Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
Date: 2023_04_27
Chamber: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Garnett Genuis: tonight I would like to speak about the idea of freedom in Canadian politics because I think, underneath the debate we are having about this budget, there is a deeper debate about the nature of freedom. What is freedom? Freedom, in the modern context, in common usage, has the sense of describing a reality in which the individual has a broader range of decision-making space. An individual who is free can make more decisions about his or her life, and an individual who is less free has more decisions made for them by others. That is freedom at a general level. Freedom is the general ability to make unencumbered individual decisions, at least as freedom is commonly colloquially discussed today. I think it is important to notice that, within that general concept of freedom, there is significant divergence among political actors about what kinds of decisions are most important for individuals to be free to make. Every political party has a concept of freedom that comes from identifying different areas of life in which that range of choice making that is available is more or less important. Obviously, not all decisions are equally important. Certain kinds of decisions are more important than others. To speak of whether a person has the freedom to, say, run a red light, is obviously a trivialization of the concept of freedom because a person who is prevented from running a red light is still substantially free insofar as he or she can still make for themselves all of the decisions that truly matter. Here is another example. Whether justified or not, a restriction on the ability to purchase alcohol is a lesser infringement on freedom than a restriction on the ability to purchase books because, objectively, the decision to read whatever one wants is more important than the decision to drink whatever one wants. Therefore, the building of a robust concept of freedom requires a certain prioritization of goods and a sense of what kinds of choices are more important for an individual to be able to make. Every society, for practical reasons, limits the kinds of choices that people can make in certain respects, so a society must decide what choices are more fundamental and what choices can be more reasonably restricted in order to realize other goods. Another example of this is helmet regulation. I support the limitation on freedom associated with requiring people to wear helmets when riding motorcycles because the choice to not wear a helmet is relatively trivial, and there are other more important considerations. However, I also support religious exemptions to helmet requirements because the freedom to practice one's faith is very important and therefore, in the case of a helmet requirement, it is much more than a trivial limitation to individual freedom. Therefore, in that case, uniquely, it is not justified. Those who believe in the value of freedom generally believe that limitations on freedom can be justified to the extent that the limitations are trivial and also to the extent that a limitation on freedom produces some other harm. Within that general framing, let us look at the two rival concepts of freedom advanced by Canada's two major parties. The Liberals came to office with a bit of a freedom agenda. They legalized marijuana and have since decriminalized fentanyl and other hard drugs in B.C. They legalized and have since expanded the space for euthanasia, and they continue to promise a certain kind of expanded individual freedom associated with increasing public spending and subsidy. The idea, from their side, being that people who are given more money by the state have the freedom to do things that they would not otherwise be able to do. These are the areas in which Liberals have emphasized freedom as being most important. On the other hand, Liberals have actively attacked freedom of conscience through efforts to impose ideological values tests for eligibility for certain government programs. They have limited people's freedom to work in cases where those people do not want to make certain medical choices. They have also imposed effective limits on freedom to work for those who work in certain sectors by imposing onerous regulatory constraints on those sectors and effectively trying to transition those sectors out of business. They have limited people's effective economic freedom by presiding over higher taxes, higher homes prices and higher levels of regulation. Most recently, they have limited Canadians' freedom through the passage of an online censorship bill. With this government, one is freer to take drugs, choose death and collect money from the government, but less free to follow one's conscience; work; make medical choices; keep one's own money; buy a home, given the state of housing prices; start a business or hear contrary ideas online. That is one approach to the issue of freedom. Conservatives have, generally, a different set of priorities when it comes to what freedom should look like. Again, this is not just because Conservatives think that freedom is important. It is because Conservatives believe in a hierarchy of goods and an essential character to the human person that leads us to prioritize particular kinds of choices as part of our doctrine of freedom. Most fundamentally, Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion. These are the most important freedoms. We believe this because we believe that individual human beings are most fundamentally truth and meaning seeking creatures. Freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion are the means through which we find truth and meaning. Therefore, intervention in our lives by the state that limits these freedoms is particularly harmful and dangerous. Close behind these concepts in terms of importance is the freedom to work, to build and to voluntarily share the fruits of one's labour with others. Protecting the freedom to work, build and share is fundamental to economic prosperity, but actually, the freedom to work, build and share is about much more than just the pursuit of material abundance. Economic freedom is not just about creating a more prosperous society. It does create a more prosperous society, but there is more to it than that. This freedom, too, is about the freedom of an individual to seek meaning. In order to be able to pursue meaning, individuals must be free to build things that are beautiful and then to look at those things with happiness, happiness in both what has been accomplished and happiness arising from the new thing that now exists. The freedom to build and work is intimately tied with the pursuit of meaning and happiness. Protecting people's freedom to build businesses, build into their jobs, build things with their hands as part of their jobs and build up strong families and communities is fundamental for human happiness. Happiness measurement literature actually shows that people who are employed are generally happier, not because of the money they get from working but because of the satisfaction and meaning they get from working. Incidentally, the loss of satisfaction is why I am so strongly opposed to government policies that pay people more for not working than they pay people for working. Poorly constructed benefit programs have robbed so many Canadians of the opportunity to feel the satisfaction and meaning that comes from work while still being able to provide for their families. It is terrible that people have been forced to choose between having enough money to provide for their families and working by government programs that effectively pay them more to not work than they are able to receive through working. As someone recently asked me, what is the essence of being Conservative? I thought about it and I came back with this: The essence of being a Conservative is to believe in building beautiful things that last. Liberals have a hard time with the "building things that last" part, often relying on the insecure foundation of deficit spending, but, more fundamentally, Conservatives understand that unleashing a free economy in which people can build things that they want is not just about prosperity. It is also about the happiness that accrues to individuals for being able to invest of themselves in creating something new and beautiful. Conservatives are champions of the idea of freedom, but a particular kind of freedom. The concept of freedom that we are championing is human freedom, freedom rooted in an understanding of what is important in human life and of the kinds of pursuits that lead to meaning and happiness. Sadly, this budget does not advance our vision of human freedom. It doubles down on the belief that higher taxes, higher spending and a kind of behind-the-scenes prodding but still highly interventionist industrial policy is going to produce the kind of country that we want. I was particularly struck by chapter 3 in the budget. The ineffective so-called affordability measures at the beginning of the budget read to me like a kind of late-stage add-on for political reasons by the government. I think the heart of where the government wants to go with this budgetary policy is in that later chapter. It is its belief that they can push the economy toward its preferred vision of an economy of the future through massive public spending and through selective privileges for certain sectors while piling on additional barriers for other sectors that are not preferred. This is still the steel hand of the state picking winners and losers but trying to wear a velvet glove in the process. I think what our country truly needs is a budget rooted in this concept of human freedom that I have outlined, a budget that seeks to give people more space to create beautiful things that last. Canadians are sick of a government that is content to let people choose drugs and choose death, but does not want to let them choose to keep more of what they have worked for and built on their own. We need a government that gives people the space, the encouragement and the freedom to build beautiful things that last.