Decision-making in the federal cabinet

Abstract. The growing interest in federal government decision-making likely flows from increasing scepticism about decisions reached in secret. Decision-making under Mackenzie King largely followed the oral tradition. Proposals went first to full cabinet; only if disagreement resulted were they referred to the usually ad hoc committees. Interdepartmental committees of officials were prevalent. These features persisted under St-Laurent and Diefenbaker, although under them decision-making centred more in the prime minister than before. Under Pearson, efforts were made to develop the cabinet committee system and to require advance notice and documentation before items appeared on the agenda. The Trudeau cabinet has been characterized by the application of the principle of collegiality. Detailed scrutiny of proposals is the rule. Documentation includes full discussion of alternatives, of financial and federal-provincial implications, and of caucus consultations. Generally, proposals go first to committee. Where there is consensus, the prime minister ascertains at a subsequent cabinet meeting whether there is any disagreement. An important innovation is the priorities exercise, which, contrary to the usual process, establishes a general course to be implemented subsequently by particular proposals. The Trudeau approach requires ministers as never before to become knowledgeable about their own and other departments. The result is less dependence on civil servants for policy guidance. It is erroneous to view this reinforcement of collective responsibility as centralization of power in the prime minister's hands. The systemization of government decision-making, in which caucus consultation is more important than before, requires a parallel systemization of the procedure of the final decision-making body, Parliament. Sommaire. L'intérêt grandissant à l'égard du processus de décision du gouvernement fédéral tient sans doute à la montée du scepticisme qu'inspirent les décisions prises à huis clos. Sous Mackenzie King, les décisions, le plus souvent verbales, n'étaient pour ainsi dire consignées nulle part. Les propositions, d'abord présentées au cabinet, étaient renvoyées à des comités spéciaux qu'en cas de désaccord. Or, à l'époque, les comités interministériels de fonctionnaires dominaient la scène politique. Les gouvernements St-Laurent et Diefenbaker conservèrent les mêmes pratiques, mais en renforçant le rôle du Premier ministre. C'est sous l'administration Pearson que furent jetées les bases du système des comités du cabinet et que l'on commença à exiger préavis et documentation avant de porter une question à l'ordre du jour.     

Lord Curzon and British policy towards the Franco‐Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in 1923

An analysis of the ways in which different composite monarchies conducted international relations in the eighteenth century reveals the interplay of structure and contingency in shaping change and the discussion of change. Hanover-Britain is compared with Saxony-Poland. Considering Britain as an example of a polity created and shaped by a dynastic personal union redresses teleological tendencies in the treatment of international relations and offers an important perspective.