Municipal governments are experts in social non-distancing. From swimming pools to libraries, streetcars to public parks, municipalities bring residents together and move them around—services vital to a vibrant community in ordinary times, but potentially disastrous in a pandemic. Municipal decisions to shutter these services and enforce social distancing are thus crucial for a successful COVID-19 response.

The COVID-19 crisis could trigger a critical juncture for several institutional arrangements in Canada, potentially leading to notable changes in fiscal federalism. This research note combines insights from historical institutionalism with recent economic and fiscal projections to explore avenues for reform in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Given the magnitude of the crisis, provincial governments may be unable to absorb the fiscal costs on their own. But vast differences in fiscal and economic circumstances across provinces make federal arrangements difficult to design. We argue that intergovernmental power dynamics and the principle of provincial autonomy are particularly important considerations in thinking about fiscal federalism post–COVID-19.

Business closures and work-from-home orders have been a central part of Canada's plan to slow the spread of COVID-19. The success of these measures hinges on public support, which cannot be taken for granted as the orders induce considerable economic pain. As governments consider when to re-open the economy, one relevant variable is when the public expects the economy to re-open. At minimum, if public perceptions differ from government plans then additional government messaging is required to better align expectations.

The COVID-19 disease was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, having since spread rapidly across the world. The infection and mortality rates of the disease have forced governments to implement a wave of public health measures. Depending on the context, these range from the implementation of simple hygienic rules to measures such as social distancing or lockdowns that cause major disruptions in citizens’ daily lives. The success of these crucial public health measures rests on the public's willingness to comply. However, individual differences in following the official public health recommendations for stopping the spread of COVID-19 have not yet to our knowledge been assessed. This study aims to fill this gap by assessing the sociodemographic and psychological correlates of implementing public health recommendations that aim to halt the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate these associations in the context of France, one of the countries that has been most severely affected by the pandemic, and which ended up under a nationwide lockdown on March 17. In the next sections we describe our theoretical expectations over the associations between sociodemographics, personality, ideology, and emotions with abiding by the COVID-19 public health measures. We then test these hypotheses using data from the French Election Study.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, a gradual loosening of linguistic obligations in public institutions and governments has been observed in various jurisdictions in Canada. This article argues that in addition to legal requirements to provide minority language services, it is not justifiable for governments to suspend or curtail such services in an emergency situation, for reasons pertaining to public safety and public health. After performing a survey and analysis of government actions against their constitutional, legislative, and policy language obligations to highlight best practices and deficiencies, we discuss the policy implications of these actions. In conclusion, the article considers how governments could better uphold their language obligations in times of emergency.

Emergencies can threaten human rights by disrupting societies, increasing vulnerabilities, and instigating exceptional measures from governments and other actors. As independent institutions mandated to protect and promote the human rights embedded in Canada's federal, provincial and territorial legislation, Canada's human rights commissions (HRCs) have mobilized to advocate for human rights during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has put substantial pressure on individuals to adapt and change their behaviours. As the hope of a vaccine remains at least a year away, everyone is urged to take action to slow the spread of the virus. Thus, “flattening the curve” has become vital in preventing medical systems from being overrun, and it relies on massive collective action by citizens to follow specific public health measures such as physical distancing, hand washing, and physical isolation for vulnerable individuals. Despite the recommendations, the public has often been confronted with the reality that some individuals are not respecting them, including elected officials (Aguilar, 2020).

In 2019, Canada's gross subnational debt to GDP was well over 40 per cent, easily the highest in the world (see Figure 1). This level will only grow as the provinces grapple with the pandemic and its fiscal effects. Some believe surging provincial debts have brought Canadian federalism to a critical juncture: they have greatly increased the odds of federal measures to stabilize provincial finances. This article assesses this claim. The cleanest and most balanced path to fiscal sustainability is a combination of enhanced federal transfers, which would bolster provincial fiscal capacity, and national fiscal rules, which would constrain provincial borrowing. But the former is unlikely to restore sustainability on its own, and the latter would require a severe provincial debt crisis, which Canada's existing fiscal federal structures can avoid. COVID-19 has increased the odds of certain reforms, and it is difficult to predict their long-run effects. But any obvious paths to fiscal sustainability remain hidden.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessarily affected the operation of Canada's Parliament and, thus, the activities of Members of Parliament (MPs) (Malloy, 2020; Rayment and VandenBeukel, 2020). Here, we explore how the pandemic has affected the representational activities of individual MPs.

This research note examines the undefined meaning of the government's obligations to ensure “continuity of constitutional government” (CCG) as provided for in section 4(l) of the Emergency Management Act, S.C. 2007, c. 15 (Canada, 2007). Specifically, that section gives the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness the responsibility for “establishing the necessary arrangements for the continuity of constitutional government in the event of an emergency,” but the term is itself undefined. The article will canvass the origin of the term and its relationship to other so-called continuity of government (COG) concepts, along with some legal written opinion on what the term might in practice mean, should the minister ever be charged with discharging this responsibility. It will conclude with some final thoughts on the relevance of the CCG concept to the current pandemic. Given that the COVID-19 virus has infected Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, the prime minister's wife, forced a drastically reduced and possibly “virtual” federal Parliament, placed the British prime minister in intensive care and led to the self-isolation of many world leaders, the topic is relevant to Canada in 2020.

Federal and provincial policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic raise a host of constitutional issues that decision makers must pay heed to or risk serious violations of individual rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This research note will examine a number of policy challenges as they relate to mobility rights (s. 6), legal rights (ss. 7 through 14), and equality rights (s. 15) and will articulate the factors that policy makers should consider in design and implementation. Other important constitutional questions, such as those relating to the division of powers, emergency powers and the relationship between the executive and Parliament, have also emerged in Canada but are beyond the scope of this note.

Legislatures are complex institutions that serve many purposes. While their overall roles vary in different political systems, they typically serve multiple functions, including representation, law making, scrutiny of government, public symbolism, and others. These inevitably overlap and sometimes collide; similarly, individual legislators must balance party, constituency, and personal factors in their decision making. Now, in a time of sudden and unexpected disruption amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Parliament of Canada has been forced to rethink its complex activities under urgent and unexpected new conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic requires an effort to coordinate the actions of government and society in a way unmatched in recent history. Individual citizens need to voluntarily sacrifice economic and social activity for an indefinite period of time to protect others. At the same time, we know that public opinion tends to become polarized on highly salient issues, except when political elites are in consensus (Berinsky, 2009; Zaller, 1992). Avoiding elite and public polarization is thus essential for an effective societal response to the pandemic. In the United States, there appears to be elite and public polarization on the severity of the pandemic (Gadarian et al., 2020). Other evidence suggests that polarization is undermining compliance with social distancing (Cornelson and Miloucheva, 2020). Using a multimethod approach, we show that Canadian political elites and the public are in a unique period of cross-partisan consensus on important questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as its seriousness and the necessity of social distancing.

Along with criticisms of the U.S. government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the disruptions to home, work, and school life resulting from social distancing orders recommended by public health experts, as well as the uncertainty about how long the disruptions will be necessary and when (if ever) we will have a vaccine, have come COVID-19 conspiracy theories (CTs).

Conspiracy theories (CTs) are not solely the domain of extremists and paranoids. They cut across demographic and political differences (Uscinski and Parent, 2014) and can have negative social/political consequences. For example, Imhoff and Lamberty (2020) find that belief that the seriousness of COVID-19 is being exaggerated is negatively correlated with self-reported preventative behaviours such as hand washing and social distancing, and belief that the virus was intentionally created by humans is positively correlated with self-reported hoarding of food, sanitary products, and gasoline/oil, as well as stocking up on weapons.

We have yet to know the ultimate global impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic. However, we do know that delays, denials and misinformation about COVID-19 have exacerbated its spread and slowed pandemic response, particularly in the U.S. (e.g., Abutaleb et al., 2020).

Federations increasingly face complex policy challenges, from managing climate change to mass migration. COVID-19 is a prime example of this emerging type of problem. This research note introduces the concept of complex intergovernmental problems (CIPs) to better understand these types of challenges.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led some 75 countries to restrict their exports of hundreds of essential products, ranging from antibiotics and face masks to medical ventilators. Since banning exports decreases global supply and leads to price surges on world markets, the cost of these measures may ultimately be counted in human lives.

The novel coronavirus reached the United States and Canada almost at the same time. The first reported American case was January 20, 2020, and in Canada it was January 15, 2020 (Canada, 2020; Holshue et al., 2020). Yet, the response to this crisis has been different in the two countries. In the US, President Donald Trump, prominent Republicans, and conservative media initially dismissed the dangers of COVID-19 (Stecula, 2020). The pandemic became politicized from the early days, and even though Trump and Republicans have walked back many of their initial claims, there continue to be media reports of partisan differences in public opinion shaped by that early response. At the same time, the response in Canada has been mostly characterized by across-the-board partisan consensus among political elites (Merkley et al., 2020).