This article originally appeared in The Hill Times.
By Peter Copeland, August 20, 2025
It was an election with two ballot questions. The one you selected as primary dictated your vote. For most of the country, the threat of American sabre-rattling and taunting outweighed concerns over declining living standards, unaffordable life, and a general sense of stagnation. But all voters cast ballots for change—whether calling for a sharp departure from a decade of perceived economic, social, and reputational decline, or simply a scaling back of ideological excesses and fiscal profligacy. Now, the government must deliver, and it won’t be easy. The real test lies in translating ambitions into durable policies.
Out of the gate, Prime Minister Mark Carney deserves credit for acting swiftly, and identifying many of the right priorities. Defining a limited set of objectives in a single mandate letter is a discipline in short supply in Ottawa, where governments are easily distracted by the crisis du jour and interest groups demanding attention. Unlike his predecessor, Carney appears willing to challenge inherited policies, and even take positions contrary to the left-liberal consensus. Balancing the budget, reducing immigration, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, committing to NATO’s two-per-cent defence spending target, signalling investments in Arctic sovereignty, and starting to address public-sector bloat are all welcome.
Execution is another matter. The issues are complex, politically costly, and laden with trade-offs—particularly in housing, immigration, public safety, major projects, and public-sector reform.
Housing is a prime example. The prime minister—like countless premiers—has felt obliged by the demand of voters to promise a great deal. In reality, the federal government has few levers, and its subsidization approach under the 10-year long National Housing Strategy has failed miserably. Unlocking federal lands, offsetting punitive development charges, and creating incentives for provinces and municipalities to lift land-use restrictions and greenbelt constraints are critical. Without tackling the regulatory glut that drives up costs, federal efforts will remain symbolic rather than transformative.
Immigration policy requires the same honesty. Canada does not even have an accurate picture of how many temporary and permanent residents are in the country, only an estimate. The system has been distorted by universities’ dependence on foreign-student tuition, and by inadequate enforcement of overstays and failed asylum claims. Closing loopholes in existing agreements, tightening pre-arrival vetting, and rebalancing intakes to align with absorptive capacity are essential if immigration is to remain both effective and publicly supported. Will the government be able to take action against the interests of some in their voter coalition who support the status quo? How will Carney deal with the very clear need to deport some of the many people who have overstayed their welcome in a way that is both effective yet more humane than what is going on south of the border?
When it comes to major projects, Bill C-5 is a bit of start, but it leaves the pen with the government to act as picker of winners and losers, which makes it ripe for politicization and delay. The real constraints lie in the cumulative burden of the Impact Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, and other regulatory layers that make timelines unpredictable and costs prohibitive. Streamlining these frameworks, while strengthening cross-border co-operation with the United States, would unlock strategic projects that serve both economic and security goals.
Public safety demands equally deep reform, beyond the start of the Strong Borders Act that only scratches the surface. Organized crime and foreign state actors now operate seamlessly across borders, yet Canada’s legal architecture still treats threats as isolated, domestic problems. Stronger tools for intelligence-led policing, integrated enforcement, and modernized laws are overdue.
In the digital economy space, signature pieces of the Trudeau era thankfully died on the Order Paper. The collapse of previous online-harms legislation offers an opportunity to recalibrate how Canada governs the digital sphere. Instead of broad statutory mandates, the government should focus on targeted protections for youth—where consensus and minimal free speech risk coexist. Any artificial intelligence and data law should avoid replicating Europe-style overregulation, which often stifles innovation, and instead prioritize a Canadian approach that fosters innovation and playing to our strengths as a middle power. Strategic investment in AI early innovation, paired with sensible regulation, can encourage domestic talent retention and technological leadership—especially if aligned with broader economic and national security priorities.
Canada’s defence posture should be linked to its technological ambitions, marrying renewed seriousness and geopolitical standing with a much-needed focus on innovation and productivity. Reorienting procurement toward dual-use investments—such as AI and advanced computing infrastructure—can simultaneously help meet NATO obligations and catalyze a domestic innovation ecosystem. As geopolitical tension grows and global supply chains reconfigure, Canada should lean into its role as a middle power by building defence capacity that also serves its economic and technological goals.
There is a path forward, but it will demand political capital expenditure and hard choices. The clock is already ticking, the coalition in Parliament is fragile, and the U.S. remains unpredictable. The prime minister must act decisively, choosing the reforms that deliver real impact rather than symbolic victories. For the common good, and for the sake of peace, order, and good government that our nation prides itself on, I hope he has the wisdom, the temperance, the prudence, and fortitude to carry it out.
Peter Copeland is the deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
