Several years ago, I concluded that Canada's Liberals and Conservatives were two sides of the same coin. Both emerged from a broadly liberal political tradition valuing individual liberty, private property, and responsible parliamentary government. Their differences often concerned how quickly change should occur rather than the principles guiding it.Reading J. L. Granatstein's The Ottawa Men helped me examine how that system operated and how it changed.Granatstein describes the civil servants who transformed Ottawa between the 1920s and 1950s. Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden introduced major civil service reforms in 1918. Another Conservative, R. B. Bennett, appointed Clifford Clark Deputy Minister of Finance despite his Liberal associations. Clark helped establish the Bank of Canada and remained in office when Mackenzie King's Liberals returned to power.Ability and continuity mattered more than party loyalty. But the system had weaknesses. Senior officials were drawn largely from narrow academic and social circles, excluding many capable Canadians. Political impartiality could also suffer. Arnold Heeney sought a professional administration capable of serving successive governments, while J. W. Pickersgill became closely identified with the Liberal Party and hostile to its Conservative opponents.Meanwhile, the purpose and reach of government were changing. The Depression and Second World War expanded Ottawa's economic powers. Postwar social programs added permanent responsibilities. Classical liberalism had emphasized protecting individual freedom; social liberalism increasingly made government responsible for achieving desired outcomes..That transformation continued under both parties. Brian Mulroney's 1990 Green Plan placed environmental objectives within economic policy. Jean Chrétien's government continued that direction through environmental legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. As responsibilities expanded, so did taxation, regulation, and administrative control.But who controls the political parties through which Canadians supposedly direct government?In my earlier essay, Barbarians Inside the Gates, I examined how a small group at party headquarters can override ordinary members. I witnessed this when the People's Party of Canada replaced riding-based associations with a province-wide structure, reducing local autonomy. Its absence of bylaws or enforceable internal rules left local associations without protection against decisions made by party headquarters.Party leadership also influences nominations, fundraising, and policy. Once candidates are elected, party discipline can pressure them to favour headquarters over their constituents. Voters can change representatives without changing who sets the direction.The concentration of authority extends into government..In September 1939, Mackenzie King summoned Parliament to consider Canada's entry into the Second World War. Parliament's approval preceded the declaration of war. King recognized that a decision of such consequence belonged before the country's elected representatives.Under Mark Carney, Canada negotiated participation in the European Union's Security Action for Europe defence procurement program. The agreement entered into force in August 2026 without requiring a parliamentary approval vote.Carney also announced substantial assistance to Ukraine in 2026, including military support, loans, and guarantees, without seeking a separate parliamentary vote before each commitment. These announcements involved public resources and potential financial liabilities, yet the executive determined the commitments before MPs could examine them individually.Parliament authorizes legislation and appropriations. Yet the executive can conclude international agreements without Parliament's binding approval. Even a parliamentary resolution opposing ratification cannot compel the government to stop.Calling this lawful does not answer the objection. The absence of an enforceable parliamentary safeguard is the problem..Geography magnifies the consequences. In the 2021 Census, the metropolitan areas of Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa, Montréal, Trois-Rivières, and Québec City accounted for 34.3% of Canada's population on just 0.20% of its land. Policies shaped by densely populated regions can impose very different costs on communities spread across the rest of Canada.Political parties should answer to members, MPs to constituents, Cabinet to Parliament, and civil servants to the governments they serve. Instead, influence increasingly travels downward from party headquarters and the executive, while accountability struggles to travel upward.Changing the governing party does not change the powers it inherits. Believing the Conservatives will rescue parliamentary accountability merely by replacing the Liberals is to forget that they are the other face of the same coin. Both have operated and expanded a system that permits power to accumulate beyond meaningful public control.Alberta's October 19 referendum has brought Canada's constitutional future into sharper focus. Although the proposal to begin the process toward independence was defeated, approximately one-quarter of those who voted supported taking that step. That is a substantial number of Albertans prepared to reconsider the country's constitutional arrangements.From my own experience, changing someone's understanding takes time. I recall working with a team examining exploration methods. During one discussion, I recognized what seemed an obvious way forward, but a colleague could not see it. We broke for lunch, and when we returned, he agreed with my assessment. He had simply needed time to consider the evidence.Canada's structural weaknesses remain, regardless of Alberta's referendum result. Changing governments cannot repair rules that leave accountability to the discretion of those exercising power. Canada's governing system resembles a forged painting: convincing at first glance, but lacking the safeguards its appearance promises. The referendum has settled the immediate question in Alberta, but the broader debate over Canada's constitutional arrangements remains. Meaningful change will require patience, continued examination of the evidence, and a growing understanding of the problems that need correcting.
