[Mike in TO]

Save, don't sulk, defiant Flaherty tells cities
Finance Minister urges 'grumpy' mayors to spend less after facing sharp criticism for his reluctance to boost infrastructure funding
STEVEN CHASE and LORI MCLEOD AND KAREN HOWLETT

With reports from Jeff Gray in Toronto and The Canadian Press

Globe & Mail

November 24, 2007

OTTAWA, OSHAWA, TORONTO -- Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty remained unapologetic yesterday in the face of municipal outrage at his reluctance to fork out more cash for cities, saying mayors are "really grumpy" and must better control spending so they can afford infrastructure. "This is not rocket science," the Finance Minister said in a speech to the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. "We're controlling spending [in Ottawa] of course. You have to do that if you're going to balance budgets," he said.

"My municipal partners, Hazel - God love her, and so on, when they get really grumpy," he said, referring to criticism from civic leaders such as Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, who's blamed federal neglect for a new 5-per-cent infrastructure charge she's floated for her city's residents and businesses. "You know, you've got to control your expenses," Mr. Flaherty said. "We all run household budgets ... you have to control the expense side."

The Finance Minister drew the ire of municipal leaders this week when he balked at their request for more dollars in the face of a new report showing urban infrastructure is "near collapse," and declared that Ottawa is "not in the pothole business."

Toronto Mayor David Miller said the Harper government runs the risk of alienating voters in the next federal election if it does not acknowledge that Ottawa has a responsibility to provide cities with more funding for infrastructure. Every Western country with the exception of Canada has a national transit strategy that provides continuing funding for public transit, he said in an interview yesterday. "This is about a very fundamental challenge for Canada, about how we fund cities," Mr. Miller said.

Calgary Mayor David Bronconnier charged that Mr. Flaherty is trivializing cities' infrastructure needs and invited him to pick up a shovel and help out. "I don't know of any municipal leader that has ever asked the Finance Minister to fund potholes. However, we've got lots to fill, and if he's looking for a little extra work on the weekend, we'll put him to work," Mr. Bronconnier said Thursday.

Mr. Flaherty's position is that Ottawa has done its "heavy lifting." The Harper government's last two budgets have doled out $33-billion over seven years for infrastructure. "What's not right is for municipalities or provinces to look to be bailed out on their responsibilities by another level of government," he told reporters yesterday. "Canadians are tired of that. They expect each level of government to do its own work and to balance budgets and to act like responsible people who are elected and [not] ... blame this government over there or that government over there," he said. "That includes municipal governments. They have an obligation to have reserves and to plan ahead. One doesn't, you know, be a mayor or a reeve or a councillor and think only about tomorrow morning. One should think about what's going to be worn out 10 years from now, what's going to be worn out 20 years from now."

Mr. Flaherty's defiant stand comes just as municipal leaders begin working together to get the message out that all cities, regardless of size, are in dire need of money for roads, public transportation, sewage systems and other infrastructure.

"Is it 'whining' to demand that public funds be spent judiciously?" Toronto budget chief Shelley Carroll asked. "Ottawa is clearly out of touch with the rest of Canada if that is the prevailing attitude."

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

"You know, you've got to control your expenses," Mr. Flaherty said. "We all run household budgets ... you have to control the expense side."

Interestingly, he hasn't said a word about the income side. It's like a household being legally stuck with a house and 4 kids without the accompanying means to pay for either.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

Agreed, AoD. They're both wrong. Large cities are clearly unsustainable with the current revenue structure. It's equally wrong for cities to expect other levels of government to pay their bills for them and take the political hit for collecting the taxes. Cities should be allowed to levy sales taxes if they can gain enough support from the people who will have to pay them. If Torontonians want to keep the city running the way it is, they'll have to face a tax hike as they have with the land transfer tax. Miller and council will have to make a better attempt at getting costs under control, though, if he expects popular support for another tax hike.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Says the Minister of Finance who helped usher in an era of municipal downloading and cut every major infrastructure investment in the province/region/city. One could point the finger not at the City of Toronto but at him directly. Accountability, though, is not what it used to be.

It is unbelievable that higher orders of government refuse to strategically address the major issues of the unsustainable city. The cities agenda, even under the previous Liberal government, was so watered down that it became the communities’ agenda so that smaller towns in Manitoba could get a piece of the pie. It is so short sighted. And it is also improper for cities to hope, beg, rely or even pander to the holders of their purse strings and expect payouts on every single program.

As has been said here, the funding formula is broken. The fact that cities are creatures of the provinces thus absolving the federal government of all responsibility reflects an archaic and antiquated system. In a world where city-states are regaining prominence and reputation is more or less traded between cities and not countries, Canada needs to step up and fix what is fundamentally broken.

And the Federal government can't do it alone. They have to bring in the Province and agree to do what is best for large cities and smaller municipalities. While there will always need to be a full accountability regime for the spending of public money (thus just giving it to the cities will not work), uploading municipal programs is at least a start. I endorse the uploading of transit to a regional or provincial body (GTTA) where it is fully funded by both the province and the federal government but implemented by a working group of municipal and provincial experts. I also fully advocate a series of revenue generating schemes where the Cities are capable of acquiring portions of the sales tax and corporate income taxes to better serve their citizens. One needs to get away from the incremental or one-off policies of user fees or new taxes on small items and look at a bigger picture.

One needs to be a leader and not a whiner. And another one has to be ready to change and not act defiant in his stance. More important, neither can be complacent. Not now. Not any more.

 

[Towered]

If Jim Flaherty were a poster on this forum, he'd be the ultimate troll. I can't wait for his ass (and the whole party) to get booted out.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If Jim Flaherty were a poster on this forum, he'd be the ultimate troll. I can't wait for his ass (and the whole party) to get booted out.

Taking on Hazel might just cost them any success in the Federal ridings in Mississauga.

I simply can not warm up to Harper as PM. If the Liberals had only elected Kennedy as their leader they'd kick Harper's hole.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Taking on Hazel might just cost them any success in the Federal ridings in Mississauga.

I simply can not warm up to Harper as PM. If the Liberals had only elected Kennedy as their leader they'd kick Harper's hole.

True, although his lack of French may have hurt him in Quebec. For some reason, Quebec seems to be moving en masse towards Conservatives and I don't understand why. But Dion cannot seem to capture English Canada and his baggage with previous governments doesn't help. Kennedy is an elequant speaker, passionate Liberal, competent voice and well regarded in Ontario (and BC, for some reason). He wasn't the perfect candidate but definately had more pros than cons. And of course, he's a friend to the cities and that's what I want from my federal leader. I don't mind Dion but, as a Liberal supporter, I'm angry at the party for failing to get on with old wounds and divisions. Move on already! There are battles to be fought and they are losing them all. Eventually Canadians will get sick of minority governments and if the Liberals continue to show no interest in winning then Canadians will probably just ignore their centrist principles and follow the lemmings to the polls and vote for the convservatives, ie the only viable leading option they've witness for the past (insert # here) of years.

None of the parties, including the NDP, care about cities. They say they might but they don't act on it. Flarety is the worst offender - he knows better than anyone else what the economic engine that is Toronto can do for the country. He also knows what type of fuel it needs to get it done. Stop feeding Toronto drippings of sugar and instead fill up the tank with gas.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Better yet, help pay for the bill to convert Toronto into a hybrid engine and then we'll really shine on the world stage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

True, although his lack of French may have hurt him in Quebec. For some reason, Quebec seems to be moving en masse towards Conservatives and I don't understand why.

Because they're tired of voting for the Bloc, since the BQ can never govern and thus influence Federal policies in Quebec's interest, AND because Quebecers do not like Dion for his Clarity Act betrayal, AND because Harper is making a concerted effort to appeal to Quebecers, even at the risk of offending his red neck Albertan voting base.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Because they're tired of voting for the Bloc, since the BQ can never govern and thus influence Federal policies in Quebec's interest, AND because Quebecers do not like Dion for his Clarity Act betrayal, AND because Harper is making a concerted effort to appeal to Quebecers, even at the risk of offending his red neck Albertan voting base.

100% true. From the Prime Minister's perspective, he knows his red neck base has no where else to turn so he can spend his time cozying up to Quebec. The ADQ showed that separatism is a soft issue and the soft separatists parked their votes away from the PQ; the conservatives are basically the federal answer the ADQ. But Conservative success in Quebec is not the work of magic pixies. Rather, they’ve worked hard to secure it.

In Ontario, we're pretty immune to the intense attacks against the Liberals. It was published that the Conservatives, armed with millions of dollars, had ads ready to trash Rae and Ignatieff before Dion won. These ads were catered to English Canada and Quebec, each with different messages. Guess which message was strongest. Hating the Liberals in Quebec is as fashionable today as laughing at Stockwell Day was in 2000 here in Ontario. It is no surprise that both feelings were manufactured by political. It is only fair to give credit where credit is due. 60% of this shift is the work of the conservative party - they are well-oiled, well-funded and surprisingly well-whipped. Of course, 40% of this credit goes to the Liberals who are so pissed at themselves all the time that they have allowed the Conservatives make huge inroads. The word sabotage comes to mind.

So in the end, I wasn't disappointed with the choice of leader last year. I am disappointed with myself for being optimistic that Liberals would move on as a party and challenge the government. As much as I would have liked for Kennedy to win, he’s not the leader today and I'm over it. What I'm not over is the colossal ball-dropping that the Liberals have showcased since then. My message to them: move on. My message to myself: move on.

 

[Jdot]

It's funny to see the evolution of the Conservative Party in Canada.
1. You start out with a party that panders up to Quebec to ensure enough votes for a majority.
2. Western party members get disgruntled over the Quebec focus and all the supposed hand-outs given to Quebec, so some branch off and start a new Party (Reform)
3. Some Reformers get upset that there is a split in the right, and that they will never govern unless they can unite the right, likely under their western mandate.
4. Union of the 2 conservative parties results in the "New" Conservative party, which is essentially run by the old Reformers
5. The "New Conservative" Party wants to run the country, but realizes that they cant do that unless they pander towards Quebec for votes, and so far have done so.

Perhaps right now the western conservatives are willing to allow this just to ensure that they get a majority government, but how long will they accept what some consider Quebec vote-buying before we see a new Reform Party?

 

[Observer Walt]

Jdot: Your five-step process or something like it is sometimes called "building a coalition". The Liberals have successfully executed Step 1 and Step 5, while managing to avoid the pitfalls of the other steps. Let's see if the Conservatives can now do so. If so, they will be in office for a while. If not, ie. if the party fractures because the western yahoos or the Quebecois navel-gazers get disgruntled, it will be a short stay in Ottawa for them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think the difference is that the Conservatives are pandering both to the west and Quebec, while leapfrogging Ontario altogether.

 

[allabootmatt]

...and time will tell if you can assemble a governing coalition while writing off 106 seats.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Makes you wonder why they wanted underrepresentation for Ontario, non?

AoD