Premiers pose for a group photograph before speaking to reporters at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025.Ben Curtis/The Associated Press
Mark Lawson was chief of staff to Ontario’s minister of economic development and trade, deputy chief of staff to the premier and chief of staff to the finance minister.
With a federal election campaign in its home stretch, Canadians can be forgiven for paying less attention to the premiers. But it was not that long ago that they made a big push in engaging the United States, when all 13 of them made headlines for piling into a van to visit the White House.
They have drawn criticism for that White House meeting in general and interventions by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in particular. However, each of these efforts should be acknowledged for the fact that they did not occur inside a co-ordinated plan driven by Ottawa. Instead, the premiers dropped everything to dedicate time and effort to a foreign policy crisis outside their typical remit.
They, not Ottawa, led the case for Canada-U.S. trade. As this election marches to its conclusion, provinces should reflect on that moment and seek to make their record of engagement the rule, rather than the exception.
In the intermission between Justin Trudeau’s resignation and the start of the federal election campaign, the Council of the Federation (the body comprising all provincial and territorial premiers) was the key policy making group in the country. The Premier of Yukon met with one of the U.S. President’s sons, the Premier of Alberta flew to Mar-a-Lago, and it was difficult to turn on U.S. cable news without seeing Ontario’s Premier.
At a recent conference, Ms. Smith stated, “There has been a change among the premiers, in realizing we have to support one another. I think the threat from the United States is one that is existential for some provinces and maybe existential for the country.” This should form the basis for a newly empowered Council of the Federation, reflecting its new-found influence through a defined, co-ordinated policy agenda.
The council’s founding documents are toothless and obligate it to meet only twice a year. Prior to the current crisis, the typical result of those meetings was to ask Ottawa for more money. That isn’t leadership – and it certainly isn’t a strategy for economic growth.
To define and execute a policy agenda, the provinces could take inspiration from the National Governors’ Association in the United States. The NGA has a full-time staff of 80 and frequently publishes reports on topics ranging from energy permitting reform to proposals for work force development. Case studies (such as how Colorado has used skills-based practices to reform hiring) are available as a resource for other state governments. In Australia, the National Cabinet (made up of the Prime Minister and premiers) sets priorities that currently include health and housing reform. Each of these creates the conditions for legislative exchange between provinces and co-ordination on a defined agenda of topics such as economic growth.
For the Council of the Federation to co-ordinate and collaborate would set a new tone. In the past, provincial actions have hampered national initiatives. British Columbia wines were banned in Alberta over disagreements related to the Northern Gateway project, hampering both LNG projects and the ability to buy a good bottle of B.C. wine in Calgary in 2018. Under the government of Kathleen Wynne, Ontario decided to have its provincial utility review board conduct a review of Energy East, which concluded the proposed pipeline was of no benefit to the province. The message to investors was that their projects should stay within the borders of one province.
But the trade situation has exposed a deep reservoir of common cause among the premiers.
This is a moment where politics meets policy. Ontario’s recent Throne Speech went so far as to state that “Ontario’s government will champion new pipelines eastward, westward, north and south, connecting Alberta oil to new refineries, new tidewater, and beyond it, new markets.” The speech itself was attended by the Premier of Nova Scotia. This is the type of ambition, co-ordination and collaboration that should stretch across provincial borders.
Provinces should not be absolved of this new national responsibility, nor should its potential be ignored. The immediate crisis response could now be matched with deeper, sustained co-ordination on domestic economic strategy. The Council of the Federation could set to work on national economic growth policy related to work such as interprovincial trade, housing and infrastructure projects.
Staff at the council could be tasked with developing options and common legislation for use both by the provinces and the federal government. Premiers could start a cascade of mutual recognition and adoption in areas that make Canada’s barriers and borders disappear from an economic standpoint. In this moment, provinces should push forward and embrace these new responsibilities.