The Crisis of Canadian Democracy

By Andrew Coyne

Sutherland House/May 2025

Reviewed by Thomas d’Aquino

June 2, 2025

The recent visit of King Charles and Queen Camilla to Ottawa was both preceded and followed by a flood of praise for Canada’s monarchical and parliamentary traditions, leaving many Canadians with the impression that Canadian democracy is a shining example to the world. According to author and journalist Andrew Coyne, Canada is far from a shining example of democracy.

In The Crisis of Canadian Democracy, Coyne levels a searing critique of our country’s democratic institutions and its main actors. From the outset, he does not mince words. “One of the things Canadians think they know about Canada is that it is a democracy: among the greatest democracies on earth, in fact…It is the ambition of this book to deprive Canadians of this comfort. Far from a democratic example to the world, our parliamentary system is in a state of advanced disrepair — so advanced it is debatable whether it should still be called a democracy.”

Coyne makes his case in eight succinct chapters. He advances his arguments with a fervent intensity that one might associate with a Samuel Johnson or a Voltaire, and with a lucidity that will be familiar to the readers of his Globe and Mail column. He writes with flair and acumen and backs his criticism with careful research. There are no fewer than 187 notes at the book’s conclusion; he aims to educate his readers. He also aims to shake them from their complacency. He achieves both aims and more.

To Coyne, a well-functioning democratic system is the heart and soul of a successful country. He explains why democracy matters. “Without a functioning Parliament, we are denied adequate representation in or oversight of government. Error is more likely to go undetected, incompetence to go unpunished, abuses of power to go unchecked. As Parliament’s legitimacy declines, people look to alternate sources of representation — the provinces, the courts, activist groups, charismatic demagogues, none of which have the unifying force of a national parliament, where all parts of the community come together to debate the issues of the day.”

Coyne’s cri de coeur carries a somber warning. When democratic institutions are steadily eroded, it leads to dangerous consequences. Pointing to the United States, a country he covers in considerable depth as a columnist, he says “In time, as we have seen south of the border, the discrediting of democratic institutions can begin to nourish a desire for autocracy.”

As Coyne builds his case, he begins with the institution of parliament itself. Simply put, he says it isn’t working. He argues that it has been negatively affected by the influence of the United States and the growing presidentialization of our politics. The last century’s dominance of the Liberal Party in Canadian politics has not helped. It has led, according to Coyne, to an abuse of power and “habitual disdain for the rules”.

His litany of Parliament’s failings is extensive, attributable in the main to the unchecked exercise of prime ministerial power. The specifics he raises each fall within the discretionary ambit of the prime minister. Despite the enormous growth in the volume of government business, Parliament has been sitting for ever-shorter periods of time. The deployment of prorogation to shut down Parliament has been abused by a succession of prime ministers. Time allocations and motions of closure to curtail parliamentary debate have now become commonplace. The growing use of “omnibus” legislative packages has resulted in less effective parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary committees, too many in number to begin with and partisan dominated, “tend to be either rubber stamps in a majority parliament, or toothless talking shops in a minority.” And parliament’s fundamental prerogative of controlling the public purse through scrutiny of estimates and the budget has been stymied.

The decline which Coyne justifiably describes with alarm is a relatively recent development in Canada’s political evolution. One can argue that it began in 1968 with the arrival of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Serving as a special assistant to the Prime Minister between 1969 and 1972, I witnessed the first stages of the centralization of prime ministerial power — the principal cause, according to Coyne, of today’s illness afflicting our parliamentary traditions and institutions. At the time, I believed that the expansion of the prime minister’s powers was justified — a needed step to respond to the complexities of modern government. I supported my case in a lecture in 1974 published by the Canadian Institute of Public Administration. By the end of the seventies, I had second thoughts, and co-authored the book Parliamentary Democracy in Canada: Issues for Reform, published in 1983 (Methuen). It warned that Parliament was in decline and that steps needed to be taken to reverse the trend.

Coyne offers some practical recommendations on how to remedy these failings, but concludes that in the absence of reforms, the House of Commons has become little more than an “appendage” of government. “A prime minister in possession of a majority can summon, prorogue, or dissolve parliament more or less at will, and push through whatever legislation he likes without fear of defeat, amendment, or significant delay. Even in a minority, as we have seen, the prime minister can evade being called to account without much difficulty.”

Andrew Coyne has written a highly consequential book. Alarmist, provocative and driven by a sense of urgency, it is an overdue wake-up call to the nation.

Turning from the institution to its key actors, Coyne decries the diminished standing and authority of members of parliament.  Party discipline, he argues, has been taken to “an absurd extreme”.  Citing studies showing that parliamentarians vote the party line over 99 percent of the time, he says MPs “cannot represent their constituents or their own judgment so long as they are slaves to the party whip.” He adds, “We have the most severe regime of party discipline of any of the democracies, and it has never been as severe as now.” He is unsparing in his condemnation of the behaviour of MPs in parliament’s question period and their habit of “braying, catcalling, heckling witlessly, [and] shaking their jowls in feigned outrage…”.

Coyne favours restoring the power of MPs to elect a new leader and removing the leader’s power to veto their nomination or expel them from caucus. But he laments the reluctance of MPs to pursue these channels of empowerment saying “they all depend on ordinary MPs having the pluck to vote for them. So long as they remain the willing pawns of the party leaders, they never will.”

Coyne returns to the overarching power of Canadian prime ministers by underscoring their unchallenged discretion in making appointments to the Cabinet, the public service, the Senate and the Supreme Court. He regrets the decline in so-called “cabinet government” pointing out that the growth of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) has eclipsed the power and influence of individual cabinet members. He cites the role of prime ministerial staff, the “kids in short pants”, second-guessing or countermanding cabinet ministers.

As if PMO oversight were not enough, the now-accepted practice of minister’s chiefs of staff being selected by the PMO adds to the prime minister’s control. As further evidence of the decline of cabinet government, he points out that modern day cabinets are far too large, served by a “byzantine” system of committees and sub-committees; and that cabinet posts are rotated all-too-often.

Coyne’s chapter on The Unelected vs the Elected makes for a fascinating read. He tackles the power of the Senate and the Supreme Court head-on, elaborating both their advantages and shortcomings. Interestingly, he concludes that the unelected Senate in its current form is “an accident waiting to happen: an accident with the potential to do great harm.” As for the judiciary, he raises important questions surrounding “judicial activism”, the Charter and the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.

Among the sharpest criticisms of Canada’s democratic processes are contained in Coyne’s chapter on elections. The conclusion of his chapter sums up his support for two far-reaching reforms.  One is mandatory voting. The other is proportional representation. He explains his position as follows. “Mandatory voting won’t fix all the ills that afflict our politics. But it is guaranteed to fix one: turnout. No other single reform would have as immediate, as large, as certain, as lasting, and as beneficial an influence on our democracy, and at so little cost.”

Coyne then links his argument to his advocacy for proportional representation which would also boost turnout. “Imagine”, he says, “if we did both…Suppose, therefore, that 90 percent of the adult population voted, and 90 percent of those votes helped elect someone. That would give us a Parliament representing the votes of at least 80 percent of adult population, versus the third or less typical of current parliaments.” While I have long harboured reservations about proportional representation, Coyne’s analysis has prompted me to reconsider, opening my thinking to its benefits, at least in hybrid form.

Andrew Coyne has written a highly consequential book. Alarmist, provocative and driven by a sense of urgency, it is an overdue wake-up call to the nation. I am in wholehearted agreement with his analysis and conclusions. It deserves to be read by every parliamentarian in the House of Commons and the Senate and should be required reading by key decision-makers in the public service. More broadly, it should be at the centre of public debate in Canada about how to strengthen Canadian democracy and its institutions.

Coyne is the first to admit that effecting reform will not be an easy task. It would require courageous support from parliamentarians themselves which, so far, to Coyne’s disappointment, has not been forthcoming. Most importantly, it would require the leadership of an enlightened prime minister who would be willing to cut the Gordian knot with the acceptance of some limitations of prime ministerial power.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has professed respect for Canada’s democratic traditions and institutions. He has also spoken of his wish to see a return to cabinet government. This is encouraging. And, he has committed Canada to a path of greater resilience based on a strengthening of national identity and influence in the world. Among his many priorities, rekindling Canadian zeal for democratic excellence should rank high on his agenda.

Policy Contributing Writer Thomas d’Aquino is an entrepreneur, philanthropist and Chairman of Thomas d’Aquino Capital. He is the Founding Chief Executive and Distinguished Life Member of the Business Council of Canada and author of the #1 bestseller Private Power Public Purpose: Adventures in Business, Politics and the Arts. He is also co-author of the 1983 groundbreaking book Parliamentary Democracy: Issues for Reform written in collaboration with Professor G. Bruce Doern.