Save, don't sulk, defiant Flaherty tells cities

[Admiral Beez]

Interestingly, he hasn't said a word about the income side. It's like a household being legally stuck with a house and 4 kids without the accompanying means to pay for either.

AoD

Yeah, but where were Ontario's mayors when the downloading occurred? Did any of them say f#uck this, we're not paying for provincial social housing and other downloaded programs from only property taxes, and if you force us, we'll quit, yes, all of council, and you (Harris/Eves/McGuinty) can try to run the cities better.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, but where were Ontario's mayors when the downloading occurred? Did any of them say f#uck this, we're not paying for provincial social housing and other downloaded programs from only property taxes, and if you force us, we'll quit, yes, all of council, and you (Harris/Eves/McGuinty) can try to run the cities better.

The Harris government at the time probably wouldn't had the slightest reservation with appointing a provincial overseer for the city government. The end result is the city still being responsible for these downloaded services, but having absolutely no say in the day to day decision making at the city level. Not a great outcome, if you ask me - and this sort of thing has happened before. To be frank, I don't think the average taxpayer at the time gives a fuck about that, considering whatever ill effects probably wouldn't manifest itself several years down the road.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Harris government at the time probably wouldn't had the slightest reservation with appointing a provincial overseer for the city government.

Harris is gone now, what about McGuinty. He wants re-election. Let's let him run the city. Miller simply needs to advise the premier that the city is broke, and then he and his inner council are resigning.

 

[JasonParis]

Flaherty turns down McCallion faceoff
Jan 31, 2008 04:30 AM
Les Whittington
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has turned down Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion's invitation for a verbal showdown over Ottawa's treatment of cities.

"I don't debate municipal policy," he said, adding that McCallion should stop demanding more money and appreciate what Ottawa is already doing for her municipality.

McCallion called out Flaherty last week, saying she was angered by his retort to mayors seeking Ottawa's help that the federal government is "not in the pothole business."

But, in a letter released to the Star yesterday, Flaherty rejects her challenge. "With all due respect, there is no need for a debate on infrastructure," he writes to McCallion. "The debate is over. Our government is making the largest single federal investment in public infrastructure since World War II."

He cites the Conservatives' Building Canada plan, which has earmarked $33 billion over seven years for roads, transit, bridges and other urban infrastructure.

In an interview, Flaherty acknowledged that gridlock is a major issue in the GTA and that dispersing federal funds to cities is often subject to delays as three levels of government try to overcome the red tape involved.

"Quite frankly, I support Hazel McCallion when she says governments move too slow. I think they all do, including her government."

He said Mississauga is getting the $83 million promised by Ottawa to begin construction of a bus rapid transit corridor. In September, McCallion had complained that the funds, promised last March, were taking too long to flow to her city.

"It would be nice from time to time if she actually acknowledged what is being done rather than emphasize a new wish list every time a major accomplishment is achieved," he said of McCallion.

Flaherty added that municipal governments shouldn't look to Ottawa to solve all their problems. Referring to McCallion, he said, "She has the responsibility in her government to plan adequate reserves to pay for infrastructure. That's long-term government planning."

In his letter, Flaherty says Canadians must rethink the traditional government approach to this problem. "Governments can no longer afford to finance, build and maintain every single infrastructure project in the country."

Instead, the Harper government would like to see more extensive use of partnerships between government and business on infrastructure projects, he said.

 

[Edward Skira]

"Governments can no longer afford to finance, build and maintain every single infrastructure project in the country."

This is from a federal government that had how many budget surpluses in the past decade or so.

 

[Hydrogen]

Liberal senator's bill would allow tax-free municipal bonds
Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Senator Jerry Grafstein's solution to the financial problems of cities is to stop waiting for the federal government to bail them out and allow Canadian investors to provide money through tax-free municipal bonds.

Mr. Grafstein went to Ottawa City Hall Thursday with former Toronto municipal politician Alan Tonks, the MP for York South-Weston, to talk about following the lead of the United States, where citizens buy bonds for municipal works projects as a way to economically finance them.

On Wednesday the Liberal senator's bill to allow tax-free municipal bonds received second reading. He is now hoping it will be sent to committee so that it can discussed more widely.

While the chance of private bills becoming law is very slim, Mr. Grafstein says the idea should get serious discussion because cities are deteriorating quickly due to lack of investment.

He notes that parts of Toronto's water system are 100 years old, which has created a huge leakage problem. He says that Canada's falling productivity can at least partly be attributed to the increased commuting times caused by worsening road congestion in cities like Toronto and Ottawa. In the Toronto region, he notes some commuters spend 90 minutes going to work.

With estimates of needed work for infrastructure in the $200 billion range, Mr. Grafstein says the $33 billion being offered by the federal government to cities over the next seven years just isn't enough, when just fixing Toronto's water system could cost $6 billion.

His solution is to have the role of the federal government's Business Development Bank of Canada changed so that the bank handles the sale of bonds for municipal projects that generate a revenue stream, such as toll roads, water systems and new transit corridors. The bank would assess the project and the municipality would offer bonds so that Canadians could invest in the future of particular cities. Cities with the best credit ratings would have the lowest bond rates.

The proposal caught the Business Development Bank of Canada off guard. Spokeswoman Denise Arab said the bank was not consulted and it was "a little premature" to comment.

For investors, tax-free municipal bonds would be a reliable source of income, likely in the range of five per cent. For cities, the bonds would mean getting money at a lower cost than the existing debenture market.
Ottawa Councillor Diane Deans welcomed the bonds idea, saying the city would save in the range of $12.5 million over 20 years on $100 million borrowed.

Mr. Tonks, the former chairman of Toronto's regional council, said that properly financing municipal projects will end 30 years of frustration for city politicians.

Mr. Grafstein said the biggest stumbling block for the bond idea will be finance officials in the federal government who will worry about the loss of tax money.

But he said they shouldn't be concerned. If $100 billion worth of municipal bonds were issued, the short-term loss of $2.5 billion in income tax from the investors would quickly be recouped from all of the commercial activity involved in building such a huge range of bridges, roads, water supply systems and public transit.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

"Governments can no longer afford to finance, build and maintain every single infrastructure project in the country."

But one that can afford a frivolous 2% cut in GST, plus multi-billion dollar plus military spending?

AoD

 

[Tewder]

But one that can afford a frivolous 2% cut in GST, plus multi-billion dollar plus military spending?

AoD

...well as a self-employed business owner I'm quite happy for the extra 2% income in my pocket, as well as the break in corporate taxes on the books too. Besides, I don't recall the money exactly flowing into Toronto and Ontario under the decade-long reign of the federal liberals either. Where were all the city-building investments in infrastructure then? Did this problem only begin in the past couple of years under a Conservative minority government? I think not. Both the liberals and the conservatives have been guilty of ignoring Ontario in favour of Quebec. That is the political reality of Canada, a history of appeasement that goes back to the Quebec Act of 1774.

If we really want to save money in Ontario how about cancelling the discriminatory state-funded separate catholic school system, official bilingualism when Quebec doesn't even have it, and official state-sponsored multiculturalism which does nothing but entrench divisiveness and racism. This would save a ton of money for Ontario's infrastructure woes until such time, if any, that an Ontario-friendly federal government ever takes office.

 

[afransen]

There would be very little to be gained from eliminating the separate school system (Catholic) due to economies of scale. You could hardly close any schools, and most boards are already larger than they probably should be, so merging the Public and Catholic board for an area would result in the need for that area to be split in two.

Also, the one time gain from 2% in GST is inconsequential, and most business owners will probably have to eventually pass it on to consumers. Besides, whether you like it or not, the GST is an effective, efficient tax. Those cuts should have been for income or investment taxes, as the Liberals were suggesting (and slowly implementing during their tenure).

 

[Hydrogen]

...well as a self-employed business owner I'm quite happy for the extra 2% income in my pocket...

This sounds as if you are still collecting the GST at the previous level and are now pocketing the difference.

 

[afransen]

No, what he's suggesting is that he's left the effective prices (after tax) the same, hence pocketing the tax reduction.

 

[Tewder]

There would be very little to be gained from eliminating the separate school system (Catholic) due to economies of scale. You could hardly close any schools, and most boards are already larger than they probably should be, so merging the Public and Catholic board for an area would result in the need for that area to be split in two.

I can't imagine that the public funding of two school systems is efficient, in any way. If public funding was stopped, as should be the case -not because I have anything against Catholics by the way (sigh, I know...) - many catholic schools would remain catholic schools, but private.

Also, the one time gain from 2% in GST is inconsequential, and most business owners will probably have to eventually pass it on to consumers. Besides, whether you like it or not, the GST is an effective, efficient tax. Those cuts should have been for income or investment taxes, as the Liberals were suggesting (and slowly implementing during their tenure).

Possibly so afransen, but I'll take any tax cut just the same, without parsing the relative benefits of one over the other which would probably be fairly inconsequential too.

 

[lordmandeep]

however if you live in urban area, any saving in tax is being easily taken away by cities under the strain.


Thats why my opinion towards the GST cut is meh and the opinion is shared by many.

Gst cut by 1%, property tax jump 6%...

Gst cut 1%, new fees on healthcare...


Like really, I don't see how people play into those number tricks so easily...

and official state-sponsored multiculturalism which does nothing but entrench divisiveness and racism

What cost is that???

The multi culture police or something????

Your the type who thinks the city budget problems is because politicians get free Transit passes, rather then them being in charge in things they should not even think about like welfare or the courts!!!

 

[Tewder]

however if you live in urban area, any saving in tax is being easily taken away by cities under the strain [...] Like really, I don't see how people play into those number tricks so easily...

Governments not investing massive budget surpluses in urban infrastructure is the problem. You think that it is the GST cut that stops these investments? Seems to me you're the one looking through wool-covered eyes.

What cost is that???

The multi culture police or something????

...yes, in a way.

There are all kinds of municipal, provincial and federal programs supporting the Multiculturalism mandate, and yes there is a price tag.

 

[JasonParis]

There are all kinds of municipal, provincial and federal programs supporting the Multiculturalism mandate, and yes there is a price tag.

Although, the price tag on many levels could be much larger if we didn't.