P
prometheus the supremo
Guest
no one cent and no national transit strategy 
|
|
|
O
Observer Walt
Guest
^ I think MIller's "one cent of the GST" campaign was doomed from the beginning. In the first place his timing was wrong; he brought this idea forward after the budget would already have been pretty much finalized. They started writing the budget six months ago, not within the past three weeks. In the second place, the Conservatives have pledged a further reduction in the GST of one cent. It's probably not realistic to think that they would do this reduction, which they will, and also be able to devote one cent of the GST to transit.
I don't think Miller was very smart with this "one cent" idea. The possibilities of it actually being implemented, within the next couple of years at least, are slim and none. Miller appears to have set himself up for a failure, and that's never smart politics.
I don't think Miller was very smart with this "one cent" idea. The possibilities of it actually being implemented, within the next couple of years at least, are slim and none. Miller appears to have set himself up for a failure, and that's never smart politics.
S
spmarshall
Guest
Here's an idea - recycle the posters, change the "G" to a "P".
I figure there's something more to the one-cent thing. It can not be realistic to start a major campaign like this and expect it with 3 weeks or even 6 months. Maybe he's thinking 55 weeks - Miller's not stupid, he doesn't pick too many fights he can't win - the island airport is an exception (so far).
I figure there's something more to the one-cent thing. It can not be realistic to start a major campaign like this and expect it with 3 weeks or even 6 months. Maybe he's thinking 55 weeks - Miller's not stupid, he doesn't pick too many fights he can't win - the island airport is an exception (so far).
G
ganjavih
Guest
Miller's fight was to stop the bridge to the island, not to shut down the airport per se.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Obs. Walt:
The possiblity of the one cent succeeding was slim to none regardless of who's in power; it does serve as a pressure tactic to extract more money through other channels from the Feds, however.
AoD
The possiblity of the one cent succeeding was slim to none regardless of who's in power; it does serve as a pressure tactic to extract more money through other channels from the Feds, however.
AoD
C
CliffColeclough
Guest
I think it was doomed from the start. Wanting close to 17% of Gross GST Revenues is way too much.
B
billonlogan
Guest
"I would hope that cities – and I include Toronto here – ... would reflect on their own budget exercises and try to be prudent in their budgeting and budget within their means," Flaherty said.
Flaherty has little to offer municipalities and chides local governments `to be self-reliant,' `prudent' with finances
March 20, 2007
Bruce Campion-Smith in Ottawa
John Spears in Toronto
TheStar.com
The new deal for cities is dead.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered the death sentence yesterday, serving up a rebuke for cash-hungry municipal leaders who had come cap in hand to Ottawa seeking billion of dollars in new federal funding for pressing urban demands.
"The day in Canada of governments with their hands out to other governments (is) passing. It's time for governments to be self-reliant and to be answerable to their own taxpayers," Flaherty told reporters.
And he served up a slapdown to Toronto and other municipalities, suggesting that fiscal imprudence, rather than real need, was behind their demands for more money.
"I would hope that cities – and I include Toronto here – ... would reflect on their own budget exercises and try to be prudent in their budgeting and budget within their means," Flaherty said.
His comments sparked an angry reaction from urban leaders, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, who called the budget a "step backwards."
He said Flaherty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are "out of step" with the fact that Canada is a suburban and urban nation.
"He's dead wrong about this country. The census just demonstrated that more and more Canadians are living in urban areas," Miller said.
"For Canada to succeed, we need investment in those cities ... . This budget does not meet the needs of Canada's cities in any substantial way," he said.
There was some good news – the Conservatives extended by four years the Liberal program to share federal gas tax revenues for municipal priorities such as roads, public transportation and water. That commitment, which now runs until 2014, means an extra $8 billion.
"They asked for a sharing of the gas tax in the budget today. We've extended that sharing," Flaherty said, adding that Ottawa will pump a record $33 billion into infrastructure over the next seven years.
"Of course, the major metropolitan areas like the GTA will share in that," he said.
The budget also creates a "Building Canada Fund" to be allocated to provinces and territories on a per capita basis for improvements to highways, public transit, sewage treatment as well as cultural and recreational facilities. This fund starts at $572 million this year, rising to $1.7 billion a year by 2013.
But municipal leaders hoping to get a share of the GST revenues, or a new federal fund to pay for transit expansion – two demands worth $7 billion a year – were left disappointed. They even failed in their bid to have the gas tax funding made permanent.
Even the extra cash was overshadowed by Flaherty's comments that shut the door on years of lobbying by municipal leaders to have Ottawa take a more active role in urban issues.
Instead, Flaherty said it was time for governments at all levels to "take care of their own knitting," suggesting that municipalities should take their fiscal gripes to the provinces, which have constitutional responsibility for cities.
For municipalities, his statements mark a dramatic turnaround – and a bitter disappointment – from the days when former prime minister Paul Martin promised a new deal for cities, and the pledge of not only cash but a voice in the federal issues that affect them.
Flaherty's comments confirm the worst fears of urban leaders like Miller who had long feared that Harper took a traditional view of the Constitution that dictates that Ottawa stay out of urban affairs.
"This budget appears to be a direct reflection of that philosophy ... . It's out of touch with modern Canada," Miller said.
Earlier this month, Miller helped unveil a strategy on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to win $2 billion in permanent federal funding for transit.
"We had expected at an absolute minimum to see concrete steps toward a national transit strategy in this budget. Those steps have not been taken."
Miller says the municipal push for cash will continue.
"When you see the census result, people live in cities. They need their cities to be funded. They need to have proper access to programs and facilities, and people are going to stand up and demand it."
Flaherty has little to offer municipalities and chides local governments `to be self-reliant,' `prudent' with finances
March 20, 2007
Bruce Campion-Smith in Ottawa
John Spears in Toronto
TheStar.com
The new deal for cities is dead.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered the death sentence yesterday, serving up a rebuke for cash-hungry municipal leaders who had come cap in hand to Ottawa seeking billion of dollars in new federal funding for pressing urban demands.
"The day in Canada of governments with their hands out to other governments (is) passing. It's time for governments to be self-reliant and to be answerable to their own taxpayers," Flaherty told reporters.
And he served up a slapdown to Toronto and other municipalities, suggesting that fiscal imprudence, rather than real need, was behind their demands for more money.
"I would hope that cities – and I include Toronto here – ... would reflect on their own budget exercises and try to be prudent in their budgeting and budget within their means," Flaherty said.
His comments sparked an angry reaction from urban leaders, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, who called the budget a "step backwards."
He said Flaherty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are "out of step" with the fact that Canada is a suburban and urban nation.
"He's dead wrong about this country. The census just demonstrated that more and more Canadians are living in urban areas," Miller said.
"For Canada to succeed, we need investment in those cities ... . This budget does not meet the needs of Canada's cities in any substantial way," he said.
There was some good news – the Conservatives extended by four years the Liberal program to share federal gas tax revenues for municipal priorities such as roads, public transportation and water. That commitment, which now runs until 2014, means an extra $8 billion.
"They asked for a sharing of the gas tax in the budget today. We've extended that sharing," Flaherty said, adding that Ottawa will pump a record $33 billion into infrastructure over the next seven years.
"Of course, the major metropolitan areas like the GTA will share in that," he said.
The budget also creates a "Building Canada Fund" to be allocated to provinces and territories on a per capita basis for improvements to highways, public transit, sewage treatment as well as cultural and recreational facilities. This fund starts at $572 million this year, rising to $1.7 billion a year by 2013.
But municipal leaders hoping to get a share of the GST revenues, or a new federal fund to pay for transit expansion – two demands worth $7 billion a year – were left disappointed. They even failed in their bid to have the gas tax funding made permanent.
Even the extra cash was overshadowed by Flaherty's comments that shut the door on years of lobbying by municipal leaders to have Ottawa take a more active role in urban issues.
Instead, Flaherty said it was time for governments at all levels to "take care of their own knitting," suggesting that municipalities should take their fiscal gripes to the provinces, which have constitutional responsibility for cities.
For municipalities, his statements mark a dramatic turnaround – and a bitter disappointment – from the days when former prime minister Paul Martin promised a new deal for cities, and the pledge of not only cash but a voice in the federal issues that affect them.
Flaherty's comments confirm the worst fears of urban leaders like Miller who had long feared that Harper took a traditional view of the Constitution that dictates that Ottawa stay out of urban affairs.
"This budget appears to be a direct reflection of that philosophy ... . It's out of touch with modern Canada," Miller said.
Earlier this month, Miller helped unveil a strategy on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to win $2 billion in permanent federal funding for transit.
"We had expected at an absolute minimum to see concrete steps toward a national transit strategy in this budget. Those steps have not been taken."
Miller says the municipal push for cash will continue.
"When you see the census result, people live in cities. They need their cities to be funded. They need to have proper access to programs and facilities, and people are going to stand up and demand it."
B
borgos
Guest
Miller's One Cent Solution Campaign was never really about this budget cycle. He's realistic enough to know that the Tories, with their appeal aimed at suburban and rural voters, would not bite on this (although I think he did expect a National Transit Strategy in this budget). In an effort to appear non-partisan, he had to go through the motions of lobbying the federal government. The campaign is about the next federal and provincial elections. As far as I know, Dion has never explicitly rejected the one cent solution. If the Tories make inroads in Quebec, the Liberals will need urban voters that much more. Re the provincial election, John Tory's urban sensibilities suggests that there will be a genuine competition for Toronto's vote. I see uploading of social services and drug benefits as realisitc.
R
RJR123
Guest
All in all this was a very unfocused budget. It seemed to just scatter spending all over the place, trying to placate people with little initiatives, while completely glossing over the major issues of the day (where was funding for the innovation economy or increasing Canada's competitiveness, or how about our productivity gap relative to the US, or how about some broad-based tax cuts if we can afford them, and not just cuts for people with young children). These guys seem to have no focus on the future or on anything, for that matter. It's politics as usual, and it is hilarious that people who voted for them actually thought they were voting for change!
S
spmarshall
Guest
Flaherty telling Toronto to be "prudent" and not expect help reminds me of this:
Damn, I need to reinstall photoshop.
Damn, I need to reinstall photoshop.
C
cdl42
Guest
You mean like this?
... which I made back in February 2006 just after the election?
... which I made back in February 2006 just after the election?
S
spmarshall
Guest
That's perfect! I remembered something to that effect, it just needed an opportune moment.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Interesting that a government calling for other levels of government to be "self reliant" would also be inclined to dole out cash to said levels of government for their own priorities. So what is it? That those levels of government aren't really in need, and yet we are giving them cash (for unstated purposes *nudge nudge wink wink*) anyways, or those levels of governments really are in need and we are just saying this in jest?
And of course, the irony of a level of government that has all the funding tools and balanced the budget at the backs of other jurisdictions to talk about "self reliance".
AoD
And of course, the irony of a level of government that has all the funding tools and balanced the budget at the backs of other jurisdictions to talk about "self reliance".
AoD
B
bizorky
Guest
There have been those who supported the Conservatives, in part, arguing that they could better deal with city issues in a better fashion than either the Liberals of the NDP.
Fortunately we no longer have to deal with this issue anymore.
C
cacruden
Guest
The province and federal government are "equal" constitutionally. Cities are not, they are the creation and responsibility of the provincial government. If a city wants funding for transit, they should get funding from the provincial government. The provincial government can negotiate or request federal government support in capital (I believe transportation is technically the only shared responsibility).
With the with the "transportation" project just being announced a few days before the federal budget (which takes months to put together), you cannot seriously expect the federal government to have anything in the government. The fact that the "6 billion" really is a drop in the bucket (1/3 funding = 2billion over 15 years is an average of 133 million per year) it could be funded out of existing capital projects easily without another budget.
If the city needs a funding source it is the provincial responsibility. The federal government lowered the GST by a cent, and has promised to lower it another cent.... It should be the provinces responsibility to raise PST by a cent or two and that can be used for local funding -- if the provincial government was serious. Of course that is not a conservative government so -- people here would like to throw all this as a failure of the federal government.... It is not -- it is a provincial failure.
With the with the "transportation" project just being announced a few days before the federal budget (which takes months to put together), you cannot seriously expect the federal government to have anything in the government. The fact that the "6 billion" really is a drop in the bucket (1/3 funding = 2billion over 15 years is an average of 133 million per year) it could be funded out of existing capital projects easily without another budget.
If the city needs a funding source it is the provincial responsibility. The federal government lowered the GST by a cent, and has promised to lower it another cent.... It should be the provinces responsibility to raise PST by a cent or two and that can be used for local funding -- if the provincial government was serious. Of course that is not a conservative government so -- people here would like to throw all this as a failure of the federal government.... It is not -- it is a provincial failure.