🚀 go-pugleaf

>  
> Infrastructure investment does not mean that governments involve 
> themselves in "make-work projects" which contribute little or nothing 
> to future competitiveness - such as bocci courts in Toronto, canoe 
> museums in Shawinigan or Saddledome boxes in Calgary. Infrastructure 
> spending must be subject to economic criteria, not pork-barrel 
> politics. Final decisions on infrastructure spending should be made 
> based upon "investment-type analysis," and action taken only when 
> long-term returns to the Canadian economy can be demonstrated. 
>  
> Typically, physical infrastructure refers to traditional features like 
> highways, ports, railways and airports. Given our current fiscal 
> climate, however, governments are ill-equipped to spend money on 
> massive improvements. It is time to change the traditional view of 
> government-dominated infrastructure provision by encouraging greater 
> private sector involvement. In Canada this can be done by: 
>  
>   1. Privatizing airports and aviation 
>   2. Allowing private sector companies to build and maintain roads and 
>      bridges 
>   3. Encouraging competitive forces in Canada's railway system 
>   4. Privatizing the St. Lawrence Seaway operations. 
>  
> A second type of physical infrastructure is to the emerging economy 
> what asphalt and steel are to the industrial economy. This 
> infrastructure consists of fibre optics, copper wire and silicon chips 
> - all designed to carry, transmit and process information. This is 
> more widely known as the "information highway." Existing information 
> infrastructure was built primarily by the private sector with heavy 
> government regulation. This sector of Canada's economy may become one 
> of our most fiercely competitive in the coming years, yet our 
> government's outdated regulatory regimes remain intact. Regulations 
> must be re-evaluated and eliminated if they discourage increased 
> competition. Industries involved in emerging information markets are 
> fully capable of developing and maintaining their own infrastructures. 
> Government subsidies should be discouraged. 
>  
> Intellectual Infrastructure: Education and Training 
>  
> With respect to intellectual or human infrastructure, Reformers 
> understand the importance of a well-trained work force for future 
> productivity. 
>  
> Current educational structures are too rigid and respond inadequately 
> both to the needs of students and to the requirements of the private 
> sector. Linkages between our educational institutions and the private 
> sector need to be encouraged. Educational institutions should respond 
> to the needs of students by providing training for future employment. 
> Education vouchers and income contingent loan repayment (ICLR) plans 
> would go a long way to ensuring that educational institutions are more 
> responsive to the needs of both students and the private sector. 
>  
> The Reform Party believes that the most important type of job training 
> occurs on the job. Job training is best provided by the private 
> sector. While high-income jobs are preferable to lower-income jobs, it 
> is often the low income jobs that provide the training for 
> less-skilled Canadian workers. 
>  
> We are convinced that government-directed training is unlikely to be 
> successful. As with government subsidies to business, governments are 
> poor anticipators of future demand, and often sponsor training 
> programs that do not meet the needs of those who generate jobs. If 
> government must fund training initiatives, we would favour federal 
> training vouchers to allow more "consumer choice," so that those being 
> trained can decide where their training dollars should be applied. 
>  
> While improvements are necessary to education and training, the Reform 
> Party understands that these are areas of provincial jurisdiction. The 
> federal government should facilitate federal-provincial cooperation in 
> these areas. Transferring full responsibility for training and 
> education to the provinces would allow these decisions to be made at 
> the level of government closest to the needs of its electors. 
>  
> Provinces, which have constitutional responsibility for education, 
> should also be responsible for deciding how education funds are 
> disbursed. Over the past twenty years the federal government has acted 
> in this provincial jurisdiction through federal-provincial cash 
> transfers. In light of the present situation and recognizing that a 
> complete federal withdrawal from education funding now would 
> constitute a breach-of-trust with the provinces, the Reform Party 
> recommends that the federal government should transfer tax room (tax 
> points) to the provinces to allow them to better design programs 
> tailored to the needs of their citizens without unnecessary intrusion 
> by the federal government. 
>  
> CONCLUSION 
>  
> Government can restore confidence to the markets by quickly and 
> decisively eliminating the deficit. Government can lighten the tax 
> burden on employees, entrepreneurs, consumers and investors. 
> Government can structure social program support in such a way as to 
> prevent work disincentives. Government can insist on free internal 
> trade and seek free competition and free markets globally for Canadian 
> goods and services. 
>  
> Government can create "a job-friendly" economy. But job creation 
> itself and decisions as to what are the necessary skills and education 
> are best left to employers, employees, entrepreneurs and investors to 
> sort out. 
>  
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
> Next Section | Back to Contents 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
>  
> Footnotes 
>  
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
> [1] For a useful treatment of the growth of deficit spending and debt 
> in Canada, see William B.P. Robson and William M. Scarth (eds.), 
> Deficit Reduction: What Pain, What Gain? C.D. Howe Institute, 1994. 
>  
> Return to Text 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
> [2] Ibid. 
>  
> Return to Text 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
> [3] "American interest rates are climbing and, in late 1996 and early 
> 1997, we anticipate interest rates to reach levels high enough to 
> choke off further growth in the US . . . Us growth will be virtually 
> zero by 1997, which will depress growth here to about two percent" 
> (James Frank, Chief Economist, Conference Board of Canada, as reported 
> by Eric Beauchesne, Ottawa Citizen (12 Jan '95): D10). 
>  
> Return to Text 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
> [4] F. Giavazzi and M. Pagano, "Can Severe Fiscal Contractions be 
> Expansionary? Tales of Two Small Economies." In O.J. Blanchard and 
> S.E. Fisher, eds, NBER Macroeconomics Review, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT 
> Press, 1990. These examples also point out the need for a new 
> econometric model which takes the experiences of these and other 
> countries into account. 
>  
> Return to Text 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>  
> [5] Canadian Chamber of Commerce, "Aim for a Million Project" and 
> "Recommendation for Action," Toronto: CCC, 1994, p. 2. 
>  
> Return to Text 
>     ---------------------