News

In the midst of an election campaign turning increasingly on economic concerns, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has made a valiant effort to seize control of the issue.

Surprising his opponents, Mr. Dion announced during Wednesday's French-language leaders' debate that he would follow a five-point economic action plan within 30 days of taking office - a purported means of reducing the average Canadian's vulnerability to economic instability with respect to the housing and credit crisis, as well as jobs in the manufacturing sector.

While it remains to be seen just how much life the announcement can breathe into the Liberals' flagging campaign, it's received praise as a deft strategic move. But for those less concerned with political tactics than keeping their jobs and their homes, there's been scant analysis of what - if anything - the plan would actually do for the economy if Mr. Dion had a chance to implement it.

Economist Jeremy Leonard, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), sees it as an overreaction. "The plan seems motivated to an excessive degree by the notion that there is a crisis of banking confidence in Canada, which in simply not the case," he says.

"Credit is tight [in Canada], but it is not seized up. And convening a summit on the appropriateness of current regulatory frameworks is not likely to reveal any issues that need attention."

Not everyone is quite so dismissive. In broad strokes, points one through four of the five-point plan call for the government to convene a series of meetings with - and amass policy assessments from - Canada's financial heavyweights, among them financial regulatory agencies, private sector economists, the Department of Finance, first ministers and provincial leaders. This roundtable approach is being met with some skepticism, if only because the Liberals' pointed call for a fiscal update from key economic stakeholders is simply a restatement (or at least an acceleration) of the obvious action plan of any new government. But it also highlights, for some economic experts, the need to rethink the government's approach to managing the economy.

"The plan asserts the need for improved financial regulatory architecture," says Alexandre Laurin, Senior Policy Analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute. "This is likely a call that will be getting stronger as the crisis ends and the search for causes intensifies, particularly in the United States."

The appeal of this coordinated action, Mr. Laurin adds, is that it "may reassure financial markets about the strength of Canada's financial sector," which in turn would likely soften the blows of any economic downturn.

Marc Lee, a Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, agrees that bringing the regulatory agencies into a broad economic action plan is important, noting that their input on campaign-trail policy issues — such as the efficacy of lowering tax rates while a potential downturn looms — can help the government develop sustainable fiscal policy. But on the advantages of consulting the private sector, he's less enthusiastic.

"Most of them have missed the oncoming economic slowdown," Mr. Lee says, "and I'm skeptical of their ability to help the government."

The fifth point of the Liberals' action plan calls for implementation of the $1-billion Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity (AMP) Fund, which Mr. Dion announced on Jan. 18. It would see the federal government invest in the manufacturing sector and green technology in coordination with the needs of the provinces and territories.

"Accelerating infrastructure investment is smart in the sense that such investment, if well selected, will improve the competitive profile of Canadian business," says Mr. Leonard, adding that the initiative would probably add jobs to the manufacturing sector in the long run. "The problem is one of timing: Past experience has shown that the time required to get such projects underway means that their economic kick comes long after it is needed."

Mr. Lee is especially enthusiastic on this point of the plan. "This is the type of initiative that we should be looking at," he says. "Our economy is being especially hurt on the export side [of manufacturing and research]. Since 2002, we've lost over 400,000 jobs in this sector. Strong investment, especially in alternative power and energy efficiency, is a win-win initiative."

On the flip side, there is skepticism - as in the United States - that more government intervention in markets is what the economy needs. "There is mixed evidence on the long term efficacy of direct public investment in industry," Mr. Laurin says, "because governments are essentially altering the market allocation of capital investments to their most efficient use."

The most important point of emphasis, which most economists agree on, is that when it comes to economic action plans there are few short-term solutions available to any new government - Liberal or otherwise. And the options that do exist might require tougher choices than just convening meetings.

"From a strictly economic perspective, running a deficit in a slowdown is not necessarily bad policy," says the IRPP's Mr. Leonard. He acknowledges that going into the red in order to finance an influx of government spending is not palatable to many political strategists, but contends that the alternatives could be worse.

"Trying to raise taxes or cut spending in a slowdown or recession in the name of a balanced budget could aggravate the downturn," he says. "Just look at what happened in Ontario in the early 1990s. So adopting the 'come hell or high water' approach if economic slowdown drives the federal coffers into the red could be economically risky."

Mr. Lee agrees. "If you were to poll economists, the vast majority of them would support running a deficit to help the economy," he says. "The mistake that [the political parties] could make is to be committed to not running deficits at all cost."

As for the Liberals' plan, C.D. Howe's Mr. Laurin says, the Liberals' plan is relevant to Canada's economic needs only to the extent that it is administered with patience and an aversion to quick fixes. "If such concerted regulatory action and public investment would benefit the Canadian economy," he says the benefits would be for the long run."

That's not to say that there will be no short-term value - just that it will be largely to the Liberal Party itself. Commentators and economists alike have noted that, when it comes to appealing to voters on the economy, having any plan is a benefit in and of itself.

Special to The Globe and Mail