Canadian Framers

Michael Hardner · June 19, 2021

4 hours ago, myata said:

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.

The public sphere has had to change with the changes in media.

myata · June 19, 2021

14 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

So another era then. Is 60 years after Confederation same as 160? Television, radio and Internet, social networks. Only under the assumption that nothing changes, ever.

Not necessarily, indifference, disengagement, not understanding and appreciating the need for accountability and responsibility absence of reasonable options, any number of possibilities.

Queenmandy85 · June 19, 2021

7 hours ago, myata said:

So another era then. Is 60 years after Confederation same as 160? Television, radio and Internet, social networks. Only under the assumption that nothing changes, ever.

Not necessarily, indifference, disengagement, not understanding and appreciating the need for accountability and responsibility absence of reasonable options, any number of possibilities.

What kind of accountability are you looking for? You have the electorate and the Crown to hold the Government accountable.

Rex was hardly another era. He was PM in my lifetime.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Queenmandy85

myata · June 19, 2021

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What kind of accountability are you looking for? You have the electorate and the Crown to hold the Government accountable.

Rex was hardly another era. He was PM in my lifetime.

I mentioned possible situation earlier in the thread, very recently, neighboring country. Who could investigate such an issue if it were to arise and how it could be handled in a Constitutional and democratic way? I'm not claiming to know a lot about Canadian constitutional law just curious.

Even if an election is called, with very limited options it does not foster accountability, possibly just the opposite. Imagine an effective and charismatic PM who committed serious transgressions while the opposition is in disarray. Voters would have really difficult choice, overlook and condone questionable acts or elect ineffective government. This country's system seems to be full of possibilities of such conflicts and contradictions, to the point where one may start wondering, is it intentional.

Edited June 19, 2021 by myata

Queenmandy85 · June 20, 2021

23 minutes ago, myata said:

I mentioned possible situation earlier in the thread, very recently, neighboring country. Who could investigate such an issue if it were to arise and how it could be handled in a Constitutional and democratic way? I'm not claiming to know a lot about Canadian constitutional law just curious.

Even if an election is called, with very limited options it does not foster accountability, possibly just the opposite. Imagine an effective and charismatic PM who committed serious transgressions while the opposition is in disarray. Voters would have really difficult choice, overlook and condone questionable acts or elect ineffective government. This country's system seems to be full of possibilities of such conflicts and contradictions, to the point where one may start wondering, is it intentional.

Another recourse is the MP's. While the Members of Parliament usually support the leaders of their parties, there is nothing to prevent the government caucus to tell the Prime Minister to take a hike. If she violates accepted norms such as have been alleged in the case of President Trump, Canada has a mechanism to immediately withdraw confidence in the Prime Minister. I was active in the Progressive Conservative party from 1962 until the party was over thrown by Prison Manning's socialist credit. I remember what happened to Prime Minister John Diefenbaker when he refused to arm the Canadian Forces with nuclear weapons. Cabinet ministers Doug Harkness, Davie Fulton, George Hees and others voted with Mike Pearson in a Grit non-confidence motion. The PC caucus held the Prime Minister accountable for refusing to acquire nuclear weapons. The US has no such recourse aside from the 25th A. or impeachment. The 25th has never been used in that manner and IIRC, no President has ever been convicted in an impeachment process.

bush_cheney2004 · June 20, 2021

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

... The US has no such recourse aside from the 25th A. or impeachment. The 25th has never been used in that manner and IIRC, no President has ever been convicted in an impeachment process.

While technically true, it is generally accepted that President Nixon resigned in 1974 when faced with the overwhelming reality of impeachment & conviction because of Watergate. Also, a few Americans had another far more violent way of permanently removing presidents from office, and have done so.

Now back to Canada....

Moonlight Graham · June 20, 2021

The PM/cabinet/majority gov have some checks on their power if they went nuts, like the GG, the Senate, and the courts, and elections.

We have less checks/balances than the US that's for sure. We have to remember our system was an absolute monarchy where Parliament in the UK slowly chipped away at the Crown's power, somewhat the same in Canada, though we were chipping away at the UK Parliament's power over us. We never rejected the monarchy, we just patriated it and transferred many of its powers to the PM.

It's a totally different system of law than the US. We don't have civil law we have common law. Much of our constitutional isn't written anywhere. The Prime Minister and his role isn't mentioned anywhere in the written portions of our constitution.

Canada's constitution has no "framers", it wasn't written in a single year or a single lifetime, nor was much of it even written down.

Edited June 20, 2021 by Moonlight Graham

Queenmandy85 · June 20, 2021

The Monarchs of England were rarely absolute monarchies. The famous exchange between John Wilmott, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and King Charles II illustrates this.

"We have a pretty witty King

Who's words no man relies on.

He never said a foolish thing

and never did a wise one."

The King replied, " That's true, for my words are my own, but my actions are those of my ministers."

Trivia question: Who is Canada's longest serving monarch?

Edited June 20, 2021 by Queenmandy85

Michael Hardner · June 20, 2021

On 6/18/2021 at 8:01 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

Exactly. The failure of Scheer to get elected has nothing to do with the media.

They broke the story and the voters made their decision.

myata · June 20, 2021

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly. The failure of Scheer to get elected has nothing to do with the media.

That is a factual illustration of the earlier point about the conflict between accountability and good government (sic) in a system with exactly two possible options. It frames voter in a conflict, insist on accountability and get an inferior government, or just forget what happened (and in essence, encourage such behavior in the future). Right before our eyes there were two affairs, WE and SNC-Lavalin, the latter one with the appearances of interference with the justice system. It was not clear who formally investigated them (beyond some questioning, with little issue); was impartial investigation even possible, without full access to information; and it's clear already that there was no serious consequences for the government in either case.

Offering billions to a charity in a non-competitive bid that pays one's family expenses sounds already a bit third-worldish. Do we need to wait for it to actually happen to realize that there aren't effective means of preventing and investigating such events, only belated and ineffective reaction?

myata · June 20, 2021

Also, the recurring sendoff to the elections, the ultimate will of the people may not be genuine. An average person cannot make an informed decision without full information. To obtain full information one needs full and impartial, that is, non-partisan investigation. Is it even possible where information is not available, and questioning can be shut down at will of the same people being investigated?

These problems are working on the system degrading it slowly but certainly; if Public something czar played golf with a boss of a private company then went to talk to Attorney General, is still an innocent conversation for the benefit of "jobs" or an attempt to subvert justice? Where, at which point how would we even know, without effective mechanisms of oversight, prevention and investigation?

Army Guy · June 21, 2021

On 6/18/2021 at 9:01 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

She stopped nothing, she was replaced by another minister, and he could have reversed her decision, but the optics where bad for the liberals.

So what did it cost her, well it cost her job , her position within the liberal Government, her ability to work on any important political matters.

Yes she got reelected, and now she has a seat in the house to watch the grown ups conduct business. Since losing her position she may have spoken to the house on a few issues, The question i asked is this, do you think she has any influence within government to make any difference for her riding or any serious political matter.

As for punishing Justin for political interference in a major court case, he got a slap on the wrist, or nothing really... she lost almost everything. Justin on the other hand is still in power, with no real opposition to get rid of him, it looks like a win win for justin.

And yes i agree with you Ambrose would have been the one to crush Justin... But the party had something else in mind...

Queenmandy85 · June 21, 2021

That Prime Minister Trudeau was not totally defeated in 2019 is down to us. We did not work hard enough to nominate a leader of the CPC who could defeat the Liberals. Canadian politics is an intimate affair. we have the opportunity to get to know our political leaders and participate in the process. The way to defeat the grits is to get the best leader possible in the CPC. Then we get off our keyboards, nominate great candidates and get out knocking on doors for them and finally GET OUT THE VOTE.

This is our national sport. We do politics better than any other country. If you don't campaign, you can't complain.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Queenmandy85

myata · June 21, 2021

From outside of the political theater it can look quite different: a deep and prolonged yawn. Nothing ever changes so why bother? Funny that while US politics suffers from seemingly incurable divisions in the society, here we have a detachment problem of a different kind, political sphere is so high above common, daily life in this country that any meaningful communication between two parts soon wouldn't be possible - or already and for a while?

To look at it objectively: there are no effective mechanisms of checks on majority governments, prevention of inefficiencies (sponsorship, Phoenix), questionable behavior and abuse. We hope that if something big happens something would stop it somehow and in this age "something" is little short of a straw: appointed GG with no power of investigation; "media"; some MPs who may decide to go against their party or may not (SNC-Lavalin).

The problem is though that the big thing may not happen all at once, rather it's already happening in little pushes and slips and with a population that stopped caring about the theater, who can tell where the final destination will be?

Queenmandy85 · June 21, 2021

49 minutes ago, myata said:

Nothing ever changes so why bother?

What sort of change are you looking for? Government, no matter what the label, has only a narrow range of options on any issue, and must reflect the will of the population. People want the government to resolve the many issues with First Nation, until they do and then whoa there. The same with climate change. To save billions of lives 250 years from now, we need to take draconian steps now, but, while we all want the government to do something, if they do, we will punish them.

Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die to get there.

Queenmandy85 · June 21, 2021

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The question i asked is this, do you think she has any influence within government to make any difference for her riding or any serious political matter.

She did her duty. She did not lose her job. She was moved to another cabinet position, but she publicly expressed her disagreement with Cabinet and she had to step down. It was a noble gesture and follows precedent. She still has the same influence as any MP. She could easily get more influence by joining the CPC.

Of course, her gesture was only noble to those of us who are not one of the thousands of people who's jobs were at risk.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Queenmandy85

myata · June 21, 2021

20 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What sort of change are you looking for?

That was the topic of the thread: oversight, investigation, prevention and indictment of abuses, not a tap on the hand, like ethics report or inquiry two decades after. Why wasn't it possible to detect and investigate sponsorship abuses as they were happening? This is plainly dysfunctional, and we're seeing it unfolding yet again after so many examples that its not even boring just oh well what can you do it's just so, this time with sexual issues in RCMP and Army. The system cannot be efficient, and even when problems were found just could not change.

There is nothing functional that is working, or as a regular taxpayer I know nothing about it. So it's not going to get any better, just the logic of entropy.

Queenmandy85 · June 21, 2021

8 minutes ago, myata said:

sexual issues in RCMP and Army.

How do you do that unless you have total segregation between the genders in the Forces and the RCMP? They have been trying to deal with this crisis for over a decade without success.

How do you get the kind of oversight you are calling for without putting the country under a crushing burden of even more bureaucracy. Where ever you have billions of dollars being spent, you will attract pirates. To mitigate that, you need to protect the cash with red tape. Governments and taxpayers can only endure a certain level of red tape.

We need to ensure government can function efficiently. We have seen the need for this in the pandemic. In the aftermath, we will find money has been mis-spent, but had the governments at all levels not been able to react as rapidly as they did, many more lives would have been lost. Having a layer of bean-counters second guessing everything the governments did, we would have have a worse disaster on our hands.

myata · June 21, 2021

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you get the kind of oversight you are calling for without putting the country under a crushing burden of even more bureaucracy. Where ever you have billions of dollars being spent, you will attract pirates. To mitigate that, you need to protect the cash with red tape. Governments and taxpayers can only endure a certain level of red tape.

No, we already have an appearance of oversight in the form of ombudsfolk appointed by the same majority government etc. Looks like at some point (Radwanski) they themselves may need a second layer of oversight and so on. This is how the bureaucracy thinks and works.

An essential part of building a democracy is creating functional democratic institutions. Just copy-paste what others have and go may work only for a while, as many third-world examples demonstrate. Now, almost two centuries on, what kind of institutions can be created and essentially changed, to allow readjustment of function, from imitating independence to proactive and effective independence? We can talk all we like but is it or any essential change even possible in reality? I'm not sure. It may well be too late, just sail blindly and one way and hope for a decent destination.

It could be a problem though in case of a major systemic crisis. With Covid the bureaucracy clearly showed that it's not up to handle serious challenges (with a two decade warning, possibly more than any other country) and we don't have i.e. haven't created any other options.

Edited June 21, 2021 by myata

Michael Hardner · June 21, 2021

12 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Now, almost two centuries on, what kind of institutions can be created and essentially changed, to allow readjustment of function, from imitating independence to proactive and effective independence?

2. We can talk all we like but is it or any essential change even possible in reality? I'm not sure. It may well be too late, just sail blindly and one way and hope for a decent destination.

3. It could be a problem though in case of a major systemic crisis. With Covid the bureaucracy clearly showed that it's not up to handle serious challenges (with a two decade warning, possibly more than any other country) and we don't have i.e. haven't created any other options.

1. You can look at what worked in the past and try to recreate it, rather than building layers of oversight everywhere. The people who design the system can't be counted on to come up with the answers because:

1) They are not visionaries, not imaginative, and weren't elected because they have Gates/Bezos/Zuckerberg/Jobs ideas about how to improve communication. They are usually lawyers, or just part of the family compact

2) Such functions would, to them, allow openness and be far more difficult for them to manage. They would have to respond to the people directly, which is difficult

2. Large culture change can happen quickly, and in this case it will. Government's feedback loops are built on media, and slow to change. Direct and timely response through social media is the new way. Donald Trump knew this.

3. I'm torn on this one. For one thing, the problem was massive whether or not it was "foreseen" or not. For another, our leaders weren't the right people to fix the problems. However, if you compare Canada to other countries we did ok.

If you are serious about accountability, then try to imagine how the Canadian people would participate in a full post-mortem on our response. Here's something you would need to understand: IT WOULD BE BORING. Only people with the right sense of duty and mental sensibility would end up participating, so any postmortem would have to factor that in.

Interesting ideas, here, and I don't disagree with you folks.

Dougie93 · June 21, 2021

Canada is not a republic, Canada is not even a country

former de jure British colony, now de facto American protectorate

Canada has no foreign policy of its own, and domestically the Confederation is dysfunctional to the point of moribund

so the people here just get on with their lives in the provinces which deliver all their relevant services

Canadians are aware, either consciously or subconsciously, that the Confederation is a fool's errand

there is no point in having sense of duty & participation in a governance so utterly devoid of meaning

the key is to do business with Americans, to make enough money to afford to live, then retire to Florida

there's your post mortem, moving on

myata · June 21, 2021

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you are serious about accountability, then try to imagine how the Canadian people would participate in a full post-mortem on our response. Here's something you would need to understand: IT WOULD BE BORING. Only people with the right sense of duty and mental sensibility would end up participating, so any postmortem would have to factor that in.

Mostly, because from the start the system was not built by the citizens for the citizens but from the top down. Now, decades on, it is becoming clear that there is neither the will nor the mechanisms for any significant change. It wasn't made to change and adapt from the start and never tried it in earnest. For regular folk there's no point in participating because everyone knows that it'll end up in talk and nothing will change (election reform, but hurray! we have cannabis). This is a serious problem and not hard to predict that it'll lead to more serious ones. To who for example, you compare when saying "OK"? To peer countries, like Norway, Finland, Australia, Sweden? How meaningful is comparing Ontario to Germany or California? And each time "OK" will be a little further from "the best" and a little bit closer to "third world". And that's one-way progression because there's no mechanisms to turn it around.

Edited June 21, 2021 by myata

Dougie93 · June 21, 2021

in this globalized world there is no need to think of yourself as tethered to Canada anymore

I can tell you that wealthy successful people do not cling to that

Canada is just a tax jurisdiction

you do the math, is Ontario still worth paying taxes to ?

if so, carry on

if not, move to Florida

problem solved

myata · June 21, 2021

And these considerations however looked upon cannot be ignored. Canada used to mean expensive government, high taxes good healthcare, a chance to have nice own place, good social net. Now own place goes out the window, healthcare is better in the US and Europe, raising costs of aging population and outrageously expensive bureaucracy must be paid up but how and by who? There's little innovation in continuous education, worldwide competition in information economy is fierce and the cost of public services goes up by the day no matter what happening in the real economy. Will the best still choose Canada or other jurisdictions? Will massive immigration with the hope they'll find good jobs and there will be enough taxes for everything work or be a Ponzi scheme that will be unsustainable; or add more strain on already stressed system?

Again there's no way to plan and predict we haven't created any tools for that so can only wait and find out.