Connect with us

Business

Canada should already be an economic superpower. Why is Canada not doing better?

Published

11 minute read

From Resource Works

Tej Parikh of the Financial Timess says Canada has the minerals but not the plan

Tej Parikh is the economics editorial writer for The Financial Times, a British daily newspaper. He joins our Stewart Muir for a Power Struggle interview. And we include in the following report some points from a guest column by Parikh in Canada’s National Post, which carried the headline ‘How Canada can unlock its economic superpower potential.’

Parikh begins the Power Struggle interview with this: “There’s an enormous economic potential here, very much the same geographic advantages that have underpinned America’s economic emergence over the last 100 years. . . . Given everything we understand about the advantages that countries need to grow, why is Canada not doing better economically?” He added: “When you break it down and you look at why income per capita in Canada has perhaps not increased as fast as we might expect on the basis of those advantages, it really kind of breaks down to three components. One is investment, so how much capital goes into the country?

The second is labour, and not just the amount, the size of the workforce you have, but how well you utilize the workforce. And then the third component is something that economists like to call a total-factor productivity, which is essentially your innovative ability and your ability to bring together capital and people. “And when you look at Canada as opposed to other large economies . . . you begin to see that actually there are a lot of restrictions in Canada, not just because of its vast geography but because of regulation, that it actually can’t combine its capital and labour as productively as it could.

“It’s about creating those supply chains and critical minerals that the Western world is currently short of. Given it (Canada) has these vast raw material resources, there is a massive scope for it to become even more integrated into Western supply chains in particular and to become a supplier of these things.” From Parikh’s National Post column: “The country is energy independent, with the world’s largest deposits of high-grade uranium and the third-largest proven oil reserves. It is also the fifth-largest producer of natural gas.Canada boasts a huge supply of other commodities too, including the largest potash reserves (used to make fertilizer), over one-third of the world’s certified forests and a fifth of the planet’s surface freshwater. Plus, it has an abundance of cobalt, graphite, lithium and other rare earth elements, which are used in renewable technologies. “But the nation has lacked the visionary leadership and policy framework to capitalize on its advantages.”

Watch the full interview here:

Baçk to Power Struggle: “Investors right now will know that Canada has all of this latent potential, they will know that there are resources there, they will know that there are talented workers in Canada. But (they need) the answers to what barriers there are to business and how they can be reduced, and I think that’s the piece that Canada and its provinces can do a better job on. “That’s the thing that I think Canada would benefit from, showing how it is a kind of a more unified country and showing how that it is a unified marketplace where investors and businesses can develop expansive supply chains.”

In the National Post: “A country with its geography could clearly generate higher output. To do so, the Canadian economy needs to become more efficient, raise investment and attract more high-skilled workers. Here’s how. “Canada places significant bureaucratic burdens on the movement of people and goods too. This includes restrictions on the sale of certain goods across provincial borders, and variations in licences and technical standards that hinder scaling, competition and efficient resource allocation across the country.

“A 2022 study by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute found that Canada’s economy could grow by 4.4 to 7.9 per cent in the long term — up to $200 billion a year — if it eliminated internal trade barriers via mutual recognition policies. Similar reforms in Australia in the 1990s helped to boost productivity there. “Simplifying its complex tax system, expediting planning processes, easing red tape for foreign direct investment and developing economic partnership mechanisms for Indigenous populations, in tandem with internal trade reforms, would help businesses across the industrial supply chain tap into the nation’s vast energy and mineral resources.”

On Power Struggle: “You can be rich in oil and natural gas. But obviously over the last 10, 15 years the global economy has been thinking about alternatives. In Europe and in the UK and in some states in the US, there’s a concerted effort to shift to cleaner energy sources. Canada has vast access to the critical minerals that underpin a lot of renewable energy sources. And then you can go further than that. “This isn’t just about having access to those, you know, old world energy sources. This is access to the type of energy sources that the world is looking for. So Canada is aligned to the renewable transition and I was quite surprised, actually, that in the last 10 to 15 years you haven’t really heard Canada’s name in that. I thought it was about time that Canada plays that up a bit more and the opportunities it has there.”

Tej Parikh continued: “This isn’t about just digging up Canada and exploiting its raw materials. It’s about finding ways in which you can create economic compacts with Indigenous communities, create economic compacts with Indigenous communities. “It’s a way in which you can sustainably mine parts of the country and ensure that, as you are developing underground resources in Canada, you are also developing local economies. Developing an industry means you develop jobs.

“Once you start developing factories and industries in certain areas, then financial services, commercial roles, all of these things build up, and that’s how I think the debate needs to be kind of pushed forward a little bit. “Once you start developing finance around these industries, you can also find ways to make these industries even more sustainable and environmentally friendly.”

“I think there are very clever ways in which Canada and all Canadians can see that actually these natural resources that the country has is actually an asset that everyone has a share in.” Stewart Muir then raised the Donald Trump issue: “Where have you landed on what Trump is all about? I mean, is this a poker game? Is it a chess match? Is it a street fight?”

Tej Parikh: “He likes negotiating and I think, from what we can understand from his tariff policy, he takes things to extremes and then he rows things back and he tries to gain concessions where he can. And I think he will take the same approach on most policy he has. I mean, he sees the world through a transactional lens. It’s ‘what can the other people offer me and how can we do a deal to ensure that I can gain that?’ “And I think in some sense, you know, yes, he is unpredictable, above and beyond that. But I think if you know that that's his framing, then I think it means that you know others just need to adjust to it and be pragmatic in it. And that is essentially what we have seen from the way the Canadian prime minister has been interacting with Donald Trump. You have to be pragmatic if you know what the threat could be.”

Parikh added: “I think the first thing is (Prime Minister Mark Carney) should build on the momentum that he has, the political momentum he has on reducing internal trade barriers in Canada. You then create the groundwork in order to start taking advantage of the mineral resources and the natural resources.” “Once Canadians start to feel that everyone is benefiting from the natural resources in the country and there are avenues to recycle the revenues from those sectors into the country, whether that’s through housing or developing infrastructure, improving public services, you then have this kind of reinforcement effect between the country and its natural resources and its assets and the development of peoples, and I think working on that will kind of provide the groundwork for Canada’s emergence.”

In the National Post: “The Canadian economy is at a crossroads. The belligerence of its main trading partner is driving consensus around boosting the national economy. The world needs what Canada has in abundance. The nation has a unique chance to reach its potential. If it wants to.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump: Americans to receive $2,000 each from tariff revenue

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump on Sunday said every American with the exception of the wealthy will receive $2,000 from the revenue the U.S. has collected from tariffs.

“A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high-income people!) will be paid to revenue,” Trump posted on Truth Social. He did not say when or how the tariff revenue would be distributed.

“We are now the richest, most respected country in the world with almost no inflation and a record stock market price. 401Ks are highest ever,” Trump wrote. “We are taking in trillions of dollars and will soon begin paying down our enormous debt, $37 trillion. Record investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place.”

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families and pay down the national debt. Economists, businesses and some public companies have warned that tariffs will raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs have been challenged in federal courts as unconstitutional by some business groups and Blue states, who argue that only Congress has the authority to enact tariffs. The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in a consolidated case challenging the tariffs.

Even some of the court’s conservative justices seemed skeptical of Trump’s authority to issue sweeping tariffs. Trump addressed that skepticism in his social media post.

“So let’s get this straight? The president of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress) to stop ALL TRADE  with a foreign country (which is far more onerous than a tariff) and LICENSE a foreign country, but it is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for the purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY,” he wrote. “That is not what our great founders had in mind. The whole thing is ridiculous! Other countries can tariff us, but we can’t tariff them?  It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON???”

The Center Square’s Brett Rowland contributed to this report. 

Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust for Ostriches: Part 2

Published on

I published an article about how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) failed to follow the science when trying to justify their horrific extermination of hundreds of healthy ostriches on a farm in a remote location in British Columbia, Canada. I addressed their misleading claim that it was necessary to safeguard human and animal health. Both science and plain common sense demonstrated that their claim was misinformation.

COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How legitimate is their claim that killing was necessary to preserve the export market?

Now, I cannot allow the CFIA’s second misleading rationale for slaughtering the ostriches to go unchallenged. Specifically, the CFIA claimed that the killing was also required to safeguard Canada’s almost billion-dollar poultry export market. The issue is that exports can be suspended if the policies of the World Organization for Animal Health are contravened. But what the CFIA failed to disclose to the public was that our country is not considered a single geographical zone when it comes to these policies. Rather, it is divided into numerous zones.

When looking at the World Organization for Animal Health’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 10.4.3 jumps out as being particularly important in this case. It states:

A country or zone may be considered free from high pathogenicity avian influenza when” “absence of infection with high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses, based on surveillance […] has been demonstrated in the country or zone for the past 12 months”.

During this twelve-month timeframe, exports from anywhere within the affected zone would presumably have to be suspended and biosecurity polices adhered to. Indeed, this could be problematic if it meant shutting down the export market of an entire country for an entire year. But that was not the case here. Consider these facts:

  1. The farmers at the heart of this case had no need to maintain an export market within their region for the viability of their farming operation.
  2. Biosecurity protocols imposed by the CFIA were already being adhered to.
  3. It is my understanding that the ostrich farm was isolated within a remote designated zone. Therefore, suspending exports from that zone would not risk harming export potential for other farmers. Even if the zone did incorporate far-away farms, the CFIA could have done the right thing and attempted negotiating redrawing of boundaries with the World Organization for Animal Health to prevent or minimize indirect harm to other farms.

In other words, the ostriches could have been tested after the flock recovered from the disease outbreak, with testing ending twelve months later. If these tests were consistently negative, the World Organization for Animal Health would have officially declared the zone housing the ostriches to be virus-free and it would lift its moratorium on exports from that isolated zone.

My assessment is that this would have allowed the ostriches to live, with no substantial negative impact on the ability to export poultry products from Canada.

Further, common sense also places the CFIA’s rationale into question. Their battle with the farmers took place over the better part of a year while they apparently ignored this subsection of the policy, yet Canada’s poultry export market continued unhindered.

So I am curious as to why the CFIA has been so hell-bent on killing healthy ostriches to purportedly preserve Canada’s export market. Why didn’t they advocate for the farmers from the very beginning by leaning on clauses like Article 10.4.3 to negotiate with the World Organization for Animal Health? I thought that government agencies were supposed to serve the public that pays them. I saw no evidence of the CFIA trying to help the farmers. Instead they seemed focused on doing everything but try to help them. The optics would have been much better for the CFIA if they could produce documentation showing that they rigorously negotiated on behalf of the farmers about Article 10.4.3 with the World Organization for Animal Health but the latter blatantly refused to honour the requests.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the CFIA not only failed to follow the science, but it was also selective in its interpretation and defense of the policies.

It also makes me wonder if Article 10.4.3 had anything to do with why the CFIA was so adamant about not allowing the birds to be tested almost one year after the outbreak. To have demonstrated an absence of the virus almost one year later would have shown that they were on the cusp of being able to use Article 10.4.3 to restore Canada’s coveted country-wide avian influenza-free status.

By the way, all countries claiming to have avian influenza-free status are misleading people. Avian influenza viruses are endemic. They are carried and transmitted by wild birds, especially waterfowl, that migrate around the globe.

The most hypocritical aspect of this is that the people responsible for the deaths of hundreds of valuable, healthy ostriches that were almost certainly virus-free (prove me wrong with data), likely let their own kids play on beaches and parks that are routinely populated by ducks, geese, and seagulls, and stipple-painted with the feces of these birds that serve as natural reservoirs for the virus.

All hail the hypocritical virtue signaling!

To be consistent with their reasoning, every person that supported what the CFIA did to the healthy ostriches should never step foot on any premises frequented by wild birds.


COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X