Breton: Forty years later, we’re due for another big rethink about Canada’s future

Agree:

…So why don’t we do them anymore?

The last major policy-focused one was the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1991-96), chaired by Georges Erasmus and René Dussault. The five-volume RCAP report remains an influential document, brimming with extensive research backed by years of consultations.

Even if the report’s central recommendations were shelved, the RCAP helped to shape the national reconciliation conversation we’re having today.

Since then, however, governments have mostly avoided this approach. Why?

First, conducting a thorough, multi-year national inquiry is expensive and the current context is not one where governments are looking to spend money on large-scale enterprises with unclear outcomes.

The national political landscape also seems to be tilting toward a smaller role for government. On this note, however, it is worth mentioning that one of the main criticisms of the Macdonald Commission was that economists had co-opted it and that its report largely embraced market-based solutions.

In other words, a royal commission launched by a government does not automatically mean a bigger role for government.

Second, a royal commission may take on a life of its own and interpret its original mandate in unintended ways. Its findings cannot be predetermined, making them politically risky.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, there’s the growing belief that complex issues can be solved with quick fixes or slogans, even when history suggests otherwise.

A recent example is internal trade barriers. For decades, these have persisted despite numerous attempts at reform. Yet, Anita Anand, then minister in charge of internal trade, suggested that interprovincial trade issues could be resolved in a month – a claim that overlooks decades of political gridlock. (Anand moved on to the innovation, science and industry portfolio under Prime Minister Mark Carney.)

It is a positive development that momentum is building to make progress on this file, but we need a long-term solution. More importantly, we need to think about this issue in relation to all the other major problems we are facing.

From fragmented fixes to a coherent vision

A royal commission doesn’t mean just kicking the can down the road. Clearly, Trump’s tariff threats need to be addressed now, not in three years, which is the usual time frame for a royal commission. Some actions can be, and should be, taken now.

But the reality remains that many of Canada’s serious structural issues are not isolated. Instead, they are deeply interconnected.

Tackling them hastily and separately risks inefficient, short-lived solutions. Instead, we need a unified, long-term approach – one that doesn’t focus just on the next election cycle but that envisions Canada’s economic future for generations to come.

Addressing these challenges requires something that seems increasingly rare: leadership with the humility to acknowledge that no single person or government has all the answers.

A government must be willing to say: We need time and different tools because the complexity of these issues demands a broader, society-wide approach. The leadership we need isn’t one that has all the solutions. It’s one that is willing to create the conditions to find them.

That’s why it might be time for the next federal government to dust off the old toolbox and bring back one of Canada’s most effective policy instruments: a new royal commission for the 21st century.

Source: Forty years later, we’re due for another big rethink about Canada’s future