A consideration of cabinet size.

• Author: Lewis, J.P.
• Position: Essay

Cabinet size has fluctuated in Canadian legislatures over the past century. Beginning in 1993, two federal governments introduced "roll back" cabinets which sought to significantly reduce the number of ministers. The author, focusing especially on the years 1993 to 2014, asks if Canadian governments have a "cabinet size problem." He notes that since 1993 two trends have emerged: 1) cabinets are more likely to expand during government and more likely to consolidate between governments and 2) cabinet size is more likely to increase during government under centre-left parties than centre or centre-right parties. Although arguments for a reduction of cabinet size tend to focus on financial costs, the author highlights the political cost of having a large cabinet relative to the size of the legislature, as there are fewer private members to keep the government accountable.

**********

Following a January 2014 cabinet shuffle, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 40-member federal ministry tied Brian Mulroney's 1984 cabinet as the largest in Canadian history. (1) Compared to other Westminster systems, Canadian cabinets have been noted for their large membership. (2) Does Canada have a cabinet size problem? As Graham White wrote in 1990, "foreign visitors to Canada are frequently bewildered by the size of Canadian cabinets". (3) Beyond the institutional differences identified by political scientists between Westminster states, the size of the ministries in Canadian federal and provincial governments is subject to domestic scrutiny after each cabinet shuffle. On occasions of cabinet expansion, critics express austerity-themed worries of the cost of government and populist-based concerns of "too many politicians". On occasions of cabinet reduction, first ministers are praised for "streamlining government" or "doing more with less". Not surprisingly, Canadian politicians have been quick to pursue the positive responses to cabinet reduction, promising to appoint fewer ministers to cabinet.

While politicians have focused on the financial savings of cabinet reduction, others have focused on the institutional impact of cabinet reduction. In 2011, Aucoin et al. argued that large cabinets had considerable negative consequences including decreasing the number of private members to hold the government to account and creating more positions to which private members can aspire, thereby contributing to the culture of strict party discipline. (4) While Aucoin et al.'s arguments are important--their claims mostly reflect the normative nature of the debate around cabinet size. In fact, most of the political discussion about cabinet size is also based in a normative frame with smaller cabinets acting as a symbol of smaller governments.

Instead of addressing the financial or institutional costs of cabinet size, this article endeavours to introduce an empirical approach to the understanding of cabinet size in Canadian federal and provincial governments by attempting to answer the question: Do Canadian governments have a cabinet size "problem"? To consider this question, three hypotheses are tested: 1) Cabinet size has increased at both the federal and provincial levels of government in Canada, 2) Cabinet size has increased during government and decreased upon dissolution and swearing in of a new government, 3) Cabinet size has increased under governments formed by left-of-centre parties, remained the same under governments formed by centre parties and decreased under governments formed by right-of-centre parties. This study focuses on the period from 1993 to 2014, based on the notion that the 1993 cabinets of Kim Campbell and Jean Chretien represented the first attempt at what I call the "roll-back" cabinet: smaller executives that were mostly symbolic creations to reflect governments' adoption of neo-liberal approaches to the growth and role of the state.

In determining if Canada has a cabinet size problem, I first describe the Canadian case in more detail, and review the academic literature and a sample of the Canadian political narrative on cabinet size. I then present analysis from data collected on cabinet size, including a newly created dataset based on cabinet size changes in the federal and provincial governments from 1993 to 2014.

Before discussing the relevant literature it is important to explain why the Canadian case is unique when examining the issue of cabinet size. Canada's federal system provides two types of jurisdictions with varying sizes of legislatures to observe cabinet reduction and expansion--the federal and provincial levels of government. As well, Canada's lack of coalition governments provides a different perspective than most of the international research that focuses on cabinet size in states with coalition governments--a variable that has a major impact on increasing the ministry size.

In comparing Canada's federal cabinet size with other similar states such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Canada falls in the middle of the pack. As Table 1 indicates, regardless of the political attention paid to cabinet size, comparatively Canada's federal cabinet size is moderate in both proportion of the lower house and ministers per capita.

When we consider Canada's provincial level of government, we find larger cabinet sizes. As Table 2 shows, cabinets take up a large proportion of the legislature in most Canadian provinces.

The provincial numbers help to explain why cabinet size might be of concern. Moreover, they provide good reason to examine if large provincial cabinets are a recent development and what types of variables, such as timing and type of government, lead to cabinet reduction or expansion.

Much of the international literature on cabinet size focuses on cabinet formation in jurisdictions where parties are working in coalitions to form government. (5) When considering cabinet formation in coalition governments, both intra-party politics (which applies to single-party governments) and inter-party politics (relationships and dynamics between parties) are considered. Scholars in this area believe inter-party politics help shape and influence size of cabinet in coalition governments. (6) Other research has stressed the conundrums that large cabinets present; while a larger ministry provides greater opportunity for representation in the political executive, the larger membership presents challenges for its ability to function effectively. (7) Other studies have found that the size of cabinet can influence the size of government and increase levels of spending and deficits. (8)

Cabinet size has been a topic of discussion in Canadian political science literature since the 1960s but more rigorous examination of trends did not emerge until the 1990s. (9) In 1990, Graham White argued that size of Canadian political institutions mattered more than what had previously been understood. White described a number of implications of larger cabinets including: cabinet size's impact on decision making; the power of the first minister; representation in cabinet; and the influence of private members in the legislature. (10) A notable study that specifically focused on cabinet size in Canada was Peter Aucoin and Herman Bakvis' 1993 article "Consolidating Cabinet Portfolios: Australian Lessons for Canada." As the title suggests, the authors compare the Australian experience of reducing cabinet size and the Canadian consolidation of cabinet in 1993 under the two new prime ministers who held the office that year, Progressive Conservative Kim Campbell and Liberal Jean Chretien. As Aucoin and Bakvis noted, "The appeal of cabinet consolidations derives from several sources. At a symbolic level, it speaks to the perceived need to reduce government waste. Given the low level of public esteem for politicians, reducing the size of cabinet is seen to constitute an especially appropriate reform measure". (11) However, Aucoin and Bakvis suggested that too much focus on the number of ministers detracts from what the real concern should --the organization of the portfolios.

Much of the recent Canadian literature on cabinet size has focused on the implication for democratic practices in the country's legislatures. David Docherty has pointed out the provincial trend toward weak ratios of backbenchers to cabinet ministers and the negative impact on members being able to hold ministers to account. Docherty also noted the impact a large cabinet has on the presence of party discipline stating that "Canadian assemblies lack a critical mass of parliamentarians ... the rows of government backbenchers are filled...