CBC Economist Warms to a CHP Policy Idea
During a year-end television panel review of the Canadian economy and future prospects—you may have seen it on The National, CBC’s flagship nightly newscast—MotherCorp’s senior economic analyst, Amanda Lang, floated a proposal that must look very, very familiar to those who have been following CHP Canada for the past two decades. She suggested that the federal government should create an “infrastructure bank” to help provinces and cities renew their crumbling infrastructure.
The Feds can borrow money at only two percent, she said, and then the new “I-bank” could loan it to local public authorities for infrastructure projects. This would not only give Canada much-needed infrastructure renewal, she pointed out, it would also generate a lot of high-grade employment.
CHP Canada has been advocating a very similar concept for almost 20 years, but with one significant difference: the federal government does not have to borrow money from commercial banks. If it borrows the money from the Bank of Canada (BoC), the interest would flow back into the federal treasury, because the federal government owns the BoC.
But, as proposed by CHP Canada, the project can be further simplified, and also removed at arms length from political influence (or interference). CHP says Ottawa should instruct the Bank of Canada to make such loans directly, at no interest (or very low interest) to local infrastructure-building authorities. And it could be broadened far beyond just bridges, roads, highways, and port facilities. The loans could also be used to provide much-needed water and sewage treatment plants and recycling facilities, to upgrade existing schools to earthquake preparedness and build new schools, and to create research facilities to put Canadian industry in the forefront of ideas that will transform our future—and can make us safer and more prosperous.
CHP Canada has also noted that when the infrastructure loans are repaid by local authorities, the Bank of Canada should retire the newly-created money out of circulation, to prevent it from having an inflationary effect. The new infrastructure would be left behind—and so would the additional prosperity generated by the “multiplier effect” of increased construction activity.
It doesn’t really matter that Ms. Lang didn’t give credit for the idea to CHP; the so-called “mainstream media” have ignored CHP for a quarter of a century. CHP leadership has always been willing to have its ideas adopted by anyone who wants to implement them; but from the Canadian citizens’ point of view, no party in the House of Commons has had the courage to think “outside the box” in the past two decades—it might be a good idea to take a closer look at the party that first proposed this idea: Canada’s only pro-life, pro-family party.
Why not visit www.chp.ca, and see what else this innovative, positive, forward-looking party has to offer?
Other Commentary by Ron Gray:
- Don’t Mix Religion and Politics? Why Not?
- A Leaders’ Debate Commissioner?
- Will the Trudeau Liberals Give Themselves a DPA?
- Religious and Philosophical Dialogue is Vital
- A Sensible Solution to Supply Management
- We’re Being Colonized—With Ottawa’s Help—Part 3
- We’re Being Colonized—With Ottawa’s Help—Part 2
- We’re Being Colonized—With Ottawa’s Help—Part 1
- Trudeau’s Gift: Unequal Rights
- They’re No Different Than Us
- The CHP Responds to the Terrorist Attack in Orlando
- What’s Wrong With Bill C-16?