Many Canadians are left bewildered by Prime Minister Carney’s decision not to present a formal budget following the recent, contentious election—an omission with profound implications for the future of our nation. In the midst of this political upheaval, several pressing issues have come to the fore: President Trump’s tariff war threatening to relocate the auto industry to the United States; rising tensions between Ottawa and western provinces, hinting at possible secession; and a government that, despite its minority status, appears increasingly reluctant to engage in transparent fiscal planning. The absence of a budget signals a troubling departure from established parliamentary norms and raises urgent questions about accountability, transparency, and the fundamental health of Canada’s democracy.
In a representative democracy like Canada’s, the budget process is central. It allows Members of Parliament (MPs)—those elected by the people—to scrutinize, amend, and approve government spending. Historically, this process fosters accountability and ensures that public funds are allocated according to the will of the electorate, as expressed through their representatives. When a Prime Minister bypasses this process and spends tens of billions through Orders-in-Council, it undermines these core democratic principles and the system of responsible government.
While his approach can sometimes be justified during times of national crisis, their routine use for fiscal planning erodes transparency. This practice effectively isolates Parliament from scrutinizing and debating government decisions, shifting control of the public purse away from elected representatives and into the hands of the executive branch – primarily the Prime Minister’s Office. The PMO is increasing its power at the expense of the people.
This situation echoes a longstanding cautionary tale from history—most notably, the reign of King Charles I of England in the 17th century. Charles believed he possessed divine right to govern without Parliament, and he attempted to impose taxes and make unilateral decisions to fund his policies. A prime example was his effort to levy the “Ship Money,” a medieval tax originally used for naval defense, which he extended into peacetime and beyond its traditional purpose, raising funds without parliamentary approval. This overreach contributed to widespread unrest and ultimately ignited the English Civil War, culminating in Charles’s trial, execution, and the temporary abolition of the monarchy.
The lesson from Charles I’s reign is clear: bypassing parliamentary authority and imposing taxes unilaterally can destabilize governance and threaten the freedoms of a nation. His attempt to raise money without consent was widely seen as an abuse of royal prerogative, leading to civil war and tyranny. Canada inherited a parliamentary system that learned the lessons of history by being designed to prevent such abuses, placing the power to tax and spend firmly in the hands of elected representatives—those accountable to the public.
The foundation of responsible government in Canada rests on the principle that Parliament, and not the prime minister or the executive, controls public finances. Our constitution and parliamentary traditions emphasize that significant government expenditures must be debated and approved by elected MPs. The routine use of Orders-in-Council for substantial spending should be limited to extraordinary emergencies, not normal fiscal policy. Today, there is little evidence to suggest that Canada faces such a crisis warranting bypassing the parliamentary process, making Mr. Carney’s actions not only controversial but also dangerous.
By sidestepping the budget process, the prime minister risks undermining public trust and diluting democratic accountability. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent, and they expect their elected representatives to scrutinize and shape fiscal policy. When tens of billions are allocated without parliamentary oversight, it opens the door to unchecked executive power—a scenario that could erode the balance of our constitutional democracy and weaken the role of Parliament as the defender of taxpayers’ interests.
Adding to the concern is the growing influence of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Traditionally, the PMO functions as an administrative and policy coordination center; it is not meant to set fiscal priorities unilaterally. Yet, in recent years, the PMO’s power has expanded, sometimes eclipsing cabinet authority. Mr. Carney, with his background as a close adviser and member of the PMO’s inner circle, now governs in a style that increasingly resembles executive dominance—similar to the strongman tactics seen elsewhere.
This raises broader questions about Canada’s governance model. Are we drifting toward a totalitarian model where the prime minister issues decrees, relies on media spectacle, and governs with minimal parliamentary oversight? The recent practice of inviting media into cabinet meetings, along with symbolic acts like signing documents on camera, mimics presidential theatrics rather than the traditional, deliberative functions of parliamentary government. While such displays may bolster a perception of strong leadership, they threaten the constitutional underpinnings of responsible parliamentary governance.
Canada inherited a parliamentary system designed to learn from history and avoid such abuses. The power to tax and spend resides with elected representatives who debate, scrutinize, and approve government budgets—an essential safeguard of democracy and accountability. When governments sidestep this process, relying instead on executive orders or Orders-in-Council to authorize spending, they risk replicating the overreach that led to civil war in England.
This moment should serve as a wake-up call. Canadians must reaffirm that democratic control of the purse strings belongs to Parliament—and not the prime minister or the PMO. It is time for the House of Commons to exercise its constitutional authority by insisting that key decisions about public expenditure are made openly, with debate and approval from elected representatives.
Respecting constitutional conventions and parliamentary sovereignty is not just about maintaining tradition; it’s about safeguarding our liberties and ensuring that government remains accountable to the people.
