Canadians Without Borders joins Twitter

Canadians without borders is a group of concerned Canadians who have come together to promote the bold and visionary national leadership needed to meet the challenges of the 21^st century. We are committed to building a strong Canada that can be a model for the world, creating an open, progressive society committed to justice, equality and diversity, and sustainable development.

We are united in our desire to strengthen the capacity of our national government to act clearly in the national interest and govern coherently for all Canadians in those areas requiring decisive national and international responses.

Our goal is to facilitate constructive practical debate, starting with the over-the-horizon issues that matter to us all as Canadians and as global citizens. We want to challenge all Canadians to discuss what we share, what we want to accomplish together, and what it means to be Canadian when we come from everywhere.

We will begin by following current issues that engage the national interest such as the proposed New Brunswick-Quebec hydro deal.

Please visit us at: http://twitter.com/cdnwithoutbrdrs

National Purpose: Lost in Collaboration

Every day we meet Canadians who are embarrassed by the hyper-partisanship and mediocrity of our national politics. Our leaders rarely discuss common goals and aspirations that transcend our provincial and territorial identities. Yet it is through these undertakings that we discharge our collective and reciprocal responsibilities as citizens and build a better country.

No one at the national level has the courage to challenge Canadians to answer the fundamental question: do we still acknowledge our collective responsibility to Canadians outside our own province/territory to undertake important national initiatives with common standards and objectives?

This failure to address such a critical issue is exacerbating our serious loss of confidence in the capacity of our national government to act in the national interest, for all Canadians. We are not clear on what the federal government is engaged in or responsible for anymore.

Let’s take a concrete example. We are confronting a flu pandemic in which Canada’s chief public health officer is depending on inadequate intergovernmental agreements to provide life-saving public health information, and lacks the autonomy and clout to relocate respirators and health-care personnel from one part of the country to another.

How has this happened? Much of the answer lies in a quarter century of national politicians convincing themselves that the accommodation of provincial governments, particularly Quebec, was an essential precondition to effective national governance. As this culture of accommodation took root, references to national initiatives and standards became politically incorrect, despite their widespread support among the public. More provinces soon joined Quebec in protesting that any hint of independent national action, by definition, was an unacceptable curtailment of their freedom to act.

National policy now evolves at a glacial pace, only “in concert with the provinces” and is too often buried in a maze of federal/provincial/territorial meetings and negotiations that produce little of any lasting value. Establishing regional and provincial needs and aspirations always proves easy, but national objectives get lost in collaboration.

And what is the record of this quarter century of directionless accommodation?

The undemocratic contract-style of national governance characterized by ad hoc deals between the federal government and individual provinces and territories has simply exacerbated inequalities and inequities across the country. This dysfunctional approach has given us First Ministers Health Care Accords that are problem-plagued and light on accountability, no coherent post-secondary education strategy, utterly incomprehensible and divisive equalization formulas, and little progress creating a meaningful Canadian economic union.

No amount of wishful thinking can change the reality that premiers will rarely of their own accord act in the interest of those beyond their provincial/territorial boundaries. Nor should they. That is the job of our national representatives.

Yet our national government is missing in action. Our leaders ask little of us, and for many of the over 40% of Canadians who did not vote in the last federal election, it may be that they simply hear little from Ottawa to inspire them and revive their spirit of engagement.

But what if they were presented with bold national leadership that would speak with clarity and conviction about what we should do together, starting with issues on which consensus can be achieved with relative ease?

Just take a few examples:

Surely we can agree on the importance of effective national initiatives to guarantee food safety, and to control and eliminate toxic chemicals in the air we breathe and the water we drink.
Surely we can also work together to bring Medicare into the 21st century and assure comparable health care services and standards across Canada. We now face a patchwork of services, from physiotherapy, to autism treatment, to MRIs, along with the tragic consequences of inadequate national standards in cancer pathology.

As the United Nations’ Copenhagen Summit fast approaches, surely we can agree on the need for national direction on the environment. Without even a national cap-and-trade system, let alone intelligent discussion about a national carbon pricing scheme, our internal incoherence threatens to leave Canada on the sidelines at what may be the most significant international meeting of the decade.

Re-engaging Canadians in national politics will require bold leadership and a vigorous national debate. But re-engaging Canadians also requires that we revive Parliament as a centre for creative, constructive debate, where MPs and Senators can serve as truly national representatives and not simply as instruments of the prime minister and his extraordinarily powerful office.

To this end, we must urgently bring the Senate into the 21st century, by creating an elected body that will be an accountable and democratic forum for bringing regional interests to bear in Ottawa, especially when crafting national frameworks and standards. An effective Senate can contribute to minimizing the federal-provincial confrontations that too often preoccupy many unaccountable intergovernmental forums.

With an election looming in the not-too-distant future, we need election platforms that speak to our collective obligations to our fellow citizens, regardless of province or territory.

Canadians know that we are not as divided about the fundamentals of our great country as our politicians seem to think. We know that we are stronger when we work together.

We must come together to promote constructive practical debate.

But how do we convince our recalcitrant national leaders to first step up to the plate?

The answer lies in the irrevocably changed face of politics. Thanks to platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, text-messaging and blogging, Canadians can gather, mobilize, plan and share information in a virtual structure open to all. President Obama’s groundbreaking embrace of digital democracy, including his interactive national website, demonstrates clearly that if you provide immediate access to meaningful information, citizens will respond and become engaged.

Any Canadian political party with serious aspirations to form the next national government should sit up and take notice. The political party that directly engages Canadians in open, transparent debate, using these innovative and democratic technologies to transcend the geographic barriers and regional silos that stifle policy creativity and national initiative, will be the one that gains the support of the many “Canadians without borders” seeking inspiration and coherent leadership to confront the unpredictable national and global challenges ahead.

Op-Ed - full version with chart

Does anyone in the federal government believe in Canada anymore – in the intrinsic value of the greater entity “Canada” and the Canadian national interest? Is anyone genuinely concerned with what it means to be Canadian – those things we all, regardless of province or territory, recognize instinctively and instantaneously?

The federal government’s ability to act in the national interest is dangerously diminishing. National survival as a viable entity now appears to be in the hands of provincial politicians like Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan of Ontario, and Gordon Campbell of British Columbia, who thankfully are prepared to argue the case for national action on preserving Nortel’s strategic assets in Canadian hands, reforming EI, child-care, pension reform, the economic union.

Canadians must be alerted to the seriousness of the situation. Like T.S. Eliot’s J. Alfred Prufrock, we are being “etherized upon a table” and prepared for yet another general election. Debates are dumbed down. Everything is turned into accounting problems, too easily ignored. Taxes? Too high. Debt and deficit? Too big. Transfers to provinces? Too low … or perhaps too high. Equalization? Too little … or maybe too much.

Cast as grateful automatons in government TV advertisements, we enthusiastically grab this or that tax credit or deduction from a confusing array that does not address today’s problems and that undermines the neutrality of the income tax system. Meanwhile, little or no thought is given to effective long-term strategic thinking. Stimulus spending – from massive bailouts to tiny band-aids on big gaps in our social security net – is unprincipled, inefficient and divisive, and will adversely impact federal finances and fiscal health for years, just as the GST cuts have already done.

Inadequate and falling federal revenues mean weaker national government. That means no serious pension reforms to the CPP and OAS/GIS that would benefit the majority of Canadians with inadequate pensions. (Ironically, our taxes now fund pensioners fortunate who have been part of private companies like GM—badly run but deemed too big or too scary to fail.) Weaker national government means increasingly under-funded national programs and initiatives in Ottawa – unable to prevent a food safety or healthcare crisis, let alone address serious environmental challenges. It means no secure supply of medical isotopes. Is that our collective vision?

Canada is the most decentralized federation in the world. For some time, Ottawa’s share of total revenues has been the smallest of any central government in the developed world. More seriously, however, is the incontrovertible evidence that federal spending as a share of GDP continues its steady decline to its current level below 2/3rds the provincial level (from a high of 19.2% before 1991, to a low of 11.2% in 2007). If present trends continue, federal spending could dip below even the municipal government share of GDP within twelve years (see chart at bottom).

Eyes glaze over when such facts are laid out, but Canadians must resist and recognize this trend to fiscal weakness means our national government will be unable to fulfill its duties across the broad spectrum: national standards for social, educational and environmental programs; comparable national public services and infrastructure; strategic investments in innovation and leading-edge industries; adequate support for our troops; equity and justice for aboriginal Canadians.

Almost every aspect of our daily lives, every serious challenge, has a global dimension necessitating global cooperation and solutions. Yet Canada’s influence and effectiveness on the international stage is being undermined by our internal incoherence and diminished national strength.

It is all too easy to play to the constituency who supports lower taxes, reduced public investment, erosion of national standards, and offloading costly national responsibilities to provincial and municipal governments—already crushed under the recent recession. But this is not bold national leadership.

Bold leadership reaches out to the broader constituency who understands the value of public services and public investment and the need for strong national initiatives to provide services to the people in such a diverse and young country as Canada. Bold leadership reassures Canadians that our national government is more than a giant ATM machine, and that it has all the tools necessary to ensure a secure future for our children in a turbulent, fast-moving world.

Canadians know all too well that building a fair, compassionate and innovative society is not a destination, but a journey. Nothing can be taken for granted. Bold, visionary national leadership is vital to strengthen the bonds of solidarity among Canadians, as Canadians, and guarantee Canada significant influence in all global forums.

We are Canadians without borders, with bridges and bonds to many countries, looking forward to an exciting future. We are more than “taxpayers” of this great nation. We are “citizens” – a far nobler role. We wish to embrace our national responsibilities. We must have the opportunity in the next election to vote for a strong national government that can inspire us to look over the horizon and leave a better world for our children and grandchildren.

Op-Ed in the Star

I have an op-ed in the Toronto Star today.

Susan Delacourt also offers her reaction.

Part 6: more issues needing bold national leadership

(This is Part 6 of "The descent of national politics into irrelevance and insignificance: Can it be reversed?" The previous parts are found below.)

Open, Transparent and Accountable Government

The election of Barack Obama demonstrates how the face of politics has irrevocably changed. Thanks to technologies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, text-messaging and blogging, the traditional political party is now obsolete as supporters gather, mobilize, plan and share information in a virtual structure open to all.

But President Obama has not stopped there – his groundbreaking national interactive website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/, continues to build on the momentum gathered during his election and transition period. Among other things, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ offers immediate access to meaningful information on all current and planned legislative, regulatory and executive initiatives of the President, and facilitates connections via Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Vimeo, iTunes, and MySpace. The openness this fosters is invaluable, despite the challenging constraint to limit comments to 500 characters or less.

Any Canadian political party with serious aspirations to form the next national government should sit up and take notice. The political party that adopts the national website approach to open transparent government will be more successful in transcending the geographic barriers and regional silos that constrain policy creativity and national initiative, and has the best chance of establishing a broad base of support among Canadians.

Employment Insurance reform

The next Parliament must undertake a complete reform of all aspects of Employment Insurance which is not operating as a useful safety net for the unemployed. Too many people have paid in and find that they are not eligible. The increasing numbers of part-time workers and the self-employed cannot participate. The complex patchwork of entry requirements across the country makes no sense with today’s rising unemployment. Job training provisions do not work well. And even for those who are eligible, benefits are exhausted quickly. Soon, we will witness an increase in Canadians on income assistance/welfare, straining already stretched provincial and municipal budgets.

In sum, the national EI program does not fulfill its basic national objectives – that of providing adequate income protection, economic stabilization and the preservation of the dignity of the unemployed. There needs to be national standards, where appropriate, as well as more effective training. We should implement innovative steps like wage insurance for those who suffer a drop in income, particularly while retraining, and increasing premium rates during times of low unemployment to tide us over when joblessness does rise.

Maternity and parental leave benefits, currently part of EI, need expanding and updating as well. Although some suggest that these benefits should not logically be part of EI (Don Drummond), they cannot be removed from the EI national program unless there is an agreed alternative national program in place. We must not forget that these benefits ended up under the EI umbrella in the first place because provinces were unwilling to collaborate sufficiently on a separate national program.

As the federal Conservatives and Liberals work on EI reform this summer, the premiers are yet again taking the initiative and putting forward proposals that must be considered. The premier of British Columbia has suggested the possibility of returning to a variation of the cost-shared approach to welfare as a way of easing what is expected to be an intolerable burden on provincial budgets as the unemployed exhaust benefits. He has also joined with western premiers to ask that eligibility for EI be reduced to three categories – urban, rural and remote.

Pension reform

The next Parliament must address the looming pension crisis. Currently 6 out of 10 Canadians have no private pension and only inadequate Canada Pension Plan benefits. Yet, as taxpayers, we are all picking up the tab for badly run private pension plans (e.g. GM).

Several models could be considered:
- expand the CPP – our largest and most efficient pension arrangement in the country – on a voluntary or mandatory basis so that it can gradually replace the underperforming RRSP industry,

- provide for voluntary employer and employee payments into supplemental CPP administered by the CPP Investment Board, like the regional plan now being developed by Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan for private sector workers.

A range of related issues must also be considered. One example would be to include provisions to allow women, who stay home to raise children, to continue to contribute to CPP during those years. A second example would be a national disability insurance benefit modeled on the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and fully integrated with the CPP disability payments, the provincial Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and any other disability income programs.

Post-Secondary Education

Canada has no national coherence in post-secondary education (PSE): the annual education report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in October 2007 noted that Canada was unable to report figures for two-thirds of the information gathered by the other 39 countries covered in the survey. Dr. Paul Cappon, president of the Canadian Council of Learning, a non-governmental organization on lifelong learning, decries the fact that we do not know where the substantial amount of money transferred for PSE purposes is going. In contrast, the EU, Australia, Germany, Britain, and New Zealand, all establish nation-wide goals and objectives for their PSE institutions and align funding with national priorities.
Canada also lacks an effective national strategy to assure the full-range of PSE options to all qualified students. Twenty years ago, Canadian universities received $2000 more per student than their U.S. counterparts, but now receive $2000 less. Since 1993, Canada has won only 3 Nobel prizes, compared to California’s 18 since 1995.

Bold national leadership is required to implement a national strategy for PSE to ensure that our colleges and universities are up to the challenge and measure up to our competition, as well as implement an integrated system of grants, loans and credits to ensure talented students of families with financial difficulties are assured access to PSE institutions.

Public funding for two years of community college
Serious consideration must be given to whether the federal government should publicly fund two years of community college since so many twenty-first century jobs will require at least a couple of years of community college. Easy availability of ongoing community college training for employees in some U.S. states has proven an attractive incentive to location and expansion of leading edge technology companies.

Research and development
We must also find ways once and for all to increase the abysmally low levels of research and development by Canadian businesses, and provide enough committed long-term public finance for basic scientific research that will foster free-ranging scientific innovation. This will spur everything from medical breakthroughs on cancer and the environmental causes of ill-health, to discoveries of greater energy efficiency and waste reduction (like the process of separating oil from water, discovered by the 2009 Polanyi research grant recipient), to new batteries that store electricity for transportation, wind and solar generation, safer cell phone technology, and the elimination of toxins in our food, our water, and our air.

Other Questions

The foregoing eclectic discussion is designed to sketch out the great scope of possibilities available to a reinvigorated national Parliament under new leadership. And there are countless topics equally in need of national attention and serious debate:

Taxes: As we face a growing deficit and debt, can we have intelligent national debate on the need for adequate new revenues to pay for investment and public services, not the least of which is our obligation to ensure the needs and concerns of aboriginal Canadians? Besides GST adjustments (including harmonization with the remaining provincial sales taxes) and a possible carbon levy, we need to consider possibilities as varied as a financial transactions tax – even a minimal 0.25% levy on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds and financial assets, would be progressive and relatively lucrative – as well as a tax on soft drinks promoted by a few American states.

Child Poverty: On the social safety net front, could we take at least a first step to remove children from social assistance benefit structures as part of reducing poverty in Canada? This goal would require streamlining and enhancing the four federal-provincial income assistance programs – the Child Tax Benefit, the National Child Benefit Supplement, the Universal Child Care Benefit and the various provincial child benefits.

Senate reform: Could we examine serious reform to the Senate of Canada with vigorous public debate and input, not Mr. Harper’s reform by stealth? A reformed Senate could be designed to give provinces a stronger voice in the development of national standards and objectives in the parliamentary centre, rather than shouting too often confrontationally from the fringes through the Council of the Federation.

Canada’s global influence: Can we have intelligent national debate over bolstering Canada’s global influence within the G-20 and other global forums? We should pay close attention to the observations of former diplomat Gordon Smith, that Canada is fortunate to be part of the G-20, scraping in with barely 2% of global GDP or population (our land mass does not count). At the recent G-20 summit in London, Britain consigned Canada to the second tier in terms of communications strategy (which perhaps explains why our Prime Minister was ‘in the loo’ during the official photo of the leaders). And Canada should really not be part of the G-8 today – by some measures, Canada and Italy should logically be replaced by China and India, except that China and India are now holding separate BRIC summits with Russia and Brazil as of June 2009. Among other things, as host of the G-8 summit in 2010, Smith suggests that Canada take vigorous steps to transform it into a G-20 Summit in order to be able to play a central role in reshaping global rules and institutions.

Conclusion

The critical issue, even if any of the suggestions for national leadership and initiative set out in this series of blog entries are pursued, is: will Canadians’ interest in the governance of our country actually be revived? Quebecers are particularly disinterested after years of Bloc Québécois dominance and what La Presse editor André Pratt calls ‘separating without separation’. Polls show that 60% of Quebecers still believe provincial demandeurs, both federalist and separatist, that Quebec needs more provincial autonomy in fields like culture, health, higher education and language despite the fact that Quebec has near complete provincial control of these fields. It will take exceptional effort to persuade Quebecers to consider the Canadian national interest again.

The future of Canada depends more than ever on new bold and visionary national leadership that understands both the poetry and practice of politics. We need inspiration to revive our collective imagination once again, and pursue national initiatives for the benefit of all Canadians.

Part 5: Climate Change Policy

(This is Part 5 of "The descent of national politics into irrelevance and insignificance: Can it be reversed?" The previous parts can be found below.)

Canada has had four different climate change plans in the last decade but no progress. And Mr. Harper’s leadership on the issue is anything but bold, transparent or even remotely constructive in bringing Canadians together.

Mr. Harper silenced any intelligent discussion during the last election, producing an anemic plan for intensity targets applicable only to large industrial emitters that allows carbon dioxide emissions to rise with production levels. His recent budget lacked any serious environmental focus, especially with respect to renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Mr. Harper has sat on the sidelines with respect to a carbon tax, lending no support to forward-thinking proposals like those adopted in British Columbia last year – and successfully defended through the recent BC provincial election. In the absence of national leadership, regional tensions, real or imagined, are allowed to simmer – those Canadians who express legitimate concern over the environmental impact of the oil sands development are subtly cast as whiners merely opposed to Alberta’s success in oil and gas. And while Quebec forges ahead with locking in huge exports of hydro-electric power to the United States, there is no national discussion on the feasibility of an east-west smart electricity grid.

The federal government is so missing in action that Ontario and Quebec have now joined Manitoba and British Columbia to extend caps on CO2 emissions beyond large industrial emitters as part of the California-led Western Climate Initiative.

Harper has recently taken minimal steps toward convergence with the Americans – proposing a weak cap-and-trade system that kicks in only in 2011, and comparable fuel economy standards for vehicles. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Canada has lost all credibility on climate change not just in North America, but also on the global stage. We simply have nothing convincing to say, even for the vitally important Copenhagen Summit in November.

Ironically, just as we get closer to a cap-and-trade system, both Canadian and international business leaders are realizing how complex the system is, especially when compared to a carbon tax or levy that is efficient and fair – applies to all emitters – and yields substantial revenues to reduce other taxes or fund technologies.

The reality is that a national carbon pricing system is essential if we want to get anywhere near acceptable targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases by mid-century. Leaders in the oil, gas, pipeline, energy, and retail and electricity industries have, from time to time, called on Ottawa to implement a national energy policy – not to be confused with the controversial NEP policy of a quarter-century ago. A national energy policy to meet the climate change challenge means: an unambiguous statement of Canada’s national interests and objectives with respect to energy, clear national regulations, infrastructure investments, and a national strategy to help corporations to map out an energy development agenda and be able to prioritize initiatives including research, development and training.

Business leaders understand the need for strong national initiative in this critical area – not to create new intrusions into provincial jurisdiction, but to ameliorate the incoherence of the patchwork of provincial and federal laws, and ease the costs faced by the companies and the uncertainties faced by their shareholders.

If we finally succeed in having an intelligent debate over a carbon pricing system initiated by the federal government, lessons will be learned. Any system must be fully coordinated with provincial programs like those in B.C. and Quebec, and the revenue raised should be remitted back to the province in which it is generated for other green initiatives and technology investments. (A serious problem with the carbon pricing proposal in the Liberal Party Green Shift of 2008 was its entanglement with an anti-poverty initiative.)

Vigorous national leadership is also needed to assist our cities – which use at least 50% of all energy in Canada – to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation, and to develop integrated energy systems involving on-site renewable energy, district energy and combined heat and power. Related initiatives include massive investments in expanding public transit, rebuilding municipal infrastructure, and finally moving forward on high speed rail links.

To be continued. Part Six will wind up this series with an eclectic discussion of a few more issues in need of bold national leadership.

Part 4: The Canadian Economic Union

(This is Part 4 of "The descent of national politics into irrelevance and insignificance: Can it be reversed?" The previous parts can be found below.)

Reviving the national government’s ability to take the lead in critical areas will take patience. For one thing, most of the provinces need persuading that the national interest is more than the sum of their activities. Whoever is the next prime minister will have to convincingly articulate the need for specific national action as part of the election platform. Since all Canadians vote for both levels of government, a prime minister who can obtain a clear mandate from the voters will have more power to negotiate a satisfactory federal role with provincial governments.

The Canadian economic union is one area that requires urgent national attention and action. The 1995 inter-provincial Agreement on Internal Trade – intended to reduce barriers to goods, services, and people – is so weak that we are now more disconnected and dysfunctional than the European Union. In fact, the European Union refuses to conclude a free trade agreement with Canada unless provinces and municipalities agree to sign on and not to discriminate against the EU in their procurement policies.

Our internal barriers to trade, especially local procurement preferences, mean that our opposition to the Buy American policies in the U.S. rings hollow to Americans who face what they interpret as Buy Canadian policies. In 1994 the provinces refused to agree to liberalize procurement under NAFTA Article 1024, or to sign the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, with the result that Canadians have been excluded from government procurement with 40 American states including New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania, for some time. Mr. Harper’s recent proposal to reopen NAFTA and include local procurement as a way to prevent Buy American policies, is simply a diversion to avoid a clear national initiative on the economic union and serious discussions with the provinces.

The Council of the Federation, composed of provincial premiers and territorial leaders, recently acknowledged the need to break down all barriers to the free flow of people, goods, services and capital across Canada. Indeed British Columbia and Alberta have implemented a successful bilateral economic union. But the federal government must take its own legislative action to implement the Canadian economic union and guarantee compliance across Canada. The need for unambiguous national action must be an integral part of the campaign platform of the next prime minister, and on the agenda of the first post-election First Ministers Conference (the group that includes the federal government).

Strengthening the Canadian economic union by eliminating all barriers to the mobility of goods, services, capital and people among provinces logically includes the establishment of a single national securities regulator in the capital markets. The global financial crisis and turbulent capital markets have made this step all the more urgent.

Recent commentary has noted the strength of Canada’s banking system – thanks to coherent national regulation by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance. That same positive outlook does not extend to Canada’s capital markets, which have been adversely affected by the failures in the U.S. and international markets. With 13 different securities regulators, Canada lacks coherence in international forums and discussions, and is unnecessarily exposed to market risks and instability.

As early as August 2007, inadequate securities oversight resulted in freezing $32 billion in toxic asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), something that has seriously impacted the legitimate commercial paper market, in spite of completing – in late 2008 – a tortuously negotiated agreement to unfreeze the ABCP. Although the Bank of Canada was vigorously involved in this final agreement – and has stepped up its capital market expertise and surveillance role in monitoring systemic risks in the financial system, there is no substitute for effective national regulation and oversight.

The stability of the financial system in Canada has never been more important. There are huge advantages to the establishment of a Canadian securities regulator. For example, the cost of raising capital will be lowered by eliminating the current multiple filing requirements. Investors will have greater protection through a more effective enforcement process and a single independent adjudicative tribunal. Canada’s competitive advantage will be increased and we will be able to play an important global leadership role in coordinating international action to end the global credit crunch and financial instability in the capital markets

Mr. Harper has taken steps toward the establishment of a National Securities Commission in Budget 2009. He has proposed a Council of Ministers consisting of the federal Minister of Finance and a Minister designated by each participating jurisdiction, to act as a forum to discuss the development of securities policy and the ongoing administration of the system. This is clearly an area where provinces are reluctant to cede their dominance, and compromises will be necessary on all sides. But the Harper proposal to give provincial ministers (representing a majority of the provinces and the population of Canada) the power to veto amendments to the federal legislation may be going too far in compromising the national interest.

To be continued. Part Five will deal with climate change and clean energy policy.