|
|
|
MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release, January 9, 2007 Tool kit helps inoculate BUSINESSES against effects of influenza PANDEMIC A Pandemic Planning Tool Kit released today to businesses across the province will help them prepare for an influenza pandemic. Prepared by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the kit will be made available to 57,000 businesses across Ontario in an effort to minimize disruption to the province’s economy should a pandemic occur. “This is not about being alarmist. It is about being ready,” says Len Crispino, President & CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. “Although we hope that scientific warnings of an influenza pandemic will never be realized we have a responsibility to our employees and our customers to be prepared with a plan that will enable us to continue operating as best as possible during a widespread emergency of this kind.” Scientists predict an influenza pandemic could occur within the next few years and yet statistics show that few small and medium businesses have plans in place to contend with this eventuality. “Our local economy and individual businesses were impacted by the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak in 2003 and the blackout later that same year,” explains Nancy Thorpe, President of the Chamber of Commerce Brantford Brant. “The Pandemic Planning Tool Kit will help local businesses prepare themselves for the next catastrophic event, ultimately reducing the impact on business owners and their employees.” The toolkit includes the following:
“We urge all businesses to take the threat of a pandemic seriously,” emphasizes Crispino. “Careful planning and preparation will help businesses protect themselves from such things as staff absences, energy supply disruptions and trade interruptions.” Click here to download the Pandemic Planning Tool Kit -30- The Ontario Chamber of Commerce represents over 57,000 businesses through 160 local Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade, and has been Ontario’s business advocate since 1911. Its advocacy and policy initiatives focus on six areas key to the economic well-being of the province: health; education; energy; finance & taxation; transportation & infrastructure; and border issues. For further information: Nancy Thorpe, President Chamber of Commerce Brantford Brant 519-753-2617 OR Amy Terrill Director Media Relations and Communications Ontario Chamber of Commerce W: (416) 482-5222, ext. 241 C: (416) 605-8205 Ontario Remains a "Have Not Province" Canada’s system of fiscal transfers is broken and, while well intentioned, the federal government’s attempts to “re-balance” the system are missing the mark and failing to address the real issue. The focus cannot be on putting more money into this dysfunctional fiscal arrangement. Doing so would only make a broken system unsustainable and further erode the principles of wealth-sharing in Canada.
Ontario’s economic standing is slipping. In 1990 Ontario’s GDP per capita was 112 per cent above the average of all other provinces. In 2004 that figure had slipped to just 103 per cent – and for 2005 it fell to 101 per cent. In short order – likely within the next year – Ontario’s per capital GDP will be below the national average.
At the same time, Ontario’s taxes are roughly equal to those of other provinces, and our public services are funded at a lower level. In 2005, Ontario’s GDP growth was $20 billion, yet we contributed $23 billion to the rest of Canada through the federal transfer system.
In short – Ontario pays more to the rest of the country, depriving our taxpayers of the services that we pay for in other provinces.
Our leaders need to stop talking about how to calculate the transfers – and pay attention to the fundamental flaws in the system.
First, we need to look at why, after nearly 50 years of transfer payments, six provinces have never – ever – been in the “have” category.
Why haven’t Quebec, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Manitoba ever been able to use one of the largest ongoing transfers of wealth in the world to improve their competitiveness and create jobs and prosperity for their citizens?
No government in Canada has ever examined the effectiveness of the transfer programs. For 50 years tax dollars have flowed into the “have-not” provinces without any sense of accountability or transparency. No system exists to measure effectiveness. No system exists to measure if recipient provinces’ public services are at – or better than – those in the “have” provinces.
This is a serious failure of accountability and governance – not to mention a disservice to taxpayers across the nation.
Second, the federal government must end the practice of using other transfer payments as a sort of stealth equalization program – or equalization outside of equalization. Transfers for programs like health and employment insurance must be allocated on a per-capita basis – not to subsidize regions.
These programs should be available to all Canadians at equal levels – regardless of which province they live in.
As Ontario Premier McGuinty has recently said, this province receives $86 less per person to support health care and post-secondary education than provinces that receive equalization.
This allows other “have-not” provinces to have higher levels of nursing per patient, more university professors per student and higher grants for each college student than Ontario does.
By all standards, this is simply unacceptable and unfair treatment of Canadian citizens.
To restore fairness the federal government must show courage and commitment, by returning non-equalization transfer programs to a per-capita funding model, by putting in place systems to measure the levels of public services between provinces, and by creating a system to ensure subsidies like the equalization program are actually helping provinces improve their competitiveness and future prosperity.
All Canadian are equal under the law. It is time we all receive equal treatment from the government’s funding models.
Len Crispino President and CEO Ontario Chamber of Commerce Budget 2006 – Canadian Chamber of Commerce Analysis Need to Continually Focus On Driving-Down Debt As noted above, the government is planning an annual debt reduction of $3 billion.Federal debt as a share of GDP has declined substantially over the last decade to 38.3% in fiscal 2004-05. The federal debt as a share of GDP is projected to fall to 35.5% in fiscal 2005-06, 33.3% in fiscal 2006-07 and 31.7% in fiscal 2007-08. The benefits of reducing net interest costs from debt reduction are obvious – it would enhance our ability to cut taxes and it would provide more resources to copewith the economic effects of an aging population. The government is setting an objective of reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 25% by 2013-14which the Canadian Chamber fully supports. This will bring the federal debt-to-GDP ratio back to where it was in the mid-1970s. To ensure that Canadians reap the benefits of debt reduction, the Canadian Chamber believes that that unexpectedly good budgetary results go towards paying downCanada’s debt and not for last minute spending binges. The federal government stated in budget 2006: "Recognizing that surpluses in excess of $3 billion mayarise, the government is open to considering options to allocating unplanned surpluses. In particular, the government is proposing to discuss with provinces and territories the possibility of introducing legislation authorizing the allocation of a portion of unanticipated surpluses at fiscal year-end to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Quebec Pension Plan (QPP). This would allow the unplanned surpluses to be used for the future benefit of Canadians." In the Chamber’s view, this proposal will require further analysis. The Canadian Chamber was disappointed to see that the federal government has not allocated funds for contingency purposes and for economic prudence. These amounts have been traditionally set aside in the fiscal projections to cover risks arising from adverse errors in the economic forecast and to cushion against unpredictable events. The Canadian Chamber believes that regular prudent planning assumptions are a necessary to ensure the integrity of fiscal projections. If the Contingency Reserve is unused, it should then go toward debt reduction and if the economy performs as forecast, the reserve for economic prudence should also be committed to debt reduction. The Canadian Chamber first, and foremost, commends the federal government on the steps it took in Budget 2006 to improve our tax competitiveness. Budget 2006 provides more than $26 billion in tax relief over the 2005-06 to 2007-08 period, of which, 92% will go to individuals. While the tax measures announced in the 2006 Budget are positive, the implementation horizon for providing business income tax relief is extremely lengthy in most cases. For example, the reduction in the general corporate income tax rate (from 21% to 19%) will not take full effect until January 1, 2010 and the elimination of the corporate surtax for all corporations will not take effect until 2008. As economic integration increases, individuals and businesses have a greater ability to take advantage of economic opportunities wherever they may be. This, in turn, increases the sensitivity of investment and location decisions to taxation. Most industrial countries have already pursued tax reforms to ensure that their jurisdiction remains an attractive location for both individuals and businesses. Canada cannot wait to do so. In this regard, the Canadian Chamber was pleased to see the commitment in the budget to achieving a meaningful marginal effective tax rate advantage for Canada over the United States. So that the overall burden of business taxes on investments in Canada is lower than in the U.S. The Canadian Chamber welcomes the move to eliminate the federal capital tax as of January 1, 2006, the tax measure introduced to encourage small business growth in Canada, and the extended carryforward period of non-capital losses and unused Investment Tax Credits. Going forward, the Canadian Chamber strongly believes that personal income tax rate reductions must, and should be at the forefront of the federal government’s tax policy agenda. Low- and modest-income earners require urgent tax relief because they can face effective marginal tax rates in excess of 60% (and higher than the rate facing Canada’s top income earners) because many of the public transfers they receive end up being clawed back as income rises. Moreover, in order to attract and retain highly skilled and productive human capital and boost the incentive to work, much more needs to be done in providing tax relief for individuals at the top end of the tax spectrum, many of whom are quite mobile. These individuals face top marginal personal income tax rates that are much higher than they are in the United States and they also kick in at a much lower level of income. It is imperative that the federal government continue to put in place strategic fiscal policies, including income tax reform and rate reductions, that have a direct bearing on productivity, spur economic growth and enable a higher standard of living for all Canadians. |
|
