National
The State of Confederation: Provinces are pushing back against federal overreach
News release from Project Confederation
Canada’s recent federal election has left many Canadians uncertain about the future.
With the Liberals back in power, the old Ottawa-centric mindset hasn’t disappeared.
But the ground is shifting.
At Project Confederation, we believe this is a pivotal moment.
Across the country, provinces are making moves – some bold, others subtle – to assert their jurisdiction, secure their economic futures, and push back against federal overreach.
From new trade corridors to critical minerals strategies to court battles over emissions caps, the fight for a stronger, freer Confederation is alive and evolving.
Clearly, the calls for real reform – for a rebalancing of powers between Ottawa and the provinces – aren’t going away.
If anything, the chances of significant changes have improved.
But, if the provinces want change, they’re going to have to lead it.
Which is why now is the perfect time to take stock of where each province stands.
So, let’s take a look at the State of Confederation in 2025, breaking down the positions each province has taken since the election, and highlighting the progress and problems we see in 2025 and beyond:
British Columbia
BC Premier David Eby has outlined several key priorities for the province now that the election campaign is over.
First, he emphasized the importance of removing interprovincial trade barriers, with BC already working on legislation to allow unilateral recognition of other provinces’ standards.
He also highlighted support for the softwood lumber industry, diversifying trade markets, and accelerating natural resource development.
Eby called on Ottawa to ensure fair treatment of BC by ensuring that federal programs and funding are distributed equitably across provinces, particularly comparing BC’s lack of transfer payments with those of other provinces.
Additionally, Eby expressed dissatisfaction with the unequal distribution of federal funds and criticized the current system for its lack of transparency and fairness.
In terms of energy projects, Eby’s government has tabled Bill 15, legislation designed to fast-track infrastructure and clean energy projects in British Columbia, but he’s also said projects won’t get fast-tracked without First Nations’ ownership.
Alberta
Alberta is taking bold steps to assert its rights and push for a more equitable deal with Ottawa.
In a recent address, Premier Danielle Smith announced the need for an “Alberta Accord” that would seek a guarantee of access to tidewater for energy exports, the repeal overreaching federal policies such as the clean electricity regulations and the oil and gas production cap, and demand equalization payments that reflect Alberta’s contributions to the Canadian economy.
Premier Smith’s address also acknowledged the growing movement for Alberta’s independence, recognizing that the province may explore the possibility of separation if Ottawa continues to ignore its demands.
Smith’s government has recently lowered the signature threshold for citizen-initiated referendums, potentially setting the stage for a referendum on separation in 2026 if enough signatures are gathered.
By opening the door for this vote, Alberta is sending a clear message to Ottawa: give the province a real deal or risk facing a more drastic path.
To ensure that Alberta’s voices are heard, Premier Smith announced the Alberta Next panel, a province-wide engagement initiative designed to give citizens the opportunity to share their frustrations and ideas for the province’s future.
This panel will host town halls and public consultations, with the possibility that the most popular proposals could make their way onto a province-wide referendum ballot in 2026.
Saskatchewan
Premier Scott Moe has been vocal about the need to remove trade barriers, including US and Chinese tariffs.
He released a list of 10 policy changes he says the federal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney must make to reset its relationship with Saskatchewan.
Key demands include negotiating to lift Chinese tariffs on Canadian agricultural exports like canola and peas, which were imposed in retaliation for Canada putting tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.
Moe also wants Ottawa to scrap the federal industrial carbon tax and clean electricity regulations, reform bail laws and increase penalties for drug offences, expand pipeline and export infrastructure, and reduce federal red tape that he says infringes on provincial jurisdiction.
He emphasized that quick federal action on these issues would signal a more positive relationship than under the previous Trudeau government.
Premier Moe’s government has also been active in pushing back against federal policies that it believes undermine Saskatchewan’s energy sector.
In 2022, the province convened an Economic Impact Assessment Tribunal to evaluate the federal Impact Assessment Act and the oil and gas emissions cap, both of which were rejected as detrimental to Saskatchewan’s energy growth, and these remain contentious.
Manitoba
Premier Wab Kinew of Manitoba recently wrote to the federal government highlighting some key “nation-building” projects that the province wants federal support for.
The first project, the One Canada Trade Corridor, aims to enhance trade through the Port of Churchill and expand Canada’s energy corridors.
Kinew also called for joint investment in the Prairie Agriculture Innovation and Export Diversification project to help Western farmers access new markets through innovation centers.
The Canada’s Trucking Corridor project seeks to twin the Trans-Canada Highway through Manitoba, improving trade and road safety.
Kinew also requested federal investment in northern Manitoba’s infrastructure to support the development of Critical Minerals.
While many of these proposals amount to pitches for federal funding, it’s still good to see support for these sorts of projects from a provincial government.
Manitoba has also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario to reduce interprovincial trade barriers and boost economic cooperation.
The agreement focuses on harmonizing regulations, improving labour mobility, and recognizing professional credentials more easily – particularly for health-care workers and tradespeople – allowing them to begin working while their qualifications are processed.
Ontario
Ontario is taking steps to break down interprovincial trade barriers, including introducing the Protect Ontario through Free Trade within Canada Act, 2025.
Premier Doug Ford, along with New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt and Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, announced agreements to enhance trade between their provinces.
Ford and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew have also signed a memorandum of understanding to reduce interprovincial trade and regulatory barriers.
Key initiatives include harmonizing regulations, improving direct-to-consumer alcohol sales, and facilitating the recognition of professional credentials to allow healthcare professionals and tradespeople to work across provincial borders while their qualifications are processed.
Ford has also called for the repeal of Bill C-69 and voiced support for building new pipelines across Canada, though with a caveat that he’ll only support them if they use Ontario-made steel.
Ford criticized past political inaction on pipelines, arguing it has made Canada too dependent on the United States for energy security.
Quebec
Quebec has long positioned itself as a defender of provincial jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to language, culture, and immigration.
But, at least at the federal level, the Bloc Québécois has taken a firm stance against any project to expand a pipeline across the country, pledging to block such initiatives in Parliament.
Provincially, however, the picture is a bit more nuanced.
Recently, Premier François Legault expressed renewed openness to pipeline projects, particularly a potential route through northern Quebec to the port of Sept-Îles, citing shifting public attitudes due to Donald Trump’s tariff policies.
He argued that Quebecers are increasingly supportive of alternative export routes for Alberta oil to bypass US control and reach European markets.
The Quebec government has signalled it may reconsider energy projects like LNG Quebec and Energy East, indicating they are open to reviewing such proposals based on their merits.
A recent Québec Solidaire motion in the National Assembly, which called on the provincial government to oppose any pipeline development on Quebec soil, was defeated with opposition from both the governing Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) and the Quebec Liberals.
While Québec Solidaire and the Parti Québécois framed pipelines as environmental threats linked to fossil fuels, the Quebec Liberals argued that pipelines are simply a mode of transport and could be used for non-fossil materials like hydrogen or salt water.
Legault emphasized the need to balance environmental concerns with economic priorities, noting that any project would still undergo environmental assessment.
Quebec is also taking some strange – but still positive – steps to reduce interprovincial trade barriers by withdrawing at least five of its exemptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.
These changes will make it easier for individuals to register racehorses, become funeral directors, or work as real estate brokers in Quebec without meeting residency or office requirements.
Additionally, board members of Quebec’s ferry authority will no longer need to live in the province.
The provincial government may remove more exemptions in the future as part of a broader effort to encourage internal trade.
New Brunswick
New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt took a more literal approach to promoting interprovincial trade by mailing a selection of local New Brunswick products to other premiers across Canada.
Holt has also signed trade and labour mobility agreements with Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, with similar deals in progress with Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.
Her government is also working with Atlantic premiers to create a regional free-trade zone.
Unfortunately, key protectionist policies remain in place in New Brunswick – Holt has avoided tackling major restrictions in sectors like forestry and seafood.
For example, Crown wood must still be sold to local mills, shielding the province’s largest industry from outside competition.
On seafood, the message is a little more positive.
Current rules don’t force products to be processed in New Brunswick, but an exemption still exists that would allow future governments to impose such a requirement.
Holt says she’ll remove that exemption – but only for provinces that do the same, which many, like Newfoundland and Labrador, have refused to do – at least for now.
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island has introduced the Interprovincial Trade & Mobility Act, aimed at eliminating trade and labour mobility barriers with other provinces.
Premier Rob Lantz presented the bill in the legislature, following a similar initiative in Nova Scotia, with PEI expected to be the first province to reciprocate.
The bill proposes accepting provincial inspections and standards for goods from participating jurisdictions and setting up expedited licensing for regulated professions, with a 10-business-day turnaround time for certifications.
The legislation, which will only apply to jurisdictions that reciprocate, aims to foster collaboration between provinces and boost the economy by making the workforce more accessible.
However, it will not apply to regulated health professionals or lawyers.
Nova Scotia
Premier Tim Houston introduced the Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act back in February, well before the federal election.
The bill allows goods and services from provinces or territories with similar legislation to be treated equally in Nova Scotia, eliminating redundant fees and testing.
It also enables certified professionals from those jurisdictions to work in Nova Scotia without additional licensing.
However, the bill excludes Canada’s supply management system.
Nova Scotia also has some gripes with the federal government.
The Province is taking Ottawa to court over who should pay to upgrade the dikes protecting the Isthmus of Chignecto, the land link between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The Province argues that Ottawa bears full responsibility for the $650 million project because the infrastructure protects federally regulated trade and communications links, including highways, railways, and power lines.
The federal government has agreed to cover only half the cost, claiming the dikes primarily serve agricultural land, a shared jurisdiction.
Houston is also refocusing his government’s agenda on natural resource development to address potential revenue threats from US tariffs, slowing population growth, and uncertain federal transfers.
He suggested reconsidering long-standing bans on uranium mining, fracking, and oil and gas exploration on Georges Bank, arguing that excessive restrictions have hindered prosperity.
In a letter to caucus members, he criticized past governments for lacking the courage to act and pledged to reverse sector-wide bans in favour of more balanced policymaking.
Newfoundland and Labrador
Newfoundland and Labrador is also unhappy with the current equalization program.
They argue that it shortchanges smaller provinces, particularly in the Atlantic region.
The Province says that the program fails to account for unique challenges such as the high cost of delivering services to remote, sparsely populated areas and penalizes resource-rich provinces like Newfoundland for developing offshore oil.
Newfoundland and Labrador wants fairer distribution that reflects the actual needs of all provinces, rather than perpetuating a system that disproportionately benefits the larger ones.
They are currently challenging the federal government’s equalization formula in court, after the Trudeau Liberals extended the current formula through 2029 without addressing the Province’s concerns.
We hope you’ve appreciated this summary of the State of Confederation in 2025.
The path to a stronger, freer, and more balanced Confederation isn’t going to be charted in Ottawa – it’s going to be led by the provinces and demanded by the people.
But that only happens if we keep up the pressure.
At Project Confederation, we’re working every day to hold governments accountable, push for structural reform, and empower citizens like you to fight for a better deal for your province.
We’re building momentum – province by province – but we can’t do it alone.
If you believe in a Canada where provinces are respected, where local priorities come first, and where Ottawa doesn’t get the final say on everything, please consider making a donation today:
Let’s make Confederation work – the way it was meant to.
Regards,
– The Project Confederation Team
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Canada is falling behind on food safety by continuing to allow seven synthetic food dyes that the United States and several other jurisdictions are banning due to clear health risks.
The United States is banning nine synthetic food dyes linked to health risks, but Canada is keeping them on store shelves. That’s a mistake.
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they would ban nine petroleum-based dyes, artificial colourings that give candies, soft drinks and snack foods their bright colours, from U.S. foods before 2028.
The agencies’ directors said the additives presented health risks and offered no nutritional value. In August, the FDA targeted Orange B and Citrus Red No. 2 for even quicker removal.
The good news for Canada is that Orange B was banned here long ago, in 1980, while Citrus Red No. 2 is barely used at all. It is allowed at two parts per million in orange skins. Also, Canada reduced the maximum permitted level for other synthetic dyes following a review in 2016.
The bad news for Canadians is that regulators will keep allowing seven dyes that the U.S. plans to ban, with one possible exception. Health Canada will review Erythrosine (called Red 3 in the U.S.) next year. The FDA banned the substance from cosmetics and drugs applied to the skin in 1990 but waited decades to do the same for food.
All nine dyes targeted by the FDA have shown evidence of tumours in animal studies, often at doses achievable through diet. Over 20 years of meta-analyses also show each dye increases the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in eight to 10 per cent of children, with a greater risk in mixtures.
At least seven dyes demonstrate broad-spectrum toxicity, especially affecting the liver and kidneys. Several have been found to show estrogenic endocrine effects, triggering female hormones and causing unwanted risks for both males and females. Six dyes have clinical proof of causing DNA damage, while five show microbiome disruption in the gut. One to two per cent of the population is allergic to them, some severely so.
The dyes also carry a risk of dose dependency, or addiction, especially when multiple dyes are combined, a common occurrence in processed foods.
U.S. research suggests the average child consumes 20 to 50 milligrams of synthetic dyes per day, translating to 7.3 to 18.25 kilograms (16.1 to 40.2 pounds) per year. It might be less for Canadian kids now, but eating even a “mere” 20 pounds of synthetic dyes per year doesn’t sound healthy.
It’s debatable how to properly regulate these dyes. Regulators don’t dispute that scientists have found tumours and other problems in rats given large amounts of the dyes. What’s less clear are the implications for humans with typical diets. With so much evidence piling up, some countries have already taken decisive action.
Allura Red (Red 40), slated for removal in the U.S., was previously banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. However, these countries were forced to accept the dye in 2009 when the European Union harmonized its regulations across member countries.
Nevertheless, the E.U. has done what Canada has not and banned Citrus Red No. 2 and Fast Green FCF (Green 3), as have the U.K. and Australia. Unlike Canada, these countries have also restricted the use of Erythrosine (Red 3). And whereas product labels in the E.U. warn that the dyes risk triggering hyperactivity in children, Canadians receive no such warning.
Canadian regulators could defend the status quo, but there’s a strong case for emulating the E.U. in its labelling and bans. Health Canada should expand its review to include the dyes banned by the E.U. and those the U.S. is targeting. Alignment with peers would be good for health and trade, ensuring Canadian manufacturers don’t face export barriers or costly reformulations when selling abroad.
It’s true that natural alternatives present challenges. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University, wrote that while natural alternatives, such as curcumin, carotenes, paprika extract, anthocyanins and beet juice, can replace synthetic dyes, “they come with trade-offs: less vibrancy, greater sensitivity to heat and light, and higher costs.”
Regardless, that option may soon look better. The FDA is fast-tracking a review of calcium phosphate, galdieria blue extract, gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract and other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes. Canada should consider doing the same, not only for safety reasons but to add value to its agri-food sector.
Ultimately, we don’t need colour additives in our food at all. They’re an unnecessary cosmetic that disguises what food really is.
Yes, it’s more fun to have a coloured candy or cupcake than not.What’s less fun is cancer, cognitive disorders, leaky gut and hormonal disruptions. Canada must choose.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Manitoba is choosing to expand the same drug policy model that other provinces are abandoning, policies that normalize addiction while sidelining treatment, recovery, and public safety.
The New Democrat premier of British Columbia, David Eby, stood before reporters last spring and called his government’s decision to permit public drug use in certain spaces a failure.
The policy was part of the broader “harm reduction” strategy meant to address overdose deaths. Instead, it had stirred public anger, increased street disorder and had helped neither users nor the communities that host them. “We do not accept street disorder that makes communities feel unsafe,” Eby said. The province scrapped the plan.
In Alberta, the Conservative government began shutting down safer-supply prescribing due to concerns about drug diversion and misuse. The belief that more opioids can resolve the opioid crisis is losing credibility.
Ontario Progressive Conservatives are moving away from harm reduction by shutting down supervised consumption sites near schools and limiting safer-supply prescribing. Federal funding for programs is decreasing, and the province is shifting its focus to treatment models, even though not all sites are yet closed.
Yet amid these non-partisan reversals, Manitoba’s government has announced its intention to open a supervised drug-use site in Winnipeg. Premier Wab Kinew said, “We have too many Manitobans dying from overdose.” True. But it does not follow that repeating failed approaches will yield different results.
Reversing these failed policies is not a rejection of compassion. It is a recognition that good intentions do not produce good outcomes. Vancouver and Toronto have hosted supervised drug-use sites for years. The death toll keeps rising. Drug deaths in British Columbia topped 2,500 in 2023, even with the most expansive harm reduction infrastructure in the country. A peer-reviewed study published this year found that hospitalizations from opioid poisoning rose after B.C.’s safer-supply policy was implemented. Emergency department visits increased by more than three cases per 100,000 population, with no corresponding drop in fatal overdoses.
And the problem persists day to day. Paramedics in B.C. responded to nearly 4,000 overdose calls in July 2024 alone. The monthly call volume has exceeded 3,000 almost every month this year. These are signs of crisis management without a path to recovery.
There are consequences beyond public health. These policies change the character of neighbourhoods. Businesses suffer. Residents feel unsafe. And most tragically, the person using drugs is offered little more than a cot, a nurse and a quiet signal to continue. Real help, like treatment, housing and purpose, remains out of reach.
Somewhere along the way, bureaucracies stopped asking what recovery looks like. They have settled for managing human decline. They call it compassion. But it is really surrender, wrapped in medical language.
Harm reduction had its time. It made sense when it first emerged, during the AIDS crisis, when dirty needles spread HIV. Back then, the goal was to stop a deadly virus. Today, that purpose has been lost.
When policy drifts into ideology, reality becomes an afterthought. Underneath today’s approach is the belief that drug use is inevitable, that people cannot change, that liberty means letting others fade away quietly. These ideas do not reflect science. They do not reflect hope. They reflect despair. They reflect a politics that prioritizes the appearance of compassion over effectiveness.
What Manitoba needs is treatment access that meets the scale of the problem. That means detox beds, recovery homes and long-term care focused on restoring lives. These may not generate the desired headlines, but they work. They are demanding. They are slow. And they offer respect to the person behind the addiction.
There are no shortcuts. No policy will undo decades of pain overnight. But a policy that keeps people stuck using is not mercy. It is maintenance with no way out.
A government that believes in its people should not copy failure.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Landmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
STUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”
Red Deer’s Jason Stephan calls for citizen-led referendum on late-term abortion ban in Alberta
-
Opinion1 day ago
Landmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
-
Focal Points1 day ago
STUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”
-
Alberta1 day ago
Red Deer’s Jason Stephan calls for citizen-led referendum on late-term abortion ban in Alberta
-
Business1 day agoBlacked-Out Democracy: The Stellantis Deal Ottawa Won’t Show Its Own MPs
-
Health1 day agoTens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare
-
Artificial Intelligence9 hours agoGoogle denies scanning users’ email and attachments with its AI software
-
Agriculture16 hours agoHealth Canada pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat
-
Indigenous1 day agoIndigenous activist wins landmark court ruling for financial transparency