Amen!

41 comments

1. Those were brilliant comments. It’s so disappointing that this government is not taking steps to ensure the highest quality urban centres in Canada. Surplus or not, cities are where so many Canadians live, and the federal government should have more of a pro-city attitude in any financial circumstance and promote innovation in this respect.

2. So Carroll wants to make “the people’s money” the city of Toronto’s money instead. Gee, thanks for standing up for the people. But I’m afraid the cities keep going after the wrong guys, seeing as how cities are the province’s jurisdiction and all. Is it somehow bad form to go after a Liberal government for money or something?

3. Aren’t they doing that too, GDH?

   Anyway, sometimes there are days to be proud to live in Toronto, and this is one of them.

4. Now if only Miller had the balls to say that…

   And Shawn, It is a good day to live in Toronto.

5. As cities are legally and constitutionally “creatures of the province”, the Feds have no business or responsibility to give them any money. If the Provinces think that the cities need more money, it is their responsibility to give them. Conversely, if the military is underfunded, it isn’t the Provinces responsibility to pay for the needed requirements. But of course, Dalton doesn’t like the optics of a tax hike.. so he is passing the buck (so to speak) to the Feds.

6. I don’t understand GDH comments. Cities aren’t the responsibility of the Federal government? Last time I checked Toronto is located inside the Canadian Federation, every jurisdiction and person in Canada is the Federal government’s responsibility.
   In the U.S. the Feds support their cities, the same in Germany, there is not one country in the world whose central government does not take responsibility for every jurisdiction and citizen in their countries, it seems like Canada is the exception and I find it shocking that people like GDH accept such sad state of affairs…
   It is OUR money that is paying for Flaherty’s surpluses and the guy has the nerve to say the cities are going after the wrong guys? Those “wrong guys” are using OUR money to pay their political right winged narrow minded agenda.
   Your partisan attitude is blatant (just as my anti-conservative partisanship is also blatant), because if you pay any attention to this forum (and to city hall) you will see that they are also going after the Ontario Liberal government as well as the Neo-Cons in Ottawa. The difference between the Liberals and Conservatives is that while the first takes this city for granted and is hurting us by inaction, the second has a clear anti-city (especially anti-Toronto) policy. The Conservative are the ones who put policies in place that hurt us, the Liberals are just morons incapable of doing what is right.
   Flaherty is among the main culprits for our problems when he was the Provincial Finance Minister, and Harper has the nerve to nominate him to deal with the GTA’s issues in his government. If the Federal government has nothing to do with cities then why nominate this guy for GTA’s urban issues in the Federal Government? I know why: to show his contempt for us.
   Shelley Carroll is an amazing lady and I am proud to have her has a fellow Torontonian and a member of our city council. I love it when people stand up to bullies.

7. Carroll’s comments resonated with me and the majority of millions of Canadians that are the backbone of this country–the city citizens. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, etc…are great cities that need support and funding to keep Canada strong. Cities fund this country, they ensure a surplus because they work and generate large amounts of income for Harper and his idiots in Ottawa. It is a great day today in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and in every city that Carroll’s comments touch.

   GDH…provincial commitment for cities…we live in the 21st century…not the archaic, antiquated system of singular goverment responsibilities. High functioning vibrant cities in Canada are massive networks of peoples and systems that require all levels of goverment for their success. Cities have funded this country…surpluses don’t come from anywhere. The federal government is hence apart of their continued success. The cities are owed and need this money. Stand up for Canadian cities and their continued success and vibrancy. Carroll’s comments are poignant and unwavering. And much appreciated!!

   AJ

8. (Looks at Carroll all starry-eyed).

9. Faced with a new study that shows urban infrastructure is “near collapse,” Flaherty sidestepped responsibility yesterday, noting “we’re not in the pothole business in the government of Canada.”

   Comparing the functioning of a government to that of a business is a red herring.

   Acceptance of the truth of his statement would imply that the government is the boss, rather than an instrument of the will of the people.

   If the people of Canada tell the government to give money to the cities, the government should not be able to say ‘no.’ When Flaherty talks like this, what he is really doing is setting the stage so that he is in the position to decline the will of the people.

   Politicians who use statements like these are not only being dishonest, but also antidemocratic.

10. Every level of government wants to spend taxes, no level of government wants to be the one to demand taxes. MPs then get asked why they pay so much in federal income tax when in large part they are not spending that money, a provincial premier or a city mayor is.

    Here’s an experience – go ask your parents for money so that a friend of yours can buy a car. Your parents will probably ask why the friend’s parents won’t give the money or why the friend can’t raise it himself. These are fair questions and require good answers.

    Taxes should be raised as closely as possible to where they are being spent. Flaherty has freed up tax room for the provinces by reducing federal taxes. However there are some provinces which if they raised their rates would not receive enough because they are not as rich, however, that’s why we have equalisation and Ontario is not one of those provinces.

11. More women in all levels of government please.

12. I reread Shelley Carroll’s comments and I have to say that she make us proud. She has so much class and intelligence when compared to the buffoons in Ottawa. She makes Flaherty looks like an illiterate chimp. A great moment for Canadian cities indeed…

13. “Last time I checked Toronto is located inside the Canadian Federation, every jurisdiction and person in Canada is the Federal government’s responsibility.”

    That is half right. The Federal Government is responsible to (not for) the citizens of the country. Constitutionally, Cities are nothing… they do not exist past what the Provices say can exist (remember amalgamations?).

    I’m disappointed that people seem to care so little about the framework of our country so as to argue for a means to an end “solution” to the problem.

14. Miller and Carroll can talk all they want. There is no way Toronto is getting the assistance it needs from the province or the feds.

    The municipal government needs to find long term solutions and that means a transfer of power towards lower levels of government. I don’t hear anyone talking about this.

15. As for Ms. Carroll’s comments.. aside from her unfortuante ignorance of the Federal/Provincial breakdown of responsibilities in Canada:
    “Canadians need to ask themselves some very simple questions: why do cities continually need to raise taxes to meet basic service needs when Ottawa has an enormous surplus?”

    They are mutually exclusive. If Ottawa has a surplus, it should cut taxes to levels that support what it needs and collect nothing more. A surplus should be illegal (as should a deficit). If Toronto needs more money, it should lobby voters to support Provincial politicians who will give it more money OR it should raise taxes itself, now that it has such powers (which it has).

    “Why did Toronto have to impose a land transfer tax and vehicle ownership tax when Ottawa has an enormous surplus?”

    Again, mutually exclusive. It is like asking why is the sky blue when my grilled cheese sandwich came with a side of fries.

    “Why are bridges crumbling in Montreal when Ottawa has an enormous surplus?”

    Because you have no clue as to what you’re talking about.

    If anything Toronto should be celebrating the fact that the Feds want to cut taxes. That enables the Provinces to raise taxes acordingly and give that money to the cities and not change the impact on tax payers.

    But then again, ignorant name calling is so much easier.

16. Mr Galbraith – exactly so.

17. Some of the programs that Toronto is responsible now were once Federally run programs, which were then dumped onto the provinces, who then dumped them onto the cities.
    When are people going to stop looking for excuses as to who is rightfully responsible for what, see that we have a problem, and start dealing with it?
    No matter what, these crucial issues aren’t going to go away, and it’s not right that we as individuals suffer from governmental dithering.

18. Carroll’s comments;

    “The property tax base cannot fund reserves of the magnitude needed today. Property taxes pay for services like police, fire, EMS, recreation, garbage collection, water – basic services Canadians depend on everyday.”

    … and vending carts, and bailouts for bankrupt theatre troupes, and renovations to mayor’s offices, and free golf passes for councellors, and christmas/holiday lunch for city staffers, and paid wildcat TTC strikes.

    Yes, yes, clearly the City of Toronto *needs* these funds for the *basics* of civil government.

    /Sarcasm off

    In reality, the City of Toronto needs to stop with all these silly ‘pet projects’ get down to brass tacks and then they will have the moral authority to lobby both the provincial and federal governments for more money.

    MPs and MPPs are not stupid… they are not likely to send a cheque to cover City Council’s pet projects. Kill the pet projects, and get real.

19. GDH…provincial commitment for cities…we live in the 21st century…not the archaic, antiquated system of singular goverment responsibilities.

    Although Canada was, indeed, founded in the 19th century, it continues to exist in the 21st century, and we live in it.

    As does its operating system, which is its constitution. Those who assert loudly that the division of powers just isn’t relevant any more are, with respect, utterly misinformed as to Canadian law and, as it happens, politics.

    You know, I was a huge supporter of the cities’ 1-cent-of-GST campaign.

    But a funny thing happened. The feds dropped a penny off the GST. Ontario’s provincial government was fresh off an election in which the winning party had loudly stated its commitment to the penny campaign. But instead of raising the penny sales tax as a municipal tax, the province did an abrupt about-face and said that it would no way, no how restore the penny as a municipal tax. (And, yes, only the province can raise tax money for municipalities. That’s the law.)

    Shawn writes: Aren’t they doing that too, GDH? I am not GDH, but as far as I can see — no, they are certainly not. Since the provincial election, the thrust of Toronto’s and, indeed, the cities’ campaign has been focussed on the federal government.

    That would be strange at any time. Given the penny’s shaving from the GST, it is absolutely bizarre and, I should add, disappointing in the extreme. Noone is holding McGuinty’s feet to the fire — when he is the one in the position to deliver the exact thing cities said they wanted, and that many of us wanted for cities. Anyway, sometimes there are days to be proud to live in Toronto, and this is one of them. The above — the appearance of an highly cynical campaign that appears to care little for actual results — is why I feel exactly the opposite.

20. In reality, the City of Toronto needs to stop with all these silly ‘pet projects’ get down to brass tacks and then they will have the moral authority to lobby both the provincial and federal governments for more money.

    chesire, cities are not single-issue entities. They have lots to do. Sometimes that requires creativity.

    I feel you’re missing the point. They have the moral authority to lobby governments now. Only, for no apparent reason, they have decided that the most relevant government is really of no interest to them after all. (What that disinterest has to do with McGuinty’s reelection, of course, I have no idea.)

    If Ottawa has a surplus, it should cut taxes to levels that support what it needs and collect nothing more. A surplus should be illegal (as should a deficit).

    Sean, that’s a bit of a separate matter, isn’t it? Ottawa taxes too much for its level of spending. As far as planning goes, it should either cut taxes, or spend more, so that that does not happen any more.

    As far as dealing with unexpected tax surpluses, so far Ottawa has been paying them to reduce the debt — but, in many cases, spending the resulting reduction in interest payments. Perhaps there should be a rule according to which any such reduction should instead be transferred to the provinces…

21. Cheshire, as many people in these parts know, the City of Toronto has had their spending increase at half the rate of the provincial and federal governments over the past 10 years. There’s really no debate about that fact and it shows that, for a government (which is a vastly different climate than any other type of organization), the City of Toronto is managing itself very effectively on the whole.

    On your specific examples: Toronto’s real problem is balancing its operating budget and most of the money you’ve referred to is capital spending. But let me humour you anyways.

    Vending carts (capital): $700,000 is a small amount that will be fully recovered within 5 years and then turn to profit.

    Purchase of Theatre Passe Meraille (capital): The City got a fantastic deal on this building, which can be sold at any point in time for somewhere between 500% and 1000% profit. Also, small theatres like this one are the blood lines of Toronto’s culture sector, which is a vital part of our city’s economy.

    Mayor’s Office rennovation (capital): This was scrapped as part of cost containment.

    Golf passes (operating): Although the cost to the City is negligible, the Mayor and many of his allies on Council actually voted to get rid of them. Unfortunately, Councillor Doug Holyday voted for the passes and the motion to scrap them lost on a tie.

    Holiday lunch (operating): My understanding is that this was scrapped, as it should have been.

    TTC job action (operating): Although this was a huge inconvenience for transit riders (myself included) and should never have happened in the first place, it has actually turned out to be pretty good for taxpayers. The TTC was able to negotiate a new way of scheduling staff and as a result will save $600,000 per year in over time this year and for the foreseeable future. I call that turning lemons into lemonade.

    It seems crystal clear to me: Toronto’s municipal leaders have the moral authority and political mandate to press the federal and provincial governments to meet their obligation to the people of Toronto.

22. Toronto’s municipal leaders have the moral authority and political mandate to press the federal and provincial governments to meet their obligation to the people of Toronto.

    Well, yes, they are certainly beholden to the million of people of Toronto.

    But insofar as the federal and provincial governments’ obligations to “the people of Toronto” flows through the government of Toronto, that obligation is owed by the province.

23. (millions.)

24. I am sorry Sean but you are completely wrong. I will try to keep my grammar mistakes to a minimum for your sake.

    The people of Toronto are what make this city, not the land or the buildings on it. If all Torontonians left the city then it would not exist anymore even though the buildings would still be there. If the Federal government is responsible FOR all Canadian citizens then by association it is responsible for the citizens of Toronto who make the city of Toronto. So whenever you or the Conservatives state that the Feds are not responsible for the city of Toronto that implies directly that they are not responsible for the citizens who inhabit it. Whenever they neglect our needs they neglect us as Canadians. Simple as that!

    I know what the framework of this country is, but that doesn’t mean I should care about it. When the Feds use a 19th century framework as an excuse not to do their job as a government then they are asking for trouble. Nowhere in the world this happens, so why should I accept this broken “framework” for my country?

    “Canadians need to ask themselves some very simple questions: why do cities continually need to raise taxes to meet basic service needs when Ottawa has an enormous surplus?”

    Unlike what you claim they are not mutually exclusive because Ottawa is running those surpluses on our backs, so whenever Flaherty taxes us so he may gloat about surpluses he his unnecessarily taking much needed money from my community. Once people like you make the association that the taxes the Feds collect is our money and that same money is not finding its way back to us then you can see how these things are mutually inclusive.

    It seems you are the one who is so blind-sided by antiquated 19th century rules that you have no clue what you’re talking about. You may know the “law” but you don’t know what needs to be done to make a country work.

    People in general are not that stupid and they can see when they are getting a rotten deal.

    The Conservatives are cutting unnecessary taxes. Whenever they cut income or sales taxes that does not mean the city is able to increase its property taxes accordingly, that is not a good way for my money to find its way back into my community. Taxes are necessary tools to make a country function, but to do that you must tax in a smart way. Changing a tax from a base that grows with the economy (income and sales) to a base that is pretty much stagnant (property) is not an intelligent way to make a country function. So unlike what you say there would be a huge impact on tax payers, especially for those people who own and rent houses in Toronto. If I could I would have my income taxes sent right to City Hall instead of having it go to Flaherty, but that is not the “framework” of this country.

    The Feds are good at collecting money, they should be good at distributing it as well. The Feds could get around the “framework” if they wanted to. They have done it many times by giving money to Provinces for them to allocate it into specific programs under provincial jurisdiction (health care, education, housing, etc). They could as easily give some of OUR money to the Provinces for them to allocate it towards a program for urban renewal, the reason they choose not to is because they have nothing to gain from it politically. They know they could give all our money back and Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal would still not vote for them. The Liberals don’t do it because they take us for granted. So either way we are constantly getting screwed by incompetent politicians who put their political careers ahead of the greater good.

25. I apologize for caring what the “law” says. My mistake. Don’t like the law, agitate to change it. There is a very simple way to enable the Federal Government to directly provide support to Cities… a Constitutional Amendment. Start that petition drive and I will happily sign it.

    “So either way we are constantly getting screwed by incompetent politicians who put their political careers ahead of the greater good.”

    We are in complete agreement. And by politicians who questionable definition of “the greater good”.

26. Meant to say: And by politicians who have a questionable definition of “the greater good”.

27. Carlos: Judging by your position that the “law” is antiquated and no longer matters, I suspect you’re fine with the Federal Government lobbying cities to pay more for the military and foreign affairs? I mean, if the division of authority is irrelevant and the “greater good” reigns supreme.. then why not?

28. I know what the framework of this country is, but that doesn’t mean I should care about it. When the Feds use a 19th century framework as an excuse not to do their job as a government then they are asking for trouble. Nowhere in the world this happens, so why should I accept this broken “framework” for my country? (…) It seems you are the one who is so blind-sided by antiquated 19th century rules that you have no clue what you’re talking about. You may know the “law” but you don’t know what needs to be done to make a country work.

    You know, this is your central point, and you keep repeating it, but you are wrong. See my earlier comment above. There are even links you can click on. So whenever you or the Conservatives state that the Feds are not responsible for the city of Toronto that implies directly that they are not responsible for the citizens who inhabit it. Ditto. In particular, it’s not the Conservatives who make these rules. It is our governments, legislatures, and courts.

    They could as easily give some of OUR money to the Provinces for them to allocate it towards a program for urban renewal, the reason they choose not to is because they have nothing to gain from it politically.

    Weeell … you know, they could probably, indeed, find a loopholey way to do something like this, same as (indeed) they have done in the past.

    And maybe they should.

    The thing is that that’s a one-time exceptional roundabout way of doing things. Why not be straightforward by — gasp — going to the guy in charge? His name is Dalton.

    So either way we are constantly getting screwed by incompetent politicians who put their political careers ahead of the greater good.

    The current Ontario government is constituted by a party which said it wants to see a penny municipal tax on every dollar. Since that time, the tax on every dollar has gone down a cent, setting up the Ontario government to charge it.

    It’s time they did. And, really, it’s that simple.

29. “The current Ontario government is constituted by a party which said it wants to see a penny municipal tax on every dollar. Since that time, the tax on every dollar has gone down a cent, setting up the Ontario government to charge it.”

    Exactly. And McGuinty should go one better by adopting the HST at 15%. The added revenues could go toward reducing Ontario income and corporate taxes and providing cities with more funding. This would also have the happy result of helping Ontario manufacturers with the high dollar by getting rid of the poorly designed provincial sales tax. A policy that could help them right now, as opposed to, say, demanding that Harper magically lower the dollar.

    Instead, we get this clown show from the city and province.

30. “Instead, we get this clown show from the city and province.”

    I think the biggest clowns are in Ottawa… Harper just made a fool of himself in Uganda by isolating Canada from the rest of the Commonwealth on a climate change agreement. Flaherty is another fool that is embarrassing himself with today’s announcement of 9.3 billion dollar surplus for the first 6 months of the year (I wonder how much of that money came out of Toronto). Yep this country is a real circus…

31. Why admit when you’re wrong when you can just change the topic!

32. lobbying ontario to adopt the hst sounds more plausible than lobbying the feds to give us part of the gst, especially after the tax cuts. if anything about our government is broken it’s the corrosive partisanship from both sides.

33. The HST sounds fine, but I worry about muddying the waters. The Ontario government, which runs the cities and is responsible for them, could follow through on its promise and tax the penny tomorrow. HST, PST, whatever — that’s a separate issue and possibly a more complicated one.

34. Adam;

    I appreciate your humouring my argument, however you miss two very salient points.

    Firstly, while many of the costs are indeed capital costs, there are ongoing operating costs as well. It would be foolish to claim that by building a new subway line (Capital) that there are no associated operating costs.

    The second point that you miss, is that the inconsistent tone being given by Carroll. She is *clearly* asking for funding for the basics of civil government (trash/sewer/EMS), but council spends the funds elsewhere, on capital projects.

    No, I am sorry, no government Federal or Provincial is going to give the City of Toronto a blank cheque. Water rates are going up 9%, property taxes too, as are new taxes, just to pay for the basics. Are you honestly telling me that there are no additional cuts that could have relieved some of these cost increases?

    I await the next round of bargaining with city Union workers. As has already been expressed by Mr. Kinnear of the ATU, do not expect any wage concessions from city workers.

    As such, expect the operating budget problem to get worse, not better. Unfortunately, Toronto is going to face a very hard decision in the future. We either have to accept drastically higher taxes, cuts to services, or contracting out city services (waste). I am not advocating any of the above strategies, but I am preparing myself for all possibilities.

35. For those confused, Galbraith and GDH are referring to the British North America Act of 1867 when they say “constitutionally”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act%2C_1867

    If one interprets it wishing to be an American conservative, then one can claim that cities are not matters of federal jurisdiction.

    However, clause 91 gives the federal government power to “make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces”.

    Cities are not assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces. To my mind, this means that federal government has as much power as it likes to invest in cities. And it should.

36. GDH, do you seriously want to hike the regressive sales tax in order to cut the progressive income tax?

    Sales tax is paid disproportionately by the poor, the majority of whose income goes to pay for necessities. Hiking it will hurt people least able to bear the hurt.

    Income tax is paid onlyt by those who have disposable income, with those who have more disposable income paying more. It is paid by people who can afford to pay it.

    Your proposal is ridiculous.

37. Cheshire,

    The reason property taxes will have to be “drastically higher” is because they were effectively cut every year at the rate of inflation under Lastman. Unfortunately, when one reduces one’s income year after year, one’s costs eventually overwhelm one’s revenues.

    I don’t like the obvious solution because property values in Downtown Toronto are disproportionately high relative to the absolute utility of the properties for exactly the same reason the federal government gets tens of billions of dollars out of Downtown Toronto.

    Hiking taxes to match the rates paid in the suburbs will drive out people of mixed incomes and owners of mixed uses. Jane Jacobs repeatedly noted that both mixed incomes and mixed uses are needed for a city to be vibrant, prosperous, and safe.

    The federal government needs to stop treating Toronto as a goose that lays golden eggs for free, and to start investing in our mutual prosperity. We need revenues other than property taxes, and there are a lot of revenues raised on our land that we do not see.

38. Dear Sean Galbraith, in reality I didn’t change topics, I was just commenting on the clowning thing mentioned before. I don’t now why the hostility, I agreed with GDH, they are all clowns, starting from the top in the Federal level where you can find the major clowns.

    I think climate change and pollution are just another area of Harper “stinking it” to us here in Toronto and to cities, and Flaherty’s 9.3 billion surplus is what we have been discussing here all along, so I don’t know how it was a change of topics. Anyhow I think Mr. Galbraith is completely wrong, just like he thinks I am wrong about how the Feds (and specifically his con friends in power at the moment) believe they are entitled to neglect me and my fellow citizens just because we are from Toronto. The guy just mentioned how much he know about our “constitution” but Leo Petr’s comment just proves how little he really knows, it turns out the Feds can use clause 91 but choose not to do so (thanks Leo) . They think it is ok to take my taxes away from my community and to diminish my voting rights as an Ontarian under bill C-22. If we are getting screwed now wait until this thing gets through. (Another change of topic because I feel I am wrong).

39. Leo Petr is right: preferring sales tax to income tax is bad social policy, and good only for people who don’t spend most of their income.

    Why not go all the way and have a poll tax — let’s say $10,000 per person per year? *I’d* be paying less, so it must be a perfectly sensible plan. The rest of you losers will have to “find efficiencies” before you have sufficient “moral authority”.

40. Leo writes: If one interprets [the Constitution] wishing to be an American conservative, then one can claim that cities are not matters of federal jurisdiction.kind of a big deal.

    However, clause 91 gives the federal government power to “make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces”.

    Sigh. No. “Not assigned exclusively” means, well, the stuff not assigned exclusively. Not rocket science. Cities are not assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces. Here, I’ll help. Go here. Scroll down to 92. Read the title (“EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES”). Then scroll down to subsection 8. Read that, too (“Municipal Institutions in the Province”).

    Seriously, this is not rocket science, folks. Carlos writes: The guy just mentioned how much he know about our “constitution” but Leo Petr’s comment just proves how little he really knows, it turns out the Feds can use clause 91 but choose not to do so (thanks Leo). Gulp.

41. Disparishun, I’d say section 92.8 “Municipal Institutions in the Province” pretty much makes the municipalities (and their associated problems) a provincial problem!

    Sales taxes are consumption taxes, it is generally considered to be better to tax consumption than it is the creation of wealth (income). In fact a true value added tax would be far less of a burden on the economy than income taxes. A VAT in place of the land transfer tax would be far more equitable than the existing schemes.

    Funneling a portion of the VAT to each level of government could eliminate the current insane property tax scheme that is based upon the estimated sale value of an asset as determined by a star chamber of bureaucrats.