Vic Toews resigns from cabinet and retires from politics

[Guest Derek L]

But that's good, it's part of that system's checks and balances. The President usually gets whom he wants though unless it's a controversial pick. But that isn't my point. My point is the POTUS (confirmed by the Senate) is able to choose the people with the most expertise and qualifications in the country to be in specific cabinet roles (though in many cases the POTUS doesn't do that lol, but the choice is there). In Canada, our Ministers usually have to learn on-the-job, and the few years they're usually in their Cabinet roles isn't a replacement for decades of education and experience.

But like you said yourself, that isn't always the case........None the less, even if our PM (or the President) was able to select the best Brian Surgeon or a decorated war hero in the country, it does't translate into them being the best selection for National Defense or Health......And unlike the Americans, our potential choices are elected.......

Edited July 16, 2013 by Derek L

[Bob Macadoo]

Or you could make a paediatric surgeon in charge of Labour portfolio. Even when you have elected expertise its ignored.

The one that burns me is Poilievre in Democratic Reform, that's a big bird flip from the PMO.

[Moonlight Graham]

None the less, even if our PM (or the President) was able to select the best Brian Surgeon or a decorated war hero in the country, it does't translate into them being the best selection for National Defense or Health......

More likely to be the best selection than a lawyer MP/Senator. Better to choose from a pool of 34 million than 223 (Conservative seats in HoC + Senate). Also, in the US the POTUS can and has chosen members from differing party affiliations than his own to join cabinet.

And unlike the Americans, our potential choices are elected.......

Usually (that's one good aspect), except for those cabinet ministers chosen from the Senate. But then again, Canadians have no say in who the PM puts in which cabinet position, but that's similar to the US (except for the US VP, who is usually on the election ticket).

Edited July 16, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[g_bambino]

My point is the POTUS (confirmed by the Senate) is able to choose the people with the most expertise and qualifications in the country to be in specific cabinet roles.

He may be able to but likely doesn't and whomever he picks (and is approved by the Senate) is thereafter accountable to noone except the president who's accountable to noone for four whole years. On the other hand, our head of government (separate from the head of state, unlike in the US) and the other ministers of the Crown are accountable to and must on a regular basis face parliament, most especially the elected House of Commons.

I'd imagine most people who are the best in their fields would rather stay where they are and give advice and direction to politicians when asked than enter the dirty arena of politics itself.

[Moonlight Graham]

He may be able to but likely doesn't and whomever he picks (and is approved by the Senate) is thereafter accountable to noone except the president who's accountable to noone for four whole years.

Incorrect. First, cabinet members are held accountable by the rule of law/the constitution, the courts, the POTUS, congress (who clearly keep an eye on the books & activities etc., and can also impeach cabinet members...and have!), the media, and of course public opinion.

Secondly, the POTUS is held accountable by the rule of law/the constitution, the courts, congress (ie: POTUS can't go to war w/o House approval, can't vote on the budget he'll use, can't introduce or vote on bills, & the senate can also impeach him), the media, and of course public opinion. The POTUS is also held accountable by his own party, whereby the House Reps within his party are guaranteed to answer to the electorate during an election every 2 years, including in the 2nd year of his 4-year term. Senators in the POTUS' party also serve scattered 6 year terms, so many of them will be up for election in the 2nd year if his 4-yr term also. The POTUS is also held accountable at the end of his 4-yr term by the electorate if he wants to run again, and if he can't or doesn't want to his party will try to hold him to account based on them wanting to win the next Presidential, House, and Senate elections....not to mention his VP, who frequently runs for President after his boss' term limits are up (ie: Al Gore, George Bush Sr.)

On the other hand, our head of government (separate from the head of state, unlike in the US) and the other ministers of the Crown are accountable to and must on a regular basis face parliament, most especially the elected House of Commons.

True, but in a majority government (like now) only the governing party typically has control over passing legislation and need only keep the confidence of....themselves. And of course the ministers themselves make up a decent-sized portion of the people with the power to make most of the real legal impact in the HoC, and are the most powerful people in the governing party anyways.

People like the GG, Senators, the Supreme Court Justices, superior and county court judges in each province, the auditor general and other Officers of Parliament also provide a check on the PM's power...yet they are all appointed by the PM himself !!...(technically by the GG, yes I know, but their right to overturn the PM is in reserve powers only).

[Bob Macadoo]

I'd imagine most people who are the best in their fields would rather stay where they are and give advice and direction to politicians when asked than enter the dirty arena of politics itself.

But we have a cops in Heritage and Int'l Aid, doctors in Labour and Treasury, where we saw ministers who were obviously out of their depth. (Example: Aglukkaq in Health, Duncan in Aboriginal Affairs, etc.)

[g_bambino]

But we have a cops in Heritage and Int'l Aid, doctors in Labour and Treasury, where we saw ministers who were obviously out of their depth. (Example: Aglukkaq in Health, Duncan in Aboriginal Affairs, etc.)

I don't know why you say "but...". Your comment that follows doesn't follow on from mine.

[g_bambino]

Incorrect. First, cabinet members are held accountable by the rule of law/the constitution.

I said they weren't held accountable for what they did until the next election; not that they had unlimited power.

True, but in a majority government (like now) only the governing party typically has control over passing legislation and need only keep the confidence of....themselves.

For the most part. But, with the slim possibility of the prime minister's own caucus essentially bumping him from power (Chretien) plus the relative frequency of minority parliaments wherein the life of the government depends upon its opposition, there's still more chance of a Canadian prime minister being replaced as a consequence of his running of government, including Cabinet and its members and their actions, before the next scheduled election than there is of the same happening to a US president. If we returned to the old way of selecting party leaders, or, at least, in some form, giving caucus much more say in the process (as in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere), then we'd see a strengthening of that one doctrine that has weakened here over the past 40 years but is entirely missing from the US system: responsible government. Cabinet members and the prime minister in particular would have to, in order to keep their jobs longer, be more cognisant and considerate of the wants, wishes, and opinions of our elected representatives.

[normanchateau]

Vic Toews will be remembered as the religious zealot who replaced Jewish, Sikh and Buddhist prison chaplains with Christian prison chaplains:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-cuts-non-christian-prison-chaplains/article4591355/

Apparently if Canadian taxpayers are to fund prison chaplains, they must be Christian chaplains. Yet another bonehead idea from the Conservative Party of Canada.