News   May 03, 2024
 958     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 589     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 281     0 

Star Editorial: Bank backs McGuinty

A

afransen TO

Guest
Editorial: Bank backs McGuinty



When he was finance minister, Prime Minister Paul Martin was regarded as a miracle worker for the speed with which he transformed Canada's massive budgetary deficit into an endless string of surpluses.

On a regional basis, though, his handiwork is less impressive, and that's why Premier Dalton McGuinty is making a big fuss these days.

And no less than CIBC World Markets, an investment bank owned by CIBC, says McGuinty is on solid ground in raising that fuss.

A recent CIBC World Markets report entitled Killing the Golden Goose? says "the sheer magnitude (of the huge operating surplus Ottawa runs in Ontario) weighs on an already burdened economy, taxing the Ontario government's ability to invest in a strong, vibrant provincial, and hence national, economy."

The CIBC paper rejects Martin's argument that Ontario is just being asked to play the role it has always played — of rich province lending a helping hand to the less prosperous provinces. The debate McGuinty started, it says, "centres on the scale of this burden on Ontario."

To understand all this, you must realize Ottawa's overall budget surplus is really made up of 10 separate components. Because Ottawa spends varying amounts of money in each province and collects varying sums in taxes from each province, in actual fact it runs a separate surplus — or deficit — in each province.

For example, the $30 billion deficit Ottawa reported in 1995 can be broken down into two separate parts. There was a small $2 billion surplus that the federal government ran in Ontario, and a $32 billion deficit for all the other provinces combined.

The way Martin performed his magic was to hike the small federal surplus in Ontario by $21 billion, while shrinking the big deficit in the rest of the country by a considerably more modest $12 billion. Had it not been for the lopsided squeeze on Ontario, Ottawa would have shown a $10 billion deficit last year, instead of its eighth straight surplus.

Or had Ottawa simply increased its per capita spending in Ontario over the past decade at the same 12 per cent rate as in the rest of the country — instead of 3 per cent — federal spending in Ontario would have been $5.3 billion higher last year. And Queen's Park would not have had to run a $6 billion deficit to make up for the shortage of federal funds.

These numbers certainly support McGuinty's demand that Ottawa give Ontario $5 billion more. Yet Martin refuses to talk about the $5 billion the premier is asking for.

You'd think a PM who brags about turning Canada's budgetary deficits into surpluses would be ready to talk about, and rectify, the inordinate load he made one province carry.

And you would think Martin would be eager to address the needs of Canada's most populous province before he is forced to face the voters of that province at the polls.
 
You guys should read the report that I linked to in the article. It's only four pages and rather informative.

What I found interesting is that if over the past 8 years only put it's $3 billion "Contingency Fund" (budgeted debt repayment) towards debt repayment, Canada's debt:GDP would have fallen from its high of 68% to 42%, rather than it's current level of 39%. In other words, we could have reallocated that exess $40 billion without a significant change in debt level. $40 billion divided by 8 years = $5 billion also happens to be the amount Ontario wants back...

Oh and yes, Ontario is getting fleeced by the Liberals--and worse that I thought previously. This annoys me more than the Sponsorship scandal.
 
Thanks for that afransen. It does get under one's skin - particularly at this time of year: tax time.

Dear government: start investing or give it back!
 
I've emailed the above link to my MP. I suggest that everyone do the same.

I'm having a hard to time listening to Martin brush off McGuinty and tell him that this is not "an issue of substance." It may not be an issue of substance to Martin, but it is to Ontarians.

Maybe if Martin paid a little more attention while he was Finance minister he would have discovered that "issue of substance" which is now being examined in the Gomery inquiry.

Maybe Martin is politically retarded enough to think he lost his majority because of the Ontario health premium, and not because of the fast hands in the Quebec division of the liberal party, and the slack management of sponsorship money.
 
Interesting side note for all those that want more federal social spending.

The more that the social spending is increased at the federal level -- the larger the size of the gap between what Ontario/Toronto sends to Ottawa vs. what it gets back from Ottawa.

Most federal programs have a Federal/Provincial component, and thus to get the same "funding" for all regions. The government has to include the new social spending in the equalization payments. Without equalization, the increased spending will put more of a burden (tax rate) in poorer provinces. Equalization balances things out between provinces.

On the other hand, if social spending is left with the provincial governments (like it is suppose to be constitutionally speaking) -- then Ontario's programs would be funding by Ontario taxes -- as opposed to having some of it skimmed off.

I would prefer the surplus be used to lower taxes all around -- this additional room could be used by provincial provinces to raise taxes for it's priorities.

As far as the contingency portion of the the budget -- that is the smallest part of the surplus. That should stay put, if not spent by the end of the year -- any unspent money is legally required to be used against the debt.
 
"As far as the contingency portion of the the budget -- that is the smallest part of the surplus. That should stay put, if not spent by the end of the year -- any unspent money is legally required to be used against the debt."

Fine, fine. I'm willing to leave the contingency fund. It looks pretty to fiscal analysts and bond raters, etc. BUT! We shouldn't be dumping leftover funds on debt repayment. I vote all 'suprise' leftover funds be directed to an infrastructure "foundation". The legal requirement for surplus funds to be directed to debt repayment is a cop-out and something that would be easily circumvented. Simultaneous borrowing? Various accounting tricks the government has at its disposal, especially arms-length foundations. Foundations allow money to be "spent" in a given fiscal year, without needing to be spent immediately.
 
Budgets are never exact.

A buffer for changing financial situations is always prudent. We have re-built the financial reputation for Canada -- for 30 years we were constantly understating our deficit. But this reputation is new, I prefer to keep a surplus.

Actually, what I want -- is for the federal government to build up a surplus of around 25 - 30 billion annually (paying down debt), then once we have reached that level -- we can kill the GST.

Although it is not a "Zero sum game", the federal government (running in debt) competes with private industries when it comes to debt. Higher demand, lower supply (for private or public) results in higher interest rates -- a slightly slower economy -- and less taxation due to less income.

If more money is needed for new priorities -- there is plenty of fat in the current budgets (1 billion HRDC, 2 billion gun registry, etc. etc. etc.). i.e. more money does not mean that the existing programs will be better off.

I know many people may "support" the gun registry based on where they are in the political spectrum, but registering guns really does not help anything. Is someone likely to be arrested -- just for not registering -- no. It is more likely it is just an additional charge when arrested for some other crime (which canadian courts tend to use concurrent sentences -- which means no difference in punishment). Better to have different punishment/laws (harsher) for gun crimes (including carring an gun without a permit -- within city boundaries).

Too often -- each budgetary cycle they just add x% to a current budget to cover inflation -- not a constant re-evaluation to target lower priority spending -- and redistributing existing taxes to higher priority programs.
 
Actually, what I want -- is for the federal government to build up a surplus of around 25 - 30 billion annually (paying down debt), then once we have reached that level -- we can kill the GST.

I can't see how GST will ever be killed, just like we'll never see those kinds of surpluses.
 
cacruden, why do you think large-scale debt repayment is so important? Frankly, it isn't. So long as we aren't adding to our debt, and our economy continues to grow at a healthy rate, our real debt-load will fall quickly--and regardless of whether we make large-scale debt repayments.

I think it is MUCH more important that we address our infrastructure deficit, which is estimated to be well in excess of $100 billion. It is so important, it would be worth adding debt (borrowing--gasp/horror) in order to address this. It is much more important that we provide the basis for future economic growth than put a huge drag on the economy (your proposed 3% government surplus) just to repay debt.

Beyond that, economic theory doesn't really give a hard-and-fast ideal debt load. Less debt isn't necessarily always better.

The best way to 'repay' debt is to invest in the future productive capacity of the economy. Much higher bang for the buck, so to speak.
 
"cacruden, why do you think large-scale debt repayment is so important? Frankly, it isn't. So long as we aren't adding to our debt, and our economy continues to grow at a healthy rate, our real debt-load will fall quickly--and regardless of whether we make large-scale debt repayments."

I have seen no large-scale debt repayment. It has varied between a few billion and around 10 billion. A small percentage of the budget.

The total debt repaid is around 60 billion so far over 8 years (approx.). A couple of billion dollars that we have in the current budget is directly related to not paying interest on that money.

Canadian Interest rates no longer have a percent or two premium in comparison to American interest rates.... In fact a few times it has actually been less.

The current surplus provides a buffer for when the economy goes into recession (which will happen sooner or later).


"I think it is MUCH more important that we address our infrastructure deficit, which is estimated to be well in excess of $100 billion. It is so important, it would be worth adding debt (borrowing--gasp/horror) in order to address this. It is much more important that we provide the basis for future economic growth than put a huge drag on the economy (your proposed 3% government surplus) just to repay debt.

Beyond that, economic theory doesn't really give a hard-and-fast ideal debt load. Less debt isn't necessarily always better.

The best way to 'repay' debt is to invest in the future productive capacity of the economy. Much higher bang for the buck, so to speak."


Again, there is fat in the current spending -- the government should be focusing on focusing on reducing spending on low priorities -- take that money and redirect it.

BUT, most of the infrastructure that is decaying is in the provincial domain (transit, highways -- most, etc.). Take a portion of this and do a "tax transfer".

Have the feds sign an agreement that transfers a portion of the taxation (i.e. the feds lower their rate, the provinces raise their rate -- but the change is zero sum). The province can then determine what to do with this additional money. I am guessing Ontario would keep the money for projects, Alberta -- which is seeing an oil boom -- would likely cut taxes. It allows the province room to raise taxes -- without having to "take the hit" for raising taxes -- since it was called "a transfer".

Actually I would prefer the feds split the surplus. Keep the contingency, take half -- cut taxes by raising personal/dependant tax credit -- basically moving to a flat tax on income ABOVE the poverty line (basically tax reductions to those that could not afford to pay taxes in the first place), and take half and do a "tax transfer" to the provinces.
 
Skirting the issue... What I'm talking about is the $40 billion that was used for debt reduction that could have been used for infrastructure and other priorities over the past 8 years while maintaining the contingency fund and reducing federal debt by over $20 billion.

Perhaps a transfer of tax points would be appropriate, but it seems unlikely that Ottawa would do so, as it is currently it's main policy instrument.
 
"Gap game 'dangerous,' Ottawa says"


Revenue minister calls McGuinty's fiscal imbalance nothing more than a public relations campaign

CANADIAN PRESS
Apr. 28, 2005

www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...alogin=yes


Ontario is playing a "dangerous" game and adding fuel to separatist fires by claiming it is treated unfairly by the minority federal government, National Revenue Minister John McCallum said today.

McCallum didn't pull any punches in a breakfast speech to the Toronto Board of Trade, calling Premier Dalton McGuinty's claims of a $23-billion fiscal gap "analytically wrong" and nothing more than a public relations campaign.

"Let's not talk about the $23 billion gap because it's nationally dangerous, and it's incorrect and not meaningful as an indicator of fairness or unfairness," he said.

"It is a communications strategy that should be abandoned."

McGuinty has repeatedly called for the federal Liberals to address what he calls a $23-billion funding gap between what the provice pays the federal government in taxes each year and what it receives in programs and transfers.

McCallum warned the business audience that the traditional Canada-first attitude of Ontarians was being put to the test by McGuinty's "hard sell" of the gap issue at a risky time for the country.

"This is dangerous for Canada . . . at precisely the moment when the federal government, weakened by sponsorship, faces an opposition made up mainly of separatists and extreme provincialists."

Ontario has a "legitimate grievance" on immigration, McCallum conceded, adding that Prime Minister Paul Martin is prepared to give the province more money for that and other specific issues such as an East-West power grid.

"He (Martin) doesn't want to debate the $23 billion, which is totally misleading analytically and dangerous in terms of putting at risk Ontarians positive attitude to confederation."

McCallum also questioned McGuinty's demand of a $5 billion "down payment," saying the number was apparently pulled out of thin air.

Still, even some of his family agree that Ontario is being shortchanged, he admitted.

"My mother told me it was high time the federal government came to the aid of `poor, abused' Ontario," he said.

"Well, my mother's wrong. Ontario is neither poor nor abused."

McGuinty dismissed McCallum's claims that Ontario's demands for more money were helping separatists and hurting the minority Liberal government.

"I reject that description of our campaign for fairness entirely," McGuinty told reporters in Mississauga.

The premier said yesterday that Martin can afford to address the funding gap, given his recent $4.6-billion budget deal with the federal New Democrats to prop up his minority government.

The Liberal-NDP deal would see $4.6 billion more being spent on social housing, foreign aid, the environment and post-secondary education, in exchange for a promise of NDP support on all non-confidence motions before the federal budget receives royal assent.

"We've always felt that there was money, and we think that money should be made available to address the issue of the $23-billion gap," McGuinty said. "They're running surpluses and are projected to run surpluses indefinitely."
 
^

So in other words McCallum wants McGuinty to stop telling the truth because it’s hurting the Federal Liberals chance of re-election.
 
So....

How do "you people" (Ontarians that complain about not being treated fairly), which contribute 23 billion more in federal taxes than it gets back from the feds] like being accused of being anti-Canadian. YES you -- you liberal supporters of the Ontario government -- you are acting as traiters and offering the seperatists -- MORAL SUPPORT.

You are anti-Quebec (a "little" stretch), anti-Canadian.

You are encouraging an end to Canada (as you know it)

:evil
 
^what?

One can engage in all the faulty reasoning, but all things are not dilemmas.

One can support a provincial party that demands changes to equalization because it supports provincial interests - it is a provincial party, isn't it? First and foremost it looks out for the day to needs of the province. This stance is not anti-Canadian as the premier has pointed out that such alterations to equalization would help Ontario and its economy, which in turn would help Canada, as Ontario generates considerable revenue and wealth for the federation. So one would not be a traitor by asking for alterations to a program that would help both the province and the country at the same time. This is obvious stuff, though.

Since helping Ontario and its economic situation would in turn be of benefit to helping Canada over all, then it can't be of help to the separatists. How would it be anti-Quebec? Quebec is also looking for a re-ordering of the "fiscal imbalance" between the provinces and the federal government - bot the provincial Liberals and the PQ.

Such accusations come from people with political axes to grind, or an incapacity to think in three dimensions.
 

Back
Top