RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE ROLE OF DEPUTY MINISTERS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study will examine the issues of responsibility and accountability in Canada’s system of responsible parliamentary government, with a particular emphasis on the role Deputy Ministers play in the Government of Canada. In pursuing this matter, the British institution of Accounting Officer (an ancillary function assigned by Treasury regulation and, since 2002, by law to the persons fulfilling the role of Deputy Minister in the Government of the United Kingdom) will be reviewed and the advisability, or not, of adopting it in Canada will be assessed. The study will begin with a review of the fundamental principles underlying responsible parliamentary government in Canada.Although 115 these principles have remained constant for over 150 years, the nature of government in Canada has evolved and a number of those changes— and their implications for responsible government—will be noted.While recognizing that there is a lack of consensus on the precise meaning to give to certain key words in any given context, definitions—for the purposes of this study—will be provided for the terms “responsibility,” “accountability ” and “answerability.” A distinction will be made between political actors (Ministers and their political exempt staff) and professional actors (Deputy Ministers and members of the public service): they are subject to different rules and constraints and to different sanctions for poor or improper behaviour.The role of Deputy Ministers in the Government of Canada will then be set out, including the multiple responsibilities and accountabilities.The mechanisms in Canada for political and professional financial accountability will be reviewed, including the issue of sanctions for poor or improper behaviour. The British institution of Accounting Officer will be examined and an assessment made as to whether it would be appropriate to adopt it in Canada. The study will conclude with a number of recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".