Province on economic collision course, forum told



(From left) Economics professor Wade Locke (left) speaks during Wednesday night’s public forum. Other panellists included Lana Payne, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Bruce Pearce of the St. John’s Community Advisory Committee on Homelessness and Jo Mark Zurel, chairman of the St. John’s Board of Trade. — Photo by Joe Gibbons/The Telegram

(From left) Economics professor Wade Locke (left) speaks during Wednesday night’s public forum. Other panellists included Lana Payne, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Bruce Pearce of the St. John’s Community Advisory...

Published on June 9, 2011
Published on June 9, 2011
James McLeod  RSS Feed
The Telegram

MUN prof forecasts $1.6-B deficit by 2020

Topics :
Harris Centre , Board of Trade

Economist Wade Locke tried to scare people a little bit Wednesday night.

About halfway through a presentation about the province’s fiscal situation, Locke pulled up a graph of the projected debt over the next 20 years.

“Here’s the debt,” he said. “This should be a suspiring graphic for you, and it should be a disconcerting graphic for you.”

Unless something changes, Locke said the government’s debt could be up to $10 billion within the next 10 years. By 2020, he said the government could run a $1.6 billion deficit on the provincial budget.

“If we don’t start dealing with it, it will become quickly unmanageable,” he told reporters after the event.

“I hope not only government heeds this message, but the rest of the province does as well.”

A respectable number of people did sit up and take notice; the lecture hall at Memorial University was packed Wednesday night to hear the presentation.

It also sparked plenty of discussion during a question-and-answer session, about what this will mean for the future of various parts of the province’s economy and how to avoid it.

Wednesday evening’s event was organized by the Harris Centre at MUN, and along with Locke, several panellists discussed their own impressions of the economic outlook.

Jo Mark Zurel, chairman of the St. John’s Board of Trade, said this is a wake-up call for people.

“We’ve got a situation here where we’ve got a massive amount of oil revenue coming in, so we have the opportunity to be able to set ourselves up for the long term,” Zurelsaid.

“We need a prosperity plan that include things like what do we want as a society? Do we want to get our debt under control? Do we want to diversify our economy so we can support ourselves after the oil is gone? Do we want to invest in education and skills?”

Zurel said there’s an opportunity to act on this right now and avert an ugly situation.

Federation of Labour president Lana Payne took a different tack; she said she doesn’t believe Locke’s numbers are necessarily the gospel truth.

“What are we doing here, saying that it’s all doom and gloom? There’s so much that we can do now to change up those slides, to change up those graphs, to change up that kind of presentation,” she said.

The problem, Payne said, isn’t with the future, it’s with what’s going on right now, and the fact that people aren’t seeing their fair share of the offshore oil wealth.

“I think we have to consider where we are and the wealth that we have,” she said.

The third panellist, homelessness and poverty advocate Bruce Pearce, said the province can get through things if it’s done right.

“We need to do it by ensuring that we lift people out of poverty as we’re creating prosperity,” Pearce said. “We can do both at the same time and we can pay down the debt.”

He said the most important thing is the government does it by listening to people.

“We can allow communities to make their own decisions around their economies, and also allow people to be more engaged and involved in it,” he said. “If they’re not, if they feel like decisions are being made for them, we’re not going to succeed.”

Locke, meanwhile, had a simpler prescription.

“There are three options you can do: you can borrow, you can raise taxes or you can cut expenditure,” he said. “All three have negative consequences for you, so what you need to think about is which of these options are the most effective way of dealing with your issues.”

jmcleod@thetelegram.com

Twitter: TelegramJames

Comments

  • Username
    cyberclark
    - June 10, 2011 at 07:50:06

    Typically Conservative! Using Alberta as a Conservative example, our royalty is down to 5% Canadian. A special committee selected by the Conservatives said we have to start saving money by taxing Albertans further! You have heard of the Alberta Heritage and Savings Trust fund? Well, the Conservatives capped earnings at 4% drawing every thing above into General Revenues and used as operating expenses. To date they have sapped more than 70 billion dollars into spending funds thereby reducing our royalty artificially. That is 8 or 9 years total Alberta budget paid for out of that fund! This graph business sounds like an excuses to usher in private health care even though our system costs us 10.3% of our GDP and the US system costs them 18% of the GDP still leaving 70 million Americans without health care coverage.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Graham
    - June 10, 2011 at 07:49:37

    Well said Don. Long Live Dictator Danny.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    tom
    - June 9, 2011 at 14:13:22

    Well BR if he left anything out the situation may be even more dimal. x dollars coming in and x+ dollars going out. Not rocket science.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      BR
      - June 9, 2011 at 14:53:57

      Agreed. That's why they don't tell us everything.

  • Username
    tom
    - June 9, 2011 at 12:43:31

    Numbers don't lie. Which is why no numbers for Muskrat Falls still concerns me. We found a pot of gold in our backyard and we have not planned for what happens next - and we need to.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      BR
      - June 9, 2011 at 13:35:48

      Numbers can lie, very easily, ask any accountant or auditor. Who says everything has to be included??

  • Username
    Mike M
    - June 9, 2011 at 11:55:06

    The problem is that too many people don't understand the concept of government debt. The people are the government so effectively a bunch of elected officials who want to keep their jobs are trying to satisfy the masses by not paying off their credit card bills and if things get further out of hand they will go and apply for another credit card. The problem is this credit is on the backs of NFLDers and their future. Massive changes have to occur now or NFLD will follow the path of the US which is on the verge of bankruptcy. Here are some simple solutions: 1) 5 year freeze on public servant wages to get the fiscal house in order 2) change all public servant pensions to defined contribution to eliminate future liabilities 3) implement a nominal pay per visit fee ($10-$20) for all medical visits / services to help manage facilities costs 4) implement legislation that forces savings of a portion of oil and mineral revenues while the rest is put towards debt repayment. 5) Cut the size of government in half. This is just a start. We need to spend as if we have no oil revenues if we have a hope of surviving in the future. The problem is the" me first; take what I can get" attitude will win out. The situation is virtually hopeless unless there is a fundamental shift in attitudes.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      FYET
      - June 9, 2011 at 13:23:54

      Mike for premier! Now if we could only implement some of those ideas...

  • Username
    Randy
    - June 9, 2011 at 11:54:33

    I was going to post a comment,but DON said it like it is

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    tom
    - June 9, 2011 at 10:57:10

    Numbers don't lie. Which is why no numbers for Muskrat Falls still concerns me. We found a pot of gold in our backyard and we have not planned for what happens next - and we need to.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Waste of Time
    - June 9, 2011 at 10:13:39

    The people of this province get what they deserve. No one really wants gov't to deal with the debt, all they want is more money for their community. It was frustrating to hear the first question was about how to get a bigger piece of the oil pie. The biggest recipient of the oil money was our health care so what community is going to agree to giving up their hospital, clinic or doctors when the money runs out, who will give up on schools, or what about MUN students paying more for their own education, the list goes on. Everyone knows that something has to give but everyone thinks it should be the other guy. Gov't can't plan for the long term, they only plan for the next election and the amount of time to needed to collect their pensions. Take care of yourself because government is blowing this opportunity big time.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    chris
    - June 9, 2011 at 09:02:28

    What lana payne doesn't understand is if we don't deal with the debt now, in 10 years there is going to be another lana payne at this panel saying the exact same things and we'll be no better off. Our debt will be just as high with less oil revenues coming in. We should be dealing with the debt now, so that in 10 years it won't even be an issue to discuss, and all the spotlight can go towards these social groups that don't understand the consequences of debt. It's ironic that they don't want to deal with it, yet it's a major reason more money can't go towards more social program funding.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Shannon Reardon
    - June 9, 2011 at 09:01:30

    Maurice Adams: Can we afford Muskrat Falls --- when it will mean a doubling of those costs to NL consumers? Simple answer, there, Maurice (not that you can't glean it, but just giving the obvious answer here): NO!

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      BR
      - June 9, 2011 at 09:13:32

      I believe Ed Martin said our rates will more than double if we don't do Muskrat Falls. It just don't seem right that we have the resources but don't get the benefit. Quebec doesn't have the resource but get the benefit DOH !!!!!!!

    • Username
      Willi Makit
      - June 9, 2011 at 09:47:29

      BR, did Ed Martin supply any hard numbers backing up that claim, or are you just buying into it because Ed Martin said so. Look at this motivation. Anyone in the same boat would love to have a taxpayer funded multi-billion megaproject as a feather in their cap. Careful who you trust, they may not be looking out for YOUR best interest.

    • Username
      BR
      - June 9, 2011 at 13:23:41

      I don't think Ed Martin supplied hard numbers. Even if he did, they wouldn't be made up by him ..... and even then, how can we be sure they made allowance for everything. The problem is they are trying to predict the future. If we spend $X, we will get $Y in revenue and make $Z profit. Sadly they can't say exactly what XYZ will be. All I said is that Martin said it will be worse if we don't do Muskrat Falls. Martin is not a politician but he probably deals with a few of them, and I don't trust any of them.

  • Username
    BR
    - June 9, 2011 at 09:00:03

    Danny got in at the right time and got out at the right time. He knew this was coming but now it's not his problem. I think the saddest part is the housing. For years agents have pushed up housing prices, "buy before the price goes up". After the oil runs out and there is a housing glut, it will be "buy before the interest rates go up" The only ones making money on the houses are the agents. For all the new govt employees, get ready!!!! Look at the people making the decisions. Most of them can retire in a few years and they will when the going gets rough. The only ones left will be Charlene Johnson and Tracey Perry who will probably do a better job anyway.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      What's your problem "BR"
      - June 9, 2011 at 10:23:28

      I don't know what your problem is BR but you have a bur under your saddle about something. I guess you feel a real estate agent did you wrong. Nothing was even said about housing or real estate agents. But yet, you went off topic to try and make a statement. So I suppose you know every real estate agent in this city or in the province, you must to make a statement like that. Well I don't know you and you certainly don't know me, so how would you like it is I just jump to conclusions about you. If I said you were a pompous ass, you may or may not be one, but do I have the right to say that without knowing you, no, so please keep your generalized comments to yourself.

    • Username
      Jerry
      - June 9, 2011 at 10:56:47

      If you think Charlene Johnson would do a better job of anything then that destroys your credibility right there. Look how well she looked after the environment when she was environmnet minister, and apparently she has an environmental degree. Letting mining companies kill dozens of ponds, animals, and animal habitat aren't exactly environmentally sound ideas now are they? We don't have the population of a small city on the entire island and we have been given no proof that our electricity needs are increasing. The Erco plant in Long Harbour used more power in a day than St. John's, resulting in a huge surplus of power on the island, not to mention the closing of several paper mills and the Argentia base.

    • Username
      W McLean
      - June 9, 2011 at 12:43:51

      BR, if Danny "knew this was coming", it's because he's the one who ordered it! This impending financial mess is the direct result of seven years of unquestioned, uncriticised, unexamined Dannyism. The debt should be renamed the Danny Williams Legacy Debt.

    • Username
      BR
      - June 9, 2011 at 13:35:58

      I have had no problem with agents, but then again I am not looking to buy a house. The story was about our economy and how it is affected by the oil. Considering a house is usually the biggest purchase you make and prices have increased because of oil and fueled by agents, I think it is relevant. Jerry I put in Charlene and Tracey's name because they are young and will probably still be there when the others bail out. I didn't mean they could save the province.

  • Username
    Jim Bennett
    - June 9, 2011 at 08:24:37

    I wonder what Wade Locke thinks of the Muskrat Falls proposal? It would be really helpful to have an assessment by someone like him before our government blindly commits us to such a megaproject. If it's a good deal, by all means, do it. If it's a catastrophe then back out immediately. Right now it's all politics when it should really be an economic decision. Who better to scope it out than an economist?

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Maurice E. Adams
    - June 9, 2011 at 08:24:19

    Also, if I recall from Wade Locke's presentation there will be $500 million less coming into provincial coffers from here on in (because of an end to equalization?). That is $500 million per year that the province will have to find in increased revenues or taxes (a possible $500 million annual tax hit for NL consumers). Add to that, that when Muskrat Falls comes on stream, NL consumers will have to pay an additional $500 million per year in higher power bills (annual revenues to NL Power for power sales to NL consumers last year was $537 million). Can we afford Muskrat Falls --- when it will mean a doubling of those costs to NL consumers? --- When even if oil costs at Holyrood doubled, or if Vale's Long Harbour plant's demand came on stream, ---- oil costs at Holyrood would only increase about $100 million (not $500 million) more each year. Those 2 things alone (loss of equalization and increased power rates) will mean 500,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will have to find and cough up an additional $1 billion EACH YEAR. Maurice E. Adams, Paradise

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Don
    - June 9, 2011 at 08:23:35

    Wade Locke is a voice crying in the wilderness. Nobody will pay any attention to what he is saying. In fact, Government insiders have told me that they wish he would be quiet and keep his opinions to himself. As Premier, Dictator Danny bawled every day to anyone who would listen that: WE ARE A HAVE PROVINCE, WE ARE LEADING THE NATION IN ECONOMIC GROWTH, WE DON'T NEED HANDOUTS, WE ARE THE GREATEST! There is a difference between fantasy and reality. Politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador do not know what the difference is and never have. The result is that the people get lied to, misled and tricked into voting for the crackpot who can shout the loudest and bellow the message more effectively than the other crackpots running against him or her. Wade Locke's message should be taken as a dose of reality. The Government of Newfoundland should live within its means and plan for the future. Will Wade Locke's message be heard and heeded? Not a chance! The Government of Newfoundland continues to shout: WE ARE THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF CANADA, WE ARE THE BEST, WE ARE RICH AND GETTING RICHER, ALL OF THE NEWFOUNDLANDERS WHO ARE AWAY SHOULD COME BACK HOME AND SHARE OUR WEALTH, WE ARE.......BLAH..BLAH...BLAH! The next time the Newfoundland economy stalls or goes bust, the Government of Newfoundland will crash and burn. Make no mistake about that! When that time comes, as it will, Wade Locke will be able to take some comfort in the fact that he told them so long before it happened.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      Jim Mason
      - June 9, 2011 at 09:00:27

      Don is bang on! Politicians in this province would never get elected if they use scare tactics or spoke the truth. So they become uber-cheerleaders like Danny and whip us up into a frenzy of pride. While revenues will grow substantially into the future so will costs: aging infrasctucture needs to be replaced and health care costs will skyrocket as the population ages. We can be a HAVE province only if we can balance the books. Otherwise we will be a deadbeat province.

    • Username
      W McLean
      - June 9, 2011 at 11:55:15

      BR, if Danny "knew this was coming", it's because he's the one who ordered it! This impending financial mess is the direct result of seven years of unquestioned, uncriticised, unexamined Dannyism. The debt should be renamed the Danny Williams Legacy Debt.

    • Username
      W McLean
      - June 9, 2011 at 12:43:55

      Jim Mason, what's your authority for believing revenues are going to grow substantially into the future?

  • Username
    Jon
    - June 9, 2011 at 07:57:12

    Maybe this guy should be running in the upcoming election!

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Willi Makit
    - June 9, 2011 at 07:52:12

    It costs a lot of money to become the most popular government ever. The Williams led government used our money to prop up their popularity. Danny has cut and run, leaving Dunderdale to try and sell a the voters on why we should increase our debt even further to build a monument to the worst government ever. All of his coat tail riders will follow soon and coast off to retirement with their gold plated pension plans while some other government has to deal with the fall out of the mess they will leave behind. There's a saying that people get the government that they deserve. Voters traded their our province's future for a phony sense of pride strength and determination. It is nothing but an illusion, and the cost of maintaining that illusion will be generations of debt. We still have opportunity to make things right, but only if voters make better choices.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Wicked
    - June 9, 2011 at 07:51:49

    I saw the presentation and I was amazed at how many people didn't get it, including Lana Payne who thinks burying her head in the sand is a good strategy. There's a fiscal crunch coming and too many people were commenting on how to get more money out of government.

    Submit a Comment

    • Username
      JT
      - June 9, 2011 at 09:01:17

      Lana Payne and those of her mindset (ie NDP) believe that there is a money tree which we can simply pluck dollar bills from in order to give increase's to organized labour and create more social programs. Our situation is analagous to a person who has a job paying big money for the next five to ten years, who purchase's a large house with all the trappings, two expensive vehicles and throws parties every weekend. The only problem for this person is that he/she already owes thousands of dollars, his/her future income (ie job potential) after five to ten years is dubious at best, and he/she hasn't put enough into savings to get him/her through after the five to ten year period of plenty. With rising inflation, fuel costs and food costs, any idea of extra taxes is a daunting burden for most of us to face. The government which finds itself in power after this coming fall must rationalize spending and look at ways in whuich the province's economy can be diversified. The new government must also communicate to organized labour that they will have to reign in expectations prior to future bargaining.

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Send to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.

The Telegram is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising