About how the Conservatives are going to address the fiscal imbalance read this. We are not talking about more robbing the rich (Ontario and Alberta) to feed the poor (Quebec et al - aside: can someone please explain to me how it is possible that Quebec is a have-not, does that not prove that generations of Quebec leaders are incompetent and that high tax regimes lead to failure?) we are talking about jurisdicational balancing. I will let Andrew Coyne explain.
...it is increasingly clear the Harper government is not talking about fiscal imbalance at all -- or not in the sense the provinces attach to it. It is talking about disentanglement: about reducing overlap between the two levels of government, restricting use of the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions -- though even here it is careful to talk about "new" programs (a concession the previous government had already made, via the Social Union agreement). But there will be no wholesale withdrawal of the federal government from national life, nor does it intend to simply cut a bunch of fat cheques to the provinces.
The Conservatives have made it clear that surpluses should not be used to spend on areas of Provincial jurisdiction (day care being the prime example) but should be used to reduce federal taxes. The document outlines how the Provinces have the fiscal capacity (through increased taxation) to introduce such programs on their own. By having the Provinces create and manage such programs you have (and I quote):
- Accountability through clarity of roles and responsibilities
- Fiscal responsibility and budgetary transparency
- Predictable, long-term fiscal arrangements
- A competitive and efficient economic union
- Effective collaborative management of the union
Putting aside my long-term opposition to publicly financed day care let me offer a little advice. If you want a state controlled system you are lobbying the wrong place. Start lobbying the Provinces. The reason that day care centres did not pop up over night after the Martin/Dryden "deals" is that it was not firm money - it was simply a 5 year series of one-year financing agreements. Either party could break the deal given a years notice and after five-years their was no funding. With Provincial budgets being over-run with rising health-care it would be fiscally irresponsible to create a long-term program without long-term financial support.
The new path (or more correctly, the 1867 path) is to have the Province finance such programs through cuts from another program or increased taxation. That way the five issues above (what is it with five?) are addressed.
Back to "balance". It does not look like this is more have money going to have-nots. So Ontario and Alberta should breathe a little easier. How the Conservatives will sell this to Quebec is another story. First off, not matter what the Conservatives do the PQ will not be happy - this is a given. So who really cares when they whine. The key is going over their heads directly to the people of Quebec. Right now Premier Charest is hitching his wagons to PM Harper and is hoping to ride his rising tide into re-election. Interesting strategy but it is really all that he has at this point - which means that Premier Charest will put the hard-sell on whatever agreement is reached. Even if Quebec does not get more money they get more autonomy (as does every other province so no special deals, neat trick eh?) so there will be some substance to sell. And as long as this thing is not botched completely (and I for one have been impressed enough with PM Harper to not be worried about that) the increased popularity of the federalist option in Quebec pretty much ensures that if Andre Boisclair wins the next Quebec election (he is not exactly doing well himself) there will be no referendum.
So to repeat Andrew Coyne's conclusion, it will be an interesting year.
Comments (9)
Nice theory and I wish it was right, but I suspect it is not. Harper already increased the equalization in the last budget and Quebec, from what I have read, is already counting the extra cash coming its way from Ottawa in the next.
Posted by Greg | May 6, 2006 9:45 AM
Posted on May 6, 2006 09:45
You’re deluded Staples. Harper has already screwed Ontario out of a half billion dollars and given it Quebec as a big fat bribe. Why should Ontario pay for Harper’s political ambitions?
Posted by Robert McClelland | May 6, 2006 4:57 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 16:57
Robert, nobody calls me “Staples” and I am not about to let you start.
Posted by Greg Staples | May 6, 2006 5:09 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 17:09
There are 3 guys after my wallet – Harper, McGuinty and David Miller. McGuinty foolishly just gave Big Dipper Miller new taxing powers. Miller now wants to add more tax on house sales. We Canadians have no idea who’s accountable for what they take out of our wallets.
If Harper can untangle this mess he’ll improve Canada’s fiscal advantage enormously. Because as the Day Care example that you use in your excellent post describes –Day Care is a Provincial matter –witness the fact that Quebec not Ottawa started this nonsense. Let the Provinces set their own solutions up on all programs and compete openly with Canadians for the most efficient system. I’ll move and live where the winners are.
Posted by nomdenet | May 6, 2006 5:49 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 17:49
The real irony in all of this is that Miller and McGuinty had all their promises hinged on Liberal promises from Paul Martin.
McGuinty actually believes Harper will go out of his way to bail him out, and Miller(remember,the guy that used $35 million of our money to not build a $25million dollar bridge)believes McGuinty will pass on any money to Toronto to bail him out from the tax increases and appeasing Unions with about 80% of the Toronto budget gong to Salaries and benefits.
If it wasn’t our money it would be a real laugh, but no matter what happens we’re stuck with the bill for any failures by these Nabobs .
Posted by ala-sux | May 6, 2006 6:15 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 18:15
nobody calls me “Staples”
There’s one too many Gregs in here so it’s either Staples, Gregory or rubeGreg.
80% of the Toronto budget gong to Salaries
So what would you rather it go to; icecream? Governments provide services and services are carried out by people who don’t work for free. So why would you think Toronto’s budget wouldn’t mostly go to salaries.
Posted by Robert McClelland | May 6, 2006 7:50 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 19:50
Political Greg will suffice if you need to be clear. Please don’t call me anything with rube in it. It will not go over well.
Posted by Greg Staples | May 6, 2006 7:58 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 19:58
I call him “My evil twin”.
Posted by Greg | May 6, 2006 11:16 PM
Posted on May 6, 2006 23:16
The arguments of Andrew Coyne and Robert McClelland are all of a kind: empty rhetoric. You know their types - one is a golden-tongued con man, the other is a schoolyard bully.
They have only two fundamental premises - that government is your Daddy, and that money grows on trees. There is no empirical evidence that this is true, because nowhere on earth is there a jurisdiction of any kind which offers its citizens cradle to grave social care, which is not running massive fiscal debts, or generational debts, or inflating away its currency, or all three. Except, that is, for a handful of tiny places which have a very high ratio of oil wells and/or casinos to citizens. And at no time in history has this ever been true, except for brief periods which have ended financial calamities, wars, and genocide.
Ignoring the empirical evidence, if you can, it is logically absurd on its face, that a bunch of strangers living in some faraway city, if only you give them enough of your money, can somehow provide for you all of the things which you are allegedly incapable of providing for yourself - an education, a job, your culture, your life itself.
Coyne says that it will work in Canada, because he in his self-constructed intellectual ivory tower has spent many hours designing the perfect bureaucracy, the perfect accounting system, the perfect division of powers, so that your government will run your life for you even more efficiently, more accountably, more transparently, more supercalifragilistically than ever before.
McClelland says, who cares if it works or not - shut up, loser.
And you ordinary schmoes who are trying to pay for a house and put clothes on your kids’ backs - to get back home do you follow the scarecrow and the cowardly lion to Oz? Or were you ever really lost to begin with …
Posted by Justzumgai | May 7, 2006 11:02 PM
Posted on May 7, 2006 23:02