You’ll recall that the PM has said, on more than one occasion, that Canada would recover faster than any other developed nation. Well, the report, which came out today, claims that the country’s GDP will contract by 2% in Q3, and will only grow by 0.4% in Q4. That means we’re going to see slower short-term growth than the U.S, Japan, the “euro area”, Germany, France, Italy and the U.K. Oh wait, that’s everyone. (See all of their numbers on page 17 of the report.)

Now, as my fact-filled colleague Phil Froats points out, there’s plenty wrong with how the OECD’s numbers are being interpreted. But, that’s besides the point for the opposition, who will tout this survey as proof that Harper has no idea what he’s talking about.

As I’ve said before, Canada’s economic performance has very little to do with Harper — a stuffed bear could have been in office and the recession would still have come and gone — but when our top politician makes a statement regarding our GDP growth, he better make sure he’s right.

Despite what the OECD says (or what other people are saying about their findings), it’s still too early to know whether or not we’ll come out of this stronger and faster than our G7 cohorts, but, hopefully for Harper, good news will come before it’s too late.

Switzerland 1 (2)

Sweden 2 (1)

Luxembourg 3 (5)

Norway 4 (4)

Iceland 5 (3)

Finland 6 (7)

Canada 7 (11)

Denmark 8 (10)

Ireland 9 (9)

Japan 10 (6)

Australia 11 (13)

South Korea 12 (12)

Netherlands 13 (8)

New Zealand 14 (15)

Austria 15 (16)

United States 16 (14)

United Kingdom 17 (17)

France 18 (18)

Germany 19 (20)

Czech Republic 20 (23)

Mexico 21 (19)

Belgium 22 (21)

Spain 23 (22)

Portugal 24 (24)

Turkey 25 (26)

Italy 26 (25)

Slovak Republic 27 (28)

Greece 28 (29)

Poland 29 (30)

Hungary 30 (27)

For instance, the cries against government-owned investment funds seem to be getting louder. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox recently echoed the OECD’s concerns over the lack of transparency of sovereign wealth funds— investment vehicles owned by governments, and funded by foreign exchange assets—and state-owned enterprises. In a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute Legal Center for the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., Cox characterized “state-owned or controlled corporations in our public markets, and government-owned commercial investment funds” as “challenging conventional approaches to the respective roles of government and the private sector.” As the world’s capital markets become ever more entwined, Cox explained he welcomed foreign investment in U.S. capital markets “with open arms,” but cautioned that the SEC had a number of issues, including lack of transparency, with sovereign wealth funds. “In some countries, criticism of government policies lands you in jail, or worse,” he said. “Is it reasonable to expect that these same governments will be magically forthcoming with investors? This raises significant questions for regulators such as the SEC, whose mission includes investor protection. Indeed, when it comes to transparency, the track record to date of most sovereign wealth funds does not inspire confidence.”

The OECD, which pointed out these funds have existed for decades, is nonetheless concerned about “their spectacular growth, driven by large current account surpluses and increased revenues in oil producing countries, and the size of their overseas investments.” Worries over the potential for these funds to be “motivated by political objectives and pose security threats,” are also at play here.

While increased transparency in investing is always welcome (witness the asset-backed commercial paper fiasco), at the heart of the matter it seems the subtext for these organizations is that a big bad foreigner will come in and take over, and I’m not sure the best way for a government to increase global financial transparency is to bar others from investing in their country. If nations are engaged with each other, rather than isolated, there is more likelihood the same standards will be applied to all of the players. While there is a role for careful consideration of foreign investments, especially given the massive size of some of these funds, Canada must be open to outside investment. Canadians should also do their part in investing around the globe. I will keep readers updated with developments from these calls for action.