PA(;[4. W)NI ,Sl,ý, I) \AR(H IhI WIII)81, FRLU PR[SS vwtiitbyC Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor IMe onI.% Whithv ne%'spapr îidept*ndenIl% ovried and operated hY WhithY residents for %Vhithl r('ideflts. f>uhlishied evî'r, Nt'dntsd.t x hb N.B. I ublishînig and lI Ihotograph hic. l'ho,îv î669-6111î 'hMe FreIPress Building. niu Bruck Street North, Il.).Box 2îIM, %WhithN. (Ont. Michael J. Knoll community Editor Marjorlo A. Burgess Production Manager Karen Thompson Advertising Manager Malng Permit No 480 Member of thre Whilby Chamber of Commerce It doesn't appear that regional councillors have the ability to deal with the complexity of the budget Utterly ridiculous. Abso 'lutely absurd. That is the only way to describe the two days of budget deliberations that were held last week by the mem bers of Durham Regional Counc il. For example, the learned councillors spent an hour and forty minutes discussing two items, the total value of which was less than $83,000 (out of a budget that approaches $100 million>. Throughout the two-day or 13-hour total debate, councillors (led most notably by Ed Kolodzie of Oshawa) spent a considerable amount of time debating items of minor importance, i.e. the provisions in each department for conferences and meals. Almost every department had requested expenditurbs of less than $20,000 for this area, yet some councillors seemn obsessed with reducing this figure, believing that this would have a great impact on the taxpayers. Considering the amount of time that was spent on these issues, it is difficult to believe that the Durham Region Police Force's budget was dispensed with in less than an hour. The police force's budget will corne to about $16.7 million in 1981 and, in fact, accounts for 85 per cent of the tax increases in this year. Other important departments such as the Durham Regional Board of Health, the social ser- vices department (and its $10 million plus general welfare budget> and the public works department were ail dispensed with in an amazingly short period of time compared with the effort spent on trivial matters. We have to ask why is this? Are our regional councillors too timid or too ungifted intellectually to deal with the vastand complex problems of Lainstream CanadaJ Good news for small business B' W Rager Worth Canada's politicians are siarling Io comprehend that small and medium-sized enter- prises are creating a majority of the country's new jobs. Indeed, three provinces have emphatically under- scored that recognition in the last year or so by dramatically Roger 1* rh h. I>recior, Puhblc .-fjairs. ('anadian kederauioti of Independent u.%iunu'ss. reducing corporate tax rates for smaller firms, making il easier for them 10 expand and grow. Alberta was lirst off the mark ast spring when the government cut the smail business tax rate Io10 5% (rom 11 co Now botti Quebec and British Columbia have joined what is fast becoming a national trend. Ini a rmcnt budget, Quebec Finance Minister Jacques Parizeau announced a whop- ping 100,19la% credit for smaller tirms, effectively reducing the corporate tax raie 10 3% lrom the previous 13%. British C'olumbia has re- duced the smal business tax raie from 12e/o Is-vo vears ago, lu 10wo las( spring. andi in ils latest budget furiher chopped the ta% raie to 80'. For year% the 57,(N-mem- ber ('anadian Federation of Independent Business has been batting for sucli tax culs. In lact, the organizaiion has been successîul in convin- cing almosi ail provinces that smailer firms deserved a Ioiher tax rate tian that charged go larger companies. Nine oil the countrVs 10 provinces have now accepled (hat policy. The additional small busi- ness tax cuts in Alberta, Quebe and British Columbia mnay convince other provinces tu foilow suit. The smail and medium- aized enterprises creaiing a majority of (Canada'% new jobs deserve the recognition. municipal financing? The budget debate was a prime example of government waste. To our knowledge, not one councillor attempted to set the course of the debate on a meaningful path nor dîd any coun- cillor (except Whitby's own Tom Edwards> offer any suggestions to help prevent or soften the threatened 14.9 per cent average increase in regional property taxes. While it must be admitted that Durham Regional Council does not have complete authority over how it spends its money, council must be criticized over the way in which it ap- proaches the subject. This year, the regional budget will approach almost $100 million and it is amazing that the 31 members of council could spend so much time debating trivial matters. It is even worthwhile to note that not one councillor asked for a review of the system of municipal financing, discussed the impact of other levels of government on the tax- payers, or gave suggestions on other avenues to explore that would reduce the burden on the tax- payers. And yet, we pay these people an average of $21 ,000 a year and it appears to this publication that based on the quality and direction of the budget discussions, we are not getting value for our money. It has always been the intention of most coun- cillors to be the protectors of the taxpayer. That is, every election time, they promise to control government spending and to minimize the impact on the taxpayer. It seems to us that they have failed. This regional government has literally grown feathers and become chioken at the sight of this budget. One of the major financial problemns that the region has to overcomne is the system of grants given to it by the provincial government. The overwhelming majority of provincial grants have strings attached. They must be spent on a certain project or in a certain area. For example, the provincial grants include such things as welfare paymnents, where the region pays 20 cents and the province 80 cents of each dollar. The region has little discretionary financial authority. Another problemn is that regional government is given responsibility for many different services, e.g. police and welfare but is not given the finan- cial authority to operate themn. These problems are weighty, however, they do not excuse the manner in which the budget was treated. No councillor demnonstrated-his concern over the issues or expressed a desire to see themn resolved to the benef it of the taxpayer. .The budget discussion at the region was an exercise in futility that did not.solve any problems and did not give the taxpayer hope that it would be better in the future. A ddres s le tte rs to the editor to P.O. Box 206, Whitby I