Mike Colledge: What would Laurier tell Canadians today?
The merits of growth are a tougher sell when fewer of us expect to see the benefits.
By: Mike Colledge
In October 1904, Sir Wilfrid Laurier delivered what became known as his “20th Century Belongs to Canada” speech. Speaking at a time of extraordinary confidence, Laurier declared that “the 20th century shall be the century of Canada and Canadian development.” He was addressing a young country blessed with vast natural resources, abundant land, a rapidly expanding railway network, growing immigration, and a widespread belief that each generation would enjoy a higher standard of living than the one before it.
More than a century later, Canada remains a prosperous, stable, and resource-rich nation, but the circumstances confronting Prime Minister Mark Carney are very different from those that inspired Laurier’s optimism. Canadians today face an aging population, persistently weak productivity growth, housing affordability challenges, strained public services, increasing geopolitical uncertainty, and growing disparities in financial well-being. While most long-term forecasts continue to project economic growth, few suggest a return to the pace of expansion Canadians experienced during much of the 20th century.
Just as importantly, many Canadians are increasingly uncertain about the future. For generations, Canadians believed in a broadly accepted social contract: work hard, contribute to society, and your children will enjoy greater opportunities than you did. Today, that assumption no longer feels as secure as it once did. The country’s challenge is no longer simply economic. It is psychological, social, and increasingly political.
Laurier’s Canada was defined by expansion. Railways connected regions. New communities emerged. Immigration fuelled population growth. Industry developed rapidly. Government, business and citizens largely shared a common objective: growth. Progress was visible and measurable through an increasing population, larger harvests, new infrastructure, and growing trade.
Today, Laurier would be speaking to a very different country. Despite the need to build Canada’s infrastructure, Canada is no longer a young nation focused on settlement and expansion. It is a mature economy focused on maintaining prosperity in a world where growth is slower, competition is more intense, demographic realities are less favourable, and many of the country’s most pressing challenges appear structural rather than temporary.
If Laurier were giving an updated version of his speech today, he might begin by acknowledging that housing consumes a growing share of household budgets, a reality that many Canadians experience every day. He might also note that access to health care is a significant concern and has been for a long time. He might further note that younger Canadians are increasingly questioning whether homeownership, retirement security, and upward mobility will be available to them on the same terms enjoyed by previous generations. Laurier might conclude that, while economic indicators may suggest stability, many households feel as though they are working harder simply to maintain their position.
In short, where Laurier once spoke of limitless opportunity, today he might speak instead about adaptation. The central question facing Canada today is more complicated than the speed of growth alone. That complexity might be described as asking how we successfully adapt in a period where growth is both harder to achieve and hard to distribute equally.
Because progress was assumed to be inevitable, governments, businesses, and citizens shared a common way of operating for much of the 20th century. Businesses planned around expanding consumer demand. Governments relied on economic growth to generate revenues and sustain public services. Families expected that each generation would move further ahead than the last. Those assumptions have become less certain.
At Ipsos, we increasingly believe Canada has entered what we describe as the “Endurance Economy,” a period in which households, institutions, governments, and businesses adapt to sustained economic and social pressures rather than waiting for conditions to return to a previous normal. The gap between headline economic performance and lived experience has become one of the defining characteristics of the Canadian economy. In this environment, consumers are increasingly motivated by affordability, trust, security, and resilience rather than optimism, expansion and aspiration.
A modern Laurier would likely recognize that preserving living standards in this environment depends increasingly on productivity. During his era, growth could be driven by population expansion, resource development, territorial settlement, and industrialization. Today’s Canada cannot rely on those same engines to the same extent. If Canadians hope to improve living standards while supporting an aging population and maintaining strong public services, productivity growth must play a far more central role in the national conversation. Progress can no longer be assumed as inevitable.
At the same time, slower growth changes the nature of politics. When economies are expanding rapidly, questions of distribution often attract less attention because many people feel they are benefiting. When growth slows, questions of fairness become more pressing. Who benefits from economic gains? Who bears the costs? Which generations are moving ahead, and which feel they are being left behind? Debates about housing affordability, taxation, immigration, health care, public spending, Artificial Intelligence, and intergenerational equity become more politically significant because they are increasingly viewed through the lens of fairness rather than growth.
This may be the greatest challenge confronting Carney. On one hand, as an economist, he likely understands the structural nature of many of Canada’s challenges. On the other hand, as a politician, he recognizes that voters naturally respond more positively to messages centred on growth and opportunity than those focused on adaptation and constraint.
His government’s rhetoric has reflected both realities. It has emphasized ambitious goals around housing, investment, and economic growth while simultaneously urging patience and acknowledging that many of Canada’s challenges will take years to address. In some respects, this balancing act reflects the broader mood of the country. Canadians still want growth. They still aspire to greater prosperity. But they are increasingly looking to institutions for stability and competence.
To date, that approach has helped sustain public support for the government because it reflects an important truth: Canadians are not looking for promises that everything will soon return to normal. Increasingly, they are looking for leaders who understand the pressures they face and who can help them navigate an era of prolonged adjustment.
Yet empathy alone will not be enough. The larger challenge is rebuilding confidence in Canada’s social contract. When citizens stop believing that effort will lead to opportunity and advancement, trust in institutions becomes harder to sustain. Governments can no longer rely exclusively on promises of future prosperity or appeals to upward mobility. They must demonstrate their ability to deliver security, fairness, affordability, and social cohesion with the resources already available.
That does not mean abandoning growth. Growth remains essential. But in the decades ahead, growth alone may not be sufficient. Success will increasingly be measured by whether Canada can translate growth into broadly shared improvements in quality of life and renewed confidence in the future.
Laurier famously asked Canadians to look beyond the horizon toward a future defined by expansion and possibility. A modern Laurier would likely offer a different challenge. He might argue that Canada’s success in the 21st century will not be judged solely by how fast the country grows, but by whether it can preserve fairness, strengthen social cohesion and reinforce trust.
Mike Colledge is the Executive Insights Lead at Ipsos Canada
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent.
To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.