Rethinking equalization
Re: Equalization formula up for debate again, Dec. 8; Prepare for fight over equalization, Kelly McParland, Dec. 15
If nothing else, the growing impasse between so- called “have” and “have-not” provinces points yet again to the need to get serious about rethinking Canada’s terminally broken “Robin Hood” system of “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
In what has by now deteriorated into a national “free-for-all” of runaway provincial “entitlement,” our myopic preoccupation with all manners of redistributing Canada’s national wealth base merely continues to “equalize” the whole country to the lowest common denominator of the economic welfare state, leaving “have- not” provinces in a perpetual state of economic dependence.
Originally designed to make government services available to Canadians equally across the country, not even the most rationally convincing statistics on regional economic performance have been able to subdue the passionate backlash that has dogged all efforts to reform a system that has long been hijacked by the political clout of provincial demographics and the partisan dictates of electoral politics.
No doubt, George Bernard Shaw had those all-important electoral politics of “equalization” in mind when he said: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Whatever you call it, provincial “fiscal” imbalance ain’t no myth and it really has always just been haggling over the “price” of provincial harmony.
Indeed, there’s that famous story of the very same George Bernard Shaw (although it has also been attributed to Winston Churchill) once asking the lady seated beside him at a dinner party whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds: “Of course,” the lady replied. “Well then,” Shaw continued, “how about one pound?” “Of course not,” the lady exclaimed indignantly. “What do you think I am?” “We’ve already established what you are, Madam,” Shaw replied. “Now we’re just haggling over the price.” E. W. Bopp, Tsawwassen, B. C.
It is the height of hypocrisy that Quebec takes millions yearly from the western provinces yet blocks their opportunity to regain some fiscal stability by not allowing pipelines to the East Coast. A federal government that rewards this behaviour is not acting in the interests of all Canadians.
To deny the population in the western provinces the opportunity for good paying jobs is contrary to the national interest. Being realistic about the ability of Alberta and Saskatchewan to continue to support the richly funded programs in Quebec is a mockery of common sense. Anne Robinson, Toronto