Canada and the U.S. have a longstanding relationship with ebbs and flows shaped by history, geography, the integration of key sectors, and shared interests in North America and beyond. At its core, however, are foundational elements essential to appreciating democratic governance in each country and their role in the relationship. The 2026 Slater Conference, an event that examined constitutional governance issues in both countries, offered a four-part framework for studying these components, namely the rule of law, institutions, values, and character. This framework became apparent in Michael Ignatieff's closing remarks, which summarised the conference discussions within a four-part framework that is distinct yet interrelated and, when taken together, provides a basis for examining each country and the future of the partnership.
The rule of law is the principle that everyone is equally subject to laws that are fairly enforced and independently interpreted. Institutions organize and enforce formal and informal rules, norms, and structures within defined boundaries, providing checks and balances. However, the rule of law and institutions are ultimately given effect by people. Values shape what a society considers worth protecting and give meaning to those rules and institutions; and character shapes how those entrusted with power respond when rules leave room for judgment. In this way, each component has significance on its own but also depends on and reinforces the others to shape democratic governance and the relationship.
This four-part framework shows that democratic resilience depends on institutions' ability to constrain one another, including through the dispersal of power within constitutional governance, ensuring that no single actor can exercise power without challenge. Michael Ignatieff observed that this institutional conflict is a built-in democratic safeguard. Legislatures can limit executive power, which is held to legal account by the courts, scrutinized by a free press, and further checked by political parties and voters. In the Canada-U.S. relationship, where governments act through their respective institutions, the reliability of these controls gives each country greater confidence in the other's governance.
Weakened institutions can therefore limit these safeguards. The press provides an example. Audrey Cooper, Editor-in-Chief of The Baltimore Banner, explained that although no major legislative changes or court decisions have directly restricted the press's day-to-day work, the growing risk of litigation has made news organizations more cautious about what they publish. When the threat of legal action discourages journalists from pursuing contentious or sensitive stories, it can undermine the norm of an independent press able to scrutinize public officials and report matters of public interest without undue interference. This growing caution, combined with the decline in the number of news outlets in the United States and reduced web traffic to their sites, can contribute to greater self-censorship.
Turning to values and character, Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia Law School, noted that aspects of constitutional law are worked out daily within the U.S. executive branch, where officials routinely confront complex legal questions before, or sometimes without, judicial review. While courts can ultimately review executive action, officials must also treat constitutional rules as meaningful limits on their own authority. Their willingness to exercise self-restraint and prioritize constitutional obligations reflects the values and character they bring to the exercise of public power. Values are also expressed through citizens and civil society, whose actions can reinforce democratic participation and accountability. Hina Shamsi, lawyer and director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, discussed the work of numerous civil society organizations to protect voting rights and their willingness to use legal processes to defend electoral participation.
The more difficult question is what happens when these elements are under simultaneous strain, limiting their ability to structure and constrain each other's actions? When institutions lose legitimacy, people may become less committed to democratic values, and political actors may feel less obligated to respect institutional constraints or even the spirit of the law. This pattern creates a vicious cycle in which weaknesses ripple through others. Domestic democratic strains can also spill over the border, making cooperation more difficult, reducing predictability and confidence, and increasing the likelihood of zero-sum conflicts. The strength of the bilateral relationship, therefore, depends, at least in part, on the strength of democratic governance in each country.
Although the lens of the rule of law, institutions, values, and character can help us view the relationship between the countries and their democracies, none of these should be taken for granted. Despite both nations' governance growing and adapting over the years, they still require continual strengthening to ensure they endure and sustain a durable Canada–U.S. relationship that stands strong on both countries' democratic foundations.
