actually, i think this is the most humane approach possible.

one way or another, you have to remove these kids from the influence of their family.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/syria-isis-belgium-mothers-children-repatriate-samima-begum-a8801381.html

in the united states, you have independent bodies that create a systems of checks and balances on each other.

we don't have that in canada.

rather, we have a cabinet that works to reach consensus, and then acts in solidarity with itself.

Annex D  Cabinet Decision Making

The Cabinet is the political forum where Ministers reach a consensus and decide on issues. It is the setting in which they bring political and strategic considerations to bear on proposed ministerial and governmental actions. These considerations must necessarily reflect the views and concerns expressed by Canadians, caucus colleagues and other parliamentarians. Once a consensus is reached, Ministers can fulfill their collective responsibility to Parliament. This Annex addresses the main elements of the organization and conduct of decision making in the Cabinet.

D.1.  Basic Rules for Cabinet Business

A number of basic ground rules for the conduct of Cabinet business are essential to maintain Cabinet solidarity and enhance its practical effectiveness.

Decision making is led by the Prime Minister. Through the Cabinet and its committees, the Prime Minister provides Ministers with the principal forum in which they can resolve different perspectives. The Prime Minister organizes Cabinet and Cabinet committee decision making, determines the agenda for Cabinet business and chooses committee chairpersons to act on his or her behalf. The Privy Council Office is the Cabinet’s secretariat and administers the Cabinet decision-making process on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Cabinet government works through a process of compromise and consensus building, which culminates in a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet and Cabinet committees do not vote on issues before them. Rather, the Prime Minister (or committee chairperson) “calls” for the consensus after Ministers have expressed their views. As the Cabinet secretariat, the Privy Council Office records and communicates the decision.

Consultation among the Ministers, departments and portfolios involved must precede the submission of a proposal to the Cabinet by the responsible Minister or Ministers. Ministers must also consult caucus at an early opportunity on policy and expenditure proposals. Ministerial discussions in the Cabinet or Cabinet committee focus on the decisions required and provide Ministers with an opportunity to participate in and influence those decisions.

Ministers have the right to seek their colleagues’ consideration of proposals for government action in their area of responsibility. This is, of course, subject to the agenda set by the Prime Minister for government priorities. Cabinet committee agendas are set by the committee chairpersons acting on the Prime Minister’s behalf.

Confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, more commonly referred to as “Cabinet confidences,” must be appropriately safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure or other compromise. The Cabinet’s collective decision-making process has traditionally been protected by the rule of confidentiality, which enhances Cabinet solidarity and collective ministerial responsibility. Confidentiality ensures that Ministers can frankly express their views before a final decision is made. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to announce policies only after Cabinet decisions are taken, in consultation with the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office.

Cabinet business is extensive, and Cabinet consensus at times is difficult to achieve. Given the limited time available to Ministers and the importance of clear decisions to government operations, Cabinet business must be conducted efficiently and according to accepted ground rules that are fully understood and respected. Cabinet discussion is not used to air introductory or preliminary discussions of issues. Deputy ministers are expected to ensure that other affected departments are adequately informed in advance and that coordination across portfolios is pursued, so that other Ministers are prepared for Cabinet discussion and government decisions are coherent and aligned with overall objectives. When departments directly involved differ on a matter, the dispute should not be referred to the Cabinet until all other means of resolving it have been exhausted.

https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/27/open-and-accountable-government#Cabinet_Decision_Making

i'm going to double down on the idea that the problem here is that the pmo doesn't seem to really understand our own system of government - and that, again, it seems to be viewing itself through some kind of american prism.

so, the pm is saying things like "the decision was solely up to the minister." - and that's actually wrong. maybe it's the way things are in the united states, but not in canada.

this isn't exactly an academic source, but it's not a controversial point, either:

Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the policies developed by the Cabinet are implemented in the departments.
(https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/ParliamentaryFramework/c_d_executivebranchgovernmentcanada-e.htm)

that's what a minister does in canada. it's not an elected office, and it's not expected to act independently of the cabinet; what it's supposed to do, rather, is carry forward with decisions that are made, collectively, at the cabinet table.

what that means is that the cabinet actually had every right to tell the minister what to do here, if it was determined to be a matter of government policy, which i believe it clearly was - they passed a law specifically for this purpose, and had the clear policy objective of preventing economic harm.

so, i don't know where this discourse is even coming from - it's not in the canadian legal tradition to argue that the attorney-general is independent of the pmo.

moral posteuring and ethical signalling aside, what is clear at this point is that trudeau is running a weak pmo, and that his weakness could very well take him down from the inside.

this woman is still in caucus.

that's outrageous.

if the liberals made an error here, it's that they weren't firm enough - they should have turfed her right out of caucus, immediately, due to gross dereliction of duty.

i know the tory media is going to howl that the pm acted unethically, but i hardly think most people are going to walk down that path when presented with the evidence. there's no question that the liberals have managed this terribly, and in the process turned a non-issue into a headline. they should have acted decisively and firmly changed the channel; as it is, they let it fester and erupt. as it is now? let them have the investigation. it doesn't look like anything happened.

these people around trudeau - butts, telford, etc - have minimal legal training.

the actual problem here seems to be that they didn't seem to know what they were doing.

generally speaking, when you refuse to listen to your boss, you get fired.

i mean, my takeaway from reading the summary of the testimony is that her demotion was justified on the grounds of not upholding the interests of the government, which is what she is there to do. she's not elected as attorney-general; she works for the prime minister, at the prime minister's discretion. and, if she doesn't want to do her job, that's grounds for dismissal.

her claim that these discussions were inappropriate is actually completely wrong, in my view.

and, it's not clear why she would insist on not listening to her boss in a trivial case like this.

this is how the system works.

*shrug*.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-testifies-justice-committee-1.5035219