So how would YOU fix the Canadian economy?

[capncrunch]

It's easy to criticize - and there's LOTs to criticize - but it's something else entirely to actually offer up rational, practical ways to kick-start the Canadian economy, especially since we're so commodities-based and dependent on exports to the US.

So Terb brothers and sisters, what would YOU do to fix the Canadian economy? Tax cuts? Spending stimulus? Infrastructure investment? Tighter/looser regulation? Some combination? Or a laissez-faire approach to let the market handle things on its own?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

So Terb brothers and sisters, what would YOU do to fix the Canadian economy? Tax cuts? Spending stimulus? Infrastructure investment? Tighter/looser regulation? Some combination? Or a laissez-faire approach to let the market handle things on its own?

I believe the best thing we can do is invest in our infrastructure. This includes major investments in education. These types of investments have a guaranteed ROI.

Besides, if we are going to spend our children's future, it only seems fair we leave them something to show for it.

 

[gramage]

One thing I do want to compliment the Conservatives on and would copy is the tax credit for home improvements. Construction work is exactly the kind of well paying middle class jobs that can keep the economy going through the tax dollars they pay and the money they spend.

I would put a rush on road work and any government projects to get as much done right now as possible. Get the people working! plus that is short term spending that once it's done it's out of the budget, rather then a tax cut which affects the books permanently.

In terms of corporate tax I would put in place tax deductions based on pollution reduction and workforce size/median pay. This would make upgrading technology and maintaining staff levels in thebest interests of our largest industries and employers.

And I would legalize pot as a crown corporation, take all the profit for the first 3-5 years then sell off the rights to private industry. Take the money away from crime and put it where it belongs, in politics.

 

[oldjones]

Big corporations so badly managed as to need bailing out, should have to replace their managers first. If they can't do that the country's better off without them. Their workers won't be however, nor will it help anyone from retailers large and small right up to the banks hoping their mortgages, if they have no incomes. So fixing EI to actually pay out the insurance all those billions in premiums was supposedly buying should be the very first step.

After cushioning the fall, you pick the guy up. Fix the roads, the bridges, the sewer systems, build the transit links all the labour intensive stuff this country's been pretending it could put off forever. The reno tax-credit's well intentioned, lotsa out-of work guys can do small contracting, but it's too mingy and unfocussed. Double or triple the amounts for energy-efficient renos done under the existing before and after energy audit scheme.

Get out the old list of stuff—mostly in health care—the government insists on doing most expensively. Like paying for hospital beds but not for cheaper (and often better) nursing home or at-home care for the same ailment. Spend the small dollars for big results that make us all feel better about government effectiveness, and use the big dollar savings all the experts predict to build stuff.

 

[persis]

I believe the best thing we can do is invest in our infrastructure. This includes major investments in education. These types of investments have a guaranteed ROI.

Besides, if we are going to spend our children's future, it only seems fair we leave them something to show for it.

Agreed...
Canada because of her geography could always use better and newer roads, bridges, sewer systems, transit links ... the return on investment would be enormous

 

[Gyaos]

So Terb brothers and sisters, what would YOU do to fix the Canadian economy? Tax cuts? Spending stimulus? Infrastructure investment? Tighter/looser regulation? Some combination? Or a laissez-faire approach to let the market handle things on its own?

First, we have to have a high speed transit connection that links all major Canadian cities on the eastern side together, and those high speed trains must be separated from cargo trains. The other major cities have to be connected by air and an advanced efficient train service. Much like a Japan high speed train system. And the trains should be built right in Canada. It has to be a combination of government stimulus and private enterprise investments.

The infrastructure on roads has to be reviewed as it is already corrupt. The 407 has been under construction for decades. It's as if they don't know how to fix a highway. Oh no, I have to avoid another farking pothole!

The global economy was always bogus, because now it's a global collapse. The only reason it was considered plausible was by separating the provincial economies from interacting with one another. They did this by issuing easy credit to the poor and middle class. And the "protectionism" argument fails too. The US Depression argument was also the failure to connect the state economies together. When WW2 took place, the entire US was forced to work as one.

Gyaos Baltar.

 

[wetnose]

As far as banking regulation goes, they shouldn't do a thing. We have the sturdiest banks in the world, thanks to our regulatory system...stronger than Germany, UK and US.

I'd make all union membership optional. I don't know why freedom of association is not optional in some work places. Let's see how the unions really work out then.

IMO, we're going down the wrong path with any auto-related investments (highways/bailouts) - I feel it's just like investing in a buggy whip corp in 1910. Peak oil may or may not be here but it's inevitable in our children's lifetime. The sooner we prepare for it, the better.

That's why I love the Gyaos idea of rail and transit investments.

I'd suggest a very generous tax credit for any purchase of solar panels, batteries, alternative power generation and innovative housing technology (e.g. ICF construction). Also a 20 year income tax holiday for any solar related equipment manufacturers, with provincial/muncipal incentives, to get the industry going in Canada. It worked well enough in Germany. Plus we should aggressively promote R&D in solar panels, batteries, energy generation and transmission. Basically this would position Canada as the world leader in clean power generation, storage and use.

To fund this (nothing is free)... a $0.25/l tax on top of any existing gas price, to wean the public away from driving big gas guzzlers. (yes I'm copying Europe) Also, any vehicle with an engine capacity in excess of 3L should cost at least $10,000 more on purchase - really, does anybody need any more than that? A similiar tax would also apply on all vehicles with poor mileage ratings. Vehicles older than 15 years would cost $2,000 a year to relicense - to get their inefficiency off the road. Basically, if someone wants to pollute, they're going to PAY.

I'd also suggest a generous national childcare subsidy; this would create jobs plus make things a lot easier on Canada's working families. Plus it'd help our birthrate and lessen our long term reliance on immigration.

As far as the healthcare system...let's face it, with the onset of boomers turning 60, it's done for. It's already stressed out, and people always require more care as they get older. Will more funding neccessarily solve the problem? I don't know...which is why I think we're better off offshoring extended care and/or certain operations to Canada Medical Association approved hospitals in Mexico/Asia....if the patient can travel. It'd measurably shorten the ridiculous waiting times and the cost to the taxpayer would be at least half. Existing medical tourism is proof that the quality of care is good.

 

[landscaper]

High speed rail links have been promoted for years . The comparison is generally Japan or Europe. The comparison does not work, the shear size of the country works against a high speed rail link covering eastern canada.

We did a study of high speed rail in the Windsor Quebec City corridor, it could possibly work provided it was faster from door to door than air travel, that is now possible. East of Quebec city would be nothing but terminal subsidies to keep it going.

Infrastructure does in fact need help has for years , used to be that the CPP was so restricted in what it could invest in that loans to provinces and municipalities for infrastructure was all it did. Some one had a better idea now CPP invests all over and infrastruicture rots.

Manufacturing has to get into the 21st century and compete with the imports, yep I said compete with the imports if it wants to continue existing. That will require massive amounts of computerization and robotics. If you cant beat the bottom dollar wages take them out of the equation. I know a gentleman who runs a blow moulding plant. Makes plastic gas cans, has no employees, he shows up for shipping recieving hires temp labour when he needs it turns the lights off and has the computer call his cell if there is a problem. He is an extream example but the fact is most of our heavy manufacturing is still using 19th century technology for the most part.

The solution to the Canadian part of the problem is education, by all means build the infrastructure, get those light rail trains running up Mayor Millers ass, fix the bridges build the roads, at the same time educate the people who live here, insist on usefull, complete education at all levels. The ability to do basic arithmatic and be literate at a usefull level must be required of schools. Businesses that put the money into R&D so that they can compete with the 5 dollar a day manufacturing countries should recieve tax breaks.

Here endeth the rant

 

[FOOTSNIFFER]

Advancing all the sensible recommendations in the world won't make a difference to Canadians until there's a full-blown crisis that would force a change in our attitude. These measures have been studied to death for years now and yet we still find ourselves assembling stuff in foreign-owned branch plants while creating laughably unsustainable public sector empires to bolster the illusion that we're a 'caring society'.

One thing I'd do is build a pipeline to the the Pacific port at Prince Rupert B.C., to supply alot of the stranded gas in northeastern BC and the arctic. I'd finance some of the cost of this by committing some of the production of the oil sands and our natural gas to the fast-growing countries in east Asia.
Carbon-based energy is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, and I don't see why we should always tie ourselves to the crazy political culture of the US...make them compete for our favour with the asians.

The RIM founder Laziridis seeded the Perimeter institute in the Waterloo area with $100 million of his own money, to foster basic and applied research in mathematics/physics...I'd put in place prizes for the best applications coming out of that, implement connections through conference and getaways where relationships between business school grads and geeks, the next generation of leaders, can get going. I'll give McDickhead credit for one thing: he gave the institute a $5 million no-strings-attached gift.

I would give a tax holiday of 5 years to any entrepreneurial venture, and re-institute the capital gains exemption that crouton nixed....we need more risk capital in canada if we're ever going to stop relying on trees and rocks.

 

[red]

I believe the best thing we can do is invest in our infrastructure. This includes major investments in education. These types of investments have a guaranteed ROI.

Besides, if we are going to spend our children's future, it only seems fair we leave them something to show for it.

I agree. build incall locations for hobbyists. that would stimulate the economy or at least "parts" of the economy

 

[gramage]

we need more risk capital in canada if we're ever going to stop relying on trees and rocks.

While I understand the logic of this, given the amount of money that has been lost over the past year+ is now the time to add risk?

 

[FOOTSNIFFER]

While I understand the logic of this, given the amount of money that has been lost over the past year+ is now the time to add risk?

I don't really see the connection. What's happened recently is a combination of too much easy money that went into vehicles that eventually only made it easier for consumers to overspend. We've been overspending while offshoring production of wealth..that's no economy.

If we're going to commercialise some of advances made in all those institutes that we've been pouring money into, then there has to emerge a class of entrepreneurs skilled enough to invest their risk capital right here. What happens now is that alot of the most promising of these companies are sold off to investors from the U.S., which at first agree to keep significant operations here, but subsequently move most of the operations to the states, creating wealth for those folks. In order to create the environment where emerging entry stage companies can be financed and developed right here, the gov.'s got to be bold. It should basically offset some of the risk of investing in these ventures by reducing taxes on the direct participants in those schemes. The gov. will eventually get their end from the spin-offs and sales taxes...

The other route is via some government directed research and development...I'm not saying that can't be successful, but I don't think it's very likely unless they got the right people to run it, someone successful like Terence Matthews lately of Newbridge Networks and March Systems. The problem with Pols is that they like to waste management's time jumping through hoops, but it could work nonetheless. I mean look at what the Finnish government was able to accomplish with Nokia in the late 80s, early 90s.

 

[Gyaos]

High speed rail links have been promoted for years . The comparison is generally Japan or Europe. The comparison does not work, the shear size of the country works against a high speed rail link covering eastern canada.

Toronto, Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa with a combined investment with New York, Boston, Washington DC, Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago, separated from cargo tracks? Who did the comparison, the same people that want to continue free trade with the communists? Those that support $700 Billion to Iraq, no strings attached and then give another $700 billion to the banks all at once? No high speed rail in Canada with The United States? The other option is free trade with China. And the result: Poison toys and tainted seafood for fraudulent securities. I can do business in Hong Kong faster than doing business with Montreal. That's free trade? That's absurd.

As for Vancouver, that can connect with Seattle and the other cities in Saskatoon and Alberta can be accessed by air or by a simple more efficient rail system, not necessarily a high speed system. We are disconnected, so China and India thrives.

Gyaos Baltar.

 

[nottyboi]

Rather then the blanket corp. tax cuts announced in the budget, I would give companies accelerated tax credit in the form of accelerated depreciation for investments. I would also give tax credits for each net new hire for the next 12 months including payroll tax credits. I'd also try to get an agreement with teh WTO to reduce the work week. Either by introducing European vacation laws or by shortening the workweek. The reality is, productivity is now so high, it is outstripping our ability to consume. So there must be more leisure so that more people can work to produce the same volume of goods and services. (perhaps phase it in)

 

[slowpoke]

I'd restore funding for scientific research. We will soon have a renewed brain drain to the US and elsewhere if Harper doesn't wake up and start investing in our scientific community. The CPOC just don't seem to appreciate the direct relationship between government funding and scientific advancements that lead to commercial applications. We spend countless $billions on education but then we fail to retain our best best and brightest because of Harper's short sighted shopkeeper mentality.

We also need a fund and a mechanism to provide seed money to develop the best of these government-funded technologies and to make sure they stay in Canada. There must be some way for government to retain an ownership stake in this science and the right to block the transfer and control of promising new technologies to other countries.

 

[train]

I'd restore funding for scientific research.

Please be more specific. Which federal research programs, which existed under the Liberals, no longer exist and what tangible accomplishments were they responsible for ?

We also need a fund and a mechanism to provide seed money to develop the best of these government-funded technologies and to make sure they stay in Canada. There must be some way for government to retain an ownership stake in this science and the right to block the transfer and control of promising new technologies to other countries.

I think that's fairly easy. The Government maintains an ownership in any patents.

This may shock you slowpoke but such programs already exist on a federal level. How do I know because we participate in them and the Feds do retain an ownership interest. The Province of Quebec further enhances these programs and thats why you see a fairly robust scientific community just outside of Montreal. You may want to wake Dalton and some of the othe Provincial Premiers up to this.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Please be more specific. Which federal research programs, which existed under the Liberals, no longer exist and what tangible accomplishments were they responsible for ?

LOL. Easy now, on our friend slowpoke. He is nothing if not specific.

Everything is specifically Harper's fault.

 

[slowpoke]

Please be more specific. Which federal research programs, which existed under the Liberals, no longer exist and what tangible accomplishments were they responsible for ?

I'm so glad you asked.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...E30/TPStory/?query=harper+cuts+research+funds

..."The Conservatives' coolness toward research has attracted international attention; on Wednesday, Science, one of the world's most important scientific journals, published a short piece raising the spectre of a new brain drain from Canada to the United States.

Of all research areas, genomics is one that merits more, not less, support. The practical medical returns are already real, but are not yet commercially viable. Customized genetic profiles are starting to indicate highly individual treatments - and also to individually contraindicate treatments that work well for most patients.

Paradoxically, in this most expansive budget, science and research figure about as prominently in the appendix on "responsible spending" as in the spending plans. The government says it is going to refocus its health science and research spending on a core role. The same point is made about the various councils that make grants for research, which will lose $148-million in the course of the next three years, as well about the National Research Council Canada. The savings are to be achieved through streamlining and focusing - in other words, through narrowing.

Similarly, the Canadian Space Agency is to increasingly concentrate on space robotic vehicles.

The budget is fairly generous to universities on the physical infrastructure that enables research, but that is an aspect on which Canada has already been faring reasonably well. Likewise, the Canada Research Chairs continue to be a productive program - though the change from the Bush to the Obama administration may now draw some American scientists home.

Where Canadian funding has fallen short is on the amount of direct aid to actually operating research programs, the very activities that are supported by the granting agencies that are now suffering cuts, including the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada."...



http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/562227

McGuinty vows to fund job growth

Premier announces loans for high-tech ventures, says aid for automakers will 'keep the lights on'

Jan 06, 2009 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (7)
Tanya Talaga
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

From high-tech firms to cash-strapped automakers, Ontario will lend billions of dollars to promote and protect job growth in harsh economic times, Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday.

Eight Ontario high-tech ventures will receive $500,000 each in government loans to promote green job creation, McGuinty announced yesterday at his first news conference of the year.

The loans will flow to the ventures as part of Ontario's Investment Accelerator Fund, a $29 million fund created three years ago to help boost high-tech firms into the global marketplace.

"We are laying the foundation for the Ontario economy of tomorrow," McGuinty said at a news conference at Centennial College's applied research and innovation centre in Scarborough.

"These are cases if they didn't get the money from us they wouldn't get it from anyone else," he said.

Also yesterday, McGuinty reaffirmed his commitment to loaning the automakers money.

The Canadian arms of Chrysler and General Motors will get up to $4 billion in loans from the federal and Ontario governments. Bleak sales figures this week show sales plummeted by 21.2 per cent, or 25,000 vehicles, in December from the same time last year.

Details on exactly how much the automakers are getting and under what terms are still being hammered out, McGuinty said. The public is entitled to see what kind of steps are being taken, he added.

"We are not prepared to provide support beyond the end of March unless we receive the necessary assurances and commitments that would inspire confidence in all of us that we will have a solid foundation on which to build in the future."

The Canadian bailout money will complement a U.S. rescue package for the auto firms.

At this point, the Ontario money will help the auto firms to "keep the lights on, allow them to meet payroll and allow them to pay their suppliers," McGuinty said.

The accelerator fund money is not a reaction to a lack of bank financing because of the credit crisis, but a plan to help start-ups, he added.

The firms receiving money are Toronto's REGEN Energy Inc., Echologics Engineering Inc., Kneebone Inc., Nulogy Corp., Skymeter Corp. and Sysomos Inc. Hamilton's C2C Link Corp. and Ottawa's IPeak Networks Inc. will also get loans.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090216.wresearch17/BNStory/National/home

ANNE MCILROY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

February 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM EST

After federal funding dried up, one of Canada's top researchers had to scramble to find private donations to continue an ambitious experiment that aims to identify children most at risk of developing serious cognitive and behavioural disorders.

At the same time, the researcher, McGill University's Michael Meaney, was asked to establish a similar research program in Singapore, but with roughly eight times the government funding.

The contrast highlights the difficulties even the best Canadian scientists face as federal spending for research is scaled back in Canada but increases in other countries.

Dr. Meaney and his colleagues have gained international attention for their work investigating the biology of resiliency, the combination of genes and environmental factors that allows some children to emerge relatively unscathed from impoverished, stressful childhoods while others develop problems. They are tracking 500 mothers and their children for the Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment project, or MAVAN.

Pregnant women in Montreal and Hamilton, Ont., were recruited starting in 2004. Some suffer from depression, or live in poverty, or both, which means they have a higher risk of having children with learning difficulties or behavioural problems. Others are part of a control group.

The women volunteered early in their pregnancy, and the oldest children in the study are now five years old. The mothers and their growing children visit the researchers for regular in-depth assessments.

DNA tests have identified the children with genes linked to attention problems or to aggressive or anti-social behaviour. But which of those children will develop problems? Does it depend on whether they had a low birth weight because their mother was stressed during pregnancy? Or is it a matter of the kind of care and nurturing they received after they were born?

The initial findings are groundbreaking, Dr. Meaney says.

But federal money, $4-million over five years, ran out in April. By then, a funding crunch was already limiting the scope of the work of many medical researchers across the country. The recent federal budget, with its $147.9-million in cuts over three years to the granting agencies that fund university-based research in Canada, will make it even harder for scientists, Dr. Meaney says.......

 

[train]

I read this and I'm having a hard time figuring out how this is the slightest bit relevant in the context of how supporting scientific research will help save the economy. In the grand scheme of governmental support a small area has been cut back and another area expanded. The area that has been cut back is disappointed and manages to get some publicity in the newspaper. The areas that are going to benefit keep their mouths shut. Happens with regularity I would think but means nothing in terms of the overall activity assessment.

Ok so the budget cut back grants for genetic profiling and increased it for universities - and you have a big problem with that ? This is a fairly narrow field of cutbacks more than offset by increases elsewhere such as infrastructure requirements for research at universities. Most people would applaud this as exactly the right thing to do to create jobs immediately and provide the future facilities for worldclass research.

Personnally, I think genetic profiling is something that needs to be explored as far as cancer research is concerned and would prefer that it be funded but I have no basis of assessing whether this narrow field ( in the context of all R & D ) is deserving of funding based on achievments to date, Dr Meaney's comments notwithstanding (he may be just the slightest bit biased). Genetics in the context of cancer research - yes absolutely. Research on aggressive behaviour in kids is tough to get excited about and less than relevant as an economic stimulous discussion.

On the provincial front McSquint has done his usual and promised billions but the details show a grand total of $4 million going to 8 high tech companies ( whoopie ) and a $29 million fund created 3 years ago without any detail as to whether any of it has been used. That's $33 million in 3 years.Wow, that's sure to fix things. It's incredible how pathetic an effort that actually is. To put this in context, the $500k is per company is less than he gave to the Cricket Club and it may be less that Toronto City Council's food budget. I guess McSquint also doesn't feel that genomics is the way to go either.

So where are these supposed billions going to be spent by the Province ? On the car companies and not on scientific research. And again the Feds are taking the lead on this with McSquint tagging along.

You have made a good point on genomics but really that's a minor matter in the grand scheme given that this funding plus more has been redirected to the universities.

What is more curious is why people continue to give McSquint a pass when he has accomplished nothing and fiddled while Ontario burned. $33 million....that's beyond pathetic if even all of that was spent.

 

[train]

Slowpoke
You might want to read the following to get some idea as to how it is done properly at a provincial level. It starts with incentives available to everyone from the provincial income tax system. In many ways this is the best and most relevant funding for economic recovery. That is because the investment decisions are being made by people who are able to properly evaluate projects worthy of funding and not as opposed to bureaucrats who inevitably choose based on flawed criteria. This method also is more successful in immediate job creation.

http://www.blakes.com/english/view.asp?ID=2237

http://www.revenu.gouv.qc.ca/eng/mi...6_80/bonifications_recherche_scientifique.asp

An interesting initiative by Quebec and New Brunswick

http://www.gnb.ca/0105/ps/cooperation-e.asp

The following article is well out of date but the relevant point it makes is that the Province of Quebec spent $470 million on scientific research in 2002 not counting the income tax incentives. That compares to Ontario's $39 million over 3 years in the example you gave ?

http://www.expansionmanagement.com/cmd/articledetail/articleid/15734/default.asp