Searching for the centre of gravity in politics

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/02/2025 (257 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Democracy needs a centre of gravity.

In Grade 10, my chemistry teacher approached me on the first day of class and told me that I must play football if I expected a good mark. Of course, this was tongue-in-cheek, which I understood, but I did sign up. I hated every minute. However, the coach offered one life lesson: “Greg, if you want to make a tackle, aim for the belly button. No one ever strays far from their belly button. It is the centre of gravity.”

Democracy needs its belly button, or as the late Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post over seven years ago, “The guardrails can’t contain Trump.”

The guardrails in democracies are the norms and institutions that resist political manipulation.

Public service once enjoyed a reputation of political independence, even at the most senior levels. The norm was that when a government changed politically, the civil service would faithfully pivot to implement a new administration’s directives.

That was then, this is now.

It is challenging to identify when civil service appointments started to become politicized, but with the Brian Mulroney government federally and the Ed Schreyer administration provincially, the practice of politically staffing senior levels in the public service became entrenched.

Hiring preferences are not the core guardrails needed in a democracy. Instead, it is our institutions’ laws, regulations, and mutually accepted procedures that centre democracy.

First, consider the accountability process needed to ensure government spending aligns with legislative authority and to best effect. The auditor general for Canada and provincial auditors perform that vital function. At the federal level, the auditor general has a 10-year appointment that inoculates this office from the political cycle. Most importantly, the AG reports to Parliament and not a government department, placing it under the direction of Parliament (and all political parties) and not just the political party currently forming the government.

During the 1970s and ’80s, Canada had two larger-than-life auditor generals, Kenneth Dye and Denis Desautels. Their reports of government misspending became front-page news and ammunition for the opposition. However, AG reports are losing their sting at the federal and provincial levels. For example, the recent findings by the Manitoba auditor that the government engages in sloppy bookkeeping drew fire from pundits but have since slipped off the screen. Without an effective opposition to press the government for action, we lose an effective check on government action and critically government inaction.

Statistics Canada is another essential guardrail of democracy. As Danial Moynihan stated, “You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.” Statistics Canada ensures we all use the same facts. Politicians have kept their grubby fingers off Statistics Canada, the notable exception being the Stephen Harper government, when it cancelled the long-form census in 2011. Twenty per cent of Canadians answer these additional census questions, providing critical details on demographics, ethnicity, and socio-economic measures. Munir Sheikh, the chief statistician of Canada, resigned in protest at Harper’s move, and many from academia and industry condemned it.

Statistics Canada is under the minister of innovation, science, and industry. While the Statistics Act governs the agency, potential exists for it to experience political influence, as illustrated by the cancellation long-form census issue. More recently, in its report on alcohol consumption in Canada, it suppressed details on the consumption behaviour of certain ethnic groups for fear of offending.

Appointing judges can be intensely political, especially for the Supreme Court. The first Donald Trump presidency was marked by controversy in the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, which many see as shifting the court to the right.

In Canada, appointment to the Supreme Court follows a structured path, with a shortlist from which the prime minister makes the final selection. All appointees must be bilingual, with three from Quebec, three from Ontario, two from Western Canada, and one from Atlantic Canada. An independent advisory board creates the shortlist. As it is a political process, choosing that advisory board is the weak link.

Finally, consider Senate appointments. Reforms introduced in 2016 attempted to increase merit and diversity in the selection process to correct appointments’ previous, more overtly political in nature, with the creation of yet another “independent” advisory board, choosing three of the five members and making the final selection from the shortlist. Trudeau has appointed 90 of the 105 senators currently sitting and wants to nominate another 10 to fill vacancies before he leaves.

A CBC analysis found that senators appointed by Trudeau sided with the government in 94 per cent of the votes. In 2024, Radio Canada reported that 66 per cent of senators had contributed financially to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Should Mark Carney become Liberal leader and prime minister, he will have a compliant Senate to rubber-stamp legislation. If Pierre Poilievre becomes prime minister, he will face an obstructionist upper house that will thwart the people’s will. Either Parliament makes Senate appointments, or the electorate votes these people in, as many have suggested.

On a final note, in the U.S. we have seen massive political interference in the judicial process. Whether it be the pardon of Hunter Biden, the innumerable charges against Trump of dubious provenance and that were “cancelled,” and most recently, the newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi dropping corruption charges against the mayor of New York Eric Adams under the argument that they would interfere with Adams’ ability to act as mayor. Talk about creating a precedent for politicians to engage in all sorts of malfeasance to remain in power.

I fervently hope that the next federal government in Canada acts to strengthen the belly button of our democracy.

» Gregory Mason is an associate professor of economics at the University of Manitoba. This column previously appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press