Category: Perspectives

In conversation with Mike Moffatt

AV – We have a housing crisis: there are too many people and too few houses. What’s the solution?

MM – I think we need to look at all the barriers and bottlenecks that raise the cost of housing. Taxes and fees are a big part of that. In the 20 years since I bought my first home in London, Ont., development charges and other taxes have shot up about 1,000 per cent. The cost of land is up about 1,000 per cent. These are the drivers of unaffordability. If this path continues, development charges in the city of Toronto will be $2 million per unit 20 years from now. It’s unsustainable.

AV – And yet, on the other side of this, cities have been pushed into relying on development charges because there’s been a focus on freezing property taxes. You end up with poor cities being asked to get poorer to solve a housing crisis.

MM – We have to look at alternative models. There’s this whole idea out there that growth pays for growth, but why should the growth of housing pay for roads? Shouldn’t it be the growth of cars that pays for roads? Why is it that we’re building apartment buildings in walkable neighbourhoods, with municipalities then turning around and using those development charges to pay for expanding arterial roads in the suburbs? 

For example, commuters from Carleton drive into Ottawa every day to go to work. The city has to expand arterial roads that those residents use every day, but don’t pay for. You’re making the taxpayers of Ottawa pay for all of this infrastructure that’s largely used by people who don’t live there. There’s a massive and problematic cross-subsidy.

AV – Do we have to recalculate the math, but also reframe the expectations of home buyers that a white picket fence with a front yard and backyard and a two-car garage is not the new normal?

MM – I think we’re already there. Detached home starts in Ontario are down about 70 per cent from 20 years ago. It’s not so much that money is going to new homeowners in the suburbs; it’s going to existing homeowners. We are taxing density downtown to pay for infrastructure, which is often just upkeep of infrastructure that’s been underfunded for decades.

AV – So we need to rethink how we pay for infrastructure?

MM – Absolutely. Why do we put water and wastewater infrastructure on development charges, but not electricity infrastructure? If we ran water and wastewater on a utility model, like electricity, those utilities could borrow at government rates. Instead of paying for that water treatment plant at, say, three per cent, four per cent municipal interest rates, we end up making new homeowners pay for it at five and six per cent mortgage rates. 

This comes down to what we value most – if it’s making banks rich, then the status quo works just fine. But if we care about great communities or great neighbourhoods, we have to rethink the way we finance infrastructure.

The time for patchwork solutions is over and if we’re serious about housing affordability we should get serious about dismantling outdated financial models and acknowledging development charges for what they are: a constantly rising tax on housing.

If governments keep coming to the table with half measures that overlook this necessary reform, then I think we’ll see people start to tune out altogether. The time has long past come to rethink our cross subsidization and put attainable housing back in reach.

Mike Moffatt is Senior Director of Policy and Innovation at the Smart Prosperity Institute.

It’s interesting coming back to Canadian media after being gone for almost 10 years. I left because I was frustrated that [the industry] was not really acknowledging that the internet was creeping up behind them. And I think to a certain degree, they still haven’t acknowledged this. Despite 10 years of massive problems in terms of revenue and trust, a lot of the media is still hanging on to an approach completely out of alignment with how people consume information. 

They still look at media as a static product: a daily paper, or a six o’clock newscast, or a specific show at a specific time. They are still oriented around the idea that the media is a thing we produce rather than a constant state. In reality, it’s all channel inputs, all the time. It’s WhatsApp groups, or YouTube or Instagram. Young people don’t really go to a URL. We are in a post-website era. The idea of my kids typing in a website URL is insane. We have to be thinking of our channels first and how those feed back into our repository of information. 

At the same time, the need for Canadian media and the need for Canadian storytelling has never been higher. There are so many people consuming more information than ever. The audience is there, which is exciting for journalism. But I think there is still a massive mismatch between how most Canadian media is operating and what the audience wants.

For me, the future of journalism is going to be about specificity. We’re a huge country with massive issues and I think we’re going through a phase of reorienting around first principles. Some of the biggest investments being made in Canadian media right now are in local news. For eight years, we were all writing the same trend pieces and hot takes. And now we want to know: who just got murdered in my town? What’s going on with the school? Why is my water not working? I think the next phase of who will survive in media will be about specificity as a source of Canadian information.

Siri Agrell is a long-time journalist and current CEO of BetaKit, a digital news platform covering Canadian startups and technological innovation. 

“Useless and overpaid.” “Government relations flacks.” “The rotten fruit of undue handouts, privileges, and protections by the state.”

These are some of the less-than-charitable words Pierre Poilievre fired across the bow of corporate Canada in a National Post piece written this past May. With the Conservatives riding high in the polls, does a future Poilievre government spell the end of corporate lobbying as we know it? Will the 50-odd lobbying firms and their clients’ so-called flacks in Ottawa shutter their doors overnight? 

Fortunately for public affairs advisors everywhere, the current Conservative leader was as much seized with the solution in the piece as he was with raising hell about the problem. 

In his words, “Your communications must reach truckers, waitresses, nurses, carpenters — all the people who are too productive to tune into” a Parliamentary committee or downtown Toronto/Ottawa luncheon. The idea is that if you’ve managed to convince your colleagues it’s good for your company, you should also do the same with Canadians before taking it to Parliament. 

Lobbying is a completely legal and regulated activity in Canada. It takes its name from the lobbies of the UK Parliament where MPs and peers gather before and after debates in the House of Commons, and where constituents used to have the opportunity to approach their representatives to raise their particular issue or case. 

Poilievre’s solution hearkens back to those democratic roots. Political parties are fundamentally guided by their appeal to and influence over the greatest number of voters to win government. In other words, a shrewd political party will chase the voters and not the other way around. 

In this brave new world, companies and organizations, especially those who operate in highly regulated industries, must embrace grassroots campaigning. 

Even before Poilievre put pen to paper on this issue, grassroots lobbying campaigns have enjoyed significant success in both shifting Canadian public opinion and governments. Think of the Pathways campaign that secured more funding for carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies for the oil and gas sector. Think of Unifor and the pressure brought to bear to reverse GM’s decision to close its Oshawa plant. 

Here’s the kicker: Grassroots campaigns engineer change that lasts much longer than a transactional win. These changes are not built on the special interests of a small group, but have fundamentally changed the hearts and minds of Canadians with regards to an issue, perhaps for decades. That is real power – power tied to the Canadians you serve and power that can influence governments and the world. 

But does corporate Canada have the social licence to do these campaigns? The overwhelming response is yes. Navigator’s think tank, the Canadian Centre for the Purpose of the Corporation, found in a 2021 study that half of Canadians support corporations trying to influence public policy on issues as diverse as wage inequality to child care to climate change. 

So corporate Canada, now is the time to build your coalition of voters. Your business may depend on it. 

The 2024 U.S. Election is being billed as the most consequential in modern American history, so what should Canadians be looking for? Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman, gives three things Canadians should keep an eye on.

Canadians are used to watching U.S. presidential elections closely, and this year is no different, as we watch our closest ally conclude one of its most suspenseful races in recent history. Our economies and cultures are intertwined, and many of us have close family in the U.S. But above all, every major decision made in Washington D.C., is felt on Parliament Hill.

The relationship has not been without its challenges over the decades.

As Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said to U.S. President Richard Nixon, “living with you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast…one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

Or, as the late comedian Robin Williams put it — somewhat more colourfully, Canada is “like a really nice apartment over a meth lab.”

So as election night approaches, we wanted to hear from a true insider on U.S. elections and politics. Bruce Heyman, who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada from 2014-2017, gave us his unvarnished predictions of what we can expect and what’s at stake on November 5th.

It’s a race to 270

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and a candidate needs to win 270 electoral college votes to win. Nearly forty of the fifty U.S. states have voted for the same presidential party for the last four elections. They are deemed to be solidly red and blue. So that means 80 per cent of states are locked in, and candidates are focusing on 20 per cent of states, which is ten, and I think the reality is that we’re focusing on seven:

Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

The first thing Canadians must know is this race is likely to be very, very, very close. It may very well be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of counties in a handful of states.

I would say conventional wisdom is as Pennsylvania goes, so does the presidency goes.

A second Trump term would be unpredictable, transactional, and filled with retribution

I think bilateral relations between the U.S. and Canada would be at risk, based on domestic policies of the United States. Economically for Canada, if Trump imposes tariffs on all imported goods, it would be very stressful economically, and difficult for the Canadian economy. And then of course, you’d say, ‘well, what do we do?’.

Canada might respond, and then he responds. You effectively end up in a trade war.

Environmentally, he’ll probably dismantle much of the programs put in place to move us to alternative fuels and sustainability. But I think businesses and institutions will still move in that direction.

Domestically, I think he’ll cause a lot of fear in immigrant communities. He says he’ll round up and deport 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants – but he doesn’t actually have to do that to make 11,000,000 people freak out. Fair warning to Canada, if you thought you had a problem at Roxham Road with migrants in the last Trump administration, wait until you see what happens if he starts to round people up from Latin and Central America all over the U.S. I don’t think they sit around and wait, and I don’t think the run south. Similarly, if Trump puts significant restrictions on women’s access to choice, they could very well run north as well.

An election of utmost consequence

I actually believe in my heart of hearts that this is one of the most consequential elections of my lifetime.

The direction of our country is at a knife’s edge.

How people have differences are treated whether it’s religious, or sexual orientation or gender, or where you were from, your background, your skin colour – it’s a potentially incredibly dangerous moment for our country.

Now, I’m hopeful that many Americans look over the cliff and see how dark and scary it is and step back and make the right decisions.

Fresh off the heels of his $2.4 billion artificial intelligence (“AI”) capacity-building announcement, Prime Minister Trudeau has positioned himself as an AI evangelist, citing the technology’s ability to unlock economic activity, improve productivity, and reduce the time workers spend on repetitive tasks.¹

For a country predicted to be the worst-performing economy among advanced economies over the next decade, we can’t afford to be on the sidelines of the AI ecosystem – but we also can’t dive in head-first without strong, principled regulation in place. Today, the uncertain status of Bill C-27, Canada’s Digital Charter, indicates we are simply not ready for this moment.

Workers, vulnerable populations and wider society need assurance that Canada is safeguarded through robust AI regulatory policy. Without those assurances, we will fail to ensure the responsible development and use of AI. And the consequences for society may be irreversible.

Regulating AI is a delicate affair; too much regulation and you risk slowing major economic advancements, not enough regulation and you risk perpetuating the well-documented harms of AI. Regulators around the world are called upon to walk this tightrope, including those here at home.

Fortunately, the EU, the U.K. and the U.S. all leave Canada with teachable lessons on how we should embark on this journey.

The EU: The earliest mover

The EU passed the first-ever legislation comprehensively governing AI by the narrowest of margins. Despite tense negotiations and fears that these talks would amount to nothing, the EU AI Act sets a positive standard and a clear signal that emerging AI will exist within the purview of the public good.

Many have expressed skepticism over the ability for regulators to adequately govern AI, given knowledge barriers and the slow policymaking process relative to the latest advancements in AI.

In line with this thinking, some claim the EU AI Act is inattentive to unlocking the innovative benefits of AI. These detractors say it will lead to disastrous consequences for Europe’s economies. They maintain the legislation will make firms less competitive, less profitable and talent will migrate to more innovation-friendly countries. In short, they assert it is a precautionary tale for other countries beginning to regulate the technology.

But every tale has at least two sides. And industry experts and academics alike are making strong calls to government to pass serious, comprehensive legislation to regulate AI. Calls that, no doubt, will not be easy to answer. But difficulty is never an excuse to eschew responsibility. And if Canada wants to follow through on its intentions to develop AI responsibly, we must instead find a middle path that balances innovation and the responsible development of these powerful new tools.

The U.S.: Move fast and break things

In the U.S., the Office of Science and Technology Policy published the ‘Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights,’ a comprehensive but unenforceable document surveying the risks posed by AI and potential solutions. While some hail this as a monumental advancement towards AI governance by the U.S., the excitement is unwarranted.

Without enforceability, the Bill of Rights is effectively a weak plea to AI companies. There’s still a great deal of work before the U.S. is anywhere close to accomplishing a feat like the EU AI Act, and it does not look like its legislators have the ambition for this.

Instead, experts observe that the U.S. approach to tech regulation prioritizes a “relentless pursuit of innovation and uncompromised faith in markets as opposed to government regulation.” The ‘move fast and break things’ approach, characteristic of American enterprise, has predictably found its way into AI governance discourse. Discussions regarding self-regulation and industry-specific regulation suggest fundamental opposition to comprehensive AI rules. Therefore, the U.S. is set up for a mix of patchwork industry specific regulations and enterprise-specific compliance measures. The bottom line? The private sector will ultimately take the lead and self-regulate.

Although self-regulation carries a host of potential benefits, it does not sufficiently protect citizens from the risks posed by AI as industries tend to opt for the paths of least resistance and least burden. In Canada, we cannot take this same approach and need robust regulations in place. Yes, our innovators must move fast – but we also must have safeguards in place to protect against what they might break.

The U.K.: AI Doomerism

There is a relatively new school of thought on AI regulation that expresses a greater concern over the apocalyptic potential of AI instead of addressing its immediate societal impacts. This is known as AI Doomerism and the U.K. is ground-zero.

Organizations such as the Future of Life Institute and theories such as Effective Altruism popularized this view of the future of technology and society. These organizations and philosophies greatly influence AI governance discourse in the U.K. However, many AI policy researchers warn that AI Doomerism entirely misses the immediate risks AI poses to society such as algorithmic bias and job displacement, urging regulators to ignore the sci-fi scenarios and concern themselves with the former.

So, while the U.K.’s approach to AI governance might look like it is safeguarding against AI’s potential consequences, its current standard for regulation is lower and more attractive for tech companies looking to avoid government oversight. From my perspective, the philosophy of AI Doomerism allows the U.K. government to boast about being conscientious of the societal impacts of technology in the long-term, while doing little to mitigate the pressing impacts in the near-term.

What does this mean for Canada?

Canada stands at a pivotal juncture and the task ahead is not to take the easy path, but the right one. As we learn from the promise and perils of the EU’s groundbreaking strides, the U.S.’s market-driven ethos, and the U.K.’s emphasis on existential threats, it’s clear that Canada must articulate a clear and comprehensive vision on AI regulation. And it must be one that places societal well-being at the helm, encourages innovation, and remains firmly anchored to ethical standards.

To achieve these aims, the mistakes and successes of our allies are vitally instructive. We must not succumb to deregulatory pressures from the U.S. and U.K. and give up the ambitious project of comprehensive AI regulation the EU has proven to be possible.

The Digital Charter will be more than a policy—it will be a statement of our national ethos in the digital age. As such, it is essential that it demonstrates a balance between AI regulation based on firm principles and the encouragement of AI innovation. There is no inherent need to compromise one for the sake of the other; rather, they can coexist for everyone’s benefit.

 

References

1 https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2024/04/07/securing-canadas-ai2 Digital Empires by Anu Bradford.