Updating the way governments work together
For a day last week, Canada's premiers ran the country. The most powerful governing institution wasn't Parliament or the Prime Minister's Office but the Council of the Federation. More than 20 years after it was founded in 2003 at Charlottetown, this idealistic and antagonistic avatar of federalism showed its worth. And all because they brought the prime minister to town.
When the Council of the Federation (CoF, pronounced 'cough' by officials) was formed, Quebec's participation in the federation was the issue. The federalist Liberals had returned to power under Jean Charest, after 10 years of separatist Parti Québécois government and the near-death referendum result of 1995. All premiers were responsive to Quebec's imitative to create a new, stronger version of the summer Annual Premiers Conference to revitalize the role of provinces and territories in Canada and, in the process, begin the re-engagement of a distinctive Quebec with the federalist idea. Charest called it 'internal diplomacy to build alliances.'
For other premiers, the imperative was 'strength in unity.' They would have a better shot at influencing the federal government if they stood and acted as one. Consensus was in, 'asterisks' denoting dissent were out. Unilateral federal cutbacks to health-care transfers and equalization payments by the Chrétien/Martin governments had angered all premiers. They pointed to a growing fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and among the provinces.
NATHAN DENETTE / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Prime Minister Mark Carney greets Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew as Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston looks on, during the first ministers meeting in Huntsville, Ont., on Tuesday.
While CoF created a 'table of equals,' one government was primus intra pares, or first among equals — the federal government. No matter that CoF's founding agreement stated that 'Canada's two orders of government are of equal status, neither subordinate to the other,' they could not force the federal government to act that way. While premiers and prime ministers are all styled 'first ministers,' it is always the prime minister intent on preserving his prerogatives that calls and hosts first minister meetings, inviting premiers, not the other way around.
This is what makes Prime Minister Mark Carney's decision to show up for a CoF meeting in Huntsville, Ont., so notable. No matter that it formally reverted to a First Ministers Meeting chaired by the PM for the time he was there, it was to CoF he decamped. This was a first.
To date, Canada's CoF has been more influential as a governing institution outside of Canada. Australia too is a federal state. Three years after ours came into being, the Council for the Australian Federation consisting of chief ministers of all states and territories formed. It emulates fully the purpose and operations of Canada's council, even borrowing some of the same wording in its founding agreement. The catalyst for its formation was the same too, frustration with the central Commonwealth government's approach to federalism, where it was accused of 'dictating the agenda' of what governments discussed. Sound familiar?
One glaring difference stands out. Australia had a formal central/state/territorial intergovernmental mechanism for more than a decade before, called the Council of Australian Governments or COAG. Whatever benefits accrued from having all governments at the table for some matters were seen as inadequate by others. Canada's example seemed better to increasingly frustrated sub-national governments.
But then COVID hit COAG. The pandemic reordered federalism mechanisms in Australia. Intergovernmental co-ordination and co-operation imperatives led to the creation of a national cabinet of chief ministers, supplanting COAG. Today, that new structure is the governing institution for federalism in Australia. This proves the flexible nature of federalism. It can change to meet the moment without changing the constitution to do so. Canada should take note.
Tuesdays
A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.
To his credit, Carney is investing serious time and effort in working with premiers and Indigenous leaders. He needs to if he is to succeed in rallying the country to meet this moment of economic consequence and change facing the country. Trouble is, we've all seen the movie. An initial 'era of good feelings' is followed by episodes of intergovernmental fratricide.
Why? Because there is no established institution of federalism involving all constitutional orders of government in running the country. A place to conciliate. We are already seeing the limits to two orders of government — Ottawa and the provinces and territories — wanting to advance on infrastructure projects faster and more purposefully than some Indigenous governments. Demanding a seat at the table will continue until there is one. Disruptive presences outside can often become ameliorating presences inside.
Canada is setting itself an historic agenda for economic and political change in response to the American tariff and trade threats. For this to succeed, we need to update how we govern ourselves as one country.
The CoF founding agreement calls itself an 'enduring and evolving institution.' No question it has endured as a regular forum to demand more money and powers from the federal government. The question now is whether it can evolve into a true Council of the Federation involving representatives of all orders of government: federal, provincial, territorial and, yes, Indigenous. For the first time, Canada can imagine so.
David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
36 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. and European Union reach trade pact that sets 15-per-cent tariff on EU goods
The United States struck a framework trade deal with the European Union Sunday that imposes a 15-per-cent U.S. import tariff on most EU goods, including autos, and leaves 50-per-cent levies on steel and aluminum shipments from the continent. The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled to western Scotland for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course there. Ms. von der Leyen said the agreed-upon 15-per-cent tariff applies 'across the board' to U.S.-bound shipments from the EU. The deal, while short on details, also includes a commitment by the EU to make US$600-billion of investments in the United States, and to make significant purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment. 'It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The Editorial Board: Trump's tariff shakedown takes shape The agreement largely mirrors a framework deal that the U.S. clinched with Japan last week, where Japanese automobiles will face a 15-per-cent U.S. tariff but U.S. steel and aluminum levies of 50 per cent remain in place. And it arrives at a critical moment in Canada's own trade negotiations with the Trump administration. Prime Minister Mark Carney faces an Aug. 1 deadline to strike a deal before the White House raises an existing tariff on Canadian goods. Mr. Carney and Mr. Trump have both signalled that a deal by the beginning of next month may not happen, with Mr. Carney saying he will accept only the best deal for Canada. On the U.S.-EU deal, Mr. Trump said: 'We are agreeing that the tariff ... for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15 per cent. Steel is staying the way it is – that's a worldwide thing,' the U.S. President said of his tariffs on foreign steel. Mr. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits with trading partners, has so far also signed agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. By comparison, the trade deal the President struck with Britain in May would see British cars subject to a 10-per-cent tariff up to 100,000 vehicles and on shipments above, a 25-per-cent rate. Mr. Trump talked up the new agreement as 'the biggest of all the deals,' with total trade between the U.S. and the EU totalling US$976-billion in 2024, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Given the size of this relationship, the agreement could set a precedent for future U.S. deals, including with Canada. Opinion: Canada, we've already got Trump's best trade deal Since returning to office earlier this year, Mr. Trump has hit Canada with a string of tariffs: 50 per cent on steel and aluminum; 25 per cent on autos; and 25 per cent on any goods traded outside the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, with the exception of oil, gas and potash, at 10 per cent. He has threatened to increase the non-USMCA tariff to 35 per cent if there is no deal by Aug. 1. William Pellerin, a partner with McMillan LLP's international trade group, said the fact that Mr. Trump doesn't appear to be cutting steel and aluminum tariffs, or agreeing to lower baseline tariffs with key trading partners, is not a good sign for Canada. The details of recent deals 'show that the tariffs are stickier than we might have anticipated, even for developed economies and close U.S. allies, which is certainly a bit of a bad omen in some ways for Canada,' Mr. Pellerin said. He said the silver lining for Canada is it 'doesn't look like anyone's going to get better market access to the United States than Canada, even if we do get stuck with a baseline tariff.' Goldy Hyder, president of the Business Council of Canada, said Canada and Mexico are in a different position from other countries. This is both because of the White House rationale for the 25-per-cent tariff on most Canadian and Mexican goods – Mr. Trump cited illegal fentanyl smuggling as one reason – and because of the exemption for products traded in compliance with the USMCA. Campbell Clark: Mark Carney faces the politics of concession Japan and the European Union did not qualify for a USMCA-style exemption and therefore had to 'buy down' tariffs with major commitments to purchase U.S. goods or make investments in the United States, he noted. Mr. Hyder said Canada needs to preserve its special access under the USMCA, which is up for renegotiation in 2026, or possibly sooner. 'Our goal has to be keeping the exemption, and that means preserving and extending the USMCA must be our top priority.' There are some significant trade differences between Canada and the EU – and they work in Canada's favour. For one, Canada is the top destination for U.S. goods exports, according to the USTR, bringing in US$349-billion worth of American goods in 2024. Canada also has a much smaller trade surplus with the U.S. than the EU. Mr. Trump has taken particular issue with such imbalances, which he considers unfair − even when they benefit American consumers. Canada also has an intricately linked supply chain with the U.S. in multiple industries, including automobiles and energy, with many products shipped back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border many times before they are sold to end users. The two countries also have an existing trade agreement, the USMCA, which Mr. Trump negotiated during his first term. Throughout months of talks, European officials threatened reciprocal tariffs on the U.S. and prepared a retaliatory package of tariffs of up to 30 per cent against €92-billion worth of U.S. exports. In the end, however, the EU will not retaliate, despite now facing 15-per-cent tariffs across most goods. Explaining her rationale, the EU's Ms. von der Leyen told reporters that the deal will bring 'stability' and 'predictability.' Yet many key elements of the trade relationship between the U.S. and the EU remain uncertain. For now, Mr. Trump is maintaining his 50-per-cent tariff on steel. And while pharmaceuticals will initially fall under Sunday's 15-per-cent agreement, that is subject to change. More details are also needed on the purchase and investment promises. The EU agreed to purchase US$750-billion worth of American energy products and to also invest US$600-billion in the United States on top of existing expenditures, but it is not clear who will make these investments or how they will be enforced. A similar investment agreement was made by Japan when it announced its own trade deal with the U.S. last week. But within days, Japanese officials started pouring cold water on some of the terms. Mr. Trump had claimed that the U.S. would make 90 per cent of profits on Japanese investments into the U.S., but Japan later pushed back and said its understanding was that profits would be based on the contribution made, and the risk taken, by each party. Tony Keller: As Trump's tariff walls rise, Canada's negotiating leverage is shrinking While Mr. Trump remains far from his initial goal of signing 90 trade deals in 90 days, stock-market investors have been reassured that agreements with major developed countries and regions are finally coming in and that the 15-per-cent tariff rates with major economies are lower than the levels Mr. Trump had threatened during the negotiations. However, 15-per-cent tariffs are much higher than the equivalent rates at the start of the year, and it isn't clear yet who will absorb them − companies or American consumers − because so far, price increases have been muted after companies piled up inventory early in the year. There are signs, however, that some pain is coming − particularly in sectors that Mr. Trump has singled out, including automobiles and steel. Volkswagen reported earnings on Friday and said tariffs cost the company €1.3-billion over the first six months of the year, and that going forward, the German car maker is lowering its operating profit to a range of 4 per cent to 5 per cent for 2025, down from 5.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent.
Toronto Sun
6 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: Carney's guide for civil service cuts
Prime Minister Mark Carney waits to speak during a tour of a steel manufacturing facility, in Hamilton, Ont., Wednesday, July 16, 2025. Photo by Chris Young / The Canadian Press The federal government has moved to block civil servants from streaming services such as Netflix, Crave and Amazon Prime on its networks. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account According to documents obtained by University of Ottawa Assistant Professor Matt Malone and published by CBC, this was not done so much because the streaming put a strain on government networks, but that it was perceived to be a 'people management' issue. Scott Jones, president of Shared Services Canada (SSC), the agency responsible for IT, wrote to the Treasury Board about a meeting of deputy ministers, during which they discussed the use of streaming services in federal buildings. He supported blocking them. 'While streaming may ultimately impact the bandwidth available to the (Government of Canada), it is also more importantly a people management issue,' he wrote. 'In the current context and with public perception of the public service as it is … there is value in engaging (deputy ministers) on these issues and in committing SSC to take some action.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The departments with the highest streaming included the Department of National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Privy Council Office. This coincides with a Canadian Press story from February, which reported that large numbers of civil servants aren't following the rules when it comes to the government's hybrid work-from-home model that requires government employees to be in the office three days a week. The DND, which employs about 28,700 people, had the lowest compliance rate. In January, it was 60%, but just 31% in December. The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), the union representing about 240,000 federal employees, said it had no record of any employee being dismissed or disciplined for not adhering to the hybrid rules. Prime Minister Mark Carney has told government agencies and departments they must slash 15% from their budgets over the next five years. These two reports provide a road map for where to cut. Those ministries and agencies where employees (a) can't be bothered to show up for work on the days they're required, or (b) are streaming Netflix, should be the first on the chopping block. As a show of good faith, Carney should end the hybrid model for MPs and require them to show up to work when the House resumes sitting. Sports Columnists Sunshine Girls Toronto & GTA Toronto & GTA
CTV News
7 hours ago
- CTV News
Syria to hold first parliamentary elections since Assad's fall in September
In this photo released by the Syrian official news agency SANA, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, meets with Syria's Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani, center, and Mohammed Taha al-Ahmad, chairman of the Higher Committee for People's Assembly Elections, right, in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, July 27, 2025. (SANA via AP) DAMASCUS, Syria — Syria will hold parliamentary elections in September, the head of a body tasked with organizing the election process told state media Sunday. Mohammed Taha al-Ahmad, chairman of the Higher Committee for People's Assembly Elections, told state news agency SANA that elections will take place between Sept. 15 and 20. They will be the first to take place under the country's new authorities after the fall of former President Bashar Assad in a lightning rebel offensive in December. One third of the 210 seats will the appointed by interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, with the rest to be elected. In a recent interview with the Erem News site, another member of the elections committee, Hassan al-Daghim, said an electoral college will be set up in each of Syria's provinces to vote for the elected seats. A temporary constitution signed by al-Sharaa in March called for a People's Committee to be set up to serve as an interim parliament until a permanent constitution is adopted and general elections held, a process that could take years. The announcement of impending elections comes at a time when the country is increasingly divided in its views of the new authorities in Damascus after sectarian violence broke out in the southern province of Sweida earlier this month. The fighting killed hundreds of people and threatened to unravel Syria's fragile postwar transition. The violent clashes, which broke out two weeks ago, were sparked by tit-for-tat kidnappings between armed Bedouin clans and fighters from the Druze religious minority. Syrian government forces intervened, ostensibly to end the fighting, but effectively sided with the clans. Some government fighters reportedly executed Druze civilians and burned and looted houses. Israel intervened, launching airstrikes on government forces and on the Defense Ministry headquarters. Israel said it was acting to defend the Druze minority. The Associated Press
