Réforme comptable du gouvernement du Québec

Le communiqué de presse qui suit est de la musique aux oreilles de l'observateur politique orienté résultat :

"QUÉBEC, le 11 déc. /CNW Telbec/ - La ministre des Finances, ministre des

Services gouvernementaux, ministre responsable de l'Administration
gouvernementale et présidente du Conseil du trésor, Mme Monique Jérôme-Forget,
a annoncé aujourd'hui une réforme majeure de la comptabilité gouvernementale.

  Le rapport du groupe de travail rendu public

  Lors du dépôt du Budget 2007-2008, le 24 mai 2007, la ministre avait
annoncé la mise sur pied du Groupe de travail sur la comptabilité du
gouvernement. Composé de représentants du ministère des Finances, dont la
contrôleure des finances, et du Vérificateur général du Québec, le groupe
devait proposer une réforme des conventions comptables du gouvernement. Près
de deux mois avant la date prévue, le rapport du groupe de travail a été rendu
public aujourd'hui, en même temps que les Comptes publics 2006-2007, Le point
sur la situation économique et financière du Québec (automne 2007) et un
document portant sur la Dette du gouvernement du Québec.
  Fidèle à son engagement de réformer ses conventions comptables, le
gouvernement a annoncé qu'il donnait suite à l'ensemble des recommandations
énoncées dans le rapport du groupe de travail, et ce, à compter de 2006-2007.
«Les réseaux de l'éducation et de la santé seront désormais consolidés dans
les états financiers du gouvernement. Nous aurons ainsi une comptabilité plus
transparente et pleinement respectueuse de l'évolution des principes
comptables généralement reconnus», a déclaré Mme Jérôme-Forget.
  Globalement, la réforme comptable annoncée aujourd'hui aura un impact
financier positif de 89 millions de dollars en 2006-2007 et un impact
financier négatif de 663 millions de dollars sur le solde budgétaire en
2007-2008. Pour l'année 2008-2009, le coût prévu de la réforme comptable
diminue à 150 millions de dollars.

  Modification de certaines lois

  Le groupe de travail avait également pour mandat d'examiner si les lois
sur l'équilibre budgétaire, sur la réserve budgétaire et sur le Fonds des
générations devaient être modifiées. Une fois de plus, le gouvernement suivra
les recommandations du groupe en regard de ces lois. «Nous voulons à l'avenir
éviter toute ambiguité qui pourrait exister entre les résultats financiers,
l'application de ces lois et les objectifs qu'elles poursuivent», a précisé la
ministre Jérôme-Forget.
  C'est ainsi que la ministre déposera au printemps un projet de loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire qui fera en sorte qu'aucune somme
ne pourra dorénavant être inscrite à la dette nette sans passer par le
déficit, sauf si c'est pour se conformer à une nouvelle norme de l'Institut
canadien des comptables agrées (ICCA). Par la même occasion, le gouvernement
modifiera la Loi sur la réserve budgétaire afin d'en simplifier l'application
et de l'apparenter davantage à une réserve de stabilisation, comme dans
certaines provinces.
  «Les Québécois s'attendent à ce que leur gouvernement donne l'heure juste
sur l'état des finances publiques. En cela, mes maîtres mots restent : rigueur
et transparence», a conclu la ministre.

  Finalement, le gouvernement a rendu public le document intitulé La dette
du gouvernement du Québec qui examine les concepts de dette utilisés par les
différents gouvernements au Canada ainsi que par les agences de crédit. Il
présente également l'impact de la réforme de la comptabilité gouvernementale
sur la dette.

- 30 -

Source: Catherine Poulin
Acting Press Relations Officer
Office of the Minister of Finance,
Minister for Government Services,
Minister responsible for Government Administration
and Chair of the Conseil du trésor
418 643-5270
514 873-5363"

Ce sont de bonnes nouvelles puisqu'elles donneront aux Québécois une perspective plus juste de la situation réelle de la dette québécoise. En tant qu'observateur politique « orienté résultat », je crois fermement que ce qui est mesuré est exécuté. La situation précédente, consistant à cacher les dettes des systèmes de santé et d'éducation dans des comptes sépales étaient problématiques puisqu'il était difficile d'obtenir une mesure unique du niveau d'endettement provincial.
Ci-bas, vous trouverez un graphique traçant l'évolution de la dette, divisé en ces entités principales (qui n'étaient pas inclus dans le calcul auparavant). Notez à quelle vitesse les dépenses de passif dans les secteurs de la santé et de l'éducation augmentent (« Health and social services and education networks») depuis 2003? Je n'ai pas fait de recherche spécifique sur la nature de ces dépenses, mais il ne semble que le niveau de dépense indique un « pelletage » de dépenses de système vers la dette.
Et si ces chiffres ne vous inquiètent pas assez, la dette totale du Québec, qui atteint 67.5 % du PIB du Québec, ne comprend même pas la part du Québec de la dette fédérale.

Source: Quebec Finance Minister. 2007-2008 Budget; Budget Plan (May 2007), ISBN 978-2-550-49864-3 (PDF), Section E, Table E-9. Percentage calculation from Author.

Quebec's government's new accounting standards

The following press-release is music to the result-based politic's person's ears:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CNW CODE 01
+ WEEKLIES
Québec Undertakes an Ambitious Accounting Reform Québec, December 11, 2007 − The Minister of Finance, Minister for Government Services, Minister responsible for Government Administration and Chair of the Conseil du trésor, Monique Jérôme-Forget, today announced a major reform of the government’s accounting.

The report of the task force made public
When the 2007-2008 Budget was tabled, on May 24, 2007, the Minister had
announced the formation of the Task Force on Government Accounting. The Task
Force, consisting of representatives from the ministère des Finances, including the
Comptroller of Finance, and the Auditor General of Québec, was to propose a reform of the government’s accounting policies. Almost two months ahead of schedule, the Task Force Québec’s report was released along with the 2006-2007 Public Accounts, the Update on Québec’s Economic and Financial Situation (Fall 2007), and a document entitled The Québec Government’s Debt.
In keeping with its commitment to reform its accounting policies, the government has announced that it is acting on all the recommendations in the Task Force’s report, as of 2006-2007. “The education and the health networks henceforth will be consolidated in the government’s financial statements. This will make our accounting more transparent and fully compliant with the evolution of generally accepted accounting principles,” Minister Jérôme-Forget said.
Overall, the accounting reform announced today will have a positive financial impact of $89 million in 2006-2007 and a negative financial impact of $663 million on the budgetary balance in 2007-2008. The projected cost of the accounting reform in 2008-2009 will lower to $150 million.

Page 2
Amendments to certain statutes
The Task Force was also mandated to examine whether legislation on the balanced budget, the budgetary reserve and the Generations Fund should be amended. Once again, the government will act on the recommendations of the Task Force regarding these statutes. “We want to avoid any ambiguity that might exist in the future between the financial results, the application of these statutes and their objectives,” the Minister specified.
She also announced that she will be tabling a bill to amend the Balanced Budget Act whereby no amount may henceforth be charged to the debt without being posted to the deficit, unless for the purposes of compliance with a new standard of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). At the same time, the
government will amend the legislation on the budgetary reserve to simplify its
application and make it more similar to a stabilization reserve, as is the case in some provinces.
“Quebecers expect their government to be straight with them concerning the public finances. On that, my watchwords remain: rigor and transparency,” the Minister concluded.

Lastly, the government released a document entitled The Québec Government’s Debt that examines the concepts of debt used by various governments in Canada and by the credit-rating agencies. It also shows the impact of the reform of government accounting on the debt.

- 30 -
Source: Catherine Poulin
Acting Press Relations Officer
Office of the Minister of Finance,
Minister for Government Services,
Minister responsible for Government Administration
and Chair of the Conseil du trésor
418 643-5270
514 873-5363"

It is great news because it will give Quebecois a more accurate view of the debt situation. As a result-based observer, I strongly believe that what gets measured gets done. The previous situation of concealing the Health and Education's debts into a separate account was problematic as it was not providing a single measure of the debt burden.

See below the progression of the debt, broken-down by its major entities (which were not included in the debt calculation before). Notice how fast the 'Health and social services and education networks' debt has progressed since 2003? I have yet to do more specific research into those spending but it would seem to indicate an operational - rather than capital - use of the debt.

And if that doesn't scare you enough, the total debt, sitting at 67.5% of Québec's GDP, does not include Québec's portion of the federal debt.

Source: Quebec Finance Minister. 2007-2008 Budget; Budget Plan (May 2007), ISBN 978-2-550-49864-3 (PDF), Section E, Table E-9. Percentage calculation from Author.

The economic cost of green policies.

We have heard a significant amount of noise regarding the "cost" of implementing the Kyoto accord in Canada.

While I agree that meeting all of the 2012 Canadian Kyoto objectives would certainly come at a significant cost, one can ask whether there is anything, at all, which is economically worth doing?

Actually, wouldn't it be extremely surprising that every single measure which are considered to reduce our CO2 footprint would also happen to have a detrimental economic cost? (i.e. costing more than the benefits it produces). Wouldn't it be worth looking into costing those measures?

As it happens, Vattenfal, a Swedish power and heat generation company, has done just such research and it seems that there are quite a few opportunities that are actually economically beneficial beyond their environmental benefits. That is to say; even if we derived no environmental benefits from those measures, they would still be worth implementing as they would be economically benefitial.

Take a look at the chart below. (A negative cost of abatement means that the measure would not only cut emissions, but would also save people and companies money)

Source: http://www.vattenfall.com/www/ccc/ccc/569512nextx/573859globa/574118cost/index.jsp

Looking at this, it seems to me that a lot of the North American's CO2 reduction opposition discourse of today is one of ideological posturing with a non-interventionistic stance rather than a rational, economics based one. For the result-based mind, the position is hard to understand. I would certainly advise those governments to not block the measures because of abstract ideological opposition to government intervention but to rather let them through on the basis that they make economical sense. Looks like a win-win situation to me, doesn't it?

Actually, The Economist (a result-based magazine, if I ever saw one), had this to say about the Vattenfal findings:

"Economists generally prefer to avoid rules that specify what companies can produce and how, because they require governments, rather than markets, to allocate resources, and markets tend to do a better job. But if, as in this case, a public as well as a private good is involved, and the market does not seem to be doing its job properly, there is an argument for government giving it a nudge." (The Economist, June 2nd 2007, page 9)

Although I could not find a paper that would have researched the abatement costs specific to Canada, a joint Conference Board/McKinsey report details the specifics for the U.S. :

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp

What they found is surprising: "40% of the reductions identified could generate net savings to the economy". They also add that "Savings can substantially offset the remaining total capital, operating , and maintenance costs". While this is also great news, I am not putting the emphasis on the second part as some could argue that the saved money could be invested somewhere else in the economy until we understand the "true impacts" of global warming (I will leave it up to the reader to decide how much more research has to be done before it is considered "sufficient").

Based on the Vattenfall and McKinsey report, it would seem to me that for the short term, there are a few regulatory steps that must be taken by our governments. Provided that most of the economically positive measures highlighted in those reports center on technologies that have already been codified and standardized (and are available today) such as more efficient lighting, electronics, vehicles and housing, it is now time to enforce those standards.

What could it look like in concrete terms? That would most likely mean banning non EnergyStar electronic devices and appliances, adopting stricter national/provincial building codes, imposing higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.

However, more than political will, I believe these policies would require ideologues to take a step back and think again about what exactly they are opposing...

Québec's electoral map needs an update.

During the last provincial elections in Québec, something peaked my curiosity: there were a few announcements and discussions about initiatives and policies targeted for Québec's "régions". It seems to be a recurring theme and one that I have a hard time understanding from an economics point of view.

From a demographic point of view, Québec's rural areas are emptying and they have been for quite a while now. See the data below adapted from Statistics Canada latest (2006) census:

As it is highlighted in the census document titled "Population and Dwelling Counts" and as is the case for the other provinces, Québec has been urbanizing (or, maybe I should say, sub-urbanizing). Larger cities and their surroundings are the major employment, immigration and growth centers and the "régions" have suffered a demographic decline for quite a while now.

When I mapped those population variations to the electoral districts, here's what I got for the 1996-2005 period (green represents a population increase, yellow is stable, and red is a decrease):

Coming back to my original point about the provincial government announcements of new infrastructure and other capital/"job generating" investments for the regions at election time; why is that happening?

Well, it seems that it is essentially because the regions are politically over-represented in relation to their demographic weight. Take a look at the following examples:

It is clear that, at 66% of the average size of Quebec's electoral district, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Gaspésie and Iles-de-la-Madeleine gets almost 40% more representation than what their population justifies.

This over-representation then translates into the Quebec regions being good places to invest electoral "marketing" dollar even though, from an economical point of view, it might not make all that much sense anymore. While regions might have been the economic engine of the past, it is less obvious that, in a knowledge-based economy, they can truly compete: qualified human resources are less available due to the non-proximity of large universities, infrastructures are more expensive to maintain as they serve a smaller basin of population, cross-company synergies are less obvious, etc.

Sure, there will still be plenty of reasons to exploit our natural resources which are found in every corner of our land. But the market itself can take care of that when the global price of those resources call for it.

In order to avoid seeing the government intervene to artificially 'create jobs' where the market and overall population movement has already spoken otherwise, it would seem logical to reform the electoral map to reflect the true nature of Quebec as it is and as it is evolving in 2008. That is, political representation of the regions proportional to their lesser demographic weight.

It also makes sense, and is long overdue, from a democratic point of view.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_general_election%2C_2007

I got the electoral map from the "Affaires municipales et Régions Québec" Web site (http://www.mamr.gouv.qc.ca), on which I colored the various "MRCs" based on year 1996-2005 population variation data found.



The first map is adapted from: Statistics Canada, 2007, Population and Dwelling Counts - 2006 Census, Catalogue no. 97-550-XIE, page 43.

Electoral districts population from Directeur General Des Elections du Quebec (2007). Averages are the author's calculations.

Canada, le premier fournisseur de pétrole des E.U.?

Je dois admettre que la chose m'a surpris. Jusqu'à maintenant, je croyais que l'Arabie Séoudite était le principal exportateur de produits pétroliers vers les E.U. (États-Unis). Pas du tout, comme l'indique le Energy Information Administration (Lien vers la source).

« En 2006, environ 60 % du pétrole consommé aux États-Unis était importé de l'extérieur du pays. Le pétrole brut représentait 82 % des importations de pétrole et environ 66 % du pétrole brut traité dans les raffineries américaines était importé. » (ma traduction)

Les 10 principaux pays exportateurs de pétrole vers les E.U., ci-bas, comptent pour 81 % du total du pétrole importé aux E.U.

Maintenant, supposons qu’en 2006, le Canada aurait exporté un million de barils de pétrole additionnels vers les E.U. (suite à une réduction de la dépendance au pétrole au Canada ou d’un accroissement de la production, ou les deux…). Cela constituerait environ 50 % de plus que la production réelle de 2006. Si l’on suppose ensuite que les E.U. aurait toujours consommé 12.4 millions de barils par jour en 2006, de quels pays ces derniers auraient-ils reduit leur importation?

Je suggérerais alors de suivre une approche éthique; en utilisant le 2007 Freedom Index (Lien vers la source), réduisons donc l’importation du top 10 au prorata de leur importation réelle de 2006, pondérée par le facteur de « liberté » du pays exportateur. Un pays qualifié de « libre » (« free ») ne serait pas touché par une réduction des importations. Un pays « partiellement libre » (« Partly free ») verrait l’importation américaine réduite d’une fois son pourcentage 2006 d’importation. Un pays « non libre » (« Not free ») verrait l’importation américaine réduite de deux fois son pourcentage.
L’idée étant de pénaliser les pays non libres et bonifier les importations depuis les pays libres.

Après redistribution, voici ce à quoi ressemblerait notre graphique pour 2006 :

À court terme (moins de 5 ans), une augmentation de 50 % des exportations vers les E.U. ne semble pas irréaliste si des mesures locales de conservation d’énergie sont prises. Avec les nombreux projets d’exploitation pétrolière débutant partout au Canada, une augmentation de production semble aussi relativement simple.
Mais, puisque mon chiffrier de calcul est déjà prêt, pourquoi ne pas essayer un scénario où une administration américaine aurait, pour une question de sécurité nationale, pris des mesures significatives pour augmenter l’importation de pétrole provenant du Canada? (Imaginez votre propre scénario; la Feds qui paierait pour la plomberie, qui subventionnerait le développement au Canada, etc.). Supposons maintenant une croissance de 100 % des importations américaines de pétrole en provenance du Canada. En tenant tous les autres facteurs comme étant stables, voici le portrait pour 2006 :Bien entendu, ce scénario est théorique. Dans la « vraie » vie, tout ne serait pas si simple. Par contre, l’idée est qu’avec un baril de pétrole a près de $100 et des ressources énormes encore a developper dans un pays ami et libre, les E.U. ont beaucoup d’espace de négociation s’ils désirent une plus grande indépendance vis-a-vis certaines nations avec lesquelles ils préféreraient ne pas être associé de trop près.

Et pour nous Canadiens, ce sont de bonnes nouvelles. Si vous êtes un partisan du Protocole de Kyoto, c’est maintenant le temps de faire pression pour un accroissement de l’exportation de pétrole vers les E.U., balisé par des politiques environnementales. Si les Américains décident de ne rien faire pour réduire leur dépendance au pétrole à court terme, n’est-il pas mieux que le Canada soit leur partenaire? Il sera alors beaucoup plus facile de contrôler les pratiques environnementales de l’industrie pétrolière que de souhaiter, dans l’autre cas, que l’Arabie Séoudite le fasse.

Et pour ceux qui ne supportent pas le Protocole de Kyoto, je vous laisse avec ceci… ka-ching!

Canada, U.S.' premier source of petroleum import?

I have to say this one surprised me. Up to now, I was under the impression that Saudi Arabia was the premier source of petroleum imports to the U.S.
Not so, says The Energy Information Administration (EIA; a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy)(Link to source).

"In 2006, about 60% of the petroleum consumed in the U.S. was imported from foreign countries. Crude oil accounted for 82% of net petroleum imports and about 66% of the crude oil processed in U.S. refineries was imported."
The top 10 countries exporting petroleum products to the U.S., illustrated below, account for 81% of the total petroleum imports to the U.S.
Now, for argument's sake, let's suppose that in 2006, Canada shipped an extra million barrels to the U.S. (say, through a lower Canadian reliance on petroleum products, increased production, or both...). That's about 50% more than what it does export now. If we suppose that the U.S. would still have consumed 12.4 or so million barrels a day in 2006, which country would they have reduced import from? I suggest a "principled" stance: using the 2007 Freedom Index (Link to Source) let's reduce the import from our top 10 countries in proportion of their 2006 import percentage, weighted by how 'free' the country is. A 'free' country would have no import reduction, a 'partly free' would get an import reduction equal to one time its percentage of imports, and a 'not free' country would get an import reduction equal to twice its percentage of imports. The idea being to reward greater level of freedom.

After redistribution, here's what the pie chart would look like:
A short term (5 years) goal of augmenting Canadian petroleum export to the U.S. by 1 million barrels does not strike me as an 'out of this world' possibility. There is significant opportunities to reduce our oil dependence through measures targeting the transportation and housing sectors. Coupled with a production increase, which is to be expected with all the various oil-sector projects coming online these days, the 50% export scenario sounds about right to me.
Now, since I already have my spreadsheet setup, let's dream a little. Let's suppose the U.S. administration was adamant that for national security reasons, it was a good thing to reduce its dependence on a few key oil-exporting countries which have societal goals which are, let's say, misaligned with America. Let's then suppose that they had been willing to put their money where their mouth is and invest major Feds dollars in supporting U.S. companies developing oil sites in Canada, and building pipelines to support it. And finally, let's suppose this would have boosted Canada's export by 100% instead of the 50% of the previous scenario.

This is where we would have been in 2006:
Not too shabby eh!? Obviously, in real life, things would not be so simple. However, the point I wanted to make is that it would seem that with a barrel at close to $100 and huge resources available for purchase in a friendly and free country nearby, the U.S. has a lot of room to negotiate/buy greater oil independence from nations it might not want to be associated too closely with.
And for us Canadians, this is some good news. If you are a Kyoto Protocol supporter, it is time to lobby for greater environmentally controlled oil export to the U.S. If the Americans are not going to do anything about their oil addiction anytime soon, is it not better for Canada to be the provider? It should be much easier to impose environmental legislation in Canada for the petroleum industry than to hope that Saudi Arabia would do so.

And for the non-Kyoto supporter; well, let me just say... ka-ching!

Welcome to this blog!

Welcome to this blog!

First, let's answer the obvious question; why blog?

I am not sure I like the blog concept in the first place. I perceive it as being a lot like talk radio; an immediate and emotional reaction to current events. As is the case with talk radio, in order to build an audience, one has to publish frequently, and unfortunately, the quality of content thereby suffers.
It has been my observation that blogs that are trying to deal with issues beyond those of personal nature rapidly fall into a vicious circle that brings the blogger to post less than accurate information, and then defend his erroneous posts in talk-backs. Posting unprocessed data is easy and content is readily available on the Web for whomever might want to do so. However, good information takes time.

Why blog then? Because it is the only outlet that I could find which will lets me consolidate my thoughts and research into one easy to consume mass-medium, at, well, zero cost!
So, in order to try to mitigate the negatives, posting frequency will be sacrificed at the profit of what I hope will be increased content quality. In order to provide both, other like-minded bloggers might eventually want to join me in posting on RBP, provided they share the same concern for quality.

Which subjects will be covered and how?

Preferably Canadian politics and policies, with a strong focus on Québec. I will certainly venture into other territories, but with the idea of bringing context to the rest of the posts.

As for the vision or, I should say, the editorial slant: my bias is towards political/social/economical initiatives yielding measurable positive societal results. Being an observer of the last 15 years of politics in Canada as led me to believe that the current polarization of various discourse along ideological lines makes, at best, for fun debate, but rarely yields beneficial or any results at all. In that respect, my bias is not to the left or to the right, authoritarian or libertarian. I believe that the best of solutions require non-partisan analysis.

What I actually dream for is not for a new generation of politicians with radical ideas but rather a new generation of electors who will be able to think outside of their "of-the-moment" belief system. I believe that the challenge of our generation has not yet been fully understood. With commoditization and democratization of information, our challenge is to understand the context into which it can properly be interpreted. Only once individuals can accurately process the wealth of information available to them will society benefit from the productivity gains it can yield.

Let's get started...

Bienvenue

Bienvenue sur ce blog!

Premièrement, une réponse à la question suivante; pourquoi un blog?

Dès le départ, je ne suis pas certain d’aimer le concept de blogue. Je le perçois essentiellement de la même façon que la radio d’opinion; une réaction immédiate et émotive aux évènements présents. Et comme c’est le cas pour la radio d’opinion, on se doit de publier fréquemment pour fidéliser l’auditoire et, malheureusement, la qualité du contenu en souffre.

Mon observation de la blogosphère est que les blogues qui traitent de sujets en dehors du cadre personnel de leurs auteurs tombent rapidement dans un cercle vicieux ou l’auteur publie, sans grande analyse, de l’information peu fiable et passe ensuite son temps à s’en défendre dans la section de commentaires. En fait, publier rapidement de l’information sans regard à sa qualité est facile puisque le contenu est disponible aisément sur le Web. Par contre, produire de l’information fiable prend du temps.

Pourquoi un blogue alors?

Parce que c’est le seul médium de masse que j’ai pu trouver qui me laisse consolider mes pensées et mes recherches dans un format facile à lire (et à maintenir) à peu de frais.
Donc, dans l’espoir de réduire ces effets négatifs, la fréquence de publication de ce blogue sera sacrifiée au profit de ce qui sera, je l’espère, une plus grande qualité de contenu. Avec un peu de chance, d’autres blogueurs du même état d’esprit se joindront à cette initiative pour offrir et qualité, et quantité.

Quels sujets seront couverts et comment?

De préférence, la politique et les politiques canadiennes, avec une emphase spéciale sur le Québec. Je vais certainement m’aventurer sur d’autres territoires, mais avec l’idée d’apporter un contexte à l’ensemble des billets.

Ma vision est, ou devrais-je dire, le biais éditorial sera axé sur les initiatives politiques, sociales et économiques qui donnent des résultats sociaux positifs concrets, observables et mesurables. Mon observation de la scène politique Canadienne des 15 dernières années me porte à croire que la polarisation actuelle des discours selon certaines lignes idéologiques rend, au mieux, le débat comique, mais se traduit rarement en bénéfices sociaux réels. En ce sens, mon biais n’est pas vraiment vers la droite ou la gauche, autoritaire ou libertarien. Je crois que les meilleures solutions requièrent une analyse non partisane.

En fait, mon rêve n’est pas de voir naître une nouvelle génération de politiciens avec des idées radicales, mais plutôt de voir arriver une nouvelle génération d’électeurs qui sauront réfléchir au-delà de l’idéologie du moment. Je crois aussi que le plus grand défi de notre génération n’a pas encore été pleinement compris. Avec la démocratisation et l’hyper disponibilité de l’information, notre défi est de comprendre les contextes qui permettent une interprétation adéquate de cette masse de données. Seulement lorsque les individus pourront adéquatement traiter le flot immense d’information disponible, pourrons-nous alors réaliser les bénéfices sociaux dus aux gains de productivité qu’il produira.

Commençons…