Equalization Payments Not Enforceable

[rbacon]

Equalization payments may not stand up to legal scrutiny

Canada News-Wire

Thu 07 Dec 2006

Byline:

Dateline: VANCOUVER, Dec. 7

Source:

Time: 06:00 (Eastern Time)

VANCOUVER, Dec. 7 /CNW/ - The long-standing equalization program that sees the federal government provide money to 'have-not' provinces may not be legally enforceable and could contravene Canada's constitution, according to Questioning the Legality of Equalization, a chapter from a forthcoming Fraser Institute book that explores Canada's equalization program.

"Many Canadians commonly assume that equalization payments from the federal government to the 'have-not' provinces are required under the constitution. But our research shows this is not the case," said Sylvia LeRoy, co-author of the study and a senior policy analyst with The Fraser Institute.

LeRoy and Burton H. Kellock, Q.C., argue that Canada's constitu tional commitment to equalization is a political policy that cannot be enforced by a court of law. This view is shared by prominent legal scholars and supported by the documented intentions of the authorities that debated and ultimately agreed to include equalization in the Constitution Act, 1982.

"Although the principle of equalization is included in the Constitution Act, the provincial and federal government representatives that signed the Act believed the details of equalization were open to negotiation. There's absolutely no legally-binding language in the Act that commits the government to fund a certain level of transfers," LeRoy argued.

Read whole story at www.fraserinstitute.ca

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Although I applaude the intent, I'm not sure the arguement holds water. In short, I think we are not bolted but......

[rbacon]

Jerry go to www.fraserinstitute.ca and click on the link to the full publication pdf file....It is very interesting....Hopefully Harper can push it through before the election.....If Stelmach makes Morton his Intergov Minister, it could easily be forced by Alberta onto the table.....

[Figleaf]

Equalization payments may not stand up to legal scrutiny [says the] ... Fraser Institute ...

If you'd mentioned the Frinstitoot in the title I wouldn't have wasted my time looking in.

LeRoy and Burton H. Kellock, Q.C., argue that Canada's constitu tional commitment to equalization is a political policy that cannot be enforced by a court of law. ...

"Although the principle of equalization is included in the Constitution Act, the provincial and federal government representatives that signed the Act believed the details of equalization were open to negotiation. There's absolutely no legally-binding language in the Act that commits the government to fund a certain level of transfers," LeRoy argued.

Read whole story at www.fraserinstitute.ca

Hmmmph. Here's the section in the Constitution:

PART III

EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES

36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;

( furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and

© providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Anyone reading this can see that it doesn't specify a given amount of equalization.

But subsection 2 is pretty close to declarative that 'sufficient revenues' must provide 'reasonably comparable'. These concepts are readily interpretable in courts.

Jerry go to www.fraserinstitute.ca and click on the link to the full publication pdf file....It is very interesting....Hopefully Harper can push it through before the election.....If Stelmach makes Morton his Intergov Minister, it could easily be forced by Alberta onto the table.....

Push what through where on which table?

[fellowtraveller]

If Stelmach makes Morton his Intergov Minister, it could easily be forced by Alberta onto the table.....

I'm assuming you mean that Alberta has some objectin to the concept of equalization payments, and their funding of same?

If so, I'm not aware that Stelmach will make any change from Kleins complete support of equalization.

I can honestly say I have never heard the Premier that they had any plans to change the program, which sees Alberta and Ontario funding the whole thing.

[Figleaf]

...which sees Alberta and Ontario funding the whole thing.

It would be better to avoid imprecise phraseology though.

It's not the collecting that's done on the basis of provincial wealth, its the SPENDING. 'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers.

[geoffrey]

...which sees Alberta and Ontario funding the whole thing.

It would be better to avoid imprecise phraseology though.

It's not the collecting that's done on the basis of provincial wealth, its the SPENDING. 'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers.

Pay ins - pay outs = your contribution.

Alberta and Ontario contriubte the whole deal.

[Figleaf]

...which sees Alberta and Ontario funding the whole thing.

It would be better to avoid imprecise phraseology though.

It's not the collecting that's done on the basis of provincial wealth, its the SPENDING. 'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers.

Pay ins - pay outs = your contribution.

Alberta and Ontario contriubte the whole deal.

'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers.

[Hydraboss]

While it is true that taxpayers fund equalization, they also fund....uhmmm.....everything. The fact that the taxpayers in question happen to live/work in two provinces makes it a fair statement that Ontario and Alberta fund this organized theft.

I guess the true distinction would be whether the taxpayers funding the system see themselves first as Canadians or Ontarians/Albertans. When you have the answer to that, then you can definitively state who funds what. You seem to have the belief that people living within Canada are just Canadians, and that provincial and territorial boundaries are only there for electoral purposes and lines on a map. I would suggest that there is more than one person from "the eastern side of Canada" that is awfully proud to be a "Newfoundlander", and not just a "Canadian". Province before country . There are more people that believe this than I think you are prepared to acknowledge.

[Figleaf]

While it is true that taxpayers fund equalization, they also fund....uhmmm.....everything. The fact that the taxpayers in question happen to live/work in two provinces makes it a fair statement that Ontario and Alberta fund this organized theft.

Please don't be facile. I don't know why exactly you guys don't want to believe the truth. Equalization payments are funded from the general federal account, i.e. the taxes collected all across Canada.

[rbacon]

Figleaf how can you recieve more than you pay and still contribute...You are not a liar, I would never say that, but you are telling the truth to suit your own purpose and the facts don't bare up your claim......

[geoffrey]

Figleaf how can you recieve more than you pay and still contribute...You are not a liar, I would never say that, but you are telling the truth to suit your own purpose and the facts don't bare up your claim......

Figleaf thinks all Albertans are backwards from his Starbucks on Bloor and Younge. It's not that he doesn't get equalisation, he does, but he refuses to think that Albertans do anything good. After all, they drive pickups and wear cowboy hats.

Who does that?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ole Fig just doesn't understand the reality that the taxpaying citizens of Alberta contribute more than any other taxpaying citizen in Canada. On a per capita basis our citizens carry the burden for 6 provinces and the taxpaying citizens of Ontario carry the burden for 2 provinces.

The simple truth is that equalization is a tax that is paid by some citizens and not by others. Not exactly fair when considered that way is it?

[Figleaf]

Figleaf how can you recieve more than you pay and still contribute...You are not a liar, I would never say that, but you are telling the truth to suit your own purpose and the facts don't bare up your claim......

I am telling you the exact facts. Equalization money comes from general Federal funds which are raised by taxes paid by all Canadians. However, it is paid out differentially to provincial governments based on their wealth.

Go ahead and complain about the program if you wish, but you should complain about it correctly at least.

Figleaf thinks all Albertans are backwards from his Starbucks on Bloor and Younge. It's not that he doesn't get equalisation, he does, but he refuses to think that Albertans do anything good. After all, they drive pickups and wear cowboy hats.

Can't you just argue about the issue, without having to resort to falsehoods about the people you are discussing with?

[geoffrey]

It's hard to see where else such ignorance comes from.

Albertans and Ontarians pay the entire deal, no one else. Think about it logically for a second.

[Figleaf]

It's hard to see where else such ignorance comes from.

Albertans and Ontarians pay the entire deal, no one else. Think about it logically for a second.

You make it sound like there is some special tax or charges applied in Alberta/Ontario. There is not. I don't understand why those of you who don't like the program can't just criticise it for what it actually is, rather than trying to twist the facts around.

[geoffrey]

It's hard to see where else such ignorance comes from.

Albertans and Ontarians pay the entire deal, no one else. Think about it logically for a second.

You make it sound like there is some special tax or charges applied in Alberta/Ontario. There is not. I don't understand why those of you who don't like the program can't just criticise it for what it actually is, rather than trying to twist the facts around.

I am criticising what it is. The dollars are transfered from Alberta and Ontario taxpayers to those in other provinces. It encourages the poorer provinces to stay that way... they fight deseperately to keep their equalisation.

If anything it should be along the lines of the EI program, a few months to get your house in order then your done. None of this 30 years of equalisation because these politicans can't be pressured to make real progressive change (look, Bernie Lord did and they voted him out of office?? ugh).

When people are going hungry, they're going to start pressuring their government to take steps to really increase the amount of jobs and investment in the province. Newfoundland, for example, has the luxury of playing heavy handed with the oil companies because they know if the oil companies bail, Alberta will fund their programs anyways. Hence the lack of real development in one of the richest basins closest to the richest market.

That's my problem with equalisation, it creates no motivation for have-not provinces to actually work at becoming 'have's'.

[Figleaf]

It's hard to see where else such ignorance comes from.

Albertans and Ontarians pay the entire deal, no one else. Think about it logically for a second.

You make it sound like there is some special tax or charges applied in Alberta/Ontario. There is not. I don't understand why those of you who don't like the program can't just criticise it for what it actually is, rather than trying to twist the facts around.

I am criticising what it is. The dollars are transfered from Alberta and Ontario taxpayers to those in other provinces. It encourages the poorer provinces to stay that way... they fight deseperately to keep their equalisation.

It's ridiculous for you to imagine that people are trying to stay poor just so they can qualify for a pittance, rather than being rich all on their own. Your view of other people seems to assume that they have totally different desires and responses to incentives than you; i.e. that they are degenerate rather than disadvantaged.

Newfoundland, for example, has the luxury of playing heavy handed with the oil companies because they know if the oil companies bail, Alberta will fund their programs anyways. Hence the lack of real development in one of the richest basins closest to the richest market.

Your ignorance and self-righteousness are breathtaking.

[geoffrey]

It's ridiculous for you to imagine that people are trying to stay poor just so they can qualify for a pittance, rather than being rich all on their own. Your view of other people seems to assume that they have totally different desires and responses to incentives than you; i.e. that they are degenerate rather than disadvantaged.

They do have difference desires and responses to incentives... it's been created over the years by a Federal government that has taken the completely wrong approach to Atlantic Canada development.

I'd move out of Alberta in a heartbeat if the market collapse and there were no jobs... and say Ontario or Quebec had a labour shortage. Why would I stay here and expect the rest of them support me?

Newfoundland, for example, has the luxury of playing heavy handed with the oil companies because they know if the oil companies bail, Alberta will fund their programs anyways. Hence the lack of real development in one of the richest basins closest to the richest market.

Your ignorance and self-righteousness are breathtaking.

Is there anything untruthful about that statement, or do you just not like it?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fig your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance. What many of us in Alberta are concerned with is a geographic based tax, its nonsense. On top of that it amounts to a tax on success, not exactly beneficial to those who have sacrificed to achieve their goals.

Alberta citizens pay three times that of Ontario citizens into a fund that actually reduces the funding for services they receive. Considering that there is about three times as many Ontario citizens as there is Alberta citizens out here the math translates into a tax that is nine times more than some of the other citizens in this land of equal treatment. Gee, I wonder why Geoffrey is a little miffed at this vaunted system?

Equalization sucks.

[Figleaf]

It's ridiculous for you to imagine that people are trying to stay poor just so they can qualify for a pittance, rather than being rich all on their own. Your view of other people seems to assume that they have totally different desires and responses to incentives than you; i.e. that they are degenerate rather than disadvantaged.

They do have difference desires and responses to incentives... it's been created over the years by a Federal government that has taken the completely wrong approach to Atlantic Canada development.

There it is again... the assumption that Easterners are degenerates.

Geoffrey, which would YOU prefer:

A-responsible employment for decent wages; or

B-empty days and a puny government cheque?

I'll bet you'd choose A, but you won't grasp that so would the vast majority of other people in other parts of the country.

Newfoundland, for example, has the luxury of playing heavy handed with the oil companies because they know if the oil companies bail, Alberta will fund their programs anyways. Hence the lack of real development in one of the richest basins closest to the richest market.

Your ignorance and self-righteousness are breathtaking.

Is there anything untruthful about that statement, or do you just not like it?

The whole statement is untruthful.

[Figleaf]

Fig your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

What have I said that is either arrogant or reveals ignorance? Please be precise.

What many of us in Alberta are concerned with is a geographic based tax, its nonsense.

Nonsense is right, since no such tax exists.

On top of that it amounts to a tax on success,

Advisory, taxing UNsuccess produces very little revenue.

Alberta citizens pay three times that of Ontario citizens into a fund that actually reduces the funding for services they receive.

I am skeptical. What program are you refering to?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fig you make me laugh! You just don't see it do you?

[Figleaf]

Fig you make me laugh! You just don't see it do you?

I see a lot of people who, through either willful ignorance or an intention to mislead, insist on misrepresenting the nature of the equalization program.

Again I ask, why not just complain about how it really operates, rather than make up an incorrect description?