It might be time for the next federal government to bring back one of Canada’s most effective policy instruments: The royal commission, adapted for the 21st century.
by Charles Breton. Originally published on Policy Options
March 18, 2025
(Version française disponible ici)
Imagine establishing a royal commission tasked with a comprehensive evaluation of everything necessary to unlock Canada’s long-term economic potential – a commission with a broad, strategic mandate to identify national goals, policies and institutions essential for growth while preparing the country for the challenges ahead.
This isn’t a radical idea. We’ve done it previously.
The Macdonald Commission: A forgotten blueprint
The Macdonald Commission (officially the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada), which released its final report almost 40 years ago, was assigned this very mission.
It is best remembered for paving the way for free trade with the United States – a decision that fundamentally reshaped Canada’s economy. But a closer look at its work reveals a much broader set of recommendations that tackled structural inefficiencies, governance and the country’s long-term economic vision.
Today, we find ourselves at a similar crossroads, requiring bold, forward-looking decisions.
Attention is understandably focused now on an immediate response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats.
However, issues such as internal trade barriers, sluggish productivity, overreliance on the U.S. and dysfunctional federal-provincial relations need to be studied in depth by a new royal commission that can take the time necessary to find the correct solutions, unencumbered by short-term political considerations.
University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, in a commentary written shortly after Trump’s election, listed the many structural challenges Canada faces: Internal trade barriers that stifle economic growth, provincial fiscal imbalances that create inequalities and the regulatory overhauls needed to improve competitiveness.
His conclusion, possibly tongue-in-cheek: “Perhaps a Royal Commission or two could help cut through some of the difficult challenges that governments seem unable to tackle.”
Canada’s most pressing economic issues are deeply interconnected, requiring a holistic, long-term strategy – one that transcends the usual two- to four-year political cycle that dominates policymaking.
The problem is that we’ve lost the habit of using royal commissions as a tool for meaningful policy reform.
Royal commissions: A track record of impact
In his book, The Adaptable Country, political scientist Alasdair Roberts highlights how royal commissions were once used frequently to make comprehensive investigations into long-term challenges. The fact we have abandoned this tool diminishes the government’s capacity for long-term strategic planning.
While some royal commissions have had only a limited impact, many such as the Macdonald Commission have left a lasting imprint.
Research by Gregory Inwood and Carolyn Johns demonstrates that many have directly led to transformative policy changes. The Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission (1963-69) led to the Official Languages Act, while the Bird Commission (1967-70) played a key role in advancing women’s rights.
But perhaps even more important than their lasting policy impact, royal commissions can also facilitate a national conversation, engaging experts, industry leaders and citizens in discussions about the country’s future. We clearly need that now.
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.
Subscribe to our newsletter.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.