Moe’s equalization ploy dangerous, but we need to talk fairness

There will be those today who will argue Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe needs to stay in his lane in the equalization debate.

Given his Saskatchewan Party’s history on this file — and even the party’s current thinly veiled attempts to make this a partisan issue — they have a point.

Let us recall that the Sask. Party’s first foray into equalization was a decidedly partisan attempt to cast shade on the federal Liberal government of the day led by Paul Martin.

Those outraged that both former Sask. Party premier Brad Wall and now Moe have made federal equalization payments a crisis issue only when there’s been a Liberal government have indisputable facts on their side.

History now demonstrates the 2005 unholy alliance of Saskatchewan New Democrats, the Sask. Party and the federal Conservatives to have nonrenewable resources removed from the equalization formula was spawned by partisan politics. Wall’s Sask. Party government aided and abetted Harper in breaking that promise by dropping a constitutional challenge once Harper was prime minister. And they got away with it by creating the ridiculous narrative that Saskatchewan should never again aspire to being a “havenot” province.

At least in theory, Saskatchewan would have enjoyed — at minimum — an extra $800 million a year in equalization payments ($10 billion since 2005) if Harper had been held to his 2006 election promise to remove non-renewables.

Well, fast forward to 2018 and many will argue Moe is going cap in hand to Ottawa to argue we are actually a have-not province.

It’s political hypocrisy, but some will argue what Moe is doing is more destructive than that.

It’s no small coincidence that the Moe/sask. Party social media campaign leading up to Moe’s equalization proposal on Wednesday highlighted Quebec as the culprit.

There is no denying that Quebec’s $11 billion is the lion’s share of annual equalization payments. But Manitoba’s $2 billion a year is actually more, on a per-capita basis.

Notwithstanding the Sask. Party’s subliminal play-to-the-base narrative that this is a “Quebec problem,” it’s really a “hydroelectric problem” in a formula now weighted toward provinces with big hydro revenue.

So it’s a tad farcical for Moe to frame his latest equalization proposal as something he now needs to address as we prepare to celebrate “the greatest nation on Earth” on Canada Day.

“Like all countries, Canada is imperfect,” Moe wrote. “And one of its enduring imperfections is the federal equalization program.”

But before anyone writes this off as the rantings of another redneck Western politician fanning Quebec separatism, let’s examine what Moe has to say. Some of it makes sense.

Harper, Wall et al. got away with ditching the “remove nonrenewable resources” notion because most recognized it as unworkable. An extra $800 million a year would have been great, but it would have destroyed equalization, rightly angering Quebec.

What Moe suggests is keeping this existing formula for at least half the annual payout to provinces. The other half of equalization money would simply be distributed on a per-capita basis, a benefit to larger provinces like Quebec and Ontario, but a disadvantage to smaller Maritime provinces that have always been “have not.”

This is one fundamental flaw in Moe’s proposal and flies in the face of his own argument that equalization has “laudable” objectives.

“No one should begrudge a program intended to ensure all Canadians have access to a comparable level of service,” he wrote.

But he’s also right that Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador have been victimized by plunging resource revenues and that Quebec (which Moe notes has received $100 billion in the past 11 years while Saskatchewan has received nothing) has thrived.

This isn’t fair, nor is it great for national unity.

What Moe is proposing may not be ingenious. It may not even be the final answer.

But shouldn’t he be allowed to ask the question?