James Moore is a former federal cabinet minister under prime minister Stephen Harper, and a columnist for CTVNews.ca.
Since his election as Canada’s 24th prime minister, Mark Carney has enjoyed sustained strong approval ratings from Canadians, according to public opinion research. Among the reasons for this has been his willingness to reverse course on Trudeau-era policies that he either disagreed with, the public had demonstrated a clear dislike for, or policies that have been objectively proven to be failing.
This is a refreshing change, and it has earned the prime minister the admiration of many Canadians who hope to be governed by leaders who are prepared to shelve partisan entrenchment and take the risk of triggering the internal disloyalty of colleagues who have overcommitted to bad ideas by being willing to change course.
This was particularly true for the incumbent Liberal government on the issue of the carbon tax. When Prime Minister Carney was elected Liberal leader — but not yet elected prime minister in the general election — he moved quickly to end the consumer carbon tax that had long angered and aggravated many Canadians. Until then, the policy was considered the centrepiece of progressive Liberal identity and pride during the Trudeau era. The carbon tax was evidence of Liberal leadership on climate change, and any dissent was aggressively confronted as climate change denialism and a heartless disregard for ethical planetary stewardship.
So, when Prime Minister Carney — who was a champion for the carbon tax as a private citizen — abandoned the policy ahead of the spring election, it caught a lot of people off guard. Progressives were disappointed, Liberal partisans had to swallow their climate rhetoric whole and reprogram themselves, Conservatives were stripped of a winning issue, and Prime Minister Carney was applauded by many Canadians who were hoping for signs of change in Ottawa.
The willingness to pivot can be fairly viewed with cynicism as political opportunism ahead of an election. That’s fair. But I think for many voters, their aspiration for policies they agree with and that are objectively better for Canada is more important to them than the annoyance of perceived political opportunism by the policy shift.
So with this in mind, and with Prime Minister Carney having received the appreciation of voters for being clearly willing to shift policies from time to time, I think it is the perfect time to offer up a replenishment of options of other bad and failed policies of the Trudeau government that Prime Minister Carney should be willing to reverse and drop into the dustbin of history.
Here are three suggestions:
Gun buyback
Back in May 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government introduced an order-in-council banning over 1,500 models of Canadian firearms newly labeled as “assault-style.” At the time, the government projected it would cost $200 million to compensate lawful firearms owners for forcibly taking their legally purchased and owned property from them through a forced buyback initiative.
More than five years later, according to a departmental plan released by Public Safety Canada, the original $200 million cost estimate is now $459.8 million and climbing, yet only 12,195 firearms (less than 10 per cent of the targeted number) have been collected. The program has fallen so far behind schedule that private gun owners still cannot participate because only businesses that possess firearms are currently eligible. A notice on the program’s official website states: “The program is not yet available for individuals.”
The Government of Ontario has said they will not divert stretched policing resources to cooperate with this initiative because of the fundamental flaws of the design of the program and the clear ineffectiveness of the policy in fighting gun crime. As noted by Ontario’s solicitor general, more than 90 per cent of guns used in crimes are illegally imported into Ontario from the United States and this program diverts vast financial and policing resources towards something that does not make the public safer. The lawful ownership of well-regulated firearms by law-abiding Canadians who are also heavily regulated and screened in the process of the privilege to purchase and own a firearm is not the reason for gun violence.
Further, the National Police Federation — which represents 20,000 RCMP members — has said the buyback policy is a “misdirected effort when it comes to public safety.” The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association, which represents firearms retailers, said it will have “zero involvement” in helping confiscate these firearms. And Canada Post, which is tasked by the current policy with receiving and warehousing firearms all across the country, wants nothing to do with the program because of fear of conflicts between their staff and gun owners and the ability of their facilities to safely store potentially hundreds of weapons in their facilities all across Canada.
The policy is in shambles, it lacks any operational common sense, there is no evidence of it contributing in any way to better public safety, stakeholders are opposed to the approach and the financial costs are spiralling out of control. This policy is begging to be abandoned by Prime Minister Carney’s government.
Electric vehicle mandates
Electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid EVs are fantastic vehicles and can offer lots of advantages for drivers who want them. They are generally cheaper to run, they produce zero tailpipe emissions, contribute to cleaner air, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, are fantastic for urban commuting and require less maintenance. They also often offer a more enjoyable driving experience with a quieter ride, instant torque for quick acceleration and some of the best cabin technology.
The case for EVs is strong for many Canadians. We don’t need mandates to artificially juice the perception of demand where it doesn’t make sense.
The ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) mandate brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau requires the number of new ZEVs sold in Canada to hit 20 per cent by next year, 60 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2035. In practice what this would mean is the Government of Canada would mandate sales targets for car companies, which if they miss, they could instead purchase credits from the government — including by spending on charging infrastructure — or face penalties for not complying. The problems with the policy are manifest.
First, while ZEVs are loved by some Canadians, sales are dropping. Statistics Canada showed a 45per cent slide in new ZEVs sold in March 2025 versus March 2024. They report that ZEVs accounted for just 7 per cent of all new vehicles sold this past March, making next years’ goal of 20 per cent grossly unattainable — particularly with the rising costs of EVs due to tariff constraints and consumer anxiety.
Second, the mandate hurts Canada’s auto sector, our competitiveness in the auto economy and puts us out of synch with markets competing for auto assembling mandates. Brian Kingston, who is the president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, which represents Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, says the mandate policy will add significant costs to the economic model of the Canadian auto sector at a time when keeping production in Canada has been massively challenged by President Trump’s tariff attacks. He accurately noted that: “At a time where companies are already facing tariff pressure, they are now going to face challenges selling vehicles in the Canadian market. Very difficult to make the case for Canada with this policy in place.”
Ending the current ZEV mandate would be the right move by Prime Minister Carney. Recognizing the reality of the marketplace, working to protect Canada’s auto retail and manufacturing footprint, maximizing consumer choices in auto purchases, and saving Canadian jobs — these are the backbone of the Carney mandate in Ontario. Let’s get on with it by walking away from the mandate.
TikTok ‘ban’
Last fall, after a national security review of TikTok, Prime Minister Trudeau’s government announced a ban of the company that operates TikTok from operating in Canada. The TikTok app will continue, people can still use the app, watch videos and upload content, but the corporate presence of TikTok is being rebuffed. This solves nothing and is a step backwards on a few fronts.
First, the government’s policy doesn’t improve data security. Data collection of social media platforms is widespread, whether it is Meta, TikTok, YouTube, X, or mobile games. A more effective response might be an ongoing assessment of privacy policy with transparency mandates, stronger regulatory oversight and data localization. But none of that is present here.
Second, maintaining the TikTok app while ordering the end of their corporate operations in Canada is all pain and no gain. Concerns about privacy, algorithms, accountability and security will likely all remain, but the tools needed to lever remedies and responsibility will be weakened.
In December, Philippe Dufresne, Canada’s privacy commissioner, testified to members of Parliament at the ethics committee that the approach taken by the government will make it more difficult to force the company to cooperate with Canadian privacy investigations. He noted that the privacy laws allow his office to pursue court orders to force a company to provide evidence and testimony during an investigation, but that those powers to compel cooperation will be lost due to the government’s approach. “If all the assets (of TikTok) are in another country then it becomes an issue of private international law, where you seek to have another court, another country, enforce the decision of Canadian courts,” he said.
This is broken and backwards. The TikTok app will continue to operate in Canada and any oversight or accountability is being pushed away from Canada because of the government’s decision. Further, TikTok’s inability to continue operating in Canada will end cultural and educational partnerships that have meant millions of dollars and thousands of jobs across Canada at a time when we need to support job growth, innovation and our cultural sectors.
In sum, the government policy on TikTok means less accountability, more job losses, less regulatory control, cuts to needed cultural and educational support and no pathway forward to remedy the legitimate questions of Canadians about privacy. This policy approach makes no sense and needs a rethink.
Prime Minister Carney has shown a willingness to actually implement the “evidence-based governing” that has been promised before. Moving away from failed policies he inherited should be a hallmark of his first year in government and these are three policy pivots whose time has come.
