Parliament should be sitting if Canada is at war

Open this photo in gallery:

If Canada is indeed at war – and one could reasonably make that case based on our neighbour’s apparent efforts to turn this country into a vassal state – then all of its institutions should be operational, and on alert. Tens of billions of dollars worth of goods have been affected by tariffs levied by Washington, and now Ottawa. Nearly 90,000 Canadian jobs could be lost, according to an estimate by University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe. Our auto industry might very well collapse. The federal government has earmarked $7.5-billion in support for those affected. U.S. President Donald Trump is posting AI videos of himself physically assaulting Prime Minister Mark Carney.

And yet, amid it all, our Parliament remains shuttered, sleeping through the economic upheaval and complete reorientation of the U.S.-Canada relationship.

Most Canadians don’t seem to care, and that likely has much to do with the fact that most Canadians approve of Mr. Carney’s actions vis-a-vis the U.S. (Indeed, the calls to resume Parliament ahead of the scheduled return on Sept. 21 would probably be much louder if there wasn’t such overwhelming support for Ottawa’s decision to walk away from a deal.) But whether anyone cares, or whether it’s simply the Conservatives screaming into the void, is besides the point: The stakes are enormous, as outlined above, and Canadians are entitled to information on the government’s plan, which should be subject to scrutiny, debate and an airing of regional concerns. The venue for that is Parliament, and it should be sitting at this very moment.

Coyne: It’s not disloyal to criticize the government’s handling of Trump – but it can be

Mr. Carney’s monologues, including his “Forward Guidance” video released Tuesday, hours after Canada’s retaliatory tariffs kicked in, offer Canadians some insight into what went wrong with negotiations, and what Canada’s plan is for the short-to-medium term. But the Prime Minister’s word should not be taken as gospel; he forfeited the benefit of the doubt when he told Canadians that the U.S. would not share any revenues from tolls from the Gordie Howe International Bridge until Canada’s debt was paid back, which was not true.

There are conflicting reports about why negotiations with the Americans broke down; the National Post has reported that Ontario Premier Doug Ford ultimately stood in the way of a deal, whereas the Wall Street Journal reported that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick threw the last-minute wrenches in negotiations. Canadians ought to have some clarity as to whether Ontario’s auto-industry concerns effectively scuttled a deal for the entire country, and how and when Ottawa will consider returning to the negotiating table.

Mr. Carney’s $7.5-billion support plan should also be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. The plan simultaneously offers liquidity support for affected businesses as well as funds for industry to transform to adapting markets. But is that the right approach if, for example, the writing is on the wall for Canada’s auto industry? If tariffs are here for the long-term, will liquidity assistance extend beyond the current 12 months? And where is this additional capital coming from?

Carney focuses on attracting investment and economic growth as U.S. conflict deepens

The nature of this trade war is changing by the day; late on Tuesday, Mr. Trump announced a ban on some Canadian imports including certain alcohol, dairy, and motorcycles. Mr. Carney will not make a new YouTube video each time the President decides to escalate, but these changes should nevertheless be discussed and debated. That, of course, is what Parliament is for.

Based on his Question Period attendance record (26 per cent last session), it is reasonable to infer that Mr. Carney believes his energy is more effectively spent outside of the House, than within. And perhaps that is true on a tangible level, especially considering the theatrics and stonewalling that consume so much of the activity in the House. But the role of Parliament should not be dismissed simply because it does not function in the most idyllic conception of the space. It is the one venue in Canada where people from all across the country can make their voices heard through their representatives; where the most important work of government is done; where that work is dissected, assessed and scrutinized; and where the government is held to account by the opposition.

As political studies professor C.E.S. Franks wrote in his seminal work, The Parliament of Canada, “Parliament is not just a background for an agenda of reforms. It is a lively and vital part of the living constitution.”

That lively and vital part has slept through the first few weeks of this trade war. We should wake it up.