HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2008, 5:39 PM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,871
Federal Transfer payments now account 40% of Provincial Revenue in Manitoba

The transfers trap
Strategies to wean Manitoba of its dependence on other people's money



Peter Holle | Winnipeg Free Press -> View from the West

Updated: April 7 at 12:55 AM CDT

Wednesday could be a historic budget day for Manitoba. With federal transfers heading perilously towards 40 per cent of total provincial revenues, it's likely these monies have reached a high water mark and that we may see sharp reductions in them starting next year. Such a development would be in the long-term interest of our province.

Many of Manitoba's public policy follies and the associated relative long-term decline of our province are rooted in Canada's well-meaning but perversely dysfunctional transfer payment system. Federal health and social transfers come with strings attached that discourage reform and innovation of provincial health systems. The no-strings-attached 51-year-old equalization program has been more damaging because it effectively pays our politicians handsomely for avoiding innovative public policy.

If you were a politician, to illustrate, why on earth would you want to modernize your government if this reduced your federal transfers? Let us consider some examples.

Manitoba's domestic electricity prices are below market levels, which has two perverse results -- people consume more power while being charged extra tax to make up lost revenue. The logical approach would be to price electricity at the market rate so that it is used in an economically and environmentally friendly fashion and then to use the extra revenue to reduce taxes. However, in the Alice-in-Wonderland space of Canadian transfer payment policy, that would lead to a reduction in equalization payments, so it is best to do nothing.

Manitoba has one of the least competitive economic environments in the country. Taxes are high, and private investment levels are low. Unfortunately, equalization isolates politicians from this reality. Most politicians in the world have found that strangling the economy means a smaller tax base, but not ours. Politicians in a have-not province are indifferent to economic growth: If the economy grows, it will yield more taxes, but if not, the province gets more equalization payments anyway.

Equalization also isolates politicians from the political fallout of poor spending choices. Most politicians find that their voters are concerned with the value they get from their taxes, but this is less so in Manitoba. When close to 40 per cent of government revenue comes from other provinces, the accountability link is weak. Manitoba spends more on services than the main "have" province Ontario which picks up the tab, but it does not get better results. The extra money goes instead to enlarge and enrich the public sector.

But changes loom.

Equalization may be about to make our politicians accountable to Ontario voters. The Ontario economy, which more or less underwrites a majority of the entire scheme, is under full-fledged assault by skyrocketing energy prices, a rising Canadian dollar and a recession in the critical U.S. markets that buy its products. Among the provinces, it will rank No. 9 in economic growth this year. For the first time in three decades, its unemployment rate exceeds the national average, and record numbers of people are leaving the province.

The Ontario public is starting to realize how badly the province is being ripped off. The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail newspapers, usually defenders of the status quo, are beginning to shine a light on transfer payment over-equalization.

The attached chart reveals how badly tilted the transfer system has become against Ontario. Comparing Manitoba and Ontario expenditure and service levels, we can see that Manitoba's per capita revenues are 20 per cent higher. It has 35 per cent more hospital beds, 35 per cent more nurses and 65 per cent more judges per capita. It has 44 per cent more government employees per capita compared to Ontario. Have-not Manitoba enjoys 12 per cent higher total revenue per capita than so-called Have Ontario.

As factories close, more Ontarians will ask why their economy carries so much of the weight of an over-equalizing system of transfers. For some perspective, if Manitoba's health system was scaled down to Ontario levels, we would have to fire 2,935 nurses and close 1,174 hospital beds. The wider body count in the public sector would have to fall by almost 41,000 working in the provincial government, the health care and university sectors, and local school boards (see www.fcpp.org).

The federal conservatives may finally figure out that a real reform of the transfer payment mess might be a political goldmine for them in the elusive Ontario political marketplace.

A simple fix would be to cap total transfers, so they cannot exceed Ontario benchmarks. For example, if Ontario revenue per capita were $8,200 per year, transfer top-ups to Manitoba would stop once its total revenue was equivalent.

Clawing back electricity subsidies would eliminate the equalization formula subsidy to un-green power pricing in Manitoba and Quebec.

A much cleaner and ultimately more productive approach would be to exit the equalization policy contraption entirely. This would remove the penalties the model imposes on Manitoba policy-makers for embracing a growth-oriented tax model, pricing electricity without subsidies and pursuing innovative public sector reform. Most importantly, this would benefit struggling Ontario by ending its milk cow status.

But there must be a politically acceptable trade-off which provides a similar value of transfer in a smarter way. To achieve this, the feds would make up the revenue by swapping tax points to the provinces and trimming Manitoba debt-service payments by absorbing some government debt.

Manitoba would need a tax and debt swap equivalent to the $2.2-billion it gets in equalization payments from the feds. Transferring the GST to Manitoba (with the requirement it harmonize with the PST) is worth $800-million, leaving a $1.4-billion shortfall.

To deal with the power subsidy problem, the province would split the difference with the feds. Assuming these subsidies are worth $1.4-billion, we can knock off $700-million, leaving $700-million to be made up in reduced interest payments. The feds would absorb $6-billion to $10-billion in provincial debt, depending upon the interest rate used in the calculation. Ontario will smile.

Then, say goodbye to the Kafkaesque transfer policy model, which has locked Manitoba in a penalty box of proactive stagnation for years.


Peter Holle is president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

www.fcpp.org


Selected indicators

Manitoba Ontario Canada


Hospital beds per thousand 3.82 2.82 3.43


Nurses per thousand 9.6 7.1 7.8


Average school class size 14.9 16.6 16


Judges per thousand 0.079 0.048 0.063


Civil servants per thousand 117 81 88


Provincial revenue per capita $9,818 $8,195 $9,652

__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2008, 7:44 PM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
Movin' on up
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,449
When is the cycle of federal financial dependance going to end?

WHEN?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2008, 7:50 PM
ILYR's Avatar
ILYR ILYR is offline
ILYR
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greco Roman View Post
When is the cycle of federal financial dependance going to end?

WHEN?
To be exact 11:03:56 am February 12th, 2014.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 6:05 AM
Moe Moe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 38
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. Federal Transfers aren't welfare payments, they are the return of federal taxes to a province to spend on programs,etc. for the people.

Would you prefer that no federal tax dollars were ever transfered to the provinces? Even Alberta has a large portion of revenue from these transfers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 2:25 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,598
this just keeps getting more embarassing, Manitoba has so many resources yet the NDP just keeps pissing it away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 2:53 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 8,015
One problem with the current economic realities of Canada is that provincial wealth for the majority of the "have" provinces is being temporarily propped up by the most recent oil boom. The end result being that provinces without the black stuff are suffering an increasing disparity in terms of economics. The economy of Manitoba hasn't really changed all that much in recent decades, and we have even seen some decent economic growth in the past couple years, and yet we are still falling further behind the 8-ball.

I think that the provincial NDP could go a far ways to trim the fat, but this also points to the problems associated with boom time economies tilting the balance of wealth across the country. In the end we are a country, and it's silly to assume that wealth shouldn't be distributed as equally as possible to all citizens.

Does a country like Norway have one or two ridiculously wealthy areas, or do all of it's citizens benefit from their oil reserves? Why should we be any different?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 3:08 PM
The Kid's Avatar
The Kid The Kid is offline
Kid Dynamic!
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 546
^Except in Canada, Albertans own their natural resources, not Canada as a whole, whether the rest of Canada likes it or not.

The spinoffs for the rest of Canada are huge, whether it be in manufacturing for the oil industry, or the thousands of Canadians that come to Alberta to work. Not to mention the taxes on big oil that flow into the federal treasury which is then shared with all of Canada.

I'm not making this statement to start some kind of thread war, just to point out the facts. I'm happy to have the country as a whole benefit from Albertas good fortune.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 3:45 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 8,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kid View Post
^Except in Canada, Albertans own their natural resources, not Canada as a whole, whether the rest of Canada likes it or not.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean it's a good system.

If disparities between regions continue to escalate, the current system of provinces owning resources and paying/receiving equalization between one another is going to end up one of two ways; eventually splintering the country or requiring massive changes to better distribute wealth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 4:04 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,598
I am fine with alberta keeping their oil revenues, recreating the national energy program will just cause more national unity problems and rob alberta of it's current boom, which is unfair because if Manitoba taps into it's hydro resources more agressively than we should be able to keep our hyrdo dollars too. People are jealous of alberta's current energy boom which is fine but I would not want my economy to rest on just one resource like energy for alberta. I like manitoba having the most diverse economy in Canada we don't have booms but no busts either it's just steady as she goes.I can see the price of oil have a serious crash in the next decade and Alberta may see another mid 1980's recession. Also if alternate energy sources for cars truly take off in the next 20 years which probably will happen than Alberta may be in the last great days of its economy and may become a have not province in 30-50 years!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 4:50 PM
Hawker Hawker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Manitoba is the equalization mooch of the country. In contrast, to the near 40% of revenue that Manitoba gets from the feds, Saskatchewan gets only 15%.

Even if you combine ALL non resource revenues and all $ Sask gets from the federal government, it still comes to just less than 35%, still less than Manitoba gets from the feds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 4:51 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I am fine with alberta keeping their oil revenues, recreating the national energy program will just cause more national unity problems and rob alberta of it's current boom, which is unfair because if Manitoba taps into it's hydro resources more agressively than we should be able to keep our hyrdo dollars too. People are jealous of alberta's current energy boom which is fine but I would not want my economy to rest on just one resource like energy for alberta. I like manitoba having the most diverse economy in Canada we don't have booms but no busts either it's just steady as she goes.I can see the price of oil have a serious crash in the next decade and Alberta may see another mid 1980's recession. Also if alternate energy sources for cars truly take off in the next 20 years which probably will happen than Alberta may be in the last great days of its economy and may become a have not province in 30-50 years!
In my opinion, the "no booms, no busts" economy just ends up creating a lazy business sector. Everything just keeps going along, albeit slowly; no one ever really has to change or innovate much, a lot of the more dynamic people will leave but there are always enough left to keep the province running in its modest way. I think that the difficulties that Saskatchewan has been through, by contrast, have made it a more dynamic economy as the people who stay there have no choice but to re-think their ways of doing things and to try to compete head-on with Alberta. Boom and bust cycles are a way to shake out the deadwood and to get people to try new things.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 6:03 PM
Greco Roman Greco Roman is offline
Movin' on up
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kid View Post
^Except in Canada, Albertans own their natural resources, not Canada as a whole, whether the rest of Canada likes it or not.

The spinoffs for the rest of Canada are huge, whether it be in manufacturing for the oil industry, or the thousands of Canadians that come to Alberta to work. Not to mention the taxes on big oil that flow into the federal treasury which is then shared with all of Canada.

I'm not making this statement to start some kind of thread war, just to point out the facts. I'm happy to have the country as a whole benefit from Albertas good fortune.

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw you post here. On the Alberta forum, you claimed that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan threads are "boring", in other words, not worthwhile visiting or posting in. Somewhat contradictory of you, no?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 8:24 PM
ILYR's Avatar
ILYR ILYR is offline
ILYR
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 518
Total federal transfer per person
Taken from http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/mtpe.html
Department of Finance Canada

The Government of Canada provides financial support to provinces and territories primarily through the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer, Equalization, Territorial Formula Financing, but also through other arrangements, such as Offshore Accords.

In 2008-09, support through major transfers to provinces and territories will be approximately $70.8 billion, including $50 billion in cash and $22.4 billion in tax.

For 2008-2009 (per person)

Provinces:
Newfoundland $3218
PEI $3711
Nova Scotia $3167
New Brunswick $3138
Quebec $2582
Ontario $1683
Manitoba $3225
Saskatchewan $1621
Alberta $1754
B.C. $1636

Territories:
Yukon $19805
N.W.T $20503
Nunavut $31885
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2008, 10:16 PM
dennis dennis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I am fine with alberta keeping their oil revenues, recreating the national energy program will just cause more national unity problems and rob alberta of it's current boom, which is unfair because if Manitoba taps into it's hydro resources more agressively than we should be able to keep our hyrdo dollars too. People are jealous of alberta's current energy boom which is fine but I would not want my economy to rest on just one resource like energy for alberta. I like manitoba having the most diverse economy in Canada we don't have booms but no busts either it's just steady as she goes.I can see the price of oil have a serious crash in the next decade and Alberta may see another mid 1980's recession. Also if alternate energy sources for cars truly take off in the next 20 years which probably will happen than Alberta may be in the last great days of its economy and may become a have not province in 30-50 years!


A big Alberta bust would be equivalent to a Manitoba boom.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2008, 1:08 AM
TSN's Avatar
TSN TSN is offline
Tiger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
In my opinion, the "no booms, no busts" economy just ends up creating a lazy business sector. Everything just keeps going along, albeit slowly; no one ever really has to change or innovate much, a lot of the more dynamic people will leave but there are always enough left to keep the province running in its modest way. I think that the difficulties that Saskatchewan has been through, by contrast, have made it a more dynamic economy as the people who stay there have no choice but to re-think their ways of doing things and to try to compete head-on with Alberta. Boom and bust cycles are a way to shake out the deadwood and to get people to try new things.
Not just the business sector but government. Manitoba's provincial economy has never imploded hence we've seen both the PCs and NDPs more or less tweak things and do nothing radical in terms of economic or taxation policy. BC took some radical steps several years ago because they were driven into the ground, Ontario's governments have had major shifts over the past 15 years due to crisis. And it'll be business as usual in Manitoba....the reduction or ultimate elimination of transfer payments will be what likely dictates major change. Sask's recent success probably has as much to do with mining, potash, ag, and oil/gas as it does with government making it more business friendly to compete with Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 4:43 PM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,871
Achieving 'have' status a huge challenge

Dan Lett | Winnipeg Free Press

Updated: April 10 at 07:50 AM CDT

Finance Minister Greg Selinger would like Manitoba to end its run as one of Canada's "have-not" provinces, and take up residence among the "haves."

It's a worthy goal -- becoming a province that generates so much of its own revenues it does not need federal equalization payments -- but it's certainly going to be a long-term project if yesterday's budget is any indication.

Finance Minister Greg Selinger delivered a budget with modest cuts to property and income taxes. Businesses will get some tax relief. There are solid but modest increases in spending for education, infrastructure and support for Winnipeg. There are user fee increases as well, but not enough to warrant any significant concern.

After nine budgets from this NDP government, it's time to accept that this is one cautious, conservative group of politicians. But is this steady approach, as Selinger likes to call it, the road to 'have' status? It's hard to say.

First, even if you're not a fan of the NDP government, it's fair to acknowledge the challenges it faces when putting together a budget.

Tax hikes and deficit financing were completely off the table. The former is pure political suicide; the latter is illegal in Manitoba, thanks to this province's balanced budget law.

As part of the balanced budget law, Manitoba is forced to make a debt payment every year on its general purpose debt, and the civil service pension liability. This year, $110 million will go down on the debt. Finally, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund or "rainy day account" as it is called, demands attention. The NDP is under no formal obligation to make a deposit in the rainy day fund, but not doing so is generally considered a sign of weakness. To avoid catcalls from the opposition benches, the NDP will transfer $90 million, bringing the balance to more than $680 million.

All these factors combine to shape the budget Selinger delivered yesterday. In fact, with no possibility of tax hikes or deficits, and continuing demands to pay down debt and grow the rainy day fund, it looks as if we could sustain our have-not status for some time to come.

There are some optimistic signs. Manitoba and its diverse economy is expected to lead the nation in growth next year as some of the larger provinces are hammered by the U.S. recession and credit crisis. This means own-source revenue such as sales and income taxes will be robust. But to go from have-not to have status, Manitoba would have to find another $2 billion of own-source revenue. Selinger took pleasure in announcing yesterday that for the first time in history, Manitoba's economy is worth more than $50 billion. No one could say how much the economy would have to grow to generate the additional revenue to elevate us to have status, but many NDP sources contacted yesterday agreed it would be "a lot."

Where does that leave Selinger's dream of achieving 'have' status? This is a government that has always maintained the slow, steady, long-term approach is the best for the province. That may be so, but there is a cost to slow and steady that has little or nothing to do with whether Manitoba is a have or have-not province.

The Winnipeg Social Planning Council reports that 20 per cent of Manitoba children continue to live in poverty, roughly unchanged since the NDP came to power in 1999. And despite strong economic growth over the past decade, food bank usage has grown every year. Increased investments by the NDP in health care, education and infrastructure, and the undeniable strength of employment and growth in the economy, have apparently not been able to reduce this troubling reality of life in Manitoba.

Selinger was correct to point out that his government has undertaken measures that have removed some 11,000 people from social assistance, and introduced valuable programs to not only boost income but improve employment opportunities. And yet, the size of the problem remains unchanged, leaving open the possibility that Manitoba could one day become a "have" province and still have 20 per cent of children living in poverty.

Manitoba may one day become a 'have' province, and there are many positive signs in yesterday's budget that we are on our way. But if we continue to carry an intolerably high level of poverty, and if working people continue to need food banks to make ends meet, then perhaps being a "have" province isn't all it's cracked up to be.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 7:48 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,881
lets pay are 11billion dallor provincial debt off ! and decrees our inferstructer debt what ever it is at...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 10:09 PM
ILYR's Avatar
ILYR ILYR is offline
ILYR
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
lets pay are 11billion dallor provincial debt off ! and decrees our inferstructer debt what ever it is at...
Sounds good 1ajs ... you owe $9166.67.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 10:19 PM
Tower Crane's Avatar
Tower Crane Tower Crane is offline
ABOVE people like you
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba
Posts: 343
Thurmas's Crystal Ball

Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I am fine with alberta keeping their oil revenues, recreating the national energy program will just cause more national unity problems and rob alberta of it's current boom, which is unfair because if Manitoba taps into it's hydro resources more agressively than we should be able to keep our hyrdo dollars too. People are jealous of alberta's current energy boom which is fine but I would not want my economy to rest on just one resource like energy for alberta. I like manitoba having the most diverse economy in Canada we don't have booms but no busts either it's just steady as she goes.I can see the price of oil have a serious crash in the next decade and Alberta may see another mid 1980's recession. Also if alternate energy sources for cars truly take off in the next 20 years which probably will happen than Alberta may be in the last great days of its economy and may become a have not province in 30-50 years!
I can see it now at the Red River Ex Side Show....Thurmas's crystal ball off the wall predictions. These are all very general fluffy views, comments, and time frames. Alternate energy for cars is not going to be any type of nail in the coffin of the oil world. Car use is not the monster share of use, the use of oil / petroleum resources in ships, boats, planes, trains, heavy manufacturing equipment, 3rd world countries, and million other items will keep that industry going for long after 20++++ years. Oh and I predict that Manitoba may become a have province in 30-50 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2008, 10:54 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe View Post
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. Federal Transfers aren't welfare payments, they are the return of federal taxes to a province to spend on programs,etc. for the people.
And it just so happens that the "have" provinces pay more in federal taxes than they get back, and the "have-not" provinces get more than they pay. Sounds like welfare payments to me.

Edit: Nevermind, I was confusing transfer payments with equalization payments. How embarrassing.

Quote:
Would you prefer that no federal tax dollars were ever transfered to the provinces? Even Alberta has a large portion of revenue from these transfers.
Yes. Federal taxes would go down, provincial taxes would go up and tax competition between the provinces would benefit everyone. Provinces with bad fiscal policy would have to live with the results instead of being bailed out by everyone else (usually BC, Alberta, Ontario).

Last edited by quobobo; Apr 11, 2008 at 3:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.