Annual G7 summits are important. So why aren't Canadian summits a thing?

Globe and Mail

09-06-2025

Alasdair Roberts is a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is author of The Adaptable Country: How Canada Can Survive the Twenty-First Century.
Leaders of the G7 – a group of the world's richest democracies – will meet in Kananaskis, Alta., between June 15 and 17. The meeting will be an important demonstration of the G7's determination to hang together in difficult times. And it raises the question: if annual summits are good for G7 leaders, why aren't they good for Canadian leaders as well?
The first G6 summit was held in Rambouillet, France, in 1975, as Western countries struggled through a period of economic and political turmoil much like today's. It became the G7 when Canada was added the following year. Meetings have been held annually ever since. G7 leaders never ask: Do we really need to meet this year? The importance of convening regularly is taken for granted.
G7 summits are also expensive affairs. The 2010 meeting in Huntsville, Ont., cost the Canadian government about $300-million; the 2018 meeting in Charlevoix, Que., cost $600-million. Still, Canadian prime ministers insist that the money is well spent. They say that regular meetings allow G7 leaders to identify long-term challenges, build the personal ties that are essential during crises and show solidarity among like-minded democracies.
The G7 summit is being held just outside Calgary. Here's who will be there and what these meetings achieve
Canadian leaders used to think about governance within Canada in exactly the same way. Prime ministers and premiers held 60 first-ministers' conferences between 1945 and 1995 – a little more than one a year. One royal commission observed in that era that the need for regular meetings in Canada's federal system was 'obvious.' Journalist Don McGillivray said in 1965 that annual conferences were practically 'built into Canada's constitution.'
But then the tradition of regular first ministers' conferences fell apart. Meetings became infrequent, often slapdash affairs. Since January, the Trudeau and Carney governments have improvised two meetings on the U.S.-Canada trade dispute – one in person, one virtually – and another in-person meeting was held on June 2. But the need for annual summits remains unacknowledged.
Although the federal government appears to have given up on annual meetings, premiers have gone the other way, invoking the same reasons as G7 leaders. Calling themselves the Council of the Federation, premiers have met annually since 2003. The Council is a misnomer, however – because it does not include the prime minister.
Recent prime ministers have avoided first ministers' conferences on the grounds that premiers are sometimes balky and unpleasant. Of course, the same might be said about U.S. President Donald Trump – yet the G7 summit carries on. Critics of recent federal practice complain that the demise of first ministers' conferences has 'weakened our ability to forge a national consensus on important issues.' These critics are right.
Since Mr. Trump's inauguration in January, Canadians have been reminded that the world is a dangerous place. There has been lots of talk about the need for a Team Canada approach. Annual 'Canada Summits' would make that approach real. Like G7 summits, they would show solidarity among our country's leaders, provide a model of civil discourse, and build public understanding about long-term challenges.
Canada Summits would have three features. First, they would not be hurried business meetings; like G7 summits, they would be major events, designed to hold the public's attention and convey a sense of gravitas. Imagine a two-day conference opened by the Governor-General, guided by an agenda published well in advance and closed with a communiqué negotiated by participants. The summit might even be combined with a high-profile cultural event, such as a concert or a national awards ceremony.
Second, the purpose of Canada Summits should not be hashing out federal-provincial agreements. That can be done at another time. Instead, summits would focus on the big picture and the long run. A well-publicized agenda would focus national conversation on priorities identified by leaders, and research would be published to support the dialogue. In the final communiqué, leaders would be free to make their differences clear.
Finally, Canada Summits would include Indigenous leaders. The principle that Indigenous peoples are partners in the Canadian experiment is now generally acknowledged, but Indigenous leaders were excluded from the two first ministers' meetings held since January. In moments of crisis, it seems that Team Canada is defined just as it was a half-century ago. That's not good enough.
The Carney government says the 2025 G7 meeting provides an opportunity to promote 'meaningful dialogue' on global challenges. In fact, that dialogue has already started. Groups across the G7 countries have been anticipating the summit for months. The meeting itself will garner massive publicity. Annual summits of Canadian leaders could perform a similar function – providing a much-needed focal point for conversation about Canada's future.