Originally posted by RedFred
A different criticism from me, but the transfers reward provinces who chronically underperform, penalize those that overperform, and (along with the regional unemployment calculation of EI) inhibit migration to job rich provinces from job poor provinces.
A different criticism from me, but the transfers reward provinces who chronically underperform, penalize those that overperform, and (along with the regional unemployment calculation of EI) inhibit migration to job rich provinces from job poor provinces.
The basic theory of the equalization payments is that every Canadian deserves a basic level of services provided by the provinces. Equalization payments provide funding for schools, health care, etc.
One of the myths about equalization payments is that the have-not provinces are to blame for being poor. The reality is that some provinces lack the natural economic conditions to become as successful as other provinces. Having said that, the have-nots are not entirely blameless for their plight.
A great example of luck of the draw is oil. Alberta is a "have" province not because of brilliant government policies, but simply because of oil and natural gas.
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are expected to become "have" provinces within a few years as off-coast oil revenue starts pouring in.
There's a big debate about whether that oil revenue should count in the equalization calculation. NS and NFLD point out that Alberta received equalization payments from 1955-67 because oil revenues were not included in the calculations at that time. NS and NFLD argue that by reducing equalization payments for each dollar that comes in from oil revenues, they end up in a zero sum game with no benefits from the oil revenues.


) clearly demonstrated that.

Comment