At a moment when democratic institutions face growing pressure in both Canada and the United States (U.S.), legal scholars, civil society, journalists, and senior public servants from both countries explore top-of-mind issues in constitutional governance, from the concentration of power in the executive branch, to the rule of law and judicial independence, and from trade and tariffs to pressures on migration, freedom of expression and academic freedom.
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Jennifer Welsh, Director of the Max Bell School of Public Policy, welcomed participants to the 2026 edition of the Slater Family Canada-US Policy Series and situated the conference within the school's mission to convene consequential conversations on public policy.
Co-chair Pearl Eliadis introduced the conference's aims: to examine structural and constitutional threats to liberal democracy in Canada and the United States, and to ask what values should animate and constrain efforts to build a stronger and more resilient Canada. She argued that human rights, pluralism, substantive equality, and the rule of law are not merely the "soft stuff" of democracy, but preconditions for a stable and sustainable order. Drawing on Jane Rogoyska's book, Hotel Exile: Paris in the Shadow of War, she invited participants to consider the gap between what people believe is happening and what is actually going on and framed the conference as an effort to bring history, data, legal understanding and multiple perspectives to bear on the present moment.
Keynote: Michael Ignatieff
Democratic legitimacy, Ignatieff argued, is reproduced when institutions generate results that citizens accept "with differing degrees of good grace," because citizens know that no democratic decision is ever final.
Today, he warned, democracy's global advance has stalled. Concurrently, China's "staggering success" in combining single-party rule with state capitalism poses a challenge to liberal democracies struggling with institutional impasse. The international order that has long protected Canadian sovereignty is weakening. Canadians, he cautioned, should not allow schadenfreude over developments in the United States to turn into complacency about Canada's own democratic health. Canada will need to bear a larger share of the costs of its own defence, while also regaining economic sovereignty by addressing declining productivity, building infrastructure, diversifying markets, investing in skills and ensuring that future generations can find opportunity in Canada rather than looking south or elsewhere.
He also turned to internal constitutional challenges. He cautioned against renewed separatist aspirations in Alberta and Quebec, arguing that they force citizens into false choices between overlapping loyalties. Canada's strength, he suggested, lies in allowing people to be Canadian while also holding regional, provincial, or national allegiances. He added that secessionist campaigns now face a stark reality: separation from Canada could mean absorption into the United States.
He also warned against the expanding use of the notwithstanding clause by provincial governments to override Charter protections. Canadian constitutional governance, he argued, depends on maintaining a balance between majority rule and minority rights. He pointed to the weakening of Parliament over the past 60 years as prime ministers have consolidated power, and argued that MPs need more resources, information, time, and freedom to represent constituents, scrutinize legislation and debate openly. He also raised electoral reform as part of efforts to make Parliament more representative.
His words concluded by urging all to stand up for a plural Canada that can manage overlapping loyalties and work against those who wish to break it apart. The agenda is daunting, he said, but Canada's agenda has always been daunting, and the country's resilience depends on citizens putting their shoulders to the wheel.
Panel 1: Constitutional Governance in the United States and Canada聽
The first panel, moderated by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author David Shribman, examined the state of constitutional governance in Canada and the United States, and how constitutional pressures in one country may shape political and legal debates in the other.
For Columbia law professor Jamal Greene, a "normal-feeling" daily life is no proof that democratic institutions are secure. Greene argued that the president's self-absorption and governing limitations have so far limited the damage to constitutional governance. The greater danger, he warned, is that the same structural conditions could empower a more competent authoritarian successor. The greater danger, Greene suggested, is that the American constitutional system relies on officeholders understanding that the law binds them; President Trump, by contrast, believes in his own power and does not see himself as constrained by law. Still, Greene emphasized that "America is not its President."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, broadened the discussion to the real harms caused by current U.S. policies, including deaths abroad linked to aid cuts, inhumane immigration detention, threats to voting rights, and repression of speech. She warned against a double standard of "First Amendment for me, but not for thee," which especially targets students, immigrants or unpopular speakers for their views. Shamsi also emphasized that American democracy is not just about its president. Even amid serious threats to rights, she pointed to the resilience of civil society, courts and rights-protecting institutions, recalling an ACLU advertisement after the 2024 election that declared: "We are the ACLU and we are not moving to Canada."
Margot Young of UBC's Allard School of Law focused on Canada's own "democratic distemper," especially tensions around inclusivity and equality. She described a paradoxical crisis for the Charter: it is criticized by some for failing to address growing inequality and exclusion, and by others for recognizing too many rights. Young warned that the growing use of the notwithstanding clause, particularly where vulnerable minorities are affected, threatens to undo much of what the Charter has achieved. She also emphasized that reconciliation and decolonization remain central constitutional challenges, especially where Indigenous rights, self-government, environmental justice and the Charter intersect.
Panel 2: The Rule of Law and Judicial Independence聽
Moderated by Nandini Ramanujam, professor at the 91丝瓜视频 Faculty of Law and co-director of 91丝瓜视频's Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, the second panel examined the rule of law as both a legal framework and a lived democratic commitment.
During the panel, Professor Ramanujam presented data from the World Justice Project Rule of Law, highlighting key perception indicators, including constraints on government power, absence of corruption, government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.
INSERT FIRST SLIDE WITH THE FACTORS
David Cole of Georgetown University, former national legal director of the ACLU, defined the rule of law as a "government of laws, not men," an independent judiciary, and fair procedures. Ultimately, the rule of law depends on a society willing to believe in it and fight for it. Cole traced how the current U.S. administration has made the rule of law harder to enforce, including by using federal funds to pressure law firms, universities, and media organizations, and by invoking emergencies that do not exist. At the same time, he pointed to the resilience of courts and civil society, noting approximately 75 injunctions against Trump administration initiatives and hundreds of lawsuits brought by civil society organizations.
Sarah Harding, Dean and Weldon Professor at Dalhousie's Schulich School of Law, described the rule of law as a "pre-commitment strategy": a shared commitment to rules of engagement even when we disagree or lose. She warned that "win-or-lose" thinking undermines the deliberation and compromise on which the rule of law depends. For Harding, public trust is foundational: when trust weakens, the rule of law becomes fragile, and when the rule of law becomes fragile, trust erodes further. She identified AI-driven misinformation and disinformation, as well as the decline in shared experience, as serious threats to institutional trust.
Louis-Philippe Lampron of Universit茅 Laval called the separation of powers the "bluff" of liberal democracies: it only works when those inside the branches of the state agree to play by the rules. He warned against assuming that institutions will automatically survive governments determined to weaken them. He also added that human rights remain a fundamental part of the rule of law. The panel closed by returning to the role of civil society and institutional defence. Quoting Timothy Snyder, Lampron urged participants to "choose an institution and defend it."
Luncheon Panel: Trade, Tariffs, and the Law
Over lunch, the conversation turned to U.S. trade policy and its implications for Canada, moderated by Jennifer Welsh. The panel examined tariffs as a trade issue and as a question of executive power, economic security, national security, and the future of the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Kari Heerman, Senior Fellow and Director of Trade and Economic Statecraft at the Brookings Institution and a former official in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, explained that the courts found the president's initial use of emergency tariff powers to have exceeded executive power. Even so, she noted that the administration retained other legal avenues, including national security and unfair trade authorities, and democratic actors would continue to litigate these tools. This phenomenon is not solely a "Trump problem," she stressed: the Biden administration retained some of the same tools, and there is a broader U.S. appetite for rethinking the institutions, laws and regimes that govern trade policy.
Thomas d'Aquino, a private-sector architect of the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, described the tariffs as a profound departure from the rules-based trading system in which Canada had invested heavily. He warned that tariffs on sectors such as steel, aluminum, lumber, and autos have caused real harm, while also provoking a sense of Canadian unity and urgency. D'Aquino endorsed an "America Plus" strategy: building stronger trade relationships beyond the U.S. He also argued that economic security and national security are now inseparable and called for a more durable Canada-U.S. economic and defence framework to anchor the relationship over the long term.
However, the outlook for the future remained positive, reminding us that Canada and the U.S. are akin to quarrelling siblings, or "frenemies," and that nostalgia should not erase the memory of a frictionless past, because such a past has never existed.
Panel 3: Freedom of Expression, Academic聽Freedom聽and the Press聽
Moderated by Kyle Wyatt, editor of the Literary Review of Canada, the third panel took up the future of free expression in universities, newsrooms, and public discourse. Across Canada and the United States, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and press freedom are under pressure from multiple directions, including government interference, legal intimidation, institutional self-censorship, the collapse of local journalism, campus restrictions, and contested uses of hate speech and anti-terrorism justifications to silence dissent.
First Amendment lawyer Fritz Byers traced press freedom to the press's role as a check on power. One of the most serious legal threats to American journalism, he warned, is the potential weakening of New York Times v. Sullivan, which exposes journalists and news organizations to retaliatory defamation claims by public officials. Narrowing those protections will gravely undermine the legal conditions that allow journalism to function as a check on power.
Audrey Cooper, editor-in-chief of the Baltimore Banner, described the economic crisis facing local journalism. She noted that 40 percent of American newspapers have closed since 2005, that half of American counties are now "news deserts," and that 75 percent of journalism jobs have disappeared. Thin budgets, mounting legal threats, and declining public understanding of journalism have made news organizations more risk-averse, leading to quiet self-censorship. Cooper argued that local news offers one possible remedy to the distortions of nationalized political coverage: by refocusing public attention on schools, roads, clean air, city councils and other issues that shape daily life, local journalism can help restore civic discourse and rebuild trust.
Professor Joshua Sealy-Harrington of the University of Windsor extended the discussion to Canada, echoing concerns about the financial pressures facing media organizations and how those pressures can make journalism more risk-averse. He noted that a lack of viable journalism positions and the economic vulnerability of news organizations can discourage the reporting of uncomfortable truths. Regarding academic freedom, Sealy-Harrington argued that decades of underfunding and increasing government oversight have pushed universities away from their democratic role and made them more cautious in defending controversial expression. Universities, he warned, increasingly treat themselves as economic institutions rather than democratic ones, even though academic freedom should protect the ability to tell the truth about government and power without employer reprisal. The problem, he suggested, is "a deficit of courage."
Panel 4: Reshaping Migration and Hardening Borders聽
The day's final panel, moderated by Inez Jabalpurwala, president and CEO of the Public Policy Forum, weighed states' growing drive to control their borders against the commitments that underpin refugee protection. The panel discussed whether Canada and the United States can reconcile refugee protection and fluid migration with a heightened emphasis on cross-border security, particularly in light of Bill C-12 and the Safe Third Country Agreement.
Professor Sharry Aiken of Queen's University challenged the framing of refugees and asylum seekers as security threats. She questioned whether the United States can still be considered safe under the Safe Third Country Agreement and warned that Bill C-12 was ill-fitted to the problems it purported to solve. For Aiken, the bill also revealed a troubling narrowing of democratic space. There was little room for civil society engagement, limited parliamentary study, and insufficient attention to the concerns of refugee advocates and migrants themselves. She also pointed to Canada's immigration detention system, especially the absence of a statutory maximum on detention, as one of its most troubling features.
Ted Gallivan, Deputy Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, framed the government's aim as a "well-intentioned desire to better manage the process" and curb abuse of the system. He emphasized that Canada's immigration system operates within strict legal parameters and under independent judicial oversight. Gallivan also described the arrival of people who risk their lives to come to Canada as creating a "sacred trust or obligation" that the state must honour.
John Thon Majok of the Migration Policy Institute, drawing on his research and his own experience of displacement, situated the discussion within the broader dismantling of refugee protection in the United States. He described the consequences of third-country deportation agreements, the suspension of refugee resettlement, and policies that criminalize people seeking safety. For Majok, what is at stake is "human safety, human life, human dignity." He reminded the room that arbitrary detention can revive the very fear refugees are fleeing, and that "today's refugees are tomorrow's leaders" if countries choose to invest in them.
Closing Remarks聽
Pearl Eliadis returned to the issues of the day: rights, public trust, the fragility of constitutional culture, the limits of institutional resilience, and the importance of the rule of law. The closing remarks pointed to a broader concern: that democratic systems depend on laws, institutions, norms, habits, and commitments that sustain them.
A recurring theme was that Canada cannot view these challenges from a distance. While much of the discussion focused on developments in the United States, Eliadis cautioned against complacency. Pressures on institutions, the politicization of public power, and the difficult use of emergency powers are not foreign to the Canadian experience. The defence of democracy, therefore, requires humility as well as vigilance. Rules, rights, and public policy matter, and there is a need to apply the rules fairly and consistently, defend rights, and uphold principled public policy.
If the day offered no easy reassurance, it highlighted a conviction: constitutional democracy is not self-sustaining. Institutions, rights, and the rule of law require active investment, attention, and defence. Across the panels, speakers returned to the same underlying question: what kind of country do we want to be, and what values should guide us when law, policy, and public pressure collide?
Michael Ignatieff closed by reflecting that the day had crystallized around the relationship between "values, character, institutions, and law." The rule of law, he suggested, is also human, sustained by ethical judgment, public servants with a moral compass, civil society willing to contest and criticize, and institutions prepared to do their work. Democracy, he concluded, is a shared commitment to one another, and a recognition that "we're all in this together."
鈥斅犅�
This conference was part of the Slater Family Canada-US Policy Series, established in 2022 to enrich the study of Canada-U.S. relations and deepen our understanding of the key policy issues that feature in one of the world's most significant bilateral relationships. The Max Bell School is grateful to the Slater Family for supporting these critical discussions, and to Ken and Sam Slater for joining us in Montreal. We were also pleased to partner with the Literary Review of Canada, named Canada's best literary magazine at the 2025 National Magazine Awards.
"Not Politics as Usual: Challenges to Constitutional Governance in Canada and the United States" was held on June 5 at the Perspective, Montreal's Old Port conference facility.
Watch the recordings of each session above and stay tuned for Michael Ignatieff's keynote address to be published in the Literary Review of Canada's forthcoming edition.
