Rather than just reacting to separatist threats, Canada should take the initiative to renew the federation.

The election of a Parti Québécois government with only 28 per cent of the popular vote should be a wake-up call for anyone concerned about Canada’s future as a coherent, sovereign federation. Although roughly seven in 10 Quebeckers oppose sovereignty, the new government will immediately begin preparing the ground for it. It will press Ottawa for more money and more provincial power, while using every concession to advance the claim that Quebec can function better apart from Canada.

Ottawa’s habitual response has been quiet accommodation through bilateral deals. Over decades, that approach has weakened the federation and fueled resentment elsewhere, most visibly in Alberta. Canadians should not accept recurring separatist threats as inevitable, then retreat to the Clarity Act to determine whether a provincial referendum can trigger the breakup of the country. The federal government must do more than manage the next crisis. It must address the structural weaknesses that allow those crises to recur.

Those weaknesses are becoming harder to ignore. The turbulent Canada-United States negotiations have exposed a country too often operating as a collection of protectionist provinces, each preoccupied with its own economic interests: forestry, pipelines, autos, steel, aluminum, critical minerals, dairy or hydroelectricity. Too much intergovernmental energy is spent on complaint and competition; too little on expanding Canada’s economic potential or developing common positions on trade, security and infrastructure.

Canadians still face barriers to working, investing and doing business across provincial boundaries. Training credentials are not consistently portable, regulatory systems remain fragmented, and the internal economic union does not ensure the free movement of goods, services, people and investment. Ottawa says it cannot compel full provincial participation, while years of appeals by successive prime ministers have produced little progress.

A federation that struggles to co-ordinate at home will also struggle to negotiate effectively abroad. The challenge is already visible as Canada seeks a closer association with the European Union while both the former and current Quebec premiers insist on special status for Quebec in any resulting arrangement.  Without a coherent national position, Canada risks weakening its leverage before negotiations are complete.

The time is overdue for Canada to seize the initiative with a consultative national referendum on  a focused federal reform. The immediate objective should be to improve how governments co-ordinate national decisions – not to open every constitutional concern at once. A clearly defined first referendum vote could test support for a new federal structure to replace the current senate that promotes collaboration and harmonization across subnational governments,   followed later by a separate vote on electoral reform. These are practical questions about Canada’s capacity to remain prosperous, resilient and independent.

Quebec already has de facto special status

For decades, Quebec federalist and separatist governments alike have sought greater authority over language, culture, social policy, pensions, taxation, immigration and international affairs. Ottawa’s ad hoc concessions have produced a de facto special status without a corresponding adjustment to Quebec’s influence in federal institutions. Quebec MPs continue to hold senior positions in national governments, while the Bloc Québécois – committed to independence – has exercised substantial influence in Parliament, even serving as the official opposition from 1993 to 1997.

The imbalance became more pronounced under the Coalition Avenir Québec government. Its proposed Loi sur l’autonomie constitutionnelle du Québec purported to amend Canada’s constitutional order unilaterally and elevate the collective rights of the Quebec nation over individual rights and liberties. University of Montreal constitutional scholar Stéphane Beaulac described the initiative as a legislative coup d’état. Its passage was interrupted by the provincial election, but the underlying ambition remains. The new PQ government now has its own detailed blueprint for sovereignty, including plans for a currency and national defence.

Canada should answer this strategy not with another round of appeasement, but with confident federalism. A national referendum would allow Quebeckers and all Canadians to debate how best to remain together, rather than how best to leave. It would shift the initiative from a vocal separatist minority to citizens across the country, place federal reform on shared democratic ground, and confirm how the 1982 Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms have in fact supported Quebec’s distinct evolution as a secure French-speaking entity within Canada.

A citizen-led route to reform

To initiate the referendum process, all-party parliamentary committees should first consult Canadians on specific reforms, then present recommendations to Parliament. Parliament would refine the viable options and draft a clear proposal for a consultative national referendum. Updated referendum legislation should ensure transparent financing, balanced public information and meaningful opportunities for citizens and experts to test competing claims. Committees supporting particular options could register with Elections Canada to promote debate.

The final vote would show whether a reform has broad enough support to justify proceeding under the Constitution’s 1982 amending formula. Requiring a majority of votes cast in every province would set a demanding political benchmark, even though the formal constitutional threshold would depend on the reform ultimately proposed.

The process would not silence separatists. They could argue against the proposed reforms or decline to participate. But the debate would occur on federalist terms and focus on practical improvements to the country Canadians share. It would be a reminder of the almost two centuries of intertwined history building a vibrant, prosperous federation. Most importantly,  the process enables all Canadians, including in Quebec, to speak clearly together and instruct their provincial governments and the federal government to implement the specific measures voted on in in the referendum that strengthen the federation and national unity.

The Charlottetown precedent

Canada has already held a consultative national referendum that demonstrated substantial public engagement. In October 1992, 72 per cent of eligible voters turned out and rejected the sprawling Charlottetown Accord. Political leaders called the result divisive and blamed public misunderstanding, but that interpretation discounted the five years of debate and citizen organizing that preceded the vote. The “No” campaign was not an attack on Canada; it reflected a sincere conviction that the proposed settlement would not strengthen the federation.

Charlottetown established an important principle: the Constitution belongs to the people of Canada, not to first ministers. Canadians assessed a complex proposal, rejected it and forced political leaders to listen. Far from proving that referendums are inherently destructive, the experience showed that citizens can participate seriously in debates about national institutions. A new referendum should learn from that history by asking a focused question rather than presenting another everything-but-the-kitchen-sink accord.

Reform – or replace – the Senate

A first referendum could address the discredited, unelected Senate. It remains burdened by its history as a partisan patronage institution with senators appointed by the prime minister. In the absence of any effective federal body in Parliament to ensure important provincial/regional perspectives are fully respected in federal initiatives impacting subnational governments, intergovernmental relations in Canada have become persistently confrontational, not collaborative. As a result, our already strong provincial governments focus on protecting and expanding their provincial jurisdictions too often to the detriment of the national interest especially in crucial areas such as the internal economy, infrastructure, trade and security.

Canada urgently needs a new fully accountable federal body, with respected, trustworthy membership, designed to promote meaningful interjurisdictional harmonization of federal policies and initiatives. One parliamentary option is a Triple-E Senate: elected, effective and based on equal provincial representation. The model attracted strong support in Western and Atlantic Canada during the constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s, and a flawed version was buried in the Charlottetown Accord. Another parliamentary option replaces the Senate with a body resembling Germany’s Bundesrat, in which subnational governments participate directly in federal decision-making.

A third option, outside Parliament, abolishes the Senate and creates a Council of Canadian Governments (COCG), chaired by the prime minister and modelled in part on Australia’s former intergovernmental council. It would include provincial premiers, territorial leaders, and representatives of municipal and Indigenous governments. The Council’s secretariat would establish the operating structure to enable the governments to collaborate constructively together in developing specific federal policies, initiatives, and major national reforms. When consensus agreements are reached, Parliament and the provincial legislatures would be committed to pass the necessary laws and regulations to ensure full co-ordinated implementation. The Council would work transparently so Canadians are well informed about the matters being considered, and able to effectively hold all levels of government jointly responsible for their collective commitments.

Note that the COCG is distinct from the premiers-only Council of the Federation (COF), created in 2003, in which the prime minister is excluded except by invitation. The COF generally fails to develop coherent joint provincial positions – as recent Canada-United States negotiations demonstrated – and usually focuses on demanding more fiscal transfers from Ottawa.

Whatever option Canadians choose, Parliament also needs an arm’s-length Commission on Federal Transfers, comparable to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Reporting directly to Parliament, it would map and simplify the complex web of federal-provincial and interprovincial transfers and programs that has eroded confidence in the federation’s fiscal fairness. It could also recommend reforms to the equalization program.

Then tackle electoral reform

A second referendum could address Canada’s divisive first-past-the-post electoral system, as the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform recommended in 2016. The question must be simple: one clearly defined reform option versus the existing system. British Columbia’s experience shows the danger of asking voters to navigate an overly complex, multiple-choice ballot. Any new system should also be subject to a mandatory public review after its first use.

Conclusion

These federalism reforms will not displace the economy, jobs, affordability or relations with the United States as Canadians’ immediate concerns. They are a means of addressing them more effectively. A federation capable of coordinating its governments, completing major projects and presenting unified positions abroad will be better placed to raise living standards and protect national sovereignty. Institutional reform is not a distraction from practical government; it is a condition for practical government.

Canada’s long-term security depends on a less fragmented federation in which citizens trust the fairness of national institutions, and governments work across subnational boundaries in the national interest. That requires elected leaders to engage Canadians between elections, explain difficult choices and invite them into consequential decisions. It also requires federalists to stop behaving as though the country can only react to separatist demands.

Most Quebeckers do not want to leave Canada. They should be invited to help renew it. A consultative national referendum on focused federal reform would give them – and every Canadian – a constructive alternative to the familiar cycle of threat, concession and resentment. By asking citizens to choose a practical institutional reform, Canada could begin rebuilding the cooperation it needs to strengthen its economy, act coherently abroad and protect its sovereignty.

The moment calls for federalism’s beau risque: a confident democratic appeal to citizens rather than another closed negotiation among governments. Canadians should be asked to choose reforms that strengthen collaboration, restore balance and affirm Quebec’s future within a renewed federation. Saying yes to Canada should not mean accepting the federation exactly as it is. It should mean accepting responsibility for making it work.

Endnotes

See discussion of both Meech and Charlottetown accords in Part One of my eBook Canada on the Edge.)

For a critique of the flawed Charlottetown Accord (including the senate reform proposal at pages 35- 38):  No Deal by Deborah Coyne and Robert Howse (September 1992 ISBN 0-921842-20-1):    https://deborahcoyne.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/No-Deal-Coyne-and-Howse-October-1992.pdf

(This blog was published as a Globe & Mail open editorial – November 4, 2026).