I attended the National Governors' Association in Washington this past weekend, an occasion for a gathering of 29 new governors. It was clear the economy was on their mind as well as the fiscal crisis hitting their respective states. Some officials of the Administration made some well appreciated interventions. But it was clear that a significant number owed their election to the Tea Party movement and were carefully watching events being played out in Wisconsin as the showdown between Governor Scott Walker and a contingent of public service unions was about to enter a new stage of confrontation (Governor Walker wasn't attending the conference).
The battle lines over public sector wages and benefits are being drawn in the state of Wisconsin and there is every indication the outcome will be messy. At issue is how government employees affect public finances. Governor Walker not only wishes to tackle this issue, but has gone a step further in wanting to permanently change how the state will conduct collective bargaining in the future.
Unions see this as a full frontal attack on the labour movement. The fact 36 per cent of union members work in the public sector, while only 7 per cent work in the private sector has made this an easy Republican versus Democratic battle about the role and size of government.
Democrats and labour argue that Republican governors are misinterpreting their electoral victories and using ideology to attack unions and the middle class. The GOP counters that deficits and the debt are the biggest threats to America’s future. These state showdowns foreshadow what will happen at the federal level when Congress will be asked to raise the debt ceiling this spring.
For the GOP, the mantra is cuts to taxes and spending, while the Democrats are looking at a mixture of cuts and tax reforms to increase revenues. Both parties know that entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will have to be tackled for real deficit cutting. And lest we forget defense spending. Obama and the newly emboldened Republican caucus know this, but no one wants to go first and spell out the cuts.
Meanwhile, governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie and, to a lesser degree, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and John Kasich of Ohio are sounding the alarm and making headway in the polls for their blunt talk and results-oriented policies. It is clear that if Wisconsin’s governor gets his way, spending cuts will rise to the top of the agenda. The problem is the math involved and whether compromise is anywhere to be found.
When Ronald Reagan worked out a compromise on Social Security with Tip O’Neill, there was give and take. Bill Clinton eliminated the deficit with a mixture of cuts and tax hikes with some bipartisanship. It is the only way the numbers eventually balance.
Polls indicate voters want their political leaders to solve problems rather than engage in the ideologically inspired partisanship we are seeing in Wisconsin. But there is every reason to expect more of the confrontation and polarization we are seeing in Wisconsin before good sense prevails.
February 28, 2011
February 25, 2011
Why Sustainable Development is the Best Option
Posted at Americas Quarterly on February 24, 2011
In the 1980’s, the World Commission on the Environment and Development, now called the Brundtland Commission, coined the term “sustainable development” to illustrate the links among economic, social and environmental objectives. Since then, science has added support for the vision expressed by the Commission; holes in the ozone layer and emerging evidence about man-made contributions to climate change have made the environment part of the equation for policies promoting economic growth.
While the debate in the 1980s was originally framed in win-lose terms, in recent years policymakers have come to realize that economic growth and environmental protection do not have to amount to a zero-sum game if tied to social progress. Unfortunately, the Great Recession of 2008 produced a political dynamic in our democracies and societies in which we are once again returning to a win-lose proposition when it comes to discussing how to stimulate growth.
At a time when the Supreme Court has already ruled on the power and jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency, current battles in the U.S. House of Representatives over these issues hark back to an earlier period. Even in a country like Canada, where the environmental community has made sustained progress in the last two decades, some are once again sounding the alarm about a pushback. This has led to an increase in combative dialogue with government policymakers. I remain an optimist that science and the younger generations will bring us back to a steadier course of sustainable development for economic growth. An illustration in point can be found in my home province of Québec, which will soon launch an ambitious project called “Plan Nord” (Plan for Northern Development). The ambitious project involves a long-term road map to develop the province’s northern regions in the sectors of energy, mining, forestry, tourism and transportation, while protecting wildlife and the environment and conserving biodiversity.
Plan Nord involves the extensive development of the territory north of the 49th parallel—a territory almost twice the size of Texas and which represents 72 percent of Quebec’s overall land mass. The project cannot become a reality without the buy-in of local communities. Over 120,000 people make up 63 communities composed of 31 aboriginal (Innu, Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi) and 32 non-aboriginal communities. Negotiations with the native groups have already begun, building on a base of respect and mutual interest to ensure that the economic objectives of developing hydro energy, mining resources, promoting tourism, and protecting the environment can be met while remaining in sync with social and ecological goals.
The project will span over 25 years, with more than $50 billion expected to be invested by the public and private sectors. Fifty percent of the territory will be preserved to address environmental and biodiversity concerns. Early reactions by some environmental groups have been encouraging.The success of such a vision and project will go a long way to showing the world that wealth can be shared, value created, communities led to thrive, and economic growth achieved through sustainable development.
While the debate in the 1980s was originally framed in win-lose terms, in recent years policymakers have come to realize that economic growth and environmental protection do not have to amount to a zero-sum game if tied to social progress. Unfortunately, the Great Recession of 2008 produced a political dynamic in our democracies and societies in which we are once again returning to a win-lose proposition when it comes to discussing how to stimulate growth.
At a time when the Supreme Court has already ruled on the power and jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency, current battles in the U.S. House of Representatives over these issues hark back to an earlier period. Even in a country like Canada, where the environmental community has made sustained progress in the last two decades, some are once again sounding the alarm about a pushback. This has led to an increase in combative dialogue with government policymakers. I remain an optimist that science and the younger generations will bring us back to a steadier course of sustainable development for economic growth. An illustration in point can be found in my home province of Québec, which will soon launch an ambitious project called “Plan Nord” (Plan for Northern Development). The ambitious project involves a long-term road map to develop the province’s northern regions in the sectors of energy, mining, forestry, tourism and transportation, while protecting wildlife and the environment and conserving biodiversity.
Plan Nord involves the extensive development of the territory north of the 49th parallel—a territory almost twice the size of Texas and which represents 72 percent of Quebec’s overall land mass. The project cannot become a reality without the buy-in of local communities. Over 120,000 people make up 63 communities composed of 31 aboriginal (Innu, Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi) and 32 non-aboriginal communities. Negotiations with the native groups have already begun, building on a base of respect and mutual interest to ensure that the economic objectives of developing hydro energy, mining resources, promoting tourism, and protecting the environment can be met while remaining in sync with social and ecological goals.
The project will span over 25 years, with more than $50 billion expected to be invested by the public and private sectors. Fifty percent of the territory will be preserved to address environmental and biodiversity concerns. Early reactions by some environmental groups have been encouraging.The success of such a vision and project will go a long way to showing the world that wealth can be shared, value created, communities led to thrive, and economic growth achieved through sustainable development.
February 22, 2011
Honouring the Presidents
Every third monday in February, the U.S. celebrates a national holiday honouring George Washington and his successors as president. The presidency was not originally meant to be the most important elected office in the world. The separation of powers between the executive and legislative (Congress) branches made sure that American Revolution would not replace a royal monarch with a civil one. Also, at the time of the founding Constitution, the new nation was far from being the superpower it would become less than 200 years later. Yet, no one today would dispute that the American president, despite the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, is the most consequential political actor in the world.
Whether it is FDR announcing direct U.S. involvement in WWII after Pearl Harbour, Truman dropping the bomb at Hiroshima to end the war, JFK confronting the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis and deciding to launch the program to put a man on the moon, Nixon going to China, Reagan telling the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall, or Bush choosing to go to war after 9/11, a president’s decisions can go a long way to steer the course of history. As a Canadian living in the U.S., I choose to honour this February 21st holiday by highlighting those inspirational presidents who made an impact on me and otherwise made a significant contribution to improve the human condition:
-Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery;
-Franklin D. Roosevelt for social security;
-Lyndon B. Johnson for the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, as well as Medicare, Medicaid and the War on Poverty;
- and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for active, inspiring and productive post-presidencies.
I know there have been many other significant presidencies and they deserve to be highlighted. It is also too early to draw conclusions on the current presidency of Barack Obama (although healthcare reform, if it lasts, and the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will be historic). Fifteen presidents governed a nation that condoned slavery, and women did not have the right to vote until the 28th president. But the rhetoric and vision of Jefferson and Adams, as well as the contributions of Andrew Jackson, have contributed to making Presidents' Day a worthwhile celebration.
Tough presidential decisions have been made in the course of history around the world that have improved the lot of many in the world. Overall, the two-party system has produced men (and, hopefully soon, women) of stature, though only few of true greatness out of the 44 who have served.
What is truly inspiring and worth honouring this Presidents’ Day is the stability and vibrancy of the world’s most successful democracy, and the importance of the role the occupants of the office of the presidency have played in building it. Happy Presidents' Day to my American friends.
Whether it is FDR announcing direct U.S. involvement in WWII after Pearl Harbour, Truman dropping the bomb at Hiroshima to end the war, JFK confronting the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis and deciding to launch the program to put a man on the moon, Nixon going to China, Reagan telling the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall, or Bush choosing to go to war after 9/11, a president’s decisions can go a long way to steer the course of history. As a Canadian living in the U.S., I choose to honour this February 21st holiday by highlighting those inspirational presidents who made an impact on me and otherwise made a significant contribution to improve the human condition:
-Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery;
-Franklin D. Roosevelt for social security;
-Lyndon B. Johnson for the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, as well as Medicare, Medicaid and the War on Poverty;
- and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for active, inspiring and productive post-presidencies.
I know there have been many other significant presidencies and they deserve to be highlighted. It is also too early to draw conclusions on the current presidency of Barack Obama (although healthcare reform, if it lasts, and the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will be historic). Fifteen presidents governed a nation that condoned slavery, and women did not have the right to vote until the 28th president. But the rhetoric and vision of Jefferson and Adams, as well as the contributions of Andrew Jackson, have contributed to making Presidents' Day a worthwhile celebration.
Tough presidential decisions have been made in the course of history around the world that have improved the lot of many in the world. Overall, the two-party system has produced men (and, hopefully soon, women) of stature, though only few of true greatness out of the 44 who have served.
What is truly inspiring and worth honouring this Presidents’ Day is the stability and vibrancy of the world’s most successful democracy, and the importance of the role the occupants of the office of the presidency have played in building it. Happy Presidents' Day to my American friends.
February 17, 2011
High Speed Rail Is Still On Track
After last week’s conference on high speed rail (HSR) in Washington D.C., along with Vice President Biden’s announcement about dedicated monies to the project, one can understand the surprise when Florida governor Rick Scott stated yesterday that he was turning down the proposed Orlando-Tampa route. Even Florida Republican John Mica expressed dismay at this decision and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand immediately wrote to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urging him to redirect the funding toward for New York’s Empire and Northeast Corridors.
Scott joins other Republican governors recently elected in saying no to HSR. Is this project now in danger after President Obama stated the goal of 80% of the American population in 2025 having access to HSR?
It is fair to note that the fiscal situation in the U.S. has hit dramatic proportions with the deficit at around 10% of GDP and the debt ceiling of $14.5 trillion about to be reached in a month or so. Governor Christie of New Jersey set the tone when he cancelled the tunnel project between New Jersey and New York a few months ago. This is clearly conditioning the negative response of some governors.
The simplistic interpretation is to point to partisanship where Republicans say no to anything Obama proposes. In some quarters, it may be so. But the financial concerns are beginning to be felt irrespective of party affiliation. The Obama vision of HSR will take time for it to be achieved as most major infrastructure projects do and it would be a mistake to think it is over.
These kinds of ambitious projects take time and money. The fact that a President is behind such a project is not a passing fancy and has historical precedent to back its potential success. The Eisenhower Interstate vision was not accomplished overnight but I will concede that the circumstances were far more favourable: post war boom, love affair with automobile and America’s economic strength unchallenged in the world.
The key thing to remember however is that resolve requires education, persistence and focus. According to transport officials, the U.S. is a first world country on freight rail but close to a developing country in regard to passenger rail. This can no longer be ignored if we hear the Obama administration and its goal for ‘winning the future.‘
While Asia and Europe are reaping the benefits of HSR, North Americans and that includes Canadians have settled into accepting the more conventional modes of transportation . This will have to change if we are to remain competitive and face new challenges regarding economics and the environment.
Announcing 13 corridors for HSR was exciting but it was susceptible to criticism and challenge by eventual opponents. The one corridor that needed to be prioritized is the North East Corridor including the Mid-Atlantic States, New York and New England. It represent one fifth of the U.S. population and includes New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Washington.
Republican John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, supports wholeheartedly this route because of air and road congestion. We in Québec have expressed our intent to bring HSR from Boston to Montréal (one of the original 13 corridors) and New York to Montréal (a route being examined by DOT, following a meeting between Secretary Lahood and Premier Charest).
The appointment of Ambassador Raymond Chrétien is evidence of Québec’s firm engagement. Ambassador Chrétien and this office have also received a positive reception by U.S transport officials to this initiative. Monies refused elsewhere will be in all likelihood channelled to areas that want HSR. California and the North East seem to be the most promising projects at the moment. So, despite yesterday’s news, it is fair to say that HSR is still on track.
Scott joins other Republican governors recently elected in saying no to HSR. Is this project now in danger after President Obama stated the goal of 80% of the American population in 2025 having access to HSR?
It is fair to note that the fiscal situation in the U.S. has hit dramatic proportions with the deficit at around 10% of GDP and the debt ceiling of $14.5 trillion about to be reached in a month or so. Governor Christie of New Jersey set the tone when he cancelled the tunnel project between New Jersey and New York a few months ago. This is clearly conditioning the negative response of some governors.
The simplistic interpretation is to point to partisanship where Republicans say no to anything Obama proposes. In some quarters, it may be so. But the financial concerns are beginning to be felt irrespective of party affiliation. The Obama vision of HSR will take time for it to be achieved as most major infrastructure projects do and it would be a mistake to think it is over.
These kinds of ambitious projects take time and money. The fact that a President is behind such a project is not a passing fancy and has historical precedent to back its potential success. The Eisenhower Interstate vision was not accomplished overnight but I will concede that the circumstances were far more favourable: post war boom, love affair with automobile and America’s economic strength unchallenged in the world.
The key thing to remember however is that resolve requires education, persistence and focus. According to transport officials, the U.S. is a first world country on freight rail but close to a developing country in regard to passenger rail. This can no longer be ignored if we hear the Obama administration and its goal for ‘winning the future.‘
While Asia and Europe are reaping the benefits of HSR, North Americans and that includes Canadians have settled into accepting the more conventional modes of transportation . This will have to change if we are to remain competitive and face new challenges regarding economics and the environment.
Announcing 13 corridors for HSR was exciting but it was susceptible to criticism and challenge by eventual opponents. The one corridor that needed to be prioritized is the North East Corridor including the Mid-Atlantic States, New York and New England. It represent one fifth of the U.S. population and includes New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Washington.
Republican John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, supports wholeheartedly this route because of air and road congestion. We in Québec have expressed our intent to bring HSR from Boston to Montréal (one of the original 13 corridors) and New York to Montréal (a route being examined by DOT, following a meeting between Secretary Lahood and Premier Charest).
The appointment of Ambassador Raymond Chrétien is evidence of Québec’s firm engagement. Ambassador Chrétien and this office have also received a positive reception by U.S transport officials to this initiative. Monies refused elsewhere will be in all likelihood channelled to areas that want HSR. California and the North East seem to be the most promising projects at the moment. So, despite yesterday’s news, it is fair to say that HSR is still on track.
February 14, 2011
Budget Battles Loom Ahead
In Canada, the fiscal year ends on March 31 and we can expect budgets across the country being presented. All will claim to reduce the deficits and the disequilibrium created by the Great Recession of 2008. Fortunately, Canada came out of this economic downturn in better condition than all G-8 countries. No bailouts were needed and there was a recovery of most jobs lost by the recession, largely due to plenty of infrastructure investment. Yet deficits, which had been eliminated since the late 1990’s are back, and all governments across Canada have developed plans to return to balanced budgets. It is possible, however, that the Harper minority government could face a challenge on its budget and be defeated, leading to a general election in Canada.
Québec intends to continue its course to a balanced budget for fiscal 2013-14. With unemployment numbers below the Canadian and U.S. national average, and lower than in Ontario, Québec’s economy is arguably performing well. The soon-to-be inauguration of the Plan Nord (development of the territory north of the 48th parallel) will add to the promise of a vibrant, resource-rich economy. This being said, no budgets achieve unanimity or are popular in reducing spending and eliminating deficits.
Meanwhile, our friends in the U.S. are facing very difficult challenges. The fiscal year in the U.S. begins in October 1 and ends September 30. We, in Québec, cannot be oblivious to economic realities south of the border. With deficit to GDP ratio approaching 10% and a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit projected for fiscal 2010-2011, the Obama Administration will have to be daring. Already, Obama’s budget director, Jacob Lew, is speaking about reducing the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. But Republicans are expected to reject this out of hand as timid, claiming that Obama’s budget goal is nowhere close to the $4 trillion plan put forward by the deficit cutting commission headed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.
Democrats will argue that the recovery is fragile and cuts must be done in an orderly way. Republicans believe that the federal government is too bloated anyway and cuts must be directed at entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. The GOP leadership wants to use this upcoming budget battle to argue once again for the repeal of the Obama healthcare reform law.
Two dates must be followed carefully. Since there was no formal budget adopted for 2010-2011, continuing resolutions must be adopted by the House of Representatives for the government to operate. March 4 is the date for the next showdown on the continuing resolution process. If it fails to pass the House, the government may have to shut down entirely. A similar outcome occurred in 1995 in the showdown between President Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled House.
The next date to watch is early April where the U.S. government will have attained the current debt ceiling of $14.5 trillion. Failure to raise the ceiling (note the government has done it 70 times in the last 4 decades) could lead to the U.S. government defaulting on its debt obligations – a catastrophic but unlikely development. All this is to say that deep cuts will be asked for by the GOP via its Tea Party faction making difficult days ahead for the Obama administration.
Québec intends to continue its course to a balanced budget for fiscal 2013-14. With unemployment numbers below the Canadian and U.S. national average, and lower than in Ontario, Québec’s economy is arguably performing well. The soon-to-be inauguration of the Plan Nord (development of the territory north of the 48th parallel) will add to the promise of a vibrant, resource-rich economy. This being said, no budgets achieve unanimity or are popular in reducing spending and eliminating deficits.
Meanwhile, our friends in the U.S. are facing very difficult challenges. The fiscal year in the U.S. begins in October 1 and ends September 30. We, in Québec, cannot be oblivious to economic realities south of the border. With deficit to GDP ratio approaching 10% and a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit projected for fiscal 2010-2011, the Obama Administration will have to be daring. Already, Obama’s budget director, Jacob Lew, is speaking about reducing the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years. But Republicans are expected to reject this out of hand as timid, claiming that Obama’s budget goal is nowhere close to the $4 trillion plan put forward by the deficit cutting commission headed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.
Democrats will argue that the recovery is fragile and cuts must be done in an orderly way. Republicans believe that the federal government is too bloated anyway and cuts must be directed at entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. The GOP leadership wants to use this upcoming budget battle to argue once again for the repeal of the Obama healthcare reform law.
Two dates must be followed carefully. Since there was no formal budget adopted for 2010-2011, continuing resolutions must be adopted by the House of Representatives for the government to operate. March 4 is the date for the next showdown on the continuing resolution process. If it fails to pass the House, the government may have to shut down entirely. A similar outcome occurred in 1995 in the showdown between President Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled House.
The next date to watch is early April where the U.S. government will have attained the current debt ceiling of $14.5 trillion. Failure to raise the ceiling (note the government has done it 70 times in the last 4 decades) could lead to the U.S. government defaulting on its debt obligations – a catastrophic but unlikely development. All this is to say that deep cuts will be asked for by the GOP via its Tea Party faction making difficult days ahead for the Obama administration.
February 11, 2011
Bringing High Speed Rail to North America
· Having listened to the presentations of the German, Japanese and Spanish Ambassadors, I must admit I am envious. It is somewhat ironic that a Canadian company called Bombardier, who developed the high speed TGV technology, has built high speed trains in Europe and not one in Canada. While the Acela, a Bombardier-Alstom collaboration, is often seen as a U.S. vision of high speed rail, we are far away from the high speed rail vision of Europe and Asia.
· I am here to support the efforts of USHSR in promoting and sensitizing potential stakeholders to the benefits of high speed rail. More importantly, I am here to make the case for a North American international link to Québec and Canada.
· I am pleased and enthusiastic to see the emergence of a priority mega-region for high speed rail – the North-East Corridor. Montreal, already identified as one of the 13 corridors outlined in the original Obama-Biden announcement, should be an integral part of the North-East Corridor.
· Let me share some facts about the neighbour to the North. Canada and U.S. are the world’s largest commercial partners. We are each other’s top export-import country. Greater Montreal has a population base of over 3 million people – about the size of Boston with many of the characteristics of that city and a population slightly less than Greater Philadelphia.
· If there is ever a liaison from Montreal to Toronto by high speed rail, imagine the potential – the fourth largest economy in North America is Québec – Ontario. Both provinces represent over 50% of Canada’s population and nearly 60% of the GDP. It just makes sense that Montreal be part of the North-East Corridor.
· Imagine: we could ultimately have a high speed rail link from Washington to New York to Montreal to Toronto and back to New York City. We should engage, as New York Representative and leading high speed rail advocate, Louise Slaughter, recommends to accomplish this vision. The North-East with Ontario and Québec represents 55 million people.
· As evidence of our commitment to high speed rail, Québec Premier Jean Charest has spoken to New York State authorities and Secretary of Transport Ray Lahood,of our goal. In June, Premier Charest asked former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Chrétien to lead the way in building our engagement and developing a consensus in making Montreal the first international destination for the Obama Administration’s vision.
· Already, Mr. Chrétien has met with authorities in Washington, New York, New England, Toronto and Ottawa.
· He has five objectives: work for pre-border clearance, update existing market studies with partners, reactivate service on the Vermonter from St-Albans to Montreal, develop coalitions with North-East Corridor initiatives and familiarize himself with potential economic models for high speed rail financing.
· Trade, tourism, finance, culture, environment, education, leisure – represent the reasons why it is a good idea to develop the North-East Corridor with Québec and maybe Ontario an ultimate destination.
· I would like to close with this quote about the Canada – U.S. relationships from a visit by President Kennedy to Canada in 1961 – 50 years ago: “Geography has made us neighbours; economics has made us partners; adversity has made us allies; and history has made us friends”.
· Let us make high speed rail the next big chapter in our relationship.
Below are notes I delivered at the High Speed Rail Summit hosted by USHSR in Washington, D.C. earlier this week:
· Having listened to the presentations of the German, Japanese and Spanish Ambassadors, I must admit I am envious. It is somewhat ironic that a Canadian company called Bombardier, who developed the high speed TGV technology, has built high speed trains in Europe and not one in Canada. While the Acela, a Bombardier-Alstom collaboration, is often seen as a U.S. vision of high speed rail, we are far away from the high speed rail vision of Europe and Asia.
· I am here to support the efforts of USHSR in promoting and sensitizing potential stakeholders to the benefits of high speed rail. More importantly, I am here to make the case for a North American international link to Québec and Canada.
· I am pleased and enthusiastic to see the emergence of a priority mega-region for high speed rail – the North-East Corridor. Montreal, already identified as one of the 13 corridors outlined in the original Obama-Biden announcement, should be an integral part of the North-East Corridor.
· Let me share some facts about the neighbour to the North. Canada and U.S. are the world’s largest commercial partners. We are each other’s top export-import country. Greater Montreal has a population base of over 3 million people – about the size of Boston with many of the characteristics of that city and a population slightly less than Greater Philadelphia.
· If there is ever a liaison from Montreal to Toronto by high speed rail, imagine the potential – the fourth largest economy in North America is Québec – Ontario. Both provinces represent over 50% of Canada’s population and nearly 60% of the GDP. It just makes sense that Montreal be part of the North-East Corridor.
· Imagine: we could ultimately have a high speed rail link from Washington to New York to Montreal to Toronto and back to New York City. We should engage, as New York Representative and leading high speed rail advocate, Louise Slaughter, recommends to accomplish this vision. The North-East with Ontario and Québec represents 55 million people.
· As evidence of our commitment to high speed rail, Québec Premier Jean Charest has spoken to New York State authorities and Secretary of Transport Ray Lahood,of our goal. In June, Premier Charest asked former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Chrétien to lead the way in building our engagement and developing a consensus in making Montreal the first international destination for the Obama Administration’s vision.
· Already, Mr. Chrétien has met with authorities in Washington, New York, New England, Toronto and Ottawa.
· He has five objectives: work for pre-border clearance, update existing market studies with partners, reactivate service on the Vermonter from St-Albans to Montreal, develop coalitions with North-East Corridor initiatives and familiarize himself with potential economic models for high speed rail financing.
· Trade, tourism, finance, culture, environment, education, leisure – represent the reasons why it is a good idea to develop the North-East Corridor with Québec and maybe Ontario an ultimate destination.
· I would like to close with this quote about the Canada – U.S. relationships from a visit by President Kennedy to Canada in 1961 – 50 years ago: “Geography has made us neighbours; economics has made us partners; adversity has made us allies; and history has made us friends”.
· Let us make high speed rail the next big chapter in our relationship.
February 10, 2011
Innovating and Creating Shared Value Get Respect
Published on Americas Quarterly on February 9, 2011
Just recently, I came across an article in the Harvard Business Review written by renowned professors Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer. The authors lament the increasingly negative views toward business and capitalism of recent years and argue that companies must lead the effort to bring business and society back together. In their view, those who use corporate social responsibility to enhance reputations, recognition and respect miss the point. Porter and Kramer claim that businesses will gain the most respect if they embrace the concept of shared value, in which the creation of economic value meets social progress. Furthermore, this concept has the greatest potential for launching the next era of growth and innovation.
Porter and Kramer acknowledge that adherence to shared value is far from the norm in business today. While they offer examples of companies moving in the direction of combining economic and societal progress in their business models, such as Wal-Mart, General Electric and Nestle, they argue there is still much to change with education in business schools.
Listening to the recent State of the Union speech by President Obama convinced me that preparing for—or as he says—“winning” the future will require more than short-term job stimulus and deficit/debt-reduction measures. It will require a new mindset very much in line with the Porter-Kramer vision. Redefining productivity and profit, developing new products and markets that provide both economic profit and social progress, and making local clusters development an essential ingredient to improve productivity and creating jobs—the very features of the concept of shared value—will go a long way in providing a brighter future.
For instance, building infrastructure, developing renewable and clean energy sources, and emphasizing outcomes as the value barometer for healthcare have the greatest potential to make the concept of shared value the new norm in effective capitalism. Infrastructure such as high-speed rail is not just a commodity that shortens the duration of a trip. It brings economic benefits, including but not limited to jobs creation; adds environmental value, such as a reduced carbon footprint; and draws communities closer together.
Renewable and clean energy also reinforce shared value by bringing down the environmental costs borne by society at large, providing more stable and competitive costs for businesses and reducing the need for stringent regulatory measures—creating jobs all along the way. The development of hydro, solar, wind, nuclear and biomass energy sources all offer opportunities in these areas.
In the healthcare sector, new organizational models that promote integrated healthcare and advance wellness through preventive measures represent a promising path to reducing costs and delivering positive results for patients without affecting accessibility. Lower healthcare costs and healthier citizens, in turn, help business and communities grow.
The challenge facing business and political leaders in developed and emerging economies alike is to find the political will and economic incentives to move away from existing business models in which economic growth and social progress do not connect. Making a profit is fundamental to business. Making products that advance social progress can be a win-win proposition. Policy makers must regulate in ways that promote the creation of shared value by developing market incentives to further societal goals.
The current debates in North America around building high-speed rail, revamping our aging infrastructures, searching for alternative energy sources, and making our population healthier represent the surest path to more sustainable innovation and growth. And that will mean greater respect for business.
Just recently, I came across an article in the Harvard Business Review written by renowned professors Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer. The authors lament the increasingly negative views toward business and capitalism of recent years and argue that companies must lead the effort to bring business and society back together. In their view, those who use corporate social responsibility to enhance reputations, recognition and respect miss the point. Porter and Kramer claim that businesses will gain the most respect if they embrace the concept of shared value, in which the creation of economic value meets social progress. Furthermore, this concept has the greatest potential for launching the next era of growth and innovation.
Porter and Kramer acknowledge that adherence to shared value is far from the norm in business today. While they offer examples of companies moving in the direction of combining economic and societal progress in their business models, such as Wal-Mart, General Electric and Nestle, they argue there is still much to change with education in business schools.
Listening to the recent State of the Union speech by President Obama convinced me that preparing for—or as he says—“winning” the future will require more than short-term job stimulus and deficit/debt-reduction measures. It will require a new mindset very much in line with the Porter-Kramer vision. Redefining productivity and profit, developing new products and markets that provide both economic profit and social progress, and making local clusters development an essential ingredient to improve productivity and creating jobs—the very features of the concept of shared value—will go a long way in providing a brighter future.
For instance, building infrastructure, developing renewable and clean energy sources, and emphasizing outcomes as the value barometer for healthcare have the greatest potential to make the concept of shared value the new norm in effective capitalism. Infrastructure such as high-speed rail is not just a commodity that shortens the duration of a trip. It brings economic benefits, including but not limited to jobs creation; adds environmental value, such as a reduced carbon footprint; and draws communities closer together.
Renewable and clean energy also reinforce shared value by bringing down the environmental costs borne by society at large, providing more stable and competitive costs for businesses and reducing the need for stringent regulatory measures—creating jobs all along the way. The development of hydro, solar, wind, nuclear and biomass energy sources all offer opportunities in these areas.
In the healthcare sector, new organizational models that promote integrated healthcare and advance wellness through preventive measures represent a promising path to reducing costs and delivering positive results for patients without affecting accessibility. Lower healthcare costs and healthier citizens, in turn, help business and communities grow.
The challenge facing business and political leaders in developed and emerging economies alike is to find the political will and economic incentives to move away from existing business models in which economic growth and social progress do not connect. Making a profit is fundamental to business. Making products that advance social progress can be a win-win proposition. Policy makers must regulate in ways that promote the creation of shared value by developing market incentives to further societal goals.
The current debates in North America around building high-speed rail, revamping our aging infrastructures, searching for alternative energy sources, and making our population healthier represent the surest path to more sustainable innovation and growth. And that will mean greater respect for business.
February 6, 2011
Why Ronald Reagan Remains Relevant
I did not share most of Ronald Reagan’s politics but I acknowledge that this was the most significant president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He brought conservatism into the mainstream and many of his politics did much to prepare America for the challenges of the next century. The man had his flaws but he bonded with his people and his memory does not diminish with the years.
Canadians recall the Shamrock Summit with our Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that led to the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, the precursor to NAFTA. In addition, they signed an Acid Rain treaty with Canada that did more to show that solutions trump ideology and helped herald an era where governments needed to exert leadership on environmental issues.
To Republicans, he embodies character, vision and greatness. While he swept to office as the most ideologically driven president in a half century, he governed in a most pragmatic way. His conservative mantra of balanced budgets and reducing the size of government gave way to change with compromise and incrementalism very much a part of his way of governing. He never balanced a budget and defense spending grew as never before under his watch.
He probably would be less comfortable with the GOP style of today. The current political climate in America is very personalized and we are far from the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neill sharing a joke and a drink on the way to finding common ground. To be fair, today’s Republicans are wise to embrace his legacy because his was a way to put America ahead of party politics. If the Republicans wish to recapture the White House, Reagan’s brand of optimism, clarity and accepting to search for the middle ground is a better formula for success than polarization and exclusion.
Democrats are obviously more ambivalent than their counterparts because Reagan associated them as part of the problem and as 'tax and spend liberals.' He did more to demonize liberalism than any GOP leader in history.
Eisenhower and Nixon, two predecessors, did little to dismantle the legacy of FDR. Ironically Reagan, the former FDR supporter, was elected declaring that government was not the solution but the problem. Yet, today President Barack Obama, sees him as a transformational president and is now actively promoting his legacy by reading Lou Cannon's acclaimed biography of Reagan. Of late, Obama seems to be taking a page out of Reagan's style of governing with apparent success and higher approval ratings.
This weekend, it will be Ronald Reagan's 100th anniversary. This two term president is seen as a major contributor to bringing the Cold War to a conclusion in favor of the west. His optimism, his humility and his steadfast character made him a leader that transcended partisan politics. He left office more popular than any of his predecessors. Today he is a model for the current president. That in itself keeps him relevant 23 years after he left office. And why he deserves to be honoured.
Canadians recall the Shamrock Summit with our Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that led to the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, the precursor to NAFTA. In addition, they signed an Acid Rain treaty with Canada that did more to show that solutions trump ideology and helped herald an era where governments needed to exert leadership on environmental issues.
To Republicans, he embodies character, vision and greatness. While he swept to office as the most ideologically driven president in a half century, he governed in a most pragmatic way. His conservative mantra of balanced budgets and reducing the size of government gave way to change with compromise and incrementalism very much a part of his way of governing. He never balanced a budget and defense spending grew as never before under his watch.
He probably would be less comfortable with the GOP style of today. The current political climate in America is very personalized and we are far from the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neill sharing a joke and a drink on the way to finding common ground. To be fair, today’s Republicans are wise to embrace his legacy because his was a way to put America ahead of party politics. If the Republicans wish to recapture the White House, Reagan’s brand of optimism, clarity and accepting to search for the middle ground is a better formula for success than polarization and exclusion.
Democrats are obviously more ambivalent than their counterparts because Reagan associated them as part of the problem and as 'tax and spend liberals.' He did more to demonize liberalism than any GOP leader in history.
Eisenhower and Nixon, two predecessors, did little to dismantle the legacy of FDR. Ironically Reagan, the former FDR supporter, was elected declaring that government was not the solution but the problem. Yet, today President Barack Obama, sees him as a transformational president and is now actively promoting his legacy by reading Lou Cannon's acclaimed biography of Reagan. Of late, Obama seems to be taking a page out of Reagan's style of governing with apparent success and higher approval ratings.
This weekend, it will be Ronald Reagan's 100th anniversary. This two term president is seen as a major contributor to bringing the Cold War to a conclusion in favor of the west. His optimism, his humility and his steadfast character made him a leader that transcended partisan politics. He left office more popular than any of his predecessors. Today he is a model for the current president. That in itself keeps him relevant 23 years after he left office. And why he deserves to be honoured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
