Navigator logo

Canada’s new government must act with a speed unseen before — like history demands it

It’s the morning after election night and it is the tale of two profoundly different worlds.

For one, no day more glorious. Power. A flurry of transition memos. Endless congratulatory phone calls.

For the other, the brutal reckoning that there are no more possibilities. Just the sting of public rejection. And a search for that resume, which all of a sudden needs updating.

But both, understandably, start off the day a little slowly.

That’s the tradition. But this time, in the face of the existential threats to our sovereignty and prosperity, that morning after needs to look different.

Because while wild celebrations, pity parties and resultant hangovers might not be going anywhere, Canada — and its next government — needs to rise from this campaign with a sense of alacrity and unrelenting focus: to get to work with a speed and sense of mission hitherto unseen in Canadian history.

Because here’s the reality.

We have not had a functioning Parliament — and therefore no effective federal government — for nearly half a year. Not a single piece of federal legislation has passed since December 2024.

All this set against an existential crisis when we could have — I’d argue needed — strong, decisive legislative responses. Instead, we’ve been fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.

Now, of course, this election is meant to fix that. That’s why, in my last column, I argued that I hope whoever wins this election does so with a strong mandate.

But a strong mandate isn’t enough.

What’s needed now — above all else — is speed. A generational commitment to act swiftly and decisively.

That urgency must show up not only in rhetoric but in structure. And it starts with what’s missing from both major parties at the time of writing: fully costed platforms. That omission isn’t just an insult to voters — it’s a squandered opportunity. Without clearly priced promises, parties forfeit the ability to claim the public’s endorsement of their agenda. Worse still, they lose the chance to pre-empt future opposition by turning their platform into a de facto social contract.

But with the campaign nearly over that window has closed. So let’s focus on what comes next.

If the winning party truly intends to move at a historic pace, it must break from the slow choreography of transition. There’s no time for excessive consultations, performative appointments, or weeks of bureaucratic turf wars. Instead, it must arrive with a mission-ready transition team — not just loyalists, but tested implementers with real track records — prepared to execute from day one.

Next, cabinet ministers need to be empowered to lead. In the traditional model, new ministers are handed sprawling portfolios and told to “consult widely.” That luxury is obsolete.

The next government must identify a small set of nation-shaping priorities and immediately authorize their implementation — whether that means fast-tracking procurement, tearing down regulatory barriers, or launching targeted investment programmes. Finally, Canadians must be told the truth: this will hurt. Building economic resilience, weaning ourselves off U.S. dependence, modernizing supply chains — none of it is free. The next government must be prepared to level with Canadians. Not through spin, but through honesty: that bold action may mean immediate discomfort, but the alternative is long-term decline.

Now, what gives me hope is that there appears to be near-universal agreement on what must get done:

• Radically diversifying trade.

• Abolishing interprovincial trade barriers.

• Fixing productivity.

• Modernizing supply chains.

• Building true economic resilience.

What gives me grave concern, though, is the illusion that these transformations will be swift or painless. That the political obstacles will simply melt away.

During a campaign, leaders point to their platforms as if all that’s required is victory on election night and the rest will follow. As the saying goes: the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

In practice, the real work begins after the balloons fall.

We’d be fools to think that one election alone can unroot the dense thicket of special interests, vested bureaucracies, red tape and systemic inertia that have held our country back — and left us uniquely vulnerable to the whims of a resurgent Trump.

What we need, the morning after, is not just clarity. We need resolve.

Because one of the most dangerous things about Trump — and all authoritarians of his ilk — is not just their actions but their illusion of effectiveness. The image of cutting through, getting it done. It’s for them, of course, theatre.

What Canada now requires is the real thing: Substance. Competence. Urgency.

Time was never on our side in this fight. It certainly isn’t now. And it won’t be the morning of April 29. Let’s hope the winning party recognizes that.

And moves, at last, like history demands it.

There is only one way for Canada to deal with Donald Trump

A few weeks ago, I argued that the strongest political opposition to Donald Trump resided right here in Canada.

Turns out, that’s an increasingly dangerous place to be.

As the latest round of tariffs on our automotive sector prove, it’s an increasingly economically painful place to be.

And if Donald Trump’s musings over a third term are to be believed — and they should — that may be the case not just for four years, but for at least eight. A near decade more of economic coercion and geopolitical volatility.

So, the question is: what is Canada going to do about it? Not in rhetoric — we have more than enough of that already — but in substance.

Step One

This is a step we should not still need to take: abandon any illusions that guardrails exist to slow Trump down. No one is coming to curb his ambitions. No one is coming to our defence.

The Democratic Party? Forgive me if, like those progressive commentators, I’m not popping champagne because Democrats won a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Sen. Cory Booker attested for 25 hours straight, or the party gained a few points in a Florida special election. These are symptoms of survival — not signs of a strategic comeback.

Democrats are still in shell shock from November’s election, floundering without leadership and unable to prevent their nemesis steamrolling ahead with his agenda to upend not only the systems of American government but the global world order.

The media? I’ve never seen denialism so confidently expressed. Last week, opinion columnists tripped over themselves to explain that Trump’s talk of a third term was mere theatrics — a distraction from his policy vacuum, a way to shake the lame-duck label.

Perhaps. But this is also the same man who wore a mug shot like a campaign badge of honour. The Constitution has not constrained him before — why would it now?

The institutions of America? The pathetic lack of spine exemplified by top U.S. law firms — too afraid to stand up to Trump’s recent executive overreaches that compromise their independence — demonstrate that institutional courage is in short supply.

Lack of integrity

This abdication of integrity is especially worrying, as corporate America may now be the only element of American society that can act as a bulwark against Trump’s agenda; the other branches of the U.S. government clearly cannot. As markets tumble, a black swan economic event could finally compel corporate America to use its heft to reign in the President.

The rest of the world? To date, they’ve shown little interest in our economic vulnerability.

And now that they, themselves, are subject to punishing tariffs, it is clear this crisis is ours alone to solve.

That puts the spotlight squarely on our current federal election.

While tariffs dominate headlines and Poilievre and Carney spar over who’s better suited to shield Canadians from Trump’s wrath, we risk missing the forest for the trees — at the very moment the entire forest is on fire.

Earlier this week, Tonda MacCharles illustrated the difference between the two leading candidates on Canada-U.S. relations.

Carney’s rhetoric is aggressive. He’s declared the “old relationship” — rooted in tight economic integration and military co-operation — effectively dead. His focus has been on reaction and retaliation.

Poilievre, while more measured in tone, offers concrete policy. His promise to build a “national energy corridor” to bypass the U.S. and get Canadian oil to other markets has potential to be a surgical solution to our economic dependence.

In a few short weeks, Canadians will choose which approach they trust more.

Action required

But here’s the bottom line: rhetoric won’t protect us from Trump. Only action will. We need substance — substance that frees our economy to stand on its own two feet.

What we ought to do now is steal from our enemy. If not in ideology, then in execution. Trump doesn’t nibble at problems — he goes all in. Canada needs that same maximalist mindset.

We need an ambitious, all-hands-on-deck strategy to break our dependency on U.S. trade, diversify our partnerships, and rebuild economic resilience.

That is the best outcome this election could produce — not based on what happens in the campaign’s final days, but in the weeks and years that follow.

I hope whoever wins does so with a strong mandate. Because the real test for Canada’s next government won’t be winning the election, it will be executing a bold national agenda so we can survive what comes after.

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star on April 6, 2025.