Speed Kills
I confess to a somewhat pronounced mood of discontent about this present fiscal stimulus package. It’s not growing in any noticeable way; it just “is” and it’s troubling.
As a firefighter for 30 years before entering politics, I witnessed far too many tragic car accidents and, as a captain, was forced to make some difficult decisions at accident scenes. Yet there was a growing sense of comfort that cars were getting safer; more people were surviving what would normally have been fatal collisions.
It wasn’t always that way. When cars originally became cheap enough for purchase, the amounts of fatalities were indeed staggering. People weren’t used to the kind of speed they could generate. Worse still, car companies, while lamenting the huge upswing in car deaths, said it was the price people had to pay for progress, for the kind of speed they wanted.
Ralph Nader changed all that in 1965, when he wrote that auto executives had “blocked” or “hidden” safety advancements that would have saved thousands of lives because they didn’t want to build in the expense. Consumers were shocked, outraged, and to their credit, the companies responded with newer models with seat belts, better steering and brakes, and finally airbags.
The stimulus package gives me the same kind of feeling. Canadians are increasingly desperate at the financial pressures. Interest groups, including cities, recognizing the opportunities for cash in the present stimulus package, are pressing for significant pieces of the pie.
But I have the sense, like the auto execs of a bygone era, that we as parliamentarians have no idea what to do with this kind of speed once we package it. In troubling fashion, we are burdening our children with a debt for reasons which we can’t really explain.
The NDP and Bloc vote against the budget because, well, that’s just what they do. The Conservatives put it in the window because they have to be seen to be doing something, even though it denies their own policies. And the Liberals? We are backing it because the alternative would bring about an election (which nobody wants) and a sense of insensitivity to the plight of the vulnerable (which the party clearly isn’t keen on because we are troubled by the collective pain).
And so we … press down on the accelerator because at least there’s the thrill of doing something.
But our food bank numbers in London continue to go up. Job losses continue to escalate. Investments are drying up. And in all this I can get help to build a porch!
In reality, what else can we do? Well, all of us as MPs could confirm that we’re in over our heads. We could acknowledge that we don’t really believe this is the kind of investment that will provide us a future of substance and stewardship. We haven’t had to manage this kind of money before. We could say that is a time for environmental reform, a time for light rail and high speed trains, the introduction of greener cars. We could take this kind of money and build long-term plans in research and development, university education, the kind of infrastructure investment that leads to the newer cities of tomorrow.
No, like the old auto executives, we’ll bury such initiatives because we won’t reflect long enough to invest in the kind of Canada that actually has a dynamic future. Pedal to the metal!
I suppose we have to pass the budget because the timelines give us little choice and Canadians are pressing for help. But for me, I get this kind of ache that we’re about to see the casualties pile up. Car companies have at least made the kind of responsible changes that give a future in spite of calamity. As MPs, we’re not there yet.