lenaitch
Senior Member
I'm often concerned by the 'investment' of government in Natural Resource extraction.
If its economically viable and profitable to extract the resource, then why is government support required?
But no roads or rail lines I hear someone shout..............AND? If the government expends 1B to allow a private company to extract 5B worth of 'stuff'; then collects a
5% royalty.....or 250M, the government, meaning all of us, is out 750M.
The notion that investment is good, no matter the amount of public investment required to make it happen (ignoring, for them moment, an environmental concerns), is bizarre to me.
I like 'stainless steel' as much as the next person, but if every faucet needs to cost an extra $20 to extract the minerals required, so be it; if that causes companies to consider alternative materials, that's ok too.
But I'd rather not subsidize the extraction, anymore than I wish to subsidize a new fast food franchise. By all means, let folks set up businesses to make a profit; but don't extract my money in order to lower your costs, so that you can make one.
****
I get the argument that people in the north need gainful employment and quality of life.
IF there is economic merit to the resource extraction business, then things can go on as they are; just w/o public subsidy.
Leave government to make sure the north has good hospitals and schools etc.
Alternatively, if the existing model is not sustainable, I'm all in favour of helping people who are financially challenged w/moving.
OR
Helping northern Ontario obtain success by adopting a more southern model, w/larger, more complex urban centres, and fewer small towns.
That might be a good use of public dollars.
But subsidizing resource extraction just does not work for me as a model.
It doesn't necessarily have to be subsidies; it can be favourable loans, infrastructure investment, etc. The goal is not to support any particular industry, it is to employ citizens, collect royalties, taxes from the employees and ancillary employment, etc. You know, support economic growth. Like it or not, we all subsidize fast food restaurants by funding things like roads, transit, emergency services and utilities unless I can be convinced that any one business pays its full way through its business and property tax. If Sidewalk Labs, UofT Scarborough or any condo development is economically viable, why do they need public money through infrastructure?
The concept of concentrating populations into larger centres is difficult because the basis of the economy isn't necessarily there. While it is easier to say, build a wood mill in a larger centre and haul the raw product in, it becomes much more difficult with mineral extraction, and either way, it adds to costs and impacts on the competitiveness of the industries involved. You actually don't see new resource towns springing up any more and haven't for several years because the government declared many years ago that it won't approve new permanent townsites. New mines in more distant areas will have camps with employees traveling in and out on shift cycles. And not all new discoveries are distant from existing communities. It all depends on the geology.
Yes, density dictates that public money spent in Toronto will have a better 'rate of return' than in Dryden, but if that is the sole measure, then no money contributed by taxpayers across Ontario would be seen anywhere else. Sort of like a black hole.
The stainless steel, kleenex, food and electricity we all use doesn't come from from Yonge and Eglinton. Better our hinterland than somebody else's and support our economy, and if anyone thinks that other countries don't support and/or subsidize their resource industries, I have some land in Moonbeam for sale.