To be more precise, the data affirms large parts of Harper's guiding conception of the emerging threats to Canadian quality of life, which is now driving all aspects of federal economic and social policy. Health care is the single, glaring exception.
Not keen on the age of eligibility for Old Age Security rising from 65 to 67, beginning in 2023? Please. Nearly 15 per cent of the population now is 65 or older — nearly five million Canadians. And the trend is accelerating. So-called near-seniors, those aged 60 to 64, are the fastest-growing age group, with centenarians not far behind. If people live longer, doesn't it stand to reason we should also work longer, if we're able? How will all the work that needs to be done, get done, if we don't?
Perhaps you're among those annoyed by pending reforms to immigration policy. In brief, the Tories are tweaking the system so that more new immigrants to Canada — arriving at a rate of 250,000 per year, more or less — can speak either French or English, and can therefore more quickly find a job. Additionally, more immigrants with skills are to be matched up with industries in need of their skills.
How can this be deemed anything other than necessary, with the country facing a protracted labour shortage? If anything, Census 2011 suggests the Conservatives should boost the rate of skilled-immigrant entry, dramatically, from countries that have either English or French as a lingua franca. India seems like an obvious target, as do the French-speaking nations of Africa. Never mind 250,000. Try 400,000.
Perturbed about pending reforms to Employment Insurance, intended to nudge the jobless back to work, even if they have to retrain and/or take lower wages than they used to earn? Again, it's clear from the data that this reform is not, contrary to recent New Democratic Party rhetoric, about "scapegoating" the unemployed. It's about filling jobs that, left unfilled, will cumulatively cause economic growth to slow. Slower growth is an inevitable consequence of an aging and less active population.
Likewise moderate fiscal discipline, and more aggressive natural-resource development. Someone should come up with a reasonable alternative to either.
Simple economics — and a glance at Europe — tells us what happens when social spending outstrips an economy's capacity to pay: Austerity, which appears to be more painful than discipline. Balancing the books became a near-religion in Canada in the late 1990s, driven by Liberals. Why spending beyond one's means would make sense now, when it didn't then, defies explanation.
As for the oilsands: Global energy demand, and consumption, are set to grow by about a third between now and 2035, based on a projected population increase of 1.7 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. North American auto manufacturing and related industries are waning. Given the added economic drag of an aging population, it is not credible to suggest that any Canadian government — regardless of which party holds power — would stand in the way of responsible extraction of the 174 billion barrels locked in the oilsands. They won't have a choice.
That said, there is one area — the most fundamental aspect of government service, for Canadians — where Census 2011 suggests the Conservatives are missing the boat, in a very big way. It is the elephant in the room: health care.
The first of the boomers hit retirement age in 2011. They will continue to retire in waves for nearly two decades, until those now aged 46 turn 65. They are 9.6 million strong, nearly a third of the population. Yet federal health spending increases are projected to wane — with growth of six per cent a year until 2016-17, after which raises will be tied to economic growth, accounting for inflation. Given the Baby Boom, how to prevent costs from outstripping available funding?
The Harper government's magical solution until now has been to foist responsibility on the provinces, based on the argument that health-care delivery is a provincial matter. Which is true. But the Canada Health Act is federal. Census 2011 tells us that medicare urgently requires reform, to increase its effectiveness while lowering costs. Carefully opening the system to more private-sector involvement, while maintaining universality — as was advocated by now-retired Liberal Senator Michael Kirby in 2002 — has become the most untouchable of subjects. No one wants to talk about it.
How much longer will that wash, given the census? And how can these federal Conservatives, entrenched with their majority and embarking on what they say is a fundamental repositioning of the government vis-a-vis the economy, pretend it's none of their business? They are avoiding it because they are scared. They should get un-scared.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Michael Den Tandt
No comments:
Post a Comment