April 11, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
Canadian political headlines are dominated by the Carney government moving from minority to majority support in the House of Commons. MP Marilyn Gladu’s crossing the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals was the fifth such gain for the government caucus in five months. After the first in November, I used this space to consider the competing loyalties (to leader, party, voters and conscience) at play in these events. Loyalty is a virtue, and the emotions accompanying betrayal are understandable, even if the legalities and morality of such situations are not as clearly black and white. The oft-cited words of Edmund Burke still resonate: a representative owes not just industry, but judgment—and betrays rather than serves if they surrender it to opinion.
This is the usual framing of debates over floor crossings like Gladu’s: it is a matter of political loyalty, or legal mechanics. But beneath both concerns lies a more fundamental question: what moral obligations do elected representatives carry, and what does it mean when the exercise of political judgment strains the trust that underwrites democratic legitimacy?
Part of the confusion in the present debate stems from the continued Civics 101 mistakes embedded in the arguments raised by all sides. It seems even our politicians misunderstand the theory of our system. While the April 2025 election produced a minority Liberal government, we cannot properly say that Canadians elected such a government. Canadian elections do not choose governments; they elect 343 representatives in local contests. Those representatives meet in the House of Commons, form caucuses, and hold to account whoever the Crown has asked to be the Prime Minister and to form a government. That selection is informed by the makeup of the House of Commons, with convention suggesting that the leader of the largest parliamentary caucus be given the first opportunity. The Prime Minister can only serve with the continued confidence of the House of Commons—a mandate—that is regularly tested through throne speeches, budgets, and motions. Lose a vote and we go back to the voters to seek a new mandate. This is not a loophole. It is the system, rooted in centuries-old efforts to ensure accountability in governance.
The civics nerd in me winces at the description of this week’s events from all sides. MP Gladu did not join the government—she joined the Liberal parliamentary caucus. Similarly, when Opposition Leader Poilievre frames this as a “seizure” of power through a “backroom deal,” he is misrepresenting what is occurring. Prime Minister Carney only serves in that office based on the confidence expressed through votes in the House of Commons. He doesn’t have different powers depending on whether his parliamentary caucus is large enough to provide support or if he requires the support of opposition MPs. An MP votes as an individual—they need to stand up and be counted—and has agency to follow (or not) the lead of their party whip. That is at the heart of democratic accountability. Historically literate accounts will go back to King John appeasing the barons in 1215 with the Magna Carta and a commitment to no taxation without representation. The “divine right of kings” was limited by a respect for every citizen; authority is bounded by justice.
It’s a long way from that theory to our present confusions. Our elections are increasingly framed around a choice of who will be the prime minister. But the ballots completed in the 2025 election did not include the names of Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre; they listed only local candidates. Similarly, you only get to mark one ‘X’ on your ballot. You don’t get to choose whether you prefer a minority or majority government. In fact, one presumes most voters want their party to govern with sufficient support in the House of Commons to efficiently get stuff through Parliament. But a government, majority or not, exercises full legal authority so long as it avoids defeat in the House. That authority (“the divine right of kings”) is limited by the representation of the people.
These were not just structural innovations designed by political theorists. They were the expression of a developing Christian social thought tradition that associated authoritarianism with generally promoting more evil than good. It took centuries of development for this to evolve into what is now understood as human rights, grounded in the belief that every person is an image-bearer of God and deserves respect and moral agency that no state has the right to override. Christian social thought has consistently rejected unchecked authority—whether vested in monarchs or modern executives—and affirmed instead the importance of accountability, subsidiarity, and the limits of power. Authority is God-given and real, but it is never absolute. It is held in trust.
The legal powers of government need to be exercised within the framework of trust. Which translates into very practical questions. How, in a society with a range of ideological perspectives, do we mediate these differences into a coherent public policy? We can’t all get our way, and in the end, one perspective will be selected. Democracy answers this with a good-faith process that provides a voice for all and requires trust, enabling us to acquiesce in the outcomes. We are asked to participate in the process and then trust its outcome.
In practical terms, that has morphed into political parties aggregating diverse interests into platforms, condensing thousands of opinions into a manageable number of alternatives. The election brings representatives of those alternatives into a parliament (“parle” is French for speaking) where representatives debate and develop a consensus both through legislation (laws that empower and limit what the executive branch of government can do) and by holding them accountable (by questioning them and through confidence votes). In that sense, the government's decisions can rightly be described as “democratic” and flowing from a mandate, even if the specifics of any given decision were not discussed with the electorate.
The events of this week challenge that framework of democratic legitimacy. It seems incomprehensible to most how a pro-life Conservative MP can agree to join a Liberal caucus and appear to go along with positions that contradict foundational beliefs. Understandably, although technically correct and legally sound, MP Gladu’s floor crossing is seen as violating a trust in a more intense manner than even the previous floor crossings.
The platforms advanced by political parties are understood to reflect a cluster of perspectives that have some ideological compatibility. But there have always been perceived limits. Those limits are being challenged. If, as expected, Doly Begum—a recent Ontario NDP deputy leader with a social-democratic profile—joins the Liberal caucus alongside Marilyn Gladu, a long-serving Conservative associated with social conservatism and libertarian critique, Canadians will see perspectives traditionally separated by the aisle sitting side by side. The Liberals prefer we think of this as nation-building and constructive cooperation. Many are perceiving this as a trust-destroying process.
All of this brings us back to the moral questions about the mandate. The task of government is less a search for truth (faithful politics in a broken world requires prudence and compromise) than an obligation of justice. That requires our representatives to exercise judgment, but they must do so in a way that respects the trust placed in them. There is a difference between prudential change and perceived disregard for those who sent you to Ottawa. Judgment is not license; it is responsibility. It is fair to assess, as many MPs have over time, that a given leader no longer deserves their loyalty, that the platform of the party opposite represents a better alternative and deserves support rather than the one on which you were elected, or that the circumstances have changed such that what was said in an election is no longer valid. It is quite different to make decisions that seem to violate the basic and foundational character and beliefs with which you presented yourself to voters, on the basis of which they trusted you to be their representative.
Christian social thought reminds us that politics is not only about outcomes but about process. We rightly debate how we treat the marginalized or the unborn, how we fund health care, or approach end-of-life decisions. These are moral questions. But so too are the quieter questions of honesty, integrity, character, and accountability. How power is gained and exercised matters.
Our political system developed as a framework to restrain power through accountability. Increasingly, it risks becoming a mechanism for concentrating power with fewer meaningful checks. That shift should concern us. It is not a technical issue. It is a moral one—compounded, perhaps, by the civic illiteracy on display in this week’s debates.
WHAT I’M READING
No Divine Right to Success
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, used his annual note to shareholders to recommit to the various principles that have undergirded the bank’s success and to warn that “no city—or company or country—has a divine right to success.” Notes to shareholders need to be read in light of the corporate messages that are being sent, not as objective journalism. Still, written as it was in a fraught geopolitical context, I found the implicit warnings telling, sent as it was under the signature of one of America’s leading business voices. The section of “Management Learnings” is also worth a read.
Middle East Muddle
I have lots of strong opinions—few of them original— regarding the challenges that accompany the United States/Israel-Iran conflict, and since neither foreign affairs nor military strategy is my strong suit, I will defer to not going too far into this matter. I opined in The Hub last week regarding the role that belief plays in the Iran War as well as the American Easter White House lunch, arguing that not accounting for—or in some cases mistakenly utilizing—faith and belief and their impact on both political and religious life was very problematic in the present situation. There are multiple explanations available, including this Foreign Affairs piece, which argues that war is a necessary consequence of a decades-long conflict that only deterrence and force can resolve. This Georgetown analysis suggests that the United States has entered a conflict without a clear endgame, likely resulting in a protracted one.
Defining Democracy Down
Politico’s description of Pop Base, an emerging online platform that blends gossip and celebrity-culture tactics to reach a disengaged political audience, reminded me of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous 1993 essay, “Defining Deviancy Down.” That essay argued that as social deviance (crime, family breakdown, vandalism, graffiti, etc.) increases, it becomes normalized and society adjusts its standards so that what is considered a problem today is just normal tomorrow. While there has always been a prurient interest in the personal lives of our political leaders, I am wondering to what extent the changing nature of our political communication will similarly reshape our political conversations and discourse.
Going to the Wells
Paul Wells is a longstanding and leading Canadian political journalist who these days distributes his perspectives primarily through his Substack. His March 30th entry on “the state of Canada 2026” provides a sobering take on the Canadian sputtering economy. His April 9th entry is worth recommending, not only because it references Mark Carney’s interview at a Cardus event as “the most complete survey of Carney’s political thinking in the months before he contested the Liberal leadership” but also because of its clever title, “Gladu could make it.”
MEANINGFUL METRICS
These voting-intention polls by occupational breakdown, embedded in last week’s Abacus public opinion poll, highlight the different political conversations happening across segments of society. The regional and urban/rural divides are the more common distinctions, but I found it interesting that the Liberals have the highest support in the healthcare, education, and transport/delivery sectors. Education and healthcare largely depend on government funding, which has traditionally been part of the broader public service that tends to lean Liberal. How that support endures through the inevitable period of spending restraint that government finances will impose will be noteworthy. The transport/delivery sector is somewhat curious; although it includes warehouse workers, logistics coordinators, and various public sector adjacent roles, it’s a somewhat catch-all category that doesn’t form a neat group. Support for Conservatives seems to increase among “blue collar” workers, most notably in the “physical/manual” category, but also in the food service (hospitality) sector. I wonder if the issues associated with each category are more important than the category itself, especially given the immediate relevance of cost-of-living concerns. Pay reductions are more often experienced by those paid hourly (fewer hours, no overtime, etc.) than by salaried workers.
TAKE IT TO-GO
When this newsletter began some years ago, I was advised that an effective newsletter requires some lighter fare and shows personality. Those who know me will attest that “dad-jokes” came naturally to me well before I was a father and in settings far removed from my own household, so wordplay became part of the program. I have life-long experience in groaning the room, and truthfully, the delight of that experience has grown on me over time. I know it can provide a tense situation—past, present and future—but the siren-sound of the double-entendre is music at least to my own ears.
But I can’t let the pun rhythm overwhelm, as I do want you coming back next week, so let me finish this with a harmonious note, figuring the tenor eleven puns that have already been played are adequate for this week’s farewell. The April showers we are experiencing in southwestern Ontario as I write this will hopefully bring the May flowers, and the spring air will hopefully provide everyone with some energy and make for an enthusiastically good week.
See you next Saturday.