Reducing excessive powers

[jdobbin]

The Star and Hill Times have been having an interesting discussion on the powers of the prime minister.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...luence/&c=2

The purpose of this piece is to first summarize the powers concentrated in the hands of the PM, and second, to begin to identify which ones ought to be taken from him in the interests of making our democracy far more responsive to citizens.

For brevity the list is as follows:

1 Appointments

2 Setting the agenda for the government

3 Control over election machinery

4 Control over the organization of the federal government

5 Other tools (as explained in the link)

You may agree or disagree with the solutions offered. I certainly don't agree with all of them but they are interesting.

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

Mostly for convenience, prime ministers since Pierre Trudeau have taken for themselves power that belongs, in the most profound sense, to the people.

Given the sentiments of numerous people in this forum who've routinely rejected things like reforming Canada's electoral system I would argue that many Canadians have willingly handed their power over to our PM's on a silver platter.

I'm afraid we deserve the government we've got.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm all for it. No such person should have these powers at their own disposal, because they are affected by other influences. Industries, special interest groups, religious groups seek to manipulate the office of the PM, either by getting their guy in there, or by offering incentives. These powers should be distributed amongst a group, and depend on the interests of the public, at large.

Beyond that there should be a single person, a king or queen who is endowed with the utmost privileges, so that they are incorruptible. They would hold the power to overrule parliament where it comes to laws concerning the freedom of individuals, to protect the rights of human persons (as opposed to the rights of corporations and big money powers).

[Argus]

The Star and Hill Times have been having an interesting discussion on the powers of the prime minister.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...luence/&c=2

For brevity the list is as follows:

1 Appointments

2 Setting the agenda for the government

3 Control over election machinery

4 Control over the organization of the federal government

5 Other tools (as explained in the link)

You may agree or disagree with the solutions offered. I certainly don't agree with all of them but they are interesting.

The problem is not a governmental issue, it's a party issue.

There's nothing wrong, and indeed, it would be silly, for the government not to have control over all of the above. They always have had and I see no real alternative. You want the government NOT to have control over setting its agenda?? Not to have control over the organization of the federal government? Over appointments?

No. The problem arises because the parties have ceded more and more authority and control to the party leader. Trudeau was the first to begin to take over that control, but in his time there were still a lot of strong figures in the party with authority and a lot of say in things like appointments, agendas and organization. Mulroney took over more of it, wresting control over things so that there were only a few strong ministers able to argue with him. Chretien took almost everything which was left. At the height of his power there was Jean Chretien, and a bunch of trained sheep who clapped and applauded on demand. The rest of the people in the party, with the exception of Paul Martin, became non-entities. Martin only stood out because he was seen as a strong leadership contender with a huge following who could not be pushed aside or downgraded in cabinet without severe internecine repercussions.

Who rivals Harper in the present government? Who can he not dismiss without much difficulty? He has only two ministers with any kind of sense of personal strength; Flanagan and Baird, and neither of them are seen as likely candidates for the leadership.

The NDP is the same. Chairman Jack makes all the decisions. It's his way or the highway.

As for the present Liberals, Ignatieff is yet too new to hold all the reigns of power, and too inexperienced. He still has a rival in Bob Rae, and he has to be careful not to alienate various segments of the party because of the recent civil war they've been through. But give him a few years in power and I suspect all that power will be centralized in his hands once again.

[jdobbin]

The problem is not a governmental issue, it's a party issue.

I agree that the party controls are important. Too few controls and your party can be hijacked. Some feel that is what happened to the PCs in Alberta. Too many controls and you won't have your base come out and actually run your campaign and elect your people.

There's nothing wrong, and indeed, it would be silly, for the government not to have control over all of the above. They always have had and I see no real alternative. You want the government NOT to have control over setting its agenda?? Not to have control over the organization of the federal government? Over appointments?

I have no problems with an appointments commission determining suitable candidates. I agree that the appointment has to come from the prime minister.

Nor do I think that provinces should have the final say of who should be senators. I have no problems having a list of potential candidates though.

No. The problem arises because the parties have ceded more and more authority and control to the party leader. Trudeau was the first to begin to take over that control, but in his time there were still a lot of strong figures in the party with authority and a lot of say in things like appointments, agendas and organization. Mulroney took over more of it, wresting control over things so that there were only a few strong ministers able to argue with him. Chretien took almost everything which was left. At the height of his power there was Jean Chretien, and a bunch of trained sheep who clapped and applauded on demand. The rest of the people in the party, with the exception of Paul Martin, became non-entities. Martin only stood out because he was seen as a strong leadership contender with a huge following who could not be pushed aside or downgraded in cabinet without severe internecine repercussions.

Every party runs that way now.

We'll have to see how Ignatieff does in trying to get a grass roots organization in place. It is essential in bringing new and competent people into the party and into leadership positions.

Who rivals Harper in the present government? Who can he not dismiss without much difficulty? He has only two ministers with any kind of sense of personal strength; Flanagan and Baird, and neither of them are seen as likely candidates for the leadership.

I can't think of who some of the future contenders of the Tories will be. So many of them don't speak French and those that do don't have a huge presence on the national front.

The NDP is the same. Chairman Jack makes all the decisions. It's his way or the highway.

It is why Blaikie left. That, and the fact that he didn't speak French. At least in Manitoba as a MLA he will probably be a cabinet minister in the next weeks.

As for the present Liberals, Ignatieff is yet too new to hold all the reigns of power, and too inexperienced. He still has a rival in Bob Rae, and he has to be careful not to alienate various segments of the party because of the recent civil war they've been through. But give him a few years in power and I suspect all that power will be centralized in his hands once again.

Ignatieff should be grateful for Rae. If the two demonstrate loyalty to one another, they can both be stronger for it.

There are still some strong contenders in the party but depth is thin. Concentrating too much power in the leader's hands could hurt those efforts to expand the party.

[Sir Bandelot]

The problem is not a governmental issue, it's a party issue.

Ok fine. But the system is susceptible to this problem, so that it can happen in some circumstances. There should be better rules to spread the balance of power, to "govern the governors".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ok fine. But the system is susceptible to this problem, so that it can happen in some circumstances. There should be better rules to spread the balance of power, to "govern the governors".

That my friend means opening the constitutional can or worms which scares the hell out of everyone.

[eyeball]

That my friend means opening the constitutional can or worms which scares the hell out of everyone.

Nonesense, I'm not the least bit afraid of re-constituting the country and reforming the way we govern ourselves. Something that's way past overdue.

[tango]

Nonesense, I'm not the least bit afraid of re-constituting the country and reforming the way we govern ourselves. Something that's way past overdue.

Not something I'd trust politicians with though.

So how do we accomplish this?

[eyeball]

Not something I'd trust politicians with though.

So how do we accomplish this?

Citizen assemblies.

[Argus]

Citizen assemblies.

Not particularly practical in a country of 34 million

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not particularly practical in a country of 34 million

Perhaps not, but a very desirable means of achieving the end result. It would have the effect of providing a peoples ratification which in turn would resolve any suspicion about the willingness to comply with law. It would provide some legitimacy to the concept of democracy.

[Smallc]

I think that a law should be passed prohibiting the prime minister from asking the governor general to dissolve parliament in the absence of a loss of confidence. This way, the GG would simply dissolve parliament every 5 years, as Constitutionally required. This would also involve a ban on political advertising before the campaign start of less than two months before the election.

I also think that appointments should be made by committee recommendation to the GG on behalf of the Prime Minister. This includes Senators and the heads of Crown corporations and government agencies.

I don't think either of these things would require a constitutional amendment.

Setting the agenda for and controlling the organization of the government though is really the job of the head of government.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that a law should be passed prohibiting the prime minister from asking the governor general to dissolve parliament in the absence of a loss of confidence. This way, the GG would simply dissolve parliament every 5 years, as Constitutionally required. This would also involve a ban on political advertising before the campaign start of less than two months before the election.

I also think that appointments should be made by committee recommendation to the GG on behalf of the Prime Minister. This includes Senators and the heads of Crown corporations and government agencies.

I don't think either of these things would require a constitutional amendment.

Setting the agenda for and controlling the organization of the government though is really the job of the head of government.

Those are fine proposals!

Write your MP about them and the sooner the better.

[Keepitsimple]

It's not surprising that The Star writes its Shamocracy article when we have a Conservative Minority government. Where were these enlightened souls when the Chretien Liberals were ripping our country apart - alienating Quebec to the edge of separation, completely ignoring the west, and wrecking Healthcare and Education by stripping transfer payments to the provinces.......appointing Liberal after Liberal to the Senate, appointing Liberal after Liberal as judges, filling the Civil Service with patronage appointments. That was the true sham. Where was The Star then?

We all know that government tends to move very slowly but ironically - perhaps tellingly, this Conservative minority government - like them or hate them - has taken or tried to take several of the steps that have been recommended:

1) Public Appointments: Gwynne Morgan for $1 a year.....but the opposition said he was not suited. So instead of having a somewhat impartial process that could have at least evolved and been transparent, we still have nothing. There are many apologists for why he was not approved but the fact is, we still have nothing. Not a sham - a shame.

2) Judicial Appointments: The Conservatives have already introduced a committee process and a public questioning process that let to the appointment of Judges Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell. It's a decent start and is confirmed by the overall acceptance of both judges by just about everybody who counts.

3) Limiting the ability to appoint Senators: In formally at least, this has already been done. At this stage, Conservatives want the provinces to hold elections and the PM will rubber-stamp the winner into the Senate. Obviously, there has been a great deal of acrimony but the fact is, this particular PM wants to respect the right of the Province (and the people within) to appoint senators.

4) Access to Information: Still going slowly but small steps have been taken. It's better today than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

1) Public Appointments: Gwynne Morgan for $1 a year.....but the opposition said he was not suited. So instead of having a somewhat impartial process that could have at least evolved and been transparent, we still have nothing. There are many apologists for why he was not approved but the fact is, we still have nothing. Not a sham - a shame.

And Harper dropped it. He wanted appointments scrutinized but not who he appointed to head it up. Sorry, not good enough. Harper should have run a few names past the Opposition rather than the take it or leave it.

2) Judicial Appointments: The Conservatives have already introduced a committee process and a public questioning process that let to the appointment of Judges Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell. It's a decent start and is confirmed by the overall acceptance of both judges by just about everybody who counts.

There as no review of the last the justice appointed.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/22/...er-justice.html

Stephen Harper has officially appointed Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, bypassing a parliamentary hearing process the prime minister has championed to more openly scrutinize nominees.

3) Limiting the ability to appoint Senators: In formally at least, this has already been done. At this stage, Conservatives want the provinces to hold elections and the PM will rubber-stamp the winner into the Senate. Obviously, there has been a great deal of acrimony but the fact is, this particular PM wants to respect the right of the Province (and the people within) to appoint senators.

The Constitution does not allow for elections of Senators if the provinces don't want them. And some provinces oppose elections. Blaming the Opposition in Ottawa for the lack of Senate reform ignores the fact that you need 10 out 10 provinces and Ottawa to approve the change.

The Constitution only allows for appointments. If the PM does not do it, the Governor General can. Some provinces can elect Senators and the PM is free to select that choice. However, there is nothing in law to compel that choice.

4) Access to Information: Still going slowly but small steps have been taken. It's better today than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

Not according to government's own watchdog.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's not surprising that The Star writes its Shamocracy article when we have a Conservative Minority government. Where were these enlightened souls when the Chretien Liberals were ripping our country apart - alienating Quebec to the edge of separation, completely ignoring the west, and wrecking Healthcare and Education by stripping transfer payments to the provinces.......appointing Liberal after Liberal to the Senate, appointing Liberal after Liberal as judges, filling the Civil Service with patronage appointments. That was the true sham. Where was The Star then?

We all know that government tends to move very slowly but ironically - perhaps tellingly, this Conservative minority government - like them or hate them - has taken or tried to take several of the steps that have been recommended:

1) Public Appointments: Gwynne Morgan for $1 a year.....but the opposition said he was not suited. So instead of having a somewhat impartial process that could have at least evolved and been transparent, we still have nothing. There are many apologists for why he was not approved but the fact is, we still have nothing. Not a sham - a shame.

2) Judicial Appointments: The Conservatives have already introduced a committee process and a public questioning process that let to the appointment of Judges Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell. It's a decent start and is confirmed by the overall acceptance of both judges by just about everybody who counts.

3) Limiting the ability to appoint Senators: In formally at least, this has already been done. At this stage, Conservatives want the provinces to hold elections and the PM will rubber-stamp the winner into the Senate. Obviously, there has been a great deal of acrimony but the fact is, this particular PM wants to respect the right of the Province (and the people within) to appoint senators.

4) Access to Information: Still going slowly but small steps have been taken. It's better today than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

Your partisan defense is expected, but still misguided. The perpetuation of partisan politics is the yoke we choose to wear and it prevents the realization of fundamental freedoms that we have all earned.

[Tawasakm]

Stupid question from a foreigner here.

How are your senators appointeed? We elect our senators here in Australia. It sounds like that has not been the case there. I am just curious.

[Molly]

Senators are appointed to reflect more or less equal regional representation, for long terms of office-- appointed by the governor General upon recommendation by her advisor, the Prime Minister, when vacancies arise. (Which means that the Prime Minister chooses.)

It's.... something of an anachronism, but it works. It takes away a great deal of the partisanship from the senate (though by no means all of it). It ends up being a very true 'house of sober second thought'.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Molly

[CAMP]

Nonesense, I'm not the least bit afraid of re-constituting the country and reforming the way we govern ourselves. Something that's way past overdue.

This article for the most part is bang on. However what leader in his/her right mind is going to relent and reform?

Certainly not Harper, I doubt Ignatieff, never Jack

Put bylaws in place that protect the party from being hijacked like the reform party was as is stated in the article.

Protect MP's from the party leader by installing a bylaw stating that all MP's would be responsible to their riding and not the party leader. This is the way Canada was before parties existed and it was much better.

Set automatic criteria to hold a referendum or poll vote in between elections to persuade MP's (who would be responsible to their riding) as to how they would enter the House of Commons and vote. Make the polls/votes public information as well as how the MP voted in the house, creating accountability.

These simple changes would still allow the Constitutional Monarchy to continue operating.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This article for the most part is bang on. However what leader in his/her right mind is going to relent and reform?

Certainly not Harper, I doubt Ignatieff, never Jack

Put bylaws in place that protect the party from being hijacked like the reform party was as is stated in the article.

Protect MP's from the party leader by installing a bylaw stating that all MP's would be responsible to their riding and not the party leader. This is the way Canada was before parties existed and it was much better.

Set automatic criteria to hold a referendum or poll vote in between elections to persuade MP's (who would be responsible to their riding) as to how they would enter the House of Commons and vote. Make the polls/votes public information as well as how the MP voted in the house, creating accountability.

These simple changes would still allow the Constitutional Monarchy to continue operating.

Yes, but how do you get the partisan leaders to follow that path?

[Remiel]

Martin supposedely had a plan to make some reforms to the way parliament worked, including have a Commons commitee to review many (though not all) appointments and give commitee making powers to caucus rather than have the Prime Minister appoint them all.

It would have been nice if he had had more of a chance to realize such reforms. In the long term, we would likely have been better off for it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Martin supposedely had a plan to make some reforms to the way parliament worked, including have a Commons commitee to review many (though not all) appointments and give commitee making powers to caucus rather than have the Prime Minister appoint them all.

It would have been nice if he had had more of a chance to realize such reforms. In the long term, we would likely have been better off for it.

Coulda shoulda and woulda don't add up to a hill of beans. The only thing that counts are the things that get done. Joe Clark could have been a great Prime Minister, had he only been able to bring in tax deductible mortgage interest.

[Keepitsimple]

And Harper dropped it. He wanted appointments scrutinized but not who he appointed to head it up. Sorry, not good enough. Harper should have run a few names past the Opposition rather than the take it or leave it.

There as no review of the last the justice appointed.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/22/...er-justice.html

The Constitution does not allow for elections of Senators if the provinces don't want them. And some provinces oppose elections. Blaming the Opposition in Ottawa for the lack of Senate reform ignores the fact that you need 10 out 10 provinces and Ottawa to approve the change.

The Constitution only allows for appointments. If the PM does not do it, the Governor General can. Some provinces can elect Senators and the PM is free to select that choice. However, there is nothing in law to compel that choice.

Not according to government's own watchdog.

The point is, he's the first PM I can remember who's actually making any effort at all. If the Conservatives had a majority - like the Liberals were blessed with for so many years - the Appointments Commission would be up and running and very transparent. Marshall Rothstein went through the process - which is a long one. Thomas Cromwell filled the ninth judgeship that had been vacant for 8 months - I admit, largely because of the wranglings of a minority parliament. However, it was understood by anyone who actually cared about an effective Supreme Court that you can't have 8 judges deciding what were very important upcoming issues - you need nine to ensure a decision. Harper consulted with Mr. Ignatieff before making the appointment and he also concurred that it couldn't wait any longer. As for Senate appointments - of course there are Constitutional issues but I think Mr. Harper is trying to make the best of a bad situation and not just appointing just anyone. Don't bother getting back to me on the 18 senate appointments - you know as well as I that in what was a precarious time, if the Liberals got back in power, they would have continued with Liberal patronage appointments and forever ruined any chance of establishing a balance in the upper chamber.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

The point is, he's the first PM I can remember who's actually making any effort at all.

But he's not. He's lying through his teeth. He hasn't tried to do ANYTHING meaningful at all. He's nothing buy a hypocrite.