Politics can be a fun – or a painful – game to watch. But unlike sports, which have clearly defined rules that referees or umpires or judges enforce to the letter, Canadian politics doesn’t operate consistently. The written constitution may say one thing, but unwritten constitutional conventions (yes, there are such things) may say something else. Perhaps something contradictory. 

So, in case you are many years removed from your high school civics or social studies class, here are five ways that our practical politics bucks the way our system was designed on paper and why that matters today. 

The Monarch 

In theory: The written constitution of Canada gives the monarch (currently King Charles III) vast power. Officially, the monarch chooses the prime minister, appoints every cabinet minister, every senator, and federal judges, decides when to call elections, manages international diplomatic relations, may veto any bill passed by Parliament before it becomes law, pardons criminals, and acts as the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. And that’s just at the federal level. According to the letter of the law, the monarch has the same powers (where applicable) over the provincial governments as well. If the king, or his representatives in the governor general and lieutenant governor, used these powers, our system of government would act and feel much more like a monarchy of the eighteenth century than a democracy in the twenty-first century. 

In practice: But, in practice, the monarch and his representatives exercise none of this power in a meaningful way. That’s because an unwritten constitutional convention is that Canada practices responsible government. Recognized in the various colonies of British North America even before Confederation, responsible government means that the monarch and his representative will act on the advice of the prime minister. The prime minister, in turn, is the person who has the confidence – or the support – of Parliament. In practice, this is usually the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. In this way, the unelected king, the governor general, and the prime minister are responsible to – or follow the wishes of – the elected parliament. Hence, responsible government. 

All of this is to say that, although the written constitution gives the monarch enormous power, if he tried to exercise that in any meaningful way, a constitutional crisis would erupt. For example, the last time the governor general independently exercised his power was exactly one century ago. At the time, Governor General Lord Byng refused to call an election at the request of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King. At the time, the governor general got his way, but his actions triggered such a constitutional crisis that no governor general has attempted to exercise this authority independently since. In practice, all the powers of the king and his representatives are carried out by the prime minister and provincial premiers. 

Why it matters: This system of responsible government ensures that executive power remains accountable to Parliament and voters. This is why we direct our political advocacy towards our prime minister, his cabinet, and our members of parliament, not the king or governor general.  

The Senate 

In theory: Senators are appointed by the king or the governor general in principle (the prime minister in practice) to equally represent the different regions of the country (24 from the Maritimes, 24 from Quebec, 24 from Ontario, and 24 for Western Canada, plus 6 for late-joining Newfoundland and Labrador and 3 for the territories).  

According to our written constitution, the Senate has just as much power as the House of Commons. It can introduce government or private members’ bills (except money bills). It has the power to amend, delay, or even veto any bill that comes its way. A cabinet minister or even the prime minister may be a senator rather than a member of parliament (like Prime Minister Sir John Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell were over a century ago.) It is even possible for the prime minister not to hold any elected office. Mark Carney was the prime minister for 45 days before he was elected as an MP. 

In practice: By unwritten convention, the unelected Senate virtually always yields to the wishes of the elected House of Commons. They might amend bills and send them back to the House of Commons for consideration, but if the House of Commons insists on its way, the Senate normally yields. One of the very rare examples of the Senate defeating a House of Commons bill was the Mulroney government’s proposed abortion legislation following the Morgentaler decision. That legislation was defeated by a tie vote in the Senate (a tie means a bill fails). 

Why it matters: We can certainly write to, call, meet, or lobby senators about a piece of legislation. But we can’t expect them to defeat legislation that has passed in the House. At best, we can expect them to pass amendments to legislation that the House of Commons may, or may not, adopt. 

Democracy 

In theory: These days, most people view democracy as the only enlightened form of government.  Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man, argues that liberal democracy is the pinnacle of political evolution, a form of government that almost every nation will adopt and retain indefinitely. 

Central to democracy is the principle that the people get to choose their governments through elections. Equally important is the notion that each vote should carry the same weight. Some people’s votes should not count more than others. This is the principle behind representation by population that our political ancestors fought for leading up to Confederation. Representation by population required that each riding contain roughly the same number of people so that every voter held just as much power as everyone else. 

In practice: Although this principle is the basis behind how the ridings for the House of Commons are drawn up, it doesn’t play out perfectly in practice. On average, each riding across Canada has 107,848 people according to the 2021 census. But the average in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario is closer to 115,000 or 116,000. Quebec is right around the average, while Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia average between 72,000-96,000. The average riding size of Prince Edward Island and each of the territories, however, is in the 30,000-50,000 range. In effect, people in the territories have almost three times more per-capita representation in Parliament than Ontarians, Albertans, or British Columbians. 

The same can be said for the division of senators. Now, the Senate was never supposed to operate under the principle of representation by population. Instead, as mentioned above, its goal was to provide equal representation between the various regions of Canada. In practice, the allocation of senators looks similar to the allocation of members of parliament, except the departure from representation by population is even more exaggerated. British Columbia has nearly one million residents per senator, while Prince Edward Island and the territories have about 45,000 residents per senator. Beyond mere population, the Senate isn’t democratically elected. It is appointed by the prime minister. 

Why it matters: Some say that British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario all get short-changed in the allocation of members of parliament and senators, and so the Canadian system is undemocratic. There is some truth in this claim. However, there are practical political reasons for this. For example, without favourable treatment for Prince Edward Island, the belle island simply wouldn’t have joined Confederation.  And despite PEI and the territories’ heavy representation per capita, the biggest provinces – Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia – still hold the greatest power in Parliament by dint of the sheer number of seats they hold in the House of Commons. 

Parliamentary Supremacy 

In theory: According to the principle of responsible government, the House of Commons is supposed to hold supreme power in our system of government. Not the king. Not the governor general. Not the police. Not the courts. Parliament. And more specifically, the House of Commons. All of this goes back to the democratic principle that the elected members of parliament should be in charge, not unelected officials. 

In practice: In reality, the Prime Minister effectively controls the House of Commons, especially in a majority parliament. Party discipline is so tight in Canada that members vote along party lines 99.6% of the time. And so, legislation introduced by the executive branch (the prime minister and his cabinet) is almost automatically passed through the House of Commons (and then the Senate, since the Senate doesn’t veto bills) when the prime minister’s party holds a majority of the seats. Only in a minority government does the House of Commons have far more sway over the prime minister. 

Members of Parliament have also ceded considerable lawmaking authority to Canada’s courts. Conservatives have long lamented how activist Canada’s courts have become, striking down laws passed by Parliament with increasing frequency. A few notable examples for Christians include the court striking down Canada’s sabbath observance law in Big M Drug Mart Ltd in 1985, its abortion law in Morgentaler in 1988, its prostitution law in Bedford in 2013, and its euthanasia law in Carter in 2014 and again in Truchon in 2019. 

In response to such rulings, the House of Commons could have invoked the notwithstanding clause to declare its law constitutional. To date, Parliament has never done this, though some provincial legislatures have used this provision in recent years. 

Why it matters: A weak House of Commons undermines democracy in Canada. More and more, unelected judges and the prime minister wield power. Canadians often think that we only become more progressive and more democratic as history goes on. In reality, democracy has more likely declined in the last few decades. 

Elections 

In theory: Canadians vote for individuals – rather than political parties or party leaders – to represent them in the House of Commons. Indeed, the Constitution  never mentions political parties. Voters are supposed to consider the character and convictions of candidates, not just their party and party leader.  

Similarly, no one actually votes on who becomes the prime minister in an election. Voters only choose their local member of parliament. The prime minister is the person who has the support of the greatest number of MPs. Of course, voters in one riding will elect an MP who becomes prime minister by virtue of having the confidence of the House of Commons, but these voters do not elect the prime minister as the prime minister. 

In practice: But all of this is very different in practice. Even before Confederation, loose political parties (e.g. the Tories, Reformers, Clear Grits, Bleus, and Rouge) operated in Canadian politics. Indeed, political parties are necessary for stable government. For example, British Columbia had no political parties for the first 32 years of its history. But this led to 14 different men holding the premiership during that time. Political parties were necessary to help elected representatives cooperate and agree on broad policy aims to govern the country. 

However, we have taken this to the opposite extreme, to the point where local candidates matter very little. The party brand carries the day. People now think that they are voting for a political party, with the local candidate simply carrying the party banner. 

The same dynamic is at play with party leaders. A major factor behind many Canadians’ votes is whether they like the leader of a political party. Pollsters will ask whether voters prefer the Conservative or Liberal party leader to be the prime minister. Voters get caught up in the personality cults of leaders, whether that be Trudeau, Poilievre, or Carney. 

Why it matters: One way this matters is when politicians cross the floor. Crossing the floor refers to when an MP leaves one party to join another party between elections, as five MPs have done recently. Many Canadians – a majority in a recent poll, actually – think that this is undemocratic and that the MP should face a by-election before he can switch parties. “I didn’t vote for the Liberals. I voted for the Conservatives,” the local constituent might say. 

But floor-crossing is officially valid when voters don’t technically vote for political parties. They vote for people. Our voting systems allows these representatives to choose the party they want to affiliate with and vote however they see fit. If voters don’t like your representative, then voters have the right to vote for another person in the next election. 

— 

Understanding how our political system is intended to work versus how it actually works helps us to engage in political action in meaningful ways. It may not be the most exciting stuff, but it is necessary knowledge to channel our political action.