I previously discussed the complexity of the issues that surround Surrey and the need of all levels of government to chip in to solve them, nevertheless, this current post wasn’t inspired off of that, but from Laila Yuile’s blog post, “You are what you do. . .” which discusses a similar sentiment.
Yuile states, “non-partisan cooperation between all levels of government” is required to fix Surrey’s issues. She’s right, but while bias may be of issue here and there, I think it’s a lack of immediate accountability that presents the greater issue.
Background
I agree on the whole that to fight our city’s problems a coordinated effort is necessary. It takes funding and support from taxpayer dollars to provide and/or maintain the programs that are required to deal with child poverty, drug addiction, drug trafficking, prostitution and homelessness, and these are just to name a handful of root sources of crime.
It doesn’t even consider the dollars required to build and improve current institutions and infrastructure, especially when much is left to municipalities to deal with while they are only able to get their hands on about $0.08 of every tax dollar. Meanwhile, municipalities are relied on heavily to manage its own parks, libraries, community water systems, local police, roadways and parking (of which, related fees also play a roll in supporting city coffers).
Read: State of Canada’s Cities and Communities 2012
Canada’s Constitution and the division of powers outlined naturally creates a decentralized system whereby responsibilities are sometimes shared. But the greater the feds decentralize, the more pressure and responsibility that becomes downloaded to lower levels of government, a brewing example being health care costs.
Health care is a provincial sphere of responsibility, but, it’s also costly especially with Canada’s aging population and the need to update and maintain expensive equipment.
Provinces and more so, municipalities, are thus left to foot the responsibility and allocate available funds appropriately. It’s this last point requires scrutiny and consequence.
Funding is available
I would see an issue with federal decentralization if a lack of funding appeared the definitive problem. But that isn’t the case.
The province received $5.7 billion in major transfers for 2013-14, which is an additional $1.17 billion compared to 2005 – 06 numbers.
Much of it stems from the government’s Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer. Also, Canada’s department of finance reported that the $5.7 billion figure was just 13% of B.C.’s revenues for that year (the province tallied a little over $44 billion in revenues last year).
The 2012 report on the state of Canada’s cities and communities also claims:
During the past few years, federal and municipal governments have co-operated more closely than at any time since the Great Depression. Together, we fought the recent recession and began rebuilding Canada’s streets, bridges, and water systems.
Support from the federal government does arrive, and arrives as annual transfers.
Furthermore, the less wealthy provinces receive additional funds in the form of equalization payments, a system that is in itself quite flawed, but does exist for those provinces that do receive them. National Post article by Mark Milke and Fred McMahon is a fantastic overview of the system and its flaws.
For instance, B.C. has not qualified for equalization payments since 2006 – 07 because of the relative strength of our economy yet, we boast the highest child-poverty rate.
Nevertheless, funding is received from the top and has little to do with the supposed ideological alignment of a provincial government. The decision to decentralize perhaps does, but the amount of federal support comes from economic formulae with a purpose of providing:
…significant financial support to provincial and territorial governments on an ongoing basis to assist them in the provision of programs and services. There are four main transfer programs: the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the Canada Social Transfer (CST), Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing (TFF).
The CHT and CST are federal transfers which support specific policy areas such as health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, early childhood development and child care.
The Equalization and TFF programs provide unconditional transfers to the provinces and territories. Equalization enables less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. TFF provides territorial governments with funding to support public services, in recognition of the higher cost of providing programs and services in the north.
The overall point is, the province of B.C. is provided with a substantial amount of federal money to use towards health care, education and social programs within our cities. It’s easy to blame partisanship, but with billions in revenues, plus billions more in support, one would think it is enough to get some work done in our local communities that have shouldered their burden.
The crucial question: Where is the money going and how effective were the dollars that were spent? This is dissertation work, certainly but, here is a good start, provided by Jordan Bateman: http://www.pinterest.com/jordanbateman/wasted-tax-dollars/.
The waste is, to say the least, irritating.
Answers and accountability
The immediate question to ask is whether $44 billion dollars in revenue, plus billions in federal support, is enough to help quell the problems of Surrey. I think it is.
But, it’s up to our provincial and municipal politicians to come forward with innovative thinking and adequate decision-making to help re-allocate the funds we do have, properly and without bias.
In the gaps, where there is funding shortages, the province and perhaps feds must be lobbied like never before in order to help bring additional support to quell community issues.
For instance, Watts’ letter to the feds for $1.8 billion to fund our LRT dreams.
We’ve heard the gripes, and we’ve seen the finger-pointing, but where are the resolutions? If Surrey does not receive the assistance or funding it needs, then inquiries must be made, from the people, the voters, right up the chain to those who control strings to the biggest purse (i.e. the federal government).
The political system should work and there is clearly money to go around.
But it seems bad decisions (i.e. millions on an unused South Surrey parking lot), neglect or flat-out ineffective representation by those we elect are reasons communities that have struggled, continue to struggle, and remain without adequate resources or available help until a tragedy like the Paskall murder occurs and draws scrutiny from media and the public.
The problem is that there is no immediacy to accountability unless an election is right around the corner. The gem of holding a public office, especially in a majority government, is that the election is four years away.
That’s when the people get to hold a politician’s feet to the fire or just the opposite, depending on the record at hand. Barring unforeseen criminal actions, i.e. Senate spending scandal and an unprecedented expulsion motion, no immediate accountability is had.
Further, it becomes difficult to hold anyone accountable on mistakes that occurred a few years ago, it’s even harder when that’s combined with a huge chasm of disinterest politics. In an age when we relish immediacy, politics just seems to move too slow.
Greater accountability, now
What needs to occur is greater accountability, sooner consequences.
If things aren’t going according to what the majority believes is correct over the course of the year or two years, the people should have the right extricate those who failed to make progress. Taxpayers pay their salary, we should demand results just the same as bosses in the private industry demand of their employees.
Politicians certainly don’t want to hear this because it would mean faster results, which would require vision, planning and ideas. Not just promises based on little foresight, no planning and followed back a lack of or a poor result. No more suspension of parliament and avoidance of debate.
This of course doesn’t apply broadly to all politicians. Just the same as teachers, police and most other unionized workforce, not all who enter those trades are as effective or successful. Not all men and women are born with equal abilities; not all individuals who make it to office are worthy of the role.
Voters need greater input, with greater control. And we are slowly moving this way in certain aspects. But, we need a system to help weed out the ineffective and the wasteful in a more efficient manner then every four-years, give or take.
Quicker accountability, consequence for ill performance in government, misuse of taxpayer dollars or just plain ineffectiveness, should all warrant a fast exit out of the political arena—call it the Rob Ford Rule.
The question is: Are we mature enough as a society to judge political effectiveness, objectively?
Surrey BC'er 