Hunter Prize Papers

Steve Allard’s study proposes the Samara Fund, a citizen investment model that would invest $60,000 at birth for every Canadian into a publicly managed Canadian index fund. Funded by reallocating existing federal spending, it aims to pre-fund future social costs, build long-term reserves, and strengthen confidence, productivity, and fiscal sustainability.

Mitchell Davidson’s study proposes three-year undergraduate degrees to move students into the workforce faster and raise GDP per capita. Provinces would update accreditation rules, tie university funding to accelerated options, reduce electives rather than core courses, and offer $4,500 annual completion bonuses, lowering student debt and saving governments money.

Joel Blit, Danielle Goldfarb, Paul Samson, and Stephen Tapp argue Canada should treat AI adoption as a national productivity strategy. Rather than competing in chips or foundation models, Canada should focus on AI applications, literacy, business adoption, entrepreneurship, smart regulation, data access, and measurable targets across the economy.

Shane Joy proposes a Canadian Productivity Commission to address Canada’s long-term productivity decline. Modelled partly on international examples, the commission would monitor productivity trends, evaluate reforms, coordinate across governments, and sustain public attention. The goal is to create durable institutional capacity for evidence-based productivity policy beyond short-term political cycles.

Amanda Shatzko’s study proposes Digital & Innovation Bonds to help municipalities, Indigenous governments, utilities, and regional districts finance productivity-enhancing infrastructure. Federally enabled and outcome-linked, DIBs would mobilize private capital for broadband, smart grids, retrofits, transit, digital services, and innovation hubs, while tying investor returns to verified economic and service improvements.

J.K. Xu proposes “Moonshot Zones,” designated national-interest economic regions that would fast-track major industrial and infrastructure projects while embedding AI across traditional sectors. The framework uses existing federal powers to streamline approvals, reduce duplication, coordinate investment, and strengthen Canada’s export competitiveness, economic sovereignty, and AI-driven industrial capacity.

Matthew Chiasson’s study proposes a 10-year national competition agenda to boost Canadian productivity by reducing regulatory barriers. It calls for coordinated federal-provincial-territorial reviews of competition rules, reform-linked federal transfers, and an accountability unit. The goal is stronger business dynamism, lower costs, and fiscally disciplined long-term growth across Canada’s economy overall.

Vass Bednar and Denise Hearn’s study calls for a whole-of-government competition strategy to address weak productivity, affordability pressures, market concentration, and digital barriers. It proposes a PMO competition office, ministry-level competition impact assessments, stronger sector forums, merger coordination, Bureau capacity, and annual reporting to embed competition across Canadian policymaking.

Alex MacDonald and Joe McKinnon’s study proposes replacing inefficient business subsidies with strategic tax benchmarking and conditional federal tax point transfers. Provinces would compare their corporate tax regimes against peer U.S. states, identify competitiveness gaps, lower distortionary taxes, and use redirected subsidy savings to attract investment and strengthen productivity growth.

Charles Lammam argues Canada’s productivity and investment crisis requires sweeping tax reform: lower, flatter personal and corporate taxes, immediate expensing, higher consumption taxes, and fewer tax expenditures. Inspired by Estonia, the proposal aims to improve competitiveness, reward work and investment, and create a stronger foundation for Canadian prosperity.