OPINION: The House is Standing, But Repairs are Needed

The ballots have been cast. The political war rooms are beginning to quiet. The dust, though still swirling in places like Vancouver and Quebec, has largely settled.

And yet, as Canada peers cautiously into the political horizon following the 45th general election, what lies ahead is not a clear dawn, but a murky fog. For many in this country—especially those west of the Manitoba-Ontario border—that fog feels more like a storm cloud.

Mark Carney is poised to remain Canada’s prime minister, sending the Conservatives back to the opposition benches after four elections. The Liberals, bruised but victorious, seem on course to form yet another minority government. The numbers aren’t fully finalized, but the direction is evident. Canada has chosen—if barely—and the result is a Parliament that looks almost identical to the one it just dissolved - a Minority.

But a familiar face at the helm does not mean business as usual. Far from it. What we are witnessing is a country increasingly divided—not just politically, but structurally. The gaps between rural and urban, between East and West, and most critically, between federal priorities and local realities, have widened into chasms. The next few months—and years—will test not just the political savvy of Carney and his team, but the very cohesion of the Canadian federation.

In Western Canada, the political map remains painted predominantly blue, with some orange and red peppered in. To voters from Saskatchewan to British Columbia’s interior, last night’s result was unexpected—and unwelcome. Once again, their ballots delivered overwhelming support to Conservative candidates, and once again, the Liberals will form government.

This familiar dynamic has bred a deeper frustration. What began as political disappointment has hardened into alienation, and that alienation is increasingly turning into something more organized, more assertive, and potentially more destabilizing.

“If municipalities didn’t have a voice before, we are certainly not going to have one for the next few months—if not years,” one Alberta councillor told me last night as results poured in. That sentiment was echoed by local leaders across the Prairies and beyond, who haave in their eyes watched as Ottawa moved forward without them. Now, they fear the same fate lies ahead once again.

And they may be right.

There is a growing consensus among some municipal leaders that they are being squeezed out of Canada’s national dialogue. Despite bearing the brunt of housing shortages, infrastructure demands, social service delivery, and climate resilience, municipalities continue to be treated as second-tier actors—children at the adult table of Confederation.

Now, with the Liberals needing to focus on navigating a likely minority Parliament, shoring up shaky relationships with premiers, and bracing for another round of trade disputes with the United States, the odds of meaningful municipal-federal partnership seem slim.

And that’s a problem. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has long advocated for a “new partnership” between federal, provincial, and municipal governments. That call has never been more urgent. But the political winds are shifting, and not in their favour. This isn’t just a missed opportunity—it’s a looming crisis.

Carney’s success—or failure—will largely hinge on his ability to forge productive relationships with provincial premiers. Some, like Ontario’s Doug Ford, Nova Scotia’s Tim Houston, Manitoba’s Wab Kinew, British Columbia’s David Eby, and New Brunswick’s Susan Holt, may be willing collaborators. But others, especially Alberta’s Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe, are sharpening their rhetorical swords.

Western premiers are not merely frustrated—they are defiant. The sentiment emerging from the Prairies isn’t just discontent with federal policies; it’s an existential frustration with being ignored. Some municipal leaders are amplifying that message.

As one rural Saskatchewan councillor bluntly put it: “Ottawa has done nothing for us, and we need to stop trying to suck up to Ottawa and start looking at how we can work as a western block.”

That idea of a “Western municipal bloc” may seem fringe today. But it may not stay that way for long.

One word kept appearing in my inbox overnight: “fractured.” The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is facing its own crisis of legitimacy, especially among rural and Western municipalities. Leaders feel they are not being represented. Some are already calling for withdrawal.

One Alberta councillor told me they plan to bring forward a motion to leave FCM: “They’re going to try and work with the Liberals and forget us. I can’t do it anymore.”

This signals something more profound than administrative discontent—it marks a fracture in Canada’s municipal advocacy fabric. It pits rural against urban, and regions against each other. If left unresolved, this could spell the end of unified municipal advocacy in Canada—and usher in an era of fragmented, regionally-based representation.

For a country already wrestling with division, that is a dangerous path.

If the federal government, and indeed organizations like FCM, want to repair the rift, they must do one thing above all else: listen.

That means getting out of Ottawa—literally and figuratively. Rural mayors, reeves, councillors, and citizens want to be heard. They want policies shaped with them, not for them. They want dialogue, not dictates. And above all, they want respect.

One Alberta reeve texted me at 5:00 a.m. with a message that should serve as a wake-up call to the entire federal apparatus: “This has to be a wake-up call to the Liberals and FCM. We aren’t going to be brushed off after last night.”

This isn’t just post-election frustration—it’s a referendum on how Canadian federalism operates. And the current model is faltering.

It’s not all on Ottawa. Municipalities—especially those in the West—must organize, collaborate, and articulate their needs with clarity and unity. The upcoming FCM gathering in Ottawa will be ground zero for this reckoning.

Rural voices must demand space, not as guests, but as co-authors of national policy discussions. This isn’t a call for confrontation, but for coherence. For too long, municipalities have accepted crumbs in a system that demands their full participation. That era needs to end.

To be clear: the success of our national projects—housing, infrastructure, climate action, economic growth—depends on local implementation. Federal ambition without municipal partnership is doomed to stall.

The future of Canada depends on strengthening that third order of government, not silencing it.

As Carney prepares to take the reins, he must recognize this moment for what it is: a crossroads. Not just for the Liberal Party or the federal government, but for Canada’s identity as a cooperative federation.

The Team Canada approach can work—but only if it includes all players. That means provinces, yes. But it also means towns, villages, cities, and regional districts. It means rural Saskatchewan as much as downtown Toronto.

A truly strong Canada is built on both urban and rural foundations. One cannot thrive without the other. And right now, one of those pillars is cracking.

Canada doesn’t just need national unity—it needs municipal equity. That won’t come from backroom deals or glossy policy papers. It will come from presence, from listening tours, from genuine collaboration.

Ottawa needs to go west, go rural, and go local.

Canada isn’t just watching—it’s speaking, and it’s speaking with purpose. The idea of Canada remains strong, but the foundation has cracks. It’s time we roll up our sleeves—not to point fingers, but to rebuild together.