You have to know what you want, in life as in politics, unless you are satisfied with a contemplative life. René Lévesque wanted to make Quebec “a normal country”, which was ambitious, but not pretentious, in his image. Jean Charest aimed higher. He wanted to make Quebec, specifically, a “paradise for families”, and more generally to make it “shine among the best”. We have since witnessed a reduction in expectations, because Philippe Couillard launched his government action by setting “the Canadian average” as his horizon. An accountant – and perhaps realizing that Alberta oil was inflating this average – François Legault reduced the field of possibilities by choosing only Ontario as the gold standard.
He is fixated on Ontario’s wealth per capita and monitors the evolution of the indices every quarter. He reports that the gap with Quebec has increased from 16.1% when he arrived in 2018 to 13.5% in 2022. If the trend continues, it will take 20 years to reach point 0, but Legault does not officially gives 12. That gives him a good leg, he would then be in his fifth mandate!
He refuses to include in his calculation the fact that, since the cost of living is lower in Quebec, the purchasing power of the average Quebecer has long exceeded the purchasing power of the average Ontarian. It’s an old debate between us, I won’t convince him. Legault needs his artificial objective like Don Quixote needs his mills.
His other favorite: tax cuts. They are essential, he thunders, because Quebecers are the most taxed on the continent. The question that is never asked, however, is the following: if it is true that the tax authorities extract more money from taxpayers here, exactly how much more butter do they get in exchange?
I correct myself: the question was asked once, by the Liberal Minister of Finance, in 2014. It was entrusted to four economists: Robert Gagné and Claude Montmarquette, more on the right, then Pierre Fortin and Luc Godbout, centrists.
Their report is entitled Quebec faces its challenges. It carries out a real review of the services offered by the Quebec state to its citizens, but which Ontarians do not have (or receive from the private sector). Quebecers receive 17.5 billion more services each year than Ontarians, or 26%. It is enormous. All social and economic activity is affected. In order: family and social services (5.5 billion), transport (4 billion), industry (1.8 billion), health (1.5 billion) and education (1.5 billion). Economists found only a paltry 162 million dollars offered by the Ontario government to its citizens for services not available in Quebec (but do not give details).
How much are these extra billions costing us? This should be 17.5 billion more in taxes. It would be fair, and we would get value for our money. But that’s not it at all: our additional bill only amounts to 7 billion. So, for an investment of 7 billion, we receive 17.5 billion worth of services. A yield of 250%!
When you agree to pay more for more services, value for money (or at least quantity for price) is crucial. In our case, it is remarkable.
Is this still true 10 years after this study? We have no reason to doubt it, but we would like to be clear about it. Professionals from the Ministry of Finance or the Quebec Statistics Institute have the skills required to update these figures, between their breakfast and the morning union break. Why doesn’t the Minister of Finance ask them? I’ll let you think about it. But could it be that their annual reiteration undermines the dominant discourse of we-pay-too-much-taxes?
The Chair in Taxation and Public Finance at the University of Sherbrooke makes a shocking calculation every year for the chorus of the greatest tax burden in America. She adds, yes, but she also dares to subtract. When we take into account the taxes individuals pay and the government benefits and services they receive, how do we compare? For the majority of families, Quebec is a tax haven.
The “net tax burden” — the only one that matters, because it represents what really remains in the family pocket — is less in Quebec than anywhere in Canada for all families who pocket less than the average salary, who earn the average salary or who make up to 167% of the average salary. Compared to the 31 richest OECD countries, Quebec’s net tax burden is half as high for families with the average salary, and 1% higher for those who earn 167% of it. In both cases, our generosity towards single-parent families is second to none.
Yes, but these damn Ontarians are still more productive, right? The Institute for Socioeconomic Research and Information has just proven that the existing gap is entirely due to each person’s economic structure. Out of 15 sectors, Ontarians are more productive than us in 7, and we more than them in 8. “The result is clear: if the work done in Quebec was concentrated in the same sectors as Ontario and the workforce If Quebec workers maintained their current productivity in each of the industries, Quebecers would overall be as productive, or even more productive, than Ontarians. » In fact, the Institute calculates, we caught up with Ontario’s average productivity in 2013 and, since then, ours has been growing faster than theirs.
There is therefore a miscalculation in the Prime Minister’s Ontario ambitions. If he wants Quebecers to be as rich as Ontarians, he is 15 years late. As early as 2009, Pierre Fortin concluded this: “Quebec is today as rich and less unequal as Ontario. At the same time, it appeared that Quebec’s comparative performance is not the result of chance, but the result of well-designed and persevering long-term policies: the educational revolution, healthy labor relations, progressiveness of tax, stability and strengthening of social policy. It also shows that less poverty and inequality do not necessarily lead to less prosperity and more unemployment. Quebec offers a good example of the opposite, and that’s all the better. »
Fortin has redone the calculation several times since, and arrived at the same result.
François Legault is certainly right to ensure that productivity per hour worked increases, that income increases. He may even want our economic structure to change to increase overall wealth, provided that these changes do not degrade other elements of collective well-being. But his truncated vision of a fantasized Ontario that is better than us has the effect of continuing to nourish among Quebecers an old feeling of inferiority towards Ontario, towards Canada and towards the United States which no longer has its reason. ‘be.
Like them, we have enormous challenges. However, it is not by blissfully imitating them that we have, for half a century, caught up with them. It is by building a society that is both more productive and fairer. If it were up to me, we would set the goal of “continuing to shine among the best in a normal country where life is good”. YOU ?