10.12.2012 Views

Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services

Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services

Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Chapter 1: The Need for Str<strong>on</strong>g Fiscal Acti<strong>on</strong><br />

We can — and do — hope for better. But we cannot count <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> revenue growth <strong>the</strong><br />

government expects and, more importantly, we must not make firm budget plans <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis<br />

<strong>of</strong> that hope. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, we must adopt <strong>the</strong> “cautious assumpti<strong>on</strong>s” for fiscal policy — <strong>the</strong> first<br />

principle set out in <strong>the</strong> Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act. We must apply that<br />

principle to our projecti<strong>on</strong>s for provincial revenues and <strong>the</strong>n work to fit our spending plans to<br />

match <strong>the</strong> revenue projecti<strong>on</strong>s. This is not strictly a case <strong>of</strong> hoping for <strong>the</strong> best and planning<br />

for <strong>the</strong> worst, as <strong>the</strong> old adage goes; we are planning not for <strong>the</strong> worst, but for an outcome<br />

we think more likely. We can hope too that ano<strong>the</strong>r adage will apply: underpromise and<br />

overdeliver. If <strong>the</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omy and revenues exceed our assumpti<strong>on</strong>s, future governments<br />

will be left with <strong>the</strong> pleasant task <strong>of</strong> deciding what to do with <strong>the</strong> resulting surpluses.<br />

Related to <strong>the</strong> revenue outlook is <strong>the</strong> usual c<strong>on</strong>tingency reserve that budgets include for<br />

reas<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> prudence — in case revenues fall short <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> budget forecast. The 2011 Budget<br />

set <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tingency reserve at $700 milli<strong>on</strong> per year in 2011–12 and $1.0 billi<strong>on</strong> in all<br />

subsequent years. Such a static approach, however, might not cover <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> l<strong>on</strong>g-term<br />

trends that give rise to forecast errors. Projecti<strong>on</strong>s are not <strong>on</strong>ly subject to short-term<br />

uncertainty emanating, for example, from <strong>the</strong> fragile global recovery. There is great uncertainty<br />

over l<strong>on</strong>ger-term trends such as productivity growth as well, which affects our assumed rate <strong>of</strong><br />

ec<strong>on</strong>omic growth and <strong>the</strong>refore our assumed revenue growth. We assume productivity growth<br />

<strong>of</strong> 1.2 per cent annually, but it could just as easily come in at <strong>on</strong>ly 1.0 per cent. A persistent<br />

shortfall in productivity growth would <strong>the</strong>n have a compound effect <strong>on</strong> our projected revenue<br />

growth. Accordingly, we have set <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tingency reserve to cover <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong><br />

overestimating <strong>the</strong> growth rate in revenue by roughly 0.2 per cent per year. From 0.2 per cent<br />

<strong>of</strong> revenue in <strong>the</strong> first year <strong>of</strong> this exercise (2011–12), our reserve rises by 0.2 percentage<br />

point per year to 1.4 per cent in <strong>the</strong> target year (2017–18), when <strong>the</strong> cushi<strong>on</strong> would amount<br />

to $1.9 billi<strong>on</strong>.<br />

93

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!