Ontario just asks for fair treatment

I really couldn't put it any better than the headline on an op/ed in today's Star: "Ontario just asks for fair treatment."

Right.


"The province risks being the biggest loser."

The point is made (and probably right) that by not relying on natural resources to support its economy, Ontario is more susceptible to fluctuations in international markets -- and as such is the province that should be concerned about post-secondary education (not to mention the fact that numerous other countries are poised to obliterate Canada in PSE, and by extension economically, very, very soon -- not my [or the Star's] point).

BUT: no one has ever explained precisely why this is, particularly not this article. Yes, we see it -- but without a clear articulation of the problem, good luck finding a solution. Oh, wait! They have: give Ontario more money.

"Ontario gets less per person than every province except Alberta. This gap occurs even though this money is separate from the equalization payments the eight other provinces get from Ottawa to help them provide comparable services at comparable tax rates to the typical middle-income province."

The equalization payments are supposed to "help them provide comparable services at comparable tax rates": is that not what they are doing?

The thing that gets ignored, time and time again, is quality. You can't objectively assess whether more money is required for any system, even systems as important as healthcare or as difficult to compare as PSE, by per person costs alone.

Since when was the lowest per-person cost intrinsically a bad thing?

The stats need to be analyzed in a little more depth, here:

What about the economies of scale provided by populations and consequently higher (and sustainably higher) levels of usership?

What about the inherent benefits of "centre-of-the-Canadian-universe status," manifest in having to pay less for doctors, and nurses -- and getting more and better donations at universities?

Why not compare how much is spent on each service, broken down to the smallest levels (i.e. MRIs) relative to population? (Example: Manitoba spends the most per province on Gamma Rays -- and our Gamma Ray gets used something like seven times per year. Brilliant). Relative to satisfaction with services, or independent evaluations of quality?

Ontario has some of the best universities in the country. It does better in healthcare than most of the have-not provinces that it subsidizes (yes! it subsidizes them! and they still fare worse! what a freaking suprise).

Well, "McGuinty has no problem with that . . . [but] raises a little known fact. On average, the equalization-receiving provinces are already as well off as Ontario in terms of their being able to fulfill their obligation to provide services to their citizens at relatively similar levels of taxation."

Can we back this up, please, with at least some basis in fact? The economic future of eight provinces depends on it.

Written from an office high-rise near Yonge & Bloor in Toronto.