It is the New Year but the old year lingers on in full force as today's COVID-19 numbers for Ontario again topped 3,000. We are now in the second wave of COVID-19 and it shows no signs of reaching a peak yet. Indeed, as Figure 1 illustrates, the second wave dwarfs the first by far and at day 344 of the start of the pandemic in Ontario (based on the date of the first case) is still on a steep upward incline.
The somewhat better news for Ontario (Figure 2) is that while deaths are also on an upward incline, they are not increasing as quickly as during the first wave and have yet to surpass the peak reached during the first wave. However, given the number of cases and the extent to which the virus appears to have become ingrained in the population combined with the stubborn inability of many members of the public to accept the need for taking protective measures and social distancing, we are probably at best a few weeks away from a daily death toll of over 80 - last reached in late April/early May.
As for Thunder Bay, the good news may be that a peak in terms of daily cases may have finally been reached. As Figure 3 shows, the LOWESS smooth does appear to be on a downward trend with the peak occurring nearly three weeks ago. However, the down slope is slow and at the current trend it will take about another three weeks to get the daily count back down to close to zero - barring another super-spreader type event that kicked off the last upswing. The current surge in daily cases largely starts from the pickle ball and teen challenge events in November.
One hopes that appropriate lessons have been learned. So, there you have it. Happy New Year.
If history teaches us anything, it is that periods of
pandemic are ultimately associated with eras of great economic and social
change and disruption.One only has to
go back to the Black Death or The Spanish Flu to see the effects on labour
markets and societal attitudes and ultimately all aspects of life.Much like the wake of 9/11 which saw
enhanced security measures entrenched forever, once the pandemic has subsided,
there will not be a full return to the world we had before.
This era will be no different and in Thunder Bay all of
these changes coincide with an increasing sense of disquiet many residents feel
with respect to the direction the City has been taking.Along with continuing high rates of crime,
racism and mental illness, the lineups at food banks have been increasing and
there seems to be a return to a wild west frontier mentality with the
increasing number of people being stopped by police for driving under the
influence.
Moreover, there seems to be an increasing sense of detachment from the
public by the Mayor, City Councillors and Administrators whose recent decisions
with respect to major capital projects such as the proposed Turf facility and
new police facilities, the silence on the epidemic of home plumbing issues
linked to City water, and a preoccupation with what seem to be superficial issues
like tourism signs and future sporting events, all seem to conflict with what appear
to be more pressing issues. The discussion
of rising taxes when other cities such as Kitchener or Edmonton have decided to
keep their increases closer to zero provides another disconnect with residents.
The City is in the midst of major program reviews and yet City
Councillors seem to shelve much of the advice provided while continually
talking about the cost savings they have generated.They are also being presented with a new
master plan on regional paramedic services whose text underlines the ominous future
of a city with stagnant population growth and yet ever rising needs for the
services of paramedics due to aging as well as a population more prone to a
variety of social ills.With the 2021
budget coming, one is left with the impression that ultimately, the Mayor and Councillors
are gearing up for another major tax hike to meet all of these needs given
their unwillingness to prioritize.
So, the question is what kind of vision is driving the
approach of successive City Councils and the Administrators and the policy
apparatus in Thunder Bay?One would
venture that Thunder Bay City Council suffers from an increasingly stale 50-year
old vision of what Thunder Bay needs.That
vision could be summarized as follows:Thunder
Bay is a regional center and strategically located full-service high-tech urban
oasis set in a pristine natural wonderland with a wonderful quality of life on
crucial east-west trade and transport routes whose full potential is unrealized.Indeed, the entire City’s potential is
unrealized and what Thunder Bay needs is continual infrastructure investment to
attract people and effective communication of our potential to convey the
message of how wonderful we are.While
Thunder Bay may have social problems, they are not any worse than other places
and have been blown out of proportion by the national media. City
residents need to have a positive attitude, stay the course on this strategy,
and we need to invest in the public services and infrastructure to make it all
happen.
This is in essence what has been driving policy in Thunder Bay
since amalgamation. Lost in this vision
of the future is the fact that since 1970, the City has stayed static in
population, its industrial mainstays have largely disappeared, and its grain
transportation role fallen to a shadow of its former glory.The fact that people often move to
communities because of job opportunities seems lost on Thunder Bay’s governing
elites.Anyone pointing out the fact that
the City has become a welfare dependency given that over 30 percent of
employment is now public sector or tied to government grants is a “Negative
Nellie.”While there indeed has been
some job creation in the knowledge economy and the health and education sectors that have helped provide a market for some entrepreneurs,
it remains that this has been largely a rear-guard maintenance action that has
had difficulty keeping pace with the employment losses.
Key to this vision is the level of municipal spending, employment
and infrastructure investment designed to keep the economy going via
construction projects.This spending is financed by government grants
and by tax increases levied increasingly
on the residential tax base given the departure of the industrial mainstays who
provided the base for the past development of a very generous level of municipal
spending. Tax increases are justified by
“a build it and they will come philosophy” even though after fifty years we
have built a lot and population is still the same.When the point on practically zero population
growth is mentioned, the response is to mention that we have large numbers of
temporary residents whether they be students or visitors from outlying First
Nations who need services.However, we
do not seem to have numbers documenting this aside from the numbers City
Councillors and Administrators like to throw out - numbers like “20,000 or 30,000 more” during
meetings without good empirical evidence.Most importantly, there is the unanswered question as to why municipal
ratepayers should even be providing these additional population services out
of a local property tax base? Where are the provincial or federal governments in all of this?
When the high level of taxation is mentioned, the response
is that yes, the tax rate is higher here but our cost of living is so much
lower so it is “okay” to have local residents pay more on their property taxes
to provide services comparable to other places.From each according to their abilities, to each according to their
needs.However, by cost of living, City Councillors generally mean that we have lower average property prices without
realizing that the reason we have lower property prices is because of the lack
of population growth and
the fact that higher tax rates have been capitalized into lower property values.Indeed, property prices are as high as they are in Thunder Bay because of fairly effective supply management on new home building and low interest rates. Then there is also the need to differentiate between
costs and ability to pay for those costs.
Take for example a comparison between Toronto and Thunder
Bay.An average property in Toronto now
sells for about one million dollars whereas an average property in Thunder Bay
is closer to 300,000.Given the average 2020 property
tax rates of 0.599 in Toronto and 1.563 in Thunder Bay, the property taxes
paid on an "average" property would be $4,689 in Thunder Bay and $5,990 in Toronto –
28 percent higher in Toronto.The
problem is that the basis of comparison should be similarly priced properties
or similar properties (eg. a three bedroom bungalow in both locations) in which case the Thunder Bay home often pays substantially more.If you have a $500,000 property in Thunder
Bay – which many people now do – you are paying as much in property taxes as a property
worth three times that in Toronto.
And then there is the ability to pay for those taxes which
is financed out of current income.According to the NUMBEO cost of living comparison
website, in Thunder
Bay, the average monthly salary after taxes is $2,783 while in Toronto it is $4,214
– 51 percent higher in Toronto.Aside
from rent and commuting costs, the cost of living for just about everything
else is not that much lower in Thunder Bay compared to Toronto.
So, we have an expensive vision of local and regional municipal
government spending based on an economic base that no longer exists.That vision is justified by a “build it and
they will come philosophy” which after 50 years, has yet to yield results.When the Mayor and Council are criticized –
and assuming they choose to respond and do not just ignore you or disparage you as a crackpot - they respond with
dubious arguments about how our cost of living and property values are lower
thereby resulting in lower taxes meaning they can be raised more because they
are a bargain compared to Toronto.Of course, if the cost of living here was truly lower resulting in a
surplus for local residents in excess of what they need, why we might not want
to keep money in our own pockets rather than simply hand it over to the local municipal-industrial-construction
complex is a question that Thunder Bay politicians do not want to answer.
We are now in a time of great change and Thunder Bay will need to adapt as well as deal with the legacy of its past decisions. And yet, the old inflexible vision goes on, and so unfortunately does the sense of alienation felt by many local residents. Thunder Bay needs a new vision and one that is sustainable given the current tax base.
I had the opportunity to present via Zoom at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance today. It was a very good experience with interesting questions and discussions afterwards. Here is the prepared text of the remarks I delivered during my five minutes:
Dr. Livio Di Matteo
Professor of Economics, Lakehead University, Thunder
Bay, Ontario
Presentation for House of Commons’ Standing
Committee on Finance, Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2021 Budget,
December 11th, 1-2pm
Good Afternoon:
Thank you for the invitation to speak at these
Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2021 Budget. I commend the Committee
for reaching out into the academic community of economists for public input on
this important process.
It has been said many times that the COVID-19
pandemic is an unprecedented event in recent history, and this context frames
my input into the federal budgetary process.
The Fall 2020 Economic Statement documented
the unprecedented effects and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For fiscal
year 2020-21, real per capita revenues in $2014 will have declined by 20
percent from year previous while spending is up by 70 percent.In real terms, this is the highest per capita
amount ever spent in Canadian fiscal history (nearly $16,000 in 2014 dollars). As a share of GDP, the projected deficits will
be the second largest in Canadian fiscal history- exceeded only by World War
II.
The Fall Statement reveals spending eventually
declining and a deficit approaching one percent of GDP by 2025-26 but also a federal
net debt rising to $1.5 trillion and a net debt to GDP ratio remaining in
excess of 50 percent. Despite current low interest rates making current debt look
manageable, it remains that any sudden future shocks – to the economy or even
interest rates - could be more difficult to manage as debt burdens rise.
The size of the initial fiscal response to the
onset of the pandemic in the February to April period of 2020 was appropriate.However, the continuing unprecedented fiscal
response generated results that have not paralleled the fiscal support
provided.The fiscal assertiveness of
the federal response to the pandemic was not matched by assertiveness in
targeting the response as might have been afforded under the federal spending
power or the power of quarantine that exists under the Constitution.
Moreover, much of the spending went to
individual income transfers in excess of the pandemic generated income
losses.After all of this unprecedented
response, we are now in the midst of a more severe second wave that threatens
the economic recovery that began over the summer.
The Federal 2021 budget must learn from the
past and better target any additional projected fiscal response with a view to
long-term economic recovery and growth.The
additional spending must be directed towards productivity boosting investments.Even prior to the pandemic, the business
investment to GDP ratio had been faltering.While the short-term income support provided at the peak of the pandemic
was important, if we are to continue to spend at these record levels, then
there must be more to show for it.
Government spending priorities should be
directed towards initiatives for boosting our long-term productivity via
investment in physical and human infrastructure. Public infrastructure in roads
and transport, bridges, communications, schools, health care, water, sewer and
environmental systems require investment.Education has taken a major blow during the pandemic and we need to
ensure that students at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary level, do
not fall behind in educational achievement and opportunities and reduce future labour
productivity growth.
Then, there is the matter of our national
defense and security in a more multi-polar and unstable world that requires
equipment and resources and vision.And
there is a need for private sector investment in sectors producing goods and
services that we can export and continue to earn our way in the world. If our
export markets falter and our incomes drop, there will be no international emergency
response benefit payments offered to us.The federal government, therefore, should work with the private sector
in assessing its investment needs.
Historically, excessively large amounts of
government spending are not well correlated with long-term economic
growth.It is not that government cannot
help the economy.However, effective government
requires knowing when to spend and when not to spend and more importantly, what
to spend the money on.
If we are to
embark on a program of infrastructure spending, we must ensure that projects
with the best return are selected. Assorted public projects should be assessed
by an arms-length panel of key leaders with expertise in business, accounting,
engineering and economics who can make recommendations in areas of national
interest. It would be extremely unfortunate if federal infrastructure money
flowed to community or sports centres rather than say roads and sewers simply
because "shovel ready" plans exist for the former but not the latter.
Thunder Bay City Council has a packed agenda this week but
among all the items there is not one mention of the crucial issue now affecting close to
3000 residents in the city – the issue of the continued plague of leaky pipes
and resulting damage to homes and businesses.Compounding all that has been happening on this front, is that there are increasing
reports of heavier chlorine smells in city tap water.There is no point in asking your City
Councillor why that is as they have probably been advised by the City’s lawyers
not to talk about anything related to water.So, as usual we are left having to surmise what is going on and my
educated guess is that there have been so many line breaks and repairs in the
city water system that they have upped the disinfecting of the water to prevent
potential contaminants from getting in to the water. We are fortunate that Thunder Bay's Mayor and council is not responsible for information updates on the local COVID-19 situation given their stoic reticence on issues affecting public health and welfare.
However, the City does not want to talk about water so we
will have to focus on other issues in their hefty agenda this week.Among the pressing issues on the Monday
evening agenda are: waterfront trail development, an update on protective
shields for transit drivers, and advocacy for a federal basic income program.
Of these, having the City advocate for a federal basic income program is the
one where Thunder Bay City Councillors have the most expertise.After all, Thunder Bay has been running a
basic income program for the members of Thunder Bay City Council since 1970 and
we are still evaluating the value for money of the program given the annual
spending on a mayor and twelve councilors. So I suspect that several hours will be devoted to discussing basic income and there will be many eloquent words on the need to alleviate suffering and hardship that is not related to the provision of basic municipal water and sewer infrastructure.
The more interesting item later this week will be the
discussion of responses to the Grant Thorton Program Review that will be
provided to council by City Administration.Unfortunately, given that Superior North EMS and the TB Fire Rescue are
undergoing their own separate strategic planning processes, they are not included
in the report which seems paradoxical given that it is a systematic review of
the entire city’s operations.One could
ask either the Mayor or the councilors about this but they have probably been
advised by their lawyers not to respond.
The responses from administration have been divided into
implement, further review and no further action.The most interesting items in this report are
the further review because they contain some of the most contentious and larger
ticket cost items and include: discontinuing private child care, moving city
run Pioneer Ridge to an alternative model of care, the sale or closure of the
Jumbo Gardens Community Centre, Vale Community Centre and Boulevard Lake Beach,
“service adjustments” (which one suspects is adminspeak for reductions)
for Chippewa Park and the Canada Games Complex, the closure of both remaining
city owned golf courses and finally, water and sewer operations.
The last item in particular is understandable
as still under review as there has probably been advice from lawyers to the
city of Thunder Bay not to deal with any water and sewer issues publicly. Indeed, one suspects the Mayor and Council would
probably be most happy if their lawyers would advise them not to discuss or answer
any questions at all about anything in the program review.
The meetings tonight and later this week will feature a lot of
talk and posturing but in the end little of substance will transpire in the
public sessions.
Yesterday’s Federal Fall Economic Statement is actually
quite a remarkable document. On the one hand, given the expectations being raised
that the deficit for 2020-21 might reach $450 billion, coming in an $381.6
billion has probably caused many to heave a sigh of relief.That was probably the intention. Of course, that $381.6 billion figure is the
lower bound estimate given economic assumptions and could be as high as just
under $400 billion.Moreover, none of
the scenario deficit projections were factoring in the $70-$100 billion in
stimulus spending that was to be spread over 3 years once the pandemic was
brought under control.
The Fall Economic Statement appears to be as much a political
as it was an economic and fiscal document in that it continues federal spending
and support for the pandemic as well as positions the government for substantial spending
announcements of stimulus spending in the spring probably in advance of a federal
election once the pandemic appears to be under control – which it currently is
not.
If one takes the base case scenario, revenues for 2020-21
will be $275.4 billion and spending $641.6 billion for a deficit (after
actuarial adjustment of federal liabilities – the recent twist in federal
finance reporting) of $381.6 billion.For 2021-22, revenues are expected to rise to $335.9 billion and
spending decline to $441.5 billion for a deficit of $121.2 billion.After that, deficits will continue to decline
reaching $24.9 billion by 2025-26 and returning us to the deficit range of the
2018 to 2019 period.This period of
deficits will take the federal net debt from $772.1 billion in 2018 to reach
$1.494 trillion by 2025.
The document is quite clever because it lays out a fiscal
plan with a target – which critics have been clamouring for – without actually
stating there is a fiscal target.The
pandemic is essentially a dis-equilibrium situation for the federal government’s
finances and the federal government hopes to return to its version of equilibrium
finances by 2025 at which point revenues will be higher at $417.3 billion and spending
at $484.4 billion.
If one takes their
GDP growth forecasts into account, the deficit to GDP ratio for 2020-21 is
actually just over 16 percent but will decline to 5 percent the year after and
then essentially reach 1 percent.Prior
to the pandemic, a deficit to GDP ratio of 1 percent was what the federal
government saw as perfectly reasonable given low interest rates and GDP growth
rates and that is what they want to get back to.It is the 1 percent solution.
To place all of this in very long term visual perspective,
data from the Jorda-Schularick-Taylor MacroHistory Data Base, Statistics Canada,
my
federal fiscal history and the 2020 Fall Economic Statement is used to
generate figures 1 and 2 below. Figure 1 shows real per capita federal revenues
and spending from 1870 to 2018 and then forecasts from 2019 to 2025.
If all pans out as forecast, then the surge
in spending and revenue collapse of the pandemic will subside with real per
capita revenues and spending eventually up 2.5 percent and 3.4 percent respectively from
their 2018 amounts.That will be viewed as a perfectly acceptable growth when spread over 5 years. Figure 2 presents
the deficit to GDP ratio with the pandemic showing the second largest deficit
to GDP ratio in history but with a return to roughly where it was just prior to
the pandemic.
This is the shape of federal fiscal things to come, assuming
the federal government’s vision pans out.