VUONG: Canadians need to stop being penny wise and pound foolish

Not every large expenditure is waste, and not every act of restraint is prudence

Published May 02, 2026  •  Last updated 7 minutes ago  •  3 minute read

Bombardier Challenger 650. (Photo courtesy Bombardier) Photo by PHOTO COURTOISIE /PHOTO COURTOISIE/BOMBARDIER

As Canadians, we have a peculiar fiscal habit.

We pride ourselves on thrift in the small things while tolerating – or even enabling – extravagance in the large. It’s the national equivalent of clipping coupons while ignoring a leaking roof.

Article content

Article content

The old adage fits uncomfortably well: we are penny wise and pound foolish.

Look at the recent controversy surrounding Premier Ford and his government’s brief purchase of a $28.9-million Bombardier Challenger jet.

The backlash was immediate and fierce, forcing a rapid reversal. Critics framed it as an indulgence, tone-deaf in a time of economic strain.

Article content

Reaction misses a deeper point

But that reaction misses a deeper point. A dedicated government aircraft, when used properly, can be justified. In a province as large and economically critical as Ontario, the premier’s time is not trivial. Secure, flexible travel enables faster decision-making, more direct engagement with Ontarians and business leaders, and responsiveness in crises.

Think of the time we spend waiting at the airport, arriving a recommended 90 minutes to two hours before a domestic flight – there and back, that’s three to four hours that could be spent more productively.

As Ontarians, don’t we want our premier working as much as possible? I know I do. Corporate executives routinely rely on private aviation for precisely these reasons.

That’s not to say the process and communication surrounding the acquisition was without fault, but its execution plays into a broader Canadian instinct: we recoil at visible, discrete expenditures while ignoring systemic inefficiencies that cost far more over time.

Article content

Article content

Contrast that with the state of 24 Sussex, Canada’s official prime ministerial residence. It has sat vacant since 2015, deteriorating into what can only be described as a national embarrassment.

How is it that our nation’s leader does not have a home where can he host foreign heads of state? Are we a G7 nation or are we not? Reports of rodent infestations, outdated wiring, and structural decay have been public for years. Fixing it would cost tens of millions but successive governments have balked.

24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa has been the official residence of prime ministers since 1950, but it has fallen into disrepair. Photo by Errol McGihon/Postmedia/File

Deferred maintenance is not savings

Here is the paradox: Ontarians rejected a visible $28 million expenditure in days yet have tolerated the slow decay, and eventual ballooning repair costs, of a national asset for over a decade. Deferred maintenance is not savings; it is compounding liability. Every year of inaction makes the eventual bill larger.

And unfortunately, this pattern repeats across the country.

Federally, Canada Post reported losses exceeding $1.5 billion in 2025, a structural problem that was deferred for nearly a decade as losses accumulated.

Article content

Municipal infrastructure tells a similar story. Just ask the TTC, where large portions of the Line 1 subway operated for decades on 1950s-era fixed-block signals well past their intended lifespan.

Torontonians paid the price with our time and money with frequent service disruptions, reduced capacity, and increasingly expensive emergency maintenance and patchwork fixes before the eventual shift to modern automatic train control that required a far more complex multi-billion dollar retrofit than required if earlier phased upgrades had been made.

Underinvestment in maintenance always leads to exponentially higher replacement costs down the line.

Read More

1. 

   Gains in spring economic update already cashed in, observers note

2. 

   LILLEY: Mark Carney Liberals relying on old ideas instead of seeking bold change

3. 

   GOLDSTEIN: Mark Carney and the magical, mystery decreasing deficit

Symptoms of a cultural and political bias

These are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a cultural and political bias.

Article content

Governments are rewarded for avoiding immediate, headline-grabbing expenditures – even when those expenditures are economically rational – and punished less for long-term inefficiencies that are diffuse, delayed and harder for voters to track.

The irony is stark. Canadians demand frugality, but we often get performative austerity instead of disciplined capital allocation. We obsess over whether politicians fly economy while ignoring whether billions are being spent – or wasted – on poorly structured projects, deferred maintenance and short-term political optics.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

If Canada wants to break this cycle, the conversation must mature. Not every large expenditure is waste, and not every act of restraint is prudence. The relevant question is not “How much does this cost?” but “What is the return, and what is the cost of doing nothing?”

A private jet can be justified. A crumbling official residence cannot. Yet our instincts – and our politics – tend to treat them the other way around.

Until that changes, Canada will remain stuck in its familiar pattern: saving pennies and losing (dollars) pounds.

– Kevin Vuong is the former Member of Parliament for Spadina-Fort York. The son of refugees, he continues his public service as a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and as a naval reserve officer.

Article content