May 9, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
To fix Canada, we need to start by knowing what’s broken. My week addressing audiences in three provinces on quite different topics highlighted that many think our constitutional arrangements are at least part of the problem. Having listened as best as I could, I’m convinced that fixing the Constitution is neither the most urgent way to understand the problem nor the most likely path to a solution.
It’s not that national Canadian angst is new. Since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759—but especially over the past fifty years—there has been angst over how Québécois relate to the country, with separatist pressure both leading up to and following constitutional patriation in 1982. Western discontent paralleled the implicit “Quebec wants out” lament, which, in the 90s, organized around the Reform Party’s rallying cry, “The West wants in.” Not that many think the Senate is the institution of greatest influence or import, but it frequently emerges as a symbol of what’s broken. The Senate is structured as a regional body, with four regions, each having twenty-four Senators. But the legacy of that structure means that the current populations of ~2.7 million in Atlantic Canada, ~9.1 million in Quebec, ~16.2 million in Ontario, and ~13.5 million in the West result in an obvious inequity. Regions, not provinces (except for Ontario and Quebec, which are treated as both), are the organizing unit. There is no accountability, as the federal government appoints people who are sometimes unlikely to be elected in the regular parliamentary process. And the evolution of the country means that now the four Atlantic provinces have over five times a proportional share of voice in the Senate as does the West (not that anyone is listening to the Senate, but it clearly irks in a major way). Give an Albertan a beer, and you’ll hear a lengthy litany of justifiable grievances—all of it historically accurate—but ask how specifically constitutional reform will solve their problems, and they become less convincing in their proposals.
My interactions in BC were different but no less concerning. The Rocky Mountains have long seemed to serve as a barrier to knowledge and passion regarding BC's views on federal matters, with indifference the most common response. I’ve visited the Prairies and BC on the same business trip for decades and have long observed that anyone who admits to being from Ontario would quickly be subjected to a critique of federalism in both provinces. On the prairies, you’d encounter anger at the injustice your association with Laurentian elites have inflicted, while British Columbians would respond with a dismissive indifference, almost writing off the relevance of central Canada, suggesting that they care about you as little as you care about them. This week, it seemed different. The recent Cowichan court decision (which primarily implicates the provincial government) has left confusion about whether property titles held by British Columbians might not include the presumed legal ownership arising from prior Indigenous title. DRIPA (the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) has been a BC political flashpoint and intertwines debates over land use, resource development, and Indigenous consent. Not that I heard specific suggestions (unlike the separation specifics that are dominating Alberta presently), but in multiple conversations there was a growing sense that fixing Canada’s constitutional arrangements—particularly the unresolved balance between provincial authority, Indigenous rights, and federal power—is the way out of provincial politics to a more lasting solution.
Can fixing the Constitution solve any or all of these questions? Practically, the question is moot. The amending formula makes Canada’s Constitution practically unamendable. In 1982, the amending formula was set with the 7/50 rule: the federal government and at least seven provinces representing more than 50% of the population must adopt the changes. However, in 1996, Parliament amended the formula so that it isn’t just any seven provinces but specific provinces and at least half of the Prairie and Atlantic provinces, which functionally requires close to provincial unanimity on any change. Some of us are old enough to remember the multiple constitutional conferences that dominated political life for over two decades. The 1982 patriation of the Constitution without Quebec’s signature, and the subsequent debates that ultimately culminated in the failed 1992 national referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, confirm that, in the realm of realism, it will take an extreme crisis before anyone can seriously consider any constitutional amendment.
This was on my mind as I interviewed Howard Anglin, a constitutional scholar and former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Harper and Premier Jason Kenney, at an Ottawa event on Thursday evening. Anglin argued that constitutions are social as much as legal documents. It is day-to-day practice, not just what is written in legal texts, that matters. His primary point was that a different model of federalism incorporating “caritas” and “subsidiarity” is the best answer to the competing visions of the country that Canada faces today.
Caritas is Latin for “love” and was Anglin’s entry point into the “identity” or “nationalism” arguments common today. He suggests that instead of trying to forge a single overall identity or vision of the country that will please everyone—whether they live in the east or the west, whether they are immigrants who have been here for four years or four centuries, or whether they are indigenous people who argue that the treaties which allowed the Europeans who came to these territories to live alongside their Indigenous neighours without violence have not been honoured—we should focus on “the social constitution.” “Constitutions are a practice, not a thing,” he argued. And the way to get there is through a caritas—a civic friendship—which respects those with whom we differ rather than insulting them by trying to impose a singular vision. Subsidiarity—pushing decisions down to the level closest to the front lines, where they can be made—was key to his argument. In practice, this means stronger provinces, more room for difference, and a “loose confederation” outcome. He admitted that this “may be a less efficient way of allocating government decisions, at least in the national sphere,” but efficiency isn’t always the most important good. In fact, it is the inefficiency of democratic discourse, the negotiations, understandings of difference and respectful dialogue with each other which is required to create this civic (and civil) friendship, the caritate that creates the common good.
Canada’s founding was, in effect, a peace treaty: French Catholics, English Protestants, and Indigenous nations agreeing to live together under “peace, order, and good government.” It was unity, not through uniformity, but through mutual recognition.
My conversations in different parts of the country reflect a strain under which our present arrangements are groaning. Those advocating legal or political solutions (including the separatists in Alberta who were making news this week) seem to suggest there is a quick fix. “Change the constitutional arrangements, and the problems will magically disappear,” seems to be the illusion of some. What seems overlooked is that whether we are dealing with a proposed country called Alberta or an existing one like Canada, it is a political culture in which citizens act not as consumers of government services but as participants in a shared order that is required before any solutions might be found.
Caritas and subsidiarity—civic love and local decision-making—require active engagement. Caritas cannot be legislated into existence. Subsidiarity practiced through federalism only works to the extent that we take ownership of the problems, exercising the rights and privileges bequeathed to us rather than debating them.
Fixing the Constitution is not only nearly impossible but is also unlikely to be effective. The real task is civic renewal: acting in ways that sustain a shared political order, recognizing that our rights are meaningful only if we extend them to others, and affirming the dignity of every person.
It is an activist solution. The problems facing Canada won’t be fixed for us, nor will they be solved through written text, but by an adjustment of our social constitution. Yet, I left the conversation hopeful that if pursued, our imperfect Constitution may yet prove sufficient to sustain Confederation despite present strains.
WHAT I’M READING
Are the Kids OK?
The National Post reported on a growing concern on both sides of the partisan political spectrum about the impact of social media on kids and whether government-imposed bans might be appropriate. It is interesting how this has morphed from a technology to a public health and child protection issue, lumped together with tobacco and gambling in an increasing number of minds. While the consensus is growing that something must be done about this, there are complicating dynamics as to the extent to which this is a matter for which parents, schools or the state has the lead responsibility to act.
Who is My Neighbour?
It would seem that after a few decades in which autonomy and independence were the trend, there is a growing awareness of the importance of neighbourly connections. This Vox story highlights the trend of “neighbourism,” with a growing number of people recognizing that the fragmentation, loneliness, and economic precarity that trying it alone can bring might not be the best way. ”Sometimes it looks small: introducing yourself to the people on your floor, starting a group chat for your building or block, sharing babysitters, watering a neighbour’s plants. But it can also look overtly political,” Sara Radin writes.
Affective Polarization
Paul Wells has an interesting interview with Eric Merkley, a University of Toronto political scientist who has sought to measure the inconsistencies of citizens receive information about leaders with whom they agree than those with whom they disagree. Noting a significant increase in the explicit discussion about polarization, Merkley does not blame social media as the primary cause, as so many others do, but rather focuses on the connections and interactions that citizens have (or don’t have) as a more significant factor. He describes a subsequent “political sectarianism which gets at more than just mere hostility. It’s about really feeling like you hate the other side, you think they’re evil and immoral, and your politics become moralized in a really important way.”
Citizens Diagnosing Healthcare
Kyla Ronellenfitsch is a Liberal-connected pollster who often provides unique frames for familiar data. Her Substack this week, “Are we snoozing on healthcare?”, provides insight into the perception of Canadians relating to how different groups of people have their needs met by the health care system. In light of the poll on palliative care that Cardus recently commissioned (reported on in Meaningful Metrics below), I was interested to see that while eleven conditions were measured, palliative care was not considered in this analysis. Seniors and people with disabilities ranked in the middle of those whom most Canadians think are being served well by the health system (children and immigrants being at the top of the list, and homeless Canadians at the bottom).
MEANINGFUL METRICS
This being National Palliative Care Week, Cardus and the Covenant Health Palliative Institute teamed up to release a survey that measured Canadians' understandings of, experience with, and aspirations for palliative care. Using thirteen statements (some true, some not), we tested the completeness of Canadians' understanding of palliative care. Over two-thirds were able to identify the right answer of more than half of the statements, although many misunderstood palliative care as being only comfort care or intervention at the very end of life. One in twenty Canadians believed palliative care is similar to medical assistance in dying. Approximately half of Canadians have relatively recent firsthand experience with palliative care of a close friend or family member, with two-thirds reporting positive experiences. More than eighty per cent of Canadians would want palliative care for themselves, although thirty per cent of those are not confident it will be available for them. Given a list of health care issues to prioritize, almost ninety percent of Canadians ranked it a high or medium priority.
TAKE IT TO-GO
When the Dutch Tulips Come Visiting
As a Canadian with Dutch heritage, May 5th remains Liberation Day in my mind. The appreciative stories of my parents about what it meant for an occupied Netherlands to be liberated when the Canadian soldiers arrived were passed down to me. That Dutch appreciation of Canada has been blooming ever since, quite literally in fact, with a significant annual donation of tulips by the Dutch government to Ottawa every spring for the last eighty-one years.
This week, the relationship is both floral and royal. Princess Margriet is in town—herself a living symbol of that bond, having been born in the Ottawa Civic Hospital in 1943 after Canada temporarily declared part of it extraterritorial so she could be born fully Dutch. Talk about a birth with international petal-ics. So, at a time where global affairs can feel a bit thorny, orange you glad it’s the Dutch who are visiting—bringing not just tulips, but a reminder that some alliances don’t just survive history, they continue to blossom in gratitude.
Speaking of royalty, Canada celebrates Victoria Day next weekend to honour our own monarchy. Insights uses long weekends to recap our recent content, meaning that the next edition of fresh Insights should pop up in your feed on May 23rd. Until then.
Reply to Ray