William Watson: Who will be minister for summer camp?

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeFP CommentWilliam Watson: Who will be minister for summer camp? Recent news stories suggest declining attendance at sleep-away camp calls for a policy response. Wrong! It's just markets working normallyLast updated 37 minutes ago Camps apparently generate “up to” $3 billion in revenues, which is another bad reason to consider supporting them. Photo by Getty imagesMy favourite part of Canada’s Constitution is where the far-sighted Fathers of Confederation gave every child of the new country they had created the right to attend the summer camp of their choice.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountOh, I’m sorry! It seems there is no such right in the Constitution. Summer camp isn’t mentioned at all, in fact, not even to allocate jurisdiction for it to the federal or provincial governments.That’s not the impression you’d get, however, from recent stories on CBC’s The National and even in the New York Times‘ weekly Canada Letter, where declining attendance at summer camp is treated as a national problem of major importance — maybe not important enough to be addressed by the federal Major Projects Office, but one that no less than the minister of finance should look into.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againIt seems Canadian kids aren’t going to summer camp in the same numbers they used to. The cited reasons are several: rising staff wages, insurance premiums and food costs, as well as increasing competition from attractive alternative activities, including travel.This is a problem for the economy, the New York Times implied, because camps employ 42,000 mainly young people and you know that if those 42,000 jobs disappeared the people currently holding them would never, ever find employment again.“Job creation” is the worst reason for supporting an activity. If the demand for camps completely collapses, which it won’t, the demand for camp employment will collapse, too. But if consumers switch away from one kind of spending to another, the total number of jobs in the economy doesn’t fall, though people in the declining industry will have trouble — and ought to have trouble — staying employed there. We give them employment insurance if they’ve been at it long enough. Do they really have a basic human right to keep the job even if consumers no longer want what they’re selling? What happens to the economy if over time more and more people are “employed” in such sinecures?Camps also apparently generate “up to” $3 billion in revenues, which is another bad reason to consider supporting them. First because with the country’s GDP running at $2.4 trillion, three billion constitutes just a tad over one tenth of one per cent. I’d happily take a $3-billion gratuity but, in terms of bumping up GDP, camp doesn’t really register.And second because “good for GDP” is almost as lousy an argument for supporting an activity as “creates jobs.” We’re all slaves to GDP in today’s world. If an economist so much as mutters under his breath that activity X creates a non-negative amount of GDP, that’s grounds for the country’s ministers of finance to start revving up the subsidies. And of course a professor or two can be trotted out to at least imply that summer camp generates important “externalities.” The New York Times reporter was very impressed by the emphasis in Canadian camps on developing “grit” in kids. Yes, how can we hope to take on Putin if we haven’t gritted up our kids with paddle-boarding and grilling s’mores?If an activity’s costs rise and people decide as a result to engage in it less, that’s not cause for a policy response. It’s actually a pretty normal characteristic of a market economy. In fact, it’s one of the great virtues of a market system. People’s preferences change. What they’re willing to spend on a given activity changes. If you get into a business and over time the business begins to go downhill, you do not have a constitutional right — not even a U.N. human rights committee right — to have the business and the income that goes with it preserved.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Both the CBC and the New York Times’ stories concluded by saying government may have to get involved to support summer camps. No. No. No.If stupid government rules are what’s causing camps’ insurance costs to rise, well, that might be worth looking into. But the dumbest thing of all would be for governments to provide a subsidy designed to counter-balance the effect of the dumb liability rules they’ve imposed.I didn’t go to summer camp. My family thought it was too expensive and instead focused our attention on the local community swimming pool. I don’t feel any less Canadian for not having gone, however. Whether I’m sufficiently endowed with “grit” only my friends can say.We sent our kids to the summer camp their uncles had gone to and loved. They thought it was OK but after a couple of years let us know they’d rather be doing other things with their time off from school.Individual Canadian families weigh the costs and benefits of an activity and decide for themselves whether to engage in it or not. Yes, it’s a radical, il-Liberal concept. But decentralized decision-making on most matters is the best way to run a society.My favourite line from the New York Times’ piece is that children “with incarcerated parents” may have trouble acquiring the camp experience. Well, I guess so. But 80 per cent of Canadian camps are “non-profit, charity-led, religiously affiliated or otherwise subsidized.” My bet is some camps are already on the case.But should we subsidize a universal right to camp because kids whose parents are in jail may not have a chance to go?Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.