Why did the Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada give a speech on productivity that could have been given in the 1990s?

I just read the speech from the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada that says that Canada’s long-standing poor performance on productivity is an “emergency.” As far as I can tell, there was not one real idea in that speech, and almost nothing that hasn’t been said for 30 years.

And then the Public Policy Forum, which is about to do its annual Growth Summit, re-posted the speech claiming that their summit would focus on “fixing productivity once and for all.”

The narrowness and orthodoxy of the Bank and our public discourse on these issues is a problem.

I hope the PPF panels will have new insights. The presence of Indigenous leaders is great. Labour and climate perspectives add value. Global perspectives are important. But it seems a lot is missing.

Reading the speech, and looking at the topics of the panels, I have a few questions:

Where is childcare? Where is housing? And particularly, will there be a critique of investor activity in residential real estate that absorbs so much Canadian capital and I would assume impacts our productivity numbers? (I would guess that some of the panelists have personally contributed to this problem). Where is public transit and the impact of gridlock and commutes on productivity?

Where is a reflection on how the structure of capitalism has changed dramatically and is dominated by a few American-based platforms that generate huge profits from surveillance, data, IP, scale, GAI, and anti-competitive behaviour? How much of our productivity gap with the US is explained by these tech giants? Where is a reflection on the role of private equity, which is transforming many sectors?

“And what about wealth distribution? I don’t want to live in a country where our productivity goes up marginally but ¾ of our grandchildren are serfs. I really don’t want my grandkids to be serfs.”

And why do so many of our firms innovate on skimming fees from consumers, rather than doing real innovation on products, processes or price?

And what about wealth distribution? I don’t want to live in a country where our productivity goes up marginally but ¾ of our grandchildren are serfs. I really don’t want my grandkids to be serfs.

These issues were absent from the speech and, to my friends at PPF, prove me wrong! I hope you can orchestrate discussions that don’t sound like the ones I listened to in the 1990s (and participated in during the 00’s)!

At least no one seems to be talking about the importance of lowering corporate taxes to increase productivity anymore, because that was clearly BS. So I guess that’s good!

These are not my areas of professional expertise (although I did do a paper for a federal task force on productivity in 1999 I think!), but it strikes me that we need to come at these issues with fresh ideas, fresh voices and fresh questions.


Share with a friend

Related reading

Are Canadian pension funds stepping up for Canada at this moment of threat? All signs point to maybe

Large Canadian pension plan OMERS announced earlier this week that it will attempt to increase its investments in Canada by $10B over the next five years. This is a good sign, says SCP CEO Matthew Mendelsohn, but announcements and good intentions will not be enough. The incentive structure for fund managers, and the allocation of resources across asset classes and geographies, will need to change if pension funds are able to deliver on what their contributors and beneficiaries expect of them.

Watch the video: Should pension funds help build Canada’s future? | TVO’s The Rundown

TVO's The Rundown convened a discussion about whether Canadian pension funds should increase domestic investments versus investing internationally. The video segment examines the risks and rewards of using Canadian pension capital for nation-building projects, highlighting that Canadian pension funds managed nearly $2.5 trillion in assets by the end of 2024, but a large portion is invested outside of Canada. Panelists Matthew Mendelsohn and Keith Ambachtsheer discuss whether funds should focus solely on financial returns or also on contributing to Canada's economic growth.

Tied Up: Unleashing Canada’s non-profit housing potential

Canada’s non-profit housing sector is structurally constrained. Well-intentioned accountability mechanisms, designed to protect public investment and ensure affordability, often have the unintended effect of limiting balance-sheet capacity, restricting access to financing and preventing asset leverage. Consequently, the non-market housing sector remains underdeveloped. In consultation with stakeholders and partners in the non-profit housing space, report authors Michelle Arnold and Savraj Syan identify three technical issue fixes that could unleash Canada's non-profit housing potential.

Skip to content