Unit 6

Chapter 4 notes are located in Unit 5 document

Unit 6 Content notes

• The role of cabinet in making/passing public policy

• Parliamentary and responsibly government

• Individual/collective ministerial responsibility

• Legislative Process and Question Period

• direct influencers who set the public policy agenda, such as political parties, interest groups/social movements, and some aspects of the media

•  Although the concept of decision-making takes on various forms, and is not as explicit as the other phases, it is nevertheless significant.

• Policy adoption

  • The decision-making process, which is also known as policy adoption, is the process in which different levels of government make decisions regarding public policy.

  • the role of cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliamentary government and the legislative process. We will first explore the decision-making process in a little more detail

  • The policy adoption stage is generally considered the third stage of the policy cycle.

  • However, this classification is not fixed—sometimes, policy formulation is also regarded as the third stage.

  • There is no rigid sequence for the stages of the policy cycle.

  • Despite the flexibility, policy adoption typically falls within the first three stages of the policy cycle.

  • Process of policy adoption

    • Preceding steps

      • An issue is identified and brought to the attention of decision-makers.

      • A policy response is formulated as a potential solution

    • Next phase

      • Decision-makers discuss, adapt, and formally adopt the policy.

      • This stage is considered highly democratic as it involves deliberation and adaptation before a formal decision.

  • Influences on policy adoption

    • Policy adoption is influenced by several factors including institutional and political elements

    • Institutional factors

      • Government structure impacts policy adoption.

      • Unitary vs. Federal systems:

        • Federal systems (e.g., Canada) share jurisdiction between federal and sub-level governments (provinces, territories).

          • This requires multiple levels of consent, making policy adoption more complex.

        • Unitary systems concentrate power in the central government.

          • This makes policy adoption easier as fewer approvals are needed from lower levels of government.

    • Political factors

      • Government type (majority vs. minority) significantly affects policy adoption.

      • Majority government:

        • Easier policy adoption due to majority party control.

        • Consensus is mostly within the ruling party.

      • Minority government

        • Requires support from multiple parties to pass policies.

        • Faces challenges in securing confidence from opposition parties.

  • Outcomes of policy adoption

    • A wide spectrum of outcomes is possible in the adoption phase.

    • Possible results:

      • Successful adoption of the policy.

      • Policy abandonment before implementation.

      • Challenged policies due to opposition.

      • Delays or stalling in the process.

      • Compromise and bargaining where policy design is amended to satisfy opponents or incorporate new evidence.

  • Examples: indigenous policy failures in Canada

    • Indigenous policies are often cited as a major policy failure.

    • Policies are either successfully adapted or abandoned entirely.

    • Example:

      • The Liberal government's 2018 Recognition and Implementation of Indigenous Rights Framework.

      • Passed first two stages but was abandoned due to criticisms from Indigenous Rights leaders.

  • Challenges in adopting large-scale policies

    • Policies on Indigenous rights or environmental issues face greater hurdles.

    • Reasons for difficulty:

      • Often, not enough decision-makers are involved in the policy process.

      • Policies may fail to meet government standards.

      • If unsuccessful, they may need to return to the initial stages for redesign.

• Cabinet

  • Cabinet selection at the federal level is perhaps one of the most important duties of a Prime Minister as they both serve as the political executive of the government.

  •  In Canada, the cabinet consists of individual ministers, picked by the Prime Minister, to head a government department

  • Each Prime Minister determines the selection of his or her cabinet minister based on various factors, such as regional and language representation, experience, gender and ethnicity

  • Provincial Premiers also have the ability to choose and assign members of the provincial parliament to various provincial cabinet posts

  • Since cabinet ministers do change frequently due to various factors, it is not uncommon for a cabinet minister to change responsibilities part way through their tenure

• Bicameral government

  • In Canada, parliament is known as bicameral because it consists of an appointed upper house that includes the senate and the elected lower house that includes the House of Commons

  • These two chambers in Canada have equal legislative powers which means that bills must be passed in its entirety through both houses

  • However, there has been a lot of debate regarding the validity of an appointed upper house as it presents a different kind of representation, based on territory and class rather than representation by the people

  • Provinces are unicameral as they only have one elected chamber and no appointed senate

• Ministerial responsibility

  • Individual Ministerial Responsibility: the principle that individual ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments

  • Collective Ministerial Responsibility: the principle that members of the cabinet (the executive branch of government) are collectively responsible for the policies and management of government as a whole

• Administrative responsibility and public interest

  • Objectively Responsible Bureaucrats: "they feel responsible primarily to the legal or formal locus of authority and take a passive approach to the determination of public interest. Their most prominent characteristic and value is accountability to those who have the power to promote, displace, or replace them. The controls and influences, which they internalize in the form of administrative values, are those expressed by their hierarchical superiors. In making and recommending decisions, they anticipate and reflect the desires of their superiors. Bureaucrats of this type do not actively seek the views of policy actors other than their superiors unless they are required to do so" (Kernaghan, 1973)

  • Subjectively Responsible Bureaucrats: "they feel responsible to a broad range of policy participants and are active in the pursuit of the public interest. Their most outstanding characteristic and value is commitment to what they perceive to be the goals of their department or program. Since they view the expectations of a variety of policy actors as legitimate, the sources of their administrative values are numerous and diverse. Subjectively responsible public servants are frequently in conflict with their superiors, but they are not influenced much by the threat of negative sanctions. They seek the views of interests affected by their decisions and recommendations in the absence of, and even in violation of, any legal or formal obligation to do so. Their primary administrative values include responsiveness and effectiveness. They are innovative, take risks, and bend the rules to achieve their objectives. They urge their superiors to follow certain courses of action and are prepared to resolve by themselves the value dilemmas they encounter in their search for the public interest" (Kernaghan, 1973)

• Responsible government

  • The concept of responsible government is a constitutional principle, initially proposed by Lord Durham through the Durham reports.

  • Lord Durham was asked to investigate the corruption and issues that led to the rebellion of both Upper and Lower Canada during 1830s, which then resulted in some of the changes that finally led to the Union of both Upper and Lower Canada

  • One of the key changes that came out of this union was the introduction of "responsible government", which basically stipulates that in order to remain in power, the Prime Minister and his cabinet need to maintain the confidence of all elected members of the Parliament

  • A government in power can therefore lose the right and power to govern, if it is defeated on a motion of non-confidence by the opposition

  • Since many of the decision-making process occurs within certain pertinent jurisdictions affecting the public, it is important to note the role of provincial and municipal governments in the decision-making process

  • A good example is health care policies

• The legislative process

  • The Legislative Process. Starting from the top left, the process feeds downwards and continues with the last two steps beginning on the top right:

  • First reading

    • Bill Tabled in House or Senate

    • Money Bills must be introduced in House

    • Executive introduces its legislation in House

  • Second reading

    • Debate on principles of bill; vote

  • Committee stage:

    • Bill scrutinized by multi-party committee

  • Report stage

    • Vote on committee amendments

  • Third reading

    • Vote on entire bill

  • Other house

    • First Reading

    • Second Reading

    • Report Stage

    • Third Reading

  • Royal assent

    • Formal signing of the bill by the Governor General

    • Bill becomes law

• Types of bills

  • Private bills

    • These bills are rare and do not really deal with public policy as extensively as public bills

    • Private bills usually tend to confer powers to specific individuals or corporations or to allow Parliament to make decisions on behalf of private parties

    • In the past, private bills were a lot more common than they are today as they dealt with the merging of larger corporations and institutions across provinces (e.g., interprovincial railway companies)

    • Today, this is quite rare, and it is used mostly for the amalgamation of larger companies.

    • Individually speaking, private bills were also used to approve the dissolution of marriages, specifically in Quebec.

  • Public bills

    • These are the type of bills that passes through the Canadian legislature on a regular basis

    • There are generally two types of public bills: Government bills and private member bills

    • Government bills are bills that are passed on a daily basis and are usually proposed by a cabinet minister. These are the bills that are closely related to public issues and are divided into financial or money bills and non-financial bills. All financial bills must be introduced in the House of Commons; however all other non-financial bills can begin its process in either the Senate or the House of Commons.

    • Private Member bills are bills that are initiated or introduced by non-cabinet ministers, or those that hold any specific positions in the parliamentary systems. They are usually initiated by a Member of Parliament on an issue that may be specific to his or her constituency.

• Question period

  • Another significant aspect of the decision-making process that aligns itself well with the concept of democracy and parliamentary government is the daily 45-minute period in the House of Commons, known as the Question period

  • This 45-minute segment can be viewed as a Q&A session that greatly emphasizes the tenets of accountability and transparency that validates public policy in the Canadian legislature

  • This period allows the opposition to question the sitting government in a formal format moderated by the Speaker of the House

  • This oral question period is televised to ensure that the public are aware of the conduct and transparency behind discussions surrounding public policy

• Important themes and concepts to remember

  • Cabinet

  • Individual Ministerial Responsibility

  • Collective Ministerial Responsibly

  • Responsible Government

  • Parliamentary government

  • Legislative Process

  • Question period

Question Period video

• Question Period begins with a moment of silence for victims of Flight PS 752, where 57 Canadians were killed.

• The opposition leader asks the Prime Minister about progress on returning Canadian remains and ensuring justice for the attack. The Prime Minister affirms Canada's commitment to transparency, accountability, and justice, confirming that families wishing for burials in Canada are receiving them.

• The opposition criticizes the government's handling of energy projects, citing over $100 billion in canceled projects and rising costs for Canadians. The Prime Minister responds by emphasizing a balance between economic growth and environmental protection, stating that rigorous assessment processes will continue.

• The opposition argues that the government's economic policies are causing slow growth and driving away private investment. The Prime Minister defends government investments in Canadians, citing increased social services and child benefits that have lifted people out of poverty.

• Concerns about gang crime and gun violence are raised, with the opposition arguing that additional regulations on law-abiding citizens won’t address crime. The Prime Minister defends gun control measures, including banning assault weapons and investing in law enforcement initiatives.

• The opposition challenges the government on transparency, pointing to Canada's decline in international rankings. The Prime Minister responds by highlighting Canada's international leadership in climate action, trade, and diplomacy.

• A case of a skilled worker from Cameroon facing deportation is raised, with calls for the Immigration Minister to use discretionary powers to allow her to stay. The Prime Minister states that immigration decisions are made fairly and impartially under Canadian law.

• The issue of First Nations children being denied essential services is brought up, with criticism of the government continuing legal battles instead of addressing systemic discrimination. The Prime Minister defends government actions, citing improvements under Jordan’s Principle.

• The opposition demands the implementation of universal pharmacare, stating that Canadians struggle to afford medication. The government replies that steps are being taken to lower drug costs, including discussions with provinces and the creation of a pharmaceutical agency.

• Concerns about the spread of coronavirus in Canada are raised, with calls for more details on containment measures. The government reassures that the risk remains low, with health systems working together to quickly identify and manage cases

Howlett reading notes

Introduction

• Public policy decisions can range from simple (few actors, well-known parameters) to complex (multiple actors, significant uncertainty).

• Complex decision-making occurs in intricate legislative environments that often require multi-round interactions.

• Carole Weiss noted that multiple actors engage in distinct arenas and decisions accumulate across rounds.

Acknowledgments

• Research funded by SSHRC Standard Research Grant (2004-2007).

• Acknowledgment of research assistance by Anastasiya Salnykova, Brian Yaeck, and Hristina Dobreva.

Literature Review

• Recent research has begun focusing on complex public policy decision-making processes (e.g., Teisman, 2000; From, 2002).

• European analysts examine decision-makings characterized by impasses and breakout strategies, generating hypotheses for network management in governance.

• Comparisons between Canadian and European contexts may illuminate differences in decision-accretion processes.

Key Hypotheses from European Studies

• H1: Government actors maintain constant activity, whereas non-governmental actors fluctuate based on interests and resources.

• H2: The participation of non-governmental actors inversely relates to their alignment with government interests; discordance increases their activity.

• H3: Non-governmental activities evolve from influencing public context early on to targeting decision-makers as discussions become intricate.

Case Studies

• The research analyzes five Canadian cases (1995-2005):

  • Amendments to the Indian Act

  • Species-at-risk legislation

  • Changes to the Bank Act

  • Extension of privacy legislation

  • Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement (FTAA)

• Contrary to European findings, Canadian results show differing patterns in government and non-governmental actor behaviors.

Public Policy Decision-Making Styles

• John Forester’s work suggests varying decision-making styles depend on key contextual variables: number of agents, organizational settings, problem definitions, information availability, and time constraints.

• Rational Decision Making (Type I): Optimal outcomes in low-complexity, low-constraint scenarios.

• Incremental Decision Making (Type II): Marginal shifts from the status quo in more constrained but still fairly simple contexts.

• Decision Accretion (Type III): Involves multiple rounds and actors; under-researched yet common in complex governance.

• Garbage Can Decision Making (Type IV): Characterized by unpredictability and is often time-constrained.

Examination of Canadian Multi-Round Processes

• Decision-making in Canada features a multi-level governance framework that frequently involves intricate multi-actor engagement.

• The research methodology parallels European methods, examining policy development events through historical analysis of actor activities via media and legislative data.

Findings from Case Selection

• Chosen cases focused on active multi-round decision-making.

• Criteria: ongoing processes, sufficient historical data, comparability with international studies.

• Actor activities logged from legislative records and media sources, providing insights into interaction patterns across different rounds.

Patterns of Actor Behavior

• Variability noted in actor engagement across legislative timetables; different types of issues saw fluctuating levels of governmental and non-governmental activity.

• Findings indicated more stable governmental behavior versus the more reactive nature of non-governmental activities.

Evaluating Hypotheses

• H1 Findings: Governmental activity levels remained constant but varied by case, suggesting fluctuation and inconsistency across contexts.

• H2 Findings: Non-governmental actor participation levels inversely correlated with alignment to governmental aims, but actor behavior was also influenced by opposing interests.

• H3 Findings: Evident changes were largely absent with non-governmental actors continuously targeting public attention rather than shifting focus to decision makers.

Conclusion

• Results suggest a mixed predictability in multi-actor, multi-round processes, contrasting with European observations.

• Future research should focus on the pre-decisional phase and the subjects involved in early rounds to clarify outcomes in Canadian multi-round decision-making.

Supporting the Policy-making process workbook

Public Health Ontario

• Crown corporation focused on promoting and protecting health for all Ontarians.

• Works to reduce health inequities.

• Connects practitioners, health workers, and researchers with scientific intelligence globally.

Key Areas of Support

• Provides expert technical and scientific support to:

  • Government

  • Local public health units

  • Health care providers

Areas of Support:

• Communicable and Infectious Diseases: Prevention, surveillance, and control strategies.

• Infection Prevention and Control: Guideline development and best practices.

• Environmental and Occupational Health: Assessing impacts of environmental factors on health.

• Emergency Preparedness: Planning and response strategies for public health emergencies.

• Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention: Strategies to promote healthy living and prevent diseases.

• Public Health Laboratory Services: Testing and analyzing to support health initiatives.

Additional Functions

• Involves:

  • Surveillance and epidemiology

  • Research and professional development

  • Knowledge management services

• Further information available at: Public Health Ontario

Document Citing

• Citation format: Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion. Supporting the policy-making process: A workbook. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2018. ISBN: 978-1-4868-1502-9

Acknowledgments

• Author: Kim Bergeron, PhD - Health Promotion Consultant, Public Health Ontario.

Policy Advisors Include:

• Bernadette McCall, Dianne Coppola, Janet Dawson, and others from various health units and municipalities.

Disclaimer

• Document developed by PHO; responsibility for application and use lies with the user; no liability for misuse assumes.

• Reproduction permitted for non-commercial purposes with credit.

Contents Overview

1. Executive Summary - Overview of the policy-making process.

2. Introduction - Importance of improving public health through policy.

3. Understanding the Eight Steps - Framework for policy development.

4. Key Concepts - Fundamental principles that guide policy-making.

5. Planning Phase - Steps to prepare for policy development.

6. Implementation Phase - Steps to execute the planned policy.

7. Evaluation Phase - Steps to assess policy impact.

8. Worksheets and Glossary - Support materials for users.

Executive Summary

• Policy-making involves various stakeholders who collaborate to define problems, use evidence to find solutions, and influence outcomes.

• Encourages evidence-based public health policies, although decisions are sensitive to contextual factors.

• Workbook provides a structured approach comprising three phases and eight steps based on the Stages Heuristic Model.

Target Audience:

• Public health practitioners and community health advocates.

Planning Phase

• Initial Step: Formulate a working group to address community health issues.

Steps in Planning:

1. Identify the problem - Gather information and understand the issue.

2. Analyze policy options - Explore and evaluate potential policy interventions.

3. Engage with decision-makers - Identify key influencers.

4. Assess readiness - Determine support from the community.

5. Develop an action plan - Outline steps for implementation.

Key Considerations:

• Engagement with stakeholders at all levels is crucial.

• Developing a flexible action plan is essential for adapting to new circumstances.

Implementation Phase

• Follow structured methods to monitor and modify policies.

Implementation Steps:

6. Implement action plan - Monitor progress and adapt as necessary.

7. Facilitate adoption - Ensure policies are accepted and followed.

Evaluation Phase

• Evaluate policies to ensure effectiveness and inform future initiatives.

Evaluation Steps:

8. Conduct evaluations - Gather data on policy impact and outcomes.

Key Takeaways:

• The policy-making process is a collaborative and iterative effort requiring active stakeholder engagement.

• Emphasis on creating equitable health policies is fundamental to addressing diverse community needs.