What Canada could learn from Swiss federalism

A gathering in Edmonton in May 2026 of supporters of the independence movement in Alberta. A referendum is due to be held in the western Canadian province in October on whether there should be a future independence referendum. Jason Franson / Keystone

Canada, like Switzerland, is a federal state. However, Canada’s system lacks a mechanism for resolving conflicts, say experts. This could prove costly if separatist sentiment grows in one of the provinces – as is currently the case in Alberta, where voters will decide on several issues this autumn.

At the 2026 annual gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called on “like-minded democracies” to cooperate – so as not to be squeezed between the US, China and Russia.

However, he made it clear that he was not in favour of “naive multilateralism”. Instead, he spoke of “partners who have enough in common to act together”.

Cooperation is easier when partners want similar things. The approach Carney outlined in Davos for international politics resembled what he knows from home: Canada’s federal system.

Most power rests with the prime minister

Canada is the second-largest country in the world by area. Its 40.5 million inhabitants live not only in different provinces and territories, but also across different time and climate zones. Organising a democracy of this scale is therefore a considerable challenge.

Illustration: Kai Reusser, Swissinfo

“In theory, Canada shouldn’t exist,” says Swiss federalism expert Sean Müller. “Federalism means the sharing of power and cooperation.” But Canada’s system concentrates most power in the hands of the prime minister, he says. “The usual pattern is that provincial governments and the federal government are at political loggerheads,” says Müller. This is “to some extent” the intention: the lower level keeps the upper level in check.

But unlike in Switzerland, there is no institutional mechanism for negotiation and compromise.

Read our article on the principle of collegiality, which governs decision-making within Switzerland’s concordance government:

The weakness becomes apparent in times of conflict – as is now the case with the province of Alberta. The western, oil-rich and rather conservative province is on a collision course with the country and its Liberal government. According to polls, around a quarter of people in Alberta want to secede from Canada. Far more feel they are being short-changed by Canada when it comes to fiscal equalisation and political representation.

Separatism and autonomy in Alberta

Albertans will vote on a series of immigration and constitutional questions this autumn. Many of the questions concern whether the provincial government should work towards constitutional amendments “together with the governments of other willing provinces”.

In Switzerland, the constitution is constantly evolving because of popular initiatives; Canada’s constitution is unlikely to change, regardless of what the people of Alberta decide.

“There is a broad consensus that it is practically impossible to amend Canada’s Constitution,” says political scientist Lisa Young from the University of Calgary. “The last time we tried, we debated it for nearly a decade.” With every proposed change, a different group with its own concerns emerged. “In 1992, we ended up with a national referendum that rejected the proposal, which is what we agreed upon after a decade of negotiations.” Consequently, a referendum on independence was held in the French-speaking province of Quebec in 1995.

According to Young, this set the tone. “People want to prevent this can of worms from being opened again,” she says.

“Stand up for a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada,” reads the Alberta government’s website on the votesExternal link. However, in May the provincial government decided that there should also be a vote on whether there should be a future referendum on Alberta’s independence.

Historically, French-speaking Quebec was the province where separatist forces were strongest. Young believes that the idea of separatism in Alberta was fuelled by the debate surrounding Quebec. Young is not concerned about Canada’s survival, but she expects the country to evolve into an even more decentralised federation if demands continue to come from two provinces and from opposite political camps.

Supporters of an independent Quebec at a rally six days before the referendum on Quebec’s secession in October 1995. The independence referendum was rejected by 50.6% of voters. Andre Pichette / AFP

Shift towards right-wing populism

Western Canada is poorly integrated into the decision-making process, a problem also recognised by Jörg Broschek of Wilfrid Laurier University. The “old populists” in Alberta argued that the west should not be left out. Over the past 20 years, Alberta has called for its own police force and its own pension system – as Quebec already has. “But it was always about greater autonomy,” Broschek says.

Since 2019, he has observed a shift. “It’s no longer the old movement but right-wing populists. Fiscal equalisation is no longer the main issue – migration policy is now the focus: should immigrants who only have a work permit still have access to the healthcare system? This is a new development in Canadian politics.”

Broschek worries about Canada’s future. Although those in favour of an independence referendum for Alberta are currently in the minority, he is not sure whether this will remain the case in the long term if right-wing populist sentiment continues to grow while the existing structures remain unchanged. “I’ve been saying the same thing over and over again lately, like a broken record: to solve the structural problems, we need what Switzerland has, what most federal systems have – a framework for cooperative federalism.” That is what’s missing, he says, adding that Canada needs to move away from the “Team Canada approach”.

Team Canada was the banner under which the federal government and the provinces worked together during the pandemic. Many regard the collaboration as a success. However, it took place outside the formal institutional framework.

How did Swiss federalism actually come about? Read our article:

Broschek speaks of “competitive” federalism. “In Swiss federalism, there’s the idea that the cantons implement federal policy while also enjoying a degree of autonomy. These institutional interdependencies don’t really exist in Canada. The constitution exclusively delineates which areas fall under the jurisdiction of the federal state and which under that of the provinces,” he explains. It is a concept of federalism that thinks in silos, he says.

Trump’s policies increase pressure on Canada’s federal system

That’s no way to tackle such complexity, Broschek says. The geopolitical and economic pressure exerted by Donald Trump’s US is increasing pressure on Canada to reform its federal system, he says. Broschek argues that online meetings alone are not enough. Meetings between the prime minister and provincial governments are not institutionalised. Since Carney’s election in 2025, provincial leaders have met him in person on three occasions. Under his predecessor Justin Trudeau, there were five face-to-face meetings between 2015 and 2018 – and not one after that until 2025.

“If you contrast us with Switzerland, the federal system is flawed,” says Johanne Poirier, professor of federalism at McGill University.

In Canada, there is no mechanism to enforce cooperation, she says. In Switzerland, institutions ensure that even those who do not necessarily see eye to eye work together. One example is the Conference of Cantonal Governments, where regional governments coordinate their positions.

There is the Council of the Federation, where the provincial governments meet, but, according to Broschek, it is “not a policy-making body”. Poirier says it meets only rarely and serves primarily to take a stand against the federal government, instead of addressing issues that the provinces should negotiate among themselves – such as trade barriers between them that are higher than those between EU member states.

Cooperation without a mechanism for conflict resolution

The Canadian provinces can have federal laws reviewed by the Supreme Court. Yet even this does little to promote cooperation. “Courts do not necessarily reduce tensions in disputes. They decide on who had the power to do what, but do not compel cooperation,” Poirier says.

“I’m a lawyer. I like institutions. The advantage is that they can contain pure power politics,” she says. At the same time, she emphasises how much happens below the visible institutional level: voluntary conferences on all major issues, from the environment to the use of French. The public services work well together. There are many informal agreements between the federal government and some provinces.

“There is a culture of cooperation, but it doesn’t work if there are real conflicts,” Poirier says.

From her point of view, the push for greater autonomy or even the secession of Alberta is a “kind of blackmail towards the federal government”, which is already having an effect because the federal government is cutting back on environmental protection, for example.

But this will not solve the “separatism problem”, she says. Especially as Carney recently said that a vote with just one more than 50% would not be enough to break up Canada. This is creating fresh discontent among provinces seeking greater autonomy, Poirier says.

That said, if a referendum on independence were to be held in Alberta or Quebec, politicians opposed to independence would presumably have to defend federalism. “Something hardly anyone does,” according to Poirier.

Hundreds of members of Indigenous First Nations and supporters gathered in front of the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton in May 2025. Artur Widak / AFP

Indigenous communities win their case in court

Alberta is now voting on whether to hold a referendum on independence later. This is even though indigenous communities opposed the move and won their case in court, establishing that such far-reaching decisions cannot be taken without prior consultation with them.

For Poirier, this is an important ruling. It will also have an impact on the debate in Quebec. “The standing of Indigenous claims is much greater than it was 30 years ago. They not only have rights, but also power. This is less important for Switzerland than for federal states such as Malaysia or Ethiopia with large Indigenous populations.”

Read our article on the federalism ideas of Tamil politicians in Sri Lanka, what they want to adopt from Canada and what from Switzerland:

Edited by David Eugster. Translated from German by Patrick Huwyler/ts