Are Canada's democratic institutions adequate for this century?

[myata]

Some of these questions were raised earlier, just overheard on the local radio another unbelievable episode. The Senate hearing" on the national debt.

A senator (former financial auditor, chartered accountant): please give me this number on the government issued bonds.

Government official (federal): no, I don't have the number. Sorry. Question closed.

Nobody, the senator, radio host and the commentator had a grain of belief that they wouldn't have the number. Such gross levels of professional incompetence aren't even imaginable. What was the point of this quasi-hearing if we, citizens who supposedly own the whole thing are paying for it cannot know what needs to be known?

So the question has to be stated differently: Why? Why would anyone buy a glass hammer, and for an outrageous annual price?

Why would anyone (sane) buy for their own $$ a useless circus show that cannot give any meaningful answers?

Just south, its a criminal offense to mislead a Congress hearing. Those are the real, genuine hearings. And what was that? Why do we need this sad and useless parody?

It's not limited to the Senate of course. Can RCMP investigate ministers including PM? Heavens (maybe) know.

Can courts suspend government policies that go against the law? In about a decade (maybe).

How does democracy work here? Does it even work? How can it work, in this century, without functional, working independent mechanisms of transparency and accountability?

[Michael Hardner]

This is possibly the most important question facing democracy right now. I'd like to look at the example A Little closer.

 

Did you see you were listening to a senate hearing on finance on local radio? Maybe I can start by asking which hearing and which radio station?

[myata]

It can be related to this story, but I cannot find direct matches on the Senate site, guess it's not important government working and something is happening. My question is somewhat different: in the dilemma, does government work for the citizens, or citizens are for the government to rule there can be no uncertainties or compromises. And if the parliament (supposedly) representative of citizens cannot get answers to reasonable questions from the government, which one it would be?

This is a critical point on which democracy itself hinges: if the government can simply say "no", without any consequences or sanctions, to representatives of citizens this cannot be a democracy. No way. No toy rituals and pretty paintings can change this factual conclusion.

I turn the radio on randomly not sure with station it was possibly CFRA, today (10.10) morning broadcast.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

1. does government work for the citizens, or citizens are for the government to rule 

2. This is a critical point on which democracy itself hinges: if the government can simply say "no", without any consequences or sanctions, to representatives of citizens this cannot be a democracy. 

3. I turn the radio on randomly not sure with station it was possibly CFRA, today (10.10) morning broadcast.

1. Well, do you want to have a detailed examination of what the problem is ?  Loaded questions might be a starting point but let's get to the details.
2. They have lots of ways of saying 'no' including 'I don't have the numbers right now'.  If nobody cares then we get what we paid for.  What is the answer?
3. Ok - weird that such a wonky thing would be on AM but who knows...

[myata]

This is hardly a question, loaded or not rather a standard and entrenched practice, that comes down to: I, the government don't have to answer (meaningfully and honestly) any of your (citizens, the society) questions. When it comes to this condition, and level it's no democracy any longer. Aristocracy? Elite? Monarchy? Your call but a democratic government cannot speak to representatives of the citizens in this way.

We have pseudo-inquiries that can be shut down at any time before giving full answers;

We have the circus period that is well, a circus and what else?

And then, we have this.

Why are we doing this? Why paying for a silly show? Why pay to a senator who knows they won't get a meaningful answer? And why pay to the bureaucrat for saying "I cannot answer"?

I have difficulty locating the subject after the fact. It was a discussion in the Senate, of the interest on the national debt and an exchange of a senator (from Maritimes I believe) with a Ministry of Finance official was quoted.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, myata said:

1. This is hardly a question, loaded or not rather a standard and entrenched practice, that comes down to: I, the government don't have to answer (meaningfully and honestly) any of your (citizens, the society) questions. When it comes to this condition, and level it's no democracy any longer. Aristocracy? Elite? Monarchy? Your call but a democratic government cannot speak to representatives of the citizens in this way.

We have pseudo-inquiries that can be shut down at any time before giving full answers;

We have the circus period that is well, a circus and what else?

And then, we have this.

Why are we doing this? Why paying for a silly show? Why pay to a senator who knows they won't get a meaningful answer? And why pay to the bureaucrat for saying "I cannot answer"?

I have difficulty locating the subject after the fact. It was a discussion in the Senate, of the interest on the national debt and an exchange of a senator (from Maritimes I believe) with a Ministry of Finance official was quoted.

1. Ok, well obviously this is the case.
 
Is the discussion about whether or not this is a problem ?  If so then the answer is 'yes' and we are done here.

[myata]

Why having, and paying a lot for a tool that cannot work, and has no intent of working, in principle? Why have these quasi-questionings where nobody has to answer any questions; does not expect meaningful answers and doesn't get the point of the whole thing except as a dumb, useless pantomime show?

This goes beyond traditional sleepiness and complacency; it borders right on insanity.

Edited October 10, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, myata said:

Why having, and paying a lot for a tool that cannot work, and has no intent of working, in principle? Why have these quasi-questionings where nobody has to answer any questions; does not expect meaningful answers and doesn't get the point of the whole thing except as a dumb, useless pantomime show?

This goes beyond traditional sleepiness and complacency; it borders right on insanity.

QP is archaic and the entire process isn't responsive or efficient.

Best way to fix something to replace something so complex is to build a better system alongside and wait for the 1st system to collapse as people move to the 2nd one.

It can't really be done in an orderly way, IMO.  

[myata]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It can't really be done in an orderly way, IMO.  

Indeed that seems to be human nature, magnified multi-fold in sleepy Canada. If it worked two centuries back why shouldn't it work today, in the world of 21st century? If there's a slightest chance that it could squeeze, anyhow coughing and screeching another decade or two why not take it? I'm afraid that the only stimulus to do anything real would be now for the things to get much, much worse.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Indeed that seems to be human nature, magnified multi-fold in sleepy Canada. If it worked two centuries back why shouldn't it work today, in the world of 21st century? If there's a slightest chance that it could squeeze, anyhow coughing and screeching another decade or two why not take it? I'm afraid that the only stimulus to do anything real would be now for the things to get much, much worse.

If things got significantly worse, we would be in a situation close to social breakdown.

We're at the point where a growing minority of Canadians, working canadians, are unable to make ends meet.

 

[myata]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're at the point where a growing minority of Canadians, working canadians, are unable to make ends meet.

Funny, on the same radio that I'd turn on randomly, a few days back some professor was utterly convincing that there isn't any serious problems with the inflation and "in comparison" Canada is doing just fine. Guess it looks different from different ends of the stick. They just didn't notice (couldn't? or couldn't care?).

Look Joe, and why don't you just get the brioches?

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, myata said:

Funny, on the same radio that I'd turn on randomly, a few days back some professor was utterly convincing that there isn't any serious problems with the inflation and "in comparison" Canada is doing just fine. Guess it looks different from different ends of the stick. They just didn't notice (couldn't? or couldn't care?).

Look Joe, and why don't you just get the brioches?

Seriousness is subjective.  If I were a professor I wouldn't worry about myself...

Any economics professor worth their salt might have noticed that we had the two worst quarters of wealth Gap in the last year.

This could just be a bad professor.