Licia Corbella on Quebec hypocrisy

[Smallc]

like I said it should be changed to the median.

I'm not sure why that would be so much better.

Here is the latest article on Equalization:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0820-e.pdf

Edit: I've been reading through this Parliamentary research article. Though I'm not sure if it reflects the newest reality, it is very good in it's explanation.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

I'm not sure why that would be so much better.

Here is the latest article on Equalization:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0820-e.pdf

Edit: I've been reading through this Parliamentary research article. Though I'm not sure if it reflects the newest reality, it is very good in it's explanation.

It would show were the true middle ground is in this country for GDP and government service.

[Smallc]

That's not the purpose of the program. Changing from the average to the median would probably not survive a Constitutional Challenge.

[Alta4ever]

That's not the purpose of the program. Changing from the average to the median would probably not survive a Constitutional Challenge.

Yes it would, there is nothing in the charter about how the formula is derived.

[Smallc]

The formula is supposed to provide equal opportunity and equal services. The way it is derived now, the services are at least equal. The median wouldn't guarantee that at all.

Like I said, with populists, it's always one more change, just to make it "better".

[Alta4ever]

The formula is supposed to provide equal opportunity and equal services. The way it is derived now, the services are at least equal. The median wouldn't guarantee that at all.

Like I said, with populists, it's always one more change, just to make it "better".

IF you go by your statement then the current formula breaks the constitution as well since it funds a provincial daycare service in Quebec but no other province. Other provinces have better access to doctors then Alberta, as well as better funded per capita social services then Alberta, or even ontario. Things aren't equal now, and there is no way to make them equal. The perception of Equal in society is a fallacy.

[Smallc]

IF you go by your statement then the current formula breaks the constitution as well since it funds a provincial daycare service in Quebec but no other province.

Ummmm.....no it doesn't...and Manitoba has one too. Education is the purview of the provinces. Equalization money is theirs to do with as they wish, as with any other general revenues.

[Smallc]

Other provinces have better access to doctors then Alberta, as well as better funded per capita social services then Alberta,

boo hoo. That's Alberta's own fault. They have more money to work with than any other province.

[Guy M]

http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/opinion/It_is_time_to_re-think_its_equalization_payments_82623972.html

Why is it if Quebec makes up 21% of GDP it takes the largest amount of equalization, while Alberta who contributes less to GDP according to you receives far less back.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Making+equalization+equitable/2467233/story.html

Have a look at the graphs here they illustrate what you are trying to talk about guy, but it does show that your math is wrong.

http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/corbellareport/archive/2010/01/15/provincial-net-contributions-to-confederation.aspx

The explanation is simply that Quebec is 21% of Canada's economy and 23% of it's population, therefore has a smaller than average capacity to leverage taxes to provide services like health care and education.

I don't know if anyone could detail to me the net receiver thing. I doubt any province is a net receiver in the sense that they receive more in transfers and services than they pay in taxes. The federal goverment has a huge operating cost and probably spends most of it's money on things like salaries, utilities, equipment, the military, the RCMP, Coast Guard... Equalization for example, as a percentage of federal spending, is in the ballpark of 14BN out of ~250BN, or roughly 5 percent of the total budget.

I will agree with you that the current setup isn't competely to Alberta's immediate advantage, however the broader principle is not fundamentally bad. If for example tommorow morning someone comes out with a groundbreaking fuel cell concept and the price of oil winds up dropping by 70%, Alberta could become a recipient and receive help to deliver services and invest in it's economy. As a country this means that our economic diversity is leveraged to help provide services throughout the country.

Another factor is that prosperity in one sector can negatively impact another. A good example is that the demand for oil inflates the value of the Canadian dollar, which in turns hurts manufacturing in central Canada.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Guy M

[dizzy]

Another factor is that prosperity in one sector can negatively impact another. A good example is that the demand for oil inflates the value of the Canadian dollar, which in turns hurts manufacturing in central Canada.

Good point.