Intergovernmental Relations in a Complex Federation — Comprehensive Study Notes
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations
The Canadian federation is extremely complex due to multiple layers of legal, political, and policy authority shared among orders of government. This creates ambiguity about who is responsible for what on many files (environment, natural resources, healthcare).
Canada’s diversity amplifies complexity: large immigrant inflows (approximately people have immigrated in the last two decades) and persistent regional differences shape political cultures and policy preferences across regions (West, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic, and North).
Migrants’ views on federation often differ from longer-term residents, with newcomers typically showing more support for federal government over ties to provincial governments.
Regional fault lines are evident in debates over distinct societies, pipelines, and other major policy questions; these cleavages influence how intergovernmental relations (IGR) function and how policy is designed and implemented.
The chapter shows that IGR is shaped by underlying visions of what the federation is and ought to be, how governments can work together, and how these patterns have shifted over time. The discussion centers on federal–provincial–territorial relations and how recent IGR under Harper and Trudeau reveal increasing contingency based on actor agreements and legacies.
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations: key concepts
Federalism (two usages):
Ideology: a normative position advocating shared and self-rule across orders of government (how things ought to be organized). Philosophically, federalism champions coexistence of multiple orders with mutual influence.
Descriptive/operational: a theoretical and practical description of systems organized along federal principles (e.g., decentralization, shared rule) that can also describe processes like decentralization or “federalization” of powers.
Federation: a specific institutional arrangement for government with shared rule and self-rule characteristics. Common features include:
At least two orders of government (e.g., federal and provincial),
A written constitution outlining powers/responsibilities,
A formal dispute arbitration mechanism (often courts, e.g., the Supreme Court), and
Institutions/processes to enable intergovernmental communication and cooperation.
Federations vary in centralization/decentralization, sociological diversity (e.g., national minorities), and democracy. They are often deliberate policy choices or compromises balancing unity with diversity.
In Canada, federation features were shaped by historical compromises between centralizing and provincial-autonomy advocates (e.g., Macdonald vs Cartier) and by pre- Confederation agreements and constitutional decrees that regulated relations among English, French, and Indigenous peoples.
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR): the set of norms, institutions, and outputs describing how governments interact to share information and make decisions.
Norms: shared ideas about how actors ought to interact (working rules) and the substantive goals of interaction.
Institutions: formal and informal processes/venues enabling interaction (vertical: federal–provincial; horizontal: cross-provincial), involving multiple governments and sometimes non-government actors.
Outputs: results of interaction, ranging from little contact to negotiated agreements and policies.
IGR vs. multi-level governance: IGR often centers on government actors, is more hierarchical and relatively closed; multi-level governance involves a broader set of actors (including non-governmental) across levels.
IGR in Canada is mostly framed around executive federalism (senior officials, ministers, premiers) but shows variation across forums, actors, and outcomes.
Canada’s competing federal visions
Canada hosts multiple “federal visions,” i.e., different understandings of the federation’s nature and organization. The main perspectives are:
Pan-Canadian Vision
View: Canada as a single bilingual, multicultural nation with a strong central federal government.
Implications: centralized federation; provinces are administrative territories subordinated to Ottawa.
National institutions (federal cabinet, Senate, Supreme Court) are seen as representing Canada’s pluralism.
Cements centralized powers (e.g., expansive taxing/spending powers under the Constitution Act, 1867) and the ability to patriate and reform the constitution (e.g., 1982 changes, Meech Lake/Charlottetown episodes).
Contemporary expressions include universal healthcare and national carbon pricing initiatives.
Provincial Equality Vision
View: Canada as a compact among equal autonomous provinces; provinces are the primary political communities.
Implications: decentralized federation with equal distribution of powers; Ottawa’s institutions ideally reflect regional diversity.
Historical evidence cited: framing of Confederation as a compact among four equal partners; provincial rights movements; unanimity clauses in amending formula; intergovernmental agreements (e.g., Federal–Provincial Internal Trade Agreement 1994; Social Union Framework Agreement 1999; Calgary Declaration 1999).
Contemporary focus: resistance to treating Quebec as distinct; calls for fair treatment in program funding and equalization.
Multinational Vision
View: federation as a compact among multiple nations (initially three founding groups: English Canada, Québécois, Indigenous peoples; now often described as three sociological nations).
Implications: asymmetric powers and arrangements to recognize national minorities and Indigenous nations; institutions of shared rule should protect and represent minority interests (e.g., immigration policy adjustments for Quebec; Indigenous nationalism).
Key historical/process markers: Quebec veto power in constitutional rounds (Fulton-Favreau to Victoria); Meech Lake/Charlottetown debates; asymmetrical accommodation (e.g., immigration); rise of Indigenous nationalism and the Assembly of First Nations; ongoing nation-to-nation framing in the Trudeau era.
Contemporary signals: moves toward recognizing national diversity for asymmetrical federal arrangements (1990s onward) and the Trudeau administration’s emphasis on nation-to-nation with Indigenous peoples.
Rights-based Vision (often discussed as a fourth perspective)
Emphasizes Charter rights and freedoms as shaping national identity and reducing provincial autonomy’s centrality.
Argument: rights framework creates a more centralized national community of “Charter Canadians,” sometimes at the expense of provincial identities.
Note: this vision is discussed as an important but not universally accepted perspective in the modern literature.
The chapter cautions that these visions are not mutually exclusive in practice; they summarize broad tendencies and mobilizing narratives that influence IGR and policy across time.
The core point: underlying visions about the federation influence how actors perceive roles, powers, and the legitimacy of intergovernmental action, shaping cooperation or conflict on policy issues.
The shifting nature of IGR in Canada: the turn toward collaboration and the contingent future
IGR is central to Canadian governance but lacks a fixed constitutional blueprint; formal IGR institutions are relatively sparse, so interaction depends on actors’ willingness and strategic calculations.
Over time, the tenor of IGR has shifted from minimal interaction to collaborative modes and back, with ongoing contingencies influenced by party ideology, legacy, policy stakes, and fiscal considerations.
A widely used framework identifies dominant periods in IGR, plus a more recent contingent period where collaboration is increasingly dependent on the actors’ shared views of roles and the legacies of past agreements.
A fifth, contingent period (roughly from 2006 onward) is characterized by oscillations between collaboration and conflict, reflecting evolving political dynamics under Harper and Trudeau.
Core takeaway: the nature of IGR is shaped by the federation’s underlying sociological foundations and by historical legacies, policy stakes, and political incentives.
The shift to collaborative IGR (the 1990s–2006 period): norms, institutions, and outputs
Collaborative IGR is defined by norms of cooperative interdependence among orders of government, recognizing that even where jurisdictions are exclusive, actions affect other orders.
Working rules emphasize including other orders and sometimes stakeholders in policy design to ensure broader legitimacy and effectiveness.
Institutions of collaborative IGR are multilateral forums involving federal and all provincial governments (Quebec sometimes included); co-chaired by federal and provincial officials; designed for joint policy development and negotiated decisions.
Outputs commonly include national visions or policy goals agreed across governments, later implemented through provincial bilateral arrangements.
Major milestones and examples:
Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – 1994
Labour Market Development Agreements – 1996
Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization – 1998
Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) – 1999
Health Care Accord – 2000; Health Care Accord framework implemented in 2004
Interprovincial Council of the Federation – 2003
Debate remains whether this period represents genuine collaboration or a shift toward federal downloading of responsibilities to provinces. Nonetheless, broader evidence points to a trend toward multilateral negotiation and shared governance in many files, even as contested areas persisted.
Importantly, collaboration in this period produced shared policy frameworks but did not erase normative tensions or the possibility of unilateral action in specific fields.
Recent IGR under Harper and Trudeau: increasing contingency and legacy effects
Harper (2006–2015): open federalism
Core idea: respect exclusive jurisdiction and reduce federal use of spending power to encroach on provincial constitutional authority; address fiscal imbalances.
Stated approach included a Charter of Open Federalism (promised but never realized) and a commitment to co-operate with provinces when policy affected provincial interests.
Fiscal and governance moves included:
2006–07 budgets reducing cross-branch overlap, with reforms to transfers and a shift toward more unconditional or per-capita funding, alongside increased emphasis on equalization and selective unilateral actions on healthcare funding.
Interaction pattern: a retreat from high-level multilateral forum engagement; nevertheless, bilateral meetings with provincial leaders remained high (roughly bilateral meetings or calls between 2006–2012) and multilateral ministerial/deputy minister meetings occurred regularly (about ministerial and deputy-level meetings per year on average 2006–2015).
Policy fields with notable bilateral or multilateral collaboration include immigration (e.g., 2012 common immigration system and Express Entry reforms) and agriculture (multilateral framework agreements with province-specific supplements).
A notable unilateral move occurred in 2013–2014 when the federal government announced changes to labour market training funding (Canada Job Grant), which triggered mobilization by provinces and a return to a multilateral framework that reaffirmed provincial leadership.
Trudeau (2015–2019, and beyond for context): shift toward collaborative federalism but with substantial conflicts and constraints
Rhetoric and early actions emphasized collaboration with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples, and municipalities; framed as nation-to-nation with Indigenous peoples and sought renewed cooperation across levels.
Major agreements and policy directions included:
Three first ministers’ meetings within the first year; international cooperation (e.g., Paris Climate Conference participation);
Vancouver Declaration (2016) and Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (2016) signed by all provinces/territories except Saskatchewan; CPP reforms (2016) and talks to expand healthcare and prescription drug funding; infrastructure plans emphasizing national priorities while engaging provinces as partners.
However, the collaboration model proved difficult to sustain on contentious files:
Carbon pricing: initial multilateral consensus broke down as five provinces (e.g., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick) opted out; the federal government then imposed a national price in those provinces; Ontario and Saskatchewan challenged constitutionality in court; subsequent shifts in province positions occurred (e.g., New Brunswick, Alberta adopting plans).
Energy, pipelines, and climate change: friction over who sets the price, who funds environmental programs, and how to balance provincial autonomy with national goals.
Healthcare funding and infrastructure: the federal government pursued bilateral funding models tied to national standards, reinforcing a federal role but prompting provincial pushback on conditionalities; a move toward “federal backstops” while also pursuing national standards.
Indigenous reconciliation and missing/murdered Indigenous women: ongoing tensions over the pace and form of reconciliation and nation-to-nation engagements in practice.
By 2019 the Trudeau period showed a pattern of "collaboration, but with strings attached"—strong pursuit of national priorities and multilateral negotiation, yet with significant unilateral actions and provincial resistance on several fronts.
The overall pattern from Harper to Trudeau highlights growing contingency in IGR: even when collaboration is the stated or intended mode, actual practice depends heavily on actor beliefs, party alignments, past commitments, and ongoing conflicts across key policy areas.
Assessing the performance, effectiveness, and legitimacy of recent IGR
The analysis emphasizes that there is no single measure of success for IGR. Performance (how well policy goals are achieved) and legitimacy (whether policies have broad acceptance) do not always move together.
Under Harper:
Relative emphasis on performance and efficiency: reduced cross-jurisdictional contact; more unilateral action; strong use of spending power to advance objectives when possible.
Legitimation sometimes suffered due to reduced engagement with provinces and other actors, potentially undermining perceived legitimacy even when policies were implemented efficiently.
Yet there were notable successes in multilateral collaboration on immigration, agriculture, and some labour market initiatives.
Under Trudeau:
Early emphasis on legitimacy and collaboration with provinces and Indigenous peoples; notable multilateral action on climate policy and social programs that sought national standards while accommodating regional needs.
Over time, difficult negotiations on energy, environment, pipelines, healthcare funding, and immigration led to increasing conflict and unilateral federal actions in some cases, challenging the sustainability of a deeply collaborative model.
Overall conclusions:
IGR under Harper can be characterized as “collaboration if necessary” with a strong emphasis on performance but limited multilateral engagement in some periods.
IGR under Trudeau began with a strong collaborative impulse but devolved into a more conflictual and contested space on important files, despite continued efforts to use multilateral mechanisms.
These patterns illustrate a broader paradox: Canada’s federation requires IGR to manage complexity, but the federation’s own complexity and the lack of sturdy formal IGR institutions make it difficult to achieve consistently high performance, legitimacy, and predictability.
Two broader insights emerge:
First, political leaders do not always get the IGR they want; the outcomes depend on coalition-building, actor beliefs, and legacy, not only on policy intent.
Second, the very complexity of Canadian federalism creates a need for IGR, but also makes it inherently challenging to achieve simultaneously robust performance and broad legitimacy.
Key conclusions and takeaways
IGR in Canada is shaped by four interacting layers: the constitutional/federal framework, broad visions of what the federation should be, the policy stakes of each file, and the political dynamics of the time.
The lack of centralized, formal IGR institutions means interaction relies heavily on the willingness and strategic calculations of actors at multiple levels, making IGR inherently contingent.
The dominant trend since the 1990s has been toward collaborative IGR, but recent decades show that collaboration is not automatic or uniform across files and governments.
Harper’s open federalism and Trudeau’s nation-to-nation approach both reflect attempts to reform IGR, but each has produced mixed results across different policy areas and time horizons.
The Canadian federation remains a delicate balance between unity and diversity, and IGR will continue to be central to managing this balance in practice.
Glossary (definitions in brief)
multi-level governance: Involves multiple governments and non-governmental actors across levels in policy development and implementation.
multinational vision: Sees Canada as a compact among multiple national communities (e.g., English Canada, Quebec, Indigenous peoples), often supporting asymmetrical power distributions and representation for national minorities.
norms: Shared ideas and principles that guide how governments interact and organize policy; can regulate behavior and regularize practices.
open federalism: Harper’s term describing a approach that respects provincial jurisdiction, limits use of the spending power to encroach on provincial powers, while remaining open to cooperative intergovernmental action.
pan-Canadian vision: Canada as a single, bilingual/multicultural nation with centralized features and national institutions representing pluralism.
provincial equality vision: Emphasizes equal partnership among provinces and decentralization, with regional diversity represented in Ottawa’s institutions.
the (federal) charter of rights framework (rights-based vision): Argues that the Charter’s primacy reduces provincial autonomous influence and fosters a shared national political community centered around federal rights protections.
Notable examples, benchmarks, and milestones mentioned
Constitution Act, 1867: foundational powers and division of powers between federal and provincial governments; reference to sections s. 91/92.
Constitution Act, 1982: patriation and added constitutional amendments framework (Meech Lake, Charlottetown debates are referenced as part of the pan-Canadian vision’s historical narrative).
1994: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – a landmark for collaborative IGR on interprovincial trade.
1996: Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs).
1998: Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization.
1999: Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA).
2000: Health Care Accord; 2004: Health Care Accord implementation.
2003: Interprovincial Council of the Federation (ICF).
2006–2015: Harper’s tenure featured a large number of bilateral meetings (~ such meetings) and multilateral ministerial/deputy meetings (average ≈ ministerial meetings per year; ≈ deputy meetings). Key file collaborations included immigration (common system, Express Entry) and agriculture (framework agreements).
2012: Common immigration system; 2013/2014: Canada Job Grant (labour market training reform) and subsequent multilateral framework agreements to preserve provincial leadership.
2015: Trudeau elected; emphasis on nation-to-nation Indigenous relations; three premiers’ meetings within a year; Vancouver Declaration (2016); Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change (2016) with most provinces/territories onboard.
2019 onward: continuing debates on carbon pricing, healthcare funding, pipelines, and equalization; several provinces challenged federal policy in court (e.g., carbon tax cases).
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations
The Canadian federation is exceptionally complex due to multiple layers of legal, political, and policy authority that are shared or overlap among orders of government: federal, provincial/territorial, and, increasingly, Indigenous governments. This inherent complexity leads to significant ambiguity about who is precisely responsible for what on many crucial files, such as environmental regulations, natural resource development, and healthcare provision. This ambiguity requires constant negotiation and cooperation.
Canada’s profound diversity further amplifies this complexity. Large immigrant inflows, with approximately people having immigrated in the last two decades, bring new cultural perspectives and policy demands. Concurrently, persistent regional differences based on historical, economic, and social factors deeply shape political cultures and distinct policy preferences across Canada’s major regions: the West (especially Alberta and British Columbia), Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and the North. These regional cleavages are fundamental to Canadian politics and intergovernmental dynamics.
Migrants’ views on the federation often diverge significantly from those of longer-term residents; recent cohorts of newcomers typically show greater support for the federal government and national institutions, often viewing them as symbols of unity and inclusion, compared to stronger historical ties to provincial governments exhibited by established populations.
Regional fault lines are consistently evident in major national debates, from the discussions surrounding Quebec’s unique status and demands for a distinct society to contentious infrastructure projects like pipelines and broader fiscal federalism debates, including equalization payments. These deep-seated cleavages profoundly influence how intergovernmental relations (IGR) function, often dictating the level of cooperation or conflict, and how policy is designed and implemented across the country.
This foundational context reveals that IGR is not merely a technical exercise but is deeply shaped by underlying, often competing, visions of what the federation fundamentally is and what it ought to be. These visions also dictate how governments perceive their ability and responsibility to work together, and how these patterns of interaction have shifted over time. The discussion primarily centers on federal–provincial–territorial relations, highlighting how recent IGR practices under Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau reveal an increasing contingency based on the specific agreements reached by political actors and the enduring legacies of past constitutional and policy decisions.
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations: key concepts
Federalism (understood in two primary usages):
Ideology/Normative Position: This refers to a philosophical and normative stance advocating for a system of shared-rule and self-rule across multiple orders of government. It posits how political power ought to be organized to balance national unity with regional or local diversity. Philosophically, federalism champions the coexistence of multiple sovereign orders of government with mutual influence, aiming to prevent the over-centralization of power and protect diverse interests within a single political system.
Descriptive/Operational Model: This usage offers a theoretical and practical description of political systems organized along federal principles. Key characteristics often include decentralization of power, constitutionally defined shared rule, and mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation. It can also describe dynamic processes like decentralization (shifting powers from central to regional governments) or “federalization” of powers, where responsibilities become increasingly shared over time.
Federation: a specific institutional arrangement for government characterized by constitutionally entrenched shared rule and self-rule. Common features that distinguish a federation from a unitary state or confederation include:
At least two orders of government: Typically, a central or federal government and constituent regional governments (e.g., provinces in Canada, states in the U.S.). Each order derives its authority from the constitution and possesses distinct areas of jurisdiction.
A written constitution: This supreme law comprehensively outlines the division of powers and responsibilities between the orders of government. It serves as the legal backbone of the federal system, providing clarity and limiting arbitrary changes.
A formal dispute arbitration mechanism: This is often an independent judiciary, such as a Supreme Court, empowered to interpret the constitution and resolve jurisdictional disputes between the different orders of government, ensuring the rule of law within the federal structure.
Institutions and processes for intergovernmental communication and cooperation: These mechanisms facilitate ongoing interaction, negotiation, and coordination among governments, ranging from formal councils and conferences to informal working groups, essential for managing shared responsibilities and resolving policy overlaps.
Federations internationally exhibit significant variations in their degree of centralization/decentralization (how much power resides with the federal vs. constituent units), their sociological diversity (e.g., the presence of national minorities or multiple linguistic groups), and their democratic structures. Federations are often deliberate policy choices or historical compromises strategically designed to balance the imperatives of national unity with the recognition and preservation of regional or group diversity.
In Canada, the specific features of its federation were profoundly shaped by historical compromises forged between centralizing advocates (like Sir John A. Macdonald, who favored a strong central government) and proponents of provincial autonomy (like George-Étienne Cartier, who championed provincial rights, particularly for Quebec). Furthermore, pre-Confederation agreements and constitutional decrees regulated complex relations among English, French, and Indigenous peoples, laying the groundwork for Canada’s unique federal design.
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR): The comprehensive set of norms, institutions, and outputs that describe how governments within a multi-level system interact to share information, coordinate policies, and make collective decisions. IGR is crucial for the effective functioning of federations.
Norms: These are shared ideas, principles, and unwritten rules about how political actors (governments, departments, officials) ought to interact. They include “working rules” (e.g., mutual respect, confidentiality) and dictate the substantive goals of interaction (e.g., achieving consensus, efficient policy delivery).
Institutions: These refer to both formal and informal processes and venues that enable interaction. They can be vertical (e.g., federal–provincial conferences, where the federal government interacts with individual provinces or all provinces jointly) or horizontal (e.g., cross-provincial agreements or bodies like the Council of the Federation, where provinces interact amongst themselves). Interaction often involves multiple governments and can sometimes include non-government actors (e.g., Indigenous organizations, interest groups).
Outputs: These are the results of interactions, which can vary widely in scope and impact. Outputs range from minimal contact or information exchange to formal negotiated agreements, joint policy frameworks, and fully coordinated programs. The success of IGR is often judged by the tangible outputs achieved.
IGR vs. Multi-level Governance (MLG): While related, IGR typically centers predominantly on formal government actors and their interactions, often characterized by more hierarchical relationships and relatively closed decision-making processes (e.g., executive federalism). Multi-level governance (MLG), in contrast, involves a much broader set of actors, including non-governmental organizations, private sector entities, and civil society groups, operating across various levels (sub-national, national, supranational) in policy development and implementation, often implying more diffuse power structures and network-like interactions.
IGR in Canada is mostly framed around executive federalism, meaning that interactions are conducted primarily by senior officials, ministers, and premiers, rather than through legislative bodies. This approach prioritizes efficiency and inter-executive bargaining but also means that patterns of interaction show significant variation across different forums, specific political actors involved, and the policy outcomes generated.
Canada’s competing federal visions
Canada hosts multiple “federal visions,” which are deeply ingrained, often competing, understandings of the federation’s fundamental nature, its purpose, and how its governance ought to be organized. These visions shape political debates, policy choices, and intergovernmental dynamics. The main perspectives are:
Pan-Canadian Vision:
View: This vision conceives of Canada as a unified, single, bilingual, and multicultural nation with a strong, central federal government that acts as the primary vehicle for national identity and policy. It emphasizes the collective identity of “Canadians” across provincial boundaries.
Implications: It advocates for a highly centralized federation where provinces are primarily seen as administrative territories that, while possessing significant autonomy, are ultimately subordinated to the overarching authority and national direction set by Ottawa. This vision often supports federal initiatives that promote national standards and universal programs.
Representation: National institutions such as the federal cabinet, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are viewed as representing Canada’s diverse pluralism and acting on behalf of all Canadians, not just regional interests.
Strengths & History: This vision historically cements centralized powers, visible in expansive federal taxing and spending powers under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the federal ability to patriate and unilaterally reform the constitution in 1982. Key historical moments include the federal government’s role in modernizing social programs and the debates around proposed constitutional amendments like Meech Lake and Charlottetown, which sought to define Canada’s fundamental nature.
Contemporary Expressions: Modern examples include federal leadership in establishing and maintaining universal healthcare standards, national carbon pricing initiatives, and efforts to build a national infrastructure grid.
Provincial Equality Vision:
View: This perspective understands Canada as a compact or partnership among equal, autonomous provinces. Each province is considered a primary political community with its own distinct identity and policy priorities, and the federation exists to facilitate their collective interests.
Implications: It advocates for a significantly decentralized federation where powers are primarily (or equally) distributed among the provinces, with Ottawa’s institutions ideally designed to reflect and accommodate fundamental regional diversity and provincial specificities, rather than imposing a single national will.
Historical Evidence Cited: Protagonists of this vision often cite historical evidence such as the framing of Confederation not just as a creation of a national government but as a compact formed among four (later more) equal partners entering into an agreement. They also point to strong provincial rights movements throughout Canadian history, the requirement for unanimity clauses in certain constitutional amending formulas, and significant intergovernmental agreements like the Federal–Provincial Internal Trade Agreement (1994), the Social Union Framework Agreement (1999), and the Calgary Declaration (1999), all of which emphasized provincial autonomy and partnership.
Contemporary Focus: Current focus areas include resistance to any attempt to treat Quebec as distinct from other provinces (insisting on equality among all provinces), and persistent calls for fair and equitable treatment in program funding and equalization payments, ensuring no province is favored or disadvantaged.
Multinational Vision:
View: This vision sees the federation as a compact or partnership among multiple distinct nations. Historically, this has often referred to the “three founding groups”: English Canada, Québécois (French Canada), and Indigenous peoples. More recently, it is often described as a compact among “three sociological nations,” acknowledging the evolving self-determination of Indigenous nations.
Implications: It advocates for asymmetrical powers and specific institutional arrangements designed to formally recognize and protect the unique status and rights of national minorities and Indigenous nations. This might involve different areas of jurisdiction or funding arrangements for certain provinces or Indigenous communities. Institutions of shared rule should actively protect and represent minority national interests (e.g., Quebec’s unique immigration policy arrangements; the evolving frameworks for Indigenous self-government).
Key Historical/Process Markers: Significant historical benchmarks for this vision include Quebec’s effective veto power during constitutional rounds (from Fulton-Favreau in the 1960s to Victoria in the 1970s), the intense debates surrounding the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (which sought to acknowledge Quebec as a “distinct society” and, in Charlottetown, Indigenous self-government), and the ongoing development of asymmetrical accommodation in policies like immigration. The rise of Indigenous nationalism and the formation of organizations like the Assembly of First Nations have dramatically advanced the
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations
The Canadian federation is extremely complex due to multiple layers of legal, political, and policy authority shared among orders of government. This creates ambiguity about who is responsible for what on many files (environment, natural resources, healthcare).
Canada’s diversity amplifies complexity: large immigrant inflows (approximately people have immigrated in the last two decades) and persistent regional differences shape political cultures and policy preferences across regions (West, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic, and North).
Migrants’ views on federation often differ from longer-term residents, with newcomers typically showing more support for federal government over ties to provincial governments.
Regional fault lines are evident in debates over distinct societies, pipelines, and other major policy questions; these cleavages influence how intergovernmental relations (IGR) function and how policy is designed and implemented.
The chapter shows that IGR is shaped by underlying visions of what the federation is and ought to be, how governments can work together, and how these patterns have shifted over time. The discussion centers on federal–provincial–territorial relations and how recent IGR under Harper and Trudeau reveal increasing contingency based on actor agreements and legacies.
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations: key concepts
Federalism (two usages):
Ideology: a normative position advocating shared and self-rule across orders of government (how things ought to be organized). Philosophically, federalism champions coexistence of multiple orders with mutual influence.
Descriptive/operational: a theoretical and practical description of systems organized along federal principles (e.g., decentralization, shared rule) that can also describe processes like decentralization or “federalization” of powers.
Federation: a specific institutional arrangement for government with shared rule and self-rule characteristics. Common features include:
At least two orders of government (e.g., federal and provincial),
A written constitution outlining powers/responsibilities,
A formal dispute arbitration mechanism (often courts, e.g., the Supreme Court), and
Institutions/processes to enable intergovernmental communication and cooperation.
Federations vary in centralization/decentralization, sociological diversity (e.g., national minorities), and democracy. They are often deliberate policy choices or compromises balancing unity with diversity.
In Canada, federation features were shaped by historical compromises between centralizing and provincial-autonomy advocates (e.g., Macdonald vs Cartier) and by pre- Confederation agreements and constitutional decrees that regulated relations among English, French, and Indigenous peoples.
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR): the set of norms, institutions, and outputs describing how governments interact to share information and make decisions.
Norms: shared ideas about how actors ought to interact (working rules) and the substantive goals of interaction.
Institutions: formal and informal processes/venues enabling interaction (vertical: federal–provincial; horizontal: cross-provincial), involving multiple governments and sometimes non-government actors.
Outputs: results of interaction, ranging from little contact to negotiated agreements and policies.
IGR vs. multi-level governance: IGR often centers on government actors, is more hierarchical and relatively closed; multi-level governance involves a broader set of actors (including non-governmental) across levels.
IGR in Canada is mostly framed around executive federalism (senior officials, ministers, premiers) but shows variation across forums, actors, and outcomes.
Canada’s competing federal visions
Canada hosts multiple “federal visions,” i.e., different understandings of the federation’s nature and organization. The main perspectives are:
Pan-Canadian Vision
View: Canada as a single bilingual, multicultural nation with a strong central federal government.
Implications: centralized federation; provinces are administrative territories subordinated to Ottawa.
National institutions (federal cabinet, Senate, Supreme Court) are seen as representing Canada’s pluralism.
Cements centralized powers (e.g., expansive taxing/spending powers under the Constitution Act, 1867) and the ability to patriate and reform the constitution (e.g., 1982 changes, Meech Lake/Charlottetown episodes).
Contemporary expressions include universal healthcare and national carbon pricing initiatives.
Provincial Equality Vision
View: Canada as a compact among equal autonomous provinces; provinces are the primary political communities.
Implications: decentralized federation with equal distribution of powers; Ottawa’s institutions ideally reflect regional diversity.
Historical evidence cited: framing of Confederation as a compact among four equal partners; provincial rights movements; unanimity clauses in amending formula; intergovernmental agreements (e.g., Federal–Provincial Internal Trade Agreement 1994; Social Union Framework Agreement 1999; Calgary Declaration 1999).
Contemporary focus: resistance to treating Quebec as distinct; calls for fair treatment in program funding and equalization.
Multinational Vision
View: federation as a compact among multiple nations (initially three founding groups: English Canada, Québécois, Indigenous peoples; now often described as three sociological nations).
Implications: asymmetric powers and arrangements to recognize national minorities and Indigenous nations; institutions of shared rule should protect and represent minority interests (e.g., immigration policy adjustments for Quebec; Indigenous nationalism).
Key historical/process markers: Quebec veto power in constitutional rounds (Fulton-Favreau to Victoria); Meech Lake/Charlottetown debates; asymmetrical accommodation (e.g., immigration); rise of Indigenous nationalism and the Assembly of First Nations; ongoing nation-to-nation framing in the Trudeau era.
Contemporary signals: moves toward recognizing national diversity for asymmetrical federal arrangements (1990s onward) and the Trudeau administration’s emphasis on nation-to-nation with Indigenous peoples.
Rights-based Vision (often discussed as a fourth perspective)
Emphasizes Charter rights and freedoms as shaping national identity and reducing provincial autonomy’s centrality.
Argument: rights framework creates a more centralized national community of “Charter Canadians,” sometimes at the expense of provincial identities.
Note: this vision is discussed as an important but not universally accepted perspective in the modern literature.
The chapter cautions that these visions are not mutually exclusive in practice; they summarize broad tendencies and mobilizing narratives that influence IGR and policy across time.
The core point: underlying visions about the federation influence how actors perceive roles, powers, and the legitimacy of intergovernmental action, shaping cooperation or conflict on policy issues.
The shifting nature of IGR in Canada: the turn toward collaboration and the contingent future
IGR is central to Canadian governance but lacks a fixed constitutional blueprint; formal IGR institutions are relatively sparse, so interaction depends on actors’ willingness and strategic calculations.
Over time, the tenor of IGR has shifted from minimal interaction to collaborative modes and back, with ongoing contingencies influenced by party ideology, legacy, policy stakes, and fiscal considerations.
A widely used framework identifies dominant periods in IGR, plus a more recent contingent period where collaboration is increasingly dependent on the actors’ shared views of roles and the legacies of past agreements.
A fifth, contingent period (roughly from 2006 onward) is characterized by oscillations between collaboration and conflict, reflecting evolving political dynamics under Harper and Trudeau.
Core takeaway: the nature of IGR is shaped by the federation’s underlying sociological foundations and by historical legacies, policy stakes, and political incentives.
The shift to collaborative IGR (the 1990s–2006 period): norms, institutions, and outputs
Collaborative IGR is defined by norms of cooperative interdependence among orders of government, recognizing that even where jurisdictions are exclusive, actions affect other orders.
Working rules emphasize including other orders and sometimes stakeholders in policy design to ensure broader legitimacy and effectiveness.
Institutions of collaborative IGR are multilateral forums involving federal and all provincial governments (Quebec sometimes included); co-chaired by federal and provincial officials; designed for joint policy development and negotiated decisions.
Outputs commonly include national visions or policy goals agreed across governments, later implemented through provincial bilateral arrangements.
Major milestones and examples:
Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – 1994
Labour Market Development Agreements – 1996
Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization – 1998
Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) – 1999
Health Care Accord – 2000; Health Care Accord framework implemented in 2004
Interprovincial Council of the Federation – 2003
Debate remains whether this period represents genuine collaboration or a shift toward federal downloading of responsibilities to provinces. Nonetheless, broader evidence points to a trend toward multilateral negotiation and shared governance in many files, even as contested areas persisted.
Importantly, collaboration in this period produced shared policy frameworks but did not erase normative tensions or the possibility of unilateral action in specific fields.
Recent IGR under Harper and Trudeau: increasing contingency and legacy effects
Harper (2006–2015): open federalism
Core idea: respect exclusive jurisdiction and reduce federal use of spending power to encroach on provincial constitutional authority; address fiscal imbalances.
Stated approach included a Charter of Open Federalism (promised but never realized) and a commitment to co-operate with provinces when policy affected provincial interests.
Fiscal and governance moves included:
2006–07 budgets reducing cross-branch overlap, with reforms to transfers and a shift toward more unconditional or per-capita funding, alongside increased emphasis on equalization and selective unilateral actions on healthcare funding.
Interaction pattern: a retreat from high-level multilateral forum engagement; nevertheless, bilateral meetings with provincial leaders remained high (roughly bilateral meetings or calls between 2006–2012) and multilateral ministerial/deputy minister meetings occurred regularly (about ministerial and deputy-level meetings per year on average 2006–2015).
Policy fields with notable bilateral or multilateral collaboration include immigration (e.g., 2012 common immigration system and Express Entry reforms) and agriculture (multilateral framework agreements with province-specific supplements).
A notable unilateral move occurred in 2013–2014 when the federal government announced changes to labour market training funding (Canada Job Grant), which triggered mobilization by provinces and a return to a multilateral framework that reaffirmed provincial leadership.
Trudeau (2015–2019, and beyond for context): shift toward collaborative federalism but with substantial conflicts and constraints
Rhetoric and early actions emphasized collaboration with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples, and municipalities; framed as nation-to-nation with Indigenous peoples and sought renewed cooperation across levels.
Major agreements and policy directions included:
Three first ministers’ meetings within the first year; international cooperation (e.g., Paris Climate Conference participation);
Vancouver Declaration (2016) and Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (2016) signed by all provinces/territories except Saskatchewan; CPP reforms (2016) and talks to expand healthcare and prescription drug funding; infrastructure plans emphasizing national priorities while engaging provinces as partners.
However, the collaboration model proved difficult to sustain on contentious files:
Carbon pricing: initial multilateral consensus broke down as five provinces (e.g., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick) opted out; the federal government then imposed a national price in those provinces; Ontario and Saskatchewan challenged constitutionality in court; subsequent shifts in province positions occurred (e.g., New Brunswick, Alberta adopting plans).
Energy, pipelines, and climate change: friction over who sets the price, who funds environmental programs, and how to balance provincial autonomy with national goals.
Healthcare funding and infrastructure: the federal government pursued bilateral funding models tied to national standards, reinforcing a federal role but prompting provincial pushback on conditionalities; a move toward “federal backstops” while also pursuing national standards.
Indigenous reconciliation and missing/murdered Indigenous women: ongoing tensions over the pace and form of reconciliation and nation-to-nation engagements in practice.
By 2019 the Trudeau period showed a pattern of "collaboration, but with strings attached"—strong pursuit of national priorities and multilateral negotiation, yet with significant unilateral actions and provincial resistance on several fronts.
The overall pattern from Harper to Trudeau highlights growing contingency in IGR: even when collaboration is the stated or intended mode, actual practice depends heavily on actor beliefs, party alignments, past commitments, and ongoing conflicts across key policy areas.
Assessing the performance, effectiveness, and legitimacy of recent IGR
The analysis emphasizes that there is no single measure of success for IGR. Performance (how well policy goals are achieved) and legitimacy (whether policies have broad acceptance) do not always move together.
Under Harper:
Relative emphasis on performance and efficiency: reduced cross-jurisdictional contact; more unilateral action; strong use of spending power to advance objectives when possible.
Legitimation sometimes suffered due to reduced engagement with provinces and other actors, potentially undermining perceived legitimacy even when policies were implemented efficiently.
Yet there were notable successes in multilateral collaboration on immigration, agriculture, and some labour market initiatives.
Under Trudeau:
Early emphasis on legitimacy and collaboration with provinces and Indigenous peoples; notable multilateral action on climate policy and social programs that sought national standards while accommodating regional needs.
Over time, difficult negotiations on energy, environment, pipelines, healthcare funding, and immigration led to increasing conflict and unilateral federal actions in some cases, challenging the sustainability of a deeply collaborative model.
Overall conclusions:
IGR under Harper can be characterized as “collaboration if necessary” with a strong emphasis on performance but limited multilateral engagement in some periods.
IGR under Trudeau began with a strong collaborative impulse but devolved into a more conflictual and contested space on important files, despite continued efforts to use multilateral mechanisms.
These patterns illustrate a broader paradox: Canada’s federation requires IGR to manage complexity, but the federation’s own complexity and the lack of sturdy formal IGR institutions make it difficult to achieve consistently high performance, legitimacy, and predictability.
Two broader insights emerge:
First, political leaders do not always get the IGR they want; the outcomes depend on coalition-building, actor beliefs, and legacy, not only on policy intent.
Second, the very complexity of Canadian federalism creates a need for IGR, but also makes it inherently challenging to achieve simultaneously robust performance and broad legitimacy.
Key Themes and Concepts
Inherent Complexity of Canadian Federalism: Canadian federalism is characterized by its profound complexity, stemming from multiple, often overlapping, layers of legal, political, and policy authority. This complexity is amplified by the nation's vast sociological diversity, including significant immigrant populations and persistent regional differences across its major geographical and cultural landscapes. This multifaceted nature continually generates ambiguity regarding jurisdictional responsibilities, necessitating ongoing negotiation and adaptive governance strategies.
Competing Federal Visions as Foundational Drivers: The efficacy and nature of Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) are fundamentally shaped by deeply ingrained, often conflicting, “federal visions” that guide actors' understandings of Canada's makeup and its desired organization. These include the Pan-Canadian (centralized national unity), Provincial Equality (decentralized compact of equal provinces), Multinational (asymmetrical recognition of distinct nations), and Rights-based (Charter-centric national identity) perspectives. These visions are not mutually exclusive and dynamically influence cooperation, conflict, and policy outcomes.
The Evolving, Contingent Nature of IGR: IGR in Canada is not static, evolving significantly over time from periods of minimal interaction to more collaborative approaches established in the 1990s, and most recently, to a highly contingent phase. This contingency implies that the success and mode of interaction depend heavily on the specific political actors involved, their ideological alignments, historical legacies, and the particular policy stakes at hand, rather than a fixed constitutional blueprint. The absence of robust formal IGR institutions underscores its reliance on political will and strategic calculations.
Balancing Performance and Legitimacy in Governance: There is no single metric for successful IGR, as performance (achieving policy goals efficiently) and legitimacy (broad acceptance of policies) often operate independently. Recent periods under Harper emphasized performance and efficiency, sometimes at the expense of broad provincial engagement and thus legitimacy, while the Trudeau era initially prioritized legitimacy and collaboration, only to encounter significant conflicts that challenged the sustained implementation of a deeply cooperative model. This highlights an enduring paradox wherein the very complexity that necessitates IGR also makes consistent high performance and broad legitimation challenging to simultaneously secure.
The Critical Role of Political Leadership and Historical Legacies: The outcomes of IGR are not solely determined by policy intent but are significantly influenced by the beliefs, willingness, and coalition-building efforts of political leaders. Each administration's approach, whether Harper's “open federalism” or Trudeau’s “nation-to-nation” rhetoric, attempts to reform IGR, but faces constraints imposed by past commitments, party alignments, and ongoing policy disputes. This underscores that IGR is a dynamic, politically charged process where historical legacies exert considerable influence on contemporary interactions and policy choices.
Glossary (definitions in brief)
multi-level governance: Involves multiple governments and non-governmental actors across levels in policy development and implementation.
multinational vision: Sees Canada as a compact among multiple national communities (e.g., English Canada, Quebec, Indigenous peoples), often supporting asymmetrical power distributions and representation for national minorities.
norms: Shared ideas and principles that guide how governments interact and organize policy; can regulate behavior and regularize practices.
open federalism: Harper’s term describing a approach that respects provincial jurisdiction, limits use of the spending power to encroach on provincial powers, while remaining open to cooperative intergovernmental action.
pan-Canadian vision: Canada as a single, bilingual/multicultural nation with centralized features and national institutions representing pluralism.
provincial equality vision: Emphasizes equal partnership among provinces and decentralization, with regional diversity represented in Ottawa’s institutions.
the (federal) charter of rights framework (rights-based vision): Argues that the Charter’s primacy reduces provincial autonomous influence and fosters a shared national political community centered around federal rights protections.
Notable examples, benchmarks, and milestones mentioned
Constitution Act, 1867: foundational powers and division of powers between federal and provincial governments; reference to sections s. 91/92.
Constitution Act, 1982: patriation and added constitutional amendments framework (Meech Lake, Charlottetown debates are referenced as part of the pan-Canadian vision’s historical narrative).
1994: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – a landmark for collaborative IGR on interprovincial trade.
1996: Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs).
1998: Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization.
1999: Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA).
2000: Health Care Accord; 2004: Health Care Accord implementation.
2003: Interprovincial Council of the Federation (ICF).
2006–2015: Harper’s tenure featured a large number of bilateral meetings (~ such meetings) and multilateral ministerial/deputy meetings (average ≈ ministerial meetings per year; ≈ deputy meetings). Key file collaborations included immigration (common system, Express Entry) and agriculture (framework agreements).
2012: Common immigration system; 2013/2014: Canada Job Grant (labour market training reform) and subsequent multilateral framework agreements to preserve provincial leadership.
2015: Trudeau elected; emphasis on nation-to-nation Indigenous relations; three premiers’ meetings within a year; Vancouver Declaration (2016); Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change (2016) with most provinces/territories onboard.
2019 onward: continuing debates on carbon pricing, healthcare funding, pipelines, and equalization; several provinces challenged federal policy in court (e.g., carbon tax cases).
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations
The Canadian federation is exceptionally complex due to multiple layers of legal, political, and policy authority that are shared or overlap among orders of government: federal, provincial/territorial, and, increasingly, Indigenous governments. This inherent complexity leads to significant ambiguity about who is precisely responsible for what on many crucial files, such as environmental regulations, natural resource development, and healthcare provision. This ambiguity requires constant negotiation and cooperation.
Canada’s profound diversity further amplifies this complexity. Large immigrant inflows, with approximately people having immigrated in the last two decades, bring new cultural perspectives and policy demands. Concurrently, persistent regional differences based on historical, economic, and social factors deeply shape political cultures and distinct policy preferences across Canada’s major regions: the West (especially Alberta and British Columbia), Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and the North. These regional cleavages are fundamental to Canadian politics and intergovernmental dynamics.
Migrants’ views on the federation often diverge significantly from those of longer-term residents; recent cohorts of newcomers typically show greater support for the federal government and national institutions, often viewing them as symbols of unity and inclusion, compared to stronger historical ties to provincial governments exhibited by established populations.
Regional fault lines are consistently evident in major national debates, from the discussions surrounding Quebec’s unique status and demands for a distinct society to contentious infrastructure projects like pipelines and broader fiscal federalism debates, including equalization payments. These deep-seated cleavages profoundly influence how intergovernmental relations (IGR) function, often dictating the level of cooperation or conflict, and how policy is designed and implemented across the country.
This foundational context reveals that IGR is not merely a technical exercise but is deeply shaped by underlying, often competing, visions of what the federation fundamentally is and what it ought to be. These visions also dictate how governments perceive their ability and responsibility to work together, and how these patterns of interaction have shifted over time. The discussion primarily centers on federal–provincial–territorial relations, highlighting how recent IGR practices under Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau reveal an increasing contingency based on the specific agreements reached by political actors and the enduring legacies of past constitutional and policy decisions.
Federalism, Federation, and Intergovernmental Relations: key concepts
Federalism (understood in two primary usages):
Ideology/Normative Position: This refers to a philosophical and normative stance advocating for a system of shared-rule and self-rule across multiple orders of government. It posits how political power ought to be organized to balance national unity with regional or local diversity. Philosophically, federalism champions the coexistence of multiple sovereign orders of government with mutual influence, aiming to prevent the over-centralization of power and protect diverse interests within a single political system.
Descriptive/Operational Model: This usage offers a theoretical and practical description of political systems organized along federal principles. Key characteristics often include decentralization of power, constitutionally defined shared rule, and mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation. It can also describe dynamic processes like decentralization (shifting powers from central to regional governments) or “federalization” of powers, where responsibilities become increasingly shared over time.
Federation: a specific institutional arrangement for government characterized by constitutionally entrenched shared rule and self-rule. Common features that distinguish a federation from a unitary state or confederation include:
At least two orders of government: Typically, a central or federal government and constituent regional governments (e.g., provinces in Canada, states in the U.S.). Each order derives its authority from the constitution and possesses distinct areas of jurisdiction.
A written constitution: This supreme law comprehensively outlines the division of powers and responsibilities between the orders of government. It serves as the legal backbone of the federal system, providing clarity and limiting arbitrary changes.
A formal dispute arbitration mechanism: This is often an independent judiciary, such as a Supreme Court, empowered to interpret the constitution and resolve jurisdictional disputes between the different orders of government, ensuring the rule of law within the federal structure.
Institutions and processes for intergovernmental communication and cooperation: These mechanisms facilitate ongoing interaction, negotiation, and coordination among governments, ranging from formal councils and conferences to informal working groups, essential for managing shared responsibilities and resolving policy overlaps.
Federations internationally exhibit significant variations in their degree of centralization/decentralization (how much power resides with the federal vs. constituent units), their sociological diversity (e.g., the presence of national minorities or multiple linguistic groups), and their democratic structures. Federations are often deliberate policy choices or historical compromises strategically designed to balance the imperatives of national unity with the recognition and preservation of regional or group diversity.
In Canada, the specific features of its federation were profoundly shaped by historical compromises forged between centralizing advocates (like Sir John A. Macdonald, who favored a strong central government) and proponents of provincial autonomy (like George-Étienne Cartier, who championed provincial rights, particularly for Quebec). Furthermore, pre-Confederation agreements and constitutional decrees regulated complex relations among English, French, and Indigenous peoples, laying the groundwork for Canada’s unique federal design.
Intergovernmental Relations (IGR): The comprehensive set of norms, institutions, and outputs that describe how governments within a multi-level system interact to share information, coordinate policies, and make collective decisions. IGR is crucial for the effective functioning of federations.
Norms: These are shared ideas, principles, and unwritten rules about how political actors (governments, departments, officials) ought to interact. They include “working rules” (e.g., mutual respect, confidentiality) and dictate the substantive goals of interaction (e.g., achieving consensus, efficient policy delivery).
Institutions: These refer to both formal and informal processes and venues that enable interaction. They can be vertical (e.g., federal–provincial conferences, where the federal government interacts with individual provinces or all provinces jointly) or horizontal (e.g., cross-provincial agreements or bodies like the Council of the Federation, where provinces interact amongst themselves). Interaction often involves multiple governments and can sometimes include non-government actors (e.g., Indigenous organizations, interest groups).
Outputs: These are the results of interactions, which can vary widely in scope and impact. Outputs range from minimal contact or information exchange to formal negotiated agreements, joint policy frameworks, and fully coordinated programs. The success of IGR is often judged by the tangible outputs achieved.
IGR vs. Multi-level Governance (MLG): While related, IGR typically centers predominantly on formal government actors and their interactions, often characterized by more hierarchical relationships and relatively closed decision-making processes (e.g., executive federalism). Multi-level governance (MLG), in contrast, involves a much broader set of actors, including non-governmental organizations, private sector entities, and civil society groups, operating across various levels (sub-national, national, supranational) in policy development and implementation, often implying more diffuse power structures and network-like interactions.
IGR in Canada is mostly framed around executive federalism, meaning that interactions are conducted primarily by senior officials, ministers, and premiers, rather than through legislative bodies. This approach prioritizes efficiency and inter-executive bargaining but also means that patterns of interaction show significant variation across different forums, specific political actors involved, and the policy outcomes generated.
Canada’s competing federal visions
Canada hosts multiple “federal visions,” which are deeply ingrained, often competing, understandings of the federation’s fundamental nature, its purpose, and how its governance ought to be organized. These visions shape political debates, policy choices, and intergovernmental dynamics. The main perspectives are:
Pan-Canadian Vision:
View: This vision conceives of Canada as a unified, single, bilingual, and multicultural nation with a strong, central federal government that acts as the primary vehicle for national identity and policy. It emphasizes the collective identity of “Canadians” across provincial boundaries.
Implications: It advocates for a highly centralized federation where provinces are primarily seen as administrative territories that, while possessing significant autonomy, are ultimately subordinated to the overarching authority and national direction set by Ottawa. This vision often supports federal initiatives that promote national standards and universal programs.
Representation: National institutions such as the federal cabinet, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are viewed as representing Canada’s diverse pluralism and acting on behalf of all Canadians, not just regional interests.
Strengths & History: This vision historically cements centralized powers, visible in expansive federal taxing and spending powers under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the federal ability to patriate and unilaterally reform the constitution in 1982. Key historical moments include the federal government’s role in modernizing social programs and the debates around proposed constitutional amendments like Meech Lake and Charlottetown, which sought to define Canada’s fundamental nature.
Contemporary Expressions: Modern examples include federal leadership in establishing and maintaining universal healthcare standards, national carbon pricing initiatives, and efforts to build a national infrastructure grid.
Provincial Equality Vision:
View: This perspective understands Canada as a compact or partnership among equal, autonomous provinces. Each province is considered a primary political community with its own distinct identity and policy priorities, and the federation exists to facilitate their collective interests.
Implications: It advocates for a significantly decentralized federation where powers are primarily (or equally) distributed among the provinces, with Ottawa’s institutions ideally designed to reflect and accommodate fundamental regional diversity and provincial specificities, rather than imposing a single national will.
Historical Evidence Cited: Protagonists of this vision often cite historical evidence such as the framing of Confederation not just as a creation of a national government but as a compact formed among four (later more) equal partners entering into an agreement. They also point to strong provincial rights movements throughout Canadian history, the requirement for unanimity clauses in certain constitutional amending formulas, and significant intergovernmental agreements like the Federal–Provincial Internal Trade Agreement (1994), the Social Union Framework Agreement (1999), and the Calgary Declaration (1999), all of which emphasized provincial autonomy and partnership.
Contemporary Focus: Current focus areas include resistance to any attempt to treat Quebec as distinct from other provinces (insisting on equality among all provinces), and persistent calls for fair and equitable treatment in program funding and equalization payments, ensuring no province is favored or disadvantaged.
Multinational Vision:
View: This vision sees the federation as a compact or partnership among multiple distinct nations. Historically, this has often referred to the “three founding groups”: English Canada, Québécois (French Canada), and Indigenous peoples. More recently, it is often described as a compact among “three sociological nations,” acknowledging the evolving self-determination of Indigenous nations.
Implications: It advocates for asymmetrical powers and specific institutional arrangements designed to formally recognize and protect the unique status and rights of national minorities and Indigenous nations. This might involve different areas of jurisdiction or funding arrangements for certain provinces or Indigenous communities. Institutions of shared rule should actively protect and represent minority national interests (e.g., Quebec’s unique immigration policy arrangements; the evolving frameworks for Indigenous self-government).
Key Historical/Process Markers: Significant historical benchmarks for this vision include Quebec’s effective veto power during constitutional rounds (from Fulton-Favreau in the 1960s to Victoria in the 1970s), the intense debates surrounding the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (which sought to acknowledge Quebec as a “distinct society” and, in Charlottetown, Indigenous self-government), and the ongoing development of asymmetrical accommodation in policies like immigration. The rise of Indigenous nationalism and the formation of organizations like the Assembly of First Nations have dramatically advanced the self-determination movement, promoting a nation-to-nation framing under the Trudeau era, emphasizing direct relations between the federal government and Indigenous nations.
Contemporary Signals: Modern signals include continued moves toward recognizing national diversity through asymmetrical federal arrangements (particularly from the 1990s onward) and the Trudeau administration’s explicit emphasis on a nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples, seeking reconciliation and self-government agreements.
Rights-based Vision (often discussed as a fourth perspective)
Emphasizes Charter rights and freedoms as shaping national identity and reducing provincial autonomy’s centrality.
Argument: rights framework creates a more centralized national community of “Charter Canadians,” sometimes at the expense of provincial identities.
Note: this vision is discussed as an important but not universally accepted perspective in the modern literature.
The chapter cautions that these visions are not mutually exclusive in practice; they summarize broad tendencies and mobilizing narratives that influence IGR and policy across time.
The core point: underlying visions about the federation influence how actors perceive roles, powers, and the legitimacy of intergovernmental action, shaping cooperation or conflict on policy issues.
The shifting nature of IGR in Canada: the turn toward collaboration and the contingent future
IGR is central to Canadian governance but lacks a fixed constitutional blueprint; formal IGR institutions are relatively sparse, so interaction depends on actors’ willingness and strategic calculations.
Over time, the tenor of IGR has shifted from minimal interaction to collaborative modes and back, with ongoing contingencies influenced by party ideology, legacy, policy stakes, and fiscal considerations.
A widely used framework identifies dominant periods in IGR, plus a more recent contingent period where collaboration is increasingly dependent on the actors’ shared views of roles and the legacies of past agreements.
A fifth, contingent period (roughly from 2006 onward) is characterized by oscillations between collaboration and conflict, reflecting evolving political dynamics under Harper and Trudeau.
Core takeaway: the nature of IGR is shaped by the federation’s underlying sociological foundations and by historical legacies, policy stakes, and political incentives.
The shift to collaborative IGR (the 1990s–2006 period): norms, institutions, and outputs
Collaborative IGR is defined by norms of cooperative interdependence among orders of government, recognizing that even where jurisdictions are exclusive, actions affect other orders.
Working rules emphasize including other orders and sometimes stakeholders in policy design to ensure broader legitimacy and effectiveness.
Institutions of collaborative IGR are multilateral forums involving federal and all provincial governments (Quebec sometimes included); co-chaired by federal and provincial officials; designed for joint policy development and negotiated decisions.
Outputs commonly include national visions or policy goals agreed across governments, later implemented through provincial bilateral arrangements.
Major milestones and examples:
Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – 1994
Labour Market Development Agreements – 1996
Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization – 1998
Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) – 1999
Health Care Accord – 2000; Health Care Accord framework implemented in 2004
Interprovincial Council of the Federation – 2003
Debate remains whether this period represents genuine collaboration or a shift toward federal downloading of responsibilities to provinces. Nonetheless, broader evidence points to a trend toward multilateral negotiation and shared governance in many files, even as contested areas persisted.
Importantly, collaboration in this period produced shared policy frameworks but did not erase normative tensions or the possibility of unilateral action in specific fields.
Recent IGR under Harper and Trudeau: increasing contingency and legacy effects
Harper (2006–2015): open federalism
Core idea: respect exclusive jurisdiction and reduce federal use of spending power to encroach on provincial constitutional authority; address fiscal imbalances.
Stated approach included a Charter of Open Federalism (promised but never realized) and a commitment to co-operate with provinces when policy affected provincial interests.
Fiscal and governance moves included:
2006–07 budgets reducing cross-branch overlap, with reforms to transfers and a shift toward more unconditional or per-capita funding, alongside increased emphasis on equalization and selective unilateral actions on healthcare funding.
Interaction pattern: a retreat from high-level multilateral forum engagement; nevertheless, bilateral meetings with provincial leaders remained high (roughly bilateral meetings or calls between 2006–2012) and multilateral ministerial/deputy minister meetings occurred regularly (about ministerial and deputy-level meetings per year on average 2006–2015).
Policy fields with notable bilateral or multilateral collaboration include immigration (e.g., 2012 common immigration system and Express Entry reforms) and agriculture (multilateral framework agreements with province-specific supplements).
A notable unilateral move occurred in 2013–2014 when the federal government announced changes to labour market training funding (Canada Job Grant), which triggered mobilization by provinces and a return to a multilateral framework that reaffirmed provincial leadership.
Trudeau (2015–2019, and beyond for context): shift toward collaborative federalism but with substantial conflicts and constraints
Rhetoric and early actions emphasized collaboration with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples, and municipalities; framed as nation-to-nation with Indigenous peoples and sought renewed cooperation across levels.
Major agreements and policy directions included:
Three first ministers’ meetings within the first year; international cooperation (e.g., Paris Climate Conference participation);
Vancouver Declaration (2016) and Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (2016) signed by all provinces/territories except Saskatchewan; CPP reforms (2016) and talks to expand healthcare and prescription drug funding; infrastructure plans emphasizing national priorities while engaging provinces as partners.
However, the collaboration model proved difficult to sustain on contentious files:
Carbon pricing: initial multilateral consensus broke down as five provinces (e.g., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick) opted out; the federal government then imposed a national price in those provinces; Ontario and Saskatchewan challenged constitutionality in court; subsequent shifts in province positions occurred (e.g., New Brunswick, Alberta adopting plans).
Energy, pipelines, and climate change: friction over who sets the price, who funds environmental programs, and how to balance provincial autonomy with national goals.
Healthcare funding and infrastructure: the federal government pursued bilateral funding models tied to national standards, reinforcing a federal role but prompting provincial pushback on conditionalities; a move toward “federal backstops” while also pursuing national standards.
Indigenous reconciliation and missing/murdered Indigenous women: ongoing tensions over the pace and form of reconciliation and nation-to-nation engagements in practice.
By 2019 the Trudeau period showed a pattern of "collaboration, but with strings attached"—strong pursuit of national priorities and multilateral negotiation, yet with significant unilateral actions and provincial resistance on several fronts.
The overall pattern from Harper to Trudeau highlights growing contingency in IGR: even when collaboration is the stated or intended mode, actual practice depends heavily on actor beliefs, party alignments, past commitments, and ongoing conflicts across key policy areas.
Assessing the performance, effectiveness, and legitimacy of recent IGR
The analysis emphasizes that there is no single measure of success for IGR. Performance (how well policy goals are achieved) and legitimacy (whether policies have broad acceptance) do not always move together.
Under Harper:
Relative emphasis on performance and efficiency: reduced cross-jurisdictional contact; more unilateral action; strong use of spending power to advance objectives when possible.
Legitimation sometimes suffered due to reduced engagement with provinces and other actors, potentially undermining perceived legitimacy even when policies were implemented efficiently.
Yet there were notable successes in multilateral collaboration on immigration, agriculture, and some labour market initiatives.
Under Trudeau:
Early emphasis on legitimacy and collaboration with provinces and Indigenous peoples; notable multilateral action on climate policy and social programs that sought national standards while accommodating regional needs.
Over time, difficult negotiations on energy, environment, pipelines, healthcare funding, and immigration led to increasing conflict and unilateral federal actions in some cases, challenging the sustainability of a deeply collaborative model.
Overall conclusions:
IGR under Harper can be characterized as “collaboration if necessary” with a strong emphasis on performance but limited multilateral engagement in some periods.
IGR under Trudeau began with a strong collaborative impulse but devolved into a more conflictual and contested space on important files, despite continued efforts to use multilateral mechanisms.
These patterns illustrate a broader paradox: Canada’s federation requires IGR to manage complexity, but the federation’s own complexity and the lack of sturdy formal IGR institutions make it difficult to achieve consistently high performance, legitimacy, and predictability.
Two broader insights emerge:
First, political leaders do not always get the IGR they want; the outcomes depend on coalition-building, actor beliefs, and legacy, not only on policy intent.
Second, the very complexity of Canadian federalism creates a need for IGR, but also makes it inherently challenging to achieve simultaneously robust performance and broad legitimacy.
Key Themes and Concepts
Inherent Complexity of Canadian Federalism: Canadian federalism is characterized by its profound complexity, stemming from multiple, often overlapping, layers of legal, political, and policy authority. This complexity is amplified by the nation's vast sociological diversity, including significant immigrant populations and persistent regional differences across its major geographical and cultural landscapes. This multifaceted nature continually generates ambiguity regarding jurisdictional responsibilities, necessitating ongoing negotiation and adaptive governance strategies.
Competing Federal Visions as Foundational Drivers: The efficacy and nature of Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) are fundamentally shaped by deeply ingrained, often conflicting, “federal visions” that guide actors' understandings of Canada's makeup and its desired organization. These include the Pan-Canadian (centralized national unity), Provincial Equality (decentralized compact of equal provinces), Multinational (asymmetrical recognition of distinct nations), and Rights-based (Charter-centric national identity) perspectives. These visions are not mutually exclusive and dynamically influence cooperation, conflict, and policy outcomes.
The Evolving, Contingent Nature of IGR: IGR in Canada is not static, evolving significantly over time from periods of minimal interaction to more collaborative approaches established in the 1990s, and most recently, to a highly contingent phase. This contingency implies that the success and mode of interaction depend heavily on the specific political actors involved, their ideological alignments, historical legacies, and the particular policy stakes at hand, rather than a fixed constitutional blueprint. The absence of robust formal IGR institutions underscores its reliance on political will and strategic calculations.
Balancing Performance and Legitimacy in Governance: There is no single metric for successful IGR, as performance (achieving policy goals efficiently) and legitimacy (broad acceptance of policies) often operate independently. Recent periods under Harper emphasized performance and efficiency, sometimes at the expense of broad provincial engagement and thus legitimacy, while the Trudeau era initially prioritized legitimacy and collaboration, only to encounter significant conflicts that challenged the sustained implementation of a deeply cooperative model. This highlights an enduring paradox wherein the very complexity that necessitates IGR also makes consistent high performance and broad legitimation challenging to simultaneously secure.
The Critical Role of Political Leadership and Historical Legacies: The outcomes of IGR are not solely determined by policy intent but are significantly influenced by the beliefs, willingness, and coalition-building efforts of political leaders. Each administration's approach, whether Harper's “open federalism” or Trudeau’s “nation-to-nation” rhetoric, attempts to reform IGR, but faces constraints imposed by past commitments, party alignments, and ongoing policy disputes. This underscores that IGR is a dynamic, politically charged process where historical legacies exert considerable influence on contemporary interactions and policy choices.
Glossary (definitions in brief)
multi-level governance: Involves multiple governments and non-governmental actors across levels in policy development and implementation.
multinational vision: Sees Canada as a compact among multiple national communities (e.g., English Canada, Quebec, Indigenous peoples), often supporting asymmetrical power distributions and representation for national minorities.
norms: Shared ideas and principles that guide how governments interact and organize policy; can regulate behavior and regularize practices.
open federalism: Harper’s term describing a approach that respects provincial jurisdiction, limits use of the spending power to encroach on provincial powers, while remaining open to cooperative intergovernmental action.
pan-Canadian vision: Canada as a single, bilingual/multicultural nation with centralized features and national institutions representing pluralism.
provincial equality vision: Emphasizes equal partnership among provinces and decentralization, with regional diversity represented in Ottawa’s institutions.
the (federal) charter of rights framework (rights-based vision): Argues that the Charter’s primacy reduces provincial autonomous influence and fosters a shared national political community centered around federal rights protections.
Notable examples, benchmarks, and milestones mentioned
Constitution Act, 1867: foundational powers and division of powers between federal and provincial governments; reference to sections s. 91/92.
Constitution Act, 1982: patriation and added constitutional amendments framework (Meech Lake, Charlottetown debates are referenced as part of the pan-Canadian vision’s historical narrative).
1994: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – a landmark for collaborative IGR on interprovincial trade.
1996: Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs).
1998: Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization.
1999: Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA).
2000: Health Care Accord; 2004: Health Care Accord implementation.
2003: Interprovincial Council of the Federation (ICF).
2006–2015: Harper’s tenure featured a large number of bilateral meetings (~ such meetings) and multilateral ministerial/deputy meetings (average ≈ ministerial meetings per year; ≈ deputy meetings). Key file collaborations included immigration (common system, Express Entry) and agriculture (framework agreements).
2012: Common immigration system; 2013/2014: Canada Job Grant (labour market training reform) and subsequent multilateral framework agreements to preserve provincial leadership.
2015: Trudeau elected; emphasis on nation-to-nation Indigenous relations; three premiers’ meetings within a year; Vancouver Declaration (2016); Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change (2016) with most provinces/territories onboard.
2019 onward: continuing debates on carbon pricing, healthcare funding, pipelines, and equalization; several provinces challenged federal policy in court (e.g., carbon tax cases).