Canadian Framers

[myata]

A recent TV panel discussion mentioned our own Canadian "Constitution framers". While everybody, probably five year old children in the southern neighbor country would know about founding fathers of their democracy possibly down to the names, this was the first time in years I came across the term in Canada, in any way. So yes, we too have our framers just like / unlike them.

While the discussion went on about important matters, as the Charter, the notwithstanding clause and federal-provincial jurisdictions, it occurred to me that some two centuries after their southern brethren our framers left out completely and entirely, if not absolutely? (please correct me if wrong or exaggerating) one essential for democratic government matter and area: oversight over the government; checks and balances; accountability and responsibility of the government to the people.

Is there any (literally) oversight over a majority government? What are the mechanisms to ensure accountability for actions of a majority PM?

Can the Parliament be fully functional as a representative institution of the citizens if even its ability to conduct investigations is controlled, almost absolutely, by majority government?

In some 150 years of history has an acting PM ever been under investigation by an independent institution?

Without answering these and other similar and related questions, the parallel "founding fathers - framers" may not extend beyond terms to the essence of the meaning, that is, designers of modern and functional democracy. Democracy by the citizens may not be the same democracy as from above for the folk. Which of the two was framed for us? And could it be at least part of the reason why while everybody knows founding fathers and what they did, this country's framers are relegated to political and around circles? It's who uses the product, and who it is working for, not so?

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Is there any (literally) oversight over a majority government? What are the mechanisms to ensure accountability for actions of a majority PM?

2. Can the Parliament be fully functional as a representative institution of the citizens if even its ability to conduct investigations is controlled, almost absolutely, by majority government?

3. In some 150 years of history has an acting PM ever been under investigation by an independent institution?

4. Without answering these and other similar and related questions, the parallel "founding fathers - framers" may not extend beyond terms to the essence of the meaning, that is, designers of modern and functional democracy.  
Democracy by the citizens may not be the same democracy as from above for the folk. Which of the two was framed for us? And could it be at least part of the reason why while everybody knows founding fathers and what they did, this country's framers are relegated to political and around circles? It's who uses the product, and who it is working for, not so?

1. Oversight ?  Well, there's the opposition parties in QP, the press and the courts.
2. Well, this isn't true in all aspects.  The RCMP investigated this current government on several occasions.
3. See 2.
4. Well, probably a mix.  

I have problems with democracy too, but it's more that the scope of government, its complexity and size have exceeded our ability to monitor it.  We have ways to unleash the power of individual citizens to monitor and watch but government is suspicious of the people.  

I would say that we either need to simplify government, or start putting more monitoring tools in the hands of the people and create publics, audiences and groups that can engage and monitor government agencies.

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say that we either need to simplify government, or start putting more monitoring tools in the hands of the people and create publics, audiences and groups that can engage and monitor government agencies.

I can agree on some points but we're talking about actual and functional democratic instruments that can investigate and prevent 1) inefficiencies; 2) abuse and worse. Do they exist or they do not, this is not Wonderland and / or quantum world?

Let's see: what can media do to make, a PM accountable? Do they have any powers to discipline a majority government? The answer is obvious. The Parliament? Even an inquiry requires support of the very government that is being investigated, how's that for independence?

Suppose theoretically and for a second there's a report of a PM with some allies colluding with a foreign power. This is not an entirely outlandish possibility as similar investigation just happened south of the border. But who would investigate such a case in Canada? Who can, is independent and have the power? I don't know do you?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, myata said:

1. I can agree on some points but we're talking about actual and functional democratic instruments that can investigate and prevent 1) inefficiencies; 2) abuse and worse. Do they exist or they do not, this is not Wonderland and / or quantum world?

2. Let's see: what can media do to make, a PM accountable? Do they have any powers to discipline a majority government? The answer is obvious. The Parliament? Even an inquiry requires support of the very government that is being investigated, how's that for independence?

3. Suppose theoretically and for a second there's a report of a PM with some allies colluding with a foreign power. This is not an entirely outlandish possibility as similar investigation just happened south of the border. But who would investigate such a case in Canada? Who can, is independent and have the power? I don't know do you?

1. I think I pointed out a few above, but yes they're not adequate to what is needed.

2. Are you new to western democracy ?  Publish stories, such as the G&M publishing the Jody Wilson-Raybould story ?

3. Well... the US isn't exactly pursuing this either.  The problem is that you need to make a mechanism that can't be abused, so it's necessarily subject to political manipulation.  The justice system(S) presumably aren't but we have seen abuses in both countries.

So... my suggestion still seems like something that's new.  It wouldn't have the power of an investigation but in time would be an effective check on power IMO

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Oversight ?  Well, there's the opposition parties in QP, the press and the courts.
 

The federal government gave the CBC $695M right after Trudeau got elected in 2015, then they gave another $600M to "select media outlets", at the discretion of the CUPE leader who considered his union "the opposition to Andrew Scheer". 

That's $1.3B 'for the cause'. 

Quote

2. Well, this isn't true in all aspects.  The RCMP investigated this current government on several occasions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-blocks-rcmp-on-snc-lavalin-inquiry/

Quote

The RCMP has been looking into potential obstruction of justice in the handling of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., but its examination has been stymied by the federal government’s refusal to lift cabinet confidentiality for all witnesses, The Globe and Mail has learned.

This means individuals involved in the matter cannot discuss events or share documents with police that have not been exempted from the rule of cabinet confidentiality, according to sources, who The Globe agreed not to identify so they could discuss the RCMP inquiries.

No, the RCMP cannot investigate the government, especially when the media is just ho-hum about it for a day or so and then drops the issue altogether.

If the media covered SNC with 1/10th of the passion that they covered Trump then there would have been an investigation. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

1. The federal government gave the CBC $695M right after Trudeau got elected in 2015, then they gave another $600M to "select media outlets", at the discretion of the CUPE leader who considered his union "the opposition to Andrew Scheer".  That's $1.3B 'for the cause'. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-blocks-rcmp-on-snc-lavalin-inquiry/

2. No, the RCMP cannot investigate the government, especially when the media is just ho-hum about it for a day or so and then drops the issue altogether.

 

1. I agree that this is problematic.  The G&M, though, went after Trudeau after they got the funding as does the National Post

2. Why not ?

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Why not ?

Because the PMO is using cabinet confidentiality to block the RCMP, like it said in the article, which I quoted for you, and then bolded. 

I guess that they can still do "an investigation", they just can't question the witnesses or look at evidence lol. 

[WestCanMan]

By contrast, in the US, the FBI was able to force the president to hand over tens of thousands of pages of documents, his administration was subjected to hundreds of interviews under oath, and it was all predicated on some bogus intel that an opposition member covertly paid Russian spies for, and $200K worth of FB ads that targeted both sides of the election to sow discord in the US.

The FBI even committed crimes in the US in their attempt to prosecute the POTUS, but in this country the RCMP stopped when Trudeau wagged his finger and our media looked the other way. Ironically, to point their fingers at Trump lol. 

Our country is a gigantic shit-show now. Our media is a left wing circus and the news anchors here are the carnies. 

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

The FBI even committed crimes in the US in their attempt to prosecute the POTUS, but in this country the RCMP stopped when Trudeau wagged his finger and our media looked the other way. Ironically, to point their fingers at Trump lol. 

 

But does Canada have the ability to prosecute the PM ?  Because they couldn't proceed with prosecuting of the president in the US.

[Queenmandy85]

Some years ago, the Government was involved in the customs scandal. The Minister of Customs was accused of being "protectionist by day and a free-trader by night." The case was a smuggling ring that included the Minister. The PM faced a vote of censure that was likely to pass. He went to the Governor General and asked for a dissolution, but the GG refused, asserting the PM had to take his lumps in the House. The PM resigned and the GG appointed a new PM. The new Government fell soon after and the GG called an election. The voters had the opportunity to decide the issue and they sided with the former PM. 

1. The police were able to investigate the Minister

2. The GG held the PM accountable.

3. The voters decided the issue.

[Queenmandy85]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But does Canada have the ability to prosecute the PM ?  Because they couldn't proceed with prosecuting of the president in the US.

The Prime Minister can be prosecuted for crimes. (S)he is simply a Member of Parliament who has been appointed to cabinet.

It is essential to have Cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet documents and deliberations must remain confidential or government could not function.

Don't forget that in the SNC controversy, the Crown Prosecutor's position was sustained and the Government's desire for a deferred prosecution was withdrawn. Former Minister Wilson-Raybould was re-elected.

[Nefarious Banana]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Our country is a gigantic shit-show now. Our media is a left wing circus and the news anchors here are the carnies. 

Like your statement WCM.  

[Argus]

The person who can ultimately hold a majority government to task is the Queen. In Canada's case that responsibility is represented by the governor general. The problem with this is that the GG these days tends to be someone of little substance.. The exception being David Johnson. In order to hold the government to task the GG has to be a person of strength and confidence and a determination to embrace integrity. Romeo Leblanc was the last one before Johnson. 

I suppose ultimately the Queen can override the GG, if they won't do what is necessary and simply dismiss the government and call elections. Not something which can happen down south. It would have to be something of enormous consequence to cause her to do that however.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Like your statement WCM.  

More of a troll really.  Our institutional press is largely right-wing stalwarts.  Television is centrist and doesn't adopt an editorial position anyway.

If you ask these people what the bias is, it's always some trifling pablum.  

Meanwhile we have alt-left social media units dominant now, without any regulation or self-control.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Our country is a gigantic shit-show now. 

Lemme guess.  You consider yourself patriotic right ?

[myata]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... my suggestion still seems like something that's new.  It wouldn't have the power of an investigation but in time would be an effective check on power IMO

Your suggestion may very well be just the only plausible option that remains. 160 years on, it's a bit late to think about creating institutions and balances that were never thought of or intended from scratch.

[WestCanMan]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

More of a troll really.  Our institutional press is largely right-wing stalwarts.  Television is centrist and doesn't adopt an editorial position anyway.

If you ask these people what the bias is, it's always some trifling pablum.  

Meanwhile we have alt-left social media units dominant now, without any regulation or self-control.

The MSM in Canada is so far left that they're officially a fringe group now.

Canadians know more about the comical bimbo who accused Brett Kavanaugh of almost raping her than they know about our own PM's actual crimes. 

[Dougie93]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The MSM in Canada is so far left that they're officially a fringe group now.

pretty sure we're the fringe group now

the mainstream is far left, classical liberalism is now on the brink of being cancelled

[Nefarious Banana]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

More of a troll really.  Our institutional press is largely right-wing stalwarts.  Television is centrist and doesn't adopt an editorial position anyway.

If you ask these people what the bias is, it's always some trifling pablum.  

Meanwhile we have alt-left social media units dominant now, without any regulation or self-control.

Says you . . . . 

[myata]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Some years ago, the Government was involved in the customs scandal. The Minister of Customs was accused of being "protectionist by day and a free-trader by night." The case was a smuggling ring that included the Minister. The PM faced a vote of censure that was likely to pass. He went to the Governor General and asked for a dissolution, but the GG refused, asserting the PM had to take his lumps in the House. The PM resigned and the GG appointed a new PM. The new Government fell soon after and the GG called an election. The voters had the opportunity to decide the issue and they sided with the former PM. 

1. The police were able to investigate the Minister

2. The GG held the PM accountable.

3. The voters decided the issue.

1. Who was the PM / how many years ago was that?

2. The GG is not elected and appointed by PM. That sounds like pretty weak check in these new times.

3. Agree, if voters couldn't care about the accountability, it cannot and will not exist.

[myata]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

In order to hold the government to task the GG has to be a person of strength and confidence and a determination to embrace integrity. Romeo Leblanc was the last one before Johnson.

So now, in this century we're talking about 1) single person who will hold the government accountable and 2) appointed by PM themselves? What power of investigation do they have? What resources for investigation (compare e.g. with Muller's probe)? What competence, skills, experience etc?

If these are all democratic checks in a today's democracy, is it just naivite or already a problem?

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Some years ago, the Government was involved in the customs scandal. The Minister of Customs was accused of being "protectionist by day and a free-trader by night." The case was a smuggling ring that included the Minister. The PM faced a vote of censure that was likely to pass. He went to the Governor General and asked for a dissolution, but the GG refused, asserting the PM had to take his lumps in the House. The PM resigned and the GG appointed a new PM. The new Government fell soon after and the GG called an election. The voters had the opportunity to decide the issue and they sided with the former PM. 

1. The police were able to investigate the Minister

2. The GG held the PM accountable.

3. The voters decided the issue.

It is a good story, but you left me hanging like a kid getting his bed time story, and you saying we'll finish it in the morning. So did the minister of customs go to the courts, and what happened and was the PM involved in any way, if he was then he got away with it... thats not justice, it's politics..

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Don't forget that in the SNC controversy, the Crown Prosecutor's position was sustained and the Government's desire for a deferred prosecution was withdrawn. Former Minister Wilson-Raybould was re-elected.

We should ask Wilson- Raybould if she considers what happened to her a win... She was thrown out of her party, after holding one of the best portfolios in government, and now she sits alone with very little impact in government or her riding. All because she had morals, and would not play ball with Justin, and the liberals did they face any justice of any sorts, i mean other than a trip to the ethics commissioner. which is not justice, it's a pat on the bum, with maybe a whisper of bad boy. 

[Queenmandy85]

It was 1925. MacKenzie King was PM and Byng was the Governor General. King went on to be the longest serving PM in the Empire / Commonwealth.

The voters get the final say. In 1965, Prime Minister Pearson went to the polls after his government was involved in the furniture scandal, the Spenser affair, and the Rivard scandal all at once. The voters re-elected Mike Pearson. That is accountability.

[Queenmandy85]

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

We should ask Wilson- Raybould if she considers what happened to her a win... She was thrown out of her party, after holding one of the best portfolios in government, and now she sits alone with very little impact in government or her riding. All because she had morals, and would not play ball with Justin, and the liberals did they face any justice of any sorts, i mean other than a trip to the ethics commissioner. which is not justice, it's a pat on the bum, with maybe a whisper of bad boy. 

She did stop any notion of a deferred prosecution and she did get re-elected. My brother even joked about moving two blocks over just so he could vote for her, but then he went to school with her dad.

The voters punished Prime Minister Trudeau by preventing him from getting another majority. If the CPC had  been led by Ms. Ambrose, instead of any of the blockheads who ran for the leadership, he would have lost.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Queenmandy85