Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by H2man

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here but isn’t this “abundance of federal dollars” only accessible is the Province makes a hefty contribution too? If so, then why is it any surprise? I mean, the PCs were elected to get finances in order and control spending. Why would anyone expect them to spend beyond their means when that has always very clearly not been their agenda? Seems disingenuous to me for the feds to hold provinces hostage and force them to spend huge in order to access their money. If they were serious, they would find a way to get shovels in the ground with their own (borrowed) money.

I don't think it's surprising, it's just depressing, particularly when the PC government in Ontario is happy to leverage federal and municipal funding to move their province forward.

But after living in Manitoba for eight years, I realize that the average person's attitude seems to be "things are fine the way they are and we don't need any fancy new stuff."

[H2man]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

I don't think it's surprising, it's just depressing, particularly when the PC government in Ontario is happy to leverage federal and municipal funding to move their province forward.

But after living in Manitoba for eight years, I realize that the average person's attitude seems to be "things are fine the way they are and we don't need any fancy new stuff."

The attitude from the perspective of the current government is that the previous NDP government spent beyond their means for a long time and now it’s time to make priorities. Don’t get me wrong- there’s room for criticism for the current PC government but they campaigned on responsible spending over “fancy new things” bought on credit. Debate is welcome how well they did that but ideologically it’s not depressing. Like I said, if the feds were serious about changing Canada or whatever, they wouldn’t force provinces’ hands and allow to them to pursue their mandates as they see fit.

If Winnipeg wants fancy things (and the feds want to borrow to buy fancy things), we should be prepared to pay for it. And to be clear, as a Winnipegger who pays taxes, I’m absolutely prepared to do that without burdening other levels who do not benefit.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by H2man

The attitude from the perspective of the current government is that the previous NDP government spent beyond their means for a long time and now it’s time to make priorities. Don’t get me wrong- there’s room for criticism for the current PC government but they campaigned on responsible spending over “fancy new things” bought on credit. Debate is welcome how well they did that but ideologically it’s not depressing. Like I said, if the feds were serious about changing Canada or whatever, they wouldn’t force provinces’ hands and allow to them to pursue their mandates as they see fit.

If Winnipeg wants fancy things (and the feds want to borrow to buy fancy things), we should be prepared to pay for it. And to be clear, as a Winnipegger who pays taxes, I’m absolutely prepared to do that without burdening other levels who do not benefit.

The "government is a household" metaphor is a bit tiresome -- "spending beyond their means", "buying on credit", etc. Government finances are nothing like household finances.

It's not a matter of the feds trying to "change Canada" or "force provinces' hands". The feds are willing to be a partner in development. If a province is trying to get things done, the feds are there to help. Ontario has been trying to get these transit projects going for a long time; it's not some kind of social engineering project on the part of the feds. If a province isn't interested in doing anything, the feds are not going to force them.

Also not sure what you mean by "burdening other levels who do not benefit". The majority of the Manitoba population lives in Winnipeg. It is completely reasonable for the Manitoba government to provide funding for transportation in Winnipeg.

I'm not debating that the PCs are doing what they said they would do. But you shouldn't be surprised that people on an urban development forum are not particularly happy with parties and policies that don't support urban development.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Ando

Well, if you read the previous posts you would know that large transit developments are funded generally on a tripartite basis. The federal money is there. The City wants to do it. The Manitoba government doesn’t want to do it. That’s the answer.

Mildly rude reply but yes, I know that already.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by H2man

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here but isn’t this “abundance of federal dollars” only accessible is the Province makes a hefty contribution too? If so, then why is it any surprise? I mean, the PCs were elected to get finances in order and control spending. Why would anyone expect them to spend beyond their means when that has always very clearly not been their agenda? Seems disingenuous to me for the feds to hold provinces hostage and force them to spend huge in order to access their money. If they were serious, they would find a way to get shovels in the ground with their own (borrowed) money.

The PC's are borrowing money hand over fist. Where do you think the money is coming from to reduce education taxes? Let's reduce tax, then pay interest to borrow that money. That is precisely the thing they campaigned on not doing.

To get the federal dollars, we may need to borrow money yes. I'd be interested to know where Ontario is funding the $40+ billion dollar transit projects. The feds are giving them $10 billion. I seriously doubt the other $30 billion is coming from their pockets.

[buzzg]

The idea that the feds are holding the province "hostage" is hilarious. There are lots of funds available for projects where everyone is putting in their fair share. If the feds just handed out money for every project without needing the provinces, the provinces would certainly just take advantage and never spend a dime.

I think the tripartite funding model is a great one – "you want money, put in some of your own too." It's like asking the bank to cover your mortgage without you putting anything down or paying interest.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by OTL

Precisely. Illogical to the core, however this will help get the Tories dethroned come election time.

Their base in the suburban Winnipeg "ring ridings" don't care about transit and are perfectly happy to see transit development not happen, even if it means saying no to (effectively) free money from Ottawa. It's amazing to me how the Tories' middle finger to Winnipeg plays surprisingly well in Winnipeg itself.

Urban masochism.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The PC's are borrowing money hand over fist. Where do you think the money is coming from to reduce education taxes? Let's reduce tax, then pay interest to borrow that money. That is precisely the thing they campaigned on not doing.

To get the federal dollars, we may need to borrow money yes. I'd be interested to know where Ontario is funding the $40+ billion dollar transit projects. The feds are giving them $10 billion. I seriously doubt the other $30 billion is coming from their pockets.

Don't know how getting education taxes off the backs of homeowners and making education taxes income based is a bad thing!

No where else in Canada was an education tax tied to the value of property!

[H2man]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

The "government is a household" metaphor is a bit tiresome -- "spending beyond their means", "buying on credit", etc. Government finances are nothing like household finances.

It's not a matter of the feds trying to "change Canada" or "force provinces' hands". The feds are willing to be a partner in development. If a province is trying to get things done, the feds are there to help. Ontario has been trying to get these transit projects going for a long time; it's not some kind of social engineering project on the part of the feds. If a province isn't interested in doing anything, the feds are not going to force them.

Also not sure what you mean by "burdening other levels who do not benefit". The majority of the Manitoba population lives in Winnipeg. It is completely reasonable for the Manitoba government to provide funding for transportation in Winnipeg.

I'm not debating that the PCs are doing what they said they would do. But you shouldn't be surprised that people on an urban development forum are not particularly happy with parties and policies that don't support urban development.

I fully understand that financing government is different than a household (which is why I never said that), but "buying on credit" is exactly what is happening with this money offered up and there are simply finite resources to support interest on borrowed money. Certainly there are scenarios where borrowed money is a good investment and worthy but there are still limits to the number of times that should be happening.

When I said "burdening other levels of gov't" and "holding them hostage", I am referring to the fact that a certain amount of money has been earmarked for infrastructure projects on their agenda and the government can either stick to their agenda, transfer money from their infrastructure budget to maximize federal dollars (I'm not opposed to that at all), or cave to pressure from the feds to borrow beyond their budget in the name of getting extra money.

Like I said, if the feds are really interested in helping the provinces and not forcing their hand to their priorities, they could tie their funding to each province's infrastructure agenda to help them out under the condition the province doesn't cut and run with their own funding commitments.

I certainly understand folks on an urban planning forum want federal and provincial funding for e.g. rapid transit, but the question should be, at the expense of what other project? Perhaps there are crappy infrastructure projects the PCs are pursuing that should get pulled, and if that's true, I'm all for that if it means we can get more federal money for RT...

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No where else in Canada was an education tax tied to the value of property!

What are you talking about? Literally every province has education property tax.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Don't know how getting education taxes off the backs of homeowners and making education taxes income based is a bad thing!

No where else in Canada was an education tax tied to the value of property!

That's not what I said. We've talked about this for years and yes great plan.

But they are removing 50% of the education tax from your property tax bill over the next 2 years or whatever it is. And that money is then being borrowed with interest. There is no other source for that money. That's not the greatest plan IMO. Borrowing $300 million per year at this rate. This number might be low. I'll have to find the source.

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

What are you talking about? Literally every province has education property tax.

And also this.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Mildly rude reply but yes, I know that already.

Your statement indicated you didn’t understand that.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by H2man

I fully understand that financing government is different than a household (which is why I never said that), but "buying on credit" is exactly what is happening with this money offered up and there are simply finite resources to support interest on borrowed money. Certainly there are scenarios where borrowed money is a good investment and worthy but there are still limits to the number of times that should be happening.

When I said "burdening other levels of gov't" and "holding them hostage", I am referring to the fact that a certain amount of money has been earmarked for infrastructure projects on their agenda and the government can either stick to their agenda, transfer money from their infrastructure budget to maximize federal dollars (I'm not opposed to that at all), or cave to pressure from the feds to borrow beyond their budget in the name of getting extra money.

Like I said, if the feds are really interested in helping the provinces and not forcing their hand to their priorities, they could tie their funding to each province's infrastructure agenda to help them out under the condition the province doesn't cut and run with their own funding commitments.

I certainly understand folks on an urban planning forum want federal and provincial funding for e.g. rapid transit, but the question should be, at the expense of what other project? Perhaps there are crappy infrastructure projects the PCs are pursuing that should get pulled, and if that's true, I'm all for that if it means we can get more federal money for RT...

You aren’t correctly representing what exactly the Manitoba PCs are doing. Everyone understands the traditional Conservative approach to smaller government and balanced finances. This isn’t what the Pallister government is doing. Pallister is giving tax rebates and lowering government revenues exactly at the time when we need them during pandemic related economic downturn. He is not taking advantage of federal dollars that are available for important infrastructure projects - which it has been noted the Ontario PC government has. Not taking advantage of federal tax dollars (your tax dollars) when others are is an an ill-considered strategy. Pallister has also indiscriminately made cuts in government services, most notably health at a time when it is clearly needed - right now, Manitoba has the largest per capita Covid rate. Pallister is a rural Reform Party PC. Talking about him and his government in the context of a traditional “progressive” conservative government is pointless.

[GreyGarden]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Their base in the suburban Winnipeg "ring ridings" don't care about transit and are perfectly happy to see transit development not happen, even if it means saying no to (effectively) free money from Ottawa. It's amazing to me how the Tories' middle finger to Winnipeg plays surprisingly well in Winnipeg itself.

I think this is the significant difference facing the Manitoba PCs and the Ontario conservatives on the issue of transit.

Transit is a huge issue in Southern Ontario and people of all political stripes rely on it and for the most part support investment in it. Now, where that transit money actually gets invested can be incredibly boneheaded and political, but the investment is typically still there. PC voters in MB do not ride transit. In addition, in their minds, investing in transit likely means making it more difficult for them to drive in Winnipeg. Unlike in Ontario, riding transit is still looked down upon in Winnipeg. That stigma doesn't really exist in Southern Ontario.

It's depressing that the Manitoba PCs don't see the value in transit, but their voters don't either so it's hard to blame them for not investing in it. I still do, but its a hopeless exercise. In addition, "sticking it to Trudeau" plays really well with rural and suburban voters in MB, much more so than it does in Southern Ontario where the federal liberals enjoy pretty healthy support.

[H2man]

Originally Posted by Ando

You aren’t correctly representing what exactly the Manitoba PCs are doing. Everyone understands the traditional Conservative approach to smaller government and balanced finances. This isn’t what the Pallister government is doing. Pallister is giving tax rebates and lowering government revenues exactly at the time when we need them during pandemic related economic downturn. He is not taking advantage of federal dollars that are available for important infrastructure projects - which it has been noted the Ontario PC government has. Not taking advantage of federal tax dollars (your tax dollars) when others are is an an ill-considered strategy. Pallister has also indiscriminately made cuts in government services, most notably health at a time when it is clearly needed - right now, Manitoba has the largest per capita Covid rate. Pallister is a rural Reform Party PC. Talking about him and his government in the context of a traditional “progressive” conservative government is pointless.

I'm not painting a picture of Pallister doing everything ideologically correct. I'm not going using this thread as a platform to defend or criticize all of his takes, I am strictly speaking that it's entirely understandable that as a provincial government of any stripe has priorities according to their agenda and that it's disingenuous for a federal government to manipulate that agenda by tying their contribution to the province changing their priorities.

We have finite resources and a plan with our infrastructure dollars. While I've already indicated I would be happy to reconsider the priorities if it means we get more total money towards them, I don't view it as leaving money on the table when it involves spending more money than we're prepared to spend.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

It's depressing that the Manitoba PCs don't see the value in transit, but their voters don't either so it's hard to blame them for not investing in it. I still do, but its a hopeless exercise. In addition, "sticking it to Trudeau" plays really well with rural and suburban voters in MB, much more so than it does in Southern Ontario where the federal liberals enjoy pretty healthy support.

This goes back to zalf's earlier point:

Originally Posted by zalf

I just don't understand the political calculation. Sure, sticking it to Trudeau and taking the fancy city folk down a peg plays well in rural ridings, but those are a lock for the PCs anyway. The city is where there's a shot a peeling a couple seats from the NDP or the Liberals. Why alienate urban voters?

A lot of people in swing seats (basically suburban Winnipeg except for Charleswood and North Kildonan which are reliably PC) are fairly moderate on the whole. These are not, for the most part, hardcore Tories. Some of them might take transit, some may even vote Liberal in federal elections (gasp!). Those are the voters that the PCs need, but they seem disinterested in seeking out those moderates.

If you're the PC leader, you don't need to give Jake Friesen in Altona another reason to vote for you because he's voting for you anyway, it doesn't matter if the PC plurality there goes up to 85%. What you need is a vote from Jiang Ping in Waverley West, or Mike Ducharme in Southdale. And those are people who might be looking to the province to lead on things like transit.

[GreyGarden]

Originally Posted by H2man

I'm not going using this thread as a platform to defend or criticize all of his takes, I am strictly speaking that it's entirely understandable that as a provincial government of any stripe has priorities according to their agenda and that it's disingenuous for a federal government to manipulate that agenda by tying their contribution to the province changing their priorities.

I've read this whole thread and I still don't understand how offering to be partners on green transit infrastructure is somehow manipulating the provinces or being disingenuous. This system gives provinces the freedom and power to determine their own priorities and make decisions. It's fair to all provinces and at the same time, it doesn't encroach on the provinces heads of power. At the same time, the federal liberals also have a mandate to make smart investments in green infrastructure, and especially transit. If they just offered funding for infrastructure, provinces like MB and AB would just build highways or continue to "stick it to Trudeau".

[H2man]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I've read this whole thread and I still don't understand how offering to be partners on green transit infrastructure is somehow manipulating the provinces or being disingenuous. This system gives provinces the freedom and power to determine their own priorities and make decisions. It's fair to all provinces and at the same time, it doesn't encroach on the provinces heads of power. At the same time, the federal liberals also have a mandate to make smart investments in green infrastructure, and especially transit. If they just offered funding for infrastructure, provinces like MB and AB would just build highways or continue to "stick it to Trudeau".

I don't really buy the stick-it-to-Trudeau thing. I think it's definitely a spinoff benefit for PC governments who very clearly don't like him, but I think their main goal is to have their spending under control. The federal money is a take-it-or-leave-it offer, meaning you get less federal money if you refuse to break from your spending plan. The narrative seems to be, "the feds are trying to give us money but the province isn't letting them give it", which ignores how much more the province would have to fork over to make it happen. The feds want to give money to the provinces for what they deem are priorities but only if the provinces want to make that a priority over other things they are trying to manage.

This is all not to say green/transit projects are a bad idea if it's a shared priority between all parties in such a partnership arrangement...

[buzzg]

But that’s the thing, transit should be a priority. Infrastructure always needs to be built. These are great stimulus programs to be coming out of Covid. We’ve gotta be one of if not the only province not concerned with improving transit, it’s bone-headed.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by H2man

I don't really buy the stick-it-to-Trudeau thing.

You should actually listen to Pallister. "We aren't Ottawa West" is his second favorite soundbite. His favourite is: "I'm leaving money on your kitchen table!" which is exactly what he's doing in not taking federal infrastructure money--leaving money on the table. Anything that we invest, the feds match. That's a direct injection of capital into the Manitoba economy.