Brian's PlanS for TORONTO AND Canada:
The Hope and Prosperity Agenda
If you look at all the advantages we have in Canada, there is no reason why we should not have the highest standard of living in the world - and be the best country in the world to live in when judged by any of the "Quality of Life" indicators such as having low child mortality, longest lifespan, low economic inequality, low crime rate, high literacy rate.
Canada (or some Canadian cities) often ranks near the top of surveys of best places to live in the world - yet not everyone is sharing in our overall good fortune. We need to address poverty and other areas of social policy where we fall short, but redistributing wealth requires we have wealth to begin with. Scandinavian countries often rank higher than Canada on many measures. Without a plan to ensure our economic success, plans to address other problems will fail for a lack of resources.
In the past, we were often satisfied to come in second to the US on economic indicators - mainly because our vision was to hitch our wagon to the US economy and have them pull our economy along with them. This was the vision of Brian Mulroney with the 1988 Free Trade Agreement and then NAFTA.
The other vision for Canada was of Canada as being wealthy by virtue of being the second largest country in the world, and exploiting our non-renewable resources and renewable resources alike. Yet, we did a poor job of managing them - often thinking short tem and not about economic or environmental sustainability.
Our industrial policy had been a branch plant economy - in part this was necessary because the US had high tariffs against manufactured goods from Canada and we had access to the British Empire, but we cannot seem to make up our mind if we are a modern industrialised economy, or an economy based on "staples" - and the yo-yo-ing between resources and manufactured goods (and services) had been a disaster - when resource prices are high, the resulting high dollar kills non-resource jobs and businesses, and then when inevitably commodity prices in world markets collapse, the resource parts of our economy suffer. This boom and bust cycle prevents us from competing effectively against countries like Japan and Germany - even Peter Lougheed knew Alberta needed to diversify.
Don't confuse this with "trickle down economics", but it is hard to have greater economic justice and to reduce inequality if an economy is stagnant or shrinking, or if population growth exceeds a nation's ability to provide new opportunities.
Canada (or some Canadian cities) often ranks near the top of surveys of best places to live in the world - yet not everyone is sharing in our overall good fortune. We need to address poverty and other areas of social policy where we fall short, but redistributing wealth requires we have wealth to begin with. Scandinavian countries often rank higher than Canada on many measures. Without a plan to ensure our economic success, plans to address other problems will fail for a lack of resources.
In the past, we were often satisfied to come in second to the US on economic indicators - mainly because our vision was to hitch our wagon to the US economy and have them pull our economy along with them. This was the vision of Brian Mulroney with the 1988 Free Trade Agreement and then NAFTA.
The other vision for Canada was of Canada as being wealthy by virtue of being the second largest country in the world, and exploiting our non-renewable resources and renewable resources alike. Yet, we did a poor job of managing them - often thinking short tem and not about economic or environmental sustainability.
Our industrial policy had been a branch plant economy - in part this was necessary because the US had high tariffs against manufactured goods from Canada and we had access to the British Empire, but we cannot seem to make up our mind if we are a modern industrialised economy, or an economy based on "staples" - and the yo-yo-ing between resources and manufactured goods (and services) had been a disaster - when resource prices are high, the resulting high dollar kills non-resource jobs and businesses, and then when inevitably commodity prices in world markets collapse, the resource parts of our economy suffer. This boom and bust cycle prevents us from competing effectively against countries like Japan and Germany - even Peter Lougheed knew Alberta needed to diversify.
Don't confuse this with "trickle down economics", but it is hard to have greater economic justice and to reduce inequality if an economy is stagnant or shrinking, or if population growth exceeds a nation's ability to provide new opportunities.
Brian's message:
our priority in canada should be full employment (<5%)
FULL EMPLOYMENT = TIGHT LABOUR MARKET
The NDP can't expect to get elected by telling Canadians how it will spend more money to or solve problems as part of a zero-sum redistribution of wealth that will mean higher taxes for most (what the right labels as "tax and spend")
It is not enough for the NDP to opposes privatisations or trade deals because it disagrees with the neo-conservative economic policies of the other parties, without telling Canadians how the NDP can create jobs and otherwise improve our standard of living via other policies.
The federal NDP lacks credibility on the economy.
And in any case, the best way to reduce inequality is to raise up people at the bottom by reducing unemployment and under-employment, and to do so at the same time that we raise wages for middle and lower income Canadians.
Countries like Japan and South Korea raised themselves out of poverty by ignoring the standard Anglo-American economic policies that Canada followed, particularly since the election of Brian Mulroney. These countries maintained control of their economies and yet became major exporters of things other than natural resources. We can also learn from Germany and the Scandinavian countries how to have both a high standard of living, good social programs and social justice. Capitalism in those countries is not the same as in the US or even Britain. Executives in Japan don't earn what US and Canadian executives earn, for example. Canada needs to modify capitalism to better suit our needs and situation, and to better serve the Canadian people (including as consumers, employees and investors)
We have a mixed economy, yet NDP politicians never talk about "supply and demand" or how to make the market work better to solve our problems. The economics profession (and those on the right) tend to treat markets with religious veneration instead of seeing markets as a tool that sometimes works, sometimes fails, and sometimes needs regulation.
Government jobs are real jobs - but governments generally don't do well at things like exports. However, governments can shape the economy and marketplace to make sure everything works better both in terms of creating wealth and in ensuring our social safety net works for everyone.
The key to is to have policies that will reduce unemployment - I think I know how we can achieve this, but it might mean the NDP needs to rethink some policies and be willing to tackle some sacred cows.
It is not enough for the NDP to opposes privatisations or trade deals because it disagrees with the neo-conservative economic policies of the other parties, without telling Canadians how the NDP can create jobs and otherwise improve our standard of living via other policies.
The federal NDP lacks credibility on the economy.
And in any case, the best way to reduce inequality is to raise up people at the bottom by reducing unemployment and under-employment, and to do so at the same time that we raise wages for middle and lower income Canadians.
Countries like Japan and South Korea raised themselves out of poverty by ignoring the standard Anglo-American economic policies that Canada followed, particularly since the election of Brian Mulroney. These countries maintained control of their economies and yet became major exporters of things other than natural resources. We can also learn from Germany and the Scandinavian countries how to have both a high standard of living, good social programs and social justice. Capitalism in those countries is not the same as in the US or even Britain. Executives in Japan don't earn what US and Canadian executives earn, for example. Canada needs to modify capitalism to better suit our needs and situation, and to better serve the Canadian people (including as consumers, employees and investors)
We have a mixed economy, yet NDP politicians never talk about "supply and demand" or how to make the market work better to solve our problems. The economics profession (and those on the right) tend to treat markets with religious veneration instead of seeing markets as a tool that sometimes works, sometimes fails, and sometimes needs regulation.
Government jobs are real jobs - but governments generally don't do well at things like exports. However, governments can shape the economy and marketplace to make sure everything works better both in terms of creating wealth and in ensuring our social safety net works for everyone.
The key to is to have policies that will reduce unemployment - I think I know how we can achieve this, but it might mean the NDP needs to rethink some policies and be willing to tackle some sacred cows.
the hope & prosperity agenda
After ten years of Steven Harper and Conservative Party policies, in 2015 the people of Canada voted for change.
The new Liberal government however is still following many of the same shopworn neo-conservative (what Europeans would call "neo-liberal" policies of free trade deals, foreign investment and maintaining our dependence on non-renewable resources for our future.
None of the 14 or so candidates for the Conservative Party are offering anything other than the usual right wing talking points about big government being bad and cutting taxes (meaning healthcare and other parts of the social safety net will be diminished instead of being improved and expanded).
The NDP leadership race does not have any official entrants, and quite possibly we will see many in the party looking to take the party farther to the left, rather than trying to take the party in a direction where it can win elections by appealing to people who went back to the Liberal party in 2015, or to get through to those who voted conservative even though in their hearts they disagree with much of the conservative agenda
The 2016 election in the US showed that many long-time Democrats abandoned that party because they wanted change - they felt that government was not looking out for their interests, that Democrats and there was anger at "elites". Voters felt that politicians on the left held them in contempt and were not looking out for their interests.
Already citizens and people in the media are talking about Trudeau not living up to his promises - the honeymoon is over. In particular, Trudeau is continuing with a variety of Harper policies - like on the CETA and TPP trade deals that will do little to reduce our trade deficit yet will hand over new rights to foreign corporations to over-rule decisions of our democratically elected governments.
In 2019, I expect voters will be looking for a party that understands their daily lives and that is looking out for their interests. The NDP needs to be reaching out to voters who have not in past considered themselves NDP supporters.
Canadians hold Tommy Douglas in high regards not because he advocated for medicare, but because he was able to get elected and was able to do something about it. Had Tommy Douglas never won an election and only been an opposition leader, he would be a historical footnote.
Canada needs a new vision. Trudeau's vision is likely no different than Kathleen Wynne's vision, which Rick Salutin described as "standard issue Liberal: social justice plus conventional economics.
Conventional economics in Canada has been foreign ownership and control of our economy, and a reliance on resource exports - a view most recently espoused by Steven Harper's vision of Canada being an "energy Superpower" that was all bluster and relied on the doomed idea that fossil fuel exploitation would make Canada the envy of the world.
Trudeau has bought into neo-conservatism - he offers no hope to young people who complain of tenuous employment and a bad job market. As Thomas Walkom explained in a column in The Star (click HERE):
...Trudeau said his Liberals would pursue most of Conservative Stephen Harper’s economic goals — including resource exploitation, pipelines and free trade. But they would do so in a way that distributed the proceeds more equitably.
In effect, he promised to be Tony Blair to Harper’s Margaret Thatcher — doing much the same as his political nemesis, but in a more acceptable manner.
He is at least partially succeeding.
The essence of neo-liberalism is globalization. Neo-liberals strive for a world in which capital, goods and even labour move effortlessly from country to country. The aim is to let the free market do its magic and maximize wealth.
It is time for a new vision.
I call it "The Hope & Prosperity Agenda"
The new Liberal government however is still following many of the same shopworn neo-conservative (what Europeans would call "neo-liberal" policies of free trade deals, foreign investment and maintaining our dependence on non-renewable resources for our future.
None of the 14 or so candidates for the Conservative Party are offering anything other than the usual right wing talking points about big government being bad and cutting taxes (meaning healthcare and other parts of the social safety net will be diminished instead of being improved and expanded).
The NDP leadership race does not have any official entrants, and quite possibly we will see many in the party looking to take the party farther to the left, rather than trying to take the party in a direction where it can win elections by appealing to people who went back to the Liberal party in 2015, or to get through to those who voted conservative even though in their hearts they disagree with much of the conservative agenda
The 2016 election in the US showed that many long-time Democrats abandoned that party because they wanted change - they felt that government was not looking out for their interests, that Democrats and there was anger at "elites". Voters felt that politicians on the left held them in contempt and were not looking out for their interests.
Already citizens and people in the media are talking about Trudeau not living up to his promises - the honeymoon is over. In particular, Trudeau is continuing with a variety of Harper policies - like on the CETA and TPP trade deals that will do little to reduce our trade deficit yet will hand over new rights to foreign corporations to over-rule decisions of our democratically elected governments.
In 2019, I expect voters will be looking for a party that understands their daily lives and that is looking out for their interests. The NDP needs to be reaching out to voters who have not in past considered themselves NDP supporters.
Canadians hold Tommy Douglas in high regards not because he advocated for medicare, but because he was able to get elected and was able to do something about it. Had Tommy Douglas never won an election and only been an opposition leader, he would be a historical footnote.
Canada needs a new vision. Trudeau's vision is likely no different than Kathleen Wynne's vision, which Rick Salutin described as "standard issue Liberal: social justice plus conventional economics.
Conventional economics in Canada has been foreign ownership and control of our economy, and a reliance on resource exports - a view most recently espoused by Steven Harper's vision of Canada being an "energy Superpower" that was all bluster and relied on the doomed idea that fossil fuel exploitation would make Canada the envy of the world.
Trudeau has bought into neo-conservatism - he offers no hope to young people who complain of tenuous employment and a bad job market. As Thomas Walkom explained in a column in The Star (click HERE):
...Trudeau said his Liberals would pursue most of Conservative Stephen Harper’s economic goals — including resource exploitation, pipelines and free trade. But they would do so in a way that distributed the proceeds more equitably.
In effect, he promised to be Tony Blair to Harper’s Margaret Thatcher — doing much the same as his political nemesis, but in a more acceptable manner.
He is at least partially succeeding.
The essence of neo-liberalism is globalization. Neo-liberals strive for a world in which capital, goods and even labour move effortlessly from country to country. The aim is to let the free market do its magic and maximize wealth.
It is time for a new vision.
I call it "The Hope & Prosperity Agenda"
POLICIES
Here are some of the policies I advocate:
Pharmacare: This should be the top NDP priority because potentially it will save everyone money as well as giving access to drugs to people who suffer because they do not have access to a drug plan now through an employer plan or government program. No doubt the lack of access to drugs drives up other costs due to the lack of early treatment or when people cannot fill prescriptions their doctor has written. Because many corporations/employers will save money if they no longer have to pay for a drug plan, a small payroll tax might be necessary.
Bank of Canada Policy: The target rate of 2% inflation is too low (Jim Stanford would concur) and the Bank usually undershoots this target. The target should be increased to 3%. More importantly, the Bank's mandate is not inflation control alone, but includes "to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada" - notice that the word employment is in their, and not just prices.
In addition to an inflation target, the Bank of Canada should also have an unemployment target - of 4% with a range of 3% to 5%, so that jobs are given equal or greater consideration with inflation.
Fiscal AND Monetary Stimulus: Local and provincial governments can get into serious problems of they get deeply into debt and cannot handle the interest, or repay the principle. The Federal government is different - through the treasury and central bank (Bank of Canada), the government issue as much debt and cash as it needs or wants. Ultimately it could lead to inflation if the money supply grows to quickly, but we forget that most of the expansion of the money supply is through privately owned banks creating money out of thin air. The government can fund infrastructure and even fund some of its unfunded liabilities (like unfunded pensions for government employees, CPP, etc.) by issuing debt that is then repurchased by the B of C - similar to "quantitative easing" in the US since 2009. This is explained in a chapter of the book "Rethinking capitalism : economics and policy for sustainable and inclusive growth".
No Trade Deals that favour foreign corporations over Canadians: NAFTA and CETA include provisions that allow corporations to sue the government for compensation if corporate profits might suffer. This provision undermines our sovereignty as particularly limits our ability to pass environmental laws (remember the MMT dispute. Canada is a trading nation, but trade deals need to serve Canadians and not just hand over rights to foreign corporations and foreign investors.
Restore or tighten controls on foreign ownership/takeovers: Canada has a huge trade deficit - we buy cellphones and cars from other countries, they don't buy our goods and services but instead buy up our companies, government debt, real estate and intellectual property. Canada is a rich country and should be exporting capital, not importing it from China and other developing countries that limit our rights to invest over there.
Canada can't propsper by being a branch plant economy or being dependent on resource exports, particularly if those exports are not renewable anbd/or are boom and bust due to international markets we have no influence over. Let's follow the lead of Japan, South Korea and other countries and have our own companies - ones that have their best jobs here in their home country.
Government ownership and privatisation: Doesn't it seem odd that in recent years foreign government-owned corporations or sovereign wealth funds (China and Norway) were allowed to buy into major Canadian corporations, yet our own governments have an ideological aversion to investing in our own economy. Our federal government once owned CN, Polysar and PetroCanada. These corporations were generally run for profit and not for social policy purposes, but they played an important role in our development (In fact, the Polysar plant was on the back of the $5 bill from 1971 to 1989!).
A National Carbon Tax: Cap Trade has not been shown to be effective, plus it likely means our governments/industries end up paying money to the US or other countries are part of a market, instead of money staying here to actually reduce emissions. It also makes no sense for each province to have different rules and policies that overlap, leave gaps and are expensive and difficult for companies to navigate. We need a national carbon tax with money going back to families and individuals to ensure the tax is not regressive and hurts those who can least afford any extra cost.
A "Coalition of the Willing" on Global Warming
It is remarkable that an agreement on global warming was reached in Paris, but it is disappointing that the result includes no binding way of enforcing it, and the reductions promised might not be enough. Five countries emit over 50% of GHGs - China, the US, Russia, India and Japan. Canada emits about 1.7% of emissions - so anything we do will have little impact unless we can ensure other countries live up to their promises.
The solution might be a green trade agreement of key nations, which impose taxes or penalties on imports from non members, with the goal of keeping fossil fuels in the ground by managing extraction (keeping prices high by limiting supply). I will provide more detail on this plan later.
East-West Energy Grid: It makes little sense for provinces like Quebec, Manitoba, NL and BC to export clean hydro power to the US at low prices when other provinces could end up spending more per kWh to create new sources of clean power. We need an East-West energy grid rather than each province rying to be self-sufficient.
Immigration policy: Canada has had roughly the same immigration policy since 1990, when Brian Mulroney and Barbara MacDougall set up an immigration policy that Bay Street loves - bring in lots of new workers and consumers every year regardless of our economy's ability to find jobs for them. Canada with a population of 35 million brings in 320,000 immigrants per year, while the US with 320 million people brings in about 1.2 million immigrants per year - so on a per capita basis we let in 2.4 immigrants for every immigrant the US lets in. No wonder their unemployment rate dropped from 10% in 2009 to under 5% now, while our unemployment rate dropped only from 8.5% to 7%.
Canada could cut immigration to 132,000 per year and still be able to brag that we are more generous than our southern neighbour. We need not reduce immigration that far, but even future concerns like an aging workforce doesn't justify a policy of more than double the per capita immigration level as the US.
The solution is to cut immigration and then tie the number of immigrants to the unemployment rate - when unemployment is low, we can be more generous. Under our current policy, even when Canada goes into a deep recession (like in 2009) and there are few jobs, we don't reduce immigration.
Immigration (excluding refugee policy) should fit the economic needs and capacity of Canadians first - this would actually return us to the pre-Mulroney policies of Pierre Trudeau when immigration levels varied widely from year to year (under 90,000 immigrants in PET's last 2 years in office, during a recession).
To get unemployment down below 5% will require slowing the growth of the labour force - at least until unemployment drops and then create a feedback mechanism to keep unemployment low.
$15.00 per hour National Minimum Wage: In the 2015 election The NDP promised a $15.00 National Minimum Wage. however, the federal government only regulates wages in a few industries. A meaningful National Minimum Wage would be to require ALL the provinces to match the federal one. This might require that some transfer payments have strings attached (likely the Canada Social Transfer).
But in addition, the best way to see companies increase wages is to create the conditions that will see them raise wages even higher. This is where supply and demand is important - when labour is in short supply (low unemployment) companies raise wages, and will even train people for jobs that otherwise wouldn't be filled.
National Securities Regulator: Banks are federally regulated, but stock markets and corporations are currently provincial. How can we ensure that small investors are treated fairly, that corporations are properly regulated and executives get obscene levels of pay and stock options without empowering shareholders and ensuring that trading is conducted fairly and is not tilted in favour of wealthy or technologically advanced investors.
Competition Policy and Monopolies: Sadly, past Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed takeovers that reduce competition and lead to high prices due to monopolies and oligopolies. For example, we have concentration of news media and broadcasting in the hands of a few large corporations - with vertical integration. Unlike Europe and the US, Canada has also been lax in going after multinational companies like Google or Microsoft. It is time to enforce anti-trust regulations that harm our economy and harm consumers.
Hockey Teams for Quebec City and the GTA: The NHL and most other major professional sports leagues are monopolies, and as noted above, Canadian governments have been weak in regulating monopolies. The NHL is a monopoly where the owners have harmed Canadian consumers by denying teams the right to relocate where it is most profitable. The Players have a union, but who is looking out for hockey fans in smaller cities that could support a team, or for hockey fans in the GTA who have no choice but the Toronto Maple Leafs (owned by Rogers which owns most of the other Toronto teams) when the market can easily sustain two or even three teams, like the New York City area. Of course the government cannot guarantee new teams will come in, but the government can pass laws regulating professional sports monopolies that would limit the ability of a bunch of team owners to protect their interests by rejecting the relocation of teams, and for existing teams to gain massive unearned profits when another team has to moves into their "exclusive" area.
Pharmacare: This should be the top NDP priority because potentially it will save everyone money as well as giving access to drugs to people who suffer because they do not have access to a drug plan now through an employer plan or government program. No doubt the lack of access to drugs drives up other costs due to the lack of early treatment or when people cannot fill prescriptions their doctor has written. Because many corporations/employers will save money if they no longer have to pay for a drug plan, a small payroll tax might be necessary.
Bank of Canada Policy: The target rate of 2% inflation is too low (Jim Stanford would concur) and the Bank usually undershoots this target. The target should be increased to 3%. More importantly, the Bank's mandate is not inflation control alone, but includes "to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada" - notice that the word employment is in their, and not just prices.
In addition to an inflation target, the Bank of Canada should also have an unemployment target - of 4% with a range of 3% to 5%, so that jobs are given equal or greater consideration with inflation.
Fiscal AND Monetary Stimulus: Local and provincial governments can get into serious problems of they get deeply into debt and cannot handle the interest, or repay the principle. The Federal government is different - through the treasury and central bank (Bank of Canada), the government issue as much debt and cash as it needs or wants. Ultimately it could lead to inflation if the money supply grows to quickly, but we forget that most of the expansion of the money supply is through privately owned banks creating money out of thin air. The government can fund infrastructure and even fund some of its unfunded liabilities (like unfunded pensions for government employees, CPP, etc.) by issuing debt that is then repurchased by the B of C - similar to "quantitative easing" in the US since 2009. This is explained in a chapter of the book "Rethinking capitalism : economics and policy for sustainable and inclusive growth".
No Trade Deals that favour foreign corporations over Canadians: NAFTA and CETA include provisions that allow corporations to sue the government for compensation if corporate profits might suffer. This provision undermines our sovereignty as particularly limits our ability to pass environmental laws (remember the MMT dispute. Canada is a trading nation, but trade deals need to serve Canadians and not just hand over rights to foreign corporations and foreign investors.
Restore or tighten controls on foreign ownership/takeovers: Canada has a huge trade deficit - we buy cellphones and cars from other countries, they don't buy our goods and services but instead buy up our companies, government debt, real estate and intellectual property. Canada is a rich country and should be exporting capital, not importing it from China and other developing countries that limit our rights to invest over there.
Canada can't propsper by being a branch plant economy or being dependent on resource exports, particularly if those exports are not renewable anbd/or are boom and bust due to international markets we have no influence over. Let's follow the lead of Japan, South Korea and other countries and have our own companies - ones that have their best jobs here in their home country.
Government ownership and privatisation: Doesn't it seem odd that in recent years foreign government-owned corporations or sovereign wealth funds (China and Norway) were allowed to buy into major Canadian corporations, yet our own governments have an ideological aversion to investing in our own economy. Our federal government once owned CN, Polysar and PetroCanada. These corporations were generally run for profit and not for social policy purposes, but they played an important role in our development (In fact, the Polysar plant was on the back of the $5 bill from 1971 to 1989!).
A National Carbon Tax: Cap Trade has not been shown to be effective, plus it likely means our governments/industries end up paying money to the US or other countries are part of a market, instead of money staying here to actually reduce emissions. It also makes no sense for each province to have different rules and policies that overlap, leave gaps and are expensive and difficult for companies to navigate. We need a national carbon tax with money going back to families and individuals to ensure the tax is not regressive and hurts those who can least afford any extra cost.
A "Coalition of the Willing" on Global Warming
It is remarkable that an agreement on global warming was reached in Paris, but it is disappointing that the result includes no binding way of enforcing it, and the reductions promised might not be enough. Five countries emit over 50% of GHGs - China, the US, Russia, India and Japan. Canada emits about 1.7% of emissions - so anything we do will have little impact unless we can ensure other countries live up to their promises.
The solution might be a green trade agreement of key nations, which impose taxes or penalties on imports from non members, with the goal of keeping fossil fuels in the ground by managing extraction (keeping prices high by limiting supply). I will provide more detail on this plan later.
East-West Energy Grid: It makes little sense for provinces like Quebec, Manitoba, NL and BC to export clean hydro power to the US at low prices when other provinces could end up spending more per kWh to create new sources of clean power. We need an East-West energy grid rather than each province rying to be self-sufficient.
Immigration policy: Canada has had roughly the same immigration policy since 1990, when Brian Mulroney and Barbara MacDougall set up an immigration policy that Bay Street loves - bring in lots of new workers and consumers every year regardless of our economy's ability to find jobs for them. Canada with a population of 35 million brings in 320,000 immigrants per year, while the US with 320 million people brings in about 1.2 million immigrants per year - so on a per capita basis we let in 2.4 immigrants for every immigrant the US lets in. No wonder their unemployment rate dropped from 10% in 2009 to under 5% now, while our unemployment rate dropped only from 8.5% to 7%.
Canada could cut immigration to 132,000 per year and still be able to brag that we are more generous than our southern neighbour. We need not reduce immigration that far, but even future concerns like an aging workforce doesn't justify a policy of more than double the per capita immigration level as the US.
The solution is to cut immigration and then tie the number of immigrants to the unemployment rate - when unemployment is low, we can be more generous. Under our current policy, even when Canada goes into a deep recession (like in 2009) and there are few jobs, we don't reduce immigration.
Immigration (excluding refugee policy) should fit the economic needs and capacity of Canadians first - this would actually return us to the pre-Mulroney policies of Pierre Trudeau when immigration levels varied widely from year to year (under 90,000 immigrants in PET's last 2 years in office, during a recession).
To get unemployment down below 5% will require slowing the growth of the labour force - at least until unemployment drops and then create a feedback mechanism to keep unemployment low.
$15.00 per hour National Minimum Wage: In the 2015 election The NDP promised a $15.00 National Minimum Wage. however, the federal government only regulates wages in a few industries. A meaningful National Minimum Wage would be to require ALL the provinces to match the federal one. This might require that some transfer payments have strings attached (likely the Canada Social Transfer).
But in addition, the best way to see companies increase wages is to create the conditions that will see them raise wages even higher. This is where supply and demand is important - when labour is in short supply (low unemployment) companies raise wages, and will even train people for jobs that otherwise wouldn't be filled.
National Securities Regulator: Banks are federally regulated, but stock markets and corporations are currently provincial. How can we ensure that small investors are treated fairly, that corporations are properly regulated and executives get obscene levels of pay and stock options without empowering shareholders and ensuring that trading is conducted fairly and is not tilted in favour of wealthy or technologically advanced investors.
Competition Policy and Monopolies: Sadly, past Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed takeovers that reduce competition and lead to high prices due to monopolies and oligopolies. For example, we have concentration of news media and broadcasting in the hands of a few large corporations - with vertical integration. Unlike Europe and the US, Canada has also been lax in going after multinational companies like Google or Microsoft. It is time to enforce anti-trust regulations that harm our economy and harm consumers.
Hockey Teams for Quebec City and the GTA: The NHL and most other major professional sports leagues are monopolies, and as noted above, Canadian governments have been weak in regulating monopolies. The NHL is a monopoly where the owners have harmed Canadian consumers by denying teams the right to relocate where it is most profitable. The Players have a union, but who is looking out for hockey fans in smaller cities that could support a team, or for hockey fans in the GTA who have no choice but the Toronto Maple Leafs (owned by Rogers which owns most of the other Toronto teams) when the market can easily sustain two or even three teams, like the New York City area. Of course the government cannot guarantee new teams will come in, but the government can pass laws regulating professional sports monopolies that would limit the ability of a bunch of team owners to protect their interests by rejecting the relocation of teams, and for existing teams to gain massive unearned profits when another team has to moves into their "exclusive" area.