Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials HomeFP CommentMatthew Lau: Enough with all the national strategies and plans!Last week Ottawa announced new strategic plans for AI, forestry and eye care, which means these sectors are all about to be in big troubleLast updated 1 hour ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Any hope that the federal government’s latest national plans and national strategies will do more good than harm is without historical justification. Photo by Peter J Thompson/PostmediaIn addition to its attention-grabbing National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, last week the federal government launched its nationwide Forest Sector Action Plan and tabled its National Strategy for Eye Care. The premise behind these national plans and strategies is that individuals and businesses are incapable of managing their own affairs, and so need guidance from an all-wise federal government. But before the government tries to guide the private sector with its grand plans, it needs to take the log out of its own eye.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorOne excellent reason for skepticism about national government planning is given by the government itself in its draft action plan for the forestry sector. “Canada’s forest sector has faced crisis after crisis over the past 20 years,” it begins. Three sentences later, it says: “For decades, governments have delivered programs to promote investment, research, innovation, Indigenous involvement and market diversification in Canada’s forest sector.” If government forestry programs have produced crisis after crisis for decades, the idea that even more government planning will help is optimistic, to say the least.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThe action plan is full of central-planning interventions that have failed across industries for decades, such as: corporate welfare through a “transformation fund” that would provide loans and loan guarantees; protectionism through “Buy Canadian” policies such as government prioritization of Canadian lumber in housing construction; the governmentalization of capital deployment and product development (the federal government says it wants to “fine-tune investment in product diversification by looking at what the world will need between now and 2050” — seriously: that’s what it says!); and special taxpayer support for forestry-related labour market training and transitioning.How about eye care? The government’s eye-care strategy, it tells us, “is guided by principles of equity, inclusion, reconciliation, collaboration, value, and meaningful engagement with people with lived experience. It recognizes vision loss as both a health and social issue and emphasizes the importance of person-centred, accessible, and culturally safe care.” What a national eye care strategy guided by equity, inclusion and reconciliation actually means, no one knows, except that it makes the whole thing sound more like a social experiment or social justice initiative than an actual effort to improve eye care.In evidence of this, the national eye-care strategy mentions “ophthalmologists,” “ophthalmology,” or some variation of the word only 38 times in the main text of the document (plus 17 times in the references, though mainly because journals containing the word “ophthalmology” were cited). By comparison, the word “Indigenous” appears 47 times in the main text, plus six more times in the references, in addition to a combined 29 appearances of the words “First Nation,” “Metis,” and “Inuit.”To be sure, Indigenous people, like all Canadians, should have access to good eye care. But their being mentioned more prominently in the eye-care strategy than the medical doctors and branch of medical science that specializes in eye care, complex eye diseases and eye surgeries is a bit odd. Moreover, when it comes to minority groups, Canada’s South Asian population outnumbers its Indigenous population, while there are nearly as many Chinese and Black Canadians as there are Indigenous Canadians, but South Asian, Chinese and Black Canadians are not mentioned even once in the eye-care strategy.An additional reason for skepticism about a national government eye-care strategy is the poor record of national planning of other forms of care. Canada’s health -are system — unique among high-income countries with universal coverage in having no private insurance markets for medically necessary services — performs far worse than most peer-country systems despite relatively high spending, a sad fact amply documented by many studies and international comparisons.The Canadian Dental Care Plan that Ottawa launched in 2023 continues to suffer problems with inconsistent coverage that has confused patients and providers, costs that are likely higher than the government initially advertised, and unintended consequences, such as employers dropping workers’ private dental coverage as government subsidies and control expand. Another national “care” program — the national child-care plan Ottawa launched in 2021 — has created widespreadshortages from coast to coast, destroyed many private child-care businesses and cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.Is there any reason to think the National Strategy for Eye Care will be any better run than government health care, government dental care or government child care? Any hope that the federal government’s latest national plans and national strategies will do more good than harm is — alas — without historical justification. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.