by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
After a long vacation MPs head back to the Hill, to work on the bills that are still being debated or awaiting debate to begin. As in every winter session of Parliament, follow-up work is to be done.
The House of Commons witnessed its fair share of chaos during last year's fall sitting. Speaker Anthony Rota resigned in disgrace after recognizing a war veteran who fought alongside the Nazis as a "Canadian hero." His replacement, Greg Fergus, also faced criticism for appearing in a video tribute to an Ontario Liberal MPP while wearing his Speaker's robes. In addition, Government House Leader Karina Gould has begun her maternity leave, leaving Government Whip Steve MacKinnon to oversee the legislative agenda in her absence. Housing, affordability, and the economy in general, continue to be major concerns. However, there seems to be a stalemate, with the Liberal government trying to find solutions but finding themselves overwhelmed by issues.
A more comprehensive approach to strengthening Canada's national security legal framework appears to be underway. The promised online harms legislation is still delayed. With responsibility for the file shifting from Canadian Heritage to the Department of Justice, the government seems to be slow in calming rising antisemitism in the country.
Pharmacare legislation that New Democrats demanded as part of their supply and confidence agreement with the government has yet to be tabled.
The rest is work as usual, with motherhood legislation waiting to be approved.
Notably, there is nothing about the real issues confronting the country.
Interest in Canada’s science and industrial development has eluded current House of Commons legislators. At present, there are no MPs who understand the crucial role that applied science can play in the development of Canada. We are lost in space on this file.
For example: once a leader in nuclear science and associated industries, today Canada is far behind other nations. A Chinese company has developed a nuclear battery that could keep your phone running for 50 years without recharging. Betavolt Technology claims to have successfully miniaturized atomic energy batteries, with dimensions that measure less than a coin at 15 x 15 x 5mm. The compact battery uses the radioactive isotope Nickel 63 to generate 100 microwatts and a voltage of 3V of electricity through the process of radioactive decay.
Betavolt plans to mass-produce them for commercial devices like phones and drones, but also states nuclear batteries could be used for aerospace equipment, medical equipment, advanced sensors and micro-robots. The company is presently working hard to design multiple atomic batteries that could power automotive technology, as well as AI systems just to name a few.
The advantages of atomic energy batteries are their lightweight, long service life, high energy density, and ability to work normally under extreme temperatures (-60 to 120oC).
The company seems confident that its development is way ahead of European and American scientific research institutions and enterprises.
My question: Where is Canada?
It is quite clear that politicians invested in costly EV batteries for cars produced by foreign design and with foreign workers on Canadian soil, are not au current. Wouldn’t it be better to support Canadian scientific development? Both for the environment and our economy?
No wonder Canada’s economic future looks grim. Lagging productivity means a declining standard of living and the emigration of our best and brightest.
Let us face reality; Canada’s per capita GDP has yet to return to its pre-pandemic level. Indeed, it has been declining. The implications of this lack of productivity growth for our long-term standard of living are dire. The reasons for this can be summarized across five closely interconnected areas: unprecedented population growth, capital investment decline,
neglected investment in research and development, structural economic issues, and finally, the policy environment.
More people could potentially fuel extensive economic growth, but unless capital investment also grows to boost productivity, economic growth will not follow. Given our population growth rates, we would need to devote nearly 30 percent of our GDP to capital formation. That has not happened in Canada since the wheat boom era of the early 1900s—incidentally also the era of Canada’s fastest population growth.
However, the quality and composition of investment also matters, and Canada’s spending on research and development as a share of its GDP has been declining for the last two decades. As a share of its GDP, Canada spends about half that of the U.S., spending less than any other G-7 country. How long will that policy keep us in the G-7?
Fossilized structural economic issues persist, and despite the country’s population doubling over the last forty years, our markets are apparently still “too small” to allow for more competition. Combine this with provincial and federal implementation and regulatory environments that have raised the cost of starting just about anything, and you have a recipe for long-term economic decay. The final drop in the bucket in explaining our productivity malaise is a Canadian policy environment, which can be described as frozen in space federalism.
At its best, Canadian federalism co-ordinates regional economic policies and practices to promote overall Canadian economic performance.
At its worst, Canadian federalism can be a petulant collective of myopic jurisdictions operating at cross-purposes that frustrate any attempts at national coordination. Canada’s provinces and the federal government have become increasingly prone to bickering.
Canadian federalism in action has Ottawa controlling the levers of immigration and using this power to increase the population to address aging populations and labour shortages. Unfortunately, they have not considered the consequences on health services and housing stock. The provinces control health and education services but in the wake of rising population and demand both sectors are highly stressed and finding it hard to cope.
Then there are the municipalities, which control the key levers for land zoning and housing construction. Yet, despite what seems to be a roaring demand for housing, they are moving slowly, if at all. Canada’s economic strategy seems to have focused on increasing population size while assuming that anything needed to boost productivity would simply take care of itself. (Like Trudeau’s budget?) As a result, we now have a growing population and a bigger market but less competition, resulting in higher prices and fewer services.
We are spending more on health and education, but reaping hallway health care and students with declining test scores. Are we really getting our money’s worth?
The long-term implications of Canada’s falling per capita GDP is a declining standard of living and ultimately the out-migration of the best and brightest.
We are on track to becoming a poorer country with a more fractious political system unable to get things done. Is this the country we want for our children?
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
After a long vacation MPs head back to the Hill, to work on the bills that are still being debated or awaiting debate to begin. As in every winter session of Parliament, follow-up work is to be done.
The House of Commons witnessed its fair share of chaos during last year's fall sitting. Speaker Anthony Rota resigned in disgrace after recognizing a war veteran who fought alongside the Nazis as a "Canadian hero." His replacement, Greg Fergus, also faced criticism for appearing in a video tribute to an Ontario Liberal MPP while wearing his Speaker's robes. In addition, Government House Leader Karina Gould has begun her maternity leave, leaving Government Whip Steve MacKinnon to oversee the legislative agenda in her absence. Housing, affordability, and the economy in general, continue to be major concerns. However, there seems to be a stalemate, with the Liberal government trying to find solutions but finding themselves overwhelmed by issues.
A more comprehensive approach to strengthening Canada's national security legal framework appears to be underway. The promised online harms legislation is still delayed. With responsibility for the file shifting from Canadian Heritage to the Department of Justice, the government seems to be slow in calming rising antisemitism in the country.
Pharmacare legislation that New Democrats demanded as part of their supply and confidence agreement with the government has yet to be tabled.
The rest is work as usual, with motherhood legislation waiting to be approved.
Notably, there is nothing about the real issues confronting the country.
Interest in Canada’s science and industrial development has eluded current House of Commons legislators. At present, there are no MPs who understand the crucial role that applied science can play in the development of Canada. We are lost in space on this file.
For example: once a leader in nuclear science and associated industries, today Canada is far behind other nations. A Chinese company has developed a nuclear battery that could keep your phone running for 50 years without recharging. Betavolt Technology claims to have successfully miniaturized atomic energy batteries, with dimensions that measure less than a coin at 15 x 15 x 5mm. The compact battery uses the radioactive isotope Nickel 63 to generate 100 microwatts and a voltage of 3V of electricity through the process of radioactive decay.
Betavolt plans to mass-produce them for commercial devices like phones and drones, but also states nuclear batteries could be used for aerospace equipment, medical equipment, advanced sensors and micro-robots. The company is presently working hard to design multiple atomic batteries that could power automotive technology, as well as AI systems just to name a few.
The advantages of atomic energy batteries are their lightweight, long service life, high energy density, and ability to work normally under extreme temperatures (-60 to 120oC).
The company seems confident that its development is way ahead of European and American scientific research institutions and enterprises.
My question: Where is Canada?
It is quite clear that politicians invested in costly EV batteries for cars produced by foreign design and with foreign workers on Canadian soil, are not au current. Wouldn’t it be better to support Canadian scientific development? Both for the environment and our economy?
No wonder Canada’s economic future looks grim. Lagging productivity means a declining standard of living and the emigration of our best and brightest.
Let us face reality; Canada’s per capita GDP has yet to return to its pre-pandemic level. Indeed, it has been declining. The implications of this lack of productivity growth for our long-term standard of living are dire. The reasons for this can be summarized across five closely interconnected areas: unprecedented population growth, capital investment decline,
neglected investment in research and development, structural economic issues, and finally, the policy environment.
More people could potentially fuel extensive economic growth, but unless capital investment also grows to boost productivity, economic growth will not follow. Given our population growth rates, we would need to devote nearly 30 percent of our GDP to capital formation. That has not happened in Canada since the wheat boom era of the early 1900s—incidentally also the era of Canada’s fastest population growth.
However, the quality and composition of investment also matters, and Canada’s spending on research and development as a share of its GDP has been declining for the last two decades. As a share of its GDP, Canada spends about half that of the U.S., spending less than any other G-7 country. How long will that policy keep us in the G-7?
Fossilized structural economic issues persist, and despite the country’s population doubling over the last forty years, our markets are apparently still “too small” to allow for more competition. Combine this with provincial and federal implementation and regulatory environments that have raised the cost of starting just about anything, and you have a recipe for long-term economic decay. The final drop in the bucket in explaining our productivity malaise is a Canadian policy environment, which can be described as frozen in space federalism.
At its best, Canadian federalism co-ordinates regional economic policies and practices to promote overall Canadian economic performance.
At its worst, Canadian federalism can be a petulant collective of myopic jurisdictions operating at cross-purposes that frustrate any attempts at national coordination. Canada’s provinces and the federal government have become increasingly prone to bickering.
Canadian federalism in action has Ottawa controlling the levers of immigration and using this power to increase the population to address aging populations and labour shortages. Unfortunately, they have not considered the consequences on health services and housing stock. The provinces control health and education services but in the wake of rising population and demand both sectors are highly stressed and finding it hard to cope.
Then there are the municipalities, which control the key levers for land zoning and housing construction. Yet, despite what seems to be a roaring demand for housing, they are moving slowly, if at all. Canada’s economic strategy seems to have focused on increasing population size while assuming that anything needed to boost productivity would simply take care of itself. (Like Trudeau’s budget?) As a result, we now have a growing population and a bigger market but less competition, resulting in higher prices and fewer services.
We are spending more on health and education, but reaping hallway health care and students with declining test scores. Are we really getting our money’s worth?
The long-term implications of Canada’s falling per capita GDP is a declining standard of living and ultimately the out-migration of the best and brightest.
We are on track to becoming a poorer country with a more fractious political system unable to get things done. Is this the country we want for our children?
No comments:
Post a Comment