Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Christopher Ragan is an associate professor of economics at McGill University and a research fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute.

Several issues of fiscal policy were highlighted in the recent federal election campaign, including budget deficits, spending on infrastructure, changes in tax rates for middle– and upper-income Canadians, and reforms to child-benefit programs. But one issue absent from the debate was a longer-term challenge: the return of Canada's "fiscal imbalance" between the various levels of government.

Let's begin with the aging of the baby boomers, those Canadians born from 1946 to 1965. The oldest boomers turned 65 in 2011, and over the next several years, there will be a flood of retirements as they enter their golden years.

Story continues below advertisement

There are three fiscal implications of this aging of the population. First, as the boomers drop out of the labour force and stop producing income, there will be a natural slowing of government tax revenues. Second, they will collect Old Age Security (OAS) and the poorest of them will receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). Third, most of them will put serious demands on the public health-care system.

Forecasts from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development suggest that Canada's public health-care spending will rise by about 3.5 percentage points of gross domestic product between now and 2040. And Canada's chief actuary forecasts that spending on elderly benefits will rise by roughly half a percentage point of GDP over the same period. So the aging of the baby boomers will increase government spending from its current level of about 30 per cent of GDP to approximately 34 per cent by 2040.

The necessary fiscal adjustment can take many forms. The generosity of our health-care system can be reduced, other public programs can be scaled back or various taxes can be increased. All of these will be unpopular. But the one approach that should not be followed is to ignore the problem and simply run larger budget deficits. Sustained deficits of this magnitude over 25 years would return our debt-to-GDP ratio to its heights from the mid-1990s, and nobody should want a repeat of that situation.

Now consider a second problem: the poor state of our public infrastructure. Mayors across the country worry about this constantly, and they are right to do so. Especially in our older cities, our roads, bridges, sewers and water-treatment systems are badly in need of repair. And in our fastest-growing cities, the demands for new infrastructure put additional strains on the system.

In 2007, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimated that our cities' combined infrastructure deficit was $123-billion, just less than 8 per cent of GDP. The number is probably larger today.

To finance that infrastructure deficit over 10 years would require a decade-long increase in public spending by roughly 1 per cent of GDP annually. These funds could come from cuts to other programs, from new taxes or from some combination of the two.

What do these two challenges have to do with a "fiscal imbalance"? The fundamental problem is that the level of government currently in the best fiscal condition – the federal government – is not the one directly responsible for most of these necessary expenditures. The federal government is on track to have small budget deficits over the next few years and will probably see its debt-to-GDP ratio continue falling, to well below 30 per cent.

Story continues below advertisement

In contrast, the provincial governments provide almost all of the public health-care services in this country, and this largest of their budget items is also the fastest-growing. And most of them are in worse fiscal shape than the federal government. Ontario and Quebec each have debt-to-GDP ratios well above the federal ratio and little or no room to increase income-tax rates.

In addition, Canadian cities are responsible for the vast majority of the country's infrastructure investments, and must finance that spending either from their property-tax revenues or from transfers from the cash-strapped provinces.

Canadians and their policy-makers need to recognize the scale of these significant fiscal pressures. And they also need to think carefully about how fiscal capacity can best be transferred from the federal government to the provinces and cities.

The coming fiscal imbalance will involve some sort of redesign of Canada's system of fiscal federalism. This is hardly a hot topic for most dinner parties, but getting it right will be a key issue in our economic future.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies