While the system still functions, it no longer answers to the public it claims to serve

When my late friend William Gairdner published The Trouble with Canada in 1990, he wasn’t announcing the collapse of the country; he was warning that Canada’s democracy could erode while still appearing to function.

A former Olympian, businessman, and one of Canada’s most astute conservative thinkers, Bill wrote as a citizen concerned about freedom, responsibility and democratic accountability. His critique was unsparing, but it was rooted in a deep affection for Canada and the confidence that decline was neither inevitable nor irreversible.

At the centre of his argument was a simple claim. Canada, he argued, was drifting toward a form of welfare-state socialism, not through ideological revolution but through bureaucratic expansion. Government spending and taxation grew, deficits became routine, and the state crowded out markets, communities and voluntary institutions. The result was not only economic pressure but a shift in how citizens saw themselves, from independent actors to dependants.

He combined classical liberal economics with a conservative understanding of social order and national values. He distrusted centralized power, technocracy and a bureaucracy that presents its actions as a moral necessity rather than as choices open to challenge. He also believed that political decay often advances under the cover of compassion, expertise and good intentions. That perspective made his book less a polemic than a diagnosis that remains relevant.

He also warned about the consequences of that shift. High taxes, regulatory overreach and risk aversion discouraged entrepreneurship and innovation. The country, he feared, was becoming comfortable with mediocrity, while traditional social structures weakened as government programs replaced personal and community responsibility.

That pattern is now visible across multiple fronts in Canada today.

One example is the federal government’s relationship with the media. Canada now operates not only a heavily taxpayer-funded national broadcaster but an expanding regime of subsidies, grants and tax credits for favoured media outlets. Journalism support programs and direct funding initiatives amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, tying the financial stability of large parts of the media to the state, reducing their independence.

Journalists sustained by public money are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them. Even without direct pressure, financial dependence narrows criticism of the political establishment, weakening the media’s role as a check on power.

Further evidence occurs in Parliament, where floor-crossing has become a growing source of controversy. Although legal, the practice of MPs switching parties after being elected under a particular banner is widely viewed by Canadians as a breach of trust. In minority or closely divided Parliaments, a handful of defections can alter the balance of power without a single vote being cast.

The defence of this practice is familiar within parliamentary convention. MPs are elected as individuals, not party property. But voters cast ballots largely on party platforms, leaders and promises. When MPs change allegiance without returning to the electorate, representation becomes a personal possession rather than a delegated trust.

That loss of accountability extends to the rules governing elected officials. Another serious issue is the absence of clear legal restrictions on Canadian MPs working for foreign governments while holding office. Canada does not have clear statutory prohibitions preventing sitting MPs from working for foreign states. Conflict-of-interest guidelines exist, but they leave wide discretion and significant grey areas.

At a time of heightened concern about foreign influence, that gap is difficult to justify. Other democracies impose firm limits on such arrangements. Canada relies largely on convention and voluntary compliance. The risk is straightforward: divided allegiance and weakened public trust.

Taken together, these developments point to the same problem. They reflect a system that continues to operate while becoming less accountable to the public.

Canada still holds elections. It still celebrates pluralism and the rule of law. But democracy depends on more than procedure. It requires accountability in the press, among elected representatives and within governing institutions. When those weaken, decline does not arrive as a crisis. It arrives gradually, with the system intact but its purpose diminished.

Canada does not need a dramatic failure to lose what matters. It only needs to continue on its current path.

William Brooks is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He writes on cultural identity, democracy and Canadian institutions.