Senior observers of federal policy have learned to watch the quiet moves more closely than the loud ones. Ottawa’s latest decision to transfer most of Transport Canada’s aviation wing to the Department of National Defence fits squarely into that category: a major structural shift delivered with minimal explanation and even less narrative.
Coming only months after the Coast Guard’s administrative move under Defence, a transition this blog has previously analyzed, the pattern is no longer subtle. Civilian capabilities once overseen by departments with regulatory and service-delivery mandates are migrating toward a defence-centered organizational model. The government insists nothing fundamental is changing. The missions remain civilian. The uniforms remain the same. The aircraft will keep flying the same routes.
Canada is racing to meet NATO’s two percent spending guideline. Billions have been committed. Procurement pipelines have been expanded, and in an era where dual-use assets dominate the security landscape, consolidating aviation and maritime surveillance under Defence is not just operationally convenient. It is strategically elegant.
These Transport Canada aircraft conduct coastal surveillance, monitor pollution, support fisheries and environmental enforcement, and perform specialized logistical roles across government. Under National Defence, they become part of a broader security framework: one that blends environmental, regulatory, and maritime domain awareness with Arctic vigilance and intelligence-adjacent observation. None of this turns civilian missions into military ones. But it places them within a different gravitational field.
The concern, as always, is not the formal announcement. It is the silence around it. Ottawa has offered few details on what assets are being transferred, how missions will be prioritized, or what this means for agencies whose mandates depend on independent civilian oversight. When structural shifts of this scale are presented as routine administrative housekeeping, public trust erodes at the edges.
Canada is not drifting toward militarization. But it is consolidating the tools of national capability: vessels, aircraft, surveillance platforms, under a department whose priorities are shaped by global threat assessments rather than regulatory logic. That may be prudent. It may even be overdue. Yet the public deserves to hear the story rather than infer it.
One move can be dismissed. Two can be explained away. But when both the Coast Guard and Transport Canada’s aviation wing are drawn into the same orbit within a single year, Canadians are owed clarity about the strategic direction of their state.
Silence is not neutrality. It is a choice. And it is time for Ottawa to speak plainly about the one it has just made.
I am starting a series of articles on Canada, its provinces, territories and confederation for the purpose of exploring a vision for the future. Let’s begin at the currently obvious place – Alberta.
Alberta’s economic model is deeply tied to its resource wealth, particularly oil and gas, and its assertive stance on resource control has generated ongoing tensions with federal environmental and regulatory policy. While constitutionally grounded in provincial ownership rights, Alberta’s insistence on autonomy often clashes with the cooperative principles necessary in a federal system. This commentary explores the roots of this conflict and offers pathways toward a more collaborative and constructive intergovernmental relationship.
Constitutional Foundations and Ownership of Resources Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms that Canadian provinces have the exclusive right to manage and develop their natural resources. Alberta has used this authority to shape its energy policy and economic strategy, which remain heavily reliant on oil and gas extraction.
However, under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government retains authority over matters of national and international trade, environmental protection, and interprovincial infrastructure. These overlapping jurisdictions mean that large-scale energy projects—such as pipelines—often require federal approval and regulation, leading to friction between provincial ambitions and federal oversight.
Fiscal Federalism and Perceived Inequities Alberta’s role as a “have” province in the equalization system has been a long-standing source of grievance. Despite experiencing downturns in the oil economy, Alberta does not receive equalization payments due to the formula used to calculate fiscal capacity. While the system aims to ensure reasonably comparable levels of public services across Canada, many Albertans view it as a redistribution mechanism that penalizes economic productivity without adequately rewarding provincial contributions to national prosperity.
This sentiment is often exacerbated during periods of Liberal federal governance, when policies such as carbon pricing, environmental assessment reform (e.g., Bill C-69), and energy transport restrictions (e.g., Bill C-48) are interpreted as barriers to Alberta’s growth and autonomy.
The Political Psychology of Alienation Alberta’s frustration with Ottawa is not merely legal or economic—it is cultural and emotional. The legacy of the National Energy Program (1980), perceived as a federal overreach into Alberta’s economy, continues to shape provincial attitudes. There is a widespread belief among many Albertans that their priorities are undervalued in national discourse, while their economic output is taken for granted.
This sense of alienation is particularly pronounced during Liberal governments, which are often associated with centralized governance, regulatory oversight, and climate policy that is seen as antagonistic to Alberta’s resource sector.
The Dilemma of Reciprocity Despite its demand for autonomy, Alberta remains deeply integrated with the rest of Canada. It benefits from internal migration, national infrastructure, federal investment, and shared services. However, when national unity requires compromise, such as in building pipelines through BC or adhering to environmental targets, Alberta often adopts a defensive posture.
This tension between autonomy and interdependence is the core dilemma of Canadian federalism. While the provinces retain control over resources, their development impacts climate goals, international trade obligations, and national economic stability, issues that fall under federal jurisdiction.
Recommendations for Constructive Engagement To resolve these tensions and restore national cohesion, both Alberta and the federal government must reconsider their approaches:
For the federal government: • Strengthen regional engagement: Appoint trusted regional representatives to act as intermediaries between Alberta and federal departments. • Clarify jurisdictional boundaries: Work collaboratively to define areas where federal environmental goals can be met without impeding provincial development. • Modernize equalization: Review and revise the equalization formula to ensure transparency and responsiveness to changing economic realities.
For Alberta: • Acknowledge interdependence: Embrace the reality that long-term prosperity requires cooperation, not confrontation. • Diversify the economy: Invest in emerging sectors like hydrogen, critical minerals, and clean technology to reduce economic vulnerability. • Engage Indigenous leadership: Collaborate meaningfully with Indigenous governments who hold treaty rights and are key to sustainable development.
Alberta’s assertiveness over resource development is constitutionally grounded, but politically volatile. The success of Canadian federalism depends not on uniformity, but on mutual respect and intergovernmental cooperation. Both sides must move beyond grievance-based politics toward a pragmatic and future-focused partnership that serves both regional needs and national interests.
As I write in my Ottawa living room, and although my sympathies stretch eastward into Quebec and the Martimes, I am watching Alberta events on the evening news as if viewing a distant cousin gone rogue. From here, in Central Canada, we’ve built our identity on a tapestry of industrial dynamism, social progressiveness, and an uneasy, yet genuine, devotion to national unity. So when Alberta thunders about “owning” its oil sands, rails under federal pipeline delays, and threatens separatism with a bravado more suited to Texas than to the spirit of Confederation, it feels less like a debate among equals, and more like a family spat escalating into road rage.
The Great Divide Central Canada’s frustration begins with a simple question: Why can’t Alberta appreciate that its prosperity rides on Canada’s backbone? We know well the clang of steel from Lake Ontario factories, the laboratories of McGill and U of T, the commuter trains of the GTA carrying workers into offices that fuel innovation, culture, and trade. We see our tax dollars flow westward into infrastructure grants and environmental clean‑ups, yet all we hear back is how Ottawa is strangling Alberta’s lifeblood. In boardrooms and bistros alike, we exchange incredulous glances. “Is that really how they see us?”
In Ontario’s legislature or Quebec City’s cafés, the lament is the same. Alberta’s insistence on unfettered resource development, against carbon pricing, against pipeline regulations, against the minimal environmental guardrails that we accept as part of modern governance, strikes us as not only shortsighted, but tone‑deaf. After all, we’re the ones negotiating trade deals abroad, keeping Canada’s credit rating intact, and answering to the world for our climate commitments. When Alberta rips up its federal‑provincial agreements, and paints itself as a victim, it risks making the rest of us look like oppressors.
When Conservatives Moved the Needle It wasn’t a personal chemistry with any one leader that mattered so much as policy alignment. Under Conservative governments, particularly during the years following 2006, Ottawa embraced free‑market principles that resonated deeply in Alberta: lower corporate taxes, streamlined approvals, and a lighter regulatory touch on energy projects. This wasn’t about nostalgia for a single prime minister, but about a political philosophy that saw energy as an engine of growth, not a problem to be managed.
From Alberta’s perspective, deregulated markets and balanced budgets felt like recognition of its core economic values. In Central Canada, we may have questioned some of those choices, but we accepted that a spectrum of economic approaches made Canada stronger. The result was a pragmatic détente: pipelines moved forward, investment flowed, and while we debated environmental trade‑offs, there was at least mutual respect for each region’s priorities.
When Regionalism Becomes Roadblock Today, the rhetoric out west often sounds like, “Build the pipeline, or we’ll build our own exit ramp.” Yet Central Canada knows unequivocally that there is no exit ramp. Our factories, hospitals, and schools depend on the interprovincial movement of people, goods, and capital. The same pipelines Alberta demands are the conduits that keep our cars running, and our manufacturing humming. When Alberta complains that Ottawa’s carbon tax is an “Ottawa cash grab,” it ignores that those funds have helped pay for the recent transit expansions in Edmonton and Calgary, along with the wastewater infrastructure upgrades in Lethbridge.
Even more galling is the separatist thunder: poll after poll invites alarm with one in three Albertans saying they might consider leaving Canada under a Liberal government, feels like a hostage‑negotiation tactic, rather than a legitimate policy platform. Central Canada hears the echoes of Texas secession talk, fireworks and flags, bravado and bluster, but we see the policy vacuum behind the spectacle. We wonder: can they name a single agreement on the global stage that would willingly recognize a 4.4 million‑person “Republic of Alberta”? Or do they really believe they can simply flip a switch and declare independence?
Progressive Values Under Siege For all our differences, Central Canada prides itself on progressive values: public healthcare that is universal, environmental targets that align with global science, and social policies that aim to reduce inequality. We do not see these as luxuries, but as imperatives for a 21st century nation. So when Alberta snarls at any shift toward renewable energy or regulatory tightening, we perceive a rejection, not only of policy, but of shared national values. It’s as if Alberta believes that “progressive” is a dirty word, an urban‑elitist dictate, rather than a democratic choice.
The result is a mutual distrust. We view Alberta as obstinate, and uncooperative; they view us as meddlesome and judgmental. And somewhere in the commotion, Canada the country begins to feel less like “one nation” and more like warring fiefdoms.
Pathways to Reconciliation Even as Central Canadians exhale in frustration, we still cling to the idea that this can be repaired. We remember that the Constitution, our shared contract, grants Alberta ownership of its resources (Section 92A), but also vests Ottawa with authority over interprovincial trade, environmental standards, and national unity. Those overlapping jurisdictions are not battlegrounds to be won; they are negotiation tables to be inhabited with respect.
Here’s what we in the centre would propose: 1. Joint Stewardship Councils Permanent federal‑provincial bodies—one on energy and one on climate—co‑chaired by ministers from Ottawa and Edmonton, with rotating seats for other provinces. Their mandate: to align pipelines, carbon policy, and regional development in a single coherent plan. 2. Mutual Accountability Reporting Instead of one‑way complaints, require quarterly reports on how federal actions affect provincial economies and vice versa, published publicly so Albertans and Ontarians alike can see the trade‑offs. 3. Shared Diversification Funds A federally matched investment fund for Alberta to channel resource revenues into hydrogen, critical minerals, and technology hubs—mirroring grants Ontario and Quebec receive for their own diversification. 4. Cultural Exchange Programs Scholarships and internships pairing Alberta students with agencies in Ottawa, and Central Canadians with energy‑sector positions in Calgary and Fort McMurray, because trust grows when people move across the lines, not when walls go up.
Towards a True Confederation As I look east from Ontario or west from Quebec, I still see Alberta as part of Canada’s grand promise, a province of immense resources, entrepreneurial spirit, and resilient people. But a promise requires reciprocity. If Alberta wants the benefits of the Canadian federation, it must share responsibility for national projects, ideals, and compromises. And if Central Canada wants Alberta to feel at home in Confederation, we must speak not with condescension, but with open hands and honest trade‑offs.
In the end, Texas doesn’t have to be our model, and neither does Paris or Beijing. We can be distinctly Canadian: united not in uniformity, but in a federalism that accepts our regional flavors and binds them together in mutual respect. Only then will Alberta’s roar feel like a proud Canadian voice, rather than an echo of someone shouting from outside our walls.
There are moments in a city’s life when the decisions made at council chambers shape not just its skyline, but its soul. The redevelopment of Lansdowne Park has entered such a moment. The City calls it Lansdowne 2.0. Once again we are asked to believe that this time things will finally work out. I am respectfully saying: no thank you.
I support investing in our city’s infrastructure, in affordable housing, and in vibrant community spaces, but I am deeply opposed to the kind of public-private partnership (PPP) model that Ottawa keeps repeating – especially when the affordable housing promise is quietly reduced, when the public carries the risk, and the private partner walks away with much of the upside.
In the case of Lansdowne 2.0, the City and its private partner, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), propose to rebuild the north-side stands and arena, build new housing towers, bring retail/condo podiums, and “revitalize” the site. The projected cost is now $419 million, according to City documents. The City’s Auditor General warns the cost could be as much as $74-75 million more and that revenues may fall short by $10-30 million or more. That alone should give us pause, but the real problem goes beyond the balance sheet.
The public-private problem The idea of PPPs sounds appealing: share risk, leverage private capital, deliver publicly beneficial projects faster. But the repeated pattern in Ottawa is that the public land, public debt and public oversight become the junior partner in the deal. When good times happen, the private side takes the returns; when costs rise or revenues shrink, the City and the taxpayer carry the burden. We know this from Lansdowne 1.0 and from other large projects in the city. The question is not simply “Is this a partnership?” but “Who bears the downside when things go off plan?”
The Auditor General’s review of Lansdowne 2.0 flagged that the City is “responsible for the cost of construction…..and any cost overruns” even though much of the revenue upside depends on later ‘waterfall’ arrivals. If we’re asked to commit hundreds of millions now in the hope of returns later, we must demand transparency, risk caps, guaranteed affordable housing and binding public-benefit commitments. Anything less is not renewal, it’s risk-shifting.
Affordable housing is not optional At a time when Ottawa faces an acute housing affordability crisis, we are told that “housing towers” are part of the funding model for Lansdowne. But the developer’s track-record of promising affordable units, and then claiming they can’t deliver is worn and familiar. In the updated Lansdowne plan the number of guaranteed affordable units was cut or deferred and shifted toward “air-rights” revenues and condo sales, effectively betting public good on speculative real estate. Affordable housing should not be a line-item to trim when the spreadsheets wobble. It is the social licence that allows private profit on public land. Approving a plan that pares back affordable units yet asks for public exposure is indefensible.
Traffic, transit and neighbourhood liveability The Lansdowne site sits beside the Rideau Canal, the Glebe and the Bank Street corridor – one of the most traffic-choked corridors in the city. Yet the plan envisions adding 770 new residential units (down from an original 1,200) on top of retail podiums. Meanwhile, the city’s own “Bank Street Active Transportation and Transit Priority Feasibility Study” (June 2024) underlines that Bank Street is already at capacity for cars and buses, that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is insufficient and that any added vehicle traffic will further degrade mobility.
Without a clear strategy to manage car access, parking, transit loads, cycling/pedestrian safety and construction impacts, this redevelopment risks worsening gridlock and degrading the very neighbourhood livability the project claims to enhance.
Sports tenants and viability One of the central rationales for Lansdowne 2.0 is that the existing arena and stands are aging and that new facilities will retain sports franchises and major events. Yet the plan, as approved, reduces capacity for hockey to 5,500 seats and concerts to around 6,500 – considerably smaller than many mid-sized arenas. Meanwhile, neighbouring downtown developments such as the proposed new arena for the Ottawa Senators raise questions: what is Lansdowne’s tenant strategy once the major franchise relocates? If the largest anchor tenant leaves, the revenue model collapses. The City is committing hundreds of millions without a transparent long-term sports strategy. Sports teams argue they cannot stay if capacity or amenities shrink. If they depart, the burden falls back on taxpayers.
Commercial podiums and vacant retail The redevelopment includes a shift from 108,000 square feet of retail to 49,000 square feet; a cut because local business viability was weak in the first phase. Even today many of the commercial units around Lansdowne 1.0 remain vacant because rents are too high for independent businesses and the location’s infrastructure doesn’t support consistent foot traffic outside game days. The plan’s assumption that retail will compensate for public investment is shaky at best. Until we see real evidence of market demand and rental levels that support small business and serve neighbourhoods, not just downtown condo-dwellers, we are betting public money on commercial models that already failed once.
The opportunity cost Let’s not forget what’s at stake. Nearly half a billion dollars in public exposure. Imagine what that money could do across the city: hundreds of affordable housing units in multiple wards, refurbished community centres, libraries, rinks, park renewal, neighbourhood transit links. Instead, we’re being asked to invest that money in one downtown site, tied to a private partner’s spreadsheet and future real-estate and event-market assumptions. This is a question of equity: do we serve one marquee site or many? Do we favour single big deals or dozens of small, proven community-led investments?
A better path forward I believe in renewal. I believe Lansdowne and its broader site matter. But I cannot support the current model unless three things change: 1. Full transparency: release the full pro-forma, risk tables, debt-servicing schedules, and waterfall projections. 2. Binding affordable-housing guarantees: not aspirational “10 per cent of air-rights revenue,” but concrete units or legally-binding contributions to affordable-housing stock. 3. An urban-livability strategy: traffic and transit modelling for Bank Street and the Glebe; tenant guarantees for sports franchises; a retail strategy that supports small local business; and a cap on public exposure in cost overruns.
If a deal only works when the public is last in line for returns, when affordable housing is trimmed, when traffic worsens and local business fails, then we shouldn’t do it. That is not civic renewal. It is a subsidy for speculative dysfunction.
Public land, public money, public trust. If those three are not aligned, the right move is not to sign another 40-year partnership and hope for the best. It is to pause, open the books, redesign the deal and ensure the structure serves the city first, not the private partner. Ottawa can build better than this. It just needs to decide whose interests it wants to serve.
Sources: • CityNews Ottawa: OSEG revamp cost jumps to $419 M. • City of Ottawa / Engage Ottawa: Lansdowne 2.0 project/funding details. • Auditor General of Ottawa: cost under-estimation, financial risk. • Glebe Report: traffic/transportation study on Bank Street.
The latest Canada-U.S. flare-up could almost be mistaken for political theatre. On one side of the stage, Ontario Premier Doug Ford channels a hard-nosed populist energy that plays perfectly to American conservative media. On the other, Prime Minister Mark Carney performs the part of the calm, worldly statesman who reassures allies that Canada still wants dialogue. Together they have turned a difficult trade moment with Donald Trump into something that looks suspiciously like a good-cop, bad-cop routine.
The flashpoint came when Ford’s government released an advertisement in mid-October quoting Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address on free trade. Using Reagan’s own words, “Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries.” The ad struck a nerve south of the border. Ford’s communications team framed the clip as a warning to Trump not to reignite trade wars that would hurt both economies. The Reagan Foundation objected, calling it a misrepresentation and claiming no permission had been granted to edit the footage, but the real explosion came from Trump himself.
Within hours, Trump denounced the video as “fake,” accused Canada of using “fraudulent propaganda,” and declared that “all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated.” The social-media fireworks were vintage Trump – equal parts bluster and strategy. Yet the Canadian side, particularly Carney, appeared unruffled. His office reiterated that Canada remained open to dialogue and emphasized the importance of “mutual respect.” It was classic de-escalation language, signalling steadiness in the face of chaos.
Ford, meanwhile, looked quite comfortable being the villain of the week in Washington. His supporters at home applauded the move as patriotic spine, and conservative talk shows in the U.S. replayed the Reagan clip endlessly. For Ford, this was not just about Ottawa’s trade posture, it was also domestic optics. Standing up to Trump sells well in parts of Ontario, but so does invoking Reagan, a hero to many small-c conservatives. The ad’s provocation was almost certainly deliberate.
Carney’s response complemented Ford’s aggression in a way that looked suspiciously coordinated. While Ford’s office blasted American protectionism, Carney quietly engaged in back-channel diplomacy. Reports from Washington described him as “measured but firm,” assuring Trump that Canada sought cooperation but could not accept one-sided terms. The effect was to let Ford raise the temperature so Carney could later cool it down, extracting concessions or at least opening a channel for reason.
For all its drama, the episode underscored a larger point about Canadian strategy. With Trump back in the White House and America’s politics as volatile as ever, Canada seems to be experimenting with pressure and persuasion in tandem. Ford’s bluster makes Carney’s calm look even more statesmanlike, while Carney’s civility makes Ford’s fury appear authentic rather than reckless. It is a risky dance, but one that may keep Trump guessing and Canada’s interests protected.
Whether the Reagan ad was a blunder or a calculated feint, it has achieved something no memo ever could: it reminded Washington that Canada can still play hardball, and that even ghosts from the Gipper’s era can be drafted into the game.
Finally, as a side note, perhaps Ford is double dipping a little bit, by using the Bad Cop routine to catalyze a run at the federal Conservative leadership.
Canada’s federal workforce is a patchwork of pay scales, bargaining units, and special arrangements that often pay employees differently for similar work. This complexity creates inefficiency, confuses managers, and undermines transparency. For decades, the federal government has wrestled with these issues, attempting harmonization through studies and pilot projects, but meaningful reform has never been fully implemented.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has the opportunity to finally address this problem by creating a single pay scale for all new hires and promotions, with a central bargaining agent to represent them. Starting April 1, 2027, this reform would apply to every new employee and to anyone promoted after that date. Over time, as legacy employees retire, the workforce would converge under a single, transparent framework, vastly simplifying management and reducing administrative costs.
The current problem Federal employees are currently represented by multiple unions, covered under different collective agreements, and paid according to a variety of classification systems. Two employees performing essentially the same job in different departments may have different pay scales, benefits, and promotion paths. This complexity creates friction: managers spend more time navigating pay rules than supervising staff, bargaining is prolonged and repetitive, and HR systems are costly to maintain.
Promotions often compound the problem. Without a unified framework, employees may move between roles under different rules or remain in outdated pay bands indefinitely. This creates inequities and prevents the workforce from operating as a coherent system.
A proven foundation exists Importantly, Canada has not been starting from scratch. During the 1990s, the federal government explored harmonizing job classifications and pay structures under the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) project. The Treasury Board and Public Service Commission produced extensive documentation, job definitions, and classification guidelines. Additional studies, such as the PS2000 project, analyzed potential efficiencies and pathways for standardization. Much of this work remains relevant today.
By leveraging existing frameworks, the government can implement a single pay scale and central bargaining agent far more quickly than starting from scratch. The definitions, classification structures, and analyses already exist, they need modernization, updating for today’s workforce, and political will to implement.
The proposal: one pay scale, one bargaining agent The plan is straightforward. Starting April 1, 2027: 1. All new hires enter the federal public service under a single UCS-style pay scale, with clear levels tied to responsibility, experience, and job complexity. 2. Any promotions after this date automatically shift employees to the UCS-style scale and the central bargaining agent, ensuring convergence over time. 3. A single central bargaining agent represents all employees on the UVS scale, whether it is a restructured existing union or a newly created organization.
This approach eliminates the patchwork of bargaining units, reduces negotiation complexity, and ensures equitable pay and promotion practices. Employees understand where they fit in the system, managers can deploy staff more effectively, and the public service as a whole becomes easier to administer.
Benefits for government and taxpayers A single pay scale reduces administrative overhead, simplifies HR planning, and facilitates mobility between departments. One bargaining agent prevents overlapping negotiations, saving months of time and tens of millions in potential costs. By tying promotions to the UCS system, inequities between legacy and new employees shrink naturally over time.
For taxpayers, the benefits are equally clear. Streamlined payroll systems, reduced HR costs, and more predictable budgeting allow funds to be redirected from administrative complexity into actual service delivery. Employees benefit from transparent, fair, and consistent compensation, while management gains clarity and flexibility.
Building a coherent, modern workforce Canada’s federal public service is one of the largest in the developed world. To make it efficient, equitable, and responsive, it must operate on clear, uniform principles. A single pay scale and central bargaining agent, applied to new hires and promotions after April 1, 2027, provides exactly that.
This reform is achievable because the groundwork is already laid. The challenge is not designing the system, it is implementing it decisively. By building on past harmonization efforts and committing to a transparent framework, Carney can create a public service that is fairer for employees, easier for managers to oversee, and more accountable to Canadians.
Canada can no longer tolerate a federal workforce fragmented by pay scales, bargaining units, and inconsistent policies. One scale, one union, and a commitment to transparency is the path forward.
With a Fall budget on its way, I think it’s time to provide a little input to the government’s thinking. I plan on developing these ideas further over the next few days before Canada’s Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne delivers the 2025 Federal Budget in the House of Commons on November 4, 2025.
Canadians are right to expect more from their government. Every year, the federal payroll grows, administrative costs rise, and services often fail to keep pace with expectations. Prime Minister Mark Carney has a rare opportunity: to modernize Ottawa, reduce waste, and deliver real results for citizens. Four reforms can achieve this vision: ending internal cost recovery, unifying pay and bargaining, adopting outcomes-based management with planned workforce reduction, and automating taxation for wage-only employees.
End internal cost recovery Departments and agencies currently bill each other for routine services. Justice Canada invoices other departments for legal advice, Shared Services Canada bills for IT support, and administrative units cross-charge for HR and translation. This internal economy consumes thousands of staff hours for paperwork that adds no value to Canadians. Ending cost recovery would simplify budgeting, reduce bureaucracy, and free public servants to focus on meaningful work. Money would be directly appropriated for services, and departments judged by the outcomes they deliver, not the invoices they process.
Adopt a single pay scale and central bargaining agent The current patchwork of pay scales and multiple unions is costly, confusing, and inequitable. Starting April 1, 2027, all new hires, and any promotions thereafter, should be placed on a single pay scale, with a central bargaining agent representing these employees. Over time, as legacy staff retire, the workforce will converge onto a transparent, uniform system. This builds on decades of prior harmonization work, such as the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) project, and dramatically reduces administrative complexity while ensuring fair and consistent compensation.
Focus on outcomes and shrink the workforce responsibly Too often, success in Ottawa is measured by hours logged or forms completed. Shifting to outcomes-based management holds departments and employees accountable for results citizens can see. With clearer accountability, the government can responsibly reduce its workforce by 5% annually over five years through attrition and selective hiring. This ensures a smaller, more focused public service while maintaining service quality and providing a review point to adjust if needed.
Automate taxation for wage-only employees Millions of Canadians file annual tax returns despite receiving income solely through employment, which is already subject to withholding for income tax, CPP, and EI. Like many European systems, Canada could automate reconciliation for these taxpayers, eliminating the need to file a return. This reform would dramatically reduce compliance burdens, shrink the Canada Revenue Agency, and allow the agency to focus on enforcement and complex cases rather than processing simple returns.
A coherent vision for reform These four reforms share a common principle: simplify, focus, and deliver. They reduce waste, cut bureaucracy, and ensure public servants are evaluated on results rather than paperwork. They free staff to concentrate on tasks that provide tangible value to Canadians while saving hundreds of millions annually in administrative costs.
Prime Minister Carney has the chance to lead Canada into a new era of efficient, accountable government. Ending internal cost recovery, unifying pay, managing for outcomes, and automating taxation are practical, proven, and achievable reforms. Canadians deserve a federal government that works smarter, spends taxpayer dollars wisely, and prioritizes service above bureaucracy.
Diplomacy, as the textbooks remind us, is supposed to be the fine art of saying nothing offensive in as many words as possible while drinking bad coffee in conference rooms. But nobody seems to have given that manual to Pete Hoekstra, the newly minted U.S. Ambassador to Canada, who has decided to trade in understatement for a megaphone. In the span of a few short months, Hoekstra has managed to scold Canadians for not being sufficiently pro-American, accuse us of harboring “anti-American” slogans, and downplay Canada’s concerns about border overreach. If he’s aiming for “charm offensive,” he has nailed the second half of the phrase.
This is, of course, not the first time Canada and the U.S. have had words. We’ve bickered over softwood lumber, dairy tariffs, steel quotas, pipelines, and, once upon a time, acid rain. But usually ambassadors play the role of polite go-between, smoothing over disputes while the real political firestorms rage between ministers and presidents. Hoekstra seems to have missed the memo: his preferred strategy is less smooth diplomacy, more bull in a China shop – minus the bull’s natural grace.
His latest theme? Canadians just aren’t playing nice. We apparently spend too much time with “elbows up,” as if the entire country were auditioning for beer league hockey. He’s miffed that Canada has dared to issue travel advisories about U.S. border searches, insisting those reports are “isolated events.” Never mind that Canadian travelers actually experienced them. It’s a bit like telling someone who just got splashed by a passing truck that rain isn’t real.
Nowhere is this attitude more obvious than in the discussions around U.S. preclearance, the system where American border officers operate inside Canadian airports, inspecting passengers before they even board a plane to the United States. For travelers, preclearance is handy: you arrive stateside as a domestic passenger, skip long immigration lines, and make your connections. For the U.S., it’s even better: it lets them enforce their rules on foreign soil, keeping anyone they don’t like from ever boarding. For Canada, it’s…..complicated. Preclearance represents cooperation, yes, but also a certain loss of sovereignty. Not surprisingly, Ottawa sometimes drags its heels on expansion.
To Hoekstra, though, Canada’s reluctance to roll out the red carpet for more American officers in our airports amounts to ingratitude. The U.S. gives us this wonderful gift, he implies, and we respond with suspicion. It’s the diplomatic equivalent of scolding a dinner guest for not raving loudly enough about the casserole. The irony is rich: when Canada recently announced its first landpreclearance operation in the U.S., with Canadian officers screening travelers at a New York border crossing, nobody in Ottawa suggested that Americans were being unfriendly. Apparently only Canadians can be accused of bad manners.
And then there’s NEXUS, the trusted traveler program that makes cross-border trips bearable for frequent fliers. Here, too, Canada and the U.S. cooperate closely, with Canadians now able to use Global Entry kiosks thanks to their NEXUS membership. But you wouldn’t know it from the ambassador’s rhetoric. He talks as if the U.S. is single-handedly shouldering the burden of efficiency while Canada stubbornly blocks progress. The reality is that both sides benefit and both sides foot the bill. Preclearance doesn’t spring fully formed from Washington; Canadian airports build the facilities, Canadian taxpayers share the costs, and Canadian sovereignty bends to make it possible.
So why the sharp elbows from Hoekstra? Partly it’s style, he has never been known as a shrinking violet. But partly it reflects a broader U.S. strategy of leaning harder on Canada. The two countries are already sparring at the World Trade Organization over tariffs that Ottawa calls “unjustified.” Washington wants more Canadian concessions on energy, environment, and defense spending. Ambassadors don’t freelance in these circumstances; they set the tone their bosses in the White House prefer. If that tone is loud, impatient, and dismissive of Canadian sensitivities, then Hoekstra is performing to spec.
Still, it’s worth noting how Canadians are responding. While most don’t object to preclearance itself, after all, we enjoy shorter lines at airports, there is resistance to being lectured about it. Canadians pride themselves on being cooperative partners, not subordinate provinces. When the ambassador claims Canada isn’t “playing nice,” many hear it as “you’re not agreeing quickly enough with U.S. demands.” The fact that Canada has invested in NEXUS expansions, shared intelligence, and even put its own officers on U.S. soil underlines the absurdity of the accusation.
In the end, Hoekstra’s style may generate headlines, but it risks eroding goodwill. Diplomacy works best when it feels like a partnership of equals, not a schoolteacher scolding a roomful of students. Canadians are famously polite, but we’re also famously stubborn when pushed. If the ambassador thinks a little tough talk will get Canada to open every airport door to U.S. preclearance, he may be in for a long wait.
Until then, travelers will keep swiping their NEXUS cards, lining up at preclearance facilities, and quietly rolling their eyes at the spectacle. After all, Canadians know that living next to the United States is a bit like living next to an elephant. When it shifts, you feel it. When it trumpets, you really feel it. And when the ambassador starts lecturing you about your manners, sometimes the most diplomatic response is the Canadian classic: a polite smile, a quiet mutter, and an elbow gently nudged back into his ribs.
Two of Canada’s most visible Crown corporations, Canada Post and VIA Rail, seem to have lost their way. Both were created to knit together a vast and sparsely populated country, ensuring that every Canadian, no matter how remote, had access to essential services. Yet today, both have turned their gaze inward toward big-city markets, downgrading or abandoning the rural, northern, and remote communities they were meant to serve.
The problem is not simply poor management. It is a deeper contradiction in how we think about these federal institutions. Are they public services, funded and guaranteed by the government for the benefit of all? Or are they commercial enterprises expected to operate like businesses, focusing on profitability and efficiency?
Canada Post was once the backbone of national communication. Its universal service obligation was understood as a cornerstone of Canadian citizenship: every town and hamlet deserved a post office, and every address would receive mail. But with letter volumes collapsing and courier giants competing for parcels, Canada Post has shifted its focus to the most profitable markets. Rural post offices are shuttered or reduced to part-time counters in retail stores, and delivery standards in remote regions are steadily eroded.
VIA Rail’s story follows the same pattern. Founded in the late 1970s to preserve passenger trains when private railways abandoned them, it was meant to provide Canadians with a reliable and accessible alternative to highways and airlines. Instead, successive governments have treated VIA as a subsidy-dependent business rather than a national service. The Québec–Windsor corridor receives ever more investment, while iconic transcontinental and regional services limp along on political life support. Communities once promised rail access now watch the trains roll past them, or disappear entirely.
This retreat from universal service runs against the spirit of equality that Canadians expect from their public institutions. The Charter of Rights may not explicitly guarantee access to mail or transportation, but the principle of equal citizenship surely demands more than a market-driven approach that privileges Toronto and Montréal while ignoring Thompson or Whitehorse.
What’s going wrong is simple: Crown corporations are being managed as if they were private companies, not public trusts. Efficiency metrics and financial self-sufficiency dominate decision-making. National obligations are left vague, unenforced, or quietly abandoned. Governments praise the rhetoric of service while starving these corporations of the dedicated funding that would allow them to fulfill it.
Canada is not a compact, densely settled country where commercial logic alone can sustain public goods. It is a nation stitched together across vast geography by institutions that recognize service as a right, not a privilege. If we want Canada Post and VIA Rail to serve all Canadians, we need to stop pretending they can behave like for-profit businesses and still fulfill their mandates.
That choice is ultimately political. Parliament must decide: either redefine these corporations as genuine public services with modern mandates and stable funding, or admit that rural and northern Canadians will always be left behind.
Until then, our Crown corporations will continue to forget their purpose, and with it, a piece of the Canadian promise.
A new survey released earlier this month offers a revealing glimpse into how Canadians view Donald Trump’s presidency, and the results are as decisive as they are sobering. The polling, conducted September 5–12, 2025 among 1,614 Canadians, asked respondents whether they approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as President of the United States. The breakdown by party support tells a clear story: Canadians overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump, regardless of partisan affiliation.
Among Liberals, an astonishing 99 percent disapprove, leaving a mere one percent in support. The New Democrats mirror this almost exactly, with 99 percent disapproval and just one percent approval. Green Party supporters follow close behind at 98 percent disapproving and 2 percent approving. Even Bloc Québécois voters, often unpredictable in their alignment, reject Trump by 93 percent to 7 percent.
These numbers show a remarkable national consensus, across progressive and nationalist lines alike, that Trump is fundamentally out of step with Canadian values. With one glaring exception. Among Conservative supporters, 45 percent approve of Trump, while 55 percent disapprove. That means nearly half of Conservative voters in this country are willing to line up behind one of the most polarizing figures in global politics.
This divergence is striking. The data shows a Canada almost united in its rejection of Trumpism, with Conservatives standing as the outliers. If we think of this not as abstract polling but as a snapshot of political culture, it becomes clear that the Conservative Party is grappling with a profound tension.
For the majority of Canadians, Trump represents everything they do not want in a leader: brash nationalism, disdain for institutions, transactional diplomacy, and an open hostility toward climate action. Canada’s self-image is one of consensus, moderation, and multilateralism, and Trump’s style cuts directly against that grain. It is little surprise then that Liberals, New Democrats, Greens, and Bloc voters reject him almost unanimously.
But nearly half of Conservatives see something different in Trump. They see a political figure who fights against what they perceive as “elites,” who speaks in blunt, sometimes brutal terms about immigration, cultural change, and national identity, and who promises to roll back the tide of progressive reform. For these voters, admiration of Trump is less about the technical details of his policy record and more about his role as a cultural symbol. Supporting him signals a desire to push Canadian politics in a harder, more populist direction.
This matters because Canadian Conservatives cannot easily ignore those numbers. A party with nearly half its base aligned sympathetically with Trump is inevitably influenced by that worldview. Yet the same data shows the broader Canadian electorate is not only uninterested in Trumpism, it is actively repulsed by it. When 99 percent of Liberals and New Democrats disapprove, 98 percent of Greens disapprove, and even 93 percent of Bloc voters disapprove, the lesson is clear: any Conservative strategy that tries to import Trump’s politics wholesale will run up against a wall of national resistance.
That leaves Conservatives in a bind. Court the Trump-sympathetic faction too aggressively, and they risk alienating the vast majority of Canadians who will never accept that style of politics. But turn away from it too decisively, and they risk fracturing their own base, where that 45 percent approval rating represents a large, vocal, and motivated bloc. It is the Canadian version of the dilemma Republicans themselves face in the United States: balancing the energy of the Trump base against the broader electorate’s distaste for him.
The deeper implication of this poll is that Canadian political culture is becoming increasingly entangled with the culture wars of the United States. That nearly half of Conservative supporters here look favorably on Trump is not an accident; it is the result of years of shared media consumption, online communities, and ideological cross-pollination. Canadian Conservatives watch Fox News, follow American conservative influencers, and engage in the same debates about “woke politics,” immigration, and freedom as their American counterparts. In that sense, Trump’s shadow stretches across the border, shaping not just U.S. politics but the fault lines within Canada’s right.
For the rest of Canada, this polling is a reminder of just how far apart our political tribes are drifting. On one side, overwhelming consensus against Trumpism, reflecting confidence in Canada’s more moderate, multilateral, and socially inclusive traditions. On the other, a significant portion of Conservatives willing to buck the national consensus in favor of an imported populist model.
The divide is not just about Donald Trump himself, it is about what he represents. For most Canadians, he symbolizes chaos, division, and a brand of politics fundamentally alien to our values. For nearly half of Conservatives, he symbolizes resistance to cultural liberalism, elite consensus, and globalist institutions. That chasm of perception tells us more about Canadian politics in 2025 than any single election poll.
The numbers are clear. Donald Trump may never be on a Canadian ballot, but his influence is already shaping our political landscape. And if this polling is any indication, Canada’s Conservatives are out of alignment with the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens. The question is whether they double down on that path, or find a way back toward a politics that actually speaks to the broad Canadian mainstream.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 