Moe playing game of equalization politics
Premier trying to score points with right-wing base By distorting debate
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe seems to be confirming our worst fears about what politicians truly believe equalization is all about.
Then again, so is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who stuck Canadians with this existing flawed formula until 2024 in an omnibus bill, which Liberals so loathed when former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper pulled the same stunt.
Between Moe’s social media posts that were so factually deprived they are worthy of the Trump White House and Trudeau’s weaseling to avoid needed debate on equalization reform, we are at least seeing equalization the way politicians see it. To them, it has always been more about scoring political points than helping those in this country who could use it, as it was originally conceptualized.
For example, in a tweet on Friday, Moe boldly announced “this conversation around Equalization isn’t over. Saskatchewan will continue to press for needed changes. The program is not equitable or fair to all provinces in Canada.”
Alas, the conversation did seem to be over … mostly because Trudeau had unilaterally buried within the confines of Bill C-74 the status quo to ensure that the formula would not be changed to address the long-standing concerns that it isn’t working for Western provinces whose economies are based on nonrenewable resources.
Again, pressing to change flaws in equalization is not a hostile notion. Let us be clear that the federal Liberals’ disinterest in hearing the Moe/ West concerns has everything to do with the Quebec vote — specifically, not wanting to upset a province that gets $10 billion or $11 billion a year from equalization largely because hydro revenue doesn’t count against the formula and that Quebec hasn’t developed or doesn’t choose to develop its own non-renewable resources.
But Moe was being equally political, playing to his own right-wing, conservative base and western anti- Quebec sentiments in general.
Accompanying Moe’s tweet was a graph labelled: “What do Equalization Payments from Saskatchewan taxpayers help pay for in other provinces?” that showed annual average undergraduate tuition fees with Quebec’s at $2,889 and Saskatchewan’s at $7,205. We need to #fixequalization, Moe declared. Where does one begin?
For starters, curbing rising tuition hasn’t exactly been a burning issue for this Saskatchewan Party government during its decade-plus in office, and there seemed few qualms about 2.5-percent hikes in the wake of this year’s budget.
Now, Moe is blaming this on a lack of equalization money when his Sask. Party government and former premier Brad Wall spent most of the past decade claiming Saskatchewan no longer aspired to be a have-not province and to ever draw from the federal program again?
Let us also be clear this is a federal program. “Saskatchewan taxpayers” aren’t actually sending money to Quebec to pay for their universities. This deception surely flies in the face of Moe’s opinion piece last week in which he said: “No one should begrudge a program intended to ensure all Canadians have access to a comparable level of service. We are a compassionate, generous people.”
But what was worse was the duplicity within Moe’s tweet. As one Twitter follower noted in a response to the Saskatchewan premier: “Quebec’s
PST is just under 10 per cent. Quebecers pay $20 billion in consumption taxes annually. When you include income, corporate etc. that becomes $85 billion in taxes. That’s why they can spend more on services — they pay for it.”
Tax levies/royalties established on a multipleyear average are critical in the complex equalization formula.
It allows provinces to make choices. We do in Saskatchewan, by choosing a six-percent PST and exempting an array of items — $300 million in farm costs, alone. Quebec chooses to prioritize education spending, partly paid by high provincial taxes.
To cite one specific expenditure like tuition is not just unfair, but is also an attempt to distort the debate in a politically charged way.
Sadly, the equalization debate always digresses into such raw politics, which is likely why it never gets fixed.
Moe et al are contributing to the problem.