In a scathing critique, columnist Matthew Lau takes aim at the federal government's latest wave of national strategies and plans, arguing they are more likely to cause harm than good. Last week, Ottawa unveiled a National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, a Forest Sector Action Plan, and a National Strategy for Eye Care, all of which Lau says are based on the flawed premise that individuals and businesses cannot manage their own affairs without government guidance.
Historical Failures of Government Planning
Lau points to the government's own draft action plan for the forestry sector as evidence of the futility of such initiatives. The plan admits that Canada's forest sector has faced crisis after crisis over the past 20 years, despite decades of government programs aimed at promoting investment, research, innovation, and market diversification. If past government efforts have led to repeated crises, Lau argues, it is overly optimistic to believe that more of the same will yield different results.
Central Planning Interventions
The forestry action plan includes several central-planning interventions that have failed across industries for decades. These include corporate welfare through a transformation fund offering loans and loan guarantees, protectionist Buy Canadian policies that prioritize Canadian lumber in housing construction, and government-directed capital deployment that aims to fine-tune investment in product diversification based on what the world will need by 2050. Additionally, the plan proposes special taxpayer support for forestry-related labour market training and transitioning.
Eye Care Strategy: Equity Over Expertise
Lau also criticizes the National Strategy for Eye Care, which is guided by principles of equity, inclusion, reconciliation, and collaboration. He notes that the word Indigenous appears 47 times in the main text, while variations of ophthalmologist or ophthalmology appear only 38 times. This emphasis on social justice rather than medical expertise, Lau argues, makes the strategy sound more like a social experiment than a genuine effort to improve eye care.
Lau concludes that any hope these national plans will do more good than harm is without historical justification. He urges the government to remove the log from its own eye before attempting to guide the private sector with grand, top-down plans.
