Well, that's up the electorate. A very large number of them consistently vote for lower taxes and for it to be a more efficient provider of services.
Becoming more efficient almost always means becoming less fair and not distributing funds evenly.
Government is what the voters create of it. If we want to reduce the deficit while increasing spending, we need to make targetted investments in various cities economies. If we don't care about reducing the deficit or don't mind cutting spending, then it really doesn't matter much.
I disagree that 'becoming more efficient means becoming less fair and not distributing funds evenly'. To me, becoming more efficient means removing redundancies in the government bureaucracy and streamlining processes to make them more efficient and less cost and time consuming. What you're describing seems to be the elimination or severe reduction of certain aspects of government in order to reduce the size of government.
Of course, but that comes with any capital expenditure. Building a $10B hostpital complex in Moose Jaw would employ thousands of people in the area temporarily, then your left with a hugely oversized hospital that drains more than it gives.
Money is finite and it always get spent. Saying that Project X is worthwhile because it provides construction work is silly. Project Y, which is the same $ amount, will also provide roughly the same amount of construction work. This is one of the main reasons I dislike the way Metrolinx does BCAs; there are millions of alternative ways to spend that money and most of them provide the same temporary job benefit.
When Highways 1 and 2 in New Brunswick were twinned starting at the beginning of the last decade (and I believe some parts are still under construction), they were billed largely as a make-work project for the area. The traffic volumes didn't really justify it, but they felt the safety and economic benefits made it worth it.
To a lesser extent, the same is true in Ontario for the twinning of Highway 11 up to North Bay. The purely traffic volume case was somewhat dubious, but the economic gains made it worth it.
As for the notion that it will deprive funding from other things, that's not necessarily true. There's nothing saying that those funding commitments can't come through as well. For most rural municipalities with a small population, the amount of funding they will receive through this program will not be enough to do anything substantial (by urban standards). For example, Lanark County just west of Ottawa would receive $12,757,000 per year. This would be enough to rehabilitate a couple county roads per year, but that's about it. But that may be all they need to do at this point. Does getting that $12 million exclude the possibility a $50 million grant for an expanded hospital facility? I wouldn't think so.
And let's not forget, that every road project that is paid for by the Province is one less project that needs to be paid for by the municipality. This means less pressure placed on strained municipal budgets every year.
Agreed. I'm not arguing against providing funding to other locations. I'm simply stating that targetted investment is better. Cities that do not have trouble moving people (I'd put London in that group) don't need $500M in new transit infrastructure; but they could use a few more medical research centres as the current ones are above capacity.
Could London use better transit? Sure. Will it improve their current economic situation? Not proporionally to spending, no. Would the new BRT line be better for them than the research centre? Nope. Should we build London a BRT because Toronto wants a subway, and St. Catherines a mini-medical research facility because London wants a new medical reseasrch facility? Certainly not.
I have no issue with spreading funding around evenly; I have an issue with spreading each categories worth of funding around evenly and expecting economic benefit from it.
I agree that for some things targeted investment is better, especially for an issue that is unique to an area. Not every city needs an expanded hospital. Not every county needs an improvement done to a major hydro corridor passing through it. But every city, region, or county needs transportation infrastructure improvements. Whether it be transit, widening a road, or just resurfacing a road. Funding for these type of projects is needed, everywhere.
So why not set up a mechanism that gives a solid funding stream to the municipalities for these projects? Most of them would have been covered under the 'hat in hand' method that the Province currently uses. Under this system though, the municipalities wouldn't have to waste time going to the Province and asking, because the money would already be in a bank account for them to use. This would perhaps speed up construction times (not sitting waiting for the cheque to arrive), and it would also add a degree of certainty to the funding process.
PS: I'm liking this debate though, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have.
). I think the LCBO, in general, is a good idea... people get a wide variety of products because we have one of the largest single purchasers in the world; they get it at a reasonable price; and the province reaps a profit. Not everything should be done that way, but we can find sensible ones. Deficit spending should be permissible, but at the same time, kept to a minimum. I was amazed that we were able to pay down the federal debt for a dozen years or so... I honestly never thought I'd see that in my lifetime. I'd like to see more of it... when practical, of course.
