When the COVID-19 pandemic transformed our lives earlier this year, our political leaders joined hands and said we were all in this together — and for a while we saw glimpses of a different kind of politics.
But as things got tougher, the cohesive National Cabinet became more fractious. The blame game and “politics-as-usual” took over and distracted from finding new solutions to tough problems.
With the country facing an uncertain economic future, the University of Sydney’s Policy Lab has brought together community and climate groups, unions and business groups to identify strategies for creating a different way of making policy and building a new economy coming out of the crisis.
The product is our “Real Deal” report released this week.
The Real Deal isn’t a typical policy document that outlines a magic bullet to the problems the pandemic has created.
We tried to break with the old battlegrounds and ideologies that have failed us over the last century. Instead of calling for unfettered free markets or big welfare states, or simple solutions like budget surpluses or endless stimulus packages, we are calling for a new relationship between the markets, government and civil society.
At the centre of this, we are arguing for a more collaborative approach and for mass community participation to be valued in public life.
There is another way forward that isn’t ‘politics as usual’. Mick Tsikas/AAP
So how would we do that?
Collaboration works when different groups have the authority and ability to negotiate solutions.
We saw this during the second wave of the pandemic in Victoria when United Workers Union members at a Coles distribution warehouse were able to quickly push to make their workplace more COVID-safe by using the Occupational and Safety Act. While initially reluctant, management introduced a series of changes, including a deep clean of machinery and temperature checks upon entrance.
Compared to hot spots like the Cedar Meats warehouse, these workers minimised the transmission of the virus, securing a better deal for themselves and kept food on supermarket shelves.
Novel solutions emerge when unusual partners collaborate. In Queensland, for instance, a diverse coalition of religious organisations, unions and community organisations called the Queensland Community Alliance has worked with researchers and state and federal governments to create a strategy to combat loneliness.
Their solution wasn’t about spending a lot of money, but reshaping how people use the state health system. They created a new health department role called a “link worker” that could help people navigate the maze of services available to them, saving time and money.
Policy is also better when it involves the full participation of everyday people.
In the Hunter Valley, Australia’s largest coal-mining region, local unions, environmental groups, community members and businesses have formed an unusual alliance to find solutions for the regional economy, which is threatened by the closure of mines due to climate change concerns.
Having door-knocked residents to ask their opinions, the new group proposed plans for new industries and jobs to create economic security for local residents.
Participatory policy-making like this is easier when the government treats people as co-producers of solutions, not distant observers or barriers to change. It works best when it is built from the lived experiences of people who will be affected by these policies.
The lesson is that effective policy-making puts affected people at the centre of these discussions — much in the way the disability sector has long advocated a “nothing about us without us” approach.
In building the “Real Deal” report, we put these ideas into practice. We began our research not with books, but with the lived experience of leaders in civil society — listening to their stories and responding to the challenges their members were facing.
We took this research to a panel of Australian and international economists and academics, then began a slow process of writing a new framework together. We sought case studies — real solutions — tested in the field by our collaborators, like the ones outlined above.
The process took months, but that time enabled genuine collaboration and participation.
The report offers five benchmarks for measuring whether policy-making is contributing to the solutions we need. These include:
an awareness that reshaping how the state serves the people is even more vital than big stimulus packages
a focus on addressing pre-existing inequalities and injustices laid bare by the pandemic
a bold vision that matches the scale of our economic and climate crises
the active participation of people in decisions that affect them
a deeply collaborative process.
Central to a real deal is that people make a difference. We are the ones who can make the deals for regional economic development in the face of climate change or create a new health system based on people’s needs.
There is a growing lament in Australia that politicians let us down. But the lesson from the pandemic is we have the power to change our economy and politics, and if we do, we might emerge from these crises stronger.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information says health-care spending in Canada is projected to reach a new high in 2024.
The annual report released Thursday says total health spending is expected to hit $372 billion, or $9,054 per Canadian.
CIHI’s national analysis predicts expenditures will rise by 5.7 per cent in 2024, compared to 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 1.7 per cent in 2022.
This year’s health spending is estimated to represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Excluding two years of the pandemic, it would be the highest ratio in the country’s history.
While it’s not unusual for health expenditures to outpace economic growth, the report says this could be the case for the next several years due to Canada’s growing population and its aging demographic.
Canada’s per capita spending on health care in 2022 was among the highest in the world, but still less than countries such as the United States and Sweden.
The report notes that the Canadian dental and pharmacare plans could push health-care spending even further as more people who previously couldn’t afford these services start using them.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.
As Canadians wake up to news that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the president-elect’s protectionist stance is casting a spotlight on what effect his second term will have on Canada-U.S. economic ties.
Some Canadian business leaders have expressed worry over Trump’s promise to introduce a universal 10 per cent tariff on all American imports.
A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released last month suggested those tariffs would shrink the Canadian economy, resulting in around $30 billion per year in economic costs.
More than 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S.
Canada’s manufacturing sector faces the biggest risk should Trump push forward on imposing broad tariffs, said Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president and CEO Dennis Darby. He said the sector is the “most trade-exposed” within Canada.
“It’s in the U.S.’s best interest, it’s in our best interest, but most importantly for consumers across North America, that we’re able to trade goods, materials, ingredients, as we have under the trade agreements,” Darby said in an interview.
“It’s a more complex or complicated outcome than it would have been with the Democrats, but we’ve had to deal with this before and we’re going to do our best to deal with it again.”
American economists have also warned Trump’s plan could cause inflation and possibly a recession, which could have ripple effects in Canada.
It’s consumers who will ultimately feel the burden of any inflationary effect caused by broad tariffs, said Darby.
“A tariff tends to raise costs, and it ultimately raises prices, so that’s something that we have to be prepared for,” he said.
“It could tilt production mandates. A tariff makes goods more expensive, but on the same token, it also will make inputs for the U.S. more expensive.”
A report last month by TD economist Marc Ercolao said research shows a full-scale implementation of Trump’s tariff plan could lead to a near-five per cent reduction in Canadian export volumes to the U.S. by early-2027, relative to current baseline forecasts.
Retaliation by Canada would also increase costs for domestic producers, and push import volumes lower in the process.
“Slowing import activity mitigates some of the negative net trade impact on total GDP enough to avoid a technical recession, but still produces a period of extended stagnation through 2025 and 2026,” Ercolao said.
Since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement came into effect in 2020, trade between Canada and the U.S. has surged by 46 per cent, according to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.
With that deal is up for review in 2026, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said the Canadian government “must collaborate effectively with the Trump administration to preserve and strengthen our bilateral economic partnership.”
“With an impressive $3.6 billion in daily trade, Canada and the United States are each other’s closest international partners. The secure and efficient flow of goods and people across our border … remains essential for the economies of both countries,” she said in a statement.
“By resisting tariffs and trade barriers that will only raise prices and hurt consumers in both countries, Canada and the United States can strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.
OTTAWA – Statistics Canada says the country’s merchandise trade deficit narrowed to $1.3 billion in September as imports fell more than exports.
The result compared with a revised deficit of $1.5 billion for August. The initial estimate for August released last month had shown a deficit of $1.1 billion.
Statistics Canada says the results for September came as total exports edged down 0.1 per cent to $63.9 billion.
Exports of metal and non-metallic mineral products fell 5.4 per cent as exports of unwrought gold, silver, and platinum group metals, and their alloys, decreased 15.4 per cent. Exports of energy products dropped 2.6 per cent as lower prices weighed on crude oil exports.
Meanwhile, imports for September fell 0.4 per cent to $65.1 billion as imports of metal and non-metallic mineral products dropped 12.7 per cent.
In volume terms, total exports rose 1.4 per cent in September while total imports were essentially unchanged in September.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 5, 2024.
