Skip Navigation


Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access originally published online on November 14, 2007
Parliamentary Affairs 2008 61(1):52-72; doi:10.1093/pa/gsm052
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
61/1/52    most recent
gsm052v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pond, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Legislative Control of Cabinet Appointments to the Public Service: A Canadian Case-Study in the Political Limits to Parliamentary Reform

David Pond

This paper analyses an important Canadian experiment in the legislative scrutiny of political appointments by the executive. Since 1991, the Ontario Legislature's Standing Committee on Government Agencies has routinely interviewed cabinet appointments to semi-independent agencies, which are a major policy instrument at both federal and provincial levels in Canada. The Committee was assigned this task on the assumption that partisan Members could agree on criteria for questioning witnesses about their qualifications, and that the government would be willing to withdraw candidates exposed as inadequate. At the same time, the governing party retained the discretion to make partisan appointments. An examination of how the Committee conducts interviews reveals a tension between the Members' role in holding the executive accountable, and their identities as partisan politicians. In large part, the Committee has become a forum for debates on the appropriate limits to patronage in appointments to public bodies.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.