
The new Carney government must tackle Canada's outdated system of intergovernmental relations
Throughout the recent federal election campaign, political leaders outlined their vision for Canada's future. Responding to a dramatically changing geopolitical climate, party platforms contained ambitious policy proposals about how to reposition the country for the challenges that lie ahead.
Read more: Getting ready for what's next: 4 scenarios for Canada's future in a Trumpian world
But the leaders were silent about how a new federal government would navigate the division of powers among various levels of government in order to bring their proposals to life.
Canada's Constitution separates powers between Ottawa and the provinces based on the principle of divided sovereignty. No order of government is subordinate to the other and, in principle, all governments can act autonomously in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
Life would be easy if the problems we faced adhered to the 1867 Constitution Act. Most challenges, however, transcend the individual categories of jurisdiction. Collaboration among jurisdictions is therefore essential to meet the individual and collective needs of Canadians.
From apprenticeships to energy corridors, childcare to caregiving, most policy areas require sustained and substantive co-ordination to succeed. Often, like in case of housing and climate change, this must also include municipalities.
In addition, intergovernmental co-ordination must finally reflect a nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples.
Nonetheless, the significance of intergovernmental relations in implementing policy continues to be overlooked, including by the victorious Liberals.
The Liberal Party's Canada Strong platform refers eight times to nation-building projects. But it fails to acknowledge the need to transform intergovernmental relations for 21st century challenges.
Instead, the Constitution is seemingly perceived as a minor inconvenience, not as a key governance challenge: "We will work with the provinces and territories," the policy says, seemingly hoping that somehow things will work out.
Federal leaders seem oblivious to the fact that Canada is one of the most decentralized federations worldwide. The provinces exercise fiscal and jurisdictional autonomy exceeding those of other countries. In the meantime, the decisions of individual provinces and territories have implications that stretch far beyond their own borders.
Take natural resources.
Natural resources fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces and, increasingly, the territories. But their development profoundly affects economic and environmental policy.
If one province or territory unilaterally decimates the natural resources of their region, it's not just that specific province or territory that bears the consequences. This is just one of many sectors in need of collective consideration so that all of Canada benefits.
Read more: 'Elbows up' in Canada means sustainable resource development
There is a simple truth here: orders of government in Canada are not completely autonomous over their areas of jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the legitimate authority to compel provincial-territorial action; in the meantime, provinces and territories have little means to influence federal policy according to the needs and wants of their constituents.
Rather than tackling this institutional problem, the federal government often asserts itself as the leader Alternatively, the federal government evokes an ad hoc "Team Canada" approach in response to imminent crises, like the re-negotiation of the former NAFTA agreement in 2017 and today's threats and tariffs by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Read more: Why Alberta's Danielle Smith is rejecting the Team Canada approach to Trump's tariff threats
Neither option, however, addresses the deeper problem: intergovernmental relations in Canadian federalism are notoriously weak and lack the legitimacy and transparency to bring about effective collective action.
Canadian and international research shows that a robust institutional framework is critical for nurturing the key ingredient for effective and legitimate intergovernmental relations: Reciprocity.
Regular policy meetings among governments and senior level public servants, especially when backed by sufficient administrative and political support, promotes shared norms and understandings, enhancing the potential for long-term policy solutions.
If this type of regular collaboration is entrenched, it would be more difficult to obstruct meaningful collective action that respects Canada's political integrity.
Reciprocity is at odds with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's threats to create a national unity crisis if a list of demands isn't met. It is also at odds with Ottawa's penchant under former prime minister Justin Trudeau to use federal tax dollars to pursue policy objectives that were within provincial jurisdiction.
As Mark Carney's new government gets to work, Canadians must question not only the fiscal soundness of its proposals, but also their feasibility considering the deep divisions in Canadian federalism.
Without taking tangible steps to reimagine Canada's outdated system of intergovernmental relations or developing a road map for institutional reform, the lasting policy changes that are needed to reposition Canada in an increasingly hostile environment are unlikely to materialize.
About 100 Canadian academics recently argued in an open letter, Canada needs to establish a royal commission for securing Canada's future. As past experience has shown, this approach has great potential, but it must be developed in partnership among federal, provincial and territorial governments, including those of First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Star
3 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Canada Post, union trade shots Monday as progress stalls
After talks last week aimed at paving the way for binding arbitration, Canada Post and the union representing its 55,000 employees were back trading public potshots Monday, with both sides accusing the other of not negotiating seriously. Monday afternoon, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) blasted the Crown corporation, saying it was counting on government action to force an end to the dispute. 'CUPW's ultimate goal in returning to the bargaining table remains new negotiated ratifiable collective agreements,' CUPW said in a written statement. 'However, Canada Post's actions suggest it does not want to negotiate. It wants to rewrite our agreements — and is seeking to use government interference to further its goals.' The union pointed to Canada Post's request to federal jobs minister Patty Hajdu late last month to order a vote on its 'final' contract offer, as well as then-federal labour minister Steven MacKinnon's decision last December to 'pause' a 32-day strike by creating an Industrial Inquiry Commission run by veteran arbitrator William Kaplan. 'The historic rights and benefits our union has gained for our members — and for Canadian society — such as maternity leave have been won through our collective bargaining rights,' CUPW added. 'The attempt to trample over them should send a chill through the labour movement. CUPW will be standing against a forced vote — and for collective bargaining rights.' In a written statement Monday, Canada Post said two days of talks last week to set the terms for arbitration didn't result in any progress. The Crown corporation also said the union still hadn't provided an official response to its final offer. It also suggested Kaplan's report should be part of the terms of reference for any arbitration. 'The final report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission clearly outlines the critical issues we face and the immediate actions that need to be taken. It should therefore be the foundational document that guides any discussions about Canada Post's path forward. The union's refusal to recognize the IIC report and its recommendations in their proposed terms of reference for arbitration is unacceptable,' Canada Post said. 'After 18 months we urgently need a fair resolution that begins to address our challenges while respecting the important role our employees play, and the voice they have in our future.' A spokesperson for Hajdu said the minister was still reviewing Canada Post's request for a vote on the 'final offer,' and urged the two sides to get back to the bargaining table. 'Last week Minister Hajdu asked the parties to return to the negotiating table with federal mediators to do two things: to seek to negotiate terms for an arbitration process to conclude this round of bargaining, and to have the union table its response to Canada Post's last global offers,' said Hajdu spokesperson Jennifer Kozelj. 'Canadians expect the parties to resolve this dispute. Both parties must meet and pursue these paths with urgency.' Labour experts say it's unclear exactly how the impasse can be resolved. Both sides, suggested University of Toronto professor Rafael Gomez, could be waiting for clearer signals from the federal government on whether it will act on Kaplan's recommendations. 'If the government hems and haws, then of course the parties aren't going to negotiate strongly,' said Gomez, director of U of T's Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources. 'If they said 'here's what we're doing about the report. We're implementing everything Kaplan has said,' that would move the needle.' While a full-blown strike might be another option for the union to try and force the issue, it's not clear if it would work, argued Stephanie Ross, a labour studies professor at McMaster University. The union doesn't have nearly as much leverage as it did last winter, Ross said, because it's not nearly as busy a time of year for parcels, but also because Kaplan's report was largely in line with the Crown corporation's arguments for restructuring. 'It's not clear how much pressure a walkout is going to put on the employer right now,' Ross said. Earlier this month, Canada Post rejected the union's request for binding arbitration, saying it would take too long, and could exacerbate their financial struggles. On May 28, Canada Post made what it called its 'final' contract offer, which includes a 13 per cent wage increase spread over four years, as well as a $1,000 signing bonus. Two days later, it asked Hajdu to order a vote on the offer, a request blasted by CUPW.


Vancouver Sun
7 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: Most Canadians don't support taxpayer subsidies for LNG
Proponents often claim that Canada's LNG will reduce global warming by displacing coal in other countries. However, we have run out of time for a 'transition fuel' if we're to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. In this context, new LNG infrastructure isn't a climate solution, but rather a substitute for investment in clean energy. Luckily, the price of renewables has dropped dramatically, making this transition both feasible and affordable. LNG is also a bad economic bet. The International Energy Agency has projected that LNG capacity will exceed demand by the next decade, making new capital investments especially risky. This is presumably why private investors are wavering and looking to Canadian governments to subsidize their projects with public dollars. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. A recent poll found that 56 per cent of respondents, both in B.C. and nationally, oppose multibillion-dollar public subsidies for foreign-owned LNG projects. Only 18 per cent of Canadians, and 22 per cent of British Columbians, are supportive while the rest are unsure. In B.C., where most LNG projects are proposed and LNG Canada will soon come online, people have other priorities for their tax dollars. In fact, supporting oil-and-gas is at the bottom of a list led by health care, housing, education, renewable energy and transit. The lack of public support for subsidizing fossil fuels has been consistent for years. In 2018, two-thirds of Canadians opposed subsidizing oil-and-gas, 41 per cent strongly. More than half remained unsupportive, even after being told oil-and-gas subsidies would create jobs and economic growth. In 2021, 62 per cent of Canadians wanted the federal government to stop fossil fuel subsidies and there was mounting frustration that the government hadn't acted on a 2015 campaign promise to do so. In 2023, the majority of Canadians felt that oil companies, not taxpayers, should foot the bill for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Only 30 per cent of British Columbians supported subsidies for LNG. A 2023 poll found 96 per cent of Canadians felt the federal government should disclose subsidies for fossil fuels. That year, the government of Canada signed a joint ministerial statement at the UN climate talks that committed them to do just that by the end of 2024. There is still no inventory of fossil fuel subsidies in mid-2025, undermining Canadians' ability to understand where their tax dollars are going. Canada claims to be a global leader on climate change, yet we continuously fail to meet our climate targets. The main reason is that emissions growth from oil-and-gas production has offset progress in other areas. According to the UN Environment Programme , governments around the world, including Canada, are planning for continued fossil fuel production that will result in more than double the global emissions scientists advise are consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C. Canada, unfortunately, is one the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry globally. That includes billions of taxpayer dollars that the federal and B.C. governments have already committed to LNG in the form of direct subsidies, lower tax and electricity rates, and public loans. Canadian taxpayers have been footing the bill for fossil fuel developments that threaten our own climate, health and economy. In this critical moment, Canada's leaders should instead use public funds to support projects that advance Canada's economy and safety, not only today but for decades to come. Kathryn Harrison is professor of political science at the University of B.C. Cara Pike is co-founder and senior adviser to at Carleton University in Ottawa.


Vancouver Sun
8 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Liberals considering arming the Coast Guard amid significant pivot towards new security mandate
OTTAWA — The Liberal government is mulling arming the Canadian Coast Guard as it launches a significant reform of the civilian maritime agency to give it a bigger role in the country's security apparatus. The move is one of many significant changes that the Liberals are planning for the chronically underfunded Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) that Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised to equip with new gear and a new security mandate. On the same day Carney announced his plan to accelerate defence spending this year, his office told National Post Monday that the CCG — which currently reports to the minister of fisheries — would shift to the minister of national defence's portfolio. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The move away from the fisheries minister makes it both likely easier for the CCG's budget to be included in Canada's defence spending in the eyes of NATO and is part of Carney's desire to pivot the 63-year-old civilian agency towards a more security-oriented role. 'Canadians elected our new Government on a strong mandate for change — to protect our borders and defend our sovereignty with increased focus and investment. To that end, the Prime Minister will soon initiate the process of moving the Canadian Coast Guard to the leadership of the Minister of National Defence,' PMO spokesperson Emily Williams said in a statement. 'The change will permit the Coast Guard to fulfill better both its civilian and security responsibilities.' The statement did not say when the changeover would happen, with Williams promising that 'more details will come in due course.' A senior Liberal source also told National Post that the government is considering arming the CCG, though they stressed that no decision has been made yet as officials continue to chart the reform. Arming the CCG, which would be a massive — and costly — change for the special agency that has always been an unarmed civilian organization. 'We're not there yet,' the official said of the decision. The source was granted anonymity to discuss internal government deliberations. The Coast Guard has struggled for years with its mandate, pulled between its various responsibilities such as research, search and rescue, icebreaking, marine protection and coastal surveillance, but without any law enforcement powers. Due to its icebreaking capabilities, it also has unique expertise on the Canadian Arctic within the government. In the recent election campaign, the Liberals promised to give the CCG a new mandate 'to conduct maritime surveillance operations' along with the required equipment. Last week, the Liberals tabled a border security bill that proposes to give the CCG a new security mandate, the power to conduct 'security patrols' and the ability to share information with the military and intelligence agencies. In an interview, former CCG Commissioner Jody Thomas said the agency is long overdue for significant reform and that she'd been 'nagging' the government to move the agency to the defence or public safety portfolio for years. 'It is a major change, and I think it's an important change. I think that this is just another signal that Canada is changing its perspective on our own sovereignty,' said Thomas, who was also headed the Department of National Defence and was National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Regarding armaments, she said that icebreakers currently under construction have been fitted for, but not with, weapons, meaning that arming them would be a relatively straightforward task. The real challenge of arming the Coast Guard, she warned, is training. 'It's a very expensive decision, not for the weaponry, but for the training and the constant preparation and exercising that's required,' she said. 'The Navy is always in training… for what's coming. The Coast Guard is out there working. So, it's a very different fleet and with very different purposes.' There are also talks within government of switching the Coast Guard from a special operating agency, which is still part of its host department, into a departmental agency with its own governing legislation that reports to the Minister of National Defense. I think that this is just another signal that Canada is changing its perspective on our own sovereignty In an interview in late May, Thomas argued that that needs to happen. 'It does need to be a legislative agency, the special operating agency status right now, that's a very flimsy sort of architecture and legal basis for an agency' with a security focus, Thomas said. A chronic challenge for the Coast Guard has been the deteriorating condition of its fleet while it operates on a 'shoestring' budget, according to Thomas. As of November, the CCG had 18 icebreakers , making it the second-largest icebreaking fleet in the world. Its fleet registry shows it has just over 120 ships on duty, the majority of which are small rescue vessels. But the aging fleet is also deteriorating rapidly, with ships spending more time in repairs and less time in the water. 'The CCG's aging vessels are becoming more costly to maintain and are more frequently taken out of operation for unscheduled repairs, placing further strain on the remaining fleet,' the agency said in its 2024-2025 department plans report . 'The need to replace the vessels has never been more important.' In March, the federal government contracted two new polar icebreakers which are expected to be delivered between 2030 and 2032. But Thomas said the coast guard has much bigger needs. 'We're one of the few countries that uses the same fleet for northern and southern ice breaking. We ice break year-round, essentially,' she said. 'So, you have to look at the wear and tear on the ship and the things you want them to do, and the places you want them to be, and they're going to have to plan the fleet accordingly.' National Post cnardi@ Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here . Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .