Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores independent administrative bodies, and their place in Canada’s political, constitutional and legal landscape. While these adjudicative, regulatory and accountability bodies have come to play an integral role in the lives of every Canadian, we tend to pay attention to them only when there is a problem or a headline grabbing incident. Allegations of political interference with Elections Canada, the Canadian Military Complaints Commission and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by the Federal government have brought the puzzle of independence of these bodies into stark relief.The article treats each of these incidents as cautionary tales. These cautionary tales are part of a broader puzzle. All administrative bodies are, by definition, dependent for their existence on their legislative mandate. Further, these bodies are not free to adopt the mandate they believe is most appropriate, but must discharge the responsibilities provided to them. These bodies do not choose the people best able to carry out this mandate; rather, the executive controls appointments. Notwithstanding the significant ways in which these administrative bodies are dependent on government, however, they are nonetheless routinely declared by courts to be independent, and protected from political interference by common law procedural doctrines modeled after the constitutional principle of judicial independence.The recent confrontations show that there is little to compel Canadian governments to respect the independence of administrative agencies if they do not want to. They reveal the hard but important truth about independence in administrative decision-making: while the rule of law and principles of fairness and impartiality may require independence, only political leadership can sustain it. Political leadership created independent agencies in order to ensure that important areas of the public interest (such as governing fair and free elections, regulating nuclear power and overseeing military police activities) are served by people and institutions that are not caught up in partisan politics. Only political leadership can ultimately safeguard the independence of administrative bodies, so that they are free to pursue the public interest without partisan interference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".