pc28����

It was an ad for Prime Minister Robert Borden’s Unionists. Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals had believed that the First World War was a far-off affair, and that Canada needn’t commit much in the way of resources. Borden believed that Canada must use every tool at its disposal to fight the war — including conscription.

More than a century on, as we face a different kind of war, we should aspire to be more like Borden than Laurier. We shouldn’t let slackers at home, nor the one in the White House, rule the country. And to do so, we should aspire to some kind of union government.

Not a national unity government, per se. But a government that is more built for collaboration and co-operation than Ottawa has been used to in recent years. A government that is less petty and provincial, more serious and ambitious. A government that puts country before party.

It will go against every instinct of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s advisers, particularly after he racked up an impressive victory on Monday, earning the highest vote share of a winning party since 1984.

But it is the right move. Successful as he was, Carney failed to achieve a majority. Across the country, voters were split along gender, age, and regional lines. More than that, they were split on the biggest challenge facing the country: Is it Donald Trump? Or is it the compounding problems posed by inflation, sluggish growth, and worsening services? Carney was elected by people predominantly motivated by the former concern, but he will still need to address the young people, workers, and westerners anxious about the latter issues. 

Most Canadians know that these aren’t either/or problems. The country is facing all these threats at the same time.

As he races to face these issues, Carney will be tempted to simply adopt the parliamentary playbook of his predecessor. He could keep his government alive, either by nimbly relying on opposition parties to support his bills or by squeezing the NDP into another confidence-and-supply agreement. He could continue expecting his Liberal caucus to be a team of yes-men and yes-women, strongly discouraged from fielding independent thoughts beyond their pre-written talking points. And he could continue treating Parliament as a joke, as an ancillary place where decisions should merely be rubber-stamped.

This would be politically expedient, but bad for the country. A more democratic Parliament, however, would be good for the country.

He could start by looking inward. He should empower individual Liberal MPs to criticize, debate, and generate policy — even if that means they occasionally vote against his legislation.

Outside of the Liberals, Carney needs to find a dance partner for his minority government, and it’s likely to be the NDP. With their seven seats, they could help Carney pass his legislation and stave off a snap election (which they can ill afford) through a formal deal or on an ad hoc basis. But they risk cementing themselves in the role as the Liberals’ intern.

Instead, he could offer the NDP a formal coalition: Support for the government’s business in exchange for a cabinet post. A seat in cabinet would give the NDP a chance to own their own initiatives.

Green leader Elizabeth May is unlikely to net a cabinet post. However, as a parliamentary wonk and champion for smaller parties and independents, May has always wanted the job of speaker, with the stated goal of making Parliament more collaborative. That’s something the Liberals should offer to her.

The Greens and NDP could make a few additional demands of this government in exchange for predictability and stability in Parliament.

Normally, parties require 12 seats in the House of Commons to enjoy the benefits of being a “recognized party” which means more budget, staff, and offices. But a previous speaker has made clear that members of the House are free to waive that requirement on a case-by-case basis. The Liberals could grant the NDP and Greens this status, and the benefits that come with it.

They could also push hard to give Canadians a choice about the future of their democracy. This election has, again, showed the distorting effects of our first-past-the-post electoral system. Voters who wanted to cast their ballot for the NDP, Green, Bloc Québécois, or even the People’s Party were cajoled into picking the red or blue doors out of fear of wasting their vote. 

Asked towards the end of the campaign, Carney said he would remain neutral on the question of electoral reform, but suggested there would come a day when “more structural issues in our democracy can be addressed.” Great: The NDP and Greens should demand that we have an electoral reform referendum, timed with the next federal election.

Going broader, Carney should strike an all-party cabinet committee to discuss the threats posed by the Trump administration in order to bring in input from all opposition parties, and allow Ottawa to present a unified front on this single issue.

There’s an obvious flaw in this Kumbaya approach: Pierre Poilievre, who is not exactly a team player. He has long argued that it is the leader of the opposition’s job to oppose, not govern. It is part of the reason why he has refused to obtain his security clearance. And while I think he takes this principle too far, he is generally correct. Carney needs a boisterous opposition in the House of Commons.

While Carney should invite Poilievre to contribute to the government’s strategy if he wishes, he should also make the opposition leader’s job easier. (Assuming Poilievre can find his way back into the House of Commons.)

Over the past two decades, the quality of debate, discussion, and legislation in the House of Commons has grown dire. The Liberal government, in particular, has cheapened parliament’s work and the Conservatives have responded by weaponizing its institutions. The Liberals have neutered parliamentary committees from having any real say on government legislation, for example, and the Conservatives have responded by turning them into a “torture chamber” for the government. 

Carney could return to Parliament more power to introduce and amend legislation, to request documents and question witnesses. He should hand the Conservatives more leeway to question and criticize the government’s strategy — it will be annoying for them, but it has the potential to make that strategy better.

Behind the Conservatives’ steely exterior, they do still engage in some cross-partisan collaboration. We have a number of multi-party parliamentary associations which travel the world, building ties with like-minded governments. Our opposition parties also have political formal relationships with their sister parties in Europe — the NDP, through the Progressive Alliance; the Greens, through the Global Greens; and the Conservatives, via the International Democracy Union. These parliamentary and political ties should be bridges to finding new friends and trading partners.

Carney is set to become prime minister amidst the most existential set of threats to the country in a century. His government will simply not have the capacity to deal with all of those threats on their own.  Indeed, that’s why our Parliament exists in the first place. It’s why we have a senate. It’s why opposition parties and individual MPs are allowed to introduce legislation. It’s why we have committees to study and amend legislation.

The kind of Parliament I’m describing — more democratic, more conciliatory, more constructive — is not quite the union government of Prime Minister Borden. But it is precisely the kind of unconventional response that, at a time of unusual threats and challenges, will be needed to stop the slacker from ruling Canada.