From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By David Leis

Canada’s economy is stagnating. The Carney government must act fast or risk yet another lost decade

Now that the election is behind us and Mark Carney has been handed the reins of government, it’s time to focus on what matters most: fixing the policy failures that have held Canada back for the past decade.

I recently had the privilege of speaking with three thoughtful policy experts—economist and Financial Post editor William Watson, Frontier Centre’s Vice President of Research and Policy Dr. Marco Navarro-Génie, and Catherine Swift, president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada. Our wide-ranging discussion focused on the economic and institutional challenges that threaten Canada’s long-term prosperity. The insights they shared—grounded in experience, data and a deep concern for the country—made one thing clear: the new government faces an urgent to-do list.

Canadians didn’t vote for more political theatre—they voted for results. But the economic problems haven’t gone away. Weak growth, declining productivity and investor flight are all signs of a country adrift. The new government must course-correct, starting with the economy.

Canada’s growth problem is real

Canada’s economic performance over the past 10 years has been dismal. It’s no wonder many are calling it “the Lost Decade.” GDP per capita—a key measure of how much economic output is created per person—has barely budged while our international peers have surged ahead. This isn’t just an abstract economic metric. It means Canadians are falling behind in real terms—earning less, struggling more and seeing fewer opportunities for themselves and their children.

A key cause is poor policy: excessive regulation, unpredictable tax frameworks and government-heavy industrial strategies that have failed to produce meaningful results. Capital is fleeing the country, productivity is slumping and even Canadian firms are investing elsewhere. The solution is not more central planning. It’s restoring the conditions for Canadians to thrive through work, innovation and enterprise.

Energy ambition must meet energy reality

Canada has what the world wants: abundant natural resources, a highly educated workforce and some of the highest environmental standards on the planet. But unclear energy policy—and an aversion to critical infrastructure like pipelines—has stalled progress.

If the Carney government is serious about turning Canada into an “energy and clean energy superpower,” it must acknowledge the role of oil and gas alongside renewables and nuclear power. Anything less is wishful thinking. We need investment certainty, streamlined permitting and a commitment to responsible development. Environmental posturing should not come at the cost of economic reality.

We must fix internal trade before preaching to the world

Canadians may be surprised to learn it’s often harder to do business between provinces than with other countries. While we champion free trade on the global stage, Canadians remain blocked from trading freely with each other. Interprovincial trade barriers inflate costs, suppress innovation and discourage business expansion. A licensed hairdresser in Ontario can’t easily work in Nova Scotia. Quebec beer can’t be freely sold in New Brunswick. These aren’t quirks of Confederation—they’re self-inflicted economic damage.

Three provinces—Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick—have recently pledged to dismantle some of these barriers. That’s encouraging. But national leadership is needed. A country that can’t trade within itself has no business lecturing others about open markets.

Don’t alienate our most important ally

The Canada–U.S. relationship is our most vital economic partnership. We can’t diversify away from a neighbour that buys three-quarters of our exports. That requires strategy, not showmanship—and a government that understands diplomacy, defence and economic interdependence go hand in hand.

Offhand statements suggesting the relationship is “over,” as Carney put it, aren’t just melodramatic. They’re reckless. Canada must show it’s a capable partner, not a reactive one.

Rebuild confidence at home

The election wasn’t a reset—it was a warning. Canadians are anxious, investors are wary and the country is fractured. Rebuilding confidence starts with governing transparently, delivering results and confronting the policy failures too long ignored.

The campaign may be over, but Canada’s challenges are not. Now the real work must begin.

David Leis is President and CEO of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and host of the Leaders on the Frontier podcast.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Lee Harding warns that Ottawa’s new Federal Plastics Registry (FPR) may be the most intrusive, bureaucratic burden yet. Targeting everything from electronics to fishing gear, the FPR requires businesses to track and report every gram of plastic they use, sell, or dispose of—even if plastic is incidental to their operations. Harding argues this isn’t about waste; it’s about control. And with phase one due in 2025, companies are already overwhelmed by confusion, cost, and compliance.

Businesses face sweeping reporting demands under the new Federal Plastics Registry

Canadian businesses already dealing with inflation, labour shortages and tariff uncertainties now face a new challenge courtesy of their own federal government: the Federal Plastics Registry (FPR). Manufacturers are probably using a different F-word than “federal” to describe it.

The registry is part of Ottawa’s push to monitor and eventually reduce plastic waste by collecting detailed data from companies that make, use or dispose of plastics.

Ottawa didn’t need new legislation to impose this. On Dec. 30, 2023, the federal government issued a notice of intent to create the registry under the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A final notice followed on April 20, 2024.

According to the FPR website, companies, including resin manufacturers, plastic producers and service providers, must report annually to Environment Canada. Required disclosures include the quantity and types of plastics they manufacture, import and place on the market. They must also report how much plastic is collected and diverted, reused, repaired, remanufactured, refurbished, recycled, turned into chemicals, composted, incinerated or sent to landfill.

It ties into Canada’s larger Zero Plastic Waste agenda, a strategy to eliminate plastic waste by 2030.

Even more troubling is the breadth of plastic subcategories affected: electronic and electrical equipment, tires, vehicles, construction materials, agricultural and fishing gear, clothing, carpets and disposable items. In practice, this means that even businesses whose core products aren’t plastic—like farmers, retailers or construction firms—could be swept into the reporting requirements.

Plastics are in nearly everything, and now businesses must report everything about them, regardless of whether plastic is central to their business or incidental.

The FPR website says the goal is to collect “meaningful and standardized data, from across the country, on the flow of plastic from production to its end-of-life management.” That information will “inform and measure performance… of various measures that are part of Canada’s zero plastic waste agenda.” Its stated purpose is to “keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment.”

But here’s the problem: the government’s zero plastic waste goal is an illusion. It would require every plastic item to last forever or never exist in the first place, leaving businesses with an impossible task: stay profitable while meeting these demands.

To help navigate the maze, international consultancy Reclay StewardEdge recently held a webinar for Canadian companies. The discussion was revealing.

Reclay lead consultant Maanik Bagai said the FPR is without precedent. “It really surpasses whatever we have seen so far across the world. I would say it is unprecedented in nature. And obviously this is really going to be tricky,” he said.

Mike Cuma, Reclay’s senior manager of marketing and communications, added that the government’s online compliance instructions aren’t particularly helpful.

“There’s a really, really long list of kind of how to do it. It’s not particularly user-friendly in our experience,” Cuma said. “If you still have questions, if it still seems confusing, perhaps complex, we agree with you. That’s normal, I think, at this point—even just on the basic stuff of what needs to be reported, where, when, why. Don’t worry, you’re not alone in that feeling at all.”

The first reporting deadline, for 2024 data, is Sept. 29, 2025. Cuma warned that businesses should “start now”—and some “should maybe have started a couple months ago.”

Whether companies manage this in-house or outsource to consultants, they will incur significant costs in both time and money. September marks the first phase of four, with each future stage becoming more extensive and restrictive.

Plastics are petroleum products—and like oil and gas, they’re being demonized. The FPR looks less like environmental stewardship and more like an attempt to regulate and monitor a vast swath of the economy.

A worse possibility? That it’s a test run for a broader agenda—top-down oversight of every product from cradle to grave.

While seemingly unrelated, the FPR and other global initiatives reflect a growing trend toward comprehensive monitoring of products from creation to disposal.

This isn’t speculation. A May 2021 article on the World Economic Forum (WEF) website spotlighted a New York-based start-up, Eon, which created a platform to track fashion items through their life cycles. Called Connected Products, the platform gives each fashion item a digital birth certificate detailing when and where it was made, and from what. It then links to a digital twin and a digital passport that follows the product through use, reuse and disposal.

The goal, according to WEF, is to reduce textile waste and production, and thereby cut water usage. But the underlying principle—surveillance in the name of sustainability—has a much broader application.

Free markets and free people build prosperity, but some elites won’t leave us alone. They envision a future where everything is tracked, regulated and justified by the supposed need to “save the planet.”

So what if plastic eventually returns to the earth it came from? Its disposability is its virtue. And while we’re at it, let’s bury the Federal Plastics Registry and its misguided mandates with it—permanently.

Lee Harding is a research associate for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.