The Future of U.S. Business in the Age of Innovation

This two-pronged strategy would focus our policy on providing accessible, affordable, ubiquitous, high-quality networks to all Canadians in all corners of the country without compromising other aims. The "pipes" matter. However, it would also permit information flow—where value and the future are being built. In comparison to users, customers, and markets, governments are ill-equipped to design, deploy, pick, select, screen, or influence the future, much alone imagine it.The new strategy would begin with the divestiture of network infrastructure from its current owners, followed by the establishment of a set of national and regional networks as regulated utilities that provide open access to consumers at regulated returns. All consumers would pay the same price for access, which would be determined publicly and independently. Service providers would compete for consumer and other purchasers' business by adding their service and associated expenses to the baseline cost of network access Governments would maintain ownership limits on the networks. Additional service providers would face fewer, if any, constraints. And rather than imposing antiquated Canadian content rules designed for a few hundred radio and television stations but poorly suited for thousands, if not tens of millions of "stations" in the form of content creators, there would be a narrowing of effort to ensure prioritization of support for indigenous Canadians (particularly in language retention and community development), official language groups, news (with an emphasis on local and regional news), and support for new Canadians.

The government(s) would also renew tax and income 

support policies to ensure that they, like the infrastructure, have the necessary incentives to keep Canada competitive in attracting and retaining the economic and societal benefits of first-rate, affordable network access.I'll conclude with a little trip down memory lane. Charlie MacMillan appeared on The Hub recently. During his interview with host Sean Speer, he reminded me of the monumental work completed between 1984 and 1993. The Neilson Task Force, replies to the MacDonald Commission, financial reform, and the lifting of onerous restrictions on energy and foreign investment—they covered a lot of area. Most of this outstanding work has been lost to history. Much of it is hidden beneath an unhealthy impulse to just condemn anything associated with the past.However, there was, and still is, a list of policies and dormant organizations in Canada that have privileged access to a public asset (airports, ports), public markets (telecom, banks, airlines), or public money (crown corporations and various agencies) but are unaware of the public interest test that allows them to do so.More alarming were the public interest advocates within government. Sean Speer discussed this in his analysis on the CBC. In my opinion, the public interest test that led to the establishment of the CBC and countless others has been forgotten over time. It is bad to leave the people wondering why things are the way they are.

The public has had enough of 'it is that way just because'. 

Canadians deserve a serious and detailed answer to their calls for change. Banks that are out of reach for far too many vulnerable Canadians. Government services that do not provide service. Airlines and regional transportation systems are serving fewer and fewer communities. Police forces that do not police. Unarmed Armed Forces. Environmental review methods that don't actually process anything.As a result, everyone interested in performing it will be faced with additional labor. Finally, creating an up-to-date national information technology policy would be an excellent place to begin.I'd like to mention something positive about the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation. Maybe it's my previously admitted contrarianism, or a hitherto undiscovered masochistic streak, but when I see the kind of pile-on that we've seen over the last few days, my impulse is to attempt to find some redeeming grace and salvage anything from the debris. In this instance, it is difficult, but I will try.But first, the bad (and there will be enough of it). According to Andrew Coyne, during much of its existence, the Trudeau Foundation "appears to have been run like a cross between a college housepainting service and a Panamanian shell company"—an opinion that does a disservice to both college housepainters and Panamanian accountants. He is correct, and I will not defend it. I'm not such a contrarian or masochist.

I'm not interested in defending the unfathomable 

greed and gullibility exposed by Bob Fife and Steven Chase in the Globe and Mail. What would drive the foundation's board to accept funds from an obvious front for the Chinese Communist Party is beyond my comprehension, and my sympathy. It's not like a foundation with a $125 million+ taxpayer endowment needed the money.So, what's left to defend? Two things, I believe.First, the foundation's efforts, which received a drive-by attack from the usually astute Brian Lilley in the Sun earlier this week. Lilley began by asking: "[i]f the Trudeau Foundation ceased to exist, would Canadians notice?" It's a ridiculous question that exemplifies an attitude that is too frequent in politics: if something doesn't effect you or your life, it can't be very important.Lilley comments that the Trudeau Foundation was originally established to develop a program similar to the British Rhodes Scholarship program, but "after 21 years" he's "not sure they can claim success on that front." I'm not sure what he's basing this evaluation on, but it appears to me that he has an overly high opinion of Rhodes scholars and a low opinion of Trudeau scholars.