# The Fiscal gap......$6.6 billion..JUST FOR TORONTO



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now just WHO should secede??? 



> *Toronto-Ottawa fiscal gap $6.6B, board of trade says*
> Jan. 6, 2006. 09:11 AM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Time for a new deal


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Time for a new deal


Given their track record, you won't get one by re-electing the Liberals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> there's inadequate money coming back for transit, housing, and the city's other social needs.


Given NeoCon track record on THESE issues, we could do worse. One reason NDP is popular in the core.

Nice try tho.......everyone hold up their hands if they think a Con gov would address "social needs" 
We had quite our fill of THAT under Mikey Harris.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Given NeoCon track record on THESE issues, we could do worse. One reason NDP is popular in the core.
> 
> Nice try tho.......everyone hold up their hands if they think a Con gov would address "social needs"
> We had quite our fill of THAT under Mikey Harris.


Why do residents of Ontario feel that the government of the new Conservative party would do the same things as "Mikey Harris"?

Comparing an older version of a provincial party to a newer version of a completely different federal party is not a realistic comparison is it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Now just WHO should secede???
> 
> Time for a new deal


I don't think you can draw a line around a city and say they generate more money than what they get back in. I bet this is the case for every major urban center in Canada. It's the nature of commerce.

If you want to talk about bad deals, I think it has to be at the provincial level.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Get real - your're talking about a urban area with 20% of the GDP of Canada. 

and there is no reason NOT to think NeoCons have any benefit, Harris and Harper share far more than the first letter of their name.....once burned.



> *Harper takes cues from Common Sense Revolution*
> By JAMES MCCARTEN
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - It's already proven a pivotal Conservative campaign moment: Stephen Harper behind the cash register at an electronics outlet in the heart of suburban Ontario, promising to trim the GST by nearly 30 per cent.
> ...


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/TopPhoto/2005/12/26/1368931-cp.html


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Get real - your're talking about a urban area with 20% of the GDP of Canada.
> 
> and there is no reason NOT to think NeoCons have any benefit, Harris and Harper share far more than the first letter of their name.....once burned.
> 
> ...


A city can't exist in and of itself. It requires non-urban areas to exist.

Let's take Calgary as an example. It has head offices for many oil companies. On paper, Calgary generates a lot of money, but in reality much of that money is generated outside of the city limit. The money 'supposedly' generated in Calgary is then spent in the countryside building infrastructure to access resouces.

Intuitively, I would expect a fiscal imbalance between a city and the countryside to exist.

But, within a province, these effects gets averaged out and real fiscal imbalances can be seen.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> A city can't exist in and of itself. It requires non-urban areas to exist.
> 
> Let's take Calgary as an example. It has head offices for many oil companies. On paper, Calgary generates a lot of money, but in reality much of that money is generated outside of the city limit. The money 'supposedly' generated in Calgary is then spent in the countryside building infrastructure to access resouces.
> 
> ...


This is the case for some of the number (never would be $0) but, depending on the policy, there can be additional and damaging (to both areas) transfers through other means.

I suspect the $6 billion has more to do with inter-provincial transfers away from prosperous regions. Government spending will never fix this unless it's blatantly and extensively prosperous city-specific because government revenues raised are disproportionately (population-wise) from the prosperous cities to begin with. 

Layer on jurisdictional issues, and the result would usually be, in the Federal case, the Federal government taxing cities to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction without having to go through the trouble of actually getting a national agreement together, such as the Health Act. Hey, that sounds familiar! :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is a limited tax load a city can inflict on those that occupy the jurisdiction. 
The first step was, as it was in the US to give the jurisdiction power to add taxes to pay for services without going to the Prov or Feds.

That is finally in place and long overdue. So GTA residents will see some extra taxes in the form of service fees and vesting that power in major cities has been a boon to US urban areas.

But there are limits to the tax load that can be increased and also "special circumstances" unique in particular to Toronto.
It has a very high immigration rate and hence service costs and education costs that are higher - yet it was receiving less per immigrant than Quebec was.
It's that kind of imbalance that needs addressing.

I like the concept of assymetrical federalism so that tax dollars instead of being flatly applied are actually targetted to specific requirements of the region and that target is set by the region in discussions with the Feds.

It's the imbalance that needs addressing - Toronto is in dire need of some major infrastructure projects, waterfront brownlands cleanup, transport etc - typical Superfund projects.

Even with new taxation powers it cannot expect businesses and residents to pay for all of those projects in addition to putting $6 billion more toward the Feds than the city gets back to fund them.

$6 billion is simply too big a gap given the state of the major city of Canada and the GTA.

Saying that well Timmins gets soem help doesn't address Toronto's specific requirements.

The provincial gap is too large and the city gap is as well and both need to be addressed. The Economist put it at $18 billion US  a while back - as the provincial gap.

I think McGuinty says $12 billion. Given the big infrastructure such as power and transit Toronto and Ontario need to undertake over the next 10 years URGENTLY ( 50% population growth in the GTA over the next 30 years ) - the gap is not sustainable.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

From CNN.com

" 'In 2005, the American economy turned in a performance that is the envy of the industrialized world,' Bush said."

Guess TO and Canada need a George Bush to show us the way.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I find the figures hard to believe. Not that I believe they are outright wrong, I just think they are counting direct spending but ignoring indirect spending.

I would like to know, for example, if figures for EI are included (maternity leave accounts for more than half of all EI benifits paid; I'm sure Toronto residents get their share of it. I do know that Ontario residents collectively get more in benifits than they pay out in premiums). In fact, I don't even know how you would include such a figure; they are not broken down by municipality anyway. Similar things could be said for those who take advantage of government programs, like energy improvements to your home; these kinds of figures are not caluclated that way. Arts grants? Ontario gets a disproportionate share of that money compared to most provinces.

I also have a hard time with the 20% of GNP figures; surely you are counting money twice (ie you counting all Bank gross revenue because the figures would be part of Toronto's GDP figures, but they come from elsewhere and also form each province's GDP as well). In fact, I don't understand why GNP is cited at all; it should be GDP for a municipality and GNP for a nation.

I suppose we should go back to the days when residents of Alberta and Saskatchewan had to pay an export duty to buy farm equipment made in Toronto; then the proper level of exploitation would be restored. Also, a great deal of Toronto's wealth comes from elsewhere in Canada; it's difficult to spend a dollar in Charlottown and not have a dime end up in Toronto, but it's pretty hard to spend a dollar in Toronto and have even some of it end up adding to PEI's GDP. You guys can only eat so many french fries in a day, after all.

The fact is a lot of individual areas in the nation face a similar situation (and many face the opposite), and it's a hallmark of federalism that it be so. I too long for the days when to live in Toronto is to live in relative poverty compared to the rest of Canada and to tell your children there is no shame in the need to be propped up by your fellow taxpayers; finally you too will find yourself the benificiary of all those govermnent dollars.

Or in other words, be careful what you wish for. Things are not always as black and white as the squeaky wheel (which is the Toronto Board of Trade job, let's be honest) would have you believe.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

"Make Toronto a Province"

That's the only way Toronto can get the funds from the feds to run itself.

http://www.provinceoftoronto.ca/province/what.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gord it's pretty easy to break down Toronto as a % of Ontario numbers. The GTA is just about 45% of the population, we re not talking city proper here but the GTA.

.....and many hours have been spent calculating the total inflow versus outgo and it shows up clearly for Toronto with deficits akin to that of provinces.....$500 million shortfall this year.

I did take issue with the $18 billion US gap the Economist cited for Ontario a while back - that struck me as very high.....but whether it's 4 or 6 billion it's clearly too high for the GTA with it's current needs for renewal.

Ontario has been taken for granted as a Federation foundation stone for too long and it's needs some touching up big time right now. With other jurisdictions getting breaks ( ie NL and resource income ) vis a vie transfers Ontario is lining up as well....to start just getting a level playing field in things like immigrant support.
Quebec gets much higher per capita for each immigrant 

Assymetrical federation with programs adjusted to needs for the region is long overdue.
Superfunds for Toronto infrastructure development is one such long term funding need.

This is not some theoretical issue - it's now and it's real. This is for city proper.
Fortunately Mississauga is debt free but even Hazel had to raise taxes this year and with growth slowing that will become the norm as.



> *Toronto looking for budget deficit solutions*
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...get_shortfall_060104/20060104?hub=TorontoHome

No question much of this is fall out from the fixing the federal books. Turn about time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> The fact is a lot of individual areas in the nation face a similar situation


Can't imagine the figures for Calgary and Edmonton, considering Alberta has the highest per capita contribution to the rest of the country (as measured by province).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dave, I recall that the same sort of thing was proposed for New York City back in the mid-70's when it was broke and President Ford told Mayor Abe Beame that there would be no federal bail-outs of a city, not even North America's largest city (by population). If PEI, which has the population of some TO neighborhoods, can be a province, why not the GTA?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes - the solution in the US was well executed and exactly what Toronto needs.

••

It's not just Toronto - it's part and parcel of the gap for Ontario


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mayor Hazel McCallion for GTA's first Premier???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep :clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Her campaign slogan -- "Two chickens in every pot and a Mac in every office."


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

They say Toronto is the heart of the Canadian Economy. What's wrong with the heart pumping blood to the rest of the nation? It all eventually goes back there anyway.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

By that logic, Paul, if the heart deteriorates, the rest of the country suffers as well. The heart is pumping out so much blood that it's not sustaining itself.

Toronto needs investment--either by putting more money back in or taking less money out--to stay healthy and viable.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah and what happens to you when the "life blood" come back a few quarts short......

You die.......and that is EXACTLY what is happening


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

With all due respect, the election is about Toronto, the laws get written for Toronto, and I can't buy anything without the money going through Toronto. When I turn on the news, I know more about Toronto's problems and so does everyone else in the country than about our own home cities; I "get to" see every Raptors and Maple Leafs highlight on TSN but nothing about anyone else's hockey or basketball team, and then when I go on vacation, even if I'm going to the Pacific Coast of Mexico, I have to fly to Toronto to get there and get to spend $ 200 for a hotel room and a bagel.

People have to fly from Calgary to Toronto to get to Mexico if we use Air Canada. For someone who thinks we should be worrying about the environnment, I don't see many complaints about buring all that jet fuel to go the wrong way. Twice. Presumably, so that GDP figure can be inflated with more of my money, all for what can politely be described as collossal inconvenience, with no real purpose except to fleece those of us who might live outside TheCentreOfTheUniverse of our time and money.

I suppose it's unreasonable of me to assume that you can just get into a plane in Calgary and go south, just because that's the direction the ticket says I'm suppposed to be going. Obviously I shouldn't be upset that Air Canada would rather drive itself into bankruptcy buying a competitor it can't afford to own, than have a competitive airline actually flying south instead of east.

Believe me, if it were "equal" you wouldn't like it. You have far, far more to lose than to gain, but if you're still willing, I'm all for it. Just tell me where you want me to sign.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

So what do you think we should do Pilgrims?

D


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The equalization issue (federally) goes far beyond Toronto because 'equalization' is put into far more than just the official equalization funds. It's good to see Toronto raise the issue some, but it is a much bigger issue. 

It permeates everything from EI to farm subsidies and beyond. Part of the issue is voting distribution, which makes rural votes more valuable (people/MP) than urban and part is the ability of rural voters to focus more (no judgement on goodness or badness of this). 

This is real, but not critical. The whole country could benefit from a deal that more clearly recognises how urban centres fund our social safety programs...but the real details on this are not liked by many, rural and urban alike. However, the whole country could be harmed by more jurisdictional blurring, which leads to squabbling far more than solutions. Imagine if public transit became like healthcare...fed-muni-prov squabbling, some solutions, lots of rhetoric.

This will be a tough issue, but more Federal involvement is not necessarily good or bad. The devil (aka 'The Beej'), as they say, is in the details.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> They say Toronto is the heart of the Canadian Economy. What's wrong with the heart pumping blood to the rest of the nation? It all eventually goes back there anyway.


I think that this might have been true at some point in the recent past...but things are changing FAST!


Ontario and Quebec might have been the center of Canadian wealth in the past, but that's clearly no longer the case. In fact...the wealth of Canada is being generated elsewhere these days and the wealthy Canadians who used to call these two cities "home" are rapidly leaving for sunnier and friendlier places. In the west. (Big Surprise).

Check it out: 

-The energy sector...based almost solely in the western part of this country...is the driving force behind all of the gains on the TSX recently. This is simple fact. Manufacturing in Canada is in serious decline

-The real growth in real estate, almost all of the growth in jobs, and the chosen destination for the vast majority of the well off baby boomers in Canada lately has been the west coast. They are moving out here in DROVES! And they are bringing their cash with them as well.

-Atlantic Canada is still stalled. Has been for decades.

-Quebec has been losing it's best people and some of it's biggest companies ever since the last failed referendum. This new referendum threat from a revitalised PQ will only accelerate this rapid loss of talent and cash from la belle province. Giantcompanies like Bombardier are closing plants and moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico. The Quebec economy is deep in the doldrums right now...and dropping fast.

-Ontario has lost over one hundred thousand manufacturing jobs, just in the past few months. More massive cuts will follow, as the big automakers continue to downsize. This is inevitable at this point. The steel companies will aslo have to downsize because of this and all of the many retailers in the area will suffer from this massive loss of income. the local economy will shrink. It's already started to do so.

And Ontario has all sorts of other problems, like an old failing infrastructure that needs huge money to bring it back up to minimal standards, and no money to fix it.

We don't even want to THINK about Ontario's upcoming critical shortfall in electrical generating capacity. That's perhaps the single biggest of all of the many problems that they face right now! (no power...NO manufacturing. BIG problems!)

-Manitoba and Saskatchewan are largely rural and deeply opposed to the city derived proclamations of the now-discredited central Canadian Liberals. The largest of the prairie cities are suffering under the same burden of youth violence as the rest of Canada's other major centers. Needless to say, the Liberals well known 'soft-on-crime policies' aren't playing very well in places like Saskatoon and Winnepeg.

To say the least. 

Is Toronto still the heart of the Canadian economy? Not really.

Is Montreal still economically signifigant to this country? Even after the massive pullouts of most of the larger Canadian companies because of past or future threats of seperation?

Don't make me laugh. And don't kid yorself. This place is becoming a quaint museum that is supported and exists ONLY through heavy subsidies from the rest of the country.

But it might still seem to be economically signifigant for a few more years. To some people....at least until the ongoing demographic shift is complete.

The facts are this:

In Canada, the east is the past. The west is the future.

And the heart of the current prosperity in this country...and of all of the future prosperity in this country...the driving force of our Canadian economy...lies well to the west of the Ontario/Manitoba border. This is fact.

Which might explain why you Ontarians have noticed so many of your best and brightest fleeing central Canada and heading out here to the west over the past few years.

Noticed any of them moving back?

Didn't think so.  :lmao:


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

Macnutt - are you smoking that BC Skunk or what, buddy?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nope. This is the cruel reality. The newspapers are chock full of this stuff these days. And the outmigration of wealthy people from Ontario to the west is a well established fact. (A crumbling infrastructure, looming electrical shortages, combined with massive air quality problems and scattered gunfire in the major cities, might have something to do with this)

The outmigration of major businesses from Quebec has been going on since just before the previous referendum. It's taken a bit of a spike upwards recently...oddly enough.

It's all there in black and white. 

Read em and weep.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Nope. This is the cruel reality. The newspapers are chock full of this stuff these days. And the outmigration of wealthy people from Ontario to the west is a well established fact. (A crumbling infrastructure, looming electrical shortages, combined with massive air quality problems and scattered gunfire in the major cities, might have something to do with this)
> 
> The outmigration of major businesses from Quebec has been going on since just before the previous referendum. It's taken a bit of a spike upwards recently...oddly enough.
> 
> ...


And yet the west won't build their own oil refineries, Think of all the money
Canada could save if it didn't spend so much money on pipelines to the U.S.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

According to City Hall, Toronto has a deficit of over 500 million for the projected fiscal budget...

--Mayor Miller is considering a 6% increase in property taxes...

--When I bought my house, I had garbage collection twice a week...

--Today I have garbage collection *once* every *two weeks*...

--Used to have snow removal from side streets...not any more.

--Roads and bridges are deteriorating...no repairs or very minor.

--No improvements to infrastructure relating to the influx of 905'ers each day...

--Less services and more taxes...

For a prosperous and wealthy city, there's something wrong here. So don't tell me Toronto can afford to be milked like a cash cow by the feds or the province.

Toronto is an old city and much of it's infrastructure is in need of major repairs. Water, sewage, gas lines, phone&cable, roads and streets, RR bridges and road bridges. Some of these are the responsibility of the service provider, but permits are issued by the city and the city should pitch in for general improvements of all services.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

The solution is for the municipality to tax (tax more?) the Head Offices/Banks/Corporations based in Toronto.

I agree with Gordguide, we, in the rest of Canada, are Toronto'ed to death and unfortunately, we have no other choices available. 
It's part of being the business center of Canada. 

If you take into account this one example of indirect spending:
Our Chemistry/Hematology labs in St. John's alone pays over a million dollars a year to lease lab equipment from Beckman-Coulter Canada, based in TO. We have no qualms with that because it is a good value in the lab business.
That must account for a few jobs in the city. Where the employees live or pay their city taxes is another story but over one million bucks (of NL taxpayer's money) goes to TO every year from our labs. Hmmm....

Your flow outward is indirectly compensated by the inflow from the rest of the country. How the city deals with that is another matter.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No one is asking for a complete balance - just that it's too far out of whack in the tax load going to Ottawa versus the benefits of Ottawa programs returning to meet specific city needs.

Of course there is interchange with the rest of the country but there are things that MUST be accomplished in Toronto and a limit to ADDITIONAL TAXES that can be imposed on the residents and businesses to acheive those.

Especially large infrastructure Superfund type projects.
Water front, Transit, energy refits etc.

If Toronto is to continue to be a strong contributor...the engine needs tune up.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If Toronto is to continue to be a strong contributor...the engine needs tune up.


Too bad much of the country would rather not see that if realised. The knee-jerk TO hatred is astonishing in some places.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Good post KPS. Everything in that list is exactly like my city, and I suspect most other municipalities in Canada, except my property taxes rose 140% over the last two years, and instead of getting $4 billion for my public transportation, we get to pay for it ourselves.

Of course, I don't expect Ottawa to pay to collect my trash, or build my transit system, like Toronto citizens apparently do.

I find it absolutely flabbergasting that anyone would expect to have all their taxes paid to Ottawa returned to the area. Why pay them at all? What, exactly do we expect the Federal Government to do, and with what? Perhaps everyone else, except Toronto residents, should pay for peacekeeping, the foreign service, food safety, and perhaps regulating the airlines.

Don't you have a municipal government in Toronto? What does it do then?

At the risk of introducing some common sense in the arguement, I must remind our thin-skinned Toronto residents that the reason Toronto, or anywhere else for that matter, can have any gap whatsoever comes down to one thing: Toronto residents have higher average incomes than other Canadians. ** A family who earns $50 in Toronto pays exactly, not almost, or nearly, or similarly, but to the penny, the very same taxes to the federal government as anyone else in the country who earns the identical amount. And those higher incomes come because a disproportionate amount of the wealth of the nation eventually goes through Toronto one way or another.

Like Toronto, Saskatchewan is apparently a "have" province, getting zero equalization payments and paying out more in taxes and transfers than they get. Average increase in Federal spending (1995-2002) in Ontario is 3.7% per year; in Sask it's 2.4% over the same period. 3.5% is the national average.

However, the taxation to spending gap is a critically flawed arguement. Debt payments and debt reduction are not accounted for in the Toronto Board of Trade's figures. Unless the amount collected (revenue) is identical to the amount disbursed (spending) the figures must, by definiton, be different from each other in any given fiscal year. Defiecits show up as "extra" or "free" money when you use a simple balance sheet accounting of Federal expenditure versus revenue in Ontario (or wherever), while debt repayment shows up as a "cost" to the people of Toronto, or Ontario, as does any Federal surplus.

I could go on; there are many more areas where the Toronto BOT's 6+ Billion or Ontario's claimed $22 Billion fails to account properly for it's "fair share". The purpose of the arguement is lost on me, though. Do you support Alberta recieving huge increases in Federal spending as well? Ontario residents recieved 10.7% more Federal spending than Alberta residents did despite a much lower provincial tax burden, Alberta residents pay almost 12% more than Ontario residents in Income Tax (Fed & Prov combined) and slightly more (about 2%) in total taxes.

Alberta recieves the least transfers from the Federal Government ($ 752 in 2003, per capita basis).
All figures Fraser Institute; FY 2003.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Any shorfall in funds, which should be making its way back from Ottawa will affect funds slated for city services...be it garbage...or as we've seen in other places...drinking water. Cutting corners and cutting services or the quality of those services is the end result. It had taken me 18months to get my water supply upgraded...at my cost...and only after I called my councilman. Why? Because there's only one person who processes all the applications...and deals with all the contractors...and who knows what else.

I have issues with Miller as a city manager, but I can't place all the blame on him. He got a double whammy...one from Dalt the Dud and the other from the feds.

He should raise property taxes on Queen's Park and not home owners.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) I don;t know where you got the idea of ALL.

b) If Alberta required funding for a period for long term development in a certain region of course. That's WHY one size does not fit all. NL is getting transfers AND royalties to solve some long standing issues and play a bit of accelerated catch up.

Toronto bears a very high proportion of the immigrants and yet gets less per capita than Quebec.....why??

Toronto residents speak some 150 different languages.

EACH municipality has different needs and at different times in their growth and renewal cycles.

There is only so much tax load the residents can undertake with in a certain time period and scale does matter.
Buying a dozen buses is far different than building a subway or a waterfront tunnel.

So if you have is this great insight that there is no imbalance that needs to be addressed.....make the suggestion of dealing with the $500 million deficit........I'm all ears..

BTW Mississauga has no debt, excellent services and is very well run and modest tax increases can maintain services and keep infrastructure in good repair.

Toronto City is an entirely different magnitude of problem, some of it's own making under Mel "are they cannibals" Lastman and much due to growth and need for long term funding of large scale projects.

Tax loading is not infinitely malleable amount and some projects and undertaking take very large scale funding for a period of time.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I'm glad to hear Mississauga has a credit rating that allows it to enjoy lower interest rates on it's debt. I understand the city of Toronto enjoys a good rating as well (2nd or 3rd highest, depending on the agency) and of course everyone knows Saskatoon is the only Canadian municipality rated highest by all 3 credit rating agencies (eg Moody's Aaa; S&P AAA).

Hooray for us all. And, since 40% of municipal revenue in Canada comes from other governments, I would suggest it supports the view that our cities are well funded by the Federal Treasury. Certainly most US cities envy those credit ratings.

Perhaps we should mention credit no more.

Most areas of Canada would love to have those immigrants, but they stubbornly refuse to settle anywhere but Toronto, and Montreal residents can tell you it's partly because they insist on settling in an English speaking city. Surely that implies they intend to learn the language, some day. The other reason inevitably cited is Toronto's prosperity.

Drat, another good argument foiled by reality.

" ... due to growth and need for long term funding of large scale projects. ..."
Saskatoon needs to build 3 bridges in the next 20 years (it was only two, but a month ago it was learned one existing bridge can no longer safely support traffic; it's currently closed permanently). I would bet that's news to Toronto residents, and the projected cost of those projects equals the annual budget of the city. Toronto is to receive $4 Billion for transit; that same per captia funding would provide $115 million to Saskatoon; at that kind of money not only could we buy buses, we could build the needed bridges by sinking the buses in the river and paving over them.

But the TBOT's arguement is not about one-time capital projects; they want increased annual transfers, don't they?

As someone said, there are many places that have genuine needs and only so much money to go around. Last time I was hijacked to Toronto for an international flight (in all fairness, only 800 km East of my destination; so a mere 1600 KM was spent flying the wrong way) there was some kind of Airport construction. How much, and who paid?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Are you suggesting we ORDER the immigrants elsewhere?? 

The reasons for them coming to Toronto really don't matter - the bottom line it adds a large cost component.

Here's the quote


> A board report based on federal figures indicates that *federal tax revenue from Toronto, including from the GST, rose 28 per cent over the past 10 years while return investments fell 10 per cent.*
> 
> Mr. Grunwald said that gap is costing city households an average of $6,648 a year.
> 
> Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has long complained about what he considers a $23-billion gap between what the province pays to the federal government and gets in return


Asking for help in dealing with the deficit is hardly demanding "increased transfers".

The Economist noted the Ontario "gap" at $18 billion US. In simple terms if an important part of the house is geting unlivable.......a reno is in order and that cost money beyond the ordinary.

Hazel got the developers to pay for much of Mississauga's infrastructure and growth funded the rest. Now with less growth taxes wll go up a bit and there will come a tme when renewal is in order which will cost above and beyond the normal operating costs.

My idea is that the feds are a bit of an insurance - they take the premium in good times and provide some relief when needed. Maybe simplistic......sure...but..it's needed..now.

For start how about a level playing field



> At the University of Toronto Roundtable on Fiscal Federalism
> June 3, 2005 — CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
> 
> We've talked a lot in Ontario about "the gap."
> ...


http://www.strongontario.ca/english/whatsnew/060305_speech.asp

Now McGuinty calls it $23 billion Cdn, the Economist $18 billion US and Toronto City proper calls is $6 billion in their case.

The Economist notes it's a strain.

The process of identifying requirements for all regions, as they change from time to time is in need of looking at both as to method and results so that thngs like $3800 versus $900 don't occur.

At one time it was who tapped the pork barrel best got the treats.

You gotta admit given the monolithic support for the Liberals in the GTA, Toronto hardly can be accused of nose in the trough.

If the minders are getting a bit noisy about it, can you blame them??


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Ontarians receive $857 per capita in health and social transfers -- the other provinces get $941 per capita. ..."

According to the Department of Finance's final audited numbers, Ontario received $16,745 Billion in FY 2004-05 for Health and Social Transfers, or $1338 per capita, while the national average is $1,845 (1).

Someone has bad math. (3)

Transfers vary widely, however. Saskatchewan is expected to receive $1487 per person ($1.5 Billion) in FY 2005-06. Perhaps it will come as a surprise to learn that's identical to the projected transfer for Ontario ( $1,487 = $18.6 Billion) and a whopping dollar per person higher than Alberta ( $1,486 = $4.8 Billion). (2)

Who's getting all these transfers, then?

Transfers to the Territories (Territorial Formula Financing): Ranges from $15,331 per capita (YT, 72% of the Territorial Budget) to $26,574 (Nunavut, 86%).

Equalization Payments:
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have a special deal with Ottawa; unlike any other provinces their oil revenues are ignored when calculating provincial revenue, used to determine the need for equalization payments. So, they get a disproportionate share of these payments; much of their wealth is ignored in the calculations.

Alberta has a special deal of another nature; they are ignored completely when calculating average provincial revenue. Were this not so, transfers to the eligible provinces would be even higher.

Anyway, here are the others:
BC $1,570 per capita
Quebec $2,052
Manitoba $2,717
Nova Scotia $2,793
Newfoundland $2,966
New Brunswick $3,111
PEI $3,291
Yukon $16,818
NWT $17,951
Nunavut $28,061

(1) Canada: Department of Finance: Transfer Payments to Provinces (March 2005).
Includes: Canada Health Transfer; Canada Social Transfer; Equalization payments, and Territorial Formula Financing.

(2) Canada: Department of Finance: Transfer Payments to Provinces, FY 2005-06 Estimates. Includes same transfers as note 1.

(3) In 2004-05, Ontario received $10.130 Billion under the Canada Health Transfer and $5.79 Billion under the Canada Social Transfer, for a total of $15.92 Billion. An additional $582 Million was paid for the Health Reform Transfer and $242 Million for the Wait Time Reduction program, making total Health and Social transfers $ 16.743 Billion. The $2 million difference (16,743 when added together vs 16,745 cited by the DofF is, I assume, due to rounding).

Ignoring the latter two payments (HRT and WTR), and assuming the same population as projected for 05-06 of 12.51 million, that still makes $ 1272 per capita, a long way away from the $857 cited.

I must suggest we consider the possibility that the other figures cited at the UofT discussion (Infastructure, immigration support) may be the result of some creative accounting; certainly not unheard of when a political agenda is being pushed.

Department Of Finance: Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories

Had a look at Mr McGunty's comments. Definitely made for an Ontario audience (no surprise there), but I loved the one about Ontario taking 10 times the immigrants that Japan does. Perhaps that might have something to do with the fact that it's nearly impossible to emigrate to Japan; only ethnic Japanese are eligible to be citizens, no matter how long you, your parents, or your great-great-grandparents have lived there. The only people who can emigrate to Japan are those born elsewhere but have at least one ethnically Japanese parent.

I also got a big chuckle out of this one: "... In 2004, if all unemployed Ontarians received the same regular EI benefits as in the rest of Canada, there would have been an additional $1.5 billion spent on EI regular benefits in Canada. ..." I have no idea what he means by this. Is he referring to the special deal that Auto Workers get where payments from their employers are ignored? Every other worker in Canada has their benefits reduced by any such payments; CAW members get to cash both cheques.

Why doesn't he cite all EI benefits? Is it possible that his math goes bad if he doesn't restrict it to "regular benefits"? Surely he knows that 80% of payments from the EI fund goes to maternity leave and program training, not payments to out of work Canadians? Methinks he does, and that including all EI payments gives the opposite result.

Unless he's referring to this:
" ... In 2004-05, the federal government provided $1,143 per unemployed person in Ontario versus $1,827 per unemployed person in the rest of Canada. ..." Naturally, if the unemployment rate is lower in Ontario than elsewhere the number of eligible weeks is lower. It's always been that way. Certainly higher unemployment in Ontario would solve that "gap". Of course, there are other provinces where the discrepancy is even wider, but Mr McGuinty implies it's worst in Ontario. It's not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ontario taking 10 times the immigrants that Japan does.


....so put it against Calgary .....oops off the radar for immigrant from outside the country...hmmm.

Certainly some rhetoric but nevertheless also some imbalances which the Economist......hardly for an "Ontario audience" also noted.

There is a finite tax load that can be undertaken by a constituency and if local residents are suffering deteriorating infrastructure while paying out more than is in flowing to address those current problems.....there is a valid issue to be addressed.

To distil your extensive list down to the essential point....are you claiming Ontario and Toronto have no case that there is a tax load/benefit gap??

I think the short cut for Toronto is just to charge Queen's Park $500 million rent and let them duke it out with the Feds


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Orrr...we could just close the doors on the Big Stinky and let the lights go out.

All by themselves. 

That would solve a lot of things, wouldn't it?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Well, although it was like pulling teeth, I finally found the Ontario Budget's statement of revenue and expenses. I have to hand it to the province, it's buried even deeper in the site than BC's documents.

I'm struck by how much Ontario's pubic figures differ from the Federal Government's figures, and I was very much surprised at the political, rather than informative, nature of the Government of Ontario site. Not what we're used to out west. Anyway ...

Where do these numbers come from (eg 857 for Health and Social transfers, according to Ontario)? To find out, we poke into the Budget documents.

Ontario FY 2004-05
I tried to find the consolidated statement of revenue and expenses. I get summaries, with plenty of "spin" thrown in. Oh well. We'll start with what they give me.

Revenue: 77.1 Billion
Program Expenses: 67.6 Billion
There is $ 9.6 Billion in interest payments, due to provincial debt of $ 142 Billion, or 27.5% of GDP. This results in a $3 Billion shortfall.

Revenue (millions):
Federal Transfer Payments CHST:
Canada Health Transfer: $5,636
Canada Social Transfer: $2,917
Other CHST Transfers:
CHST Supplements: $775
Social Housing: $521
Infrastructure: $222
Wait Times Reduction: $242
Medical Equipment: $387
Other: $1,324

Total CHST: $ 12,024

How can that be? The Federal Government cites a figure of $ 16,745 (millions).
It's simple. Ontario takes figures directly from the consolidated statements. For example CHT of $5,636 corresponds closely with the amount of $ 5,644 in direct cash payments to Ontario cited by the Federal Government for CHT.

However, there is an additional $ 4,487 Ottawa claims went to Ontario, that does not show up in Ontario's Budget documents. Where is it?

It's under Ontario's General Revenue figures for the province, that's where. Specifically, it's under Ontario Provincial Income Tax revenue.

In 1977 the Provinces and the Federal Government came to an agreement. Prior to that, amounts for, say, Health Spending or Education was dedicated transfers; if Ontario spent money (for example) on Health Care, the Feds kicked in a certain amount directly related to provincial spending. The ratios varied, but were always linked directly. In other words, a buck spent by Ontario might be matched by a buck paid by Ottawa to Ontario, but if another province spent $10, they got $10 from the Feds, or conversely if they spent nothing they got nothing.

The provinces didn't like that arrangement. It meant that if they didn't spend money on hospitals they got no money for hospitals; if they did spend money on hospitals they got a cheque based on how much they spent.

They wanted money in "bulk" form, to do with as they pleased. So, in 1977 the strict co-payment formula was abandoned, and as part of that agreement, the Federal Government made a "Tax Transfer". They reduced Federal Income Taxes by 13% (personal) and 1% (corporate) and then the provinces raised their taxes an identical amount.

The result was an increase in Provincial Revenues and an identical fall in Federal Revenues, with no change to the taxpayer's tax bill.

This meant the end of direct payments for Health, Education, or Social Services to the Provinces. Instead, they get amounts "for" Health, Education, or Social Services, but they can actually spend it on anything they want. The Federal Government still calculates this forgone revenue as a transfer to the Provinces.

The Provinces, on the other hand, account for it under their own Provincial Income Tax revenues, so it never shows up on the books as a transfer from the Federal Government. Thus, the discrepancy in Federal and Provincial numbers, and to no-one's surprise, each uses whatever value that backs it's position.

However, that still begs the question, where did that $ 857 figure come from? The Ontario Budget states population for FY 04-05 as 12,393 million, and Federal Transfers for CHST as $12,024 million. That results in a per capita figure of $ 970 in direct cash payments.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Are you suggesting we ORDER the immigrants elsewhere?? ..."

I'm suggesting we give up trying to get them to move anywhere. For the last 10 years most provinces have resorted to some form of bribery to encourage immigrants to settle there. No matter how lucrative, it never gets paid out; they still insist on settling in Toronto.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Leave it to gordguide to 'guide" us to the light.

Great job gordguide, my hat is off to you!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes which means they have specific needs which cost money.

You are still dodging the question tho the stats are dazzling 

Gap - justifiable complaint that needs addressing?

or

Bellyaching....nothing in it.??

Shall we go back to "highest pork content gets the vote
or
A rational and flexible transfer system that may be assymetrical.

Arguing whether the bus is going 60.24 miles per hour or 58.6 when it's about to hit you is.......hmmmm....kinda not to the point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Arguing whether the bus is going 60.24 miles per hour or 58.6 when it's about to hit you is.......hmmmm....kinda not to the point.


Oh my, not using metric as in KPH?

Bet you're against Kyoto too, are you?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We know that macdoc likes nuclear power...perhaps he's against Kyoto as well?

A closet Conservative wayyy out there in HogTown? Masquerading as a leftoid? 

Stranger things have happened.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Somehow Gerry, I don't think so.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I dunno SINC...the guy lives off the selling of a terribly AMERICAN device...and he's totally enthusiastic about it too! (note the name: MAC doc)

But he CLAIMS to hate the Americans and takes them to task with shocking regularity. He spews venom at the USA every chance he gets...but he lives off of their gear! And feeds his family by selling American gear! 

He seems to be one of the last holdouts from the failed social experiment that came out of the late sixties. It was known, back then, as the "New Left"

It's totally dead now (most of them are now stock brokers who drive gas guzzling SUV's these days).

But Macdoc wants us all to think that he still follows that old line of thought from forty years ago. Wants us to think that he lives by it, even. (Americans=BAD. VOLVO=Good. Socialism=Good. Capitalism=BAD...and on and on....)

At the same time he is an enthusiastic supporter of NUCLEAR POWER!

YIKES!! :lmao: :lmao: 

I'm bettin he is actually a secret supporter of the conservatives. HECK!...he might even be a member of the American Republican party for all we know!

Like I said...stranger things have happened....


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

gordguide said:


> I'm suggesting we give up trying to get them to move anywhere. For the last 10 years most provinces have resorted to some form of bribery to encourage immigrants to settle there. No matter how lucrative, it never gets paid out; they still insist on settling in Toronto.


Yep. And then we get people from all over Canada moving to Toronto too. I meet a lot of people in Toronto, and most of them aren't from Toronto.

I don't know enough about the issue to debate this intelligently. My perspective is simply that as a lifelong Torontonian, Toronto is in serious need of investment, particularly in infrastructure. 

This is the fifth largest metropolitan in North America, holding over 15% of the Canadian population, over 40% of Ontario's population, and growing. I don't know where the money should come from--municipal, provincial or federal--but the over 5 million residents of this city suffer from the constant squabbling between all three levels of government. 

This is not to say that the 25 million other people in this country don't also live in areas that need investment. It's simply to say that we need it here, as well.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A suggestion here, sonal...

Vote for ANYTHING but Liberal. Municipally, provincially, and Federally. Every single chance you get!

THEY got you into this mess. And they have no clue as to how to solve the problems they've created.

Stick with them, and you will have more of the same. And MORE grief! To add to the old grief.

Orrr...you could turn the page.

Your choice.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacNutt, I choose to vote based on who I feel will best get me out of this mess, not to punish who got me into this mess.

Though for that matter, I think it was the Harris government that downloaded the cost of services from the Province to the municipalities, so IF I were voting to punish, for the sake of my city, I'd definitely have to keep the Conservatives out, at least provincially. 

In any case, for the upcoming election, please do point me to the Conservative Party's plan for Toronto. Their website mentions something about improving roads in general--which is sounds promising, but is rather fuzzy on implementation--and a tax rebate for transit users--which is nice, but IMO insufficient, since the bigger issue for me is investment in municipal transit. 

I'm happy to read and consider more, however, but this is simply what I found.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Provincial politics is somewhat different from national politics. The same way that local municipal politics is different from the bigger provincial or federal versions.

HECK...I vote LIBERAL here in BC provincial elections! And I am on their personal cheering squad! Yes that's right...MacNutt is card carrying member of a LIBERAL party! 

Provincially, at least.

Federally, I am solidly in the Conservative camp. I'm weary of all of the scandals and corruption and broken promises. I am totally AGAINST the Liberals at the national level. I think that...at the national level...the Liberals are wayyy overdue for a long vacation from power.tptptptp 

Bottom line here, sonal?

Vote for the party that you think will make the biggest difference at each level of politics. And do not get confused between local (municipal), provincial, and federal (nationwide) political parties. They are often quite different from each other. Despite any similarity in names.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

But MacNutt, you just said:

"A suggestion here, sonal...

Vote for ANYTHING but Liberal. Municipally, provincially, and Federally. Every single chance you get!"

To me this implies advocating voting against the Provincial Liberals to punish the Federal Liberals.



But from my perspective, for Toronto to get the money it needs for development, it needs to work with the province and/or the federal government to either put more money into the city, or take less money out of the city. 

That said, when it comes right down to it, do I care which level of government that it comes from? No. 

But each level of government affects Toronto. Any party at any level with a plan for improving Toronto definitely gets my careful consideration.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sonal...

Toronto is facing a very unique set of problems right now. And it's going to take some very creative problems to try and solve these problems.

The old ways just won't cut it. Go with those...and you will see even MORE and even BIGGER problems looming on the horizon of Canada's biggest city. Pretty much right away.

The old crumbling infrastructure of TO is failing badly...there are serious smog alerts for weeks at a time...the water is full of nasty chemicals...the streets are seriously clogged...there is not enough electricity to supply the current demand, and there are no real plans for any new electrical generation sources (in fact, the McGuinty government swore that they were going to shut down many of the current electrical generators back when they were elected).

Quick question here:

Many of the more ecologically minded Torontonians would just LOVE to be able to purchase electric cars to replace their giant SUV's. What would happen to the shaky electrical system if even ten per cent of the residents of this city all decided to plug their brand new electric cars, all at the same time?

Scary stuff, eh?:yikes: 

I won't even attempt to go into the gunfire that seems to be taking place...and taking innocent lives...right on the streets of Toronto these days. In broad daylight, no less! Right on Younge Street. 

Want to make a change? You have two real choices as I see it:

Dump all of the idiots at ALL levels of government, and be prepared to start all over again with a clean slate. Prepare yourself for some very new ideas to solve these problems. Or be prepared to live with them. Your current guys in power got you here...and they have NO idea how to get you OUT. Cancel them, ASAP!

Orrrrr...you could do what so many other Torontonians are doing these days when faced with all of this nasty stuff:

LEAVE! Move out to the west.

The west is the future, after all. And a brighter one at that.:heybaby:  :clap: 

Your choice.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

G'day MacNutt, it's _Yonge_ Street. And the gunplay, for all the media attention it's garnered, (not to mention the political hay all parties are making of it during this election) is still not destroying the city, much as you appear to take glee in hoping that it is. You might be forgiven for harbouring the erroneous impression that the city is rapidly emptying out, but it seems not everyone is cutting and running. Strange thing is, Toronto and the larger GTA appears to be growing. We are in the midst of the biggest residential construction boom I've ever seen in this town. Every time I get up onto the Gardiner I note the astonishing proliferation of condos sprouting up right in the centre core of the city... sorta reminds me of Vancouver during the last couple of building booms, the way they resemble weeds. We're also building office towers downtown, too... my favourite is developer Harry Stinson's elegant needle of a tower just off of the lower end of Yonge... it's quite a beautiful piece of architecture.

I know, I know - it's outrageous to compare Toronto with a city in the West! Still, what can I say? I don't know anyone who's buying your unsubstantiated assertions about population patterns in Canada and the supposed flight to the West. Even Montreal appears to be more than holding its own... it's not undergoing the kind of construction boom that my town's been experiencing the last few years but the spirit of Montreal, the vibrancy of it, is very much alive. This, despite the same old tensions and the uncertainty which has long become a feature of life in modern Quebec.

As for your contending that the West is "the future" and leaving it at that, it's not unlike our forefathers from two, three hundred years ago declaring Europe to be finished. I dunno about that; lots of people making a nice living in Europe to this very day. Well, they must be deluded, the poor souls. Geez, and they don't even know it!

I guess it boils down to an entrenched and grievously compounded insecurity and the need to blow one's own horn by nastily dissing another place. Which, by any measure, is a very old impulse indeed. Ahhh, well... please, keep bashing Toronto, sir. By all means, if that's become one of the routines you need to depend on if you are to make it through the day! Always glad to extend a helping hand to those saddled with crippling dependencies.

(;->D)


Just wanted you to know that some of us are staying put, thanks very much. But listen, for your sake - whenever I hear that one of my fellow Torontonians is contemplating moving out West, I am going to recommend to them SSI as a lovely new home. I'll be sure to tell them of one enthusiastic resident I know who so deeply loves the peace and quiet it affords that he just can't stop talking about it. Just doing what I can to help, man!

Toodle-oo.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I own and manage rental property that is a short walk from where the gunfire took place. I'm in that area very frequently. And I feel no less safe than I did before. There's been no discernible drop in prospective renters who want to live there, and I haven't had to adjust the rent at all. Was it a tragic event? Yes, but not the horror the media makes it out to be. 

Crime, however, is a much bigger issue in Malvern--one of the only areas in the city where property values are dropping. There's been very little media attention given to that. So yes, a solution to crime in the city that is focused on the real problem areas and not the ones that get media attention would be welcome.

Rather than electric cars, I'd prefer a transit system that was actually convenient for the majority of the city. Then you would see a drop in drivers. That takes significant development in transit infrastructure. Most people who drive here do so because from where they live, using transit takes 3-4 times longer than driving--transit only effectively serves a relatively small area of the city. Given the choice between driving 30 minutes in rush hour, or commuting 2 hours, many people drive despite the expense.

Then, perhaps, we could do something about the gridlock and the bumper-to-bumper traffic that creates smog in the city.

The electric system needs work, yes, but so does transit and road infrastructure. There have been a number of rebate programs to reduce energy consumption. Those need to keep coming.

You are absolutely right that Toronto needs creative solutions. Consequently, any party that presents one gets my attention.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A party that is right for SSI is not necessarily the pick for the GTA.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Yep. And then we get people from all over Canada moving to Toronto too. I meet a lot of people in Toronto, and most of them aren't from Toronto. ..."

Well, Sonai, all I can say is for most provinces in Western Canada we try as hard as we can to attract immigrants, and there are quite a few people moving here every day. Trouble is, they are not from outside Canada, they're English speaking Canadians from Ontario and in particular Toronto. For every Saskatchewan resident that moves to Alberta someone from Toronto moves to Saskatoon or Regina, and I would be shocked to learn it's not a common migration pattern in Calgary or Vancouver as well.

I don't know very many people who moved to Toronto, but I can tell you those that did would rather have stayed home if they could. There are certain industries that simply are concentrated in Toronto and that won't change.

However, of all the people I know who had to make such a move, more of them chose Hollywood or Silicon Valley than Toronto or Ottawa. Did you know there are 1 million Canadians who have chosen to move to California? Should we blame Toronto for not being the mecca it steadfastly insists it is?

I think I understand Toronto's problems in a way a native-born resident does not. All our lives, Toronto has been the poster child of Canadian Arts, Commerce, and Business. No matter what the issue, it was always TO first; and get familiar with "Trickle-Down Economics" for the rest of you.

Now, the world has changed, and it's no longer a no-brainer that everything accrues to Toronto. People can choose Atlanta or Hong Kong over Toronto, and they do. The brother of a very good friend moved to London (UK) instead of Toronto, and he's now a vice president of a European Bank. 40 years ago he would have chosen differently, and joined the dozen or so former Saskatchewan residents who have headed a Canadian Bank in Toronto or the Bank of Canada in Ottawa.

Money can move from Winnipeg to China as fast as it used to move from Winnipeg to the TSE. Although we're used to dealing with these things; all of our money used to go to Toronto. 10 years ago Saskatchewan residents had 10 times more money in deposits in banks than is loaned in the province; Banks took our deposits and loaned the money in Toronto, to create jobs in Toronto, just like they always had. Now, we put our money in Dutch banks, or Hong Kong banks, and the money gets loaned in Stuttgart or China instead. What's changed for us? Nothing. What's changed for you? The sweet deal, the one you don't even know you have, is slowly moving elsewhere.

Welcome to the world economy. It means big changes for Canada, but those changes differ depending on where you live. In my neck of the woods, its a net benefit. My costs go down, there are no more or no fewer jobs than there always have been, that level of industry simply didn't exist in the first place, because, just like "Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft", no-one ever got fired for building a plant in Ontario rather than New Brunswick. For Toronto, it's not such a great thing. Everything that can move offshore is everything you have been the default beneficiary for within Canada for the last 100 years.

That you find a certain lack of sympathy for your present situation surprising is part of the problem; you have no idea what you stand to lose because you never realized what price the rest of Canada paid so you could prosper. Time and time again it has happened and people outside Ontario are so used to it we can hardly remember each incident, but let me assure you, if Ottawa is worried about house prices, it's not house prices in Vancouver that gets the alarm going. If factories close in Halifax, it's an isolated event. If factories close in Ontario, the Bank of Canada needs to adjust interest rates pronto. 10% unemployment in BC is a provincial problem; 10% unemployment in Ontario is a national crisis, and even if BC had overcome the problem by then it would be smartly addressed once Ontario felt a little twinge, and BC residents pay the price with higher inflation when they could have used the freeer fiscal policy two years earlier to create those jobs when they were needed.

Even though it's not of our doing, the world has changed for us, whether we like it or not. Toronto has much more to lose than the rest of us, but it's not my crisis. I have my own, and so does all the other cities in Canada, just like we always have. Certainly we wouldn't ask Toronto to pipe up for us; we know from experience that Toronto's interests are directly opposite any other Canadian city's. What is so surprising is anyone would think they are the same; and it's laughable the word "fair" should be dragged into the debate. Why now? What's changed? Toronto has never advocated fairness before; they were only happy when they got a "better" deal than the rest.

To put things in perspective, Toronto is as guilty of insisting it gets it's way when dealing with the rest of Canada as the US is when dealing with Canada itself. And just like the US, you can't see why anyone would not just love you for all the wonderful things you do for us. Excuse me if I don't buy it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

gordguide said:


> However, of all the people I know who had to make such a move, more of them chose Hollywood or Silicon Valley than Toronto or Ottawa. Did you know there are 1 million Canadians who have chosen to move to California? Should we blame Toronto for not being the mecca it steadfastly insists it is?


Not surprised at all. My brother moved to San Francisco. I was a programmer before I became a writer, and many of my colleagues went to Cali as well.

Anecdotal evidence only, but most people I know in Toronto who are not from Toronto come from elsewhere in Ontario, the Maritimes, Montreal or outside the country. I know some people who come in from out West, but not as many.

People move in and out of the GTA all the time, but overall, the city grows. 

But for me, attracting more people to Toronto is not really a goal for me--I honestly don't care if people choose to move here or not, though historically, the city grows. Improving the city I live in and have no desire to leave is an issue for me.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I think you guys are missing the point here, YES, Toronto has problems and I think what it is showing us is that ALL our Canadian cities are having problems, it's just that since Toronto is ALOT larger than any other city, it shows the problem in a bigger scale and therefore gets more press about the problem. Face it. What is more newsworthy, when a city needs $600,000 in repairs or $60,000,000. Obviously, $60,000,000. The plain fact is that some cities' infrastructure have been ignored for too long and I think it's more a problem of the reallocation of responsibilities that went on a few years ago between the various levels of government.

This is why a few mayors recently asked all parties for there position on providing part of the gas tax to the cities.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Kosh, your point is well taken. However, these issues are not new. What is new is Toronto whined, and the media takes notice. And why not? City Hall and the National Media are practically next door to each other.

We're not debating the "gap" between Alberta and Ottawa, are we? And if we were? Would the CBC pay any attention? What reaction has the issue ever received from Toronto besides glazed eyes?

Except now there's an election, and Ontario on one hand and Toronto on the other are digging in to insure they get what they want out of whatever the outcome is. That's what makes it news; the issue itself is old. There's a new wrinkle in that this time it's not overwhelmingly in Ontario's favour, as it was for most of the 20th century. That's the real news here.


----------

