JL-001
description
Transcript of JL-001
Québec/OntarioQuébec/OntarioA Fresh LookA Fresh Look(or: Objects in mirror may be (or: Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear)closer than they appear)
présentation by
Jean-François Lisée CERIUM.ca
at the Chair of Quebec studies, Glendon College, February 2005
JL-001
Question # 1
Is Québec closing the gap ?
JL-002
A decade of growth
Québec in the OECD / 1992
17e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
GDP/pcap/PPP, 000 $US 95
JL-004
A decade of growth
Québec in the OECD / 2002
10e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
GDP/pcap/PPP, 000 $US 95
JL-004
Déchiffrer le modèle québécois
A significant leap:
In the OECD, only Ireland did better
In North-America
Québec is historically poorer
But is closing the gap
JL-002
A full cycle Québec/Ontario Growth (1989-2000)
5852
37
43
18
16
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
GDP GDP per cap Real DispIncome Pcap
Population
Ontario
Québec
Prosperity in principle or per person?
JL-003
Is the trend holding ?Québec/Ontario (2000-2003)
12,212,8
7
11
-0,3
5,6 5
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
GDP GDP per cap Real DispIncome Pcap
Population
Ontario
Québec
JL-003
Will the trend hold ?Québec/Ontario (2004-2005) (ConfB. estimates)
8,69,5
6,4
8,1
4,85,9
3
1,2
0
2
4
6
8
10
GDP GDP per cap Real DispIncome Pcap
Population
Ontario
Québec
JL-003
Closing the wealth gap Québec/Canada 1992-2002
JL-004
11% 11% 9% 8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% P
IB/h
ab e
n P
PA
et $
US
95
1992 1998 2000 2002
Closing the wealth gap Québec/Ontario 1960-2004
JL-004
24% 20% 20% 18,5% 17,5% 15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% P
IB/h
ab a
ux p
rix d
u m
arch
é
60s 70s 80s 90s 2002 2004
Closing the wealth gap Québec/United States 1992-2004
JL-004
26% 29% 26% 21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% P
IB/h
ab e
n P
PA
et $
US
95
1992 1998 2000 2002
This is an average
Trying not to keep up with these Johneses..
JL-005
Indice Gini, ménages 1980-2001
0,32
0,37
0,42
0,47
Source: Statistiques Canada, US Census
(Gin
i)
USA
Canada
Ontario
Québec
Revenue concentration at the top US 1% - 1973-2003
JL-004
8% 14% 20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1973 1998 2002
So, one has to beware of averages
At the low end of the ladder
Family poverty rate, 1997
18% USA12% European Union10% Canada
9% Québec
1997, PPA
JL-005
Middle class
Median disposable work income, 1997Per cap, PPP, $US de 1995
Canada 20 300 $
Québec 20 500 $
Ontario 21 600 $
USA 21 700 $
Source: Pierre Fortin, UQAMJL-005
Cost of living, after taxes, Toronto/Montréal
JL-005
2001, KPMG/Alberta Study
Household TorontoMontréal
Same revenue
40 000 $
Single 10060 000 $ couple, no kids 10080 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100100 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100150 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100
Cost of living, after taxes, Toronto/Montréal
JL-005
2001, KPMG/Alberta Study
Household TorontoMontréal
Equal revenue
40 000 $
Single 100 - 9%60 000 $ couple, no kid 100 - 11%80 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 10%100 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 12%150 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 8%
Cost of living, after taxes, Toronto/Montréal
JL-005
2001, KPMG/Alberta Study
Household TorontoMontréal
Equal revenue But revenue is
not equal. Quebeckers
earn, on average, 14%
less than Ontarians.
40 000 $
Single 100 - 9%60 000 $ couple, no kid 100 - 11%80 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 10%100 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 12%150 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 8%
Cost of living, after taxes, Toronto/Montréal
JL-005
2001, KPMG/Alberta Study
Household TorontoMontréal
Equal revenue
Montréal Revenue -
14%
40 000 $
Single 100 - 9% Idem60 000 $ couple, no kid 100 - 11% - 2%80 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 10% - 1%100 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 12% - 4%150 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 8% - 1%
Cost of living, after taxes, Toronto/Montréal
JL-005
2001, KPMG/Alberta Study
Household TorontoMontréal
Equal revenue
Montréal Revenue -
14%
But part of this drop is
due to the # of
working hours and
days - -– -
Often taken by choice
40 000 $
Single 100 - 9% Idem60 000 $ couple, no kid 100 - 11% - 2%80 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 10% - 1%100 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 12% - 4%150 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 8% - 1%
Cost of living, after taxes, Toronto/Montréal
JL-005
2001, KPMG/Alberta Study
Household TorontoMontréal
Equal revenue
Montréal Revenue -
14%
Montréal Revenue -
9%
40 000 $
Single 100 - 9% Idem - 4%60 000 $ couple, no kid 100 - 11% - 2% - 5%80 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 10% - 1% - 5%100 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 12% - 4% - 7%150 000 $ couple,
2 kids 100 - 8% - 1% - 4%
To sum up…
Québec’s wealth is growing rapidly. The 25% of Quebeckers at the bottom of the
revenue scale have a higher standard of living than their counterparts in Canada and the US.
The standard of living of the Quebec middle class is close to that of Ontario and the US (-5%) and higher than that of Canada.
The very rich are richer in Ontario and much, much richer in the US.
JL-005
Question # 2
Are immigrants afraid of Québec ?
JL-002
Attracting int’l immigrants: Québec / Ontario
Immigration par 1000 habitants / 2002, Nord-Est
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
Ont
ario
Qué
bec
JL-004
Attracting int’l immigrants: Québec / Ontario
Immigration par 1000 habitants / 2002, Nord-Est
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
Ont
ario
New
Yor
k
Qué
bec
Mas
sach
uset
ts
Moy
enne
Con
nect
icut
New
Ham
pshi
re
Ver
mon
t
Pen
nsyl
vani
a
Mai
ne
Nou
veau
-B
JL-004
Total migratory balance: Québec / North-East
Solde par 1000 habitants / 2002, Nord-Est
New
Yo
rk
-4,0
-2,0
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
On
tari
o
NH
am
p
Ma
ine
Mo
ye
nn
e
Ve
rmo
nt
Qu
éb
ec
Co
nn
Pe
nn
N-B
run
Ma
ss
JL-004
Attracting int’l immigrants: Québec Canada USA
Immigrants par 1000 habitants, 2002, 60 États et provinces
CB
E-U
Alb
erta
Ont
ario
Can
ada
Qu
ébec
, 7e
N-B
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
Ontario
N Y
Alberta
Texas
Oregon
Colorado
Michigan
Sask
NC
arolina
Okla
Tennessee
T-N
euve
Montana
JL-004
Total migratory balance : Québec Canada USA
Solde par 1000 habitants, 2002, 60 États et provinces
-8,0
-3,0
2,0
7,0
12,0
17,0
22,0
27,0
32,0
Nevada
NH
amps
Texas
Rhode
Haw
aii
E-U
NM
exico
WV
irgini
Montana
Illinois
T-N
euve
JL-004
Déchiffrer le modèle québécois
So…
A significant ability to attract international immigrants.
A steadily growing retention rate (now 83% vs 86% in ROC) or these immigrants
Against a negative (but improving) interprovincial anglophone migratory balance
On an anglophone continent, not a bad performance.
JL-002
Question # 3
The bureaucrat- heavy-province ?
JL-002
« The bureaucratic empire » Québec/Ontario
JL-005
Public servants in Québec and Ontarioper 1000 habitants in 2002
Ontario Québec Gap
Public servants/province
Source : Conseil du trésor du Québec, 2003
« The bureaucratic empire » Québec/Ontario
JL-005
Public servants in Québec and Ontarioper 1000 habitants in 2002
Ontario Québec Gap
Public servants/province 8 12 + 50%
Source : Conseil du trésor du Québec, 2003
« The bureaucratic empire » Québec/Ontario
JL-005
Public servants in Québec and Ontarioper 1000 habitants in 2002
Ontario Québec Gap
Public servants/province 8 12 + 50%
Province + cities (Ontario’s local level assumes some of Quebe’s provincial tasks)
20 22 + 10%
Source : Conseil du trésor du Québec, 2003
« The bureaucratic empire » Québec/Ontario
JL-005
Public servants in Québec and Ontarioper 1000 habitants in 2002
Ontario Québec Gap
Public servants/province 8 12 + 50%
Province + cities (Ontario’s local level assumes some of Quebe’s provincial tasks)
20 22 + 10%
Ottawa assumes for Ontario some of Quebec’s provincial tasks (GST, manpower training, immigration selection, Quebec’s pension plan); and Quebec has other tasks (Car insurance, language)
Source : Conseil du trésor du Québec, 2003
« The bureaucratic empire » Québec/Ontario
JL-005
Public servants in Québec and Ontarioper 1000 habitants in 2002
Ontario Québec Gap
Public servants/province 8 12 + 50%
Province + cities (Ontario’s local level assumes some of Quebe’s provincial tasks)
20 22 + 10%
Ottawa assumes for Ontario some of Quebec’s provincial tasks (GST, manpower training, immigration selection, Quebec’s pension plan); and Quebec has other tasks (Car insurance, language)
20 20,3 + 1,5%
Source : Conseil du trésor du Québec, 2003
Question # 4
Québec’s fiscal hell
JL-002
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
Total fiscal cost, for all Quebec taxpayers, of not living in Ontario
2001-2002
(in millions)
Total fiscal gain, for all Quebec
businesses, of not being in Ontario
Balance
4 200 2 800
1 400
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
-471 1 686 Pharmacare
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
-648 177 Student grants
-471 1 686 Pharmacare
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
-955 307 Private schools grants
-648 177 Student grants
-471 1 686 Pharmacare
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
-1 174 219 Local developement budgets
-955 307 Private schools grants
-648 177 Student grants
-471 1 686 Pharmacare
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
-1 329 155 Culture (supplementary effort)
-1 174 219 Local developement budgets
-955 307 Private schools grants
-648 177 Student grants
-471 1 686 Pharmacare
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
« The fiscal hell » Québec vs Ontario
JL-005
4 129 Total
-1 329 155 Culture (supplementary effort)
-1 174 219 Local developement budgets
-955 307 Private schools grants
-648 177 Student grants
-471 1 686 Pharmacare
1 215565 Supplementary child benefit
1 780 1 020 5$ (now 7$) a day daycare
2 800 Supplementary fiscal revenues
Use of the supplementary fiscal revenues
(balance)
Sum
(in millions)
Québec expenses and services not offered by Ontario, 2001-2002
(partial list)
To sum up…
For every tax dollar, Quebeckers have more services than Ontarians.
Furthermore, Torontonians pay their electricity at rates 64% higher than Quebeckers.
JL-002
Tax Freedom day : The Fraser Institute Test
Our taxpayer is 47, male, married and has
two kids
Net revenue (all FI available data Feb 05):
If his Ontario Tax Freedom day is 0
Our Quebecker’s Tax freedom day
comes( - sooner) or later
25 000 0
35 000 0
45 000 0
55 000 0
65 000 0
75 000 0
85 000 0
95 000 0
105 000 0
115 000 0
Tax Freedom day : The Fraser Institute Test
Our taxpayer is 47, male, married and has
two kids
Net revenue (all FI available data Feb 05):
If his Ontario Tax Freedom day is 0
Our Quebecker’s Tax freedom day
comes( - sooner) or later
25 000 0 ( - 37)
35 000 0 ( - 19)
45 000 0 ( - 10)
55 000 0 ( - 4)
65 000 0 0
75 000 0
85 000 0
95 000 0
105 000 0
115 000 0
Tax Freedom day : The Fraser Institute Test
Our taxpayer is 47, male, married and has
two kids
Net revenue (all FI available data Feb 05):
If his Ontario Tax Freedom day is 0
Our Quebecker’s Tax freedom day
comes( - sooner) or later
25 000 0 ( - 37)
35 000 0 ( - 19)
45 000 0 ( - 10)
55 000 0 ( - 4)
65 000 0 0
75 000 0 + 4
85 000 0 + 6
95 000 0 + 9
105 000 0 + 10
115 000 0 + 11
Déchiffrer le modèle québécois
Question # 5
How inward-looking is
Québec ?
JL-002
Level of economic openness Québec / Ontario/ OCDE
% des exportations/PIB, 199891%
80%75%
70%
57% 55%
44% 43%
29% 27% 26%
11% 11%
1.L
uxe
mb
.
2.Ir
lan
de
3.B
elg
iqu
e
4. O
nta
rio
5.Q
uéb
ec
6.P
ays-
B.
7.A
utr
ich
e
8.C
anad
a
17.A
ll.
21.R
-U
23.F
ran
ce
28.E
-U
29.J
apo
n
JL-004
Level of (all) bilinguism : Québec / Ontario / G7
Pourcentage de personnes bilingues, 2001
53% 51%47% 47% 46%
35%29% 27% 26%
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
Allem
agne
Qué
bec
France
Europe
Italie
Ont
ario
ROC
Royaum
e-Uni
Etats
-Uni
s
StatsCan et Eurobaromètre
JL-004
Bilingualisme (all languages):
Toronto: 46 %
Montréal: 67%
JL-002
The arts: Ontario and Quebec’s absolute international success
Quebeckers (a fair proportion) are willing to trade:
Ours for yours
Objects Objects in mirror are in mirror are closer than they appear…closer than they appear…
Data available at: Data available at: www.jflisee.netwww.jflisee.net
JL-001
15 years of Québec/Ontario Growth (1988-2003)
9380
55
64
3,1
1825
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GDP GDP per cap Real DispIncome Pcap
Population
Ontario
Québec
Prosperity in principle or per person?
JL-003