Got My Axe & Shovel

We live in a world of stories and we are all defined by our stories. Likewise, countries are defined by stories, particularly the stories that their residents tell about themselves or the stories that the people believe about the country. About a week ago, an economist named Don Drummond, in an article in the Globe and Mail newspaper highlighted Canada’s productivity issue and focused on the period around 1960 when Canada had significantly higher productivity relative to other countries. While Mr. Drummond’s proposed solutions to the defined issue are very sound, I think that we may have a deeper problem driving our slow productivity growth. For decades now I have been hearing that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water, we have a great abundance of resources which we must harvest and export and that is what we have always done. Or is it? As a child in the late 1960′ and 70’s, I remember a significant rocket industry in my home town. Yes, we did build and launch rockets carrying satelites enabling world leading research. Yes, after the USSR and the US, we were the third country to launch into space, we were also the second to have nuclear power (after the US) and the first to develop a passenger jet aircraft (although not produced due to a switch to military production). Yet a few years ago, the federal government bought a pipeline while letting a company that developed and produced aircraft using leading edge technology to effectively go into liquidation mode, its technologies in a range of industries transferred to mostly foreign owned firms. We have lost the vision of our country as a world leading innovator and producer of world leading products, which we were in the not so distant past, and are now focused of being a commodity producer. In economic terms, a price taker subject to the whims of the international market and the vagaries of economies that are now far more innovative and productive than ours.

What to do about this? There are a number of things beyond the recommendations of Mr. Drummond. First, in spite of our best efforts, we still do have innovative R&D capabilities. Nurture them, grow them and facilitate the commercialization of products here in Canada for export to the world. This will take involvement of the federal government and provincial government as these project do not have an immediate payback. Second, restrict or block sales of innovative and/or critical Canadian businesses to foreign entities not because of foreign control but rather because with such sales, we in Canada, lose both the technology and IP as well as the ability to further develop these. Three, tell the story that has been shoved under a very deep cover, that of a country that can do and does in a whole range of technologies and stop selling the hewers of wood etc. story or pretty soon we will be a very poor country as our productivity which is ultimately a measure of quality an effective use of capital continues to relatively fall behind. This is our deeper problem. This is what we must solve but we need vision and political will to tackle this, not politicians tripping over each other to give the best breaks to resource harvesting companies as we have now. I think I will go and use a quantum computer (several firms are in this industry within 10 KM of my home) and consider the shovel and the axe to be a vestige of the past.

400,000 = 1,000,000

400,000 = 1,000,000.  Yes it does, in the world of immigration policy.  There is much discussion in Canada about and influx of “immigrants to Canada” and I sometimes hear that 400,000, the approximate number of “immigrants” to be admitted to Canada in 2025 is too high.  I propose that the number is actually far too low.  Bear with me.  Most people, in talking about immigration, are not talking about immigrants (or PR, the 400,000 number) but are actually talking about people who I will call newcomers.  These people in 2025 number between 900,000 and 1,000,000.  How can this be so?  Not that long ago, most people who came to Canada, applied through a points system and were admitted as “Landed immigrants”, currently known as permanent residents (PR) and became new Canadians.  My family fit this category.  People would get jobs, in the open labour market, rent and then buy accommodation, put their kids in school and become part of the community, including cheering for the local teams and volunteering with local organization.  They have contributed strongly to society.  Sadly this is not the case today.  The majority of newcomers, not the 400,000 immigrants, come here as either foreign students or foreign workers.  So what are these categories?  Most foreign students study for two years, work in the economy 20 hour a week graduate and then apply for a work permit which allows them to work for three years after which they can apply to become an immigrant (one of the 400,000).  If successful at all steps, they will have been in the country, acculturated to Canadian ways and contributing for at least 5 years, then maybe they can stay.  At the present rate, most will not be allowed to stay which is a tremendous loss of potential in our economy, a loss demographically in our society which is experiencing an aging population and a loss on our investment (they pay operating cost in tuition, but other costs are covered by our governments) in their education.  New foreign students in 2025 are projected to be reduced to approximately 300,000 people.  How about foreign workers?  In response to industry complaining about labour shortages, government greatly expanded the low skill (wage) foreign worker program.  This program ties the worker, regardless of the skill they possess, to an employer (they cannot change jobs) in a low skill (wage) job.  This program which has been shown to be exploitative tends to negatively impact the labour market, disincentivizes capital and training investment while doing a disservice to our economy and the workers by keeping them very often in a job far below their skill level.  This does not even consider the impact of removing these low skill jobs from the pool of work available to local entrants to the labour market (our kids seeking a first job).

So what to do?  The majority of people in these two programs  want to stay in Canada, they are already here and acculturated, keep those who want to stay by converting them to PR.  Second, cancel the low skill temporary foreign worker program entirely.  If we have a labour shortage, bring in immigrants, new Canadians who will play a role in a vibrant and balanced job market and apply their skills to help build our country and contribute to my future pensions and health benefits through their taxes.  This is where I suggest that immigration should be more than the 400,000, but get rid of the TFW program entirely.  Finally, be above board in foreign student recruitment, recruit fewer, and have a pathway that will enable people who are capable of doing well to stay and contribute to our economy instead of having some obtuse pseudo lottery for admission which is currently the case.  That’s my view as a Moody Guy.