Fixing the Macro to Solve the Micro: How to Bring the Public Along
June 19, 2025
One of the defining features of Canada’s new political era is the Carney government’s explicit attempt to connect economic growth with improvements to people’s everyday lives. In nearly every speech since becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney has emphasized productivity, business investment, and competitiveness, not just as ends in themselves but as levers to improve affordability, living standards, and fairness.
This is what I call “fixing the macro to solve the micro.” It’s an ambitious attempt to reposition economic growth, not as abstract GDP math, but as a tangible tool to solve the affordability crisis, fund better public services, and make daily life feel less precarious.
I think it’s essential and something governments, policy makers, advocates, and business leaders don’t spend enough time focused on.
But will it work? Do Canadians see the same link?
To help answer that, we recently asked over 2,500 Canadians a series of questions testing how they perceive economic growth and whether they believe it can improve their lives. We wanted to go deeper than just headline sentiment. This research isn’t definitive, but it begins to build a map for how communicators, policymakers, and public affairs practioners can bring the public along with a pro-growth agenda.
The findings suggest both opportunities and red flags. They also highlight the importance of framing, trust, and emotional resonance in the way we talk about the economy.
Most Canadians want to believe in growth—if it helps them
Let’s start with a high-level finding that might surprise some: a strong majority of Canadians (61%) agree that if Canada improves its economic performance through productivity, GDP growth, or business investment their personal standard of living will also improve. Just 6% outright disagree.
This is a good place to start. It suggests that, in theory, most people don’t see growth as irrelevant or disconnected from their day-to-day lives. They’re open to the idea that stronger economic fundamentals can translate into tangible benefits. But this headline number conceals something more complicated and more cautionary.
Because while 61% agree, nearly 4 in 10 Canadians are either uncertain (26%) or outright skeptical (6% disagree). That means a significant portion of the population either doesn’t see the link between macroeconomic strength and personal well-being or doesn’t believe that link applies to them.
In other words, there is no consensus. Belief in growth as a rising tide that lifts all boats remains aspirational, not lived reality.
While 61% agree with the overall proposition, only 47% agree that when governments talk about growth, they believe it’s about things that will help them personally. That’s a 14-point drop.
Even more telling: 52% agree with the statement, “Even if the economy grows, I don’t trust that the benefits will reach people like me.” That’s the emotional core of the issue.
Growth, in theory, sounds good. But in practice, many feel it won’t reach them.
The trust gap: Growth is not seen as inclusive
The data reveals a trust gap a credibility deficit between what leaders say growth will do, and what people believe it will do.
Younger Canadians aged 18–29 are the most likely to agree (56%), while those over 60 are more skeptical, with only 44% agreeing and a combined 19% disagreeing. Regionally, optimism is strongest in Alberta (51%) and Quebec (54%), with Quebecers also registering among the lowest levels of outright disagreement (13% total). In contrast, Atlantic Canadians are more polarized—only 44% agree, and 27% disagree. British Columbians and those in Saskatchewan/Manitoba are the least likely to see themselves reflected in pro-growth government messaging, with just 44% and 34% agreeing, respectively. Notably, attitudes diverge dramatically based on how people feel about the country’s direction: 61% of those who think Canada is heading in the right direction trust that growth rhetoric is relevant to them, while just 39% of those who think the country is on the wrong track feel the same. This underscores that trust in government and overall national mood strongly influence whether Canadians see themselves in economic policy discussions.
What drives skepticism?
For those who don’t think growth will help them personally, the reasons are telling. We followed up and asked them to explain why they don’t think growth helps them.
- Fixed incomes and retirement – 17% say they don’t benefit from economic growth because they’re not in the labour market.
- General pessimism and uncertainty – 12% feel the system is rigged or that future growth will just lead to more inequality.
- Cost of living pressures – 12% say growth hasn’t led to affordability so far, so why would it now?
- Distrust in government or economic policies – 6% say they don’t believe policymakers will implement growth strategies fairly.
Taken together, this paints a picture of a public that is not anti-growth but wary. Especially in a time of persistent precarity, Canadians need more than charts. They need proof.
Framing matters: Good things versus bad things
One of the most useful tools in the study was asking people whether they thought different economic outcomes would mean “good things” or “bad things” for them personally. It’s a simple but powerful way to surface emotional reactions and it reveals the deep psychology of economic narratives.
At the top of the list:
- 66% say increasing productivity will mean good things for them.
- 63% feel positively about expanding post-secondary programs for in-demand jobs.
- 63% also view Buy Canadian policies as good for them personally.
These three top-scoring items have a few things in common: they feel pragmatic, tangible, and aligned with fairness or future opportunity.
But what about the rest?
Policies like restructuring the economy, increasing competitiveness, and building the strongest economy in the G7 also test well—but with slightly less intensity.
Then the story changes.
Support drops significantly when people are asked about:
- Attracting more skilled immigrants (+11 net good),
- Public-private partnerships (+21),
- AI (a net -13, with 30% saying unleashing its potential would be bad for them personally).
For public-private partnerships, it’s not that people think they are bad for them, they just are not convinced they are good for them. There’s work to be done in explaining the approach and the benefits.
Overall, this tells us that even among self-described pro-growth Canadians, there are fault lines around automation, immigration, and privatization. These ideas may be essential for long-term growth, but they provoke anxiety especially when framed in ways that don’t emphasize fairness or control.
AI: The outlier with a warning label
No other economic topic we tested generated more resistance than artificial intelligence.
Only 17% think unleashing the full potential of AI will be good for them. 30% think it will be bad. 36% are neutral.
Opposition to AI cuts across age groups and political affiliations. Even among Liberal voters, the net score is barely positive. Among Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc voters, it’s net negative.
Why the worry?
It could be fear of job loss, automation anxiety, or a broader sense that AI will benefit a few and leave most behind. We have explored these themes in other research and consistently see them.
This should be a warning to anyone designing growth strategies reliant on AI productivity gains: unless you show how it helps ordinary people and mitigates harm you risk creating backlash, not buy-in.
What’s popular: Tangibility, national pride, and skills
If we step back and look at what tested best, there’s a clear pattern.
The most popular growth-related policies share at least two of these three traits:
They feel directly tied to work or opportunity.
- Training for high-demand jobs scored +60 net good.
- Productivity improvements were +63.
- Infrastructure investments scored +47.
They reflect a national mission or shared benefit.
- Buy Canadian policies: +57.
- Building the strongest economy in the G7: +49.
They are framed as fixing something broken or helping Canada compete.
- Restructuring the economy (+48) and increasing competitiveness (+49) score high—perhaps because they imply a problem is being addressed.
“The Strongest Economy in the G7”
“Building the strongest economy in the G7” was a core promise of Mark Carney’s campaign and remains the guiding ambition of his new government. It’s a phrase that signals confidence, global competitiveness, and national pride and the data suggest it largely resonates with Canadians.
Over half (53%) believe achieving that goal would mean good things for them personally, while just 4% say it would mean bad things. That framing works because it’s both aspirational and concrete—it links Canada’s economic status to a personal sense of gain without needing to spell out every policy detail.
But 43% are left uncertain about the impact. And support isn’t uniform. Men (60%) are more likely than women (46%) to see it as positive, and support is strongest among those 60 and over (65%) compared to just 42% among those aged 30 to 44. Regionally, Alberta (63%) and B.C. (61%) are most optimistic, while Quebecers are more ambivalent—only 47% think building the strongest G7 economy will help them, with a notable 33% choosing “neutral” and 7% saying it would be bad. Politically, Liberal voters (62%) and New Democrats (58%) are most likely to see this as a good thing, but only 42% of Bloc voters feel the same. In Quebec, in particular, the ambition may not connect as directly to people’s local economic priorities or identity. So, while the G7 framing works well as a national economic narrative, it’s clear that additional work, especially in places like Quebec and among younger voters, is needed to explain how that status translates into meaningful improvements in people’s lives.
These nuances underline the need for differentiated messaging. While a national vision—like building the strongest economy in the G7—can be powerful, it must be supported by regionally relevant narratives and locally credible messengers. If growth is to become a unifying national mission, people need to see how it aligns with their values, responds to their local context, and meets their individual needs.
So, what does this mean?
This research offers three big insights for those trying to shape the national economic conversation, influence public policy, and design and execute it.
1. Link growth to people’s daily lives and prove it
Talking about GDP or competitiveness isn’t enough. Canadians want to see how those ideas translate into wages, housing, healthcare, and job security. They are open to growth but not abstract growth.
If you’re building a pro-growth campaign, start with the tangible. Explain how boosting productivity or attracting investment leads to better schools, lower grocery prices, or more doctors in rural communities.
2. Address the trust deficit head-on
People need to believe that growth will be fair. That it won’t just benefit the rich. That it won’t leave rural communities, younger workers, or vulnerable sectors behind.
Policy and communications must come with safeguards, guarantees, and real-world examples. This is especially true for areas like AI and immigration, where skepticism is high.
3. Frame ideas in ways that resonate emotionally
“Unleashing the full potential of AI” may sound visionary in a budget speech. But to many Canadians, it feels like losing their job to a robot. Try “harnessing AI to improve healthcare access” or “using AI to reduce wait times.”
Similarly, “making Canada more competitive” works best when paired with fairness, not just profit. “Fair competition that helps small businesses thrive” lands better than “cutting red tape.”
Final Thoughts: Start the conversation now
We’re in a moment of political and economic transition. The public wants change but they also want clarity, reassurance, and inclusion.
This polling isn’t a verdict. It’s a starting point. It shows that Canadians are not reflexively anti-growth. But they are cautious. They want to know: will this help me? Will it make my life easier? Can I trust you to deliver?
The challenge and opportunity is to build a new pro-growth coalition, one built on trust, inclusion, and lived impact.
The Carney government is betting that macro solutions can solve micro problems. But to make that case stick, they and all of us involved in shaping economic discourse must connect the dots between the abstract and the immediate, between national ambition and personal impact.
If you’re interested in a deeper look at this data, please reach out to schedule a conversation with a senior researcher on our team.
Methodology
The survey was conducted with 2,585 Canadians from June 2 to 5, 2025. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 1.92%, 19 times out of 20.
The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
This survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.
Abacus Data follows the CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards and Disclosure Requirements that can be found here: https://canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/standards/
ABOUT ABACUS DATA
We are Canada’s most sought-after, influential, and impactful polling and market research firm. We are hired by many of North America’s most respected and influential brands and organizations.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
And we are growing throughout all parts of Canada and the United States and have capacity for new clients who want high quality research insights with enlightened hospitality.
Our record speaks for itself: we were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.
Contact us with any questions.
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
