This piece is part of our Forum of Federations Series on National Unity and Canadian Federalism.

By Jocelyne Bourgon

October 13, 2026

Most states regard territorial integrity as a fundamental principle. Whether in unitary or federal countries, it is generally assumed that the state is permanent. Governments may change, constitutions may be amended, but the existence of the state is not subject to negotiation.

Canada has become an exception, which has come with an exceptional danger. Over the course of decades, Canada recognized the possibility of secession and the possibility, unknown in most federations, that it be required to enter constitutional discussions concerning its very own existence.

With a few notable exceptions, there has been a lack of political voices to defend federalism as a governing system or to explain how the Canadian constitutional system of checks and balances protects citizens’ interests. Proponents of the idea of secession framed the public debate. Progressively, the idea of secession was normalized as “a normal idea for a normal country.”

Today the idea of secession has metastasized. A number of provinces have put forward legislation that tests the limits of the Canadian constitution or asserts powers provinces do not possess, and there are likely to be multiple referendums in multiple provinces in the coming months and years. Secessionism has become an increasingly normal part of Canadian politics, and this has consequences.

Citizenship Uncertainty

The possibility of secession as an ongoing concern transforms the concept of citizenship. Canadian citizens can no longer be assured that they would remain members of the Canadian constitutional community as it is known today.

What is known, however, is the uncertainty that would result. A country grants citizenship and it is impossible to know how Canada would be reconfigured in the event of the secession of one of its provinces. New entities would grant and negotiate citizenship rights in a deeply emotionally changed environment – what is each person a citizen of? What do these citizenships entail? Would dual citizenship be possible in the circumstances?

The idea of secession affects people’s peaceful enjoyment of life and the sense of belonging and security that defines it.

Political Uncertainty

A political union that can constantly be reconfigured is different from an enduring constitutional federation. This leads to uncertainty. The idea of secession has no closure since the possibility of yet another referendum remains open, no matter how many times people are submitted to “the question.”

Debates about secession are highly divisive and emotionally charged because they concern the very existence of Canada and the standing of people as Canadian citizens.

Every referendum, every episode weakens the fabric that binds citizens together.

The Management of the Federation 

The idea of secession transforms the management of the federation and intergovernmental relations. Governing is about problem solving. It is about inventing solutions to the problems of life in a society to ensure its future prosperity and the wellbeing of its citizens.

Problems provide an impetus for collective problem solving. Secession as an option creates a different dynamic. Emerging problems become grievances. They provide new justifications for questioning the existence of the federation. This in turn erodes the potential for collaboration across governments. Provinces that favour secession adopt an opting out approach to maximize individual gains even if this undermines collective progress; “your gains are my loss.”

Aspirations for the secession of a province provide an incentive for preventing collective actions that would demonstrate the federation’s capacity to adapt. The result is gaming by invoking the risk of secession to secure concessions even to the detriment of Canadian interests.

Asymmetries and Unity

A constitutional federation is a system of governance designed to benefit from belonging to a broad economic, social and political community while enabling and benefiting from a diversity of approaches, assets and capabilities.

Diversity is part of the design of federalism as a governing model, but asymmetries may become a source of internal tensions if they undermine a shared understanding of what it means to be a Canadian and an equal partner in the Canadian political community. Asymmetries must be balanced against a common core of rights and privileges that all citizens enjoy as members of their country.

Diverting Energy from Building a Better Future

People of my generation have lived under the threat of secession for all their life. Considerable energy has been devoted over more than 50 years to constitutional negotiations, constitutional reforms and multiple referendums.

While these efforts have undoubtedly contributed to making Canada what it is today, they have diverted a considerable amount of time and energy from other important public policy issues. Canadians are paying a price for this.

For instance, in spite of an abundance of assets and one of the best educated workforces in the world, Canada’s economy is not performing as well as it could. This is due to a combination of factors, including unfavourable conditions, poor policy choices and so on. But adding political uncertainty to this mix is not the most propitious way of attracting long term investments. Canada’s exceptionalism has consequences.

Canada is exposed to multiple forces that are reconfiguring the geopolitical landscape and the world economy. The challenge for the provincial and federal governments is to ensure that Canada will be among the countries that will successfully navigate through an unprecedented period of change and prosper in the future. This will require a concerted effort of the public, private and civic sectors as well as of citizens themselves.

This is a time to make full use of the assets the Canadian federation has to offer to propel Canada forward. On the scale of the world, Canada is an exceptional achievement that deserves to be defended. A federation like Canada can achieve more than its individual members could ever achieve separately. The collective actions of governments working together as a federation can yield greater prosperity, security and influence in the world for the benefit of its citizens.

Yet the benefits of unity and federalism are too rarely spoken. Our federal institutions, stewards of Canada’s constitutional order, accept constraints and constrain themselves from making the case for it, leaving secessionists to set the boundaries of debate.

One of the challenges Canada faces is to ensure that the search for creative ways to address internal tensions does not undermine Canada’s very existence and the duty of the government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada to defend the modern, democratic and inclusive society Canadians have built north of the 49^th parallel.

In the immediate future, governments and Canadians must come to terms with the situation as it currently exists and that includes the potential for two or more referendums. I know of no other country that would envisage the possibility of a referendum when under threat.

What can be done to prevent “existential debates” from playing into the hands of those with intentions hostile to Canada at a time when the sovereignty of Canada is being challenged?

What needs to be done to ensure that the Canadian federation reaps the benefits of federalism to face the challenges ahead?

How can the capacity of the Canadian federation for collective problem solving be improved to achieve more together than any government could do on its own in areas where collective actions generate greater prosperity, security and influence in the world?

One day Canadians may wish to rethink Canada’s exceptional approach and set some parameters around the unlimited use of repeated referendums. There are no signs of this now.

For now, there is a need for people to take seriously their role as citizens. In a representative democracy, people we elect are chosen to represent citizens’ interests. In elections, citizens must demand to know whether candidates stand for Canada or not. Political parties have a moral obligation to be clear about their position on secession and a duty to respect the rule of law. Once elected, public office holders have a responsibility to use the levers of the state legally and responsibly to serve the overall interest of the society they have a mission to serve.

The idea of secession as an ongoing concern and the recourse to referendums to address national unity issues is the only factor that could undermine Canada’s capacity to successfully navigate through an especially challenging period of time. Unity is the ingredient to ensure Canada’s continued success, and unity must be defended.

Jocelyne Bourgon is President of Public Governance International  and a former Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.