[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Oexmelin]

Parliamentary democracy functions by the most able to become leaders of the party and therefore PM.  The individual members just follow the party line.  If there is not good leadership at the top and no good alternatives waiting to replace a poor leader, then we are in a bit of a mess.

That being said, I think the trend towards Presidentialism, and the exaltation of the executive to the detriment of the legislative, is something we see everywhere, including in France and the US. It stems partly, I believe, from the prevalence of media, and partly from corporate culture. When you needed reliable intermediaries to deliver message (and for them to deliver votes), MPs and representatives had a lot more power and influence. Now, these powerful intermediaries are rather the personnel around the PM or the President. Corporate culture, meanwhile, celebrates leadership and executive decision (as opposed to deliberative and even oppositionnal culture). 

[crazy canuck]

Parliamentary democracy functions by the most able to become leaders of the party and therefore PM.  The individual members just follow the party line.  If there is not good leadership at the top and no good alternatives waiting to replace a poor leader, then we are in a bit of a mess.

That being said, I think the trend towards Presidentialism, and the exaltation of the executive to the detriment of the legislative, is something we see everywhere, including in France and the US. It stems partly, I believe, from the prevalence of media, and partly from corporate culture. When you needed reliable intermediaries to deliver message (and for them to deliver votes), MPs and representatives had a lot more power and influence. Now, these powerful intermediaries are rather the personnel around the PM or the President. Corporate culture, meanwhile, celebrates leadership and executive decision (as opposed to deliberative and even oppositionnal culture).

I think that is a very good point.  In the Canadian context Pierre Trudeau was the first leader to effectively by-pass Parliament and appeal to the electorate directly through a willing media.  With the advent of 24 news channels hungry for content the legislative branch is further diminished.  But at least the US has the benefit of a constitutional separation between the executive and legislative.  In our Parliamentary system, so long as there is a majority government) the separation is completely illusory.

I am not sure of any answers, as GF accurately noted, this is just me crying out in frustration.

[crazy canuck]

@BB,  It was only a few months ago that the Cons tried on an attack against the media for size.  Not sure why you are so certain they will change.

Conservatives are attacking the tax breaks for the media as a bribe to obtain favourable media coverage during the election   

They need to fire the dimwits who think Trumpist tactics of attacking the press will work here.  I posted a link to a Coyne piece a few weeks ago in which he said the Conservatives had already made that move - but apparently the Cons have had second thoughts.

I wonder if this is an indication of how worried they are that a weak NDP make it likely that all those votes will go Liberal.

[Barrister]

How is attacking tax breaks for media companies an attack on the media itself?

[crazy canuck]

How is attacking tax breaks for media companies an attack on the media itself?

The Conservatives suggested that the media can be bought by tax breaks in return for favourable election coverage.


do you still think that was "attacking a tax break".

[Barrister]

How is attacking tax breaks for media companies an attack on the media itself?

The Conservatives suggested that the media can be bought by tax breaks in return for favourable election coverage.


do you still think that was "attacking a tax break".

Yes.  It's not "fake news" style attacks.

[crazy canuck]

How is attacking tax breaks for media companies an attack on the media itself?

The Conservatives suggested that the media can be bought by tax breaks in return for favourable election coverage.


do you still think that was "attacking a tax break".

Yes.  It's not "fake news" style attacks.

Only because the actual words "fake news' were not used.  The clear implication is that the election coverage will be biased because the media have been bought.

[Grey Fox]

Conservative it is!

How high is the PPC polling in your riding?

Using the 2011 results the Conservatives should get 58% of the vote.

I meant Bernier's party.

[Josephus]

I don't quite agree with CC's original argument that the American system is somehow better than ours. American democracy is broken right now and has been for several years, including Obama's last term. If they have so many leader choices why did they end up with Trump and Clinton?
We do have a good leader choosing system here with conventions. Yes, that doesn't mean they always pick the best leader--I agree the NDP really fucked up-- but I still think our parliamentary system is better than what they have in the US

[crazy canuck]

I don't quite agree with CC's original argument that the American system is somehow better than ours. American democracy is broken right now and has been for several years, including Obama's last term. If they have so many leader choices why did they end up with Trump and Clinton?
We do have a good leader choosing system here with conventions. Yes, that doesn't mean they always pick the best leader--I agree the NDP really fucked up-- but I still think our parliamentary system is better than what they have in the US

If it is operating as intended the Parliamentary system is far superior to the American system - so on that we agree.  The point I was perhaps inelegantly making is that our system depends on able people making it to the top of the party system and, perhaps more importantly, that there are able people ready to take over if the leadership falters.   It is one of the reasons, I had thought, a Trump scenario could never occur in a Parliamentary system.  There would simply be too much incentive for a better stronger leader to remove a leader like Trump (for those not familiar with Parliamentary procedure the person who takes over from a PM becomes the PM - no need of an election).  Imagine how quickly Trump would fall if a more able Republican could challenge him and with the support of the party, become President without the need of waiting until 2020.

But what happens when there are no able people either in leadership or in the wings - It seems to be an issue for both Labour and the Conservatives in Britain.  Certainly an issue for the NDP currently (although I do think they have able people and I am a bit mystified why they did not want the leader's role); Scheer appears to be Harper lite - but BB thinks he might surprise and be at least as good a leader as Harper; and the LIberals - normally the party with some intellectual heft - but where is it?

[Barrister]

Reports that the PMO pressured former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould to tell PPSC prosecutors to drop or otherwise resolve charges against SNC Lavelin, and when Wilson-Raybould refused, she was shuffled out of the position.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-snc-lavalin-fraud-corruption-1.5009578

Wilson-Raybould, you might remember, gave a very strange statement at the time of the cabinet shuffle where she said the Justice Minister must be willing to "speak truth to power".  It seems clear this is what she was talking about.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-justice-veterans-1.4977782

Although I don't think it will happen, this is the kind of thing that by all rights should have Trudeau resign.  You can not have political interference in prosecutions, specially when it's motivated by very large political donations.

[crazy canuck]

The reason why she was shuffled is much more mundane.  She had a terrible record of appointing section 96 judges.  All the provinces have been complaining about the number of vacant judicial positions while fully vetted and approved candidates remained unappointed.  Also you can get a hint of what was happening behind the scenes regarding her directions about how to handle litigation involving First Nations when she released this on her way out.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ijr-dja/dclip-dlcpa/litigation-litiges.html

The bottom line of those directions - do not vigorously purse available defences.  This is in keeping with her public pronouncements about the recognition of aboriginal title which did not accord with the law (ie went well beyond the established legal principles). To be clear it is appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to take a position that provides benefits beyond the legal requirements of the law - that is a political decision.  But i think it was that political issue that got her removed.

And based on her public statement upon being removed, I suspect she is still not very happy about it.

[Barrister]

The reason why she was shuffled is much more mundane.  She had a terrible record of appointing section 96 judges.  All the provinces have been complaining about the number of vacant judicial positions while fully vetted and approved candidates remained unappointed.  Also you can get a hint of what was happening behind the scenes regarding her directions about how to handle litigation involving First Nations when she released this on her way out.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ijr-dja/dclip-dlcpa/litigation-litiges.html

The bottom line of those directions - do not vigorously purse available defences.  This is in keeping with her public pronouncements about the recognition of aboriginal title which did not accord with the law (ie went well beyond the established legal principles). To be clear it is appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to take a position that provides benefits beyond the legal requirements of the law - that is a political decision.  But i think it was that political issue that got her removed.

And based on her public statement upon being removed, I suspect she is still not very happy about it.

Yes, that is how the Liberals are going to spin it - that she just wasn't a very good minister, was demoted as a result, is disgruntled about that, and is making up stories to get back at Trudeau.

But that very clearly is not Wilson-Raybould's version of events.

I hope and trust there is at least an independent investigation.  Because let's be clear - what Wilson-Raybould alleges is not just improper, but a crime.

[Barrister]

So Trudeau's response:

"The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false," Trudeau told reporters during a news conference Thursday morning.

"Neither the current nor the previous attorney general was ever directed by me, or by anyone in my office, to take a decision in this matter."

But of course Wilson-Raybould isn't saying she was directed to take a decision.  Because even Trudeau (who isn't a lawyer) would know you can't make that order.  Instead you suggest, you encourage, you apply pressure.  And when that doesn't work, you demote someone and ask do the same to the next person in the job.

[crazy canuck]

The reason why she was shuffled is much more mundane.  She had a terrible record of appointing section 96 judges.  All the provinces have been complaining about the number of vacant judicial positions while fully vetted and approved candidates remained unappointed.  Also you can get a hint of what was happening behind the scenes regarding her directions about how to handle litigation involving First Nations when she released this on her way out.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ijr-dja/dclip-dlcpa/litigation-litiges.html

The bottom line of those directions - do not vigorously purse available defences.  This is in keeping with her public pronouncements about the recognition of aboriginal title which did not accord with the law (ie went well beyond the established legal principles). To be clear it is appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to take a position that provides benefits beyond the legal requirements of the law - that is a political decision.  But i think it was that political issue that got her removed.

And based on her public statement upon being removed, I suspect she is still not very happy about it.

Yes, that is how the Liberals are going to spin it - that she just wasn't a very good minister, was demoted as a result, is disgruntled about that, and is making up stories to get back at Trudeau.

But that very clearly is not Wilson-Raybould's version of events.

I hope and trust there is at least an independent investigation.  Because let's be clear - what Wilson-Raybould alleges is not just improper, but a crime.

Spin?  you are the one making the claim that the political interference occurred and therefore Trudeau should resign.