My recent post “Is Canada's Federation Fair?” raised questions about the relationship between contributions to the public good and political representation.
I used to be ambivalent about our bilingual policies, but more and more I see the harm. It’s a clever tool to keep QC Francophones over represented in the federal civil service, and this might explain some of the unequal allocation of resources. And with QC now aggressively being unilingual it’s time to rethink the cost.
Back to the west getting the shaft: occurs a lot on infrastructure funding even ignoring equalization payments. For one example:
BC taxpayers had to foot the bill entirely for the Port Mann bridge replacement for the trans Canada highway over the Fraser River. In contrast the federal government picked up the entire bill for the Samuel de Champlain bridge corridor project… because QC. Both were ~ $4B projects.
Another fine example of skewed democracy is the province of PEI where four MPs (Constitutionally enshrined) represent a total population of 179,000 or 44,750 per MP. Alberta with 37 MPs and a population of 4,866,000 enjoys 1/3 of that representation at 131,514 per MP. As economic power shifts westward in the deranged dominion, the unnatural alliance that is confederation becomes more apparent and fragile.
Anyone who wants to learn about how equalization works are encouraged to read Trevor Tombe.
It's not the case that Alberta is getting screwed, as he demonstrates. If you read his work, ask yourself if someone who lives in Alberta making 100,000 should pay less federal tax than the someone making the same in Quebec.
While extractive resources are provincial jurisdiction, the premise that Alberta deserves all the revenue resulting from their extraction is an interesting assumption.
I like your column and the examples that you provide.
I absolutely agree that being "fair" is not simply an arithmetic test of quantum of voters/citizens/etc. However, however .... That simple quantum is a first test, not the best test but the FIRST test.
I contend that when we go beyond the first test, we need to then ensure that our subsequent tests are relevant today and in the future. As Greg points out in these comments, the comparison of federal funding / non-funding of the Champlain and Port Mann bridges is a very good example of unfairness that is baked in to the system. One could argue that the Champlain bridge funding has good historical precedent whereas there is no such precedent for Port Mann. The next thought absolutely should be whether that historical precedent is applicable today and I would answer in the negative.
So, put differently, we have all these considerations that must be, well, considered. Why? Just because something was relevant yesterday does not make it relevant today. Further, I note that there continue to be groups who argue that this or that "new" consideration should be added to the list of all the previous considerations. I contend that we cannot continually add "new" ways of looking at things without thinking as to whether "old" ways are still relevant.
To repeat my first point, Sir, I do like this column.
Good to shine a light on this. Keep going!
The west isn’t getting a fair shake.
I used to be ambivalent about our bilingual policies, but more and more I see the harm. It’s a clever tool to keep QC Francophones over represented in the federal civil service, and this might explain some of the unequal allocation of resources. And with QC now aggressively being unilingual it’s time to rethink the cost.
Back to the west getting the shaft: occurs a lot on infrastructure funding even ignoring equalization payments. For one example:
BC taxpayers had to foot the bill entirely for the Port Mann bridge replacement for the trans Canada highway over the Fraser River. In contrast the federal government picked up the entire bill for the Samuel de Champlain bridge corridor project… because QC. Both were ~ $4B projects.
It’s not just AB being screwed by Ottawa.
Another fine example of skewed democracy is the province of PEI where four MPs (Constitutionally enshrined) represent a total population of 179,000 or 44,750 per MP. Alberta with 37 MPs and a population of 4,866,000 enjoys 1/3 of that representation at 131,514 per MP. As economic power shifts westward in the deranged dominion, the unnatural alliance that is confederation becomes more apparent and fragile.
Anyone who wants to learn about how equalization works are encouraged to read Trevor Tombe.
It's not the case that Alberta is getting screwed, as he demonstrates. If you read his work, ask yourself if someone who lives in Alberta making 100,000 should pay less federal tax than the someone making the same in Quebec.
While extractive resources are provincial jurisdiction, the premise that Alberta deserves all the revenue resulting from their extraction is an interesting assumption.
I like your column and the examples that you provide.
I absolutely agree that being "fair" is not simply an arithmetic test of quantum of voters/citizens/etc. However, however .... That simple quantum is a first test, not the best test but the FIRST test.
I contend that when we go beyond the first test, we need to then ensure that our subsequent tests are relevant today and in the future. As Greg points out in these comments, the comparison of federal funding / non-funding of the Champlain and Port Mann bridges is a very good example of unfairness that is baked in to the system. One could argue that the Champlain bridge funding has good historical precedent whereas there is no such precedent for Port Mann. The next thought absolutely should be whether that historical precedent is applicable today and I would answer in the negative.
So, put differently, we have all these considerations that must be, well, considered. Why? Just because something was relevant yesterday does not make it relevant today. Further, I note that there continue to be groups who argue that this or that "new" consideration should be added to the list of all the previous considerations. I contend that we cannot continually add "new" ways of looking at things without thinking as to whether "old" ways are still relevant.
To repeat my first point, Sir, I do like this column.