British Columbia Premier David Eby said that bad behaviour should not determine how the federal government engages with Canada's provinces [1].
The comments highlight growing friction between provincial leadership and Ottawa regarding the balance of power and the distribution of federal attention. Eby suggests that prioritizing provinces that challenge federal authority creates a precarious precedent for national governance.
Speaking in Victoria, Eby addressed the federal government's decision to move forward with a pipeline agreement [2]. He said that Ottawa is rewarding Alberta's 'bad behaviour' by agreeing to push forward with that specific deal [3].
Eby said that the federal government must maintain a consistent standard for all provinces rather than reacting to the demands of those who adopt adversarial stances. He warned that focusing exclusively on the most disruptive voices could undermine the stability of the federation, a dynamic he believes harms overall national cohesion [2].
“Canada cannot work if ‘separatist premiers’ get all of the attention of the federal government,” Eby said [2].
The premier's critique comes as federal officials, including Prime Minister Mark Carney, navigate complex energy and infrastructure negotiations with various provincial leaders [1]. Eby said that the federal government should not let the tactics of a few dictate the terms of inter-governmental relations [1].
By framing the issue as one of national unity, Eby is positioning British Columbia as a proponent of a more equitable and stable federal-provincial partnership. He suggests that when the federal government concedes to provocative demands, it incentivizes other provinces to adopt similar tactics to gain leverage [2].
““Bad behaviour should not determine engagement with the federal government.””
This dispute reflects a deeper ideological struggle over Canadian federalism. By criticizing the federal government's approach to Alberta, Eby is signaling that B.C. expects federal engagement to be based on cooperative governance rather than a reward system for political volatility. This tension suggests that future federal-provincial negotiations on energy and infrastructure may be increasingly influenced by how Ottawa manages regional grievances and separatist rhetoric.
