Canada has a major economic opportunity in the global low-carbon economy, if it gets its climate and energy policies right. Those policies should be informed by principles like leveraging the ingenuity of markets and free enterprise, limited government, and respect for provincial jurisdiction. The following article is the latest installment of The Hub’s series sponsored by Clean Prosperity exploring the why, what, and how of conservative climate policy.
Leaders have presented Canadians with a false dichotomy on addressing climate change: a uniform national standard enforced by the federal government, or a patchwork of provincial plans. Both approaches have led to deadlock and court battles, and neither shows promise in curbing emissions.
There is a third option: a province-led working group model, first developed a decade ago under the Harper-era Council of the Federation (CoF). Ottawa had stepped back from guiding national policy conversations but continued to provide predictable funding, so the provinces and territories stepped into a policy leadership role.
The working group model allowed provinces to collaborate while respecting their autonomy. They formed working groups to tackle thorny issues like health care, energy, and fiscal arrangements. Indigenous leaders were sometimes included in these efforts, for example in working groups focused on Indigenous children in care and violence against Indigenous women and girls.
At their annual CoF meetings, premiers identified areas for coordination. They formed working groups to develop shared strategies in those areas that were co-chaired by premiers and included provincial-territorial ministers. The co-lead premiers would work with their colleagues to develop the terms of reference, scope of work, and work plans for each working group. These groups reported back to the full CoF every six to 12 months, providing a measure of collective transparency through public reporting.
The Canadian Energy Strategy Working Group was chaired by Premiers Alison Redford (Alberta), Kathy Dunderdale (Newfoundland and Labrador), and Greg Selinger (Manitoba). It united provincial energy ministers from each jurisdiction to bridge divides over renewable and non-renewable resource development. Around the same time, Premiers Brad Wall (Saskatchewan), Robert Ghiz (P.E.I.), and Christy Clark (B.C.) co-chaired the Health Care Innovation Working Group to forge a common agenda in that policy area.
The working group model solved a significant collective action problem. While premiers were fond of issuing broad statements in communiqués from their annual meetings, these were seldom accompanied by specific directions to their various ministers to work on areas of common interest. The working group model provided the structure, clarity, and direction necessary to drive policy collaboration among provincial ministries throughout the year.
The working groups promoted coordination rather than harmonization. They developed shared objectives and best practices without pan-Canadian standards or federal oversight. While critics seeking national standards and one-size-fits-all programs through federal accountability may find this approach lacking, it offered an effective mechanism for setting agendas and coordinating policy. Unlike top-down federal interventions, this approach respects provincial diversity while avoiding the every-province-for-itself mentality that has hindered Canadian federalism.
Indeed, the collaborative model fostered provincial camaraderie and momentum on issues, eventually drawing federal attention. When the federal government tried to get involved in the working group on health-care innovation, for instance, the premiers responded: you can join when you bring your chequebook. This symbolized a shift in intergovernmental relations, with provinces leading, rather than reacting to federal directives.
This model could be applied to climate policy with great effect, particularly given the potential return to open federalism under a new Conservative government.
The Trudeau government initially promised to continue collaborative federalism, but over time reverted to a domineering approach in areas like carbon pricing, child care, dental care, and pharmacare, sidelining meaningful provincial input. The Trudeau government doesn’t trust that premiers will act. So federal-provincial relations have become dominated by protracted bilateral negotiations and court battles over environmental regulation.
But there is another way.
Looking ahead, a CoF climate change working group could facilitate coordination while maintaining provincial autonomy. Provinces would develop strategies tailored to regional needs but report publicly, allowing for mutual accountability and transparency.
For this model to succeed, Ottawa must step back from areas of provincial jurisdiction and provide sustainable funding. Provinces must also reinvigorate CoF, focusing on forging common priorities rather than fed-bashing. Strengthening CoF’s infrastructure, including a larger secretariat to support working groups, would make collaboration more effective.
A shift in messaging is also necessary; Canadians want cooperation, not blame-shifting. A 2024 Environics study found that 54 percent believe the federal and provincial governments aren’t working well together, and 51 percent think both are equally to blame. On climate, urgency is growing: an Ipsos poll from October 2023 found 65 percent of Canadians want immediate government action on climate issues.
Provinces could once again lead the way. Historical shifts in federal leadership have reshaped Confederation, and if polls hold, Canadians may soon have the chance to reimagine intergovernmental collaboration. Premiers should pay attention; Canadians demand coordinated action on climate change. Provinces, closer to affected communities now ravaged by floods and wildfires, are well-positioned to lead on climate resilience. The working group model, flexible enough to accommodate regional differences, offers a path forward.
