Most of us
are familiar with the Northern
Ontario Growth Plan which is a
25-year plan that was released on March 4, 2011 by the Ontario government that
aimed to strengthen the economy of the North by:
Diversifying
the region's traditional resource-based industries
Stimulating
new investment and entrepreneurship
Nurturing
new and emerging sectors with high growth potential.
The Plan's policies were
built upon six themes that each was to contribute to the region’s long-term
sustainability and prosperity: Economy, People, Communities, Aboriginal
Peoples, Infrastructure and Environment.I have discussed this plan in several posts on this
blog.
Well,
it turns out that the federal government also has a growth plan for northern
Ontario though I must admit that it has flown under my radar.I guess, when one works in an ivory tower,
one sometimes loses sight of activity on the ground though how I never got wind
of the extensive range of consultations escapes me. I am obviously moving in the wrong social circles. As part of the follow up to
the 2017 budget, FEDNOR began to put together a
Prosperity and Growth Strategy for Northern Ontario (PGSNO) as a “roadmap
to economic development and success” for the region.
FEDNOR undertook a series of
engagement activities from June to November 2017 which included
round tables, meetings and online tools aimed at reaching stakeholders across the
region. According to FEDNOR, there was an online questionnaire with over 600 respondents, 33
round tables and 12 presentations with over 400 participants.The result was a report with 12 common areas/themes
of action (see the report for details):
There was an item by MP Bob
Nault in February 2018 discussing the report and its availability online but there
seems to be little else until now.Apparently, on Monday April 9th there will be an announcement
by federal ministers Navdeep Bains and Patty Hajdu with respect to the
PGSNO. One imagines that there will be an announcement of federal development money to implement or address some aspect of the PGSNO. Or perhaps there will be an announcement of further study and consultation. Maybe both? Nevertheless, given that the federal report had
twelve themes as opposed to six for the provincial growth plan, I would imagine
that it will be twice the fun.
This morning's Chronicle-Journal had a story on a call for post offices to provide banking services in small northern Ontario towns that had lost their major financial institution. As the story notes:
"Northern towns with reduced banking options, or those with no bank outlet at all, would benefit from a plan to offer regular financial services at local Canada Post outlets, says the federal NDP.
“Now is the opportune time for Canada Post to explore alternative revenue streams such as postal banking,” NDP MP Carol Hughes (Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing) said last week in a news release."
The concept was being "revived" according to the story but the precedent was countries like France, Italy and Japan which continue to offer banking services in their postal outlets.
This was an interesting story given that there appeared to be no realization that Canada once did have banking functions in post offices. Along with Federal Government Savings Banks which assumed the responsibilities of government savings banks in the Atlantic region upon Confederation, there were post office savings banks started in 1868 in Ontario and Quebec modelled in part on the success of British Post Office Savings Banks. The size limit on a personal deposit that could be held was limited to a maximum of $1,000 in order - so it would seem according to financial historian E.P. Neufeld* - to protect the deposit business of private banks. (See: E.P. Neufeld (1972) The Financial System of Canada, Its Growth and Development, MacMillan).
There was rapid growth in government savings banks as well as the post office savings banks until the 1890s and indeed, in 1888 the savings deposits of government and post office savings banks were over two-thirds the size of savings deposits of the chartered banks. However, this growth was due to the competitive rate the federal government offered that was in excess of private rates. The federal government lowered their interest rate in 1889 and after that the relative importance of government savings banks - and post office savings banks -began to decline. Post office savings banks absorbed the activities of government savings banks in 1929 and continued to chug along in an ever diminishing role until 1968 when they were finally abolished. They took a long time to disappear.
Could post office savings banks make a comeback? It seems like an attractive option for small towns in rural remote regions that still have a post office but it remains that the prospect faces obstacles in the internet age. Banking consolidation has been underway in larger cities as well as in smaller towns as a result of electronic banking services and a post office savings bank would have to offer banking services competitive with any private banking sector's e-banking services. Besides, they have also been closing post offices in rural remote areas and consolidating services across the country. For the concept to work, Canada Post would have to demonstrate that it offered a unique product that filled a need and could actually generate revenues in excess of the costs of operation. It might be useful to see what the ingredients of success are in for postal banking outlets in countries that still have them.
Well, in what has become almost a form of annual homage to Gilbert and Sullivan, Ontario released its public sector salary list yesterday and there are a lot of "victims" on this year's little list - 131,741 to be precise. The number has grown steadily since the list was first published in 1996 with 4,576 names on the list and since the $100,000 threshold remains the same without any inflation adjustment, twenty years of salary progression has increased the number of names above the threshold. Indeed, if you adjust for inflation, the threshold today would be about $150,000 and about 85 percent of names currently on the list would be eliminated bringing it down to about 20,000 which still is nearly a quadrupling of numbers since 1996.
However, there is a reluctance to adjust the threshold to account for inflation and as the Premier of Ontario herself has noted, the people of the province have a right to know what public servants are earning because after all $100,000 is still a significant amount of money to the "vast majority" of Ontario residents. This is a somewhat curious statement given what seems the Premier's lack of concern about other big numbers when it comes to Ontario's public finances. For example, the provincial net debt is at about $312 billion which is indeed a significant amount of money as is the nearly $12 billion dollars annually required to service it.
Perhaps the problem is the difficulty many have in dealing with numbers that are so large that they are outside their daily experience. After all, most people deal with numbers in the thousands when it comes to salaries and annual living expenses rather than billions. What is needed here is perhaps some type of currency conversion mechanism that translates these large numbers into something the public can more easily grasp.
So, how many "Listers" at a threshold of $100,000 would make up the Ontario public debt? That number comes out to 3,120,000 - which is still a very large number - and represents just under half of total employment in Ontario which is at about 7 million people. However, a number in the millions is still very large. Ontario this week will deliver a budget and the expectation is that the deficit may reach $8 billion. How many "Listers" would make up an $8 billion deficit? Well, 80,000 which is a much more manageable number but as a number still higher than the median income of Canadians. How many Presidents and CEOs of the Independent Electricity System Operator fit into the net public debt? About 416,000. Ministers of Northern Development and Mines? You can get 1.89 million of those. But I digress...
It remains that the list is needed as an indicator of public sector spending as well as to provide transparency as to what the public sector spends notwithstanding what has become an exercise in showmanship without any effort to gain some additional insight and understanding about public sector spending. Indeed, the fixation on the large numbers in the annual release masks the fact that there should be some serious concerns expressed about how the list is constructed, transparency and indeed what it tells us about people and what they are paid and how that information is used.
First, while the "List" was supposed to be an accountability device that would somehow restrain the growth of public sector salaries it remains that it has not. Indeed, I would venture that making the salaries public has actually provided a basis of individual comparison that has resulted in driving salaries up in the broader public sector not just in Ontario but across the country. You don't hear about private sector salaries being driven up in part because that information is usually considered proprietary or confidential and its absence hinders the ability of individuals to make comparisons and decide they deserve more and make use of it to negotiate a higher salary.
Second, the list is inequitable because it separates public servants based on an arbitrary threshold that was selected because at the time it seemed like a big, round number - $100,000. However, for true accountability, all public sector salaries should be reported. There should be two lists released every year - a public sector salary disclosure list with those making over $100,000 and another with those making under $100,000. Yes, the list would be very very large but that would be the point. There are a large number of broader public sector workers and public sector spending in Ontario is not just driven by the 131,741 people making over $100,000 but also by the over 1 million people in the broader public sector making under $100,000. Would it be an invasion of the privacy of those individuals making a more modest income of say $80,000. Well, what do you think releasing a list of the salaries of someone making $100,000 actually is in a town with only 100,000 or 5,000 people? We don't all have the relative anonymity of living in the GTA.
Third, the list also needs to be expanded to truly reflect the spending of public sector money on compensation. A case in point, universities must report all of their employees making over $100,000 because they are a public sector agency but it remains that universities in Ontario today only directly get between 40 and 50 percent of their funding from the Ontario taxpayer. The rest is own source revenue generation and tuition and while you can argue that many Ontario students get loans or even free tuition from the taxpayer that still does not sum up the public sector funding share to 100 percent. University professors do not get 100 percent of their salaries from the Ontario taxpayer and yet 100 percent of their salary is reported. On the other hand, physicians who are nearly 100 percent taxpayer funded are not on the list (unless they are directly salaried or employed by a public agency) because they are independent contractors. Two points here: 1) a taxpayer dollar is a taxpayer dollar no matter how it is spent and 2) I'm surprised universities have not been more enterprising in redefining how their faculty are paid thereby removing large numbers of them from the list.
So, there you have it. I think the list released under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act is important and part of the mechanism of accountability and democracy in government. However, by focusing only on salaried employees of public sector agencies and government making over $100,000 a year misses the point as to how large the public sector actually is when it comes to employment and the spending of taxpayer dollars. The list should be expanded. As the song goes, the task of filling in the names I'd rather leave to you.
The creative arts are a fundamental component of life and the human experience. Northern Ontario and Thunder Bay in particular are blessed with vibrant and engaged arts communities whose creative work and activity deepens the regional quality of life. In Thunder Bay, a vital component of the creative arts is the Visual Arts Department and associated programs at Lakehead University where the faculty and students have been contributing to the regional arts scene for decades. Many generations of artists have acquired and honed their skills in the facilities and programs of Lakehead's Visual Arts Department.
This week, I received an in depth immersion in visual arts and the creative process as a result of my role as a reviewer for the Quality Assurance review of the visual arts program at Lakehead University. I joined Sally Hickson from the University of Guelph and Laura Peturson from Nipissing University and spent two days visiting with staff and students at the Visual Arts Department at Lakehead. It was certainly an illuminating experience learning about the different streams of the program and it was an eye opener learning about the capital intensity of the program given the facilities and equipment required to mount a quality program in the arts. It was quite instructive learning about ceramics, printmaking, painting, drawing and sculpture.
The students and faculty of the Visual Arts program regularly exhibit at the Thunder Bay Art Gallery as well as with other private galleries and their work is an impressive contribution to the region's cultural assets. Much of their work is also showcased on campus and the recent opening of the Alumni Commons at Lakehead provides an attractive venue for their work. All the best to the students, faculty and staff of the Visual Arts Department at Lakehead University.
We are about six
months away from Thunder Bay’s next municipal election and the race for the
mayor’s chair and council spots represents an opportunity to examine directions
and priorities.The last election was
obsessed with the event centre and the issue was a distraction from important
issues such as the sale of municipal public assets, economic development, the
city’s economy, the sustainability of municipal finances as well as the ongoing
saga of infrastructure renewal and in particular the James Street Bridge which
has now been closed to vehicular traffic since 2013.
Sadly, with the
exception of the events centre, which has ridden off into the sunset for the
time being, all of these other issues are still ongoing.And of course, added to all of these issues
are those with respect to relations with First Nations as well as court cases
involving the city’s politicians and administration. Needless to say, Thunder
Bay has garnered an inordinate amount of negative attention on the national
stage in areas under the purview of municipal government and such attention is
certainly not a magnet for business investment.
When it comes to
economic development and the city’s economy, it remains that both population
and employment
levels in the city have been flat for the last four years.The low unemployment rate in the city results
from a labour force that has shrunk faster than employment and of itself is not
a positive harbinger for the future.Waiting
for the Ring
of Fire to kick start the economy appears to be a process akin to Waiting for Godot
and all the talk of smelter locations in the world will be of no avail given low
current chromite prices.As for the
current trappings of prosperity in the city, they are largely the result of a
large public sector and associated public spending which after the June
provincial election could very well come to a crashing halt.
Of course, even without
long term private sector wealth creation, the illusion of prosperity created by
public sector spending has helped fuel municipal
government spending and tax increases which over the last few years have
averaged above the city’s inflation and GDP growth rates.Moreover, there has been a continued shift of
the tax burden onto the residential ratepayer and they now account for about 70
percent of tax revenues.Added to this
are the continued steep increases in user fees and charges which given the talk
about “rainfall
taxes” show no sign of abating anytime soon.
Indeed, the thirst for
residential tax revenues also results in city council giving the go ahead to
new urban residential developments outside core areas that while adding to the
tax base in the short term also add to urban sprawl and require municipal servicing
whose maintenance will add to city expense in years to come.The sustainability of this type of short term
development formula should be a topic for debate and discussion but again it is
an issue the politicians are happy to ignore when it comes to an election year.
So, what is to be
done? Well, for starters Thunder Bay residents need to pay closer attention to
the fiscal, economic and social issues affecting the city and ask candidates more
pointed questions about what solutions might help address the situation.Perhaps one should ask why anyone might want to buy
a new house in Thunder Bay if the property tax bill for a new bungalow is going
to be in the range of $5000 to $7000 onto which will be added another $1000 a
year in water and sewer charges.
Given the length of
tenure that many current members of council have had, a legitimate question is
whether or not Thunder Bay might not be better off with a substantial transfusion
of new blood on City Council with new ideas and new energy to look at new ways
of doing things.After all, current
members of City Council have generally been the most comfortable with solutions
that involve raising taxes and spending more money.While the claim is often made that millions
in efficiencies and savings have been implemented, the fact is the tax levy continues
to grow which means total spending is going up and not down.
Making Thunder Bay’s
next municipal election count requires making an effort to create real change
in the way municipal issues are dealt with and that requires some new blood. It
truly is time for change.