Are first ministers' meetings cool again?
When Mark Carney sits down with the premiers in Huntsville, Ont., on Tuesday, it will be the third time in four months that he and the premiers have met face-to-face. Going back to the waning days of Justin Trudeau's premiership, Canada's first ministers will have now sat down together a total of four times already this year.
That is, by recent standards, an unusual amount of time for the prime minister and the premiers to spend in each other's midst. In the last 35 years, such gatherings have been generally rare and, in fact, consciously avoided.
But it's possible that the day of the first ministers' conference has come (again). After years of relative estrangement, Canada's leaders may need to get reacquainted, not simply for their own sake, but to reinforce a country that is faced with new threats and a new era of instability.
Coming out of the shock of the pandemic and now amid both the profound disruption brought about by Trump's presidency and the emergence of new internal threats to Canada's federation, there have been calls to strengthen relations between the federal and provincial governments. Most concretely, that could include reviving the sort of summits that used to be commonplace.
WATCH | What's on the agenda for Carney's Tuesday meeting?:
U.S. tariffs, trade to top agenda when Carney meets with premiers
2 days ago
Canada's premiers are gathering in Ontario for a three-day meeting to discuss U.S. tariffs, interprovincial trade barriers and infrastructure. Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has said a trade deal with the U.S. may involve accepting some export levies, will join the talks on Tuesday. Lori Turnbull, political science professor at Dalhousie University, weighs in.
"We need systemic reform designed to foster trust, not just transaction," Jared Wesley, a political scientist at the University of Alberta, wrote in May. "This means re-introducing routine, rules-based intergovernmental relations, where leaders know they'll meet regularly, under shared agendas, with accountability built into the process.
"That starts with institutionalizing first ministers' meetings, moving them from sporadic events to annual fixtures with jointly determined priorities."
In previous eras that would have been an unremarkable recommendation.
The rise and fall of the first ministers' meeting
According to a tally compiled by Alasdair Roberts, a Canadian professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, prime ministers and premiers met 25 times during the busy post-war period between 1945 and 1970. They then met 31 times between 1971 and 1992, a period highlighted by tumultuous negotiations over the Constitution.
But as Roberts documents in The Adaptable Country, his 2024 treatise on the need for institutional reform in Canada, the fraught and exhausting negotiations of the '70s and '80s gave such meetings a bad name. And there followed a succession of prime ministers who were, either personally or politically, disinclined to meet the premiers as a group.
Jean Chrétien met the premiers just four times in 10 years. Stephen Harper also convened the first ministers on just four occasions, two of which were dinner meetings. Trudeau came to office promising annual meetings, but ultimately convened only a handful (though he did hold regular video calls with the premiers during the pandemic).
WATCH | Ford hails Saskatoon meeting:
That different levels of government should communicate and collaborate as much as possible, particularly in a decentralized federation such as Canada, might seem fairly obvious. But the conventional political wisdom in Ottawa has come to be that, at least for prime ministers, meetings with the premiers as a group are to be avoided.
A prime minister who wants to pursue an initiative that requires provincial agreement is better off, the thinking goes, dictating terms and negotiating with provincial governments individually — as the Trudeau government, for instance, did on child care, health care and school nutrition programs.
Meanwhile, in the absence of regular meetings, the premiers have contented themselves with semi-regular demands that the prime minister meet with them to address some complaint about federal policy or demand for federal funding — thus reinforcing the accepted wisdom that the prime minister was better off avoiding them.
Do we need an annual Canada summit?
In The Adaptable Country, Roberts identifies three purposes to summits like first ministers' conferences.
First, and most obviously, such meetings can lead to agreements on policy. But, Roberts writes, "equally important is the goal of demonstrating solidarity."
"Leaders gather to show the world that they are committed to an alliance, even when they have sharp differences, and also to show they can talk civilly about those differences," he writes.
Relatedly, such meetings can also allow for sharing information and perspectives, improving understanding and promoting co-ordinated action.
Set against the long and torturous history of federal-provincial conflict in Canada — a tradition as old as the country itself — such expectations for first ministers' meetings might seem optimistic. But in making the case for an annual meeting of first ministers, Roberts points to the example of the G7. And while the future of that body has been called into question lately, Carney himself defended the value of those gatherings when he closed this year's summit in Kananaskis, Alta., last month.
"At a time when multilateralism is under great strain … that we got together, that we agreed on a number of areas … that's important, that's valuable," the prime minister said.
If the world benefits from such meetings — which have occurred every year since 1975, with the exception of 2020 — could Canada not benefit from its own regular summits?
If first ministers' conferences had come to be associated with acrimony, that might have had much to do with the subject matter — namely, the Constitution. And while avoiding such meetings might have been the politically expedient thing for a prime minister to do, there might be less freedom to aim for mere expediency these days.
That Carney will have met the premiers face-to-face three times already might suggest he is more inclined toward working through these kinds of gatherings. But all these meetings have been prompted by the need to respond to an immediate crisis — the American president's tariffs.
What Roberts envisions is an annual summit — including Indigenous leadership — that would focus not on hammering out agreements on specific initiatives, but would, like a G7, aim more broadly. It would help drive and focus a longer-term discussion about the direction of the country at a time of incredible change (a royal commission would be another option). Because what Canada is faced with now is not a short-term crisis — and Roberts fears the Carney government is still framing Canada's current situation as a temporary challenge.
"What we need is a conversation to get everybody on the same page, so far as we can, about what the country is going to look like a generation from now," he says. "I'm not thinking of that Canada summit as a mechanism for handling some agreement about, you know, interprovincial trade barriers. I'm talking about it as a planning event, something with the kind of scale and gravitas of the G7 because that will focus national attention on long-term priorities."
There is no shortage of big and serious things to talk about and figure out right now. And in the interests of figuring them out, the nation's leaders might do themselves — and the country — some good by simply sitting around the table on a regular basis to talk about them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Global News
13 minutes ago
- Global News
Why Canada's supply management is a sticking point for Trump in trade talks
The target date for a new trade deal between Canada and the United States is a little over a week away, but one issue continues to be a sticking point between both nations: Canada's supply management. Supply management, which Canada uses in the dairy, poultry and egg sectors, has been a frequent target of criticism from U.S. President Donald Trump throughout his threats of tariffs and claims that Canada is 'ripping us off.' Last month, while demanding Canada repeal its digital services tax, Trump said Canada was 'a very difficult Country to TRADE with,' claiming on his social media platform Truth Social that the country charges 'tariffs' of up to 400 per cent on dairy products. Canada uses a quota system that allows a set amount of some foreign dairy products into the country, and high tariffs only apply if countries try to exceed that allowed quota coming into Canada. Story continues below advertisement Canada's supply management system, which dates back to the 1970s, has restricted foreign access to the Canadian dairy market in order to protect domestic producers and set quality standards for products. Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed in the Liberal election platform that he will 'keep Canada's supply management off the table in any negotiations with the U.S.' So how does it work? What is supply management? The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) — which Trump re-negotiated to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during his first term — narrowly expanded U.S. access to Canada's dairy market, which is protected under supply management rules. The rules, established in the 1970s, set production quotas for Canadian farmers, guarantee minimum prices, and maintain import and quality controls. Story continues below advertisement 'Producers have a licence to produce that's determined by their quota. Producers will only produce as much as the quota says they are allowed to produce or in fact to sell,' said Sven Anders, a resource economist at the University of Alberta. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Under CUSMA, the U.S. gets access to less than five per cent of the market. But the U.S. has launched multiple disputes claiming Canada is intentionally bottlenecking those U.S. imports through tariff rate quotas, which put limits on how many exporters qualify for the cheaper duties. The issue of supply management for farmers might end up being an issue both sides are unwilling to move on. For one, most Canadian politicians are staunchly in support of the policy. 'We saw during the leaders' debate that all of the leaders, specifically in French, said that supply management was a red line in any negotiations with the Trump administration over tariffs,' said Moshe Lander, an economist at Concordia University. 'It seems that they were willing to even accept tariffs and damage to the Canadian economy rather than put dairy and supply management on the table.' The policy is aimed at protecting Canadian dairy farmers from the much larger American dairy industry and keeping prices and supplies stable by controlling the amount of product available. Story continues below advertisement Anders said Canadian politicians are reluctant to alienate dairy farmers. 'They have a lot of political clout. So, if I was a politician in Ontario or Quebec, among my constituents would be many dairy farmers. I certainly would want to fight for them,' he said. That political influence is particularly strong in Quebec, one expert said. 'In 17 ridings provincially in Quebec, people under supply management are strong enough to change the outcome of the election,' said Vincent Geloso, senior economist at the Montreal Economic Institute. 'Having influence over 17 ridings makes you a very powerful interest group.' As Canada's premiers were meeting for a three-day summit in Ontario, Quebec Premier François Legault said supply management was a hard line in the U.S. trade negotiations for him. 'There's no question about negotiating the supply management for dairy and other products,' Legault told reporters. Lander said supporters of Canada's dairy industry see the policy as necessary to protect them from the much larger American dairy industry. 'Wisconsin alone produces more milk than Canada consumes in a year,' he said. He said small Canadian dairy farms would be unable to withstand the pressure of open competition from the U.S. Story continues below advertisement 'These farms would have to merge their way up into these mega farms like you see in Wisconsin or in Minnesota to try and remain competitive. That would push a lot of farmers off their traditional land,' he said. Dairy Farmers of Canada declined Global's request for comment. 1:51 U.S. may be looking to remove non-tariff barriers, report shows However, Trump and the Republicans have their own political calculus in pushing Canada on supply management, he said. 'In the midterm elections, which are next year, maintaining Wisconsin is going to be very important for the Republicans if they want to maintain control of the House (of Representatives). If you vocally support farmers, this is one way to maybe keep that base solidified,' he said. One prominent Canadian voice who is opposed to the present system of supply management is Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who said recently that she was considering 'creating our own Alberta version of supply and management, maybe as a pathway to a market system.' Story continues below advertisement 'We do not get our share of quota, I think we have 12 per cent of the population and we only get seven per cent of the quota,' she told reporters last week. One consequence of supply management is that Canadians end up paying more for dairy products, Anders said. 'There's plenty of research that says or that has documented that an average Canadian household pays several hundred dollars more in food in dairy product cost on an annual basis just because of supply management,' he said. However, the same system has also been credited with helping Canadian consumers avoid the price shocks seen by U.S. consumers over the past year, as egg prices south of the border soared. Trump's criticisms aren't historically abnormal for U.S. presidents, either. 'Biden and Obama both had objections to it and voiced it,' Lander said. 'The more I say I dislike it, and the more you insist you're not going to remove it, then the more that I can say I want my way on these other things. It could be that he (Trump) just sees it as a tactic, where the Democratic presidents who had opposed it in the past merely just saw it as an annoyance.' — with files from Global's Sean Boynton and Touria Izri


Globe and Mail
13 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
E Split Corp. Class A Distribution
TORONTO, July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- E Split Corp. (TSX: ENS) (the 'Fund') is pleased to announce that a distribution for July 2025 will be payable to Class A shareholders of E Split Corp. as follows: The equity shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ENS. For further information, please visit our website at or contact Nancy Tham in our Sales and Marketing Department at 1.888.890.1868. This press release contains forward-looking information. The forward-looking information contained in this press release is based on historical information concerning distributions and dividends paid on the securities of issuers historically included in the portfolio of the Fund. Actual future results, including the amount of distributions paid by the Fund, may differ from the monthly distribution amount. Specifically, the income from which distributions are paid may vary significantly due to: changes in portfolio composition; changes in distributions and dividends paid by issuers of securities included in the Fund's portfolio from time to time; there being no assurance that those issuers will pay distributions or dividends on their securities; t he declaration of distributions and dividends by issuers of securities included in the portfolio will generally depend upon various factors, including the financial condition of each issuer and general economic and stock market conditions; the level of borrowing by the Fund; and the uncertainty of realizing capital gains. The risks, uncertainties and other factors that could influence actual results are described under 'Risk Factors' in the Fund's prospectus and other documents filed by the Fund with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities. The forward-looking information contained in this press release constitutes the Fund's current estimate, as of the date of this press release, with respect to the matters covered hereby. Investors and others should not assume that any forward-looking statement contained in this press release represents the Fund's estimate as of any date other than the date of this press release.


National Post
13 minutes ago
- National Post
Region of Peel cuts development charges by 50 per cent
Co-ordinated actions such as those from the Region of Peel will spur the construction of not only more homes but also much-needed purpose-built rentals and commercial buildings in the region. Photo by Supplied Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page. In a bold and commendable move, the Region of Peel has taken decisive action to address one of the most pressing challenges facing Ontario's housing market: the cost to build crisis. In late June, Peel Regional Council voted to reduce residential development charges (DCs) by 50 per cent, a decision that will significantly improve the financial viability of new home construction in the region. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) applauds the leadership of Peel Regional Chair Nando Iannicca, Mississauga Mayor Carolyn Parrish, and the entire Peel Regional Council. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors This reduction, effective from Jan. 29, 2025 through to Nov. 13, 2026, is a significant and material shift. It tackles head-on the affordability issues that have paralyzed new home construction across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). For too long, soaring development charges, escalating construction and financing costs, and inflationary pressures have made new projects financially unfeasible. Sales have slumped, housing starts have dwindled, and the long-term pipeline of homes has come under threat. Everyone needs to do their part to address this challenge, and we are seeing price adjustment by industry to reflect the new market reality. Peel's action represents another critical step to tackle the current cost to build challenges that are limiting the ability of those seeking to live in the GTA to buy new homes. Credit is due to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Rob Flack, for his which made this reduction possible. The extension of the program beyond October 2025 will depend on a further financial agreement with the province – and one we strongly hope to see realized. Additionally, Peel's decision to consult with the Ministry on a proposed utility model for water and wastewater reinforces their commitment to systemic, long-term solutions for infrastructure and housing. Importantly, this decision by Peel mirrors the leadership demonstrated by the City of Mississauga earlier this year. In January, Mayor Parrish and Mississauga Council made a firm commitment to significantly lower municipally added costs on new homes. That decision will help spark momentum across the region and has clearly demonstrated what municipal leadership in a housing crisis looks like. Coordinated actions such as these will spur the construction of not only more homes but also much-needed purpose-built rentals and commercial buildings in the region. This will benefit families, workers, and businesses looking to call Peel home – a win-win for economic growth and community development. We now call on other municipalities across the GTA to take similar action. The challenges are well understood. New home owners need bold action to lower the cost to build, to facilitate the building of new homes and to deliver the housing the communities in the GTA so urgently need. Dave Wilkes is President and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), the voice of the home building, land development and professional renovation industry in the GTA. For the latest industry news and new home data, visit .