These measures are part of the federal Liberals' Plan for Productivity and Growth unveiled Nov. 14 along with plenty of rhetoric to suggest that this government is determined to create a competitive economy and a prosperous country.
"Our goal is to position Canadian firms with not only a statutory tax rate advantage," said Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, "but also a meaningful marginal effective tax rate advantage over the U.S. within five years. The reason is clear: To promote job creation and investment in Canada."
These are good intentions. The tax cuts and spending plans cannot be cavalierly dismissed. They will undoubtedly form a key part of the Liberal election platform now that the three federal opposition parties seem determined to defeat the government and send us to the polls in January. Voters should give this package serious consideration.
Before casting a vote, though, there are two questions to ask. Do the Liberals have a credible plan to ensure the long-term competitiveness of the economy and the prosperity of the citizenry?
Or is this package really designed to enhance the short-term electoral objectives of Paul Martin's government?
These are important questions because the country is facing a number of serious challenges. The most obvious is the rising economic might of China and India.
The aging of the population raises concerns about the future costs of social programs and our ability to pay for them. As well, Canada needs to take seriously and be vigilant of threats from abroad, chiefly infectious diseases and international terrorism.
To deal with issues of such magnitude, we need leaders with feet firmly planted in the 21st century. We don't need leaders who think it is sufficient to maintain the practices and policies of the second half of the 20th century. Up until now, the Liberals under Jean Chretien and Martin have sounded and acted like a party of the past rather than the future.
The objective of every postwar federal government was to create a more just and equitable society through the redistribution of wealth.
Much was achieved and most of it for the common good. Successive governments introduced old-age pensions, public health care, unemployment insurance, maternity benefits, regional development and many other programs.
They have done so much, in fact, that there is very little left to do. The welfare state is a finished product. The fundamental challenge is to maintain it.
Governments can no longer be focused, as they have been since 1945, on the redistribution of wealth. The goal today must be wealth creation.
This means we need more scientists, more engineers and more skilled tradespeople. We need people who can conceive and design new products. We need people who can build and repair things. We need more entrepreneurs and proprietors. We need public investment in ports, airports and roads, not to mention such decidedly unglamorous assets as sewers.
The country also needs a more capable military. The eminent historian Jack Granatstein recently wrote: "The Canadian Forces, its strength shrunken, much of its equipment obsolete, cannot even credibly defend this nation's air space, sea approaches and land mass.
The only question is how much longer the United States will wait before it declares that its own national security makes it necessary for Washington to openly assume responsibility for Canadian defence."
What we really need is a prosperity and security initiative that clearly lays out the challenges facing Canada and provides a comprehensive set of proposals to guide the growth and development of the country for a generation.
Some will say that such long-range thinking is not possible in an age of accelerated change. This is nonsense. Our greatest leaders have always thought big and looked to the future. The results were Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's immigration program that filled the West with settlers, and Mackenzie King's vision of a welfare state to ensure that everyone shared in the fruits of our prosperity.
Canada could use some thinking on that scale today and it should start with a simple declaration: Henceforth our objective will be to create wealth, not to redistribute it.
To date, there is no evidence that Messrs. Martin and Goodale have made such a leap and are going to take their party with them.
That is why it is hard to resist the thought that their Plan for Productivity and Growth is really the work of mid-level managers whose jobs are riding on the next quarterly results.
And why we must question whether they really have the stuff of chief executives who can see what is on the horizon and prepare us to meet the challenges that lay ahead.
(D'Arcy Jenish can be reached at jenish@businessedge.ca)
