I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
It is fair to note that Alberta is still the wealthiest province in the country, and as long as we have an equalization program the wealthiest provinces shouldn't receive equalization payments.
However, Albertans perceive the program differently than you are characterizing it. Equalization payments are explicitly designed to transfer wealth from some provinces to others. This makes it vulnerable to criticism if the "have" provinces face economic pressures which are not recognized by the equalization formula. As a result, the issue of transfer payments tends to come up in Alberta when the province's economy takes a serious downturn.
The same resources that make Alberta wealthy are prone to significant swings in price, and its oil industry has faced other geopolitical pressures. In the 2008-9 window, Alberta's per capita GDP fell by almost 10%. The same thing happened from 2014-16, which was the same period in which the federal government cancelled several major pipeline projects. In neither case did Alberta receive equalization payments.
It's worth noting that Alberta's per capita GDP is lower now than it was 15 years ago, and that the decline in standard of living is even worse if you allow for inflation. Alberta's GDP per capita declines to its 2004 level, but still the highest in Canada - Alberta Central
- Reaction score
- 19,972
- Points
- 1,360
This provides a basis for reasoning that the equalization formula could/should be revised to address contemporary pan-national pressures and challenges.
- Reaction score
- 7,763
- Points
- 1,160
Wow
When an NDP premier tells Justin to step it up - he should rethink his own CoAs.
He's not alone ....
Canada's premiers say Ottawa must meet NATO spending target to keep U.S.'s respect
A three-day meeting among Canada's premiers ended with provincial and territorial leaders calling on Ottawa to quickly ramp up defence spending in order to protect the country's trade relationship with the United States ahead of its upcoming election.www.cp24.com
Just wondering how many who are upset over PMJT's "jurisdictional colouring outside the lines" are upset over this?
Interesting position for Poilievre to inherit.
The leader of the "Scary Party" who would put "Soldiers in the streets with guns" is being required by the premiers of all political persuasions, and the populace at large, to find the money to spend on defence.
He is being dragged to spending on defence reluctantly.
Back to Ralph Klein's dictum - find a parade and get out in front of it.
....
The country at large is demanding that money be spent on defence. That is an enviably unusual position for a conservative politician to inherit.
....
As to the business of money being used to create infrastructure and jobs....
National Defence is a subset of National Security.
National Security is dependent on Military and Civil assets.
Civil assets include civil servants, citizens, volunteers and contractors.
Civil assets also include civil infrastructure - water, sewers, power, roads, rail, airports, ports ...... All have to be built, maintained and secured. Employing Haida and Tsimshian sailors to man Environmental Response Vessels to escort ships into and out of Prince Rupert or Kitimat is every bit as much part of securing Canada as supplying a Brigade Group to Europe.
And if we look at National Security with that wide a lens we rapidly get past 5% of GDP and discover that most of the national economy has a national security aspect to it.
While National Defence may be an afterthought and the MND a second tier minister National Security should be at the front of the brain with a top tier minister responsible.
...
And given that National responsibility managing resources equitably across Canada opens up new opportunities for evaluation the Equalization formula.
- Reaction score
- 19,183
- Points
- 1,260
You think that any CDN Gov looks at National Security holistically?
- Reaction score
- 3,233
- Points
- 1,260
Haters can say if there's any good reason for a Team Blue government in Ottawa to cut transfers to the provinces, it would be to divert that money into defence. And if the Premiers complain, "hey, this is what you asked for - it IS want you want, right?"
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,596
- Points
- 1,210
its the not in my back yard attitude, people are all for electric cars, but how many do you think would be out protesting the permit for a lithium mine?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,790
- Points
- 1,040
It's fair to ask whether equalization is warranted, since conditions now are different than conditions when it began. Is it really necessary for the federal government to hand cash over to provinces with almost no strings attached, now that we are well into an era when governments are far beyond simply paying for essentials?
- Reaction score
- 7,763
- Points
- 1,160
I don't think they look at it at all.
I think they should.
I think that a National Security lens opens opportunities to evaluate the distribution of services and facilities and could be funded in part through equalization funds.
Dock, plus airport, plus electronic comms centre, plus Ranger Patrol plus SAR centre, plus Post Office, plus RCMP det plus GBAD/IAMD - Canada in control.
Highways, ambulances, hospitals, power stations - Canada in Control.
Etc.
- Reaction score
- 7,763
- Points
- 1,160
American solution applied to Manitoba.
Manitoba loses transfer payments.
Manitoba gains
additional regular force and reserve positions (new sources of cash and taxes),
a new transport squadron (see above) ,
new armouries, (see above)
new vehicles and comms systems to enhance emergency response (improved services reduced costs).
CAF gains bodies, facilities, capabilities, profile.
Canada spends >2% of GDP
US gains a more reliable NORAD/NORTHCOM partner
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 378
- Points
- 960
It hasn't received equalization because it was and is a have province. This still doesn't compute to the others or the federal government stealing from them. They need to change their tactic and wording if they want to garner support because right now it appears to be a case of the rich crying the government doesn't give them the same money they give to welfare. What they also have to realize is that even if the government completely got rid of equalization (which they can't just do because it was put in the constitution to prevent that from happening) it would not benefit them as the funding for it is through the taxes which are not going away. Rather than chanting about stealing and that they should get money they need to work on having a review and update to the formula so certain other provinces do not receive the amount they do (cough cough Quebec which has lots of resources they are not developing but should still count). As long as they are the have province, they will not receive anything which makes sense under the current objective. It is not a case of feds taking from one and giving to others. They take from all and based on the formula redistribute.You can access the historical data for the equalization payments sent to each province at the following links:
Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1957-1980) - Open Government Portal
Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1981-2023) - Open Government Portal
Dataset extracted from the federal support to provinces and territories transfer tables from 1980 to present.open.canada.ca
Alberta's grievance is rooted in the fact that it hasn't received equalization payments since 1967, and over the program's entire history it has only received about $90 million from the program. On the other hand, some provinces have received equalization payments since day one, notably Quebec and Atlantic Canada. In particular, Quebec has received over $300billion in payments.
I agree that it is fair to ask if it is warranted or should be changed to be more relevant. This is an old system that needs to be seriously looked at but everyone is scared to because Quebec and the Maritimes are happy taking the money. They would not be happy with any change that results in receiving less money and would vote in mass against any government that made the needed change.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,322
- Points
- 1,260
Point of order, I live in a have not province and I firmly support Alberta and their position on transfer payments. And I would be cool if the turned off their taps to NS. And I do not see Alberta as rich folk crying.
NS and the Maritimes need to be cut from the teat and forced to migrate for opportunity and work or wither and die, or better our own lot.
@CountDC does not speak for us all.
When the Alberta Government discussed autonomy for tax collection, withdrawal from the Canadian Pension Plan, revamp for equalization plan and changes to royalties review. Those in the federal government went on the attack mode not to mention many citizens across the country.
Why is that?
This isn't just about equalization, or royalties payments even taxation and pension plans.
It is about being fair across the country.
Quebec has taxation autonomy. They get to collect all taxs, provide for their own programs and infrastructure then turn the rest over to the feds.
Why can't Ab, Bc,, Sk and Mb do the same?
- Reaction score
- 3,233
- Points
- 1,260
To which any colour MB government can say, "you mean like you get more back than you pay thru the carbon tax?"
Assuming all of this comes to pass - which at this point, is still a vague, global spending "commitment" from Teams Red & Blue.
- Reaction score
- 7,763
- Points
- 1,160
To which any colour MB government can say, "you mean like you get more back than you pay thru the carbon tax?"
Assuming all of this comes to pass - which at this point, is still a vague, global spending "commitment" from Teams Red & Blue.
Nah! You're right of course. Nothing's possible.
Bash on regardless.
- Reaction score
- 3,233
- Points
- 1,260
Anything's possible for sure - I'm just going by what people around these parts were saying last time Team Blue was in Ottawa, and Premiers wanted to meet with him to discuss money stuff. Blue boosters would say "what's the point if the Premiers're just gonna whine?" We'll see ...
Agreed.
Alberta has asked for the formula to be updated on several occasions, most recently a year ago. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/97b...ge-options-to-reform-equalization-2023-04.pdf
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 378
- Points
- 960
Now do a survey of all in NS and see if they agree with that. Go to the PUBS, spryfield, maniac square, east preston, etc and ask if they are willing to support the cancelation and give up their welfare to move to Alberta to take a job. Ask everyone if they are willing to pay more taxes in order to maintain what NS currently has instead of the province receiving the money from equalization. Unless NS has greatly changed in the last couple years there is no way that the majority of people there will agree with you. Personally, I wish they would but am not even going to pretend they would.
Quebec does not have full taxation autonomy. They get to collect the provincial portion of income tax rather than have the Federal government collect it and give them their portion. As a result there is currently two tax returns that have to be completed every year (they are trying to change it to one, wait to see how that goes). Federal tax is reduced by around 16 - 17 % due to this. This is also why Quebec, I believe, has the highest total income tax rate.
Of course the government went in attack mode, they don't want to give up control. Quebec only got it as an attempt to save an election, Alberta doesn't have the power yet to swing an election outcome. For what Alberta wants the best thing they could do is separate and go it on their own because they will not get it from our federal government. Quebec, Maritimes and the GTA usually decide who gets in so by the time the polls open in BC everyone already knows who won. The attacking people probably just saw it as Alberta attempting to get more than they get themselves. The "how dare they" mentality kicked into overdrive without bothering to look at it, instead they ran with the government. You know, the liberals say this is bad so it is bad. Same thing happens with some people regardless of the party in power.
Interesting that this document never showed in any of the press I have seen. Didn't read it all but what I did read appears to be good. This is what they need to get out to the public everywhere to get at least some support from the reasonable people.
Just to be safe as it may not be clear - I agree with Alberta that something has to be done as the current system is not a fair one.
- Reaction score
- 5,249
- Points
- 1,040
Yes, some do. Getting something done about it is another story. If the PMO doesn't listen its pretty irrelevant.
Equalization is also completely under the control of the federal gov't. Provinces have no control over it. So the Feds could just completely reimagine it differently.
As far as paying for essentials, you could make the same arguement for Healthcare transfers. Austensibly that money is to ensure a minimum standard of healthcare equivalency across the country. What defines minimum has gone up over the years.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,293
- Points
- 1,160
Perhaps it's just me and maybe I should let it go, but I'm simply not getting what you are driving at. You want a front bench federal minister to be responsible for sewers, power and roads? How does that work when the vast majority of civil infrastructure are sub-national responsibilities.
If you take the view that all government spending is, at its most basic foundation, 'for the good of the country', then the entire federal budget could be fall under the banner of National Security. 100%. Mission accomplished. No sure NATO would buy it, but maybe worth a try.
- Reaction score
- 7,763
- Points
- 1,160
Similar threads
- Article
