Ron Foxcroft: Be Smarter and more innovative - and have smaller governments.

By Staff

November 2nd, 2021



Ron Foxcroft, a well known Hamilton based entrepreneur and Burlington resident who was named Citizen of the Year in 2015 for his work on flood relief in 2014, said recently that we need to: “Be smarter and more innovative” if we are going to get through the inflationary jump we are into.

Statistics Canada reported on Oct. 20 that the consumer price index (CPI), a key inflation gauge that measures change in how much Canadians are paying for goods and services, jumped again in September. It was up 4.4 percent compared to September 2020, the “fastest pace” of increase since 2003.

Canada’s CPI has now exceeded the Bank of Canada’s inflation-control target range of 1 to 3 percent for six consecutive months, while the U.S. CPI was up 5.4 percent in September year-over-year.

Foxcroft said some elected officials’ suggestion of taxing the rich more doesn’t solve problems.

“The so-called rich are the people employing people [and] carrying charities,” he said, so in taxing them more “you’re going to have unintended consequences.”

While cautioning that there is no quick fix, he proposed reducing the size of government to cut costs and addressing the labour shortage by prioritizing getting the skilled labour force back to the required level.

“Let’s promote, and let’s come up with programs to attract, maintain, and keep and reward people that are going into the skilled trades,” he said.

He also suggested reducing dependence on imports by building up domestic manufacturing capacity in Canada, with an emphasis on greater diversity of products.

“Being smarter and more innovative, like we do in the private sector, is the way you solve problems,” Foxcroft said.

Foxcroft recently published a book: The 40 Ways of the Fox that has now been released in the United States.

Related news story:

Smaller government.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 comments to Ron Foxcroft: Be Smarter and more innovative – and have smaller governments.

  • Alfred

    Hans and Tom

    Let me give you an example if I may. The National Gun Registry was a terrible failure. It cost the citizens of Canada 2 Billion dollars and did not solve 1 murder. Are you suggesting this was money well spent, when it was clear and well known that robbers drug dealers and murderers do not register their guns.

    Please say yes, so that no one will ever take anything you say seriously again.

    The Liberals also said it was only going to cost 2 million dollars. Quite the cost overun. One of the biggest frauds ever released on Canadians.There aren’t enough jails to incarcerate all those involved in this fraud.

    So you would have us believe the same people can’t find waste and jobs that are useless in Government to cut spending for Canadians?

    I think Foxcroft made lot’s of sense.

  • Hans Jacobs

    “…reducing the size of government to cut costs….” has a nice ring to it until we stop to think what it actually means. Since no examples are given, should we assume that it means fewer politicians? Or does it mean fewer nurses, firefighters, police, social workers, hospital staff, road maintenance workers, etc.; i.e., the jobs/workers that we all rely on for living in a safe and healthy society? It is useful to note that all of these jobs result in income taxes and other taxes being paid; i.e., much of these “costs” are returned to the various levels of government so that the “savings” are always much less than expected. In addition, the economic “multiplier” results in a bigger reduction than expected to GDP when a salary is eliminated.
    It is the opposite of “clever” to eliminate these jobs.

    Taxing the super rich more has no downside. This is the segment that will pay large sums for a short flight into space and they will not suffer hardship.

    • Denise W.

      I think it was pretty clear Ron was referring to cutting down the number of government bureaucrats. And there are too many in some departments.

      As to taxing the “super rich” (your term)….. That is not being talked about, really. But it is labelled as such to appeal to voters. Smokescreen.
      Want to tax the “super rich”, then tax trust funds that shelter money and pass the benefits of great wealth to the next generation without any tax. Three guesses as to why that isn’t ever talked about?

      • Hans Jacobs

        “….there are too many in some departments.” – such as?
        I recall that Mike Harris tried to reduce the head count and ended up bringing many of them on contract so that there were no significant savings.

      • Tom Muir

        I’m sorry, but I don’t know how it is possible for you to know there are too many bureaucrats in any department. Provide some facts please. Baseless hyperbole we need no more of.

        The rest of your comment is opinion, and you can have them.

  • Phil Waggett

    Foxcroft is right but the business approaches he advocates for won’t work in Canadian governments today. First, governments at various levels are permeated with “leadership” that believes in big government, that government is the solution to every problem. And they are supported by an electorate who in many cases have a vested financial interest in seeing them continue.

    Businesses that experience poor decision-making face consequences–reduced profitability and possible bankruptcy with corporate leadership being directly removed by an informed board of directors. However, governments are rarely held accountable for their incompetence. Governments in 2021 are excellent at “spinning” their policies, often enabled to do so by the media, to hide or deflect their incompetence. As a result, many voters lack the information base that would enable them to hold the government to account.