By Jim Mason

It is increasingly obvious that Canada’s federal institutions are failing Canadians. Recent events underline a growing institutional dysfunction that requires major reform.

This year alone, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked the Governor General – a Trudeau appointee – to prorogue Parliament for no reason other than to more easily facilitate a Liberal leadership transition. Soon after, new Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government delayed the federal budget, the single most important piece of legislation any democratic government needs to produce – again out of pure political calculation. Then a non-confidence motion was decided on a voice vote, an egregious abuse of Parliamentary convention. These are just three examples that underscore deep systemic flaws.

Our political institutions were originally designed for a vastly different era. In 1867, Canada had just 3.4 million people in four provinces, travel was mainly by horse-and-buggy, and communication via handwritten letter. Yet today, over 40 million Canadians across ten provinces and three territories still rely on essentially the same governmental institutions Canada got at its founding. Doesn’t it seem likely that this structure is no longer optimized for a diverse, modern, technologically advanced nation?

The problems begin at the top. The Governor General, meant to be an impartial representative of the Crown – our head of state – has become little more than a figurehead, appointed by the Prime Minister and often used to send political messages. While retaining some constitutional authority, the Governor General’s role has been effectively neutered by convention and partisan politics.

The Senate, intended to provide “sober second thought” and, more importantly, regional representation, has become a hodgepodge of entrenched ideological actors appointed solely at the Prime Minister’s discretion.

The House of Commons, Canada’s primary legislative body, has so many caveats, exceptions and special provisions determining its makeup that a core feature – representation by population – has long since been lost. And its outdated quorum rules permit laws to pass with merely 20 MPs present, meaning just 3 percent of the current 343-member House can push a bill through.

More troubling is the unprecedented power wielded by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The PMO rose to prominence under Pierre Trudeau in the late 1960s. It is staffed mainly by political appointees rather than career civil servants, and is accountable solely to the Prime Minister. This opaque institution virtually dictates policy, controls appointments, disciplines Cabinet and caucus members, and effectively operates as Canada’s de facto executive – without any democratic accountability. It has even been described as more powerful as a governing institution than the U.S. White House. Yet remarkably, the PMO lacks any constitutional legitimacy or statutory basis.

Canada’s judiciary is similarly compromised, with federal and Supreme Court judges appointed by the Prime Minister, risking ideological bias and intellectual stagnation. Rather than strictly interpreting the law, the judicial branch increasingly uses its decisions to shape, advance and even create policies that governments must follow, undermining democratic accountability and separation of powers.

To address these serious deficiencies, Canada should overhaul its federal institutions, drawing from the strengths of the original British North America Act to keep what is still working while redesigning what isn’t in order to adapt to contemporary realities. How could that be done?

Disentangle the current integration of the legislative and executive branches, thereby restoring the lapsed checks and balances built into Canada’s original Constitution, providing proper focus for each branch and enabling clear accountability of function.

Reconfigure the Senate to truly reflect Canada’s regional nature, with 10 Senators from each province and two from each territory, while ending the practice of partisan Senate appointments by selecting Senators randomly from qualified, mature citizens. If randomly chosen juries can determine a person’s fate in a criminal trial, then randomly selected Senators could provide fair oversight of legislation free from partisan agendas.

Adopt a modified proportional representation system for electing MPs, using existing census divisions to more fairly balance ideological, urban-rural and geographical representation. Coupled with modified criteria for recognizing official parties, the reformed House of Commons would accurately reflect the diverse perspectives of Canadian voters without the disruption that fringe parties often cause in proportional representation assemblies.

Depoliticize judicial appointments by establishing an objective, merit-based selection pool determined by peer consensus among legal professionals. This method would guarantee that judges were selected for impartiality, excellence and commitment to applying the law without ideological bias.

Impose strict term limits on key officials — including Senators, judges and executive officers — to prevent ideological entrenchment and stagnation, fostering regular renewal of ideas and personnel within the federal government.

Raise the qualifications for voters and candidates, emphasizing maturity – raising rather than lowering the voting age as some are advocating – residency, and sole citizenship to ensure informed democratic participation.

Significantly constrain the PMO by restoring transparency and accountability, limiting its role to advisory functions rather than allowing its unchecked executive authority to continue. Essential powers and responsibilities must return to Parliament and constitutionally legitimate institutions.

A more detailed explanation of these reforms can be found in C2C Journal. They are not, in fact, radical; they seek only to preserve what has historically worked, fix what’s clearly broken, and rebuild our political institutions to meet contemporary needs. The purpose is not revolution, but restoration – of purpose, clarity, order and fairness.

Canada’s current dysfunction is neither inevitable nor irreversible. It arises from outdated structures combined with modern abuses of power. With a clear vision and political courage, we can restore fairness, accountability and genuine democratic representation for all Canadians, revitalizing the
integrity and effectiveness of our federal institutions for generations to come.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Jim Mason holds a BSc in engineering physics and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics. His doctoral
research and much of his career involved extensive analysis of “noisy” data to extract useful information,
which was then further analyzed to identify meaningful relationships indicative of underlying causes. He
is retired and living near Lakefield, Ontario.

By Tom Flanagan

“Reconciliation” has been the watchword for Canada’s relationship with its Indigenous peoples for the last 10 years. So, how’s that going? Not so well, in my opinion. Canada has apologized profusely for Indian Residential Schools, including imaginary unmarked graves and missing children. As prime minister, Justin Trudeau tripled the Indigenous budgetary envelope, his government committing to pay tens of billions of dollars in reparations for alleged deficiencies not just of residential schools but day schools, Indian hospitals, adoption and child welfare services and other policy failings.

Yet when Prime Minister Mark Carney recently brought in legislation to facilitate construction of desperately needed major projects, prominent First Nations leaders focused on the perceived affront to their powers and privileges, with some threatening to block Carney’s entire initiative by reviving the Idle No More protests and blockades of the 2010s.

Our current impasse arises from 250 years of decisions that are now almost impossible to change because they have been made part of Canada’s Constitution, either by elected politicians or by appointed judges. “Big new ideas” are thus virtually impossible to implement. But there is still room for incremental innovations in public policy that focus primarily on economic opportunities benefiting Indigenous Canadians, i.e., on pursuing prosperity and the good things that come with that.

In my opinion, Canada’s First Nations have two major ways to achieve prosperity. Those bands located near cities and large towns can pursue commercial and residential real estate development, as a number are doing – witness, for example, the large Taza development led by the Tsuut’ina (Sarcee) nation along Calgary’s southwest section of its Ring Road.

Those in more remote locations, meanwhile, can pursue natural resource-based development such as oil and natural gas, hard rock mining,  hydroelectricity, fisheries and tourism. Unfortunately, much resource development has been blocked by environmental purists in coalition with the minority of First Nations people opposed in principle to modernization.

Emblematic of this dynamic was the bitter opposition by a small number of First Nations members to the Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline in northern B.C. that was to feed the new LNG Canada liquefied natural gas terminal at the West Coast port of Kitimat – a project heavily favoured by the Haisla Nation, which has basically staked its economic future on LNG. Despite the opponents’ vandalism and violence, fortunately the pipeline was built and Canada’s first cargo of LNG recently departed Kitimat for markets in East Asia.

So this is clearly an avenue of progress. Indigenous equity ownership of resource projects does not require constitutional changes, and it will help to solidify First Nations’ support for such projects as well as increase the standard of living of participants. With judicious investment, there can more First Nation success stories to rival real estate development at Westbank, B.C. and oil sands service industries at Fort McKay.

Loans and loan guarantees are not without risk, however, and sometimes the risks are great. When offering equity ownership to First Nations, it would be best to concentrate on smaller and medium-sized projects where due diligence is possible and political interference can be minimized.

It also would make sense to diminish First Nations’ current obsession with grievances and reparations. Much of this is derived from Jodi Wilson-Raybould’s “practice directive” issued when she was Trudeau’s Minister of Justice, instructing federal lawyers to prefer negotiation over litigation, i.e., no longer to vigorously defend the Government of Canada’s legal position in court, but essentially to surrender. This document has no constitutional status and can be repealed by a government that realizes how much damage it is doing.

Then there is the reserve system, the bête noire of so many critics. Even as there is no constitutional prospect of abolishing Canada’s system of some 600 mostly small and often economically unviable reserves, there is no good reason for making them artificially attractive places to live, either – as has been done by making them havens from income and sales taxes. This came about through a wrong-headed 1983 Supreme Court decision, Nowegijick v. The Queen, expanding the immunity from property tax conferred by the Indian Act to cover income taxes as well.

But this exemption is based on legislation, not the Constitution; thus, Parliament could change it through ordinary legislation. Ending or reducing the tax haven status could be part of a larger deal to help First Nations participate more fully in the economy through a program of loans and loan guarantees.

These changes are modest, but now is the right time to consider them. It is widely agreed that, even apart from Trumpian threats, Canada needs policy renovation after a decade of Justinian progressivism. The federal debt has doubled, the annual deficit is spiralling out of control, our defence effort is underfunded, and declining labour productivity has affected our ability to pay for basic public services.

Endless moralizing plus grotesque overspending in the name of reconciliation symbolizes the progressive concern with what Friedrich Hayek called “the mirage of social justice” to the detriment of other affairs of state. It’s high time for a course correction in many areas, including Indigenous policy.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Tom Flanagan is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary.