There's something pretty funny -- and very Canadian -- about the way that, judging by the emphases in the Globe and on the CBC yesterday, the Harper 'stimulus package' is all about that central pillar of our economy: home renovations. In other countries, infrastructure stimulus means les grands travaux, nation-building, fixing the railways and establishing epic monuments. Here, we're more about putting a new deck in. In fact, given the avidity with which Canadians collect Canadian Tire money, I suspect the Conservatives are on to a vote-winner here. (Come to think of it, why not just make Canadian Tire money legal tender?)
I don't really understand why construction should be privileged over other sectors as a focus of stimulus, unless there's stuff we particularly want constructed. The do-it-yourself kind is presumably anti-stimulus, since the labour is unpaid. And so far as I can tell, the average GTA renovation/construction firm (a) has had more demand than it could keep up with for the past five years, and could surely coast a while; (b) prefers not to collect GST; (c) has coped with high demand by hiring illegal immigrants, who presumably are sending remittances home and also not paying taxes; and (d) has (reasonably enough) 0 intention of ever hiring and training a laid-off auto worker (see (c)). I don't see how it can be a particularly high-value sector to stimulate once you've factored in all that real-life stuff, which I'm willing to bet they didn't. Instead, why not a stimulus package centred, say, on restaurants and farmers markets? Tax breaks for anyone who eats out twice a week, and/or gets the fancy mushrooms from that guy at the Riverdale market? That's all local spending, it's instant job creation and it's not one-time-only the way construction is. But you just know that Prentice and Harper think spending money at Home Depot is morally superior, and I fear they are true Canadians in that.
UPDATE: Inkless Wells has handily provided a photo of Stephen Harper demonstrating the correct use of a nail gun on Michael Ignatieff. (No no, just on some wall.) It's rather less scary than the photos of him smiling and holding cookies, sharing a laugh with a cute kid, and so on. But personally, I think the only apt photo would be one of Harper trying to lure first Quebeckers and now Ontarians into his gingerbread house.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Isn't Sandy McTire the last outrageously blatant but, weirdly, somehow, acceptable social stereotype? "Here, laddie, let me pinch that penny fer ya. Yer dunna doin it reit!!" I just dare you to substitute any other stereotype to his fine name.
And I'll be seein ye outside if ye do.
Cf. Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons: Scots are presumed to be fair game, though one wonders why exactly -- because they're successful enough to be secure? because they're just not the marching and demonstating and boycotting sort? Or because the stereotype isn't really all that bad?
I wonder about how they knew they could get away with Apu in the Simpsons too-- are Indians the new Scots?
Post a Comment