Let us consider how the Canadian system of government is supposed to operate, and has operated at least from time to time in our history. We elect members of the House of Commons to represent us and make decisions on our behalf, albeit acting with the confines of the political parties to which almost all elected members belong. The Prime Minister and other leading members of the winning party (who comprise the Cabinet) establish priorities, adopt policies, and propose legislative initiatives. They do so on the basis of extensive consultation, especially with the elected members of their own party, and after receiving research, reports, and recommendations from the experts in the civil service. Cabinet Ministers introduce legislation in Parliament expecting the opposition parties to suggest changes and amendments. There is an assumption that the opposition parties at least occasionally have worthwhile suggestions and some of these get incorporated into the legislation as it is being passed. While debate is partisan, there is often an underlying base of civility and mutual respect.
The Current Sorry State of Canadian Democracy
In marked contrast to that admittedly somewhat idealized summary, Canadian democracy increasingly exists in name only. Members of Parliament are now subject to such tight party discipline that there is little they can do to represent and advance the concerns of their constituents. Members of the governing party are kept on a particularly tight rein and, indeed, the appointed staff in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) largely dictate which Conservatives member speak, when, and what they will say. While power has been shifting to the executive branch for many decades, it is now almost totally concentrated in the position of Prime Minister, and the staff in the PMO. There is little to suggest extensive consultation before government decisions are made, nor is the expertise of the civil service taken into account if the views being offered are contrary to the approach that the government has decided to take. Indeed, it is widely documented that scientific evidence from the civil service, in particular, is especially unwelcome – with scientists being handed talking points by staff in the PMO even when they are speaking about their own published research papers.
The current government has little patience for the niceties of parliamentary debate. Closure motions (to limit debate on a bill or stage of a bill) were once used very sparingly and were quite controversial. They were normally seen as a weapon of last resort, to be used when opposition parties were using delaying tactics to hold up indefinitely the passage of a bill. Under the current government, closure motions have become routine, and are often tabled when a bill is introduced. Before discussion has even begun, before we can know whether the opposition has legitimate concerns or worthwhile suggestions, the government preemptively dictates when the debate will end.
Parliament’s role in law-making is also undermined by the increasing use of omnibus bills, containing changes to a large number of different pieces of legislation. Such bills were traditionally introduced following a budget and they served to bring together legislative changes arising from that budget. Not only have they grown in size in recent years (to several hundred pages) but also they now contain changes to laws not related to a budget or to each other. Substantial changes to Canada’s environmental laws, for example, were made a few years ago as part of a so-called omnibus budget bill. An even better (worse) example is found in the 2015 omnibus budget bill. As has been extensively reported in the media, tucked away in this bill is a breathtakingly brazen retroactive law designed to ensure that the RCMP’s actions in destroying records from the long gun registry in 2012 – in apparent contravention of the Information Act – can be validated after the fact.
These examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that within the trappings of our former parliamentary democracy we now function as a prime ministerial dictatorship between elections. Only the actions of the Supreme Court, in upholding the Canadian constitution, have prevented worse and further abuses.
Why this happened (and what can be done about it?)
The short answer is that we, the Canadian people, allowed this to happen, allowed our democracy to be eroded, at an accelerating rate over the past decade. We did so for a variety of reasons. Many Canadians have tuned out and turned off, have given up on our political process. This appears to be especially the case with younger Canadians, many of whom do care deeply about issues but opt to engage through other means such as social media. Many others are still somewhat connected but increasingly disillusioned. We hear frequent references to “they’re all the same,” they’re only it in for the money,” and “my vote doesn’t make any difference.” Still others are somewhat connected but have allowed themselves to be narrowly defined as taxpayers. They are primarily interested in whether the taxes they pay seem to be a good exchange in terms of the programs, services, and benefits they receive in return. Beyond that, they have little interest in the broader issues that might concern a citizen actively exercising democratic rights and responsibilities. In addition, there are presumably a substantial number of Canadians who are connected and reasonably content, because they support the governing party and the policies it is pursuing. But even this group should be equally concerned about democratic practices. Sooner or later, another party will replace the current governing party and they will be dismayed if it emulates the Conservatives and rides roughshod over Parliament in pursuit of its agenda.
What to look for in the upcoming election
Just as we – the Canadian people – have allowed the erosion of Canadian democracy, only we can reverse this trend. The upcoming federal election provides us with an opportunity to do so, if we will seize it. We need to look beyond comparing the political parties on the basis of which one offers promises that will benefit us the most personally. We need to resist the message of those who tell us why we should be afraid or who to blame for things we fear or dislike. Instead, we need to make it clear that a party seeking our support needs to convince us of its commitment to upholding our democratic principles and practices. We are going to have to do this sooner or later if we are to reclaim our democracy. Further delays will only lead to further erosion. Let us make the upcoming election a fight to revive Canadian democracy.