André Côté
Acting Executive Director
COMMENTARY
By: André Côté
April 15, 2025
Freedom isn’t just the removal of harm – it’s the rebuilding of possibility. ~ Timothy Snyder at the DemocracyXChange Summit
The extraordinary moment in which the 2025 DemocracyXChange Summit (DXC) took place would have been inconceivable just months ago – amidst a snap federal election, confronted with a generational geopolitical realignment, an unpredictable trade war and threats to Canada’s national sovereignty coming from our closest ally, the United States.
It’s understandable, then, that much of the focus at DXC was on the external threats to our democracy: foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) in elections and democratic processes; damage to Canada’s information and media ecosystem from large, foreign-owned tech platforms. As Yale-turned-University of Toronto scholar and author, Tim Snyder, noted solemnly, even taunts of annexation should be taken seriously—and pushed back against fiercely.
Yet, without downplaying how grave — even existential — these external forces are, I am convinced that the most significant and pernicious threat to Canada’s democratic future comes from within. It is a long-standing aversion to confront the corrosion of key democratic institutions with persistence and ambition.
Let’s start with the trends that make the headlines: Declining voter turnout rates. Worsening decorum in parliament. Shuttering news media. Polarization and falling trust in institutions. Disinformation and conspiracism on social media. An inhospitable environment to run for elected office.
What’s behind these trends? The causes are mutli-faceted and complex, but let’s look at a few of the contributing factors.
Our first-past-the-post (FPTP) system no longer represents most Canadians, and creates a perverse incentive for political leaders. The recent Ontario election was a case in point. The incumbent Ford government returned with a strong majority despite receiving only 40 per cent of the vote. First-past-the-post vote splitting and vote share dynamics resulted in the incumbent Ford government returning with a strong majority, winning 65% of the seats with 43% of the vote. Whereas the Ontario Liberal party took 30% of the vote, but only 11% of the seats. This is not a partisan point. These dynamics have also benefited parties at the federal level. In 2019, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals lost the popular vote yet earned more seats than their opponents. In 2011, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won less than 40 per cent of the national vote, but formed a majority government.
Amid these trends, it’s hard to see how every person’s vote counts equally. Political leaders and parties are comfortable in this system. And citizens seem to know it. People have grown increasingly disaffected with politics, and many have disengaged from voting altogether. This trend is exacerbated when reform efforts fail (see provincial efforts in Ontario and BC), or are altogether abandoned as was the case in 2015 when the Trudeau Liberals ran on a campaign to end first-past-the-post, and ditched the plan once in office.
Government power has become increasingly centralized. In recent decades, prime ministers and premiers — along with their advisors and staff — have consolidated authority and tightened party control in both Parliament and provincial legislatures. The eminent scholar Donald Savoie described this observable shift to “governing from the centre” a generation ago. The result is a steady weakening of other key parts of executive and legislative governance — including senior cabinet ministers, the professional public service, party caucuses, and legislative committees. The shocking public resignation in December of Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, in response to, in her words, being “at odds [with the Prime Minister] about the best path forward for Canada” is just the latest example.
I witnessed this tension up close in the Ontario government during my time as an advisor to senior officials, and as a political staffer. It’s not to say that there weren’t many internal and external points of influence on government decisions from cabinet members, public service officials, external stakeholders, and lobbyists. But the machinery of government decision-making could be charitably described as briefing-heavy consultation with cabinet ministers, or less charitably as rubber-stamping exercises for the leader’s office. Limiting voices in public policy-making has malignant effects. Talented people decide to cut short their tenure, or skip public service altogether.
The powerful core institutions at the heart of government, run largely by professional public servants in Ottawa and provincial capitals, are increasingly struggling to adapt and respond to the needs of Canadians.
To be fair, today’s issues are complex. Public expectations are rising. Major crises, like the pandemic and the current global trade war, have all dramatically heightened the pressure on governments. But there is ample evidence that governments, especially the federal government, are failing to modernize for changing times. In recent months, a lot has been published on this: an outsized dependence on external consultants, a ballooning federal workforce, and failure and scandal in delivering major technology projects. As technology and AI race ahead, Canada has tumbled down the UN‘s e-government rankings.
Some are calling this out. In a recent paper, former PMO advisor and Public Policy Forum fellow, Sean Speer, asks Canada to strengthen state capacity to maintain public trust and confidence. Former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick advocates for unlocking public sector productivity, and Anne White, founder of the Good Governance Project, has documented numerous case studies on public governance modernization. Dais studies have examined the federal tech workforce and the digital transformation required to restore Canada’s competitive advantage.
Yet, the core problems have been in plain sight for a generation: overly bureaucratic systems, siloed department structures and machinery of government not designed for interconnected issues, inability to effectively adopt digital-era practices, culture and technologies, antiquated HR models that protect under-performance, and a leadership culture that prioritizes responsiveness to political prerogatives over public management. I started my policy career almost two decades ago working on a “21st Century public service” project. Plus ça change.
Strong, independent journalism is central to informing people and holding power to account. Here again, the erosion of the 4th estate is a longstanding phenomenon, driven by shifting news consumption patterns and failing ad-based business models in an age of social media. Local newsrooms have shrunk or closed, and the number of journalists has declined. A new study by the Media Ecosystem Observatory at McGill University describes seismic shifts in Canada’s online information landscape over the past three years, as social platforms affected engagement with politicians, news outlets, and the broader Canadian public.
Here at least, we’ve seen more concerted efforts to address these challenges through public policy. The journalism labour tax credit and Online News Act (C-18) to force platforms to compensate news providers, while controversial, have sought to shore up bottom lines. There’s been inspiring innovation, especially from upstart community news providers like Village Media. As one DXC panel opined, however, the future of the CBC — Canada’s public media provider and employer of 1 in 10 Canadian journalists — remains in question during this election campaign. And there is greater foreign influence, with the outsized roles that social platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok now play in Canada.
As a country, we are in a defensive posture – pushing back threats from foreign adversaries and disinformation, cajoling young Canadians to use their right to vote, and advocating for democratic institutions that are sitting still as the world moves ahead. But what we really need, in this pivotal moment for Canada, is to be bold. In the words of former Clerk, Alex Himelfarb, “We would be unwise to assume … that we will find a new path using the same old map.”
Don’t get me wrong; work is happening. A number of civil society groups — many represented at DXC25 — are making important contributions. To name a few: CIVIX Canada on civic education, Apathy is Boring on youth activism, the Samara Centre on the workings of electoral politics and Parliament, DemocracyWatch on government accountability, and Simon Fraser University’s Wosk Centre for Dialogue on deliberative civic engagement. Government initiatives, like the Privy Council Office Protecting Democracy Unit and Heritage Canada’s Digital Citizen Contribution Program, represent crucial efforts to strengthen Canadian institutions.
But against the gale force headwinds of authoritarian populism blowing towards democracy in Canada, more must be done. We need to unify our collective democratic efforts, back these up with sufficient resources, and be courageous enough to make only new mistakes. As DXC showed us, there are big ideas out there. Professor Snyder challenged us to remember what we are fighting for, and to use this knowledge to design a government that enables human flourishing.
Could we borrow from the Plurality playbook of Taiwan’s brave minister, Audrey Tang, to build a more participatory, 21st century digital democracy?
How might we launch a Canada National Service Corps for the next generation of young Canadians, a gap-year program for civic engagement, civil defence and coast-to-coast connection at scale?
Where are the opportunities to radically decentralize our politics, empower elected members to vote more freely, and influence more participatory policy-making?
At the Dais, we’re experimenting with new ways of engaging Canadians. We’ve launched Democracy@Work, Canada’s first initiative to build civic, AI and media literacy skills for the digital age, at work. This project depends on collaboration with unions and employers, and our early adopters include TELUS, UFWC, and the Toronto Public Library. We need more organizations across Canada to step up with us.
So coming out of DXC25, here’s my call to action: let’s use this moment of external threat as a cause for introspection, and reverse the corrosion that ails our democratic institutions. Let’s move from defence to offence, and ask: what is Canada’s next democracy moonshot?
Imagine a mission of becoming the model democracy for the world in the next five to 10 years, delivered by a coalition of civil society, business, labour and public sector teams; and a $200-million investment from the nation’s leading philanthropies and corporate leaders. What could we achieve, together?
Let’s find out.