Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Andrew Coyne: Why Canada may not be a democracy ...

 Bloggers note: This is a rare political book that i can say Buy the book and also Buy the argument.

Our democracy is not dead yet! But it is on life support at the palliative stage...

I call the book an autopsy on the half dead.

 Andrew Coyne: Why Canada may not be a democracy   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC10Tco8KTo


/


 Andrew Coyne, columnist for The Globe and Mail, discusses his new book The Crisis of Canadian Democracy. He details the supreme power of the Prime Minister’s Office, the powerlessness of our MPs, and how our democratic system could be changed to be truly representative of Canadians. The Hub is Canada’s fastest growing independent digital news outlet. Subscribe to The Hub’s podcast feed to get our best content when you are on the go

 

 TRANSCRIPT 

Andrew, thank you so much for joining us on Hub Dialogues again. It's a real pleasure. Thank you for having me. And thank you so much for writing this, your first book.
7 seconds
Thank you very much. It was it was a lot of fun. A sad topic in many ways though, right?
11 seconds
Like there's a lot in here in terms of how our country is struggling. You go as far to say that the Canada is not a democratic country.
22 seconds
Yeah. I mean if you if by by many of the standard definitions of what we what comprises a democracy uh we fall short of them. We observe all of the rituals.
32 seconds
We have all the forms of a democracy. Uh obviously certain things are we we live up to the standard. So, you know, when
39 seconds
when we have elections, we have paper ballots that work very well and nobody's standing over you while you mark your ballot and nobody's buying your vote and
47 seconds
nobody's at least not literally and nobody's nobody's going to threaten you if you so all these kinds of things. So,
53 seconds
if if you want to say, yeah, our elections are not rigged. We're we're what a wonderful democracy we are. Fine.
58 seconds
But anything beyond that uh by the standards of do the people that we elect to represent us actually represent us in any meaningful fashion. Does the
1 minute, 7 seconds
parliament that we elect look remotely like what we voted for? Uh are there the checks and balances that we think we
1 minute, 14 seconds
have in the system? Is the government accountable to parliament in the way that we were all brought up to understand? uh you know do do the party
1 minute, 24 seconds
does the do the internal workings of parties resemble anything resembling a democracy you know on a lot of these things you'd say no so I think it's an
1 minute, 32 seconds
open question whether whether you know we are meaningfully a democracy or just simply a ceremonial democracy so your standards are higher than the
1 minute, 39 seconds
economists who say we're the 14th best democracy in the world then again you know when when you look at the standards that go into that it's it's
1 minute, 47 seconds
bare minimum stuff you know and and hallelujah Yeah, absolutely. We're ahead of we're ahead of scores of countries around the world that aren't democracies
1 minute, 55 seconds
even in in form. Uh but we should aspire a little higher than that. And there are countries that are doing it better than we do. One of the things I try to get
2 minutes, 3 seconds
into the book is there's a tendency first of all there's a tendency when you whenever you you question anything to do with Canada, people sort of say, "Well,
2 minutes, 9 seconds
this is Canada. Everything's great here." But secondly, there's a tendency to say, "Oh, it's always been this way.
2 minutes, 14 seconds
I've been hearing this for years or uh every country has its problems. you know, we're not that bad. And so what I've tried to do in the book, wherever I
2 minutes, 22 seconds
can, is to show no, things have actually gotten worse, measurably worse than they were in decades past. And on a lot of pretty standard criteria, some of them
2 minutes, 31 seconds
quite quantifiable. We we come up way short of a lot of other democratic countries. Are we a corrupt country?
2 minutes, 37 seconds
Uh not particularly, no. I mean uh um it's not unknown here, but by again by international standards, we're we're we're pretty good. We're pretty good in
2 minutes, 46 seconds
that by that standard. So, we should be setting our eyes domestically, focusing on on ourselves here. And one of the things you say, another thing I think
2 minutes, 53 seconds
would surprise people that you say the prime minister's powers are close to dictatorial in nature.
2 minutes, 59 seconds
Oh, and I'm hardly the first one to say it. I mean, Jeffrey Simpson 20 odd years ago wrote a book called The Friendly Dictatorship. He was talking about Jack
3 minutes, 7 seconds
Kretchan. At the time, we thought this was we'd never seen anything like the degree of centralization of power in the office of the prime minister. Uh well,
3 minutes, 14 seconds
since then things have actually gotten worse still by common consensus. Uh every prime minister comes in promising to clean up the mess left by the
3 minutes, 21 seconds
previous bunch and every one of them decides he's going to go even further.
3 minutes, 25 seconds
Uh but yeah, when you look at the powers uh uh first of all, the powers of any Westminster prime minister, Britain,
3 minutes, 32 seconds
Australia, etc. are pretty strong. It's designed to be a strong prime minister system. uh particularly when you when you add to that first pass the post and
3 minutes, 40 seconds
not all Westminster systems are first pass the post but if when they are that means that they don't have to worry about forming coalitions they they can you know sneak through with a 38%
3 minutes, 50 seconds
majority uh and they're they're got they have from that day forward very little to to worry about in parliament but then you take uh the additional things in our
3 minutes, 59 seconds
system uh one is the power of party leaders in general uh to decide the fates of ordinary members of parliament
4 minutes, 6 seconds
members members of caucus. The prime minister enjoys all of those powers as the leader of a party and they're considerable. Then you add to that the powers of the government relative to the
4 minutes, 14 seconds
parliament and in our system we've allowed the government to to we've we've allowed a lot of prerogatives and rules of the game etc. that in other parliaments are decided either by the
4 minutes, 23 seconds
speaker of the house or by a vote of the parliament sometimes a super majority of the parliament. In our system they've simply devolved into the the government which of course means the prime
4 minutes, 31 seconds
minister. So he has all of those powers as well to on top of which he has all the powers of appointment that are unrivaled across the democratic world.
4 minutes, 39 seconds
Again, prime ministers typically have a lot of powers of appointment. I don't know there's very many countries where he also the prime minister also appoints all of the members of the upper house uh
4 minutes, 48 seconds
in addition to all the members of the supreme court and every deputy minister of every department and every head of every crown corporation and the head of the armed forces and the head of the
4 minutes, 56 seconds
RCMP and right down the line including in our system uh in Canada if you call call it a system the prime minister appoints the chiefs of staff of every
5 minutes, 5 seconds
minister of cabinet uh little spies or birds never heard of such a thing there was one incident in Britain at the height the Boris Johnson
5 minutes, 13 seconds
mania when Johnson in fit of craziness told or his people told Rajiv Javeed the the his chancellor the shecker who they
5 minutes, 21 seconds
were feuding with well we're going to appoint your senior adviserss and javeed resigned on the spot as chancellor the execker and said no self-respecting
5 minutes, 29 seconds
minister would accept such treatment well that's become standard in Canada so he has all these powers very little oversight check on it they did a survey
5 minutes, 38 seconds
I I footnote in the book uh um several hundred political scientists around the world which head of government has the most powers. Canada came out on top and that was some years ago.
5 minutes, 48 seconds
They rely desperately on he or she the prime minister he doesn't really rely on them at all. He can do what he wants.
5 minutes, 55 seconds
Like the the PMO you say has grown to something like 121 people. How is how is this possible?
6 minutes, 2 seconds
Well, it it's a good question. The the it began more or less in the days of Pierre Trudeau. That's when the the sort of imperial prime minister really
6 minutes, 10 seconds
started to take root. Uh Trudeau being the intellectual he was I suppose had less use for lesser mortals and decided
6 minutes, 18 seconds
he would surround himself with his own advisers, his own personal advisers rather than the advisers that he gets through cabinet though he chooses the cabinet himself as well. But the
6 minutes, 26 seconds
difference is when you have a strong cabinet and by strong cabinet I mean a small cabinet. We've allowed cabinets to get to the size of like 40 ministers in
6 minutes, 35 seconds
recent times. Mark Carney's cut it back to 29. It's still one of the largest cabinets in the world by a country mile. The the average in the OECD is 19.
6 minutes, 44 seconds
I was going to say about half.
6 minutes, 45 seconds
And anybody who's been in any committee knows past about 12 members, it becomes really hard to get anything done. So think of 40 people around the table. I'm told they are literally on a timer,
6 minutes, 56 seconds
right? You have 30 seconds. Go.
6 minutes, 58 seconds
Uh so the the cabinet as a as a as a deliberative body has ceased to to function really. uh ministers themselves
7 minutes, 6 seconds
when there's 40 ministers they're each of them is accordingly smaller in any importance they're there to be placeholders for particular demographic
7 minutes, 14 seconds
groups or regions etc but when you have a small cabinet with big deal ministers then if you're a a prime minister that's one of the constraints on your power
7 minutes, 22 seconds
also they're there they are the instrument of your power but there are also constraints upon it in that you got to keep them all in the in the tent and I you know cabinet minister A who's a
7 minutes, 31 seconds
big deal and may not agree with this policy I'm about to propose E and I got to think about that and balance it off with cabinet minister B, you know, in a
7 minutes, 38 seconds
functioning cabinet system. That's one of the things prime ministers have to take into account. Uh when cabinet has become as as Donald Cavois called it a focus group for the prime minister,
7 minutes, 49 seconds
that's much less of a concern.
7 minutes, 50 seconds
I think you note in the book there haven't really been any pictures taken of the 40.
7 minutes, 54 seconds
I could not find any. I could not find because they can't fit in a room. You got to rent out a whole uh basketball arena.
7 minutes, 59 seconds
You can find lots of pictures of the Italian cabinet, the British cabinet,
8 minutes, 2 seconds
the French cabinet. I I include in the book a picture of the British cabinet which has 22 ministers. If you look at that picture, you go, "Okay, they can probably just barely get things done
8 minutes, 11 seconds
with 22 people crowded around the table." Now, double it. And that that's what you're talking about in Canada.
8 minutes, 16 seconds
Let's just talk about access when it comes to cabinet ministers to the big boss, the prime minister. Um Stefan Dion was Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2015 to 2017, I believe.
8 minutes, 28 seconds
He apparently had one one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau that lasted five minutes and it was his firing.
8 minutes, 36 seconds
Yep. Uh how is this possible?
8 minutes, 38 seconds
And that's a common story if if you read the memoirs of three very prominent ministers in the Trudeau government,
8 minutes, 45 seconds
Trudeau the younger, Mark Garno, the foreign affairs minister after Dill, uh Bill MNO, the finance minister, uh Jod
8 minutes, 53 seconds
Wilson Rayold, the justice minister and attorney general. Okay, she got more meetings than she would like with the prime minister because he was trying to basically, you know, bare knuckle her
9 minutes, 1 second
into into doing something she was not supposed to be doing. And that is to say, interfering in a criminal prosecution. But mostly what comes through in these memoirs is I could not get a meeting with the prime minister.
9 minutes, 10 seconds
The prime minister seemed absolutely uninterested in anything I had to say. I felt I had no influence whatsoever on his policies. Or if I did, you know, the
9 minutes, 18 seconds
minute they conflicted with his political agenda, out they went. Morno at one point in when he was preparing a budget, I forget where I heard this, may
9 minutes, 25 seconds
not have been in his in his memoirs, but I was told that that he was told uh um you know, send it off send off your concerns in an email and we'll see that
9 minutes, 33 seconds
the prime minister sees them. This is the finance minister of Canada.
9 minutes, 36 seconds
So So if if the prime minister is now sort of a mascot in a way and these are descriptions we've been told and the and the cabinet ministers are spokespeople,
9 minutes, 45 seconds
who's running the country? Who's formulating the policy and governing this place? Absolutely. And and and that was one of the things that was different
9 minutes, 53 seconds
and arguably worse with Trudeau versus Steven Harper. Steven Harper everybody knew was a control freak. Uh but he was also, you know, pretty pretty big brain,
10 minutes, 1 second
read every memo. Uh you know, you don't want a prime minister on micromanaging,
10 minutes, 5 seconds
but if you if he's going to do that, you you'd hope he's got a capacious brain and ability and work ethic, etc. Uh you did not hear the same things about
10 minutes, 14 seconds
Justin Trudeau. uh there was a very strong sense that that the people who were micromanaging things was not the prime minister, it was the prime minister's staff, his chief of staff and
10 minutes, 22 seconds
various adviserss. Um that's some extent a complaint in in general in about prime minister's offices. Uh but it it's been
10 minutes, 30 seconds
taken once again to an extreme under Justin Trudeau was taken under such an to an extreme. Uh so yeah, it's one thing that the that the guy who was at
10 minutes, 38 seconds
least notionally elected uh would have this uh vastly over centralized power.
10 minutes, 43 seconds
That's a problem in itself. But for that all that power to be centralized in a couple of of unelected officials and you saw that in the Justin Trudeau government. One of the crazy things
10 minutes, 51 seconds
about this is, you know, every basic management book will tell you the larger the organization, the more you have to delegate authority. You can't do it all.
11 minutes
You know, you could you could run everything when it was a mom and pop shop, but once you're a large corporation, you got to delegate. We've done the opposite in Canada. The larger government has become, the more things
11 minutes, 8 seconds
it has taken on, the more voluminous its files, the more that we've tried to do run everything out of the prime minister's office and the and the
11 minutes, 16 seconds
advisers that they hire. Uh, and you you certainly saw under the Justin Trudeau government, a very strong sense that they were overwhelmed by things that
11 minutes, 24 seconds
they were trying to root every single decision through those same five people and everything was getting held up and nothing was getting done. Can we dwell
11 minutes, 31 seconds
on the this idea of and I think uh Mike Duffy called them the kids in short pants, the 20somes uh younger than you
11 minutes, 39 seconds
and I who are basically unelected and are uh putting together all the communicates that these ministers or they're standing up in the house reading
11 minutes, 48 seconds
clumsily off a sheet of paper every single day. You know, objectively we can say when it comes to political
11 minutes, 55 seconds
performance in the house the bar is extremely low in this country.
11 minutes, 58 seconds
Yeah. So these ministers are standing up and reading these things essentially crafted by you know young staffers who
12 minutes, 6 seconds
are telling putting words in their mouth.
12 minutes, 7 seconds
Well not just ministers everybody. So the hilarious thing in question period is you know when the questions are asked
12 minutes, 15 seconds
from the government benches and the questions of course this is a timehonored unfortunate tradition is the questions are you know will the minister advise enlighten the house about what
12 minutes, 23 seconds
wonderful things the government is doing on x y and zed files. Well, the question will have been written for the MP asking it by people in party central command.
12 minutes, 33 seconds
The answer will have been written by it.
12 minutes, 35 seconds
And I'm prepared to believe it's the same person on both sides. I don't know that for a fact, but but uh it's preposterous. Uh and the degree to which
12 minutes, 43 seconds
the party headquarters has taken control of uh of everything MPs say or do, not just ministers, but everything M
12 minutes, 51 seconds
ordinary MPs do are supposed to be on the government side somewhat independent of the government. They're not in the cabinet. They're they're ordinary members of parliament. They're supposed
12 minutes, 59 seconds
to have some notional sense of, you know, still being a watchdog on the government, though that's, you know,
13 minutes, 4 seconds
long been attenuated. Uh but yeah, they it's it's not we used to talk about uh
13 minutes, 12 seconds
how what's what ferocious party discipline there was in the voting and that is true. So in Canada, the Samara
13 minutes, 19 seconds
Senate did a study under I think it was during the first Trudeau majority government 2015 2019
13 minutes, 26 seconds
MPs voted with their party 99.6% of the time. Uh orders of magnitude greater than any other relevant democracy and
13 minutes, 35 seconds
it's party discipline has been a concern in all democracies but we've just as usual taken it far greater than anybody else. But as you know the political scientist Alex Marland emphasizes it's
13 minutes, 44 seconds
not just about voting discipline anymore. It's message discipline and it's not just everything they say in parliament. Every member statement that
13 minutes, 52 seconds
they make oftentimes will have been written for them or certainly they'll have had to get approval for it.
13 minutes, 57 seconds
Questions they ask in parliament uh debates in parliament. It's also outside of parliament. It's the tweets that they put up on social media, the speeches
14 minutes, 5 seconds
they make in their local writing association. It will all have been either written for them or carefully reviewed. Nobody is allowed to go off
14 minutes, 14 seconds
message even for a second. Uh and this is unparalleled and and unprecedented.
14 minutes, 20 seconds
Let's stay on this idea of uh youth. Uh humor me with this. You talk about that Samra those exit interviews done with
14 minutes, 28 seconds
MPs and when you read them it's quite astounding. You get the sense that a lot of their work especially if you're a backbench MP is very bureaucratic.
14 minutes, 35 seconds
You're shuffling papers around. You're helping people fill out forms around immigration EI. Could it in I being a bit cheeky here,
14 minutes, 44 seconds
but could a student intern not do some of these jobs? Of course. Of course they could.
14 minutes, 49 seconds
So the jobs our MPs are doing right now in terms of skill level, a student intern could do in many.
14 minutes, 54 seconds
Well, this is the pathetic part is this is the defense that MPs offer when they're when they get shirty about this about being told that they don't have any real role or responsibility anymore.
15 minutes, 4 seconds
This is the defense they offer is,
15 minutes, 6 seconds
"Yeah, but I do a lot of good work in my constituency." That's what really that's what it's really all about. What they're saying is they don't really have any
15 minutes, 13 seconds
role left for them as legislators. So we've already talked about how they vote the party line 99.6% of the time. We've talked about how the debates and every statement they make is written for them.
15 minutes, 24 seconds
Uh you know committee work which is supposed to be the crown and the the jewel and the crown of parliamentary work is entirely controlled by the party
15 minutes, 31 seconds
apparatus. So the committees of and if committees were of any use when you when you throw uh 800page omnibus bills at
15 minutes, 38 seconds
them they basically ceased to function in any important way of providing oversight of legislature legislation uh
15 minutes, 45 seconds
um what am I leaving out um voting proposing well proposing legislation you
15 minutes, 52 seconds
know we we pass maybe two or three private members bills in a year in this country most go through their entire career will never get to propose
16 minutes, 1 second
legislation or certainly and we'll get it passed. So all of the things that would identify them as legislators have basically fallen by the side. So they say, "Yeah, we do all this important work in the constituency, as you say,
16 minutes, 12 seconds
writing letters to immigration, which is first of all, as you mentioned,
16 minutes, 15 seconds
something that could be done by your average high school student." Uh, and secondly, is basically influence pedaling. I mean, it when you think about it, it's a, you know, in most countries,
16 minutes, 24 seconds
you want that you want that watermark at the bottom. Most countries it would be regarded as being kind of unseammly for you to be able to say I'm going to I'm
16 minutes, 32 seconds
going to get preferential treatment from the bureaucracy based on who I know based because I've got some powerful or not so powerful but I've got some MP who
16 minutes, 41 seconds
can sign off on my paper and I'll get I'll get to the head of the line. That's not supposed to be how the system works.
16 minutes, 46 seconds
You know we we a little that doesn't get enough attention is is the whole premise is kind of seedy. reading your book,
16 minutes, 54 seconds
reading those exit interviews, my experience, I worked for the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians,
16 minutes, 59 seconds
speaking to backbench MPs, the word that is ringing in the back of my mind when I hear these things is this is kind of a humiliating job in many ways in terms of
17 minutes, 7 seconds
what it's been reduced to. Is that the word that you hear ringing in your head?
17 minutes, 11 seconds
Yeah, if they if they viewed it that way themselves, and that's an interesting question. There's a certain amount of self- selection that goes on. I mean
17 minutes, 20 seconds
it's fairly well known now how little power MPs have how much they are basically step and fetch its for the and the syphy that you have to practice
17 minutes, 29 seconds
in terms of the leader if you I if you go into it now if you don't have your eyes open you should now maybe so so point one is there's a
17 minutes, 38 seconds
certain amount of self- selection that people kind of sign up for this maybe they had ideas that they were they would be the exception and they would shake things up and they would do things their
17 minutes, 46 seconds
way if so they get either weeded out in the in the nomination process which is generally speaking tightly controlled by
17 minutes, 53 seconds
the party. Uh uh so they probably will not be given the nomination. If they survive that then they'll get it beaten out of them when they get to parliament.
18 minutes, 1 second
And it won't just be by the by the party apparachics, by the the higherups who have all of these powers over them in terms of if they ever want to sit on a
18 minutes, 9 seconds
committee, if they ever want to go on a travel, if they want to have a decent office, if they ever want to have a chance of being a critic or or a
18 minutes, 16 seconds
minister or even a parliamentary secretary, any prospect of advancement is entirely in the hands of the party apparatus and the party leader. So
18 minutes, 24 seconds
that's a strong incentive to stay in line. But if that weren't enough,
18 minutes, 27 seconds
there's the peer pressure of your fellow MPs. So maybe you you have a very strong conscience and you're willing to sacrifice your career prospects for a
18 minutes, 35 seconds
principle, but it takes a certain amount of extra strength to be able to say,
18 minutes, 38 seconds
"I'm going to sacrifice other people's careers for this principle." And they're going to be rounding on you and saying,
18 minutes, 42 seconds
"You and your precious conscience, you know, don't ruin this for the rest of us." And that is a very powerful thing.
18 minutes, 48 seconds
When Jody Wilson, Ray Bold, and uh um and and um Jane Philpot um left cabinet, Jane Philpot resigned.
18 minutes, 59 seconds
question about how what exactly happened with with Jody Wilson Ribble but they left cabinet were forced out of cabinet Trudeau then that wasn't enough for him
19 minutes, 6 seconds
so he he drumed them out of caucus decreed that they he the leader of course has this power in Canada to to to expel them from caucus
19 minutes, 15 seconds
and what did the MPs do fellow MPs stood and cheered you might have expected them if you're naive you might have said their fellow caucus members might have said this is a
19 minutes, 23 seconds
terrible abuse of power by the party leader no they stood and cheered because that that's the that's the mindset. So
19 minutes, 31 seconds
they've colluded in their own ser servitude MPs have they've become part of the problem. They they see themselves
19 minutes, 38 seconds
as basically the leader's employees and that their job is basically to do whatever the leader tells them no matter how accumulating and degrading it is. Uh
19 minutes, 46 seconds
and until and unless you can change that attitude, until and unless you can get MPs themselves uh to see themselves in some more
19 minutes, 55 seconds
enlightened and and and and empowered light, uh not much else is going to happen.
20 minutes, 1 second
Uh let's go back to the leader for a sec here. Um no Canadian, you write, no Canadian prime minister has been driven out of office due to scandal since Sir
20 minutes, 9 seconds
John A. McDonald. But you do write and I caught this. You say that at least two probably deserve to be behind bars. Name
20 minutes, 17 seconds
names here. Who who which prime ministers deserve to be behind bars?
20 minutes, 21 seconds
I'm not getting into throw that out in your book. And you know, I'm not I'm going to I'm going to show a modicum of of self-preservation here. Uh I would
20 minutes, 30 seconds
certainly say there have been prime ministers in modern times uh who uh who whose acts uh I think if examined in a
20 minutes, 39 seconds
in a in a in a court of law uh would be judged wanting would be found guilty of some sort of criminal offense. Uh so I don't think I need to name the names.
20 minutes, 49 seconds
It's a narrow list of of which which of how many prime ministers we've had in recent times.
20 minutes, 53 seconds
Okay, I'll just have them looming over you in the back here just to intimidate you. Um separating from the scandal we talk about all uh these the immense
21 minutes, 2 seconds
powers allseeing all knowing PMO and prime minister how has Mr. Carney been doing so far as it relates uh you know
21 minutes, 10 seconds
to not being that Sauron Sauron sort of eye going so far it certainly looks uh certainly
21 minutes, 18 seconds
in terms of the the powers of government versus parliament uh looks like much of a muchness that if you look at these
21 minutes, 25 seconds
bills they brought in C2 C4 and C5 particularly all of them omnibus bills uh uh yoking together completely
21 minutes, 34 seconds
disconnected pieces of legislation. Not not as long as some omnibous bills, but you know,
21 minutes, 41 seconds
C4, you're yoking together um what is it? The the tax cut that he promised during the election. Uh and and and um
21 minutes, 50 seconds
trying to think what the other thing it yokeked together with was um oh a thing exonerating the the parties from
21 minutes, 58 seconds
having to obey federal or or provincial privacy legislation because they they're in danger of losing a case in British Columbia where the parties would have to
22 minutes, 5 seconds
subject themselves to provincial privacy legislation. Uh well those two things have nothing together to do with each other. Um the bills themselves contain a
22 minutes, 14 seconds
number of quite draconian measures uh that seem to have been cooked up in Ottawa and been been lying around waiting for somebody to pass them. Um I
22 minutes, 22 seconds
don't see any evidence that he's treating parliament with any greater seriousness than previous prime ministers its early days. He's only had the the parliament only sat for a couple
22 minutes, 29 seconds
weeks before it rose again. Uh this is another thing. Our parliament sits for fewer days than most not all but most
22 minutes, 37 seconds
parliaments. We're going to sit I think in total to this year 73 days which is I think the shortest since the 1930s. The 1930s.
22 minutes, 44 seconds
Yeah. Britain Britain the British House will sit for something like 150 days. So twice as often this year as as our house will u um at a time when supposedly
22 minutes, 53 seconds
we're in a great national crisis. This is the thing, you know, in the middle of this existential threat uh from the the
23 minutes, 1 second
this, you know, crazy president to the south of us. Um parliament sat dark for close to six months. And I don't think
23 minutes, 10 seconds
anybody noticed or cared. And that to me is a a comment in and of itself. You know, when when there was a world war on
23 minutes, 17 seconds
pretty busy time for governments, you could make the same arguments. We can't afford to be no parliament met.
23 minutes, 22 seconds
Parliament debated. Parliament voiced people's fears and concerns precisely because there was a war on precisely because there was a crisis on people ne
23 minutes, 30 seconds
looked to their parliaments in those days uh to to to represent them in that regard and and now you know to to make the suggestion shouldn't parliament be
23 minutes, 38 seconds
sitting at this moment. People looked at you like you had two heads. What would parliament do? That's that's what's that's one of the vicious circles that
23 minutes, 45 seconds
we're in is parliament has become so irrelevant that nobody can muster the you know the the wherewithal to say why
23 minutes, 52 seconds
they should be upset by this that we've forgotten why parliament should matter to us at all. Well, one of the defenses was at least from the Liberal Party was like, "Let us sort ourselves out
24 minutes, 1 second
and then so you get the sense of what the priorities are are." Yeah.
24 minutes, 7 seconds
you the people just go away and leave us. Hold tight. Then we don't need to to to have any representation while we sort
24 minutes, 16 seconds
through the internal machinations uh of of of choosing a new leader by the bizarre process by which we allow the parties to choose their leaders which is
24 minutes, 25 seconds
not by to lead not by a vote of the people they actually lead the members of the caucus but by some other group that they assemble hastily just for the day
24 minutes, 34 seconds
made up of instant members signed up by the bus load um children people who are not Canadian citizens uh that's who
24 minutes, 41 seconds
chooses our party leaders and in this case chose the prime minister uh in Canada and and again we become so habituated to it we we don't recognize how abnormal it is.
24 minutes, 52 seconds
We'll never forgive them for moving from delegated conventions to one member one vote. Well uh will we well one member one vote is worse than
25 minutes
delegated. Delegated conventions in my opinion are worse than having the caucus choose it.
25 minutes, 4 seconds
One of the themes I try to express in the book is u democracy is not just what happens on election day but every day in between.
25 minutes, 10 seconds
Mh. So people when you talk about uh let's have the caucus choose it rather than the members of members of the members of the party people think oh
25 minutes, 18 seconds
having the broad membership is more democratic because there's more people involved and of course of course it's not just the party members it's the members plus all the people that they
25 minutes, 26 seconds
sign up in the course of of the race who've had nothing to do with the party before and I promise you have nothing to do with it after they just could sign up for that one day to to involve
25 minutes, 34 seconds
themselves in that vote well is it more democratic the practical result is the The party leader, having been chosen by
25 minutes, 42 seconds
that process, is accountable to nobody from that day forward. He owes nobody anything. He certainly doesn't owe the
25 minutes, 49 seconds
caucus anything. And he can basically thumb their no thumb his noses at them,
25 minutes, 53 seconds
his nose at them for the next four years. I mean, if he pushes it too far,
25 minutes, 58 seconds
maybe someday the caucus might somehow find the way to to to take him down. But it there's since there's no rules and no process and nobody knows what the
26 minutes, 6 seconds
benchmarks are, nobody wants to be the first to sit stick their head above the parapet. What happens is it be you know you have to be in an absolute calamity
26 minutes, 14 seconds
situation before uh before the caucus will take on the leader. It's a really big deal. Uh uh well that's not a
26 minutes, 22 seconds
particularly democratic system. If you have a leader who can be removed by the caucus and replaced by the caucus then that means the leader has to be very
26 minutes, 30 seconds
accountable. there's a fire burning on very solicitous to those about those MP's concerns every single day. Now, one
26 minutes, 37 seconds
bright spot is we've moved part of the way towards that because of Michael Chong's reform act uh which was was much
26 minutes, 44 seconds
watered down and from its original intent and one of the things that was watered down was it only applies if party caucus votes after each election
26 minutes, 53 seconds
to have the powers that it would confer upon them apply to it. Uh but one party has done that and that's the conservative caucus. Hasn't the block done it too or no?
27 minutes, 1 second
They they certainly didn't vote for this. There may be another party that's that's assumed one of the other four powers. I don't want to get into the weeds on this, but the really important
27 minutes, 9 seconds
power was the power to remove the leader. Only the conservatives have voted for that.
27 minutes, 13 seconds
Uh and and sure enough, after they did that, they brought down Aaron Oul uh and they recently voted to give themselves
27 minutes, 21 seconds
to arm themselves with that power visa via Pierre Pyava. So you better believe Pierre Polier is being very very concerned in a way that he wasn't a few
27 minutes, 30 seconds
months ago when he thought he was headed for the prime ministership. He's being very solicious I would I would bet with of of conservative MP's concerns. That's the way the system should work.
27 minutes, 39 seconds
That shouldn't be a novelty. That that should be how it is.
27 minutes, 42 seconds
That should be a highlight. You you aren't kind to the Liberals, Andrew. You write looking back historically at Canada. One of the major reasons our democracies deteriorated is because, in
27 minutes, 51 seconds
your words, of the historic dominance of one party. Why did the liberals hold a fair amount of blame here in terms of some of this stuff festering?
28 minutes
Well, I'm to be fair, I'm not sure I'm blaming the liberals so much as as the situation because I think the conservatives have also contributed to
28 minutes, 7 seconds
this. But the problem is one party rule or as Richard Gwyn called it, one and a half party rule. So the problem is that we've had these long periods of liberal
28 minutes, 15 seconds
dominance punctuated by 87 of the last 129 years they've governed.
28 minutes, 20 seconds
So punctuated by brief intervals of conservative rule. So what I think my theory is my hypothesis is uh that that
28 minutes, 29 seconds
um things are kind of are let slide under the liberals because they can you know they they're in so they're in power for so long they're so unused to anybody
28 minutes, 38 seconds
challenging them. they can take shortcuts and nobody's going to blow the whistle on or if they do nothing will happen and it just becomes a self-reinforcing thing where the longer
28 minutes, 46 seconds
they're in the more they're able to get away with this stuff. So that's the liberals contribution. The conservatives contribution is they get in they say you know what everything's stacked against us.
28 minutes, 55 seconds
Uh the the the media are against us. The the the the the bureaucracies against us. The judiciary is against us.
29 minutes, 2 seconds
So we have to take shortcuts. We we we've got to push through everything we can while we're here because we don't know how long there's a clock ticking in the background as soon as you arrive.
29 minutes, 10 seconds
So liberals do it because they can. The conservatives do it because in their minds they must. Uh it's a one-way ratchet. It just it means that it just
29 minutes, 18 seconds
continually gets worse. So one of the things we really need uh as a kind of a meta reform is we need contestable politics. You know when when when either
29 minutes, 27 seconds
party or all parties before every election can either see themselves losing or winning. uh if if if if therefore you know you happen to win
29 minutes, 35 seconds
government, you you can't be assured how long you'll be in government. Maybe you'll be in opposition before you know it, then you're going to be a little bit more concerned about the rights of the
29 minutes, 43 seconds
opposition because you might be the opposition. Uh so we need more contestable politics if we're going to have uh more, you know, adherence to the
29 minutes, 52 seconds
rules and and more accountability in our politics.
29 minutes, 54 seconds
Do you think there were liberal MPs in the last election who believed that they were going to win this thing when it started, that they weren't going to be sent to the wilderness?
30 minutes, 2 seconds
No. Oh, I mean that was a very unusual election, you know, that that that that two months before the election that everybody agreed they were doomed and and then halfway through the election
30 minutes, 10 seconds
looked like they were heading for a massive majority and then uh we got I think the result was probably most appropriate, which was a tentative uh minority. You know, that the pe people
30 minutes, 18 seconds
were people were fed up with the previous government, but they weren't quite ready to give the hand the keys over to the Conservatives.
30 minutes, 24 seconds
You mentioned solutions. I want to get into that because I one of the things I like about you is you're a guy who has hope. you think that this can change.
30 minutes, 33 seconds
You somehow think this has gotten this can get better. You aren't um completely cynical when it comes to this. People are going to read your book and they're
30 minutes, 41 seconds
going to say this guy's really idealistic here. Others will say he's kind of an utopian thinker in terms of
30 minutes, 49 seconds
what he thinks can get done in the next few years. What's your response to those folks who say you're too hopeful?
30 minutes, 55 seconds
Well, that's interesting because I also get accused of being cynical and pessimistic. you know, uh uh I'm certainly not painting a very pretty picture of uh Canadian democracy here.
31 minutes, 5 seconds
You're right. I'm I'm idealistic enough to to that it matters to me, but I'm not I'm not polyianish about how easy it
31 minutes, 12 seconds
will be to to change any of this. In fact, at several points in the book, I kind of confess that we're we're kind of caught in a vicious circle here where
31 minutes, 20 seconds
many vicious circles, but one of which is the in order to change anything, you can only those changes could only be implemented by the basically the prime minister who benefits from the system as
31 minutes, 28 seconds
it is now. Uh what grounds therefore do I have for optimism? I I have two possible routes out of this. One is the
31 minutes, 38 seconds
sort of incremental one which is you you you get the ball rolling somewhere. So as I mentioned there's a bunch of vicious circles that I describe a couple
31 minutes, 47 seconds
of which I've mentioned but the nature of a vicious circle is if you can if you can if you can re you know twist it going the other way it turns into a
31 minutes, 54 seconds
virtuous circle. So if for example uh um these MPs if let's say that becomes not
32 minutes, 1 second
just a practice you know tentatively adopted by one party but becomes the norm that MPs can remove their party leader u how does that change MP's view
32 minutes, 10 seconds
of themselves? Do they start to see themselves as being a little more powerful, a little less, you know, trod upon than they were in the past? Do they start thinking to themselves, you know
32 minutes, 19 seconds
what, uh, I I think I'd like to be able to ask my own questions in parliament.
32 minutes, 23 seconds
Thank you very much. Uh, uh, now that I feel a bit more, you know, sure of myself. And you maybe they'll start to demand that. And maybe once they're
32 minutes, 31 seconds
they're asking their own questions in Parliament, maybe that leads to further reform. So part of this is trying to get MPs, as I mentioned off the top, to see
32 minutes, 38 seconds
themselves as what they should be as independent representatives of of of the public who elected them, who happen to be members of a party, but who are
32 minutes, 46 seconds
nevertheless have a role and responsibility and a right uh to to to to represent their constituents as as
32 minutes, 53 seconds
they or their constituents see fit, not simply be spokespeople for the party. So that's the incremental road and we'll
33 minutes
see. The other is we just get ourselves into such a terrible crisis that there's no alternative. And uh I'm very worried
33 minutes, 7 seconds
about this. Um we are in a a st a stage right now where by common consent we've got to do a bunch of big things in a
33 minutes, 14 seconds
hurry. Uh the the in some cases these are things that we've neglected that we can no longer neglect like defense or they're things that have been pushed
33 minutes, 22 seconds
upon us by Donald Trump and by the the whole change in our relationship with our largest trading partner, nearest neighbor, closest ally and protector. um
33 minutes, 31 seconds
that necessarily means you know major changes in the way in which we govern ourselves in this country across a whole range of policy fronts. Well, we've
33 minutes, 39 seconds
tended to avoid making those kinds of big decisions in a hurry in the past partly because um we're concerned that
33 minutes, 46 seconds
that it would really cause great divisions in the country. What we have is a system where, as I say, governments get elected with quote unquote majority governments with 37 38% of the vote,
33 minutes, 57 seconds
most of it from one part of the country,
33 minutes, 59 seconds
which is the way the first pass the post system works. Uh, that it rewards, you know, your ability to clump your vote geographically. Uh, okay. So, so that
34 minutes, 9 seconds
means you've pushed through some big thing and the rest of the country goes, "Well, I didn't agree with that."
34 minutes, 15 seconds
Exhibit A would be the National Energy Program, right? The Liberals had two seats west of Ontario when they brought that in. Two seats west of Ontario. They
34 minutes, 22 seconds
had 74 seats out of 75 in Quebec. Half their caucus was in that one province.
34 minutes, 28 seconds
If there had been, this is somewhat parenthetical, but if we'd had a different electoral system, if if they'd had more representation in the West and
34 minutes, 35 seconds
fewer seats in Quebec and Ontario, that if it had been spread more evenly, more in line with their actual vote, I very much doubt they would have done anything quite be hearing from constituents.
34 minutes, 44 seconds
Exactly. So, but but we have the system we have now. So, my concern is um whereas maybe in the past governments
34 minutes, 53 seconds
might have might have shied away for that reason. They didn't want to divide the country, now they're going to say say to themselves, we've got no choice.
34 minutes, 58 seconds
We have to do these these things for the sake of the country. They ram them home.
35 minutes, 2 seconds
They create huge divisions within the country. Uh and at some point, it just comes to an impass. So, is a weird part
35 minutes, 8 seconds
of you hoping for a crisis to escalate because it would mean changes to some of the stuff we've talked about?
35 minutes, 15 seconds
Well, I mean, no. I mean, I don't want the country to to to get into that to get into that kind of of of impass. I hope we can this part of the point of
35 minutes, 23 seconds
the book is I hope we can we can make changes without having to get into crisis. I mean, you know, the the fiscal crisis of the mid 90s, uh, sure, it it
35 minutes, 33 seconds
caused us to balance our budget, but wouldn't it have been better if we'd balanced our budget before it was a crisis? So, yeah, it can have that kind of backhanded benefit or silver lining,
35 minutes, 42 seconds
if you will, but but I'd rather we didn't get into that. Uh, but and if we understand where we're headed, maybe we can make the changes without it. But yeah, the the optimistic scenario of
35 minutes, 50 seconds
that is 1864. you know, the the the the government of the province of Canada,
35 minutes, 56 seconds
the single province of Canada at that time. The parliament was absolutely gridlocked. Nothing was getting done. Everything was at an impass. Eventually, they looked at each other and they said,
36 minutes, 5 seconds
"We're going to have to make these big changes that we've been putting off."
36 minutes, 8 seconds
Uh, and they they formed the Grand Coalition and, you know, started the process of confederation. Do we have enough dreamers these days,
36 minutes, 16 seconds
though? And do we have enough Canadians who are willing to sacrifice? You talk about sacrifice a lot in your book that it's going to take sacrifice and I just
36 minutes, 23 seconds
wonder if the country is able to do that on mass.
36 minutes, 28 seconds
I think our history has been uh that while we put off things until for the you know forever when our backs are at
36 minutes, 36 seconds
the wall when we have to make changes I think our history shows that we do you know we made the changes we needed to make to you know fight the depression.
36 minutes, 44 seconds
We made the changes we needed to make to fight World War II and we made the changes in the 80s and 90s uh to fight the deficit that was about co might be a recent example.
36 minutes, 51 seconds
Sure. You know, exactly. You know, we have a we have a high trust society. Uh and this is one I mean I talk a lot about the weaknesses of our institutions
36 minutes, 59 seconds
and maybe I should have talked more about some of our enduring cultural strengths as a country that that uh um
37 minutes, 6 seconds
we have not fallen apart the way the Americans have to to anything like the same degree. You have divisions. We have regional divisions that our electoral
37 minutes, 14 seconds
system makes worse. We have social divisions similar to other countries,
37 minutes, 18 seconds
including the Americans, but they don't seem to have gone to the same degree. We don't have the same massive distrust of experts and expertise that they have in
37 minutes, 26 seconds
the United States. We, you know, we we don't treat each other across the partisan divide as enemies the way they do in the States. One of the things I've
37 minutes, 34 seconds
I mean, I I think I've probably changed my mind on this. uh I think it's probably a strength rather than a weakness that so few Canadians belong to political parties. You know, it's 2% of the public. Whereas in the states,
37 minutes, 44 seconds
virtually everybody is registered as either a Democrat or Republican or independent and they talk about one another.
37 minutes, 49 seconds
It become becomes part of your identity and it became I think it becomes very hard to make compromises and concessions and it becomes very easy particularly in
37 minutes, 57 seconds
this day and age to view the other side as just being the devil. I don't think we're at that stage in Canada and I think that's that's to our benefit and
38 minutes, 5 seconds
our strength that that we can still have I think coherent discussions about these things. So yeah, I don't think it's impossible for us uh uh to to roll up
38 minutes, 14 seconds
our sleeves and make these changes. It's it's finding the way into it and that's where this get the ball rolling type of thing. I think the the Reform Act, as
38 minutes, 22 seconds
limited as it was, as watered down as it was, uh uh was the start of something.
38 minutes, 28 seconds
uh and and I I I think the the and I think the removal of erot fine man though he is I think was a watershed moment in the evolution of these things.
38 minutes, 37 seconds
I hope it will be anyway. I hope we'll look back and say bigger things started from that point.
38 minutes, 41 seconds
It would be interesting if that's what he's what if that is what he he is remembered for. You mentioned the people. Um let's talk about the people.
38 minutes, 49 seconds
The populist anger often on the right that is often in your columns often criticized. I wonder as I was reading this book, is it not the byproduct of
38 minutes, 57 seconds
the failure of the system that we just described in that the results aren't making their way to the people and in
39 minutes, 5 seconds
response you get that anger. So, in some ways, you guys are kind of reading from the same song books. The lyrics are different, Andrew, but maybe you're reading from the same song book.
39 minutes, 12 seconds
Well, fair enough. I mean, I I do think there's a a price to be paid in one form or another for a system that just simply
39 minutes, 19 seconds
does not represent the public. And I'm not a populist in the sense of you, you know, you should just take a poll and do whatever the poll says, you know, but
39 minutes, 28 seconds
but representative democracy, I'm I'm very keen on the representative part of representative democracy. I think MPs should have real power to represent
39 minutes, 36 seconds
their constituents. Uh um so if if if the system doesn't respond,
39 minutes, 42 seconds
one consequence of that can be uh populist uprising, anger, support for extremist movements, etc.
39 minutes, 49 seconds
Another is just apathy and and and onwi and whatever other French word you want to throw in. Uh and and you see a lot of
39 minutes, 56 seconds
that in Canada where one consequence of the of the lack of of democratic legitimacy at the federal level is the
40 minutes, 3 seconds
feds don't dare take on the provinces because because they fear that in any fight people will just sort of tribally stick with the the government that's
40 minutes, 11 seconds
closest to them. uh and too many people uh with some justice look at the federal par parliament and say that's not my
40 minutes, 19 seconds
parliament that's not my government that's Ottawa that's that faroff place that I send an MP to and I never hear from him or her again and as long as
40 minutes, 27 seconds
that's the attitude then then it's going to be very difficult to forge consensus and to to make progress as a country.
40 minutes, 34 seconds
It's one of the sort of ironies is the more powerful the prime minister has become on Parliament Hill, the less powerful he's become off Parliament
40 minutes, 42 seconds
Hill. The more that we've centralized power in the prime minister's office,
40 minutes, 45 seconds
the the less legitimate that the Democratic legitimately the that the the federal government is viewed as, then the less it can actually get stuff done in the country.
40 minutes, 54 seconds
Um, I'm wondering if you think apathy is ever a good thing. I have a friend who thinks that low voter turnout is often a
41 minutes, 1 second
sign of a healthy country in that it means that your citizens instead of what we see in you know war
41 minutes, 9 seconds
torn countries in Africa uh Latin America you're you're forced to be paying attention to politics constantly you're listening to radio there's often
41 minutes, 17 seconds
danger and violence that can come out of uh their their uh systems democratic systems we'll put in quotation marks is
41 minutes, 24 seconds
it ever a good thing that people can get about their go about their daily lives and their democratic systems are ticking off away in the background efficiently.
41 minutes, 33 seconds
Is apathy ever good? Do you need to be so engaged?
41 minutes, 36 seconds
I don't think I I I I'll accept the premise that when when times are bad uh people pay more attention to politics. I agree with that. I'm not sure that's an
41 minutes, 45 seconds
argument for that time should be bad. Uh and I'm not sure that it makes the case that that that because people don't turn out to elections, it's simply a
41 minutes, 52 seconds
reflection that they think everything is going over ticking over nicely. not the evidence that comes out when people when they're pled and they're asked why don't
41 minutes, 59 seconds
you vote. It's more like my vote doesn't matter, they're all liars, you know,
42 minutes, 3 seconds
it's much more cynical and that, you know, that kind of response. Uh um uh so no, I I I I I don't think the other
42 minutes, 12 seconds
thing you'll sometimes get people saying is well, you know, low voter turnout is a good thing in that it's a signaling device. So it's the opposite argument.
42 minutes, 20 seconds
it will signal discontent uh and therefore go governments will will have to pay attention to that.
42 minutes, 26 seconds
Well, it's a nice theory. It conflicts with the theory that it's all just because they're so contented. But it also it doesn't seem to have worked,
42 minutes, 33 seconds
right? If if if that was supposed to signal we want change, then they're not getting it. So, I I do think low voter
42 minutes, 41 seconds
turnout is a problem. Well, I think it's a problem first of all just in and of itself that that I think it does signal people don't feel the system is working
42 minutes, 49 seconds
for them. But the other important point is it's not just low voter turnout overall. It's lower voter turnout in some groups than others. It's you get an
42 minutes, 58 seconds
unrepresentative voting pop voting body uh that it tends to be, you know, youth vote less than older people,
43 minutes, 7 seconds
racial minorities vote less than, you know, the majority. there's a it's not distributed evenly. Um when we had the
43 minutes, 17 seconds
the controversy over the um uh over the long form census, if you recall, where the conservatives said, "Oh, it's okay.
43 minutes, 25 seconds
We we'll have a voluntary census.
43 minutes, 26 seconds
That'll be fine." Well, every statistician stood up and said, "That's nonsense. If you if it's voluntary, it's not going to be a representative sample." Uh the whole point of having a
43 minutes, 34 seconds
census where you don't you don't just do a a polling size sample of a,042 Canadians. you ask everybody. The whole
43 minutes, 41 seconds
point of why that's better than an ordinary poll is that you get everybody into the pool and you only do that if it's if it's compulsory. So I think one of the arguments for compulsory voting,
43 minutes, 51 seconds
mandatory voting is to get a representative sample so that we're actually representing all the people and not just the people who happen to turn
43 minutes, 57 seconds
out. Uh you know, it's not just it's not just laziness or apathy that causes people not to turn out. It may be that
44 minutes, 5 seconds
they feel they're they're given all kinds of signals in most of their daily life that their opinion doesn't matter, that they're on the margins of society,
44 minutes, 12 seconds
that they don't nobody needs to listen to them. Well, an election is the one day every four years where people have to listen to them. And it's a tragedy that they're not exercising that option.
44 minutes, 23 seconds
And I think we'd be a better and fairer society if if government is supposed to be the greatest good for the greatest number. Surely to God, you know, we we
44 minutes, 32 seconds
should be getting everybody's vote in the election, which is a broader point that I'm trying to make about the Parliament. You know, the Parliament is supposed to represent us. It's not
44 minutes, 40 seconds
representing us in terms of the MPs aren't representing us. It's not representing us in terms of of who we elect and how how they're elected. The
44 minutes, 47 seconds
first pass the post system means that the only people who are elected in each writing, there's only one member per writing that's elected and it's only the
44 minutes, 56 seconds
30 or 40% that voted for that person who get represented in Parliament. I know that legally everyone's represented, but in terms of having their views
45 minutes, 3 seconds
represented in parliament, which is the point of the exercise, we're only representing a slice of the public rather than all of the public. Why would we do that? I understand if there was
45 minutes, 12 seconds
some divine law that said you can only have one member per per riding. Then there would be nothing to be done about it and everybody who complains about it
45 minutes, 19 seconds
should shut up. But if there's no such law, if if it's possible to have more than one member per riding, let's say five members per writing, and if you
45 minutes, 28 seconds
could divide up the representation in rough proportion to the the share of the vote that people got, why would we not do that? Why would we not want to
45 minutes, 36 seconds
represent virtually everybody rather than just somebody?
45 minutes, 40 seconds
Particularly when you look at all the knock-on effects from that one basic dis disproportion when you when you start
45 minutes, 47 seconds
totting up all the other disproportions that come out of first pass the post when you aggregate those votes across all the writings.
45 minutes, 52 seconds
How do you solve for though? It gets quite complex and the the the public's willingness to listen and understand
46 minutes
this stuff the bar is very low. Um they're not willing to engage with the system we have already. Your thinking is that if you introduce a more complex one
46 minutes, 9 seconds
and somehow educate them in a way that they understand, you'll be represented better. They will participate. Well, how complicated is it really?
46 minutes, 15 seconds
Here's here's here's what here's what is it. Can it be put on a Tik Tok video for five seconds?
46 minutes, 20 seconds
Well, here's what the single transferable vote is. It's it's instead of having one member per writing, you have several. And instead of marking an X, you mark one, two, three, four, five.
46 minutes, 29 seconds
That's the comp that's how complicated it is, right? I think we can manage it. The Irish seem to be able to do it. Uh,
46 minutes, 36 seconds
you know, I think we can I think we can manage. The counting is complicated, but it's a, you know, I don't know how I don't know how the to to to fix my car.
46 minutes, 44 seconds
I don't know how the engine works, but I can drive it fine. I could, you know, I don't need to worry about the the complications of the of the counting.
46 minutes, 51 seconds
Uh, uh, all I need to know is is how do you run this thing? You Well, you mark a one, two, three, four, five. Our system is tremendously complicated and
46 minutes, 58 seconds
tremendously unpredictable. We have no idea when we look at the the polling data on the on the eve of an election.
47 minutes, 5 seconds
We have no idea how it's going to pan out in terms of seats. We have no model that can actually do this in any successful way because it's all these
47 minutes, 12 seconds
accidents of split votes. So if you want to talk about, you know, weird and wonky things, first pass the post is is mystifying in many ways.
47 minutes, 20 seconds
So that's in the book. You're proposing ideas. I'm interested in you as a salesman. in a few weeks if you got a call from a bunch of prominent Canadians
47 minutes, 28 seconds
and said, "Andrew, we are going to sign you up to become a senator so that you can impose these these view impose these
47 minutes, 38 seconds
changes from the inside." What would your response to be be on the other side of that telephone line? Uh, no thank you.
47 minutes, 43 seconds
No, thank you. You want no part of, you know, entering this system?
47 minutes, 46 seconds
Well, I wouldn't certainly not as a senator. Uh, I don't think the Senate I mean I I I I I would prefer that we had
47 minutes, 54 seconds
a democratically elected Senate. That my first preference. I I think it's virtually impossible to get there. So my my second preference would be a
48 minutes, 2 seconds
radically watered down Senate. It actually quite easy to get there. Uh um so we the system was the Senate was set
48 minutes, 10 seconds
up to be weak because it that was the purpose of making them all appointed.
48 minutes, 14 seconds
The problem is that senators have not always obeyed the idea that because you're not elected, you you should therefore not have any real power.
48 minutes, 22 seconds
They've become increasingly frisky in recent years because of the the Trudeau reforms where they were supposedly no longer partisan appointees. They were just appointed for their virtues. Yes.
48 minutes, 33 seconds
Uh and and in the early years of the Trudeau government when there were a lot of conservative senators, there was a real danger. They were going to they were going to vote down a
48 minutes, 41 seconds
Well, imagine if the Conservatives had won the crisis, we would have seen there.
48 minutes, 45 seconds
Absolutely. And and we've already seen rumblings in the Senate about how if the Conservatives brought in a bill that invoked the notwithstanding clause that the senators would the liberal senators
48 minutes, 54 seconds
or the vast majorities now would vote it down. Liberally appointed senators would would vote it down. Now, I'm no fan of the notwithstanding clause. I I give a whole part of a chapter to it in this
49 minutes, 3 seconds
book, but I I don't want the Senate to be the one that defeats it. But there's a very simple, I think, solution to the Senate riddle that will to me would work
49 minutes, 12 seconds
fine, which is the Senate could could pass its own resolution, you know,
49 minutes, 17 seconds
standing order that would simply say some version of any bill passed by the House of Commons that is not passed by the Senate within six months shall be deemed to have passed. In other words,
49 minutes, 28 seconds
they would take away from themselves uh the right to veto legislation and therefore the right to impose amendments because you can only oppose amendments
49 minutes, 36 seconds
with the threat of a of a veto. Um that would be a Senate that would only have moral authority. uh which actually is
49 minutes, 43 seconds
not I to me is not a horrible idea that you I think there is some power in the idea of gathering together some of the
49 minutes, 50 seconds
most respected citizens in the country people of great accomplishment and and and positions in the community uh who would there would be power in having
49 minutes, 58 seconds
them not just as individual voices but sitting in an assembly but their power would be the power of their example and the power of their arguments and the
50 minutes, 5 seconds
power of their moral authority not the formal authority to uh defeat government legislation. So if they behaved
50 minutes, 12 seconds
themselves sufficiently, if they if they earned and and and kept up that respect,
50 minutes, 17 seconds
then yes, if the Senate said, "We don't like this bill. We think it should be changed." The government would as as a practical matter would have to think very hard about it. I that that to me is
50 minutes, 26 seconds
a quite sophisticated sounding idea, but take away from them the actual power to defeat government legislation, which has no place in the democracy.
50 minutes, 35 seconds
This is why you're a journalist. asked you if you would become a senator and you've somehow told me, you know, how to fix the Senate.
50 minutes, 41 seconds
I said off the top I I would never I would never accept a Senate appointment.
50 minutes, 45 seconds
So, let's end on and you can quote me on that.
50 minutes, 47 seconds
Okay, we're putting that uh in our pieces. Um let's end on this something more I don't know light-hearted. The
50 minutes, 54 seconds
country is obviously deeply deeply damaged. People can follow this sort of in the book at least as it relates to our our democratic uh system. But is
51 minutes, 2 seconds
there another country you'd rather live in in on this earth?
51 minutes, 6 seconds
Uh, that's a good question. I mean, we are we are a remarkably successful country. I am I am immensely proud of Canada and what it's achieved. I think
51 minutes, 14 seconds
we're one of the highest achievements of of human state craft. Um, are there countries that have done this or that thing better? Are there countries that have a better functioning electoral
51 minutes, 23 seconds
system? Yes. I think a lot of the European countries, I think, you know,
51 minutes, 27 seconds
whenever you talk about electoral reform or proportional representation, the first thing that comes out of some people's mouths is Israel, uh, because they haven't thought about it more than
51 minutes, 35 seconds
10 seconds. If they thought about it more than 10 seconds, they would realize there's 90 plus countries around the world that use proportional representation, including some of the
51 minutes, 43 seconds
best governed countries on earth. you know, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, you know, Germany, the Netherlands, you know,
51 minutes, 50 seconds
these are all extremely well uh governed countries with very high performance on any measure you'd like. So, you know,
51 minutes, 57 seconds
would I like to see that? Would I like to see um a more traditional Westminster model ally what still is the case in
52 minutes, 6 seconds
Australia, the United Kingdom, and and New Zealand. I mean they all have their defects and their ways in which they've become degraded but you look across a
52 minutes, 14 seconds
number of different measures. They're still truer to the Westminster model which I think is a really good model. I mean this is this book is not proposing
52 minutes, 22 seconds
in some ways is not proposing terribly anything terribly radical. It's trying to get us back to the system we think we already have. You know I mean elector
52 minutes, 30 seconds
reform would be a bigger difference but even that's not that big a deal in ter as I explained in terms of how it would actually affect how you vote. Uh um but
52 minutes, 38 seconds
mostly it's just trying to get back to the the system we were taught in school that the system but that we've never really had. You say that we were we were closer to it. We were
52 minutes, 47 seconds
closer to it. We were much closer to it in the past. Private members bills used to get passed much more often in the past than they do now. They used to be much more part of a parliamentary
52 minutes, 55 seconds
business. Um um MPs used to vote against the party line much more than they do now. Prime Ministers have always been powerful. They were not as powerful as
53 minutes, 3 seconds
they are now. The cabinets were a bigger deal in the past than they are now. MPs were a bigger deal in the past than they are now. So yes, we were never a perfect
53 minutes, 11 seconds
system. We were never absolutely in conformity, but we were closer to it in in in the past than we are today.
53 minutes, 16 seconds
Well, here's hoping that in the future there'll be uh you know,
53 minutes, 19 seconds
parliamentarians from other countries coming here to study what we do, saying,
53 minutes, 23 seconds
you know, this is the the best in the Western world. Um that is Andrew Coin.
53 minutes, 27 seconds
His book, his first, the crisis of Canadian Democracy is available in fine bookstores everywhere. And we thank him so much for joining us on Hub Dialogues.
53 minutes, 35 seconds
Thank you, Harrison. That was great

 

 


 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)