Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

Some ministers and MPs become alarmed by the way a file has been handled by the Prime Minister and the staff who surround him. His behaviour is a betrayal of their party’s principles, they say – and it jeopardizes the party’s chances in the forthcoming election. One minister quits, then another. Everyone knows what happens next: The PM will face a leadership vote from his own MPs, and will quite possibly be replaced, midterm, by a new PM drawn from their ranks.

At least, that’s what happens next if you happen to live in Australia. There, MPs exercise their sovereignty with a much heavier hand than in other Westminster countries such as Canada. They are fully aware that in the U.K.-founded system we share it is MPs, not party members or the PM’s staff, who wield the power to choose their leader, and they use it to hold the PM to task. Since 2010, Australian prime ministers have faced a mid-mandate leadership contest (known as a “leadership spill”) on eight occasions. Four of them, including one last August, have produced a new prime minister.

As many Canadians learned this week, things work differently here. The Prime Minister and his staff are not just an important part of the government; for all intents and purposes, they are the government. Even the Clerk of the Privy Council, a theoretically impartial public servant, has turned out to be an intensely political power figure.

Story continues below advertisement

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stands during question period in the House of Commons in the West Block of Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Jan. 30, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

The fact that two Canadian ministers dissented publicly from a PMO decision, on what they saw as matters of principle, is a historic precedent here. In other parliamentary democracies, it would be a big story, but a routine one. British Prime Minister Theresa May has faced several such challenges already, one of them resulting in a full-scale leadership vote. So did many of her predecessors.

Canada is governed by the world’s most intense version of what the British, during the Tony Blair years, came to call “sofa government,” in which power rests in the PM’s inner circle. One imagines a not-too-comfy couch in the Wellington Street building once known as the Langevin Block where an MP might be gently but firmly warned away from a position.

In 2007, Eoin O’Malley, a scholar at Dublin City University, published a survey of the relative powers of Prime Ministers in parliamentary democracies around the world. On a scale of zero to 10, Iceland ranked the lowest, at 3.75 – that is, its MPs held the greatest share of power. And by far the highest score, of the 22 countries studied, was Canada: it registered a Prime Ministerial power score of 8.24.

That was before Stephen Harper’s Conservatives further consolidated power in the Prime Minister’s Office to what many felt was a ridiculously total degree. Justin Trudeau, after having pledged in 2015 to build a cabinet-centred government, has largely kept Mr. Harper’s heavily PMO-focused structure.

The question, now that we have been given an unwelcome tour of the sausage factory, is whether there is a better way. The disadvantages of PMO government are evident: It creates incentives for secret decisions that sometimes put the survival of the executive ahead of greater interests. Voters don’t know what’s going on.

Not all the alternatives are better. PMO-focused government is often contrasted with cabinet government, the usual exemplar being Lester B. Pearson’s minority governments of the 1960s. In 1999, scholar Donald Savoie’s Governing From the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics chronicled the dramatic shift from cabinet to PMO government – for example, the PMO’s staff rose from 200 to more than 1,000 over the course of 30 years.

But cabinet-centred government is inefficient and more open to corruption (the SNC-Lavalin scandal has involved political interference and possibly manipulation of justice, but no whiff of palm-greasing). It is also less democratic; when you vote, you are choosing your MP either on her personal merits or on the policies and pronouncements of her party leader – that is, it’s a vote for the future prime minister and staff, and not for whatever unknown and ever-changing entities form the cabinet.

Story continues below advertisement

It’s far better, and easier, to fix the PMO-focused system so it’s more accountable and transparent. We saw the beginnings of such change this week. The House of Commons committee system, while underpowered and neglected compared with other countries, serves, far more than the Senate, as Canada’s second chamber of democratic accountability, and should be further empowered that way.

In 2011, political scientists Lori Turnbull, Mark Jarvis and the late Peter Aucoin published Democratizing The Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government, which recommended a shift of influence and oversight back to MPs, and thus to greater democratic accountability.

One of their suggestions – fixed election dates, which make committees more effective – has become law. We should revisit the rest, including reducing the allowable size of cabinet and, crucially, making it easier for MPs to vote out their Prime Minister. Our governments would work far better if, as in other parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister’s staff lived in constant fear of censure by MPs – the opposite of the current situation.

Related topics

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies