Non-Con Pro or Con

Click the “Listen Now” button below to hear the audio version of Insights.

Read previous Insights issues on the dedicated Insights Archive blog right here.

HERE'S MY TAKE

The Conservatives have moved a non-confidence motion in the House of Commons. If it receives majority support in Monday’s vote, the Liberal government would no longer have the “confidence” of the House and the governor general would likely call an election. But that’s an unlikely outcome. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has signalled that although the motion mostly expresses NDP criticisms of the Liberal government, he views the exercise as “political games.” He makes that argument in the context of the dysfunction that has hobbled Parliament for over two months. However, the question of whether the government has the “confidence” of Canadians to continue in power is bigger than a parliamentary motion. 

Confidence and trust are terms we often use interchangeably; even the AI-generated definition a quick search provided me used the word confidence while defining trust. The OECD tells us that low-trust environments “threaten democratic governance.” But there is an important difference. 

Trust is a more general term and involves a relationship. It implies a belief in the reliability, ability, and direction of another person or institution. Confidence, in a political setting, involves a more formal expression of the public’s confidence in the capacity to carry on duties for the public good. 

In a Westminster system of government, there is a sense in which distrust is actually part of the job of some of our elected voices. It assigns a duty of “loyal opposition” to certain elected members. Their job is to critique government action and propose alternatives, all with a view to ensuring accountability and meaningful choice for the electorate. But the adjective “loyal” is key here. Distrust within politics is healthy and even necessary within the guardrails of a shared respect for the common good. When political leaders of an ideology different from mine are elected to government, I don’t need to trust their motives or support their perspectives. But I do need to recognize the legitimacy of their claim to power through democratic processes and as an expression of my own loyalty to the Crown and the country. I express my disagreement (and even my distrust of particular leaders) in a manner that retains confidence in the machinery of government and elections to see the “will of the people” reflected in how we live together. 

But there are times when we can question the claims of democratic legitimacy for the executive branch of government. In fact, this has been happening with some frequency of late. On Wednesday, the minority government in France lost a confidence motion; 331 out of 588 MPs from both the left and right voted to oust the government that was formed just a few months ago. Three weeks ago, Germany’s government collapsed, ending a coalition of a business-focused party with two left-leaning parties that were unable to agree on the balance between prudential government budgeting and the need to “invest.” And then there was the impeachment motion in South Korea, filed after the president imposed martial law this week (only to lift it six hours later).

What these very different stories have in common is a setting in which the democratic mandate which had put a government into power no longer holds. And when a government loses the confidence of the governed, its ability to do what is necessary for the common good is compromised. The natural reaction to a lack of confidence is a “safe conservatism” of preserving the status quo. It takes bringing people along with you to do innovative and bold things. Without others’ confidence, that is much more difficult. But what also can happen with a government that has lost confidence is that it recklessly pursues ill-considered ventures in a desperate attempt to rebuild the government’s reputation. Neither the failure to act as required nor reckless action for the sake of action typically serves the common good.

 In Germany, France, and South Korea, confidence in the government has eroded to the point where the formal processes of insisting on a change of government are the only way to reflect the will of the people. In Canada, the formalities of our political conventions aren’t keeping up with what the polls suggest is a popular reality – that our federal government presently commands neither the confidence nor the trust of the Canadian people. 

In part, that is a good thing. Stability in government that can weather the ordinary ebbs and flows of public opinion serves the common good. But the system also needs checks and balances so that when the public mandate for the government dissolves and it clearly loses public confidence, the system changes. This requires not only “loyal opposition,” but also “loyal government.” In previous eras, the self-preservation impulse of political parties was strong enough to remove leaders when they seemed to have lost public confidence. Our present moment seems to be one in which neither the Liberal nor the NDP caucus has available mechanisms to remove a leader. It appears to most that those leaders are holding onto power to preserve their own careers since polls suggest that an election now would almost certainly result in electoral disaster for them. And that would end their leadership careers. 

I have no reason to doubt the individual patriotism and loyalty of any of our leaders. However, I am concerned about Canada’s present situation, especially as it involves dealing with trade and security issues as well as our relationships with other countries in general and the U.S. in particular. The situation calls for a government that not only can survive a formal non-confidence motion in the House of Commons, but is also seen to have the confidence of the public to have credibility with those with whom we need to negotiate. While we can criticize the short-term political shenanigans on all sides (politicians will politick after all, and with more intensity as elections near), the long-term common good requires a “loyal government” and a “loyal opposition” that put the best interest of the country ahead of their own individual or party interests. 

It is difficult to govern in our polarized times. The crises various countries face due to a lack of confidence are evidence of this. Canadian political leaders would do well to recognize that confidence isn’t just a technical necessity defined by parliamentary motions, but a political state of being that determines what is or is not possible, regardless of who holds power. The current stalemate in Ottawa does not serve the common good. Breaking it in a way that puts Canada’s interests ahead of short-term political self-interest (and is seen to do so) might contribute to a healthier outcome of some of the immediate crises Canadians face. It could also help rebuild the trust and confidence which are essential to a functioning democratic government.

WHAT I’M READING

Trade Vibes

The threat of the Trump tariff coming in January has prompted uncertainty on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border as well as between Canada and Mexico. There is no clear consensus on how to resolve all this, though. Alicia Planincic makes penetrating insights regarding how the process of shifting perceptions – general vibes as she frames it – has its own set of consequences quite independent of the effect of resolving these disputes.

Facts, Not Feelings

A recent Cardus report documents the good “halo effect” of churches that spills well beyond their own walls into the community and puts some numbers to it. The Catholic Register reports on this, quoting my colleague Lisa Richmond on the dangers that come with politicizing charity. “(I)f you want to argue that religious communities should no longer be tax exempt, trying to (make that case) through an economic argument is going to lead to failure based on what we lay out in this paper.”

Resistance Schemings

This Atlantic essay highlights how democrats in the United States are considering federalism as a tactic, using their political control in 15 states to provide a “resistance” to the incoming Trump administration. Reading this brought to mind a 2018 Maclean’s cover story in which four conservative premiers are shown surrounding the federal Conservative leader at the time, Andrew Scheer, as the front lines of “the resistance” to implementing a carbon tax. It’s taken six years, and the carbon tax is still a reality although barely surviving politically. I’m not sure how transferrable these lessons are to the present American situation but insights are to be gained from considering it.

Chinese Trade Tactics

While Canadians are understandably preoccupied with what the Trump tariff threat means for Canada, Keith Bradsher reports on the different strategies China has undertaken to the parallel (but smaller) tariff threat it faces. There are obvious differences between Canada and China, but it’s still notable that China is leaning towards flexing its muscles in countervailing tariffs rather than engaging in a negotiation game.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Trading Energy

U.S. President-elect Trump’s threat to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian (and certain other countries’) imports to the United States continues to dominate both domestic and global discussions. Some see this as part of a negotiating strategy (to get other countries, including Canada, to shift on long-standing issues of contention – something we’ve seen happening) while others see this as core to Trump’s economic strategy (getting revenues from tariffs to offset tax cuts in the short term, allowing prices to rise and incentivizing domestic investment). In sorting through the Canada-U.S. part of this deal, it seems to me that petroleum products hold particular significance. You can’t relocate petroleum (like you can transplant manufacturing, for example) and the 1.6 billion barrels imported from Canada to the U.S. last year does provide a leverage point for these negotiations.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Overcoming Bratty Brain-Rot

The 2024 words of the year have been announced. Collins Dictionary has selected “brat”; Oxford Dictionary chose “brain rot.” Have we officially entered a season of bratty brain rot?

I don’t mean to make light of the dictionary precision of backing these choices with data about word usage and the changing nature of language. So, this isn’t double-checking. (Who double-checks a dictionary anyway? You just take their word for it.) A language that is not moving ends up being used only on stationary, which is good for writing on but is an inadequate vehicle to drive all of the language’s power. But the focus of this weekly paragraph is executing skillful puns which is a practice that should not be killed.

Admittedly sometimes punsters go through a ruff spell trying to make their puns work, and it’s only our best friends who bark approval. But bratty brain rot, partly caused by too much time on social media, needs to be countered. So, what’s its opposite? The antonym dictionary would suggest civilized mind-stretching, but maybe that’s just reaching. I can’t extend it any further, so we’ll just go with it.

Declarations of the “word of the year” are typically celebratory occasions but bratty brain rot is not to be celebrated. So in the interest of civilized mind-stretching, we’re inspired to continue to include this weekly wordplay designed to tickle your pun-meter, prompt an occasional groan, and perhaps even an admiring chuckle (although there is no requirement to admit that publicly).

Look for the next attempt next Saturday morning. Till then.