As a VERY grumpy Albertan, I commend your analysis.
Not for your conclusions (although I do agree with them) but rather for the simple fact of noting that there is room to ask about and to discuss the ideas of equity and fairness. Of course, I have my own conclusions but what absolutely annoys me (and many other Albertans) is that any time that we posit the idea that these things should be discussed, we are shouted down, deemed to be unpatriotic and so forth. So, if those who so call us those things really believe those assertions then perhaps we should oblige them and actually become so.
The system definitely needs reform. In addition to your points, I will add a west coast perspective. There are a huge number of folks from Alberta who retire to B.C. both in interior and on Vancouver Island. And very few BC residents who retire to AB in the other direction, at least in general.
Unfortunately for BC, we get these retired AB folks for their expensive medical years, but they’re retired and paying much lower taxes, and during their working years paid nothing into B.C. revenue for healthcare. I was in a golf group with a guy who retired here from AB who was complaining about this very topic of transfer payments and how AB was getting screwed, so I pointed out he was freeloading on BC taxpayers healthcare. Shut him up for a bit as he pondered that.
That is an excellent point. The system might just be too complicated for its own good. Although I would note that around 25% of public healthcare spending BC comes from federal transfers, so this isn't completely on BC's shoulders anyway.
And I also doubt that such considerations - as valid as they are - played any role in the original equalization eligibility calculations.
It should be either considered through equalization or include a demographic adjustment in the Canada Health Transfer. As it stands, the CHT is a straight per capita transfer, but retirees do add more of a burden to the health care system than working age residents (which arguably have the reverse effect on provincial tax revenues).
BC wouldn't have much of a tourist industry without Albertans, particularly East of Hope. They pay property taxes on thousands of summer homes with little demand on services. The coastal Eloi has embraced the San Francisco ENGOs, and grievance industry and integrated their hysteria and grift in government policies and now a province with the sustainable biological capacity to harvest timber at what was once three times that of Alberta is now less than Alberta's. Alberta's retirees on the coast are a good supplement to a region converting to a hospice economy.
I am not sure the net benefit is what you think to BC as a whole from AB tourism. Does it offset the services provided?
Unfortunately there are many empty summer homes owned by AB folks used only a couple months per year. Sure they pay property taxes. Whether the folks are there, or just a caretaker is checking in, the roads still need to be plowed. Sewer and water pipes are in the ground, getting older. Property taxes cover the basics and barely enough to cover maintenance and replacement. But in the meantime a generation of younger folks can’t find affordable homes in Kelowna region while builders focus on 4000 sq ft ‘summer homes’ with extra bedrooms and bathrooms.
What irritates me are Quebecers who are otherwise intelligent and educated but insist that the rest of Canada has been riding Quebec's economic coattails since the earth cooled. Admittedly there are fewer of them than 25 years ago, but it proves that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth.
If the formula doesn’t account for the different cost to provide the same level of service (the cost to hire an entry level hospital administrator in AB is higher than in QC), it’s not equalizing anything.
It is ludicrous that Quebec and Manitoba don’t have to declare their huge water resource as a “natural resource”. They gain so much from it - and yet it isn’t figured into the calculation. Who made that decision ?
Actually, I believe revenues for hydroelectric power generation are included in equalization calculations - that's the thin black slice in Quebec's bar on that chart. I'm not sure what the story is with Manitoba - or Ontario for that matter. But Quebec's black slice could have been a lot wider had they bothered to exploit their oil and gas potential.
The Department of Finance Canada's data (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal-transfers/equalization.html) lists Quebec's Natural resource fiscal capacity for the most recent year as $525 per resident (you can expand the "Text version" selection under the graph). That would be around 4 billion dollars in total. And that's more or less the number I've seen quoted for Quebec's hydroelectricity revenue.
As far as I understand it, it's a combination of Quebec's relatively low per capita income and their large population. While they do have significant resource revenue, their large population mostly dilutes that income in the calculation. By contrast, Alberta has something like four times Quebec's resource revenue with less than half its population.
But Quebec could realistically triple their resource revenue if they went after their oil and gas reserves, which would have a huge impact on the equalization numbers. That's obviously something they'd prefer didn't happen.
More than prefer: suggesting we extract // drill fossils is political poison here, and QC has one of the highest EV adoption rates. (The lack of Québec commentators here is notable atm.) We have no obligation to drill our oil or make a particular resource decision, and Alberta's advantages and decisions likewise are theirs.
As a VERY grumpy Albertan, I commend your analysis.
Not for your conclusions (although I do agree with them) but rather for the simple fact of noting that there is room to ask about and to discuss the ideas of equity and fairness. Of course, I have my own conclusions but what absolutely annoys me (and many other Albertans) is that any time that we posit the idea that these things should be discussed, we are shouted down, deemed to be unpatriotic and so forth. So, if those who so call us those things really believe those assertions then perhaps we should oblige them and actually become so.
The system definitely needs reform. In addition to your points, I will add a west coast perspective. There are a huge number of folks from Alberta who retire to B.C. both in interior and on Vancouver Island. And very few BC residents who retire to AB in the other direction, at least in general.
Unfortunately for BC, we get these retired AB folks for their expensive medical years, but they’re retired and paying much lower taxes, and during their working years paid nothing into B.C. revenue for healthcare. I was in a golf group with a guy who retired here from AB who was complaining about this very topic of transfer payments and how AB was getting screwed, so I pointed out he was freeloading on BC taxpayers healthcare. Shut him up for a bit as he pondered that.
That is an excellent point. The system might just be too complicated for its own good. Although I would note that around 25% of public healthcare spending BC comes from federal transfers, so this isn't completely on BC's shoulders anyway.
And I also doubt that such considerations - as valid as they are - played any role in the original equalization eligibility calculations.
It should be either considered through equalization or include a demographic adjustment in the Canada Health Transfer. As it stands, the CHT is a straight per capita transfer, but retirees do add more of a burden to the health care system than working age residents (which arguably have the reverse effect on provincial tax revenues).
BC wouldn't have much of a tourist industry without Albertans, particularly East of Hope. They pay property taxes on thousands of summer homes with little demand on services. The coastal Eloi has embraced the San Francisco ENGOs, and grievance industry and integrated their hysteria and grift in government policies and now a province with the sustainable biological capacity to harvest timber at what was once three times that of Alberta is now less than Alberta's. Alberta's retirees on the coast are a good supplement to a region converting to a hospice economy.
I am not sure the net benefit is what you think to BC as a whole from AB tourism. Does it offset the services provided?
Unfortunately there are many empty summer homes owned by AB folks used only a couple months per year. Sure they pay property taxes. Whether the folks are there, or just a caretaker is checking in, the roads still need to be plowed. Sewer and water pipes are in the ground, getting older. Property taxes cover the basics and barely enough to cover maintenance and replacement. But in the meantime a generation of younger folks can’t find affordable homes in Kelowna region while builders focus on 4000 sq ft ‘summer homes’ with extra bedrooms and bathrooms.
What irritates me are Quebecers who are otherwise intelligent and educated but insist that the rest of Canada has been riding Quebec's economic coattails since the earth cooled. Admittedly there are fewer of them than 25 years ago, but it proves that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth.
…and they keep threatening to leave, like angry teenagers sponging off their parents while complaining about the fact they still live at home.
If the formula doesn’t account for the different cost to provide the same level of service (the cost to hire an entry level hospital administrator in AB is higher than in QC), it’s not equalizing anything.
Another side of this is that there have been numerous studies that concludef residents of have-not provinces consistently enjoy better access to publicly funded services like healthcare. Eg. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/the-fault-lines-of-federalism/the-real-have-nots-in-confederation-british-columbia-alberta-and-ontario/
It is ludicrous that Quebec and Manitoba don’t have to declare their huge water resource as a “natural resource”. They gain so much from it - and yet it isn’t figured into the calculation. Who made that decision ?
Actually, I believe revenues for hydroelectric power generation are included in equalization calculations - that's the thin black slice in Quebec's bar on that chart. I'm not sure what the story is with Manitoba - or Ontario for that matter. But Quebec's black slice could have been a lot wider had they bothered to exploit their oil and gas potential.
You can check it out further- but I think you are wrong. That’s why it is so lop sided Hydro is not included.
The Department of Finance Canada's data (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal-transfers/equalization.html) lists Quebec's Natural resource fiscal capacity for the most recent year as $525 per resident (you can expand the "Text version" selection under the graph). That would be around 4 billion dollars in total. And that's more or less the number I've seen quoted for Quebec's hydroelectricity revenue.
I don't have any more information than that.
Then why does Quebec get so much more ? Can you explain?
As far as I understand it, it's a combination of Quebec's relatively low per capita income and their large population. While they do have significant resource revenue, their large population mostly dilutes that income in the calculation. By contrast, Alberta has something like four times Quebec's resource revenue with less than half its population.
But Quebec could realistically triple their resource revenue if they went after their oil and gas reserves, which would have a huge impact on the equalization numbers. That's obviously something they'd prefer didn't happen.
More than prefer: suggesting we extract // drill fossils is political poison here, and QC has one of the highest EV adoption rates. (The lack of Québec commentators here is notable atm.) We have no obligation to drill our oil or make a particular resource decision, and Alberta's advantages and decisions likewise are theirs.