{"id":81581,"date":"2021-08-14T08:40:00","date_gmt":"2021-08-14T08:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=81581"},"modified":"2024-11-12T03:41:36","modified_gmt":"2024-11-12T03:41:36","slug":"gameplan-for-recovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resourcework2.devstudio.work\/?p=81581","title":{"rendered":"A gameplan for economic recovery"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As we await the recovery, a lot of ink has been spilt on \u201cbuilding back better\u201d after the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only was it President Biden\u2019s campaign slogan, it\u2019s also the Prime Minister\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A fourth wave notwithstanding, the worst of the pandemic is behind us. Vaccination counts are rising and provinces are re-opening, albeit hesitantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what\u2019s the plan for economic recovery?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, as University of Carlton\u2019s Ian Lee argues, we\u2019ve \u201coverspent and over-stimulated<\/a>.\u201d A lack of targeting saw a significant amount of emergency funding go to those who didn\u2019t need it, while the minority who truly needed it, such as small businesses and restaurants, didn\u2019t get enough to make up for pandemic-induced hardships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not that the government shouldn\u2019t have been spending any money, but that they should have put it to more productive use, says Lee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, that could have meant double-tracking the trans-Canada highway across the country, building pipelines, and investing in airports. Instead, Lee says, that money went into income redistribution that largely went to the wrong people\u2014with nothing to show for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Governments could do better moving forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be sure, the governing Liberals have made some progress, notably in increasing funding for industrial R&D<\/a>, benefiting Canada\u2019s innovating natural resource industries, and pursuing carbon border adjustments<\/a>. These are commitments also made by the Conservatives<\/a> in the official opposition and will help Canadian companies compete against competitors operating without the constraints of a carbon tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet there are some key ingredients that Canada needs to build into the game plan, says David Williams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The vice-president of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia points to Canada’s nagging inability<\/a> to improve living standards for its residents. The first step to recovery is fixing the inefficiencies and disincentives in our economy holding back innovation and productivity growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCanadian policymakers need to focus on raising the economy\u2019s speed limit by pursuing policies that promote faster productivity growth and raise living standards over time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An overreliance on policies promoting population and labour input growth at the expense of productivity resulted in a \u201clost decade\u201d of productivity from 2006 to 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He quotes Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman: \u201cProductivity isn’t everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Williams adds: \u201cHigh living standards are not a product of a large population. Higher living standards are earned by becoming more productive over time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams points to five long-term priorities for a stronger, more productive economy in the recovery phase:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Modernizing the tax system.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Delivering certainty and timeliness in regulatory processes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Reducing interprovincial trade barriers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Invigorating competition in product markets.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Spurring business innovation and capital investment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    All five priorities are relevant for natural resource industries, especially numbers two and five: regulatory times and the combined factors of innovation and investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    An oft-cited Canadian classic of regulatory delay and red tape was the $11.4-billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in BC that was, in the end, cancelled by Petronas and its overseas partners in July 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Looking for construction to start in early 2015, Petronas filed its formal Project Description with what was then the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in February 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The agency eventually delivered its final findings (requiring many conditions to be met) on September 27th, 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n