Fiscal Irresponsibilities

Canada's Finance Department has identified a number of Crown corporations that may be expendable to the national interests, whose operation, it is averred, would be more sensible and viable as privately-operated businesses. Canada may potentially divest itself of such Crown jewels as the Canadian Broadcasting corporation, Via Rail, the National Arts Centre, the Royal Canadian Mint, and Atomic Energy of Canada.

To Canadians, long accustomed to viewing these corporations as critical to the functioning of the country representing the best interests of the public, this represents quite the institutional upheaval.

It has long been held by those of a fiscal-conservative bent that private industry functions far more efficiently and effectively than public institutions. It has often been said that when governments intrude into the private sphere by making institutions answerable to the government by vesting public interests in them, failure is certain to ensue.

And in some instances this is precisely what has occurred, both provincially and federally. On the other hand, more social-minded politicians and the public feel that government should be invested in vital areas of public concern.

Privatization of Crown industries and institutions entering a competitive market may very well result in profitability. But does the public want the institutions that represent its government to be profitable, or do we rather take pride in their presence as representing the interests of Canadians? Publicly-operated entities give benefit to society, reflecting societal needs. There is a vital public mandate that they fulfill, which will be lost on privatization.

So is the government that has decided in its great good wisdom to divest itself of the responsibilities of Crown corporations taking a logical step in advancing the needs and priorities of the country on the one hand, and then inanely and confusingly contradicting itself by ushering itself into private manufacturing as a directing shareholder on the other hand?

How much sense does that make? To identify public institutions as costing the taxpayer funding through inefficiencies, then to turn around and rescue, with tax dollars, a failed private manufacturing enterprise?

Because the government of the United States under a new social-minded direction and administration decides it cannot permit one of its manufacturing institutions to collapse due to a long history of inefficiency and poor production, and invests immense Treasury resources into its rescue, must we?

Canada has other industries, more resonant with our traditions and history that are on the verge of total collapse, that have a greater claim to our tax assists. The lumber industry, impacting on jobs in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia come to mind. Nortel Industries, a mainstay and the pride of Canadian telecommunications, research and development is on the verge of imminent collapse.

Why not invest tax dollars in rescuing that valued company from extinction? Both of these worthwhile endeavours are languishing from government disinterest, and far more unemployment will ensue from their collapse than from that of the automotive industry. Why the discrimination that favours one over the others?

Particularly given that there are still thriving and successful automotive manufacturers with steady sales in Canada. So why commit the Canadian taxpayer to bailing out Chrysler and General Motors? This represents anything but a fair, just and intelligent discharging of Canadian tax dollars.

The Government of Canada does not need to be a shareholder in these failed corporations. The end result will be that Canadians, who have unwillingly invested to the value of $550 for each and every one of us in these businesses collapses will be left holding an empty bag.

The irony is that the action of the Obama administration has orchestrated this madness. Canada, Russia, Germany and Britain have all taken their lead from the United States. And doesn't that reflect another contretemps whose collapse still infuses our economies with a disabling misery; the U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle that caused a global financial collapse?

Aren't we yet ready to learn from past mistakes? Pity.