Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Robbie Rolfe

The results of the Alberta provincial election that took place on April 23, 2012 generated a lot of commentary on the gap between what the polls were saying and what actually happened on election day. While this is an interesting puzzle, it is perhaps more important to look at another gap—namely, the chasm between votes cast and seats won.

There is a large differential between the percentage of the vote some parties received and the percentage of seats they won. The table below shows seat share minus vote share by region. A negative number indicates where a party had a smaller share of seats than votes while a positive number indicates where a party had a larger share of the seats than votes. When it comes to the first and second place parties (the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties), the differentials are quite large.



The Wildrose party had strong support across the province. Nevertheless, it came a close second or third in many ridings. To modify the cliché, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in the single member plurality races we use to select our representatives in Alberta and across the country. So despite garnering more than a third of the popular vote in the province, the Wildrose party won only a fifth of the seats.

The Progressive Conservative party, on the other hand, won about 23 more seats than it would have if each party had received the same proportion of seats as its proportion of the popular vote. In many cases, the PCs won with a plurality (the most votes) rather than a majority.

Another way to measure the gap between vote share and seat share that typifies single member plurality systems is the least squares index, a common measure of proportionality used in political science. The scale runs from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating a less proportional result. This measure allows us to compare proportionality across elections. For the recent Alberta election, its value is about 22. To provide some context, that is a more disproportional result than any Canadian federal election since 1945. (This includes Brian Mulroney’s 1984 victory, where his party won 75% of the seats with 50% of the votes, while the Liberal and New Democratic parties’ seat shares were about half of their popular vote shares.)

Proportionality matters. Arguably, when the distribution of seats in the legislature does not accurately match the preferences of the voters expressed in the general election, it is less likely to pass laws reflecting the diverse preferences of the population. In other words, the single member plurality system we use in Canada tends to distort the representativeness of our legislatures.

To create a better match between votes and seats, we would need to implement some form of proportional representation. In these systems, seats are allocated based on a candidate or party’s share of the popular vote rather than on which candidate comes first in each riding. It may even have other positive effects (for example, it may increase the number of women and ethnic minority representatives in the legislature, two historically underrepresented groups).

Of course, a change of this sort will also have costs. For example, it will likely mean the end of majority government. In order to get a majority in a proportional representation system, one party will have to get very close to half the vote in order to get more than half the seats. This could be costly because majority governments are seen as stable, strong and able to implement their campaign promises. Voters can also identify responsibility easily and hold governments accountable when one party controls the levers of power. It is also easy for the electorate to turn majority governments out in a single member plurality system, as small movements in the popular vote can result in large changes in seats. (Some also argue that majority governments are better for economic performance, though there appears to be no statistically significant link in practice between the electoral system and economic performance. See, for example, Arend Lijphart’s 1999 book, which compares different democratic institutional types.)

Nevertheless, we can discuss and decide on a system that works for us. There are many options we can choose (we can even retain single member districts). We can minimize the costs and maximize the benefits.

We cannot do that, however, without talking about it—it is time to grapple with this elephant in our political living room.
 

By: Shawna Stirrett

There are many benefits to be had from improving the environmental performance of Canadian cities. Residents can benefit from improved aesthetics, lower water treatment costs, higher property values, increased air quality, the attraction and retention of skilled workers and much more. General environmental benefits can include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, improved water and air quality, less fragmented ecosystems and improved biodiversity.

And the good news is that we have a pretty good sense of how these environmental improvements can be realized. There are many different tools for, and principles of, creating more sustainable cities that individuals, businesses, communities and municipal governments can employ. Outlining these tools is the focus of Canada West Foundation’s most recent report Tools of the Trade: Urban Environmental Improvement Options.

The real challenge, however, isn’t in knowing what to do but rather in implementing the good ideas that we already have. Many people are well aware of the environmental benefits of recycling, composting, improved energy efficiency and transit-oriented development. The fact remains, though, that we are not using these tools as much as we could in Canadian cities for myriad reasons.

Let’s take, as an example, a very simple environmental tool like the use of rain barrels to harvest rainfall.

Rain barrels are used to capture and store rainwater for later use on lawns and gardens. The environmental and economic benefits of rain barrels are clear. Using rainwater is better for your lawn and garden because it is not chlorinated and contains many of the minerals that your soil needs for healthy plant growth. Rain barrels also save money as you are not paying for water to be treated, transported and metered by the city. It’s a clear environmental and economic win-win.

So, given that, why wouldn’t everyone use rain barrels?

Well, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to confess I do not have a rain barrel. I’m not trying to be hypocritical, and I would love to have one, but I live in a condo and our condo board does not allow rain barrels because they are unsightly and ruin the grass and I don’t have enough space on my patio for both a rain barrel and a barbeque.

I also find that I’m not alone in this. Using a very informal survey methodology (I asked my friends on Facebook), I have discovered that while only a few of my friends actually use rain barrels currently, almost everyone wants to use them. For those not using them, their reasons include laziness, aesthetics, cost of the rain barrel and living in a condo or apartment. The most frequently cited reason was living in a condo or an apartment building.

This raises the question for me: if we want to encourage higher density living and smaller carbon footprints, then why are we not designing environmental products that can be used by a variety of people in different types of housing?

Conventional rain barrels can hold about 45 gallons of water, are made of plastic, cost around $70 and come in a couple different colour options. While there is no question that these rain barrels work for many people, they also don’t work for many others as my survey and personal experience testifies. Rain barrels are really big, for starters, meaning that unless you have a house or a very large deck they are impractical. They are also somewhat awkward to use. The downspouts are located at the bottom and they often have to be positioned on cinder blocks so that you can access the water inside them. Finally, they are ugly and do little for the overall aesthetic of your yard and garden.

If we really want more people to use rain barrels as a way to make cities more environmentally friendly, we need to think about the full picture. It’s not going to be enough to tell people they should be using rain barrels, we need to be thinking about why they aren’t and designing solutions that are holistic and practical. We need to remember that “Good design is not about color, style or trends—but instead about thoughtfully considering the user, the experience, the social context and the impact of an object on the surrounding environment” (Inhabitat).

For a good example of how good design can change our relationship with environmental products, check out some innovative rain barrels by clicking here.
 

By: Robert Roach

There are two main ways of addressing the fact that Canada is a collection of diverse regions.

The first is to embrace this fact as a fundamental strength and seek ways to work together and support one another. If we respect our differences and build on our similarities, a strong, united, dynamic and great nation is the result. Taking this path is not easy; it requires empathy, sacrifice, the ability to see beyond narrow perspectives, a willingness to compromise and an abiding commitment to the belief that Canada is strongest when all of its regions are thriving.

The second option is all too common and involves playing one region (or city or industry) of the country off of another for short-term gain, out of jealousy or because of ignorance. This approach sees the different parts of this great nation as competitors locked in a zero-sum game in which one region triumphs as the expense of the others. The result is bickering, missed opportunities, counterproductive animosity and a frayed national fabric. We can do better.

Politicians, business leaders, journalists, policy wonks and citizens from all parts of the country sometimes default to the second option. Most recently, Thomas Mulcair has said a number of things that focus on what divides Canada rather than what unites it. His remarks have been critiqued—and rightly so!—but we have to be careful not to let them become more fuel for the fire of division.

I have heard Albertans blame Quebec for Canada’s problems. I have heard people in Ontario berate life on the Prairies. I have heard people from Toronto tell tourists to avoid Calgary because it is ugly and full of rednecks. I have heard people in BC complain about EI recipients in the Maritimes. On top of these taunts and insults, there are old grudges against eastern banks, the oil sands is blamed for everything from the common cold to global warming and there are far too many Canadians who think breaking up the country is a good idea.

As we react to the recent wave of regional tension, it is worth considering that we are all better off working together as a country of strong regions rather than throwing stones at each other in an attempt to score points in a game with no real winner.

By: Robert Roach

A new report released by the Canada West Foundation today summarizes interviews with 23 of the leading minds on how to marry resource development with environmental protection. Keeping Pace: Improving Environmental Decision-Making in Canada is based on input from former senior bureaucrats, former environment ministers, internationally renowned scientists, natural resource industry representatives and ENGO leaders. From former federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice and internationally-recognized scientist David Schindler to original founding member of Greenpeace Patrick Moore and Suncor VP Gordon Lambert, the combined experience with environmental decision-making among interview participants totals well over 400 years.

Considering the diverse background of these Canadian thought leaders there was surprising agreement, especially on three overarching themes:

First, everyone agreed that environmental decision-making in Canada needs improvement—full stop. We are not at the top of our game when it comes to environmental stewardship in the resource sector.

Second, improving environmental decision-making is not about fixing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, BC Environment or some other government department or regulatory agency. Environmental decision-making has to be viewed in a broader policy context. Some changes are needed to the regulatory framework, but it is a small piece of the pie.

Unfortunately the regulatory framework is taking the brunt of the criticism right now. It shouldn’t. Other components of the decision-making process such as regional plans, monitoring and compliance, strategic plans, clear goals and objectives, political leadership, meaningful consultation/collaboration are much more important. These elements have not kept pace with the public interest.

Third, we have moved from a relatively simple world into a much more complex one. The difference was described as a shift from “environmental challenges 1.0 to 2.0.” The 2.0 label has been famously applied to the World Wide Web to highlight the shift from passive viewing of websites (Web 1.0) to active online interaction and collaboration (Web 2.0). The web has gone from emails, news groups, desktop computers and basic websites to eBay, PayPal, instant messaging, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, 500,000+ apps, mobile Internet devices and cloud programming. Environmental challenges have gone from a relatively straightforward set of problems and solutions to situations characterized by a wide range of stakeholders, heated rhetoric, competing scientific claims, incomplete information and responses that require broad social change and/or significant economic costs. Hence, we need to upgrade our environmental decision-making mechanisms.

You can download this timely new report for free from the Canada West Foundation website by clicking here.

By: Robert Roach

The federal government recently announced a “Plan for Responsible Resource Development” that will streamline the federal regulatory review process. While this is a step in the right direction, a report from the Canada West Foundation being published on May 3 argues that the task at hand is much larger. Keeping Pace: Improving Environmental Decision-Making in Canada reveals an environmental decision-making process that, while one of the best in the world, is dogged by a number of significant shortcomings. These weaknesses include insufficient integration of scientific research; a lack of clarity regarding exactly what trade-offs between environmental protection and economic development are acceptable to the government of the day; and the ongoing need to ensure that the various government departments and agencies at the federal and provincial levels are cooperating as much as possible.

You can download this timely new report for free from the Canada West Foundation website on Thursday.

As reflected by the results of the 2011 census, the creation of new House of Commons Seats and the ongoing news about the westward titling of the economy, it is clear that the nature of the Federation is shifting. The latest research from the Canada West Foundation looks at the consequences for the region and the country, now that the West is truly “in”.

Taking Stock of the Federation by Dr. Roger Gibbins, President & CEO and Robert Roach, VP, Research, is the synthesis report from a roundtable held on February 9, 2012 in Calgary. This roundtable gathered sixteen participants who provided their insights on the contemporary political landscape, the likely direction of future change, and the potential for strains within the federation across the four western provinces.

“Each region in Canada is vitally important,” notes Dr. Gibbins. “While differences between the regions have evolved, they are still key variables in both Canada’s political environment and the economy. For the federation to work well, we must ensure that all regions— including the West—are heard, understood, and integrated into the whole.”

While participants expressed a general sense of optimism about the region’s future, they also highlighted some significant challenges western Canadians will face in securing a new position within Canada and the global economy. By addressing issues like market access, sustainable environmental management, labour shortages and a fiscally unbalanced federal state, we can ensure that the future remains bright.

Taking Stock of the Federation is part of Foundation’s The West in Canada initiative, which examines public policy innovation in the West, discusses and recommends ways to improve the Canadian federation, and analyzes regional economic, demographic and public opinion trends. Click here for your copy of the report.

Western Canada profits from its abundance of natural resources, however, in the changing global landscape, we need to take action to ensure our future prosperity. The latest research from the Canada West Foundation outlines the main contours of the contemporary energy world and takes stock of the trends shaping energy in western Canada.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends, by Senior Economist Michael Holden and Policy Analyst Robbie Rolfe, provides an overview of the provincial energy systems in western Canada, including the current state of energy production, consumption, and other associated activities and impacts. That information is framed in the context of the energy-related policy issues and challenges facing the four western provinces.

“Western Canada is characterized by a profound diversity of resources, consumption patterns, and economic and environmental impacts” said Michael Holden. “The energy picture in each province is unique, but their strengths are complementary. Through a more coordinated approach to energy policy, the western provinces can become more than the sum of their parts.”

Given the extent to which it permeates our daily lives, energy has come to dominate the economic, social, and political agenda in the region. State of the West: Energy provides a one-stop information resource on energy in western Canada, informing the debate surrounding energy policy in the West, and providing context to both where we are today and where we may go in the future.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends is part of the Foundation’s Powering Up for the Future initiative, which facilitates constructive debate on sustainable energy policy solutions for Canada and promotes the vital importance of western Canadian energy systems in the national, continental, and global economy. Click here to download a copy of the report.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld 

Alberta is now in the throes of the third week of the provincial election campaign. Given the critical importance of the province’s water resources to its economy and environment, it is worthwhile checking in to see how water policy is being addressed by the contending parties.

I’ve reviewed the platforms of the main parties and have highlighted their water policies below:

Alberta Party
The Alberta Party’s platform focuses on the five core ideas of healthcare, students, democracy, the economy and communities. It doesn’t specifically place environmental concerns front and centre. However, under the “economy” section, the Party commits to promoting a “positive brand image for our resource industries by insisting on best practices and a strong commitment to environmental stewardship.”

Evergreen Party
The Evergreens—a newer addition to Alberta’s political scene who have replaced the Alberta Greens—simply state in their party platform that “we will encourage conservation and reduction of water usage, and prevent the sale or export of water.”

Liberal Party
The Liberals do not mention water in their party platform at all. Rather, their key environmental policies focus on emissions and the monitoring of the oil and gas industry.

New Democratic Party
The NDP has some very specific water policy goals outlined in their platform including stopping the expansion of water markets and putting human and ecosystem needs first when it comes to water allocation. Regarding industry activity, the NDs support:

• Cleaning up tailings ponds, but at a cost to companies rather than taxpayers;
• Doubling the monitoring and enforcement activities of the Ministry of Environment and Water to “make sure the industry lives up to its environmental obligations under the law”; and
• Appointing an independent scientific panel to examine hydraulic fracturing.

Progressive Conservative Party
The PC Party does not have a comprehensive policy platform available on their website. In this case, we have to look at past policy to see where they might stand on water:

• Premier Redford renamed the Ministry of the Environment as the Ministry of Environment and Water last fall. According to Diana McQueen, the current Minister for Environment and Water, this was a “deliberate move to emphasize the priority that our government places on this resource.”
• The government has committed to increase funding to about $11 million for environmental monitoring; and
• An annual amount of $150 million has been committed to fund the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA) to support research that will help Alberta work toward meeting the Water for Life goals.

Wildrose Party
The Wildrose Party has a fairly robust environmental platform. Some of their commitments include creating a position for an Albertan environmental ombudsman and addressing water quantity issues in the south and water quality issues in the north. The Party is committed to finding ways to improve water storage by building more dams and/or reservoirs and states it will review and reform Alberta’s licensing system to “ensure that existing licenses are fully utilized while respecting the principle of first in time, first in right.” It also is supportive of new conservation technology that allows for the use of things such as grey water recycling and supportive of the movement toward a federal ban on bulk water exports to the US. Regarding industry, the Wildrose has stated it in its platform that it will:

• Work toward eliminating tailings ponds;
• Support water technology so that industrial use of water decreases; and
• Strictly enforce existing regulations on effluent-producing industries.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld, Policy Analyst

Canada’s budget was tabled on March 29 and it includes some interesting changes related to water policy. Here are the highlights:

• Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): While we’ll have to wait until the Government’s Budget Omnibus Bill is tabled to find out whether there will be changes to the Fisheries Act, Minister Flaherty announced $10.5 million for the DFO to support “key fisheries science activities”—which is essentially monitoring of key commercial fish stocks. But overall, the DFO faces cuts of about $4 million this year, $13 million for 2013-14 and $79 million after that.
• Elimination of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE): The NRTEE is over twenty years old and is a well-respected, arms-length organization with a Parliamentary mandate to “promote sustainable development advice and solutions”. Over its history, the NRTEE has focused on economic and environment issues related to climate, water, energy, biodiversity and governance. In fact, Canada West Foundation’s Shawna Stirrett authored the Round Table’s most recent publication. It’s unfortunate that this reputable organization will be dissolved—particularly when issues related to the interface between the economy and the environment are arguably more important than they’ve ever been.
• Environment Canada: Environment Canada will face large cuts for the foreseeable future: $20 million (2012-13), $60 million (2013-14) and $90 million after that. 
•  First Nations: The federal government committed $330.8 million over the next two years to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserves. This money is also meant to support the development of a long-term “strategy to improve water quality in First Nations communities.” This is a step in the right direction; a prosperous nation like Canada shouldn’t have the water problems of developing countries, as many argue is the case on reserves across the country.
• Flood mitigation: In response to the devastating floods of 2011, the government has committed $99.2 million over three years to “ assist the provinces and territories with the cost of permanent flood mitigation measures undertaken for the 2011 floods.” Better still, the government wants to move toward a nationally led program: “the Government is also committed to discussing with the provinces and territories the development of a national disaster mitigation program, recognizing that mitigation can lessen the impact of natural disasters on vulnerable communities and reduce the costs associated with these events.” This is a move that should be applauded; proactive measures in flood management are always good news.
• Infrastructure: A series of financial commitments were made to both the provinces and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to improve water infrastructure. While municipalities will likely see this as positive, others may argue that continuing grants isn’t a good policy choice. While Canada does indeed face a major water infrastructure deficit that requires billions to fix, many argue that the prices of water treatment and conveyance should be increased to fund the upgrades rather than relying on government funding.
• Lake Winnipeg: Since 2008, the federal government has funded the Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative. The Initiative has goals that include: reducing blue-green algae blooms, ensuring fewer beach closings, and restoring the ecological integrity of the lake. While no dollar amount was specified in the budget, the Government stated that it’s committed to continue funding activities targeted at restoring the lake.
• Mining Regulations: Environment Canada administers the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, which regulate the deposit of mine tailings and other waste “produced during mining operations into natural fish bearing waters.” According to the DFO, these regulations are “among the most comprehensive and stringent national standards for mining effluents in the world.” These regulations will be expanded to non-metal diamond and coal mines. This is a change that truly makes sense, and probably should’ve been made much earlier.
• National Resources Canada (NRCAN): NRCAN is slated to receive $23 million over two years for new satellite data reception facilities as well as the development of a data management system. These systems can be used for a variety of activities ranging from flood mapping to detecting oil spills. This is a step in the right direction: more knowledge and data will lead to well-informed policy.

Overall, there’s a mix of positive and negative developments outlined in the 2012 budget. We’ll just have to wait and see what impacts these changes will have.

By: Michael Holden

“The fiscal restraint that many expected from this budget is more akin to paper cuts than deep wounds.”

The 2012 federal budget was, for all intents and purposes, the first delivered by the Conservative government under majority rule. It was expected to give us our first glimpse at how the Conservatives intend to govern over the next several years. Many assumed that the result would be a fairly dramatic shift toward fiscal conservatism and smaller government. The reality, by contrast, is decidedly middle-of-the-road. The Conservatives have delivered a prudent budget, one that largely fails to live up to the hopes of strong fiscal conservatives, but also largely fails to live up to the fears of their opponents.

To be sure, specific elements of the budget, such as delaying Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits until age 67, are bound to attract controversy and spark debate over the coming weeks and months. There are also deep cuts in some areas, among them foreign aid and the CBC. However, the budget also contains several initiatives that are either welcome or overdue (eliminating the penny leaps to mind). But in the final analysis, while the budget itself is a thick document, filled with a wide range of initiatives, this is, on the whole, a cautious and incremental plan. This is true especially considering initial expectations that the budget would pare back government spending in a big way.

In terms of the priorities outlined in the budget – once again called an “Economic Action Plan” – there is a clear emphasis on measures aimed at promoting economic growth and job creation. In particular there are several programs and initiatives that are recognizable as clear priorities for western Canada. These are discussed further below.

Budget Overview

As expected, the budget established an accelerated timeframe for eliminating the deficit and restoring fiscal balance, primarily focusing on the expenditure side of the equation. In last year’s budget, the deficit for the current year was expected to be $32.2 billion, a figure amended in November to $31 billion. Owing to a combination of resurgent revenue growth at the end of the year, spending restraint and lower-than-expected interest payments on the national debt, the deficit for this year is expected to be $24.9 billion. Moreover, the federal government now plans to balance the books in four years (2015-2016), one year ahead of the schedule laid out in last year’s fiscal plan. In fact, barring an unexpected downturn in economic fortunes, the budget will most likely be balanced within three years.

One of the big items that everyone was waiting for in this budget was news on the extent to which the government would be cutting program spending in the years ahead. This is the part of the budget where, depending on their point of view, people will be either the most disappointed or the most relieved.

Although many of the details still have to be ironed out, the federal government announced that its review of department spending will yield ongoing savings of $5.2 billion per year by 2016-2017. This total represents about 6.9% of the spending that was subject to the review process, but only 2% of overall federal spending. In addition, about 19,200 federal government jobs will be cut, about one third of which will be through attrition.

While these cuts represent real reductions for individual departments and agencies, it’s important to keep in mind that, in the aggregate, they are based on spending levels that have grown dramatically in recent years. Since the first Conservative minority government in 2006, federal spending has increased by 38.7%, while the federal public service expanded by 15.3% (adding more than 60,000 jobs in the process). When viewed in that context, the proposed budget cuts do not exactly suggest a broad-scale withdrawal of the federal government from the public arena.

In addition, other components of federal spending, like transfers to the provinces and to persons, will be rising throughout that period. Old age benefits are the obvious exception, but those changes don’t even begin to kick in until 2023. As a result, the overall effect of the government’s spending restraint will not be a decrease in total program expenditures as much as a slightly lower rate of growth over the forecast period.

Specific Programs and Initiatives

For the most part, the federal government’s fiscal plan delivers on the expectations set out in the Canada West Foundation’s pre-budget commentary. Perhaps most notably, it includes a commitment to modernize the regulatory system for major project reviews with the goal of a “one project, one review” approach. This approach is designed to reduce duplication, the administrative burden on businesses and the timelines for approval. While the specifics are still to be determined, this is a welcome development for western Canada, provided that it does not result in an abdication of government responsibility in the area of environmental stewardship.

The budget also contains measures aimed at job creation and addressing labour shortages in western Canada. These include some modest reforms to the Employment Insurance program, an enhanced youth employment strategy, hiring credits for small businesses and improvements to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The budget also mentions improvements to Canada’s immigration system, focusing on economic migrants that meet the labour needs of specific provinces and territories. However, there are few details on what that might mean.

Perhaps most significant for the West is new money for First Nations infrastructure, education and measures to improve training and incentives for the on-reserve Aboriginal population to enter the labour force. In its various consultations and roundtable discussions, the Canada West Foundation has heard repeatedly from western Canadian business and policy leaders that more needs to be done to improve living conditions on reserves as well as to improve Aboriginal participation in the workforce. In contrast with the aging population generally, the Aboriginal population is young and growing quickly. As such, they represent a significant, relatively untapped resource of labour in the West. On this issue, the measures contained in the 2012 budget represent a step in the right direction.

As we looked for in our pre-budget commentary, the 2012 budget also targeted spending cuts to specific areas and avoided cross-the-board measures that might have penalized effective or valuable programs. To be sure, there were few details, as usual, offered in the budget as to which exact programs would be affected by the plan, and as noted earlier, some will be unhappy about the areas that were targeted relatively heavily. But in general, the spending cuts reflected a gradual reshaping of government priorities and not a thoughtless chopping exercise.

The budget also emphasized measures related to innovation and research. This focus was signalled widely in advance of the budget, but the approach taken differed from the norm of recent years. Productivity improvements in Canada have been much sought-after, but elusive as previous government initiatives like lower corporate taxation and tax credits failed to deliver on that promise. With this budget, the government has signalled that it is changing tack. In a “Back to the Future” kind of way, there appears to be a return to more direct government involvement and incentives for high-risk venture capital and business innovation. While this type of direct involvement was (and still is) derided as the government getting into the game of “picking winners and losers,” the initiatives proposed in the budget echo many of the suggestions that we heard from business and policy leaders during our most recent series of Honourable James A. Richardson Roundtables this past autumn.

Another recurrent theme was a continued focus on trade and accessing new markets. In a sense, the budget offered nothing new on the subject; it mostly just restated the government’s recent accomplishments and highlighted the various trade- and investment-related initiatives currently underway. Although there was no new money for trade (in fact, foreign diplomacy and aid received disproportionately heavy cuts in funding), this budget signals that international trade remains a high priority for this government.

There were also some policy issues on which, in our view, the budget was disappointing or disappointingly silent. As noted above, in spite of the fact that trade and market access are stated priorities of this government, financial support for foreign affairs and diplomacy was cut. In addition, the budget includes no significant new measures or financial support relating to environmental protection, conservation, curbing greenhouse gas emissions or renewable energy. There was also disappointing silence on the subject of a Canadian energy strategy. Finally, there were no significant new funds for urban or trade-related infrastructure. While the federal government has made significant investments in this area in recent years, there remains a large infrastructure deficit in many parts of the West.

As a concluding note, it seems appropriate to devote a final thought to bidding adieu to the much-maligned penny which will cease to be minted in April, and stop being distributed later this year. Over the years we’ve all complained about the space pennies take up, we’ve gotten into trouble in school for flicking them at classmates, we’ve thrown them in fountains, used them for ill-advised science experiments and we’ve refused to pick them up when they lie alone and half-forgotten on the street. And now they will be no more.

Goodnight sweet penny. No longer will you fool me into thinking I’m rich based on the thickness of my wallet. May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.