BG

12

471.23

Fall 2015

Taylor

“The federal government of Canada has traditionally sought public input in the policy-making process after it has drafted its policy intentions.”

recent improvementsespecially with

business

Taylor

“If business and government thinking converge rather than diverge, business could better meet society’s needs and less government would be necessary.”

Should they converge?Should business meet society’s needs?Would less government be necessary?

1997 Business Priorities

1. national unity

2. reduce business taxes

3. reduce individual taxes

4. get deficit to zero

5. reduce regulations

6. pay down federal debt

7. help business export

8. private sector healthcare

9. deregulate telecommunications

10. spend on transport infrastructure

11. spend on healthcare

What corporate welfare?

loans• loan guarantees

bailouts• debt

• equity

grants

What corporate welfare?

40 federal agencies give money 60% to housing 10% encourages exports 10% farming 15% primarily resource upgrading

None of this counts tax breaks

What corporate welfare?

Best example: Peter Pocklington

…he was totally opposed to all government support for business. In a regular Alberta newspaper column on March 6, 1999, he censured “government funded movements of the liberal-left.” On March 10, however, he accepted a $12 million loan from Alberta’s Treasury Branches for his meat-packing company, Gainers Inc., and a $55 million loan guarantee.

Why corporate welfare?

1. jobs, jobs, jobs

2. market failure

3. instrument of public policy

4. favoured son

5. regional development

6. key sectors

7. promote/retain Canadian ownership

8. save source of future corporate tax revenues

9. promote/retain competition w/i an industry

A louder voice?

• government spending• fiscal/taxation policy• labour legislation• tariffs and trade policy monetary policy competition policy foreign investment policy development/location incentives bailouts of financially troubled companies government investment in or ownership of business environmental legislation

Traditional input

Green paper or red or blue general discussion

White paper proposed policy

Tripartism

“Tripartism is an admission that the process of decision making is more important in achieving desired economic or social outcomes today than is rigid adherence to outdated economic formulas or political ideologies.”

Tripartism

1. Tier I/Tier II

2. Auto Pact Renewal

3. Free Trade Agreement

Tripartism

1. Tier I/Tier II 1976… generally a failure some benefits

• increased contact

• increased trust

reasons for misunderstanding• economic policy vs. listening

Tripartism

2. Auto Pact renewal 1980s success

• clear ideas

• strong negotiating position for govt

reason• had a clear goal

• failure had a clear cost

Tripartism

2. Auto Pact lessons concentrate on

• longer-term issues

• sector-specific issues

right at the beginning set• who should participate

• what the goals are

• what the process should be

Tripartism

2. Auto Pact lessons keep expectations low start with sectors predisposed to work

together• businesses w/i sector meet together first

have all parties share cost do it behind closed doors

Tripartism

3. Free Trade Agreement SAGIT

• Sectoral Advisory Groups on International Trade

ITAC• International Trade Advisory Committee

Tripartism

3. FTA lessons tight, external timeline clear reason to be there

• for each participant cost to walking away

process has backing of PM do it without fanfare

Taylor’s general advice

to government: say what you’re after

• consultation

• advice

• deal

• window-dressing

Taylor’s general advice

to government: recruit senior bureaucrats

from business expose bureaucrats to

business strategic planning

Taylor’s general advice

to both: recognize that some sectors

will win & others lose• have plan for “losers”

don’t pick• recognize & support