Editorial: Ontario needs action, not talk -FIBERALS!

[Are Be]

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
Dec. 18, 2003. 01:00 AM
Editorial: Ontario needs action, not talk


It's a standard political tactic for an incoming government, especially one that made billions of dollars in election promises on the campaign trail: Take the pressure off yourself by accentuating all the bad news you discovered stashed in secret filing cabinets by the previous government.

All that was missing from yesterday's economic outlook and fiscal review was a sorrowful chorus of violins as Finance Minister Greg Sorbara reaffirmed that Ontario's deficit stood at $5.6 billion, and that pressures from hospitals, hydro and pensions could add up to $2.2 billion more.

But he did not indulge in hyperbole when he said that $4.5 billion of the shortfall was structural, meaning it cannot be eliminated by growth alone and, without further action, would continue each and every year.

He points out this "chronic mismatch of revenues and expenditures" could be eliminated by reducing spending in real per capita terms over the next three years. That, of course, would not only rule out all Liberal promises made during the campaign, but would actually cause further deterioration in health care, education and other government programs.

But Sorbara neglected to mention that the only other way to overcome the chronic mismatch between revenues and spending is by increasing revenues. In plain English, that means raising taxes.

Instead, he said the government would conduct "an unprecedented consultation with the people of this province."

But what for? Ontarians don't need more talk. They know what Premier Dalton McGuinty promised — better health care, better schools, a cleaner, safer environment and stronger, healthier communities. He pledged to lead them to his promised land. Now is the time for him to lead, not to take another opinion poll. Ontarians elected this government to solve problems, to improve public services and programs — not to waste time.

Ontarians didn't agree with all Mike Harris did, but they liked that he followed through on promises. He didn't make excuses. And yet all Sorbara is proposing is to go about the province chatting with business, labour, teachers and everyone else who has a view on what should be done.

True, the Liberals have acted swiftly on several economic fronts. They have rolled back some promised corporate tax cuts, and eliminated tax breaks for some seniors and for parents of private school students. Also, they have imposed a public-service hiring freeze. And Sorbara is aiming for a full budget in the spring, where hopefully he will unveil several initiatives that do not include more major cuts to existing social programs.

While it is fair to give the Liberals until spring to table their first budget, it is also legitimate to point out that consultation is not leadership.

Often, it can be an abrogation of responsibility that, for the Liberals, could leave them both unable and unwilling to meet their promises to improve health care, to restore Ontario's once great education system, to help fraying cities get back on their feet.

We elect leaders to make decisions. And in this case, the decision couldn't be clearer — or more difficult. The choice is between letting our public services whither, and raising the money to improve them.

Yet Sorbara has invented a third choice: "Changing the way we do business and deliver programs." Just imagine the election outcome if McGuinty and the Liberals had campaigned on that uninspiring theme.


› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

 

[afransen TO]

I must say that I am getting annoyed with the excuses... I'd rather they raised taxes slightly, or run a slight budget deficit than completely abandon all the promises they've made.

Can't give up 2 cents per litre of gas revenue? Fine. Raise gas tax by 2 cent/ litre. I mean, gas is pretty cheap right now, and most people wouldn't even notice the difference.

 

[ganjavih]

I agree afransen... but I think the Fiberal strategy will to be to have a painful next 2 years and start spending again in the final 2 years of the mandate. Makes better sense for election time. What I want to know is how the hell did we end up with a goddam $5.6 billion deficit. What were those idiot 'fiscally conservative' Tories doing?!?

 

[spmarshall]

Wow. The opposition Tories are making the Fiberal label stick. I've gotta admit, its sounding pretty good.

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

I am beginning to wonder if the Tories actively sabotaged the governance process before the election - afterall, there is no better way to ensure pliancy of the incoming government by digging it a hole.

Either way - the blame goes to the PC - they got us into this mess in the first place.

GB

 

[asher11]

The Liberals knew about the big deficit before the election(they kept yammering on and on about it) and still they said they'd be able to make everything alright. They even made all their election promises knowing that. So, what's so different now?

They better get on with it - and NO tax increases.

What good does it do to blame the previous government - it sure isn't going to help them solve any problems.

This must have been the shortest honeymoon ever.

 

[sk8rboiiii]

Can't give up 2 cents per litre of gas revenue? Fine. Raise gas tax by 2 cent/ litre. I mean, gas is pretty cheap right now, and most people wouldn't even notice the difference.

But the media would make a feeding frenzy of the Liberals. The Liberals made a classic political move, make a bunch of promises in their campaign to get elected, and then when they get into office say that they didnt know it would be that bad and make further cuts. The same thing happened and is happening in California with Arnold Schwarzenegger. We can only hope that Martin brings in some cash to maybe soften the blow, otherwise were looking at 2 or 3 years of further layoffs, cuts and maybe even tax raises.

 

[Are Be]

December 22
You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch

He rode into office on a sleighload of promises worthy of Santa Claus, but Premier Dalton McGuinty now looks more like the Grinch.

McGuinty's Fiberals left the Legislature for their Christmas break last week, warning of looming public service cuts in the new year - gloomy news, no doubt, for all those public sector workers who campaigned so hard for them.

To us, the only surprise in all this is the extent to which the Grits are feigning surprise over their fiscal situation. They knew they were facing a deficit of at least $2 billion, yet they promised all sorts of goodies while vowing not to raise taxes. Obviously something would have to give; as many of their vaunted promises already have.

As for the few promises they've kept so far, we fully expected the tax rebate rollbacks, including cancellation of the private school tuition tax credit. But even we were taken aback by the mean way the Grits did it.

They made it retroactive, not just to the start of the ongoing school year, but right back to January, 2003. For heaven's sake, they weren't even elected until October. Surely it's unfair - some might even say vindictive - to deny a credit to parents who expected it in good faith at the time they paid their tuition.

It's bad enough to deny parents their right to have at least some of their tax dollars directed to the school of their choice; it's just plain nasty to punish them for not being able to forsee the future election of Liberals, which a retroactive rollback essentially does.

Plus, as Queen's Park columnist Christina Blizzard noted last week, many if not most families with children in private schools are NOT wealthy. Many simply want a religious alternative to the publicly funded Catholic schools; some turn to private schools to help children with special needs, such as the Kohai school for kids with autism or Down syndrome.

Those families are now scrambling to compensate for a 2003 tax credit that, thanks to Dalton McGrinchy, isn't coming.

The Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools, which launched a court challenge against the rollback, estimates it will cost parents $25 million in lost tax breaks. That's money the $15-billion public education system badly needs, the Grits say (though it would cost a whole lot more if all those kids returned to the public system).

All we know is, squeezing it out of struggling religious parents and parents of Down syndrome kids just seems mean. Have a heart, Dalton.
.....


CANOE home | We welcome your feedback.
Copyright © 2003, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc.All rights reserved.

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

I wonder why whoever wrote the letter/article chose to lump religious schooling with those with special needs?

And spare me - if one thinks that religious schooling is so important as to dish out the dollars for it, then one should not expect the rest of the society to subsidize the process. Just as we shouldn't do that for people who chose to stay in a hospital single room, etc. It's your choice, live with it. And if you can't afford it, you can always enrol in public school - and teach your own children religious issues at home, or at the place of worship.

I for one have absolutely no sympathy for those whiners.

GB

 

[spmarshall]

I also have little sympathy for those who complain about the dismantlement of the school tax credits. This was a policy that took most Tories by surprise, which is why Eves did a flip-flop on the issue. The Globe and Mail and the Post also had pro-credit columns, accusing the Liberals of being discriminatory to certain religious groups and other minorities.

As for bringing up the special need students, the PCs cut millions of dollars for those with these needs, thanks to the one-size-fits-all funding formula.

Now, I feel tempted to re-open the can of worms that is the Catholic school system (even though I am a Catholic myself). We could easily go to fully secular school system, like Quebec and Newfoundland, even with the current constitution (which protected Protestant schools in Quebec).

 

[Are Be]

It's the reto - activity that is questionable.

They made it retroactive, not just to the start of the ongoing school year, but right back to January, 2003. For heaven's sake, they weren't even elected until October. Surely it's unfair - some might even say vindictive - to deny a credit to parents who expected it in good faith at the time they paid their tuition.

Quite frankly, why shouldn't Afro - Canadians be entitled to private school tax credits?

 

[mimicocreek]

...one should not expect the rest of the society to subsidize the process. Just as we shouldn't do that for people who chose to stay in a hospital single room, etc. It's your choice, live with it.


Agreed, GeekyBoy. Government shouldn't be paying for the choices of others. For example, I don't think my tax dollars should be funding abortion.

I for one have absolutely no sympathy for those whiners.

 

[spmarshall]

Abortion?!? That's getting into a very touchy topic.

I'll just counter that taxpayers subsidize those who choose to drive, even though not all of us choose to do so, or cannot afford to do so. Drivers are generally subsidized much heavier than those riding public transit, or those who ride a bike or walk (even less subsidy).

Its much more complicated, but this is a secular country, and that means the rights of all religions are guaranteed, but that the government favours no particular religious group or pays for religious activities (which would come to the paradox of the Catholic school system).

 

[Are Be]

But what about those who must dirve because they have children and are not uber wealthy, and thus cannot afford to live downtown? They have no choice.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Those who live downtown are not "uber wealthy" !

I have a middle class job, bought my semi in Cabbagetown back in 1998 for about $290K and live with a very tight budget. My children (when they are old enough) will walk to the local school, just like every else does.

Sheesh...not everyone who happens to live south of Bloor, West of the Don and East of Spadina (is that the border of Downtown?) is wealthy!