--- author: TVO Today date: '2026-04-09' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAuD5fK8ys speaker: TVO Today tags: - sovereignty - economic-policy - canadian-economy - policy-evaluation - supply-chain-diversification title: 加拿大主权政策评估：'购加'政策的实际成效 summary: 本期访谈聚焦于加拿大主权政策的实际成效，介绍了加拿大盾牌公共政策研究所（Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy）开发的“主权评分”（Sovereignty Score）及其评估方法。专家Kaylee Thiessen解释了该评分体系如何从治理、控制和经济繁荣两个维度，通过十个因素衡量政策的真实影响力。访谈随后评估了国防工业政策、在线流媒体法案、'购加'政策及安省的'保护安省账户投资计划'等具体政策，揭示了政策意图与执行效果之间的差距，并强调了重视国内公司发展、技能提升及供应链多元化的重要性。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: macro-economy area: geopolitics project: [] people: - Kaylee Thiessen companies_orgs: - Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy products_models: - Sovereignty Score media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 政策评估框架：主权评分 **主持人**: 好的。鉴于边境以南以及世界各地发生的一切，所谓的“购加”政策（Buy Canadian policies）风靡一时，但并非所有政策都能兑现承诺。Kaylee Thiessen 是加拿大盾牌公共政策研究所（Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy）的首席经济学家，她来到演播室与我对话。你今天怎么样？
Original English **Host**: Okay. Given everything that's been happening south of the border and around the world, quote unquote, Buy Canadian policies have taken off, but not all of them deliver what they promise. Kaylee Thiessen is chief economist with the Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy, and she joins me in studio. How are you doing?
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 我今天状态很棒。你呢？
Original English >> I'm doing great today. How are you?
**主持人**: 我很好。好的。该研究所提出了一项名为“主权评分”（Sovereignty Score）的机制。请帮助我们理解它是什么，以及其背后的方法论是什么？
Original English >> I'm doing well. All right. The institute came up with something called the Sovereignty Score. Help us understand what is it and what's the methodology behind it.
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的。好的。所以，“主权评分”顾名思义，你就知道它是什么。简而言之，我们审视政府的政策决策，判断其是否真正实现了我们政府声称正努力推进的“主权”。主权并非易事。我们最初开始时，以为“哦，这很简单。某事要么是主权的，要么不是。你要么拥有控制权，要么没有。”但实际上，伴随主权的是一系列因素。我们的评分分为两个类别：一是“主权”，关于治理和控制；二是“经济繁荣”，基本上是为加拿大经济提供增值。我们考察这两个类别下的十个因素，然后为每项政策打分，看其是否真正起到了作用。我们考虑诸如“就业”等因素。就业确实是主权的一个非常重要的组成部分，绝对是。也是增值的重要组成部分。但我们迄今为止发现，这基本上是政府唯一关注的事情。虽然就业极其重要，但我们应该关注的不仅仅是就业。然后我们继续讨论“技能”，即我们是否在利用加拿大人正在开发的技能，或者在创造更多就业的同时，提升加拿大人技能。实际地考虑诸如“知识产权”（IP）所有权，以及为加拿大公司带来利润并建立加拿大公司，而不是将政府投资导向外国公司，从而使价值流向其他国家和其他经济体，而非增强加拿大自身的实力和繁荣。那是经济繁荣的方面。我们还考虑诸如“多元化供应链”和“抓取价值链”等。好的。减少对外国公司的依赖，以及“盾牌评分”的另一项。我还没列出所有项，但另一项是确保我们不“固化垄断”，确保我们建立许多公司，而不是只有一家公司，最终可能拥有足够大的权力来影响政府，使我们失去主权，就像我们在美国科技行业看到的。
Original English >> Yeah. Okay. So the sovereignty score is you know exactly what it says it is. In a nutshell, we're looking at government policy decisions based on whether or not it's actually delivering the sovereignty that our governments say they're trying to sort of advance at this particular moment. Sovereignty is not simple. When we first started out, we thought, oh yeah, this is so easy. Something is either sovereign, it's not or it's not. You either have control or you don't. But in fact, there's, you know, a constellation of factors that come with sovereignty. Our score is divided into two categories. There's sovereignty, which is about governance and control. And then there's economic prosperity, which is about delivering value add to Canada's economy, basically. And we look at these ten factors underneath these two categories and then score every policy for whether or not it's actually delivering. We think about things like jobs. So jobs is a really important piece of sovereignty. Absolutely an important piece. And it's an important piece of value add. But we found so far that it's basically one of the only things that governments focus on. And we should be focusing on more than just jobs, though jobs is incredibly important. So then we move on to talking about skills, whether or not we're utilizing the skills that Canadians are developing or improving the skills of Canadians as we're creating more jobs. Actually thinking about things like IP ownership and delivering profit to and building Canadian companies instead of delivering sort of government investment to foreign firms that then sort of leak that value to other countries and other economies, instead of building even more strength and prosperity in Canada. That's the economic prosperity side. We also think about things like diversifying the supply chain and capturing the value chain. Okay. Reducing reliance on foreign firms and another one on the on the shield score. I haven't listed them all, but another one is making sure we're not sort of entrenching monopolies, are we making sure we're building many companies instead of just one that could eventually have enough power to influence government in a way that makes us not sovereign much as we've seen the tech industry in the United States.
### 方法论与政策评估 **主持人**: 并且当我们谈论方法论时，我们谈论的是十分制评分。这是一个清单吗？如果他们勾选了你提到的所有要点，是否就能得分？
Original English >> And when we talk about the methodology, we're talking about a score out of ten. Is it a checklist? If they've crossed off all of those, sort of some of the points that you mentioned?
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的，完全正确。所以它只是一个“是”或“否”的判断。我们曾讨论过使用半点，然后我们意识到，实际上每一个项目都会得到半点，因为会说，“哦，我们做了，我们实现了一点点”。所以，最终我们决定，对每一项都进行“是”或“否”的判断。
Original English >> Yeah, absolutely. So it's just a yes or no. We had talked about doing half points, and then we realized that every single one would get a half point all the time because there's like, oh, we did it. We got it a little bit of the way there. You know, two out of ten are like, you know, 10 or 20% out of the full 100. So just making sure we're going yes or no with every point is, is what we decided on in the end.
**主持人**: 好的。你的研究所评估了一些鼓励国内公司增长的主权相关政策。我们先从“国防工业政策”（Defence Industrial Policy）开始。这是在今年 2 月（2026 年）发布的。获得了十分之八分。是的。它做了什么？
Original English >> All right. Your institute assessed some sovereignty related policies that are encouraging growth in domestic companies. We'll start off with the defence industrial policy. This came out just this year in February 2026. Got eight out of ten. Yeah. What is it doing.
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 嗯。所以，政府，联邦政府的意图是发展加拿大公司，在加拿大创造就业，提高加拿大人技能，并利用我们许多人随着时间推移而开发的技能，但可能在当前劳动力市场中无法得到利用。因此，确保这些方面向前发展，同时也关注“知识产权”（IP）的保留，以及建立加拿大公司，这是拼图中的另一块。这肯定会提高加拿大的安全保障，同时避免固化垄断，因为意图是更多地关注加拿大小型公司并开始发展它们，而不是仅仅将所有资金都提供给美国公司和美国军事工业复合体。不幸的是，到目前为止，我们在投入国防工业战略的投资方面看到的是，它们并未完全发挥出潜力。因此，我们分析了最近的一项公告，即为在加拿大制造弹药而提供的资金。这项在国防工业战略下的举措仅获得了十分之三的分数。所以，政策的意图获得了十分之八的分数，而执行却只得了三分，因为它没有增加，也没有减少我们对外国公司的依赖。例如，向一家美国公司投资 10 亿美元，由其建造弹药外壳和生产弹药的投入，就是一个错失的机会。
Original English >> So the government has the federal government has the intention of growing Canadian companies, creating jobs in Canada, increasing skills of Canadians, and utilizing the skills that many of us have developed over time, but maybe aren't able to utilize in the current labour market. And so making sure that those things go are moving forward also has a focus on IP retention, and building Canadian companies is another piece of the puzzle. It's certainly going to increase security, the security of Canada, as well as avoiding entrenching monopolies, because the intention is to look more at smaller Canadian companies and start to grow them, instead of just delivering all of the money to American firms and the American military industrial complex. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far with the investments that have gone into the defence industrial strategy, is that they're not necessarily living up to their potential. So we analyzed a recent a recent announcement, which was money into creating ammunition, building ammunition in Canada. And that move underneath the Defence Industrial strategy only got a three out of ten. So the intention of the policy got an eight out of ten. And then the execution is getting a three because it did not increase did not decrease our reliance on foreign firms. There's $1 billion investment into an American company that will be building the shells and and creating the inputs into the ammunition is one example of what got missed.
**主持人**: 好的，让我们看看另一个得分很高的政策，“在线流媒体法案”（Online Streaming Act）。这是在 2023 年末由特鲁多政府提出的。获得了十分之九分。这关系到 Netflix 和 YouTube。这项政策的哪些方面是有效的？
Original English >> Okay, let's look at another one that did quite well, the Online Streaming Act. This was introduced in late 2023 under the Trudeau government. Nine out of ten. This is where we're talking about Netflix, YouTube here. What's working with that policy?
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的。所以，这项政策的意图是确保我们流媒体所播放的所有内容的产业活动，实际上是在加拿大发生的。因此，有非常、非常深入和具体的政策规定了需要创造多少就业岗位，以及需要哪些技能。因此，它确保了行业内各个技能层级的就业岗位都在加拿大创造。并且这项活动在此进行。此外，我们还看到对作者在加拿大保留知识产权（IP）的要求。不再是 Netflix 立即就拥有你想法的版权了，而是其中的一部分留在了加拿大。这意味着，当有衍生作品和其他事物出现时，它们也将基于加拿大。这也是该政策获得如此高分的一些原因。
Original English >> Yeah. So the intention again of the policy is to make sure that the industrial activity that is occurring is occurring to produce all of the things that we stream is actually occurring in Canada. And so there's very, very in-depth and specific policies about how many jobs need to be created, what the skills are that are required. So it's, it's making sure that jobs across the whole skill level of the industry are created in, in Canada. And that is that activity is done here. In addition, we also see that there are requirements for IP to be retained in Canada by the writers. It's not something that just immediately Netflix, you know, owns the rights to your ideas anymore. But in fact, some of that stays in Canada. And that means that then as you know, there's spin offs and other things that also is going to be based in Canada. That's some of some of why the policy got such a high score.
**主持人**: 让我们谈谈“购加”政策（Buy Canadian policy）。这是一项联邦政策，获得了十分之六分。这还有一些工作要做。这个计划的弱点是什么？
Original English >> Let's talk about the Buy Canadian policy. This was a federal policy given six out of ten. Some work to be done there. What's the weakness of this plan?
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的，那里的弱点是，首先，“购加”政策的执行前提是，你是一家加拿大公司。只要你有加拿大地址就行。
Original English >> Yeah, the weakness there is, first of all, the Buy Canadian policy delivers. It assumes you're a Canadian company. As long as you have a Canadian address.
**主持人**: 只需要一个地址？
Original English >> That's all you need. An address?
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的。而许多外国子公司虽然有加拿大地址，但实际上它们是由一家美国公司拥有和控制的。所以我们立刻就看到，有一种想法认为，哦，是的，我们正在为加拿大公司提供所有这些价值，但实际上它们是美国公司。所以这是主要的弱点之一。
Original English >> Yeah. And there are so many foreign subsidiaries that have a Canadian address, but actually are owned and controlled by an American company. And so right away we see, you know, there's this idea that, oh, yeah, we're delivering all of this value to Canadian companies, but in fact, they are American companies. So that's one of the big weaknesses.
**主持人**: 好的。加拿大盾牌研究所评估了哪些主权政策，你认为哪些是“红旗”或需要改进的？
Original English Okay. What sovereignty policies has the Canadian Shield assessed that you look at, you know, whether it's red flags or needs improvement, that, you are kind of focusing on.
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的。嗯，如果我们想到我们知道即将出台的“人工智能战略”（AI strategy），我们将在评估该战略，以作为其是否为主权政策的指标。这意味着我们需要看到政府，能够维持治理的能力。这是他们应该做的，关于人工智能产业。所以，这不仅仅是关于是否在加拿大本土建造了数据中心或计算机中心。谁拥有它，谁制定规则，加拿大政府是否能够以民主的方式制定这些规则，以及运营这些中心的公司的合规性，这些都很重要。
Original English >> Yeah. Well, if we think about, you know, the AI strategy that we know is coming soon will be we'll be looking at the AI strategy, for indicators of whether or not this will be a sovereign policy. And it means that we need to see government, maintain the ability to actually govern. That's what they're supposed to do, the AI industry. So it's not just about whether or not a, you know, data center or computer center is built on Canadian soil, soil. It matters who owns it and who sets the rules and whether or not, the Canadian government can actually set those rules in a democratic way. And the companies that are operating those centers have to abide by them.
### 政策展望与改进方向 **主持人**: 好的。在 2026 年安大略省预算中，该省宣布了一项名为“保护安省账户投资计划”（Protect Ontario Account Investment Fund）的倡议。福特政府表示将向该计划投资 40 亿加元。这个计划应该如何运作才能发挥最大效益？当我们谈论资本投资，也从主权评分的角度来看，如何做得更好？
Original English >> All right. In the budget, the 2026 Ontario budget, the province announced an initiative called the Protect Ontario Account Investment Fund. The Ford government says it will invest $4 billion into it. How should this plan work so that it can have its maximum effect? When we talk about a, you know, capital investment, but also from a sovereignty score, do well.
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 是的。所以，当我们听到这个基金时，我们立刻想到，哦，这对我们的主权评分来说会很好。然后我们更深入地阅读了预算，发现目前还没有具体细节。所以我们不知道它将如何运作。我们确实知道，“保护安省账户”下已经有两个部分，它们将安省或加拿大公司定义为拥有 250 名或更多员工，并且在加拿大或安省设有总部或主要办事处的公司。这意味着，只要你有这家外国子公司，在加拿大设有主要办事处，它们就有资格获得该基金的资金。我们认为这还不够好。我们应该将所有这些资金——这是数十亿加元——集中用于发展加拿大公司，然后这些公司可以在加拿大扩展业务，创造就业，提高技能，利用加拿大人自身的技能潜力，减少对外国公司的依赖，实现供应链多元化，专注于加拿大的供应链。这将极大地提高它们可能获得的分数，但由于我们还没有任何细节，所以我们无法进行评分。
Original English >> Yeah. So when we heard about this, this fund, we thought right away like, oh, this would be great for our sovereignty score. And then we read the budget more deeply and found that there aren't details yet. So we don't know how it's going to operate. We do know that the Protect Ontario account, there's sort of two pieces under that already, and they define an Ontario or Canadian company as a company that has 250 employees or more and has a head office or main office in Canada or in Ontario. And that means that as long as you have that foreign subsidiary with a main office in Canada, they can they can qualify to get money under this fund. We are saying that that isn't good enough. We should actually be focusing all of that money. It's billions of dollars focusing that money on growing Canadian companies that then can expand their reach in Canada, create jobs, higher skills, utilize the skills capacity of Canadians, reduce reliance on foreign firms, diversify the supply chain, focus on the supply chain in Canada, that would do a lot to actually increase the score that they could get, but we couldn't score it because we don't have any details yet.
**主持人**: 说得有理。好的。那么，我们只能等到获得更多细节，并期待你的评分。Kayla。我们得在这里结束了。但非常感谢你的时间。真的很感激。
Original English >> Fair enough. All right. Well, we'll have to wait until we get more details and we'll look forward to your score. Kayla. We're going to have to leave it there. But thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
**Kaylee Thiessen**: 谢谢你。很高兴。
Original English >> Thank you. It's been great.