In an Opinion piece, it's suggested that Mark Carney may find himself drawn to Justin Trudeau's political tactics. However, it is advised that caution should be exercised, prioritizing national interest over political allegiances.

Rewritten Article

Take a Cue from Wartime Heroes: Union Government, Not Divided

Justin Ling, Contributing Columnist

Feeling nostalgic freakin' recently, I stumbled upon a piece of fascinating propaganda from war times. Bold and bright, the poster screams:

"Slackers should not rule Canada! Vote for Union Government."

It's an advertisement for Prime Minister Robert Borden's Unionists. Old man Laurier's Liberals viewed the First World War as a distant issue with minor consequences for Canada, advocating for minimal resource commitment. Borden, on the other hand, insisted that Canada should deploy every available weapon to wage war – including conscription.

A century later, with a struggle unlike war raging, we ought to be more like Borden, not Laurier. People slacking at home and in the White House shouldn't be allowed to run the country. And, to fix this, we need a union government – but not a national unity government per se.

I'm talking about a government that embraces collaboration over conflict, fostering cooperation instead of the backstabbing we've become accustomed to in Ottawa these days. A government with a soul, one that views country above party.

Carney's team will cringe at this phrase, especially after he secured a strong victory on Monday, achieving the highest vote share for a winning party since 1984. But it's what's best for the nation.

Our Prime Minister, though triumphant, couldn't clinch a majority. Canadians were split along gender, age, and geographical lines. Moreover, they disagreed on the country's most pressing issues: Is it the lunatic in the White House or the insidious challenges posed by inflating costs, sluggish growth, and crumbling public services? Carney won votes mostly from those motivated by the former issue, but he'll require addressing anxious young people, workers, and westerners concerned about the latter issues.

Remember, it ain't black and white. Our country grapples with multiple threats simultaneously.

As he rushes to address these concerns, our Prime Minister will be tempted to employ the tired parliament strategies of his predecessors. He could survive in power either by skilfully leaning on opposition parties to back his bills or seizing the NDP for another confidence-and-supply agreement. He could continue to count on his Liberal caucuses as a delegation of yes-men and yes-women, discouraging independent thought beyond party lines. And, he could continue treating Parliament as a joke, as a playground for trivial decisions.

However, this approach would be politically savvy yet shitty for the nation. A more democratic Parliament, on the other hand, would benefit the country.

Start by looking inward. Empower individual Liberal MPs to criticize, debate, and develop policy – even if that means they occasionally vote against the prime minister's bills.

Our Prime Minister needs to find a dance partner for his minority government, and it's clear the NDP will be the one. They could help Carney pass legislation and ward off a snap election (which they can ill afford) through a formal deal or on an ad hoc basis. But they risk being the Liberals' lapdog.

Alternatively, our Prime Minister could offer the NDP a formal coalition: support for the government's initiatives in exchange for a cabinet post. A cabinet position would provide the NDP the opportunity to initiate their own projects.

Green leader Elizabeth May might not secure a cabinet position. However, as a parliamentary nerd and champion of small parties and independents, May has always wanted the job of speaker – with the goal of making Parliament more collaborative. That's something our Prime Minister should consider offering to her.

The Greens and NDP could make a few additional demands of this government in exchange for stability and consistency in Parliament.

Usually, parties require 12 seats in the House of Commons to enjoy the benefits of being a "recognized party" – more budget, staff, and offices. But a previous speaker has made it clear that House members are free to waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis. Our Prime Minister could grant the NDP and Greens this status and the benefits that come with it.

They could also push hard to give Canadians a chance to decide the future of our democracy. Once again, this election demonstrated the distorting effects of our first-past-the-post electoral system. Voters who wished to cast their ballot for smaller parties risked being led astray, picking the "red" or "blue" doors out of fear of wasting their vote.

Our Prime Minister suggested toward the end of the campaign that he would remain neutral on the question of electoral reform, but hinted that more structural issues in our democracy would eventually come up for discussion. The NDP and Greens should demand an electoral reform referendum, timed with the next federal election.

Moving beyond electoral reform, our Prime Minister should establish an all-party cabinet committee to address the threats posed by the Trump administration. This would allow for input from all opposition parties, enabling Ottawa to present a unified front on this single issue.

Pierre Poilievre ain't the friendliest collaborator. He's long claimed that it's the Leader of the Opposition's job to oppose, not to govern. That's why he's been reluctant to obtain his security clearance. While I believe Poilievre leans too far, he's generally got a point. Our Prime Minister should invite Poilievre to contribute to the government's strategy if he'd like, but he should also make the Opposition Leader's job easier.

Over the past two decades, the quality of debate, discussion, and legislation in the House of Commons has plummeted. The Liberal government, in particular, has cheapened parliament's work, while the Conservatives have weaponized its institutions. The Liberals have emasculated parliamentary committees, rendering them incapable of genuinely influencing government legislation, and the Conservatives have transformed them into "torture chambers" for the government.

Our Prime Minister could hand more power to parliamentarians to propose and amend legislation, to request documents and interrogate witnesses. He should give the Conservatives more leeway to challenge and critique the government's strategies – it might chafe their nanolegs, but it could make their strategies better.

While the Conservatives have a stone-faced exterior, they still engage in some cross-party collaboration. We've got a number of multi-party parliamentary associations that travel the world, forming alliances with like-minded governments. Our opposition parties also have political relationships with their foreign affiliates – the NDP, through the Progressive Alliance; the Greens, through the Global Greens; and the Conservatives, via the International Democracy Union. These parliamentary and political ties could serve as bridges to discovering new partners and deals.

Carney is poised to take the throne amidst a multitude of existential threats to the country. His government will be unable to handle all of these challenges on its own. That's why we have a Parliament in the first place – to make informed decisions and work together.

The Parliament I envision – more democratic, more united, more productive – is not quite the Union Government of Prime Minister Borden. But it's the kind of unconventional solution that could be crucial in a time of exceptional threats and challenges, stopping the slackers from ruling over Canada.

Opinion articles are based on the author's interpretation and judgment of facts, data, and events. A more in-depth analysis of the referred war-time poster can be found below:

War-time Poster: Closer Look

The Canadian war-time propaganda poster "The Slacker Must Not Rule Canada. Vote Union Government" was part of a larger effort to support the Unionist government during World War I. Here's more about its historical context and impact:

Historical Context

During World War I, Canada struggled to maintain its military efforts. At first dependent on voluntary recruitment, the country ultimately embraced conscription to keep its forces strength. The introduction of conscription led to considerable political tension, particularly among French Canadians who opposed it. To address these issues, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden formed a Unionist government in 1917, comprising members from both Conservative and Liberal parties. This union aimed to ensure a unified front for Canada's war effort.

The poster is likely linked to the 1917 Canadian federal election – a crucial point for the Unionist government. The election hinged on supporting the war effort and implementing conscription. The term "slacker" referred to individuals perceived as evading military service, with the poster aiming to stir up voters to support the Unionist government and the war effort.

Impact

Political Motivation: The poster played a key role in the political campaign to garner support for the Unionist government, magnifying the importance of maintaining Canada's military contribution to the Allied forces. It helped polarize the political landscape by labeling opponents as "slackers," weakening dissent and opposition to conscription.
National Unity: Despite fostering divisions, especially among French Canadians, the poster contributed to a broader narrative of national unity and duty. It underscored the urgency of collective support for the war effort, demonizing dissenting voices as the enemy.
Social Influence: Propaganda like this poster shaped public opinion and attitude towards those who did not support conscription or the war. It can be argued that such campaigns fueled social tensions and the stigmatization of alternative viewpoints.

Overall, the poster served as a device in a larger campaign to galvanize support for Canada's wartime policies, reflecting the intense political and social tensions of the era.

In comparison to the polarization during wartime, we should aim for a more united government in modern-day Canada, avoiding the divided state that Laurier represented.
Justin Ling suggests that the current government, much like Borden's Unionists, should prioritize collaboration over conflict to address the multitude of pressing issues the country faces.
The recent Canadian federal election resulted in a divided government, highlighting the need for a unifying political force, as Borden's Unionists served during World War I.
The media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion, acting as a mirror that reflects the political climate, as past propaganda posters, such as "The Slacker Must Not Rule Canada. Vote Union Government," demonstrates.
Under Our Prime Minister's leadership, the government could implement predictable policy-and-legislation to provide businesses with a stable environment, reducing uncertainty and fostering growth.
Rather than using Parliament as a playground for trivial decisions, our Prime Minister should focus on addressing the country's most pressing issues, such as inflation, sluggish growth, and crumbling public services.
Journalists, like contributing columnist Justin Ling, serve an essential role in providing their opinion and analysis on important issues, contributing to the general-news landscape and broadening public discourse.
As the government and opposition parties seek to form alliances, they should consider the impact of electoral reform and strive for a more democratic Parliament, as suggested by the Greens and NDP, to improve policy-making for the nation as a whole.