Election 2025: The latent national unity crisis on the horizon

With Alberta and Quebec placing competing demands on the federal government in response to the U.S trade war, the underlying issue for this election remains the future state of the Canadian federation

Photo credit: Mathieu Belanger / REUTERS

The existential threat to Canada posed by the United States’ tariff war has understandably been the all-consuming issue for many Canadians in the early days of this election campaign.

As a result, this writ period has been characterized by a heightened level of attention atypical for Canadian politics. Despite this recent phenomenon, it has become disconcerting that another significant crisis on the horizon is largely being underappreciated in this campaign: our national unity and the future state of Canadian federalism.

That is to say, the existential threat also derives from within our own borders.

For the moment, it is tempting and easily observable to suggest that Canadians have never been more united against the mere thought of a looming American annexation threat. However, tension points have already begun to reveal themselves in the midst of the U.S.-Canada trade dispute, found in Alberta and Quebec, both of which could prove to have dire consequences on the other side of this election.

In one of his first acts as prime minister, Liberal Party leader Mark Carney held a First Ministers Conference, as a means of coordinating a united response with the provincial premiers towards the pervasive U.S. threat, which resulted in a cross-provincial trade strategy, alongside a string of national measures meant to support businesses and workers during this period of tumult.

But of particular note, Carney also met separately with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, in an attempt to soothe over some of her concerns, such as the prospect of a counter-tax on oil and gas exports to the U.S., decrying that such monies would benefit Ottawa's coffers on the back of Alberta's primary industry.

Prior to Carney's ascension, Smith had been operating in an uncoordinated and regionally-centric approach in dealing directly with the Americans, that many considered unhelpful in the purported “Team Canada” strategy. This was not surprising, as Canada was devoid of federal leadership under the waning relevancy of Justin Trudeau's government, leaving premiers like Smith and Ontario’s Doug Ford to adopt their own strategies, thereby presenting a disjointed narrative to the U.S. administration.

Aware of this fractured approach, Carney has embraced the need to bring all relevant stakeholders on board, making it a priority to engage with the provincial premiers as needed, which he has done several times now.

Yet, following the initial meeting with Smith, Carney and all other federal party leaders were met with a list of demands from the Alberta government, along with the threat that failing to address these items within six months after the federal election would result in an “unprecedented national unity crisis.”

Smith's transactional approach is somewhat reminiscent of former Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, who had presented a fivefold list of nationalistic demands during the constitutional wranglings of both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, in exchange for Quebec's signature onto the Canadian Constitution, and with it, the promise of intergovernmental harmony. Instead, the failure of those constitutional efforts brought about an eventual second referendum on Quebec separation in 1995.

While Smith has not outright endorsed secession following the election; despite the sentiments felt by other prominent Westerners such as Preston Manning, she has nonetheless pledged to hold a post-election panel on issues to be addressed in a possible citizen-led referendum. Smith has also penned a letter to Quebec Premier Francois Legault encouraging discussions on enhancing provincial autonomy. These are dangerous headwinds that must not be ignored.

Norman Spector, former diplomat and chief of staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and an authority on federal-provincial relations, cautioned:

“If Trump’s objective is to swallow Canada, a good way to start would be to peel off AB. And I’m not sure Carney understands that he’d have no way to stop a Declaration of Independence.

My advice to the PM if I were still chief of staff in PMO would be to read the secession reference and take this matter seriously in the national interest, not in your partisan interest.”

After his meeting with Smith, it remains unclear whether Carney is intent on operating under the aforementioned advice. On the campaign trail, Carney has already publicly supported Bill C-69 (colloquially known as the “no new pipelines law”), while reaffirming his commitment to maintaining an emissions cap, both itemized objections on Smith's list of demands, which could encite further hostilities with the province in the near future.

Alternatively, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has signaled more of a receptiveness to accepting Smith's demands if elected prime minister, calling them “reasonable.” With Poilievre, it is clear his strategy appears to be one of utter appeasement, rather than negotiated compromise. This holds true with his approach to Quebec as well, the other province always looming as a prospective national unity threat.

Poilievre unveiled his Quebec platform over a week ago, centered around upholding provincial autonomy with the aim of protecting the French culture, including a commitment not to initiate any federal intervention against Bill 96 - the controversial language law that claims to unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution declaring Quebec’s nationhood, asserting French as its only official language, while severely restricting anglophone minority rights within the province.

Furthermore, Poilievre defines his approach to Quebec as “Responsible Federalism,” but as this newsletter has long argued, allowing the unconstitutionality of Bill 96 to stand unabated without so much as a judicial reference question to the Supreme Court, is an abject failure of federal leadership. An unwillingness to defend the constitutional order for the sake of short-term partisan gain can only be regarded as irresponsible federalism.

In contrast, Carney pivoted away from his predecessor’s position on Bill 96, by confirming his government’s intention to seek intervenor status if a legal challenge is to be heard at the Supreme Court, something Trudeau and now Poilievre have opposed doing. Carney may feel there is some political capital to expend in this case, as the Liberals continue to poll significantly ahead of both the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois in the province, driven by Quebecers’ singular focus on the threat posed by U.S. President Donald Trump, believing Carney is best situated to manage the crisis.

On that note, the Trump administration has listed Quebec's Bill 96 in its annual report on foreign trade barriers as a direct irritant for American companies, interfering with their registered trademarks. Legault has firmly denounced any efforts to weaken the language law amid possible trade negotiations, but Carney could find himself in a predicament, given he is the only federal leader committed to challenging elements of the law.

Meanwhile, Poilievre’s predicament in Quebec will be to uphold his promises of a national energy corridor, entailing fast-tracking approvals for pipeline construction from west to east, when Quebec has historically opposed such expansionist efforts into its jurisdiction. The situation could be further aggravated should Poilievre fail to attain any meaningful representation in the province after the election. And with the separatist Parti Quebecois threatening another referendum on independence within a year of winning the next provincial election in 2026, Poilievre could be hard-pressed to stem the tide effectively under such circumstances.

All this to say, pipeline politics will remain a fundamental clash of priorities between Alberta and Quebec, creating real tension points in either direction for the main party leaders in navigating their respective strategies towards the U.S. tariff threat.

Carney will need to tread carefully when exercising federal powers and priorities impacting matters of provincial interest, and conversely, Poilievre cannot be seen as being simply conciliatory to all that the provinces desire, without asserting federal stewardship when its necessary to do so.

Though many believe the definitive ballot box question for this election is our strategic relationship with the Americans, Canadians should also start to be mindful of who can best manage the future of Canadian federalism, and in turn, maintain the unity of the country that many Canadians have started to appreciate once again.