where he asked some of the most thoughtful questions related to my work, which opened my eyes to other possibilities for research. In addition to these, our discussions about life and the state of political science were always intriguing. Finally, I would like to thank the other examiners for reviewing this dissertation, and to the chair of the examining committee for ensuring a smooth defence. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Janet Ajzenstat. I had the great pleasure of being one of her last students, and her course on Canadian institutions has influenced me in ways no other course had ever done before. I hold her scholarship in high regard, and .. she is another person whom I consider to be a mentor. During the course of my research, I have met and spoken to many politicians and academics. I would like to thank them for their interest in my work and their informal contribution to this dissertation. One informal conversation that I will always remember was spending a day on the campaign trail with Defence Minister Peter Mackay, who was Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party (the official opposition at the time) in January 2006 when I met up with him. We talked about the difference in approach to ministerial resignations between Conservatives and Liberals. It was interesting to hear his stories, VI and it will be even more interesting to revisit the conversation after he finishes his career in government. Finally, I would be remiss ifl did not acknowledge the support of my family. My parents have supported me from the beginning even though they do not really understand what I am doing or what is involved with completing a PhD. I will be glad to see the day where I no longer need to explain to them what it is that has taken me several years to complete. I want to pay special tribute to a few of my family members. Chief among these is my wife, Kate, who has been by my side since high school. She drove me to pull my marks higher so I could go to university. She is the one who kept me organized enough to get through all my degrees. She is also obtaining her PhD at the same time which means that we know what each of us is going through. We pick up the slack when the other is too stressed out from school and work (yes, we do both in our household). She has also helped in my dissertation by reading it and helping me out with my methodology. I cannot begin to explain how special she is and how much she has helped me reach my goals. In addition to this, our son Alexander has provided both of us with perspective in life. This journey has been all the more special since his arrival, and now that this dissertation is complete, Daddy can spend more time playing with his little guy. Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i DISCRIPTIVE NOTE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ii ABSTRACT •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v TABLE OF CONTENTS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 UNDERSTANDING MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................................................... 8 Crichel Down and Sir Thomas Dugdale .............................................................................................. 11 John Profumo Case.............................................................................................................................. 16 Devaluation and James Callaghan ...................................................................................................... 17 BRITISH AND CANADIAN LITERATURE ON MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY .......................................... 19 COMPARING CANADA AND BRITAIN ....................................................................................................... 26 EMPHASIZING GOVERNMENT DECISION-MAKING ................................................................................... 28 Ana~vzing institutional change............................................................................................................. 30 THE RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................................