Blog: Five big ideas for Canada, but one is the biggest

This column was first published on the National Newswatch website on February 28, 2015



Last Thursday, Canada 2020 invited five thought leaders to Ottawa to give TED Talks on a Big Idea for Canada’s future. While I loved them all, for my money, one speaker stood out. No, it wasn’t astronaut Chris Hadfield, but a retired bureaucrat named Morris Rosenberg.
Rosenberg is a highly respected, former deputy minister of Justice, Health and, most recently, Foreign Affairs. He now heads the Trudeau Foundation. If his talk stood out, it was not because he is a smarter or more engaging speaker that the rest. (As a speaker, Hadfield beats them all, hands down.)
Rosenberg’s edge comes from his long experience as a deputy minister, whose job is to connect the machinery of government to the political leadership. This makes him an expert on the one issue that trumps all others: governance.
That was evident from his talk, which was peppered with terms like “complexity,” “collaboration,” “emergent properties,” and “risk-management.” Pretty wonkish stuff.
Especially when compared with, say, Tom Rand from MaRS, who argued passionately that climate change is the issue of our time. If we don’t get CO2 emissions under control, he warned, everyone on the planet is in serious trouble.
Now, the end of the world as we know it is a tough act to follow, but Rosenberg made a convincing case that one issue is more serious and urgent: a policy process that is foundering so badly that it can no longer even respond to such a threat.
According to Rosenberg, our governments were designed for a time when issues were thought to have clear boundaries and good solutions had well defined objectives.
That worked pretty well before globalization, the digital revolution and population explosion. Then suddenly the world shrank. Issues became way more interconnected and a lot more complex.
Today, an issue like climate change is not just an issue, but a diffuse constellation of issues that stretches out across policy space, linking the environment to transportation, urban planning, health, education, agriculture, Aboriginal issues and so on.
As a result, an effective strategy to address climate change must mobilize and align different departments, governments, members of the business and NGO communities, and even ordinary citizens. In a word, it requires collaboration.
Moreover, such issues are never “solved.” They are always with us, and always mutating. Good policy aims at managing them. And here we got a glimpse of what it must be like to be a deputy minister today.
That’s not what’s happening, said Rosenberg flatly. Politicians like issues that are clear and solutions that are permanent. They dislike processes with too many players in the field and too many links to other issues. It’s too easy for something to go wrong.
As a result, our politicians have become very reluctant to tackle Big Issues; and so the Big Ideas to solve the Big Issues rarely get beyond the testing stage.
You don’t have to read between the lines to get the point: A vicious circle has formed inside government where the riskiness of the policy process is making the leadership increasingly risk-averse—to the point where we are not even trying to develop the processes, skills and knowledge needed to respond, say, to the prospect of calamitous environmental change.
In short, governance is in big trouble and if we don’t fix it all the Big Ideas in the world will get us nowhere. To underline the point, let’s take a quick look at those proposed by the other four speakers, starting with Hadfield.
He made a convincing case that space travel is on the verge of a major breakthrough. Within a few years, reusable rockets could dramatically cut the cost of putting satellites into orbit.
That, says Hadfield, would revolutionize our use of these space technologies by making it cost-effective to use them for all kinds of purposes, such as extending internet service to the 60% of the world’s population that doesn’t yet have it.
As for Tom Rand, having made the case that with climate change we are sleepwalking our way to disaster, he contended that the only real solution is to put a price on carbon and use it to promote rapid development of alternative energy sources.
Jacline Nyman, President and CEO of the United Way, spoke movingly about the huge cost of poverty to Canadians. Not just in terms of the taxes to support social services, but the loss of human capital that comes with poverty. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a strategy that invests in people, she asked?
Finally, Jennifer Keesmaat, the spirited Chief Planner from the City of Toronto, showed how the infrastructure needed to support suburban living is simply too costly to keep building. But with creative thinking and leadership, she claimed, it could be refurbished to transform how communities work and how people live.
All are inspiring ideas and worthy of deeper discussion and experimentation. But if Rosenberg is right, not one of them will be achieved without the right kind of political leadership, backed up by effective policy processes.
So here’s the big lesson I took away from Five Big Ideas for Canada: Leadership and process are two sides of the same coin. Good leadership must be supported by governance machinery that can turn a good idea into a good policy, and a good policy into a good initiative. Increasingly, we have neither.
We may have entered a new policy environment, but our political system is stuck in the past. The question now is: What are we going to do about it? Will we do anything at all?
Now that’s what I all a BIG ISSUE.



Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are his alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan 

From the End of History to the End of Progress



A few years ago, we began noticing something very different about the way the public looked at the economy[1]. The public seemed to believe that we were encountering an end of progress. The idea of a “better life” or what is known to the south as the American Dream seemed to be slipping away. Among citizens of both Canada and the United States, there was a growing recognition that the middle class bargain of shared prosperity, which had propelled upper North America to pinnacle status in the world economy in the last half of the twentieth century, was unravelling.
In this brief consideration of the political implications of the problems of the middle class, we will examine both perceptions and behaviour (and values). Our work reflects the grand insights of major recent scholarly work by Daron Acemoğlu, Thomas Piketty, Richard Wilkinson, Miles Corak, and others. We believe that this percolating crisis of the middle class is the greatest challenge of our time and we have argued this narrative to very senior audiences in Canada and the United States – whoever will listen and act.
Despite near public consensus on the severity of the issue, and impressive empirical and expert support, many in the media and elsewhere deny the problem. And yes, there is still relative prosperity in the Canadian economy – we certainly aren’t Spain, let alone Greece. The trajectory, however, is clearly to stagnation and decline, except for those at the top of the system.[2]
The public are not deluded, nor hysterical. The clarity of public concerns around the issue of middle class decline is remarkable. Moreover, when we unpack this across generational cohorts we can see that the unravelling is much more evident as we move from seniors to young Canada. So while still eminently fixable, the trend lines lead to a very gloomy prognosis which is currently infecting public outlook and threatening to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fears are highest when turned to the future, particularly concerns about retirement, and the fate of future generations. Whereas the middle class used to mean one could attain a house and a few luxuries and a better life than one’s parents it is now all about security, which has become the elusive lacuna as it applies to the ability to get by and to retire with security. The grey outlook on the present turns almost black as the public ponder the fate of future generations.
Consider the troubling syllogism laid out below:
GRAVES GRAPH 1
There is a virtual consensus that a growing and optimistic middle class is a precondition for societal health and economic prosperity. This consensus position reflects the historical record of when nations succeed.[3] Yet if this consensus is correct, we note with alarm that almost nobody thinks that these conditions are in place in Canada. To the contrary, the consensus view is that the middle class is shrinking and pessimistic.

What has changed?

There are important barometers of confidence and we have tested these the same way in repeated measures for twenty years or so; the trajectories are clear and revealing. Never in our tracking has Canada had such a gloomy outlook on the economic future. Never in our tracking has the sense of progress from the past been so meager. The right wing commentariat may seize upon partial stories/research to suggest: i) this is a non-issue – only of concern to “wonks”; and ii) things are swimmingly well and even if public show fears, they are being foolish. We say the public are right.
The point isn’t that Canada is in a state of privation and economic distress – it clearly isn’t. The point is that the factors that produced progress and success don’t seem to be working in the same way anymore. And the problem is accelerating as we move down the generational ladder.
The current generation sees itself falling backward and sees an even steeper decline in future. The typical optimism of youth is very muted as they encounter an economy that doesn’t seem to offer the same promise of shared progress available to their parents and grandparents.
GRAVES GRAPH 2
So it appears that we have at least temporarily reached the end of the progress, the defining achievement of liberal democracy.

Vertical mobility eroding

GRAVES GRAPH 3
The chart above shows a sharp rise in the rate of downward intergenerational mobility as we move from seniors to younger Canada (a nearly threefold increase). Arguably, the prime driver of this is rising inequality which is increasing quickly across all advanced western economies.[4] Notably, as Miles Corak notes,[5] the incidence of upward vertical mobility across generations is dropping most sharply in those places which are becoming more unequal at an even faster pace.
The economic ladder is missing rungs in the middle and people are less motivated to try climbing with those conditions in place. Merit is less relevant as the system is now “stickier” at the top and bottom of the social ladder. This failure of the incentive system is hobbling innovation and effort and creating a more tepid growth pattern where the relatively more slowly growing pie is appropriated by an ever slenderer cohort at the top.[6] We are literally killing the goose that lays the golden eggs underpinning healthy middle class economies.
If one thinks this problem is self-correcting or going away, ponder the chart below which is a couple of days old. Very few Canadians think their financial situation is improving but the sense of progress seems to get smaller as we move from ten to five to one year comparisons. What does it say about an economy which defines shared progress as an economic and moral imperative that less than one in five thinks their lot improved last year?
GRAVES GRAPH 4
 
GRAVES GRAPH 6
For those who think it has always been like this or that Canada is either immune or charting a differing path, it is not so. In broad brush strokes, four Anglo-Saxon economies have followed the same curve, which seems to be leading to a reproduction of the original gilded age of robber barons which predated the great depression.

Conclusions and going forward

GRAVES GRAPH 7
Will the issue of middle class progress be an issue in the coming election? There are good arguments that once the emotion and chauvinism surrounding terror and ‘cultural’ issues fade, this issue will reassume its pinnacle position.[7] What will Canadians think in the fall when the inevitable early enthusiasm for another Middle East adventure doomed to yield disappointment yet again fades? They will look at a relatively moribund Canadian economy lurching along at sub-two-point growth with nothing available for any members of the depleted middle class. They will ponder the prudence of a long term bet on the short term prospect for carbon super power status. They will look enviously at an American economy moving at twice the clip of ours under the explicit framing of what Obama calls ‘middle class economics”. They will look to their prospective leaders and ask who has the most plausible blueprint to restart middle class progress?

Frank Graves is founder and President of EKOS Research, and is one of the country’s leading applied social researchers, directing some of the largest and most challenging social research assignments conducted in Canada.

Canada’s cities need more than cap-in-hand solutions



The mayors of Canada’s biggest cities have a clear-eyed focus on Canada’s challenges.   They also know that they don’t have the money to fix these challenges alone.
In meeting mayors in Toronto, I heard about traffic congestion, affordable housing and integrating new immigrants to Canada – the vast majority of which end up in cities.
A common theme to all big city mayors was the mismatch between their revenue-raising powers and the essential services and infrastructure cities must provide.
Why should Canadians care?
Simply put, well-functioning cities are drivers of economic growth and innovation.   From a domestic perspective, getting cities right is essential to getting the economy right.
Cities are also an essential part of Canada’s global value proposition to attract investment and knowledge workers.   In determining where to locate new investments and where to live, firms and skilled workers have choices that are global in scope.
The fiscal challenge is that cities have little flexibility in the forms of revenue they can raise.
Property taxes and fees form the majority of city budgets.  Even these revenue raising tools can face restrictions set out in provincial legislation.
The amount raised through these forms of revenue is also insufficient to pay for large-scale infrastructure.  Transit in cities can’t be paid for through property taxes alone, for example, or it “would cripple people”, says Toronto Mayor John Tory.
Long-time watchers of city politics have noted that mayors have a cap-in-hand approach to the provincial and federal government.  But really, what choice do they have?
Mayors are forced in to constant pitching for their personal projects, often knowing they are in competition with the mayor next door, or the mayor one province over.  This is not a winning strategy for a smart country.  Nor does it advance the needs of citizens.
It’s time to recognize that Canada’s fiscal system is broken.
This is not an argument for increasing taxes.  Rather this is an argument for aligning what level of government taxes Canadians with the responsibilities they’ve either been given or down-loaded, and examining what is taxed and at what rates.  It’s a tall order.
Let me suggest three paths forward.
One – solving a problem means recognizing it and taking the steps to correct it.  Cities need to be formally recognized and given more diverse sources for revenue.
Provinces could give cities, especially Canada’s largest cities, any taxing power the province itself has.   Not all municipalities should have such an independent power.
Giving Canadian mayors the power to set tax rates and choose the right tax tool for their local area would also make mayors politically responsible to citizens for what is spent.   As one federal politician put it to me, under the current system “Mayors want money, but let federal politicians wear the headache of justifying taxes.”   It may be time to share the burden.
A formal tax-sharing agreement between provincial and federal governments with big cities may also be a way forward.
As Dr. Enid Slack at the University of Toronto has argued, current revenue sharing practices are unpredictable.   Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson has made this point concerning the Alberta Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI).
At some point an archaic system doesn’t need more gears and a bit more grease, it needs a total re-think.  A formal tax-sharing agreement as a start may pave the way to longer-term solutions, such as writing cities in to the constitution as Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver has suggested.
The U.S. constitution permits municipalities to conduct various forms of revenue-raising that Canada’s does not.  New York, for example, receives revenues from property tax, sales and use taxes and income taxes.
Two  – while waiting for that re-think, stable and long-term funding is required.
Problems such as water and housing can’t wait.  Cities shouldn’t have to win an Olympic bid to build mass transit.
As Mayor Naheed Nehshi has suggested, the next federal election could be fought on which party has the best urban strategy, including predictable long-term funding.
This suggests mobilizing voters in Canada’s major cities to ask local candidates and leaders what their commitments are to investing in cities, given they have the power to make a difference.
Mass transit plans, major bridge and highway construction and affordable housing funding are three areas for discussion.  Specific, concrete plans should be presented to tell citizens what, exactly, will be funded and over what proposed time horizon.
City mayors must also be clear about their proposals and costs.  Detailed identification of priorities will permit a discussion on the role of other forms of financing, such as road tolls, to make up any shortfall.
Three – cities could be using the revenue powers they do have more effectively.
User fees related to the volume of what is consumed rather than flat fees, such as on water and garbage, are one example.   Pricing private transit use more appropriately – such as through parking rates and the gas tax – would also help set fees for public transit.
As Professor Chris Ragan and the Ecofiscal Commission have pointed out, how governments raise revenue matters.  A dollar is not simply a dollar.  Fiscal structures shape incentives and behavior.  To this I would add that city governments can be a powerful source in structuring incentives to solve challenges, if they are given the choice of tools to do so.
These paths forward on a fiscal re-think for large Canadian cities could move at different speeds.  As big city mayors will tell you, the point is Canada needs to get moving.   The country’s global competitiveness depends on it.

Ailish Campbell is the Vice President, Fiscal and International Policy, at the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.  She serves on the Advisory Board of Canada 2020.  The views expressed here are her own.

Why the US and Europe Must Stand Together

President Obama’s trip to Europe is an opportunity to build on the vision he outlined in his West Point speech last week, and to set out a plan to renew the transatlantic relationship. This backbone of an alliance of liberal democracies across the globe, and the foundation of the post-war order, faces fresh challenges today.
The transatlantic alliance’s historical achievements will be commemorated this week at the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings. We liberated the European continent from fascism and national socialism, defended and protected it from communism, and established a multilateral economic and security architecture that benefited the free world. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and its European partners then worked together to expand and sustain the zone of liberal democracies and ended deadly conflicts on Europe’s borders in the Balkans.
Today’s challenges, however, are rooted in the new dynamics of the past decade – the attacks of 9/11and the threats from terrorist networks, the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath, NATO’s first out of area military operation in Afghanistan, and the 2008 global financial crisis.  The illusion that we arrived at an end to history has now been definitively shattered.  The inexorable triumph of liberal democracy is not inevitable – it requires constant work and vigilance.
Over the past few years, this alliance has suffered from neglect.  President Obama’s election in 2008 promised an opportunity to recast and rebuild a relationship under strain. Unfortunately, President Obama’s first term efforts to rebalance US global security priorities – typified by the “Asia Pivot” – sowed confusion and insecurity among vital partners rather than reassuring them and clarifying a new sense of purpose.
Furthermore, Europe’s internal preoccupation with its sovereign debt crisis and introspection about its own future presented more cracks. And while our alliance floundered, other regions of the world and emerging powers, whose values and models of governance differ to our own, continued to grow in geopolitical and economic importance.
As the dust settles from the recent European elections and the transatlantic community continues to wrestle with the renewed threats posed by Russia in Ukraine and beyond, now is the moment to take proactive steps to revive this relationship as the foundation of a strategic alliance of liberal democracies.  A renewed transatlantic alliance is essential to ensuring our values prevail on the global stage and our strategic and commercial interests are protected. It should be built around three shared pillars: security, prosperity and diplomacy.

Shared security

The NATO summit at Brussels earlier this year reaffirmed the alliance’s initial responses to Russia; the upcoming Wales summit in September offers an important moment to redefine its purpose in the future. Last week, President Obama set out a vision for NATO to finally move beyond its Cold War mindset, and meet new missions both within and beyond Europe’s borders. Working to strengthen failed states and fight terrorism will require NATO to define clear priorities, share the burden more equally, and rationalize its strategic capabilities and visions. One of the most urgent tests to NATO is the growing security threats in Libya. The mission has been left unaccomplished after a bold intervention that ousted Qadhafi.  But continued instability in Libya represents a security threat to North Africa and southern Europe.  NATO should redouble its efforts to help Libya deal with terrorism and to build functioning democratic institutions.

Shared prosperity

Last year, the United States and Europe announced the goal of signing a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that would create the largest free trade agreement in history, representing one third of the world’s economic output.  TTIP is in for a bumpy ride, with European and American officials concerned about the     impact of the recent surge of anti-establishment parties in the European elections and the rise of anti-trade economic populism in the United States. We need to resolve our internal political differences and disagreements, because Europe and the United States have an enormous shared interest in setting the regulatory norms of the future global economy. Our future industries and services will only thrive globally, and provide good middle class jobs at home to help fight income inequality, if we are united and work harder to disseminate and enforce common norms across the globe.

Shared diplomacy

As new global fora such as the G 20, and new global powers such as Brazil, India and China, grow in importance, Europe and the United States must identify shared interests and define a common political and diplomatic strategy to achieve them. Whether we wish to encourage the emerging nations to take greater responsibility for global economic prosperity and security, or to make the institutions of global governance function more effectively, a transatlantic strategy is now indispensable.
As President Obama asserted last week, “America must always lead on the world stage”. But Europe and America will achieve more together than alone.  We should lead together. If we don’t, no-one else will.
Matt Browne and Brian Katulis are Senior Fellows at the Center for American Progress. Matt Browne is a member of the Canada 2020 Advisory Board.

A significant gesture

In announcing a meaningful plan to fight climate change, US President Obama has put forward one of the most significant acts of his presidency.

The objective announced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce power plants carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 (compared to 2005 levels) represents the largest effort ever undertaken by the US government to tackle climate change. If the plan is implemented, it will mean a reduction of 500 million metric tons of carbon annually.
In the United States, 40% of emissions are produced by power plants (mainly coal). Yesterday’s announcement targets these plants directly by imposing a cap on their emissions levels that is essentially equivalent to setting a price on carbon.
Beyond the national dimension, the announcement will have a significant international impact. Because the United States and China are the two largest emitters of carbon across the world (accounting for almost 40% of total emissions), the message sent to the rest of the world is unequivocal. In advance of the 2015 World Summit in Paris, President Obama’s announcement will breathe new life into negotiations towards a new multilateral agreement. This is far from trivial, considering the inertia we have seen in recent years.
The direction just taken by the US government will also have an effect on market forces, likely provoking a major shift in the production, transmission and consumption of energy. Investment and jobs related to renewable energy such as solar, wind and biomass have already been increasing in recent years in the United States. We can expect this trend to be amplified as a result of the new regulation.
So, what are the consequences for Canada? Boasting an already unenviable reputation on the environmental front, the Harper government is now in an even more vulnerable situation. By refusing to put forward its own regulations on carbon emissions, Canada will find itself at a double disadvantage.
First, as we have seen in the Keystone pipeline fiasco, the lack of a concrete action plan on climate change undermines the export of heavy oil from Alberta’s oil sands. Thanks in part to a revolution in the exploration of natural gas, the United States now have the luxury of being more selective in importing energy. It is clear they prefer less polluting sources. If Canada had taken action on carbon sequestration or on industry regulation, we would not be in this situation.
Second, rather than becoming a world leader in energy research, development and innovation — and creating a market conducive to private investment — Canada is likely to be outdone by those countries that have recognized the economic potential of this shift.
In the future, economies with low carbon emissions will have a significant competitive advantage. Beyond the fight against climate change, this is what we must grasp about yesterday’s announcement. President Obama has understood.

Excellence and Equity in Skills and Higher Education in Canada

Canada has been a strong performer in post-secondary education and skills development for many years. On key measures we are at or near the top of international rankings and highly skilled Canadians contribute to economic prosperity, social innovation, and political and community well-being.
But there are signs that Canada’s performance may be deteriorating and, despite a commitment to equality, opportunities and achievement in skills and higher education have been poorly distributed across regions and groups. A new report from Canada 2020, Skills and Higher Education: Towards Excellence and Equity, reveals that we are not doing enough to achieve the levels of excellence and equity in skills and higher education we need to sustain a prosperous economy and fair society.
Download the full research report here.

Excellence

Consider excellence. Over 51 per cent of Canadians hold a university or college credential—versus an OECD average of 32 per cent—and another 12 per cent hold trades certificates. Canadian adults perform at or above the OECD average in literacy and problem-solving skills, and our 15 year olds—our future university and college graduates and skilled tradespeople—rank near the top in PISA scores in reading, math and science.
Still, our performance is weakening and competitors are catching up. Adult numeracy is below the OECD average, and given our world-leading rates of university and college attainment, scores in literacy and problem-solving should be much higher. We have too few people with advanced degrees (particularly PhDs), insufficient graduates from the STEM disciplines, deficits in essential, innovation and commercialization skills, and a poor track record on workplace training. Moreover, as Canadian PISA scores have declined in recent years, while those of key international competitors have improved, our next cohort of college and university students will have a weaker foundation for success.

Equity

We also need to think about equity. According to The Conference Board of Canada, Canada earns an “A” and ranks second among 16 peer countries for equity in reading scores between Canadian-born students who speak the language of the PISA test at home and Canadian-born second-generation students who do not. We also earn an “A” and rank third among peers for low differences in reading scores between students in the most and least economically disadvantaged schools in the country.
But these equity achievements deteriorate when we look at the education and skills attainment of Canadian adults through the lenses of region, Aboriginal status, gender, and immigration status.

  • British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario perform well both in educational attainment and scores in literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills. But other provinces and territories—particularly Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Nunavut—lag far behind.
  • By 2011, nearly 48 per cent of those who self-identify as Aboriginal held a university, college, or trade credential versus more than 63 per cent of non-Aboriginal Canadians—an attainment gap of over 15 per cent. The literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills of Aboriginals also lag those of non-Aboriginals—though, notably, similarly educated Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals achieve similar scores.
  • Among 25 to 34 year olds, 65 per cent of women hold university or college credentials versus 49 per cent of men. At the same time, women are still vastly underrepresented in many science and engineering disciplines, as well as skilled trades. In fact, differences in achievement between men and women begin to reveal themselves in the K-12 system, with girls outperforming boys in reading, but lagging in math.
  • Finally, while immigrants tend to have higher rates of post-secondary attainment than native-born Canadians, they struggle with deficits in literacy and communication skills, and experience weak employment and income prospects.

We ignore these inequities and the early signs of declining performance at our peril. Canadians need advanced skills to navigate an increasingly technology- and knowledge-intensive economy and society. Addressing persistent and complex policy challenges—such as weak innovation and productivity performance, climate change, inequality, health-care innovation, and the fairness and effectiveness of our political institutions—requires strong scientific, economic, cultural and political literacy, among both experts and ordinary citizens.

Improving Skills and Higher Education

To improve excellence and equity in skills and higher education, we should consider six policy options. These include making substantial investments in education and skills programs for Aboriginal youth and addressing the barriers they face to higher education. We should support programs to address gender differences in skills and higher education attainment, and improve credential recognition and skills development for immigrants. Employers must be encouraged to increase investments in training to fulfill their responsibilities for skills development.
Additionally, federal and provincial governments should work together to establish a national learning outcomes assessment program to track and improve the skills development performance of higher education institutions. Finally, the federal government should create and fund an independent, arms-length Canadian Council on Skills and Higher Education (CCSHE) to ensure that educators, employers, policy-makers and other stakeholders have access to independent expertise, research and advice to support their efforts to achieve greater excellence and equity in skills and higher education.
Canada needs to embark on an ambitious excellence and equity agenda for skills and higher education to sustain and enhance performance and to ensure that all Canadians are prepared to make meaningful contributions to economic prosperity, social and political well-being, and to achieve good lives for themselves and their families. We do well, but we can do much better.
Daniel Munro is Principal Research Associate, Centre for Skills and Post-Secondary Education at The Conference Board of Canada. His report for Canada 2020, “Skills and Higher Education in Canada: Towards Excellence and Equity” is available at https://canada2020.ca/publications/.

Speech: Brian Mulroney on “The Next Big Thing” for Canada

Thank you, John, for your most generous remarks.
Let me also congratulate you and your Government for the forthright position you are taking on the lawless takeover of Crimea. The principles and values we cherish in Canada should be the constant rudder for actions we take on foreign policy. History teaches us eloquently what happens when violations of international law and national sovereignty are ignored in the interest of expediency.
As the first G7 country to recognize the newly independent Ukraine in 1991, Canada should be in the vanguard of those safe-guarding its fundamental freedoms and staunchly supporting those seeking to reinforce that independence.
Your invitation tonight presents a great challenge : What is “the next big thing” for Canada?
In Prime Minister Pearson’s time, the answer might have been the Canadian Flag, the Auto Pact and the creation of the Canada Pension Plan. Prime Minister Trudeau will always be known for the Charter for Rights and Freedoms and Patriation.
My terms in office will probably be remembered for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and NAFTA and the GST, initiatives that – like those of my predecessors – transformed Canada.
But these big measures could not have been contrived. There had to have been a need for them, so as to ensure that Canada emerged from those great debates and elections as a more sovereign, independent and prosperous nation. This is a new world – different from that of Mssrs. Pearson, Trudeau or myself – complex, and challenging, but one with enormous promise for Canada.
As we look to the future, Canada has many reasons for optimism. At the last G-8 our government stood tall, a beacon of fiscal rectitude in a turbulent world with one of, if not the strongest economies in the industrialized world by most objective criteria.
How did this happen? Well, it did not happen overnight nor under one government or one political party. It happened because, for the better part of almost thirty years, four governments of different political stripes followed similar economic policies that generated stable economic growth, solid job creation, sensible public financing and a more confident national fabric.
Foundational initiatives by my government such as the Canada – U.S. FTA and NAFTA, along with a wave of privatizations, extensive deregulation, historic tax reform and a low inflation policy dramatically reduced program spending while trimming the deficit, laid the basis for growth and enabled Canada to compete vigorously in a rapidly globalizing world.
Jean Chrétien had very important decisions to make when he formed the government in 1993. He could have repudiated our trade agreements and tax reform because he had campaigned vigorously against each. Instead, Mr. Chrétien put campaign rhetoric aside and sustained both the trade and tax initiatives as pillars of record prosperity for Canada.
To his credit, Mr. Chrétien, aided by Finance Minister Martin, used the great economic benefits from free trade and the proceeds of the GST to eliminate the deficit over time and begin the process of paying down the debt in an orderly fashion. By acting as he did, while slashing government spending and making large investments in university research and significant advances in R&D generally and searching out new avenues for international trade, Mr. Chrétien ensured the continuity of policies that were neither Tory nor Grit, Liberal nor Conservative. They were Canadian, designed to serve our national interest and strengthen our national sovereignty.
This was followed by important measures by the Martin Government and by the present Harper Government with their sound and impressive management of the economy, along with beneficial changes to corporate and personal taxes introduced by Finance Minister Flaherty. All of which strengthened our public finances and allowed us to withstand better than most the ravages of the recent economic crisis.
Prime Ministers are not perfect. Mistakes are made. I certainly made my share.
But it was this continuum of sensible and effective policies under four different governments led by Prime Ministers of different political stripes – avoiding the erratic policy lurches of the past – that changed Canadian attitudes and provided the solid economic foundation on which Prime Minister Harper was able to stand when he welcomed world leaders to Canada a few years ago.
The essential continuity of governments from Mulroney through Chretien and Martin to Harper explains a great deal of what is right about Canada today. No one should underestimate the value of this continuity. Serious public policy can only be conceived and practised over decades – not four-year terms. We have had the great good fortune to see governments of different stripes “pass and accept the torch” over the past 30 years, rather than stop, and then try to start a new game based on discredited ideologies or personal agendas.
Only a prophet, or a fool, would predict the future. The management guru Peter Drucker once said “the best way to predict the future is to create it.” We live in a world where the events of the moment – whether in Crimea or Syria or Afghanistan – signal unrelenting pressures of instability, where the U.S. inclination and capacity to assert global leadership is on the wane and where the principles of multilateralism so helpful for the last half of the last century are now under assault.
It is easy to be pessimistic, easier still to want to turn inwards. It is a world that, as Ian Bremmer describes, will be increasingly “every nation for itself”. National interests will be paramount.
The good news is that Canada is better positioned than many to take advantage of the fluid state of global affairs, provided – and this is a big if – we can get our act together to accentuate our strengths – notably our resource base and our energy capabilities in particular – to deliver prosperity and employment for Canadians for decades to come.
And that is the big idea I want to discuss with you tonight.
We have enormous potential – the third largest supply of crude oil in the world – 174 billion barrels – much of which lie in the oil sands. More importantly, what we have in Canada represents more than half of the global oil reserves that are open to the private sector for development. Can there be any better magnet for investors?
Just think of this as well: Canada ranks first in the world in potash and titanium, second in uranium, third in natural gas and aluminum, fourth in diamonds and fifth in nickel. We are also a significant source for iron ore. We are the world’s third largest producer of hydroelectricity and have the potential to more than double our current capacity.
And it is important to recognize that the natural resource sector generates a disproportionate share of Canada’s wealth. In 2011, this sector directly accounted for 15 per cent of nominal gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 800,000 jobs. An additional 800,000 jobs in other sectors were supported by the purchase of goods and services by the resource sector. All of which is to say is that many of you and I would likely be out of a job were it not for the abundance of natural resources in Canada.
Bear in mind, too, that extractive industries are also some of the most innovative and productive sectors of the economy, now being driven by space age technology and computers.
A study by the prestigious US-based RAND corporation, for example, found that Canadian mining companies were far more productive and innovative than even their US counterparts. The key reason for higher levels of productivity in Canada versus the US had to do with the focus of Canadian mining companies on “breakthrough” as opposed to “incremental” innovations and a much higher tolerance for risk.
Most Canadians are unaware that fracking and horizontal drilling technology for extracting non-conventional oil and gas reserves, which have revolutionized this sector worldwide and dramatically changed the United States’ own energy fortunes, were pioneered in Canada.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels. Global competition to sell resources in the world market is intensifying as low cost producers in Africa, Central Asia, and elsewhere emerge on the world stage. Demand is also shifting to non-OECD countries, especially in sectors like energy.
The Chinese and other offtakers in emerging markets also want product at the highest quality and the lowest price. That is one reason, for example, why Kazakhstan today is now the number one producer of uranium and we have fallen into second place with Australia, our traditional competitor, in third.
It is one thing to have an idea or a bold objective, quite another to deliver. As Thomas Edison once observed “vision without execution is hallucination” Northern Ontario’s “Ring of Fire” is a classic example of our potential and our problem. It has been described as “the most promising mining opportunity in Canada in a century”. And yet, despite its unparalleled potential, the project has been hamstrung for years by uncertainties about aboriginal concerns, by infrastructure limitations and environmental challenges. If properly developed, significant deposits of copper, zinc, nickel, platinum, vanadium and gold could contribute more than $25 billion in economic activity and almost $ 7 billion in government revenues. What is desperately needed is a concrete action plan and an enhanced spirit of partnership to bring that promise to life.
The “Ring of Fire is in a very real sense a microcosm of our broader challenge. The biggest challenge is uncertainty. The resource sector has hugely capital intensive projects with a long life. But these projects cannot go forward if they become captives of seemingly endless processes and reviews. Public policy has a critical role to play in reducing some of that uncertainty and promoting the Canadian resource sector in emerging markets.
We cannot allow our regulatory regime to be gamed by those who simply want to disrupt any form of development. There are clear lessons from history on this tendency. We need sensible environmental policies, of course, because Canadians are justifiably proud of our pristine environment. My government earned plaudits for our action on the environment, which was an important priority for us in all of our initiatives.
I was greatly honored to have been voted Canada’s Greenest Prime Minister in history, by leading environmental groups. But we were always conscious of the need for balance between sustainability and growth.
Trade agreements are vital to access and to prosperity and I commend the government for its success on the negotiating front but you cannot sell what you cannot ship. Nor can you do it without the investments, the talent and a shared commitment from all who would be affected.
Put simply, we cannot market our resources globally if we do not have the infrastructure – political and industrial – to deliver them to market. That is precisely why we need a strong national commitment to build the infrastructure that will enable us to bring our abundance of natural resources – our most vital comparative advantage – to global markets, notably to the dynamic Asian economies where much of global growth is occurring.
We need pipelines to carry our crude oil to our west and east coasts. And we definitely need to see the Keystone XL pipeline approved. A negative verdict by the U.S. government would contravene a major tenet of NAFTA under which the U.S. was guaranteed unfettered supply in exchange for unfettered access by Canadian exporters to its market.
We also need urgently to quicken the pace to build pipelines and refining facilities on the west coast enabling us to ship LNG to markets that need supply. Australia and the US are already beating us to the punch. The former is experiencing a surge in LNG exports boosted by rising demand and prices in Asia. Forecasts show that Australia’s gas output will jump to about 100 million metric tons by 2018, or about as much as Japan and Taiwan together consume in a single year. The US is also seizing opportunity in the Asia market with big LNG importers such as Korea Gas and Japan’s Osaka Gas signing long-term agreements with US terminals.
We have to understand that, while demand for much of what we have is strong, we operate in a highly competitive global market. We cannot sit back, contemplating our collective navel and expect customers to knock on our door. We have to demonstrate convincingly that we are capable of doing what is required to earn their confidence that we are a reliable, efficient source of supply.
(Regrettably, that is not the reputation we have today.)
The U.S. will continue to be our most important market but one lesson we have learned from the hassle over Keystone is that we cannot rely exclusively on the U.S. for any export. Just imagine though, a positive verdict on Keystone that could be a catalyst for broader cooperation on energy between Canada and the U.S. If we decide first to get our own house in order, we could engage the Americans from a position of strength and relevance, making energy independence in North America a near term reality and generating significant capacity for influence in world affairs.
The biggest beneficiaries would be our two economies. We both need energy to support industrial expansion. While we will be competitors in some global markets that should not preclude deeper integration. Our combined energy potential could actually be harnessed to help change the geopolitical dynamic in Europe, Asia and the Middle East .
We have an abundance of resources that is second to none. We have the capacity for technological innovation that will enable us to ensure both energy security and environmental responsibility. I can envisage a new North American Accord on Carbon Emissions, one that invokes the spirit of what we did successfully together to combat acid rain and to clean up the Great Lakes, huge environmental achievements.
We could agree on identical goals but use prescriptions for carbon reductions that recognize the distinct nature of our respective resource assets and do not discriminate unfairly against one another with standards that are essentially protectionism dressed up in an environmental cloak.
Our mutual objective should be to establish the world’s most efficient and reliable infrastructure for the production and transmission of all forms of energy while we set a new gold standard on environmental performance. Ramping up LNG exports can facilitate a reduction in the number of coal-fired plants in China and Asia – unquestionably the major menace today in terms of carbon emissions. As a welcome bonus, increased supplies of natural gas in North America may also help wean the U.S. off its heavy reliance on coal for power.
North America working together as a dynamic, coherent player would be much stronger engaging with China and the rest of the world. Energy sufficiency gives us greater independence to chart our own course and can be a source of real leverage with others. Standing together, North America can lead the world, but only with vision and real leadership from the top.
Never forget that, to get attention in Washington, you need to be relevant to America’s own agenda – domestic and global. Canada’s best asset and our best leverage in Washington should be our energy resources, not just because of what it can contribute to the U.S.’ economic prospects but also because of the heft it can give us with America’s global challenges and our own.
As with any major bilateral initiative, Canada will have to do its homework thoroughly and then take the lead – as we did with the FTA and the Acid Rain Accord. The indispensable ingredient for success will be mutual respect and firm resolve at the top but it starts with a clear vision of what can be done. The question is not “why” but rather “why not”?
As with free trade, this will not in any way diminish Canadian sovereignty. It will only increase Canadian prosperity. Wayne Gretzky’s exceptional hockey talent was knowing where the puck was going to be, not where it was. We should follow the Gretzky technique with a trade diversification strategy that focuses like a laser on where the future growth will be, especially in Asia and also here in our own hemisphere, in Latin America.
By 2035 China’s energy consumption is expected to rise 60% surpassing that of the U.S. In India, demand will more than double. In the next four years alone the GDP of Asia is estimated to grow from $22 trillion to almost $ 29 trillion or 32%. The National Intelligence Council of the U.S. predicts that by 2030 “Asia will have surpassed North America and Europe combined in terms of global power based on GDP, population size, military power and technology investment.”
We ignore that trend at our peril.
There are days frankly when we seem to be like the fellow who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. We take too much of what we have for granted believing mistakenly that our vast resources will generate prosperity just by being there. There will be no powerful explosion of development in our entire energy sector unless there is agreement among the major players and interests.
And who are they?

  • The First Nations
  • The affected provinces that control the resources
  • The stewards of our environment

Without their active involvement and enthusiastic cooperation, our natural resources will remain in the ground. Dead as a doornail.
Canada is a vibrant federation. We are not a unitary state. The Government of Canada cannot act unilaterally to resolve this matter. The Federal Government must urgently initiate avenues of cooperation with all stakeholders to ensure that we move forward in the national interest.
A vigorous national commitment to develop the resources and build the necessary infrastructure must be complemented by three essential undertakings:
1) a principled partnership with First Nations and the provinces that moves beyond grievances from the past to opportunities for the future;
2) a realistic plan, using new technologies first and foremost, to reduce carbon emissions. I say “realistic” deliberately because, while Canada clearly can and should do more, we are a relatively small part of the global problem. We can and should, however, contribute commensurate with our share; and
3) a coherent plan to ensure that we are training people to harness the potential of our resource base. The Canada Job Grant program devised and led by Minister Jason Kenney is one very important step in that direction. But our education and training systems more generally need a major overhaul if we expect to have people with the right skills to exploit the huge potential of our resource rich economy.
So how would we move the ball forward on a project of this magnitude? When faced with a similar challenge on the launch of Free Trade negotiations almost three decades ago, my government recognized that it required a unique organizational structure, a genuine partnership with the provinces and the private sector and persistent political oversight by the Prime Minister himself, aimed at a clear objective.
For that purpose, we created a Trade Negotiations Office in Ottawa, primarily to command support and cut through roadblocks from individual departments and to consult systematically with the provinces. We formed a similarly special structure for dialogue with stakeholders from all relevant sectors. The TNO was led by a very brilliant and determined Simon Reisman, included many of the ‘best and brightest’ from Ottawa and reported regularly to a special cabinet committee which I chaired as Prime Minister of Canada.
It worked. The blend is what shaped success in those transformative negotiations and, also helped us implement the agreement. And, what happened? The statistics alone speak to the success of the FTA. Trade volumes more than tripled in less than twenty years – from $235 Billion to $743 Billion. Trade exploded into the largest bilateral exchanges between any 2 countries in the history of the world.
In the two hours or so that we will be together this evening, more than $200 million in goods and services will be exchanged by Canada and the U.S. That is more than $1 million every minute of every hour of every day. Almost $2 billion in total, each and every day of every week of every month of every year.
Since implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, Canada’s GDP has more than doubled to $1.8 trillion, and the Canadian economy has created 4.6 million new jobs. As successful as free trade has been, I take the most satisfaction from the changed mindset of Canadians. We’re a much more confident, outward-looking people.
We know that if we can compete successfully throughout North America, we can make it anywhere. But now, it’s time for our next big step.
I suggest that what we now need for an exceptional, cohesive effort to make the most from our resource base is a similarly clear commitment from the top, a unique, high quality organizational structure drawing expertise from across Canada, and a genuine partnership that will spearhead expansion of our resources, expedite infrastructure construction and bolster a broader diversification of our exports.
What might be called the Resource Development Office (RDO) that would have special power to counter interdepartmental turf squabbles, set clear priorities, streamline regulatory reviews and move beyond a chronic penchant to ‘boil the ocean’ with analyses and consultations.
To lead this enterprise, we would need someone with the tenacity of Simon Reisman and the sensitivity of a Bob Rae or a Jim Prentice. Someone who has the absolute confidence and persistent attention of the Prime Minister
Any volunteers?
It will not happen by osmosis and is much more than a task for governments. The biggest obstacles to success are complacency and chronic inertia. The best tonic for both is a cohesive plan of action enabling decisions and commitments that can be articulated as confidently as they can be implemented.
When my government decided to negotiate the Atlantic Accord for offshore energy development and then took dramatic investment action to launch Hibernia, Newfoundland and Labrador was a have not province – and had been since joining Confederation in 1949.
Today – because of these decisions – Newfoundland and Labrador is a have province exploding with wealth and promise, while paying into equalization that benefits provinces like Ontario and Quebec. Just imagine, the epochal impact, on our entire nation, of the initiative that I have outlined tonight. It will make Canada one of the wealthiest and most influential countries on earth, while vastly strengthening our sovereignty and our capacity for good and effective leadership in the world.
This Canadian energy and resource agenda under the Prime Minister’s personal direction would provide hundreds billions of dollars in new investments, millions of new jobs, bring West and East much closer together, and be as transformational and beneficial to the country as any major policy initiative undertaken in Canada in the last 70 years.
Infometrica has estimated that planned investments in major resource projects could generate a $1.4 Trillion cumulative increase in GDP with dividends for all regions of Canada and more than 6 million jobs. No other sector of our economy has comparable potential for our future prosperity.
The most essential ingredient for any “Big Idea”, however, is leadership.
Leadership that not only anticipates the need for change but is determined to implement change. Not in pursuit of popularity but to serve the national interest. The test of true leadership hinges on judgements between risk and reward.
Change of any kind requires risk, political risk. It can and will generate unpopularity from those who oppose change. The choice for Canada in a fast-changing global environment is either to adapt quickly and take advantage of the changes happening or watch from the sidelines.
If we truly deliver, we will not only enhance our economic prospects but I am confident will also enable Canada to play a more relevant and effective role on geopolitical issues of the moment. We can truly ‘walk the talk’ of a resource super power.
Thomas D’Arcy McGee, the most eloquent Father of Confederation, in his last speech in the House of Commons before his assassination, 146 years ago yesterday, famously said: “He who seeks after popularity builds upon a shifting sand.”
Prime ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership. As President Clinton once said: “Leadership is the capacity to look around the corner of history, just a little bit.” Leadership is the process, not only of foreseeing the need for change, but of making the case for change. Leadership does not consist of imposing unpopular ideas on the public, but of making unpopular ideas acceptable to the nation. This requires a very solid argument for change, and a very strong ability to make the argument, over and over and over again.
The impact of significant public policy decisions is often unclear in the early years. It sometimes takes a considerable period – frequently decades – before the full consequences of an important initiative become apparent. As Reinhold Niebuhr reminded us: “nothing worth doing is completed in our life time; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing fine or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith”.
It is in this perspective that great and controversial questions of public policy must be considered. History tends to focus on the builders, the deciders, the leaders – because they are the men and women whose contributions have shaped the destiny of their nations.
From Confederation to the present day, our country has been blessed with strong leaders. I am confident that it will always be so in a Canada that is united, prosperous and strong. May the blessings of providence always be upon our beloved country and upon all of you.
Thank you very much.

Analysis: Who is Matteo Renzi?

At just 39 years of age, Matteo Renzi became Italy’s youngest-ever prime minister in late February. Yet only months before, the then-mayor of Florence had been embroiled in a primary race for the leadership of the Italian Democratic Party. He secured victory with a convincing majority in early December 2013; Renzi won 68 percent of the popular vote, while rivals Gianni Cuperlo and Giuseppe Civati scored just 18 percent and 14 percent, respectively.
Following his December victory, Renzi quickly became frustrated with the government’s prolonged stalemate, due in part to his own party; neither the government coalition nor the prime minister, Enrico Letta, were capable of pushing through much-needed reforms. In mid-February, having lost patience, he called a meeting of the Parliamentary Party, during which he briefly thanked Letta for his leadership but also called for—really, effectively demanded—his resignation.
The dramatic events that led to this meteoric rise are nothing new for Renzi. Over the course of his relatively short political career, the former lawyer and regional counselor earned the nickname “il Rottomatore”—meaning “the bulldozer” or “the demolition man”—thanks to his reputation for taking on the establishment and pushing through political reforms. The Financial Times has dubbed him “a young man in a hurry,” but a number of commentators have questioned whether his lack of experience at the national level could undermine his ability to modernize Italian politics and kick-start economic growth.
Others, however, suggest his very willingness to shake things up is what Italy needs and that this willingness to push for reforms will be precisely the source of his success.
Download Matt Browne’s analysis here.
Matt Browne is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress, a member of the Canada 2020 Advisory Board, and has been advising Matteo Renzi for the past 3 years.

The Canada-China relationship – how we keep up the momentum

The CCCE, in partnership with Canada 2020, held an event titled “Canada-China Relations, Keeping up the Momentum”. At the event,Wendy Dobson of Rotman presented her book, Partners and Rivals:  The uneasy future of China’s relationship with the United States. She exhorted Canadians to anticipate the future, when China will move up the value chain in sectors such as rail, advanced manufacturing and clean teach and look for innovation partners. Canada can play in this space. Dr. Dobson noted Canada is seen positively but not strategically in China.
Thoughtful views from Ralph Lutes of Teck, and Bruce Simpson of McKinsey, brought out the key business opportunities and importance of China to Canada’s economy. Mr. Simpson challenged Canada to think about helping China get its cities right – we have three of the best cities in the world in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. If current trends hold, by 2025 China will have 221 cities with one million–plus inhabitants, says McKinsey. Canada has the expertise to help China get its cities right.
Premier Brad Wall set out his vision for Saskatchewan’s engagement with China, driven in large part by agriculture and energy products.  Given the huge opportunities for Canada, what we need, in Premier Wall’s view, is a long term vision.
What might that long term vision for deeper Canada-China engagement entail?  Here are five thoughts:

  1. Create a Strategic Partnership at the leaders’ level, as Australia has done.  Our PM, of no matter what political stripe, could engage on a yearly basis with his counterpart.  This is a matter of smart geopolitical and economic management. In a multipolar world, and with such a solid base in Canada’s relationship with the USA, we need to think about a similarly high level, complex, and regular series of “top to top” engagement with China.
  2. A Team Canada approach to China to match our competitors.  Government and business need to work together to create opportunities for Canadian firms.  This is especially important for aerospace and energy. Choose sectors where Canada is a winner and align with Chinese needs.
  3. Ensure we have open trade and investment regimes.  Taking the next steps in our trade relationship with China – either through sectoral agreements, free trade negotiations, or encouraging China to join TPP – is important to keeping up the momentum.
  4. Encourage as many student exchanges, cultural visits and two-way tourism as is possible.  Our people to people ties are essential for understanding one another, and deepening public awareness and engagement with China.
  5. Think about the skills of the future Canadians will need to take advantage of China and Asian growth markets.  Then act to improve them.  Language skills, cultural awareness, team problem solving, STEM skills to help China build great cities and a better environment.  These skills need all of our education systems – JK to 12, colleges, universities, think tanks, skilled trades – to be partners.

The CCCE and its member companies will continue to build on the knowledge developed during our 2012 conference, Canada in the Pacific Century, to engage Canada in discussions on the opportunities Asia’s rise provides.
Ailish Campbell is Vice President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, at the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.