Is Canadian federalism a hindrance to dealing with the threat of Trump?

Canada could only exist in federal form. Famously, although certain Fathers of Confederation, like Sir John A, would have preferred a unitary state, the existence of a large francophone minority population, concentrated in what is now Quebec (not to mention the Acadians of New Brunswick), made some degree of divided sovereignty between a central government and local governments inevitable. Even absent ‘the French fact’, Canada’s vast geography would have made it rather difficult for a unitary state to balance complex and deep regional diversities.

Yet despite a constitutional design that sought to make Canada a very centralized federation with a strong economic union as one of its central features (indeed, so privileged was the federal level that the early decades of Canada’s existence are described as ‘quasi-federal’ in nature), Canada has evolved to become arguably the most decentralized federation in the world.

Provincial power emerged from multiple sources: 1) the courts, especially the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was Canada’s final appellate court until 1949, interpreted the division of powers to give provincial authority a broad reading at the expense of narrowing key federal powers like trade and commerce and even criminal law, 2) the changing role of government meant that what seemed like ‘unimportant’ or ‘merely local’ areas of jurisdiction, like that over hospitals or charities grew massively in importance with the development of the modern welfare state, such that now the ‘most important’ issue areas for Canadians (health care, education, social assistance) are under provincial authority, and 3) the nature of Canadian intergovernmental relations resulting agreements have provided provinces with more power over time, including and increasingly in areas that might be regarded as traditionally federal, like immigration and even foreign affairs.

So when thinking about how Canada might deal with a massive threat to its economy under Trump, we have a context in which the provinces play an outsized role at the possible expense of a strong unified approach.

But there is nothing inherent about provincial power or a decentralized federalism that would prevent leaders from coming together and showing a united front against Trump. So what is going on?

We have already seen major cracks, particularly from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who immediately objected to any suggestion that Canada might retaliate against tariffs by imposing export limits or tariffs on Canadian oil and gas.

A central feature of Canadian federalism is its regionalized economies; there are considerable differences - some due mainly to geography and natural resources - between provinces in terms of what sectors of the economy are exposed more to tariffs and which might be impacted by any retaliatory measured undertaken by Canada.

Ontario gets hit particularly hard by steel and aluminum tariffs, for example, a concern Smith doesn’t need to worry about. And this goes to show the threat federalism can have for an effective response. If every province or region of the country jealously guards its own interests to the detriment of a united front, Canada’s position is dramatically weakened. Smith’s venal warning of a potential ‘national unity crisis’ if the federal government was open to leveraging Canada’s oil and gas thus plays perfectly into Trump’s hands.

From a formal constitutional perspective, there is much the federal government can do unilaterally in the context of America’s economic aggression. Under its trade and commerce authority, the federal government could choose to impose pretty much any policy tool it wants as its relates to trade that crosses international borders, from import or export tariffs up to outright import or export bans. Moreover, if things escalated the federal government could justifiably enact extreme measures under the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) clause on any area of overlapping jurisdiction so long as it was in relation to a genuine emergency or constituted a legit issue of ‘national concern’ (this was the branch of the POGG test under which the federal government’s carbon pricing scheme was upheld, for example).

So while there has been some troubling jurisprudence affecting Canada’s inability to address internal barriers to trade (the courts have failed to properly recognize that sometimes barriers erected by provinces purportedly in the name of health and safety are really just about revenue-generation, for example), in general it is not the formal constitution that is at the heart of the problem of federalism.

Instead, the problems created by federalism are political in nature, and it does not help that our country suffers from a juvenile culture of intergovernmental relations. In short, and to be blunt, our provinces tend to be run by mewling teenagers, who bitterly complain about the exercise of the federal spending power all while routinely demanding more money from the federal government and engaging in buck passing - constantly attempting to shift blame to the feds for problems within their own jurisdiction.

Worse still, the intersection of partisanship/ideology and federalism is a serious detriment in the context of US economic attacks and Trump’s rhetorical assaults on Canadian sovereignty. In short, while none of the premiers like what Trump is doing, some of them have ideological sympathies with Trump and seem entirely ill-equipped to dealing with him.

The recent misadventure of Canada’s 13 premiers visiting the United States to ‘negotiate’ with the White House is illustrative. The trip was a farce; some of the premiers appeared to genuinely believe that Trump, a total chaos agent, is someone who could be negotiated with. They ended up not meeting with either the President or any senior official but with staffers who promised to pass on the message and then snidely tweeted about Canada becoming a 51st state. And it appears the premiers have foolishly been paying a Trump-connected lobbying firm at its rate of $85,000/month for the privilege.

Smith’s earlier efforts to get a special deal for Alberta’s oil and gas sector highlight an attitude that Trump could be reasoned with by diplomacy. Her public opposition to retaliatory measures by Canada, even after Trump announced his intention to go ahead with the tariffs last month, undercut Canada’s efforts to make things more difficult for Trump and have him climb down.

Perhaps more interestingly, Doug Ford has managed to completely pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, including the media’s, by adopting the loudest aggressive posture against Trump’s tariffs and donning a very Trump-style ‘Canada is Not For Sale’ hat. People fell for the idea that a plain-spoken retail populist like Ford might be the perfect person to spearhead the fight against Trump, while ignoring Ford’s history as an institution-damaging, money-wasting incompetent who enjoys too many affinities with the guy now occupying the White House.

Ford saw the tactical opportunity to playing a part, one that was exposed after he flip-flopped on cancelling the province’s horrendous deal with Elon Musk’s Starlink. And even after it was revealed that Ford was ‘100 percent happy’ Trump won the election, he continues to benefit from the narrative that he is Canada’s most visible champion against the Trump menace.

I have no doubt that Ford is genuinely P.O.’d by Trump’s attacks on Canada. But he is among the class of Canadians who cannot see Trump for the broader threat he is to liberal democracy, and in that sense Ford is a key part of the problem, not a solution, exemplified by his persistence that Canada should seek closer economic ties to the US rather than recognizing the US is no longer a trustworthy ally and that we need to decouple.

A related factor here - one that is not getting enough attention - is that there is a significant portion of right-wing voters in Canada who are full-on MAGA.

(Image from this Environics Institute report)

Like some of the premiers, Pierre Poilievre has struggled to find his footing in a context where an administration with whom he has some ideological kinship is suddenly obsessed with turning Canada into the 51st state.

This is all being presented by the media as a struggle for the Conservatives to maintain pre-election messaging on how ‘bad things are in Canada’ during a sudden surge in patriotism. While that might be part of the story, another part is the challenge some of these leaders face while suddenly finding Canada at economic war with someone who a significant portion of their base finds appealing.

The problem here, then, is not merely Canadian federalism but the intersection of federalism with party politics and right-wing populist ideologies. When even Quebec has become infused with a degree of Canadian patriotism, you know the story is more complicated than a simple tale of ‘provincial autonomy is a problem for national unity’. The problem is that, as in other countries, many of Canada’s conservative political parties are led by right-wing populists, and while they are different varieties of populist (there are meaningful differences between Poilievre and Ford, for example), they are all proving themselves unfit for the task of taking on the world’s most infamous, threatening, and powerful authoritarian populist.

The issue is not merely how to deal with the most imminent of Trump’s threats and the potential for a full-on economic war against Canada, but how to deal with the broader threat the MAGA movement poses for democracy around the world and within Canada itself.

In that sense, this context is another way of seeing the true crossroads facing Canada. If the current crisis somehow awakens Canadians to the true nature of this threat, Trump will bizarrely have done us all a favour.