Equalization payments in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In Canada, the federal government makes equalization payments to provincial governments to help address fiscal disparities among Canadian provinces based on estimates of provinces' fiscal capacity—their ability to generate tax revenues. A province that does not receive equalization payments is often referred to as a "have province", while one that does is called a "have not province"[citation needed]. In 2018–19, six provinces will receive $18.958 billion in equalization payments from the federal government.[1]

Equalization payments are one example of what are often collectively referred to in Canada as "transfer payments", a term used in other jurisdictions to refer to cash payments to individuals (see Canadian transfer payments). The purpose of equalization payments is to enable the "have not" provinces to provide public services which are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at similar levels of taxation.[2] The money the provinces receive through equalization can be spent in any way the provincial government desires and often help guarantee a standard level of health care, education, and welfare in all the provinces.[2] The definition of "reasonably comparable levels", however, has been the subject of considerable debate among politicians, journalists and academics

Equalization payments are one form of transfer payments from the federal to the provincial governments which include the Canada Social Transfer (CST), and the Canada Health Transfer (CHT).

Canada's territories are not included in the equalization program. Federal funding is instead provided through the Territorial Formula Financing (TFF) program.

History[edit]

The basics of equalization payments have been around since Canadian confederation when the federal government had most of the taxation powers. The federal government would make transfer payments to the provinces to cover their needs. There was no obligation that these transfer payments had to reflect the amount collected in each province and thus wealth was always redistributed. Equalization payments happen via the federal treasury.

A formal system of equalization payments was first introduced in 1957.[3][Notes 1]

The original program had the goal of giving each province the same per-capita revenue as the two wealthiest provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, in three tax bases: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and succession duties (inheritance taxes). Five years later, 50 per cent of natural resource revenues were included as the fourth tax base. At the same time, however, the standard of the two wealthiest provinces was lowered to the national average. In 1967 the system was redesigned to work with every government revenue scheme with the exception of energy; this gave Canada by far the world's most generous system of equalization payments.

The rise in energy prices and the resulting increase in provincial natural resource royalties in the late 1970s created several problems for the equalization formula. The need for amendments to the formula became clear when the traditional "have" province of Ontario qualified for equalization payments in 1978. This result went against the spirit of the system and would have led to substantial costs for the federal government; it was agreed that Ontario should be excluded from receiving payments. In 1982, the equalization standard was shifted from the national average to the average of the five "representative" provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

The Canada Act 1982, which amended the constitution, included the rights of the poorer provinces to equalization payments. Subsection 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that "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"[2] With this level of protection, equalization payments cannot "suddenly be axed", in spite of increased resentment from a group of provinces including Alberta in 2018.[4]

From 1983-84 to 2014, about 22 per cent of the federal government's spending went towards transfers to provincial and territorial governments.[5]

In 2004, the federal government and the provinces agreed to suspend the traditional formula that determined payment amounts and move to fixed funding levels, which were scheduled to grow at a fixed rate – regardless of the economic performance of the provinces.

In 2007, based on the recommendations of a federal expert panel, the program was returned to formula-driven calculations and enhanced by moving to a standard based on the national average. A fiscal capacity cap was added to ensure that equalization-receiving provinces couldn't be raised to a fiscal capacity above that of a non-receiving province (this could potentially arise due to the partial or non-inclusion of resource revenues). This faced criticism from Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Danny Williams who criticized the Conservative government of breaking their promise of not changing the current formula. This led to the Anything But Conservative movement.[6][7] In 2009, the fiscal capacity cap was modified and a ceiling and floor on aggregate payments were added.

In 2009, under then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Canada created the Total Transfer Protection (TTP) intended to be a temporary policy which would support provinces and territories "in transitioning through current economic challenges."[8] The TTP ensured that if a province experienced a total reduction in federal transfers from equalization payments, combined with Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the Canada Social Transfer (CST), the federal government would cover the loss. In 2010-11, the federal government, under then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper, confirmed that every province would be guaranteed that their transfer would not be less than the previous fiscal year in combined CHT, CST, equalization and Territorial Formula Financing (TFF).[5]:i[Notes 2]

From 2010 through 2013, seven provinces, including the four Atlantic provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec received a combined total of over $2.2-billion through the TTP program. Ottawa cancelled the program in 2014, a political decision said to be directed at pressuring Ontario's ruling Liberals by depriving them of $640 million.[8]

In 2017-2018, the total amount of the Equalization program was roughly 18.3 billion Canadian dollars.[1]

In the February 27, 2018 budget, the federal finance department proposed a five-year renewal of the previous equalization and Territorial Formula Financing (TFF)—with changes related to the territories—beginning April 1, 2019 until 2024.[9] The Budget Implementation Act received royal assent on June 20, 2018.[10] The Government of Alberta and Saskatchewan criticized the decision because they believed that there was no real consultation, discussion, or renegotiation on the formula.[11]

Under the renewed plan, the federal government will gradually increase the amount of equalization payments to the provinces from $18.3 billion in 2017-2018 to $22.1 billion by 2022-2023.[9]

Canada’s equalization formula[edit]

The fiscal capacity of provinces is measured using a representative tax system, a basic model of provincial and municipal tax systems, covering virtually all own source revenues. It is made up of estimates of provincial tax bases, actual provincial revenues and population. By using the same tax base definition across all provinces the representative tax system can be used to compare the ability of individual provinces to raise revenues. "Have provinces" are those able to generate more tax revenue per person than the national average, while have not provinces would have revenue per person below the national average.

The individual revenue sources are grouped into five categories: personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, up to 50 percent of natural resource revenue, and property taxes and miscellaneous.

Each revenue category has a separate tax base. Each province is allocated an "equalization entitlement" equal to the amount by which its fiscal capacity is below the average fiscal capacity of all provinces. This is known as the "10 province standard".[2] Provinces who have a fiscal capacity above the 10 province standard are known as the "have" provinces while those below are the "have not" provinces. Equalization payments are then determined based on the provinces' relation to this average. The payments are typically adjusted to ensure fairness between the provinces and are designed to provide a net fiscal benefit to receiving provinces from their resources equivalent to half of their per capita resource revenues.[2] Equalization payments are further adjusted to ensure the program aligns with the overall growth of the Canadian economy (based on a three-year moving average of GDP).[2]

Note: According to the Department of Finance, "provinces get the greater of the amount they would receive by fully excluding natural resource revenues, or by excluding 50% of natural resource revenues."[1]

Below are equalization payments from 2010-11 to 2019–20:[1]

Table A – Equalization payments to "have not" provinces
Province 2019-20

$M

2018-19

$M

2017-18

$M

2016-17

$M

2015-16

$M

2014-15

$M

2013-14

$M

2012-13

$M

2011-12

$M

2010-11

$M

Québec 13,124 11,732 11,081 10,030 9,521 9,286 7,833 7,391 7,815 8,552
Manitoba 2,255 2,037 1,820 1,736 1,738 1,750 1,792 1,671 1,666 1,826
Nova Scotia 2,015 1,933 1,779 1,722 1,690 1,619 1,458 1,268 1,167 1,110
New Brunswick 2,023 1,874 1,760 1,708 1,669 1,666 1,513 1,495 1,483 1,581
Ontario 0 963 1,424 2,304 2,363 1,988 3,169 3,261 2,200 972
Prince Edward Island 419 419 390 380 361 360 340 337 329 330
Total 19,619 18,958 18,254 17,880 17,341 16,669 16,105 16,423 14,659 14,372

Source: Department of Finance

The following "have provinces" will not qualify for equalization payments in 2019–20:[1]

  • Ontario
  • Alberta
  • British Columbia
  • Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Saskatchewan

Importance of equalization to provincial finances[edit]

As shown in Table B, equalization payments can represent a major source of revenue for "have not" provinces ranging from roughly 20% of revenue in PEI to 1% to 2% in Ontario. As this table includes all provincial revenue, including equalization and other fiscal transfers from the federal government, it represents the importance of equalization to provinces' fiscal bottom-lines. However, it is important to keep in mind that equalization is funded by taxpayers in all provinces. The total of roughly 4.5% represents the importance of equalization relative to all provinces' revenue, i.e., the cost of equalization relative to total provincial revenue. For example, even though Ontario received equalization in the years covered in the Table B, it represented a net cost to the provinces. In effect, the 4.5% total can be interpreted as representing the burden of equalization relative to total provincial revenue. As such, the net impact of equalization in each provinces is equal to that provinces % less the total % as shown in Table B. Using PEI as an example, on a net basis, in 2017-18 equalization represents 16.2% of total provincial revenue. In Alberta, the burden of equalization was 4.4% of total provincial revenue in 2017-18.

Table B – Equalization payments as a percentage of total provincial revenue
Province 2017-18

%

2016-17

%

2015-16

%

Québec 9.4 9.0 8.7
Manitoba 11.8 11.5 12.1
Nova Scotia 15.6 16.1 17.0
New Brunswick 18.5 18.9 19.6
Ontario 1.0 1.7 1.9
Prince Edward Island 20.6 20.5 20.7
Total 4.4 4.5 4.6

Source: Calculated using Statistics Canada, Table 10-10-0017-01 and equalization payments as reported in provincial public accounts. Total provincial revenue includes equalization payments and other transfers from the Federal government. Total includes revenue from all provinces, both "have and have not" provinces.[citation needed]

Compared to Table B, Table C shows equalization payments as a percentage of Provincial Revenue subject to equalization instead of total provincial revenue. As such it does not include equalization or other federal transfers to provinces. Revenues subject to equalization are in effect the vast majority of taxes levied by provinces and municipalities, often refereed to as own source revenues. One notable revenue source that is not equalized is user fees. Given the definition of provincial revenue used in Table C, the percentages show in the table take on a specific interpretation. Namely, they can be interpreted as how much additional tax revenue individual provinces would need to replace equalization transfers. While this is not be probable or realistic for some provinces, Ontario will no longer receive equalization in 2019-20 and equalization payments ended in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2007-08. The objective of this exercise is to illustrate the importance of equalization to provincial finances. For example, in 2019-20 PEI would have to increase its own source revenues by roughly 39.2 percent to offset equalization transfers. Similar to Table B, the total of 5.7% can be interpreted as the cost of equalization relative to provincial revenue subject to equalization.

Table C – Equalization payments as a percentage of provincial revenue subject to equalization
Province 2019-20

%

2018-19

%

Québec 15.4 14.6
Manitoba 18.2 19.1
Nova Scotia 26.2 26.1
New Brunswick 35.3 34.6
Ontario 0 0.8
Prince Edward Island 39.2 41.4
Total 5.7 5.9

Source: Calculation based on administrative data from the Department of Finance. Totals represent equalization payments as a percentage of total provincial and municipal revenue subject to equalization.[citation needed]

Regional fiscal disparities in Canada[edit]

The ongoing gap between the "have" and "have not" provinces is an ongoing economic concern and cause of regional tensions. Much of the gap stems from huge differences in geography, population, and economic activity among provinces, which make any attempt to "equalize" these differences challenging. As shown in the table below, PEI's population is less than 1% of the Canadian total, while Ontario's population is close to 40%. Alberta's GDP per capita is 41% higher than the national average while PEI's is roughly 24% lower – Alberta's GDP per capita is 185% that of PEI yet the average personal income in Alberta is 159% that of PEI.

However, the stated goal of equalization in Canada is not to equalize economies or ensure that economic outcomes are equal. As stated above, it is to "ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation". Per capita data is central to measuring if provincial outcomes are comparable.

Table D – Economic activity by province
Province
or
Territory
Population
(2017)
Share of

Canadian total

%

GDP
(million
2007 CAD$, 2017)
GDP per
capita
(2007 CAD$, 2017)
GDP per capita
difference from
Canadian average

%

Average Total
Income
(CAD$, 2015)
Average total income,
difference from
Canadian average

%

Flag of Canada.svg Canada 36,712,658 100 1,751,898 55,405 0 41,129 0
 British Columbia 4,945,559 13.5 228,195 53,267 -3.8 40,196 -2.3
 Alberta 4,262,642 11.6 304,709 78,100 +41.0 53,408 +29.9
 Saskatchewan 1,155,034 3.1 60,592 70,138 +26.6 40,933 -0.5
 Manitoba 1,340,776 3.7 57,250 50,820 -8.3 36,795 -10.5
 Ontario 14,153,806 38.6 651,932 55,322 -0.15 42,643 +3.7
 Quebec 8,329,664 22.7 328,688 46,126 -16.7 36,491 -11.3
 New Brunswick 768,212 2.1 27,363 43,818 -20.9 34,164 -16.9
 Prince Edward Island 151,477 0.4 4,883 42,157 -23.9 33,632 -18.2
 Nova Scotia 943,373 2.6 33,470 42,640 -23.0 36,108 -12.2
 Newfoundland and Labrador 528,463 1.4 26,773 56,935 +2.8 35,345 -14.1

Source: Statistics Canada: GDP (totals),[12] Population,[13] Canada Revenue Agency: Taxation Statistics 2015 taxation year[14]


Table E shows provincial own source tax revenue per capita, equalization per capita and the sum of the two. Most notable is, except for Newfoundland, after equalization is added to own source revenues, the "have not" provinces have higher per capita revenue than "have" provinces, . Before equalization PEI and New Brunswick have the lowest per capita revenue, however, after equalization payments, Alberta and Saskatchewan have the lowest per capita revenues. Own source revenues reflect government policy and, to some extent, the fact that 'have provinces' may experience higher employment levels, lower social assistance expenditures and younger populations drawn by greater economic opportunity in resource-rich regions.

Table E – 2016-17 per capita impact of equalization dollars
Province Own source
revenues
per capita
Equalization
per capita
Equalization
plus
own source
revenues
 British Columbia 9,118 0 9,118
 Alberta 8,890 0 8,890
 Saskatchewan 8,682 0 8,682
 Manitoba 8,242 1,328 9,570
 Ontario 9,115 166 9,281
 Quebec 9,883 1,206 11,089
 New Brunswick 7,296 2,259 9,555
 Nova Scotia 7,976 1,822 9,798
 Prince Edward Island 6,892 2,573 9,465
 Newfoundland and Labrador 10,752 0 10,752

Equalization debate by province[edit]

According to economist Trevor Tombe, "[If] a province cannot raise an "average amount" with "average tax rates," then the federal government will – out of its own general revenue – top up that province to the "average amount." There are no transfers of funds between provinces."[15] Equalization payments have mostly been criticized by leaders and residents of the wealthier provinces. The premiers of the most prosperous provinces have criticized the drain on their finances.[16][17] Recent negotiations surrounding the renewal of the program have created considerable tension among provinces. Due to the zero-sum nature of the formula, increases in entitlements for some provinces necessarily lead to decreases for others.Normally, under the equalization formula, equalization payments normally go down for every dollar increase in a province's ability to raise taxes. So, for example, if a province's economy booms and the provincial government's potential income tax revenues increase, equalization payments decrease. Economist Michael Smart has argued that this gives have-not provinces an incentive to raise taxes, because any harm higher taxes do to the economy is off-set by higher equalization payments.[18] At a October 25, 2001 talk presented at the "Equalization: Welfare Trap or Helping Hand?" conference, the American economist James M. Buchanan, whose highly cited 1950 article in The American Economic Review, had introduced original concepts related to federalism and fiscal equity.[19][Notes 3] At the 2001 conference, co-sponsored by AIMS/MEI/FCPP, Buchanan admitted that this idea had flaws, and that it had been criticized for creating a culture of dependence in provinces with relatively low fiscal capacities.[20]

Alberta[edit]

Then Alberta Finance Minister Joe Ceci in a June 19, 2018 interview with The Globe and Mail, said that the equalization formula had not worked "for Alberta, even during the depths of our recession – which started in late 2014 and continued ’15, ’16 and part of ’17. I’d like to see changes to it so that we as Albertans can get a better deal from equalization."[10]

In 2018 Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador received no equalization payments.[10]

Provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan whose economies are "strongly linked to resource extraction" have expressed resentment that the equalization formula does not allow them to benefit fairly as it does not consider the weakened economies from 2014 onwards. This combined with the "opposition from municipal and provincial governments, or protests, in other parts of the country" that have succeeded in blocking and/or slowing down the implementation of "major energy infrastructure projects such as the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion", have caused added frustrations.[10]

According to a December 21, 2018 Edmonton Journal article, Jason Kenney (United Conservative Party (UCP) targeted the alleged inequity of the federal equalization program. He said that "[s]ince equalization was created (in 1957), Alberta has received 0.02% of all payments, the last of which was in 1964-1965."[4]

According to an opinion column article by economist Trevor Tombe, Alberta "pay[s] more and receive[s] less" because of "unequal circumstances". Tombe said that Alberta has a younger population with more high-income earners. It is the province with the smallest number of people who are older than 65, which means that there are fewer CPP and OAS recipients. According to the census, "one in eight Albertans older than 15" earn over $100,000 annually.[15] Only eleven per cent of Canadians live in Alberta. But 21 per cent of "Canada's $100,000-plus earners" live in Alberta. Alberta collects about 21 per cent of "Canada's corporate taxable income".[15] The federal government collects more GST from Alberta because the families with higher incomes also spend more in Alberta. In 2015 Alberta had a net outflow of $27-billion.[15]

In spite of the high incomes and large income from corporate taxes, Alberta has a very low income tax rate, which is much lower than the Canadian average, but by 2017, it also has a $10.5-billion deficit. Tombe said that if Alberta had a tax rate similar to the Canadian average, the province would have a surplus not a deficit.[15] Tombe said that Alberta has the strongest economy in Canada which means the province can raise revenue. In order for Alberta's economy to weaken to the point of qualifying for equalization payments, its economy would have to shrink by over 33 per cent which has not happened even during recessions when the price of oil dropped dramatically.[15]

Quebec[edit]

Quebec's high provincial taxes account for its budget surplus, although without equalization Quebec would have had a deficit. Quebec residents pay almost twice as much as Albertans in taxes.[15]

Alberta Premier Kenney added that, since the inception in 1957 of equalization payments, "Quebec has received equalization money every year of the program, totalling 221 billion dollars or 51 per cent of all payments."[4] According to the Library of Parliament report, Quebec receives a larger proportion mainly because of the large population in Quebec representing almost a quarter of the population of Canada. It is much larger than most other equalization-receiving provinces,[3][Notes 4][21][22] In 2007 changes were made to the equalization formula based in large part on the way the formula used property tax revenues as one of the factors. As a result, Quebec's proportion of the total amount increased even more since 2007.[3]

In 2018, Quebec received $11.7 billion of the total $19-billion federal program funds, which is the largest of all transfers to the provinces and territories.[10] Quebec will receive the most from equalization payments in the 2019-2020 year.[1]

On February 28, 2001, Bernard Landry, Parti Québécois leader who took office as Quebec premier on March 8, said that it was "degrading" that Quebec was receiving an extra $1.5 billion in equalization payments in 2001 and that the province had been receiving these payments for over 40 years. Quebec received the "lion's share" of the 2001 equalization payments. In 2000, Quebec economic growth was slower than that of the other six provinces that were also eligible for payments. Landry blamed the federal government for failing to redistribute "real wealth", saying Quebec had been "short-changed" for decades because the federal government did not "spend enough in Quebec on research and industry."[23] Paul Martin, federal finance minister, said Quebec's separatists "pursue political agendas as opposed to economic agendas" and this did not have the "beneficial results for their population."[23]

In 2017, the Coalition Avenir Québec said that since 2003, federal equalization payments to Quebec had tripled to more than $11 billion. The party's leader, François Legault, found it "shameful".[24] In 2019, CAQ Finance Minister Eric Girard wrote in a Financial Post op-ed, argued reiterate the party support to "raise Québec’s potential GDP growth to two per cent in order to close the wealth gap with the rest of Canada and assume greater economic leadership within the federation". He ended the article by stating "Someday, Québec will no longer receive equalization payments, and this will be a great day for Québec and Canada."[25]

Federal MP and People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier said that the equalization program leads provinces into what he calls a "poverty trap", where they become dependent on government funds.[26] In a speech in 2010, advocating for more autonomy within Quebec, he argued that "It’s true that other provinces, such as Manitoba and the three Maritime Provinces, get even more equalization money per capita than Quebec, and so are even more dependent on Ottawa. But that’s not an excuse. As a Quebecer, I am not really proud of the fact that we are a poor province that gets equalization money."[27][28] In May 2019, the People's Party of Canada called for a new equalization formula, that would respect the Constitution, that would give lower income provinces, like Quebec, incentives to develop pro-growth economic policies thereby avoiding the "welfare trap".[29]

Maritimes[edit]

Also in the same year, Shawn Graham, Premier of New Brunswick pledged to make the province self-sufficient, that is to no longer depend on federal equalization payments, by 2026.

In 2007, because of amendments made to the equalization formula in terms of measuring property tax revenues, Prince Edward Island's proportion of the total amount increased considerably. In 2013-2014, Prince Edward Island had the highest per capita equalization payment at $2,326 per capita.[3]

Ontario[edit]

The equalization formula is "based on a three-year average of economic growth". Since the 2008 recession, the Ontario economy got stronger which resulted in lower equalization payments.[8]

In 2009-2010, Ontario began to receive equalization payments [8] with its first payment amounting to $347-million.

In 2012-2013 Ontario's equalization payments increased to a peak of $3.3-billion. It was projected to be $2-billion in 2014-2015. Late January 2012, based on access to the uncensored version of a 2006 censored federal report by Peter Gusen, then director of federal-provincial relations at the finance department, entitled 'An Operational Expenditure Need Equalization Formula for Canada', the Toronto Star alleged that Ontario and BC were shortchanged in the equalization system because wages and cost-of-living expenses were never taken into account by Ottawa.[30][31]

In 2014, Ontario would have qualified for the TTP payment for the first time, worth $640-million. In 2013 Stephen Harper ended the TTP program. According to a December 12, 2013 Globe and Mail article, cancelling the program was a political decision by the federal Conservatives. It would raise their "bottom line, while forcing Ontario's minority Liberal government to find the difference ahead of a budget that [had] the potential of triggering a provincial election."[8] In 2013-2014, Ontario's per capita payments were the lowest at $230.20.[3]

See also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Tombe, Trevor (January 17, 2018). "Unpacking Canada's Equalization Payments For 2018-19". The School of Public Policy. Calgary, Alberta. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  • Feehan, Jim (September 2014). "Canada's equalization formula: peering inside the black box … and beyond" (PDF). The School of Public Policy. Vol. 7 no. 24. Calgary, Alberta. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  • Nadeau, Jean-Francois (June 19, 2014), "2014-2015 Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories" (PDF), Library of Parliament (LOP), Ottawa, Canada, p. 16, retrieved May 25, 2019
  • Roy-César, Édison (November 10, 2008), "Canada's Equalization Formula", Library of Parliament (LOP), Ottawa, Canada, retrieved May 25, 2019 Revised September 4, 2013
  • Nadeau, Jean-Francois (June 19, 2014). 2014-2015 Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories (PDF). Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) (Report). Ottawa, Canada. p. 16. Retrieved May 25, 2019.

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ The idea was based on the proposals of American economist James M. Buchanan and they were introduced mainly to help the struggling Atlantic provinces who were seeing low rates of growth and high rate of emigration to central Canada.
  2. ^ The June 19, 2014 Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report was produced at" the request of a parliamentarian" with a mandate to analyze "provincial and territorial entitlements with respect to the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer, Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing and Total Transfer Protection for the fiscal year 2014-15, comparing them with 2013-14 levels" with a specific focus on the Equalization program.
  3. ^ In his 1950 article, "Federalism and Fiscal Equity", which has been cited 1038 times, Buchanan was responding to public policy issues in the United States regarding challenges facing fiscal relationships between the federal government and individual states that had become a focus of attention between 1930 through 1950. In those two decades more attention was being focused on federal/states intergovernmental fiscal structures between two constitutionally independent fiscal systems which ultimately affect "fiscal resources of individual citizens".
  4. ^ In the list of Canadian provinces and territories by population, based on Statistics Canada data, Quebec's population in 2016 was 8,164,361 which represents 23.2 percent of the population of Canada.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Equalization Program". fin.gc.ca. 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2018-04-13.
  2. ^ a b c d e f "Equalization Program". Department of Finance, Government of Canada. December 19, 2011. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  3. ^ a b c d e Roy-César, Édison (November 10, 2008), "Canada's Equalization Formula", Library of Parliament (LOP), retrieved May 25, 2019 Revised September 4, 2013
  4. ^ a b c Staples, David (December 21, 2018). "Albertans increasingly calling to chop equalization payments to Quebec". Edmonton Journal. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  5. ^ a b Nadeau, Jean-Francois (June 19, 2014). 2014-2015 Federal Transfers to Provinces and Territories (PDF). Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) (Report). Ottawa, Canada. p. 16. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  6. ^ "N.L. 'shafted' in federal budget: Williams". CBC News. March 20, 2007. Retrieved September 16, 2008.
  7. ^ "University professors critical of N.B.'s 2026 plan | CBC News". CBC. Retrieved 2018-11-29.
  8. ^ a b c d e Curry, Bill; Morrow, Adrian (December 17, 2013). "Ottawa's shift leaves Ontario with $640-million less in federal transfers". The Globe and Mail. Ottawa/Toronto. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  9. ^ a b Morneau, William Francis (February 27, 2018), "Equality Growth: a stong middle class" (PDF), Department of Finance, Government of Canada, p. 367, ISSN 1719-7740, retrieved May 25, 2019
  10. ^ a b c d e Cryderman, Kelly (June 21, 2018). "Ottawa to keep provincial equalization formula as is till 2024". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  11. ^ Tombe, Trevor (June 22, 2018). "Opinion: What were they thinking?! How the equalization debate ended before it even began". CBC News. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  12. ^ Canada, Government of Canada, Statistics. "Table 36-10-0402-01 - Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry provinces and territories". www5.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  13. ^ Canada, Government of Canada, Statistics. "Table 17-0009-01 - Population estimates, quarterly". www5.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  14. ^ Canada Revenue Agency (2017). "Final Table 1: General statement by province and territory of taxation" (PDF). Retrieved October 14, 2018.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g Tombe, Trevor (October 21, 2017). "Don't blame equalization for Alberta's fiscal mess". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on May 27, 2019. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  16. ^ "Canada: oil in Saskatchewan". Time Magazine. 1954-01-11. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  17. ^ "Saskatchewan angry over equalization reports - CTV News". Ctv.ca. Retrieved 2011-04-25.
  18. ^ Smart, Michael (13 September 2006). "Raising taxes through Equalization" (PDF). Toronto, ON. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. ^ Buchanan, James M. (1950). "Federalism and Fiscal Equity". The American Economic Review. 40 (4): 583–599.
  20. ^ Fiscal Equalization Revisited (PDF). AIMS/MEI/FCPP. Montreal. April 2002. Retrieved May 24, 2019.
  21. ^ "Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2016 and 2011 censuses – 100% data". Statistics Canada. February 8, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2017.
  22. ^ "Table 051-0005: Estimates of population, Canada, provinces and territories". Statistics Canada. December 24, 2018. Retrieved December 24, 2018.
  23. ^ a b "Quebec's Landry offended by $1.5 billion handout". CBC News. February 28, 2001. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  24. ^ Wells, Paul (2017-11-22). "Quebec without equalization?". Macleans. Retrieved 2017-12-07.
  25. ^ Comment, F. P. (2019-11-22). "Eric Girard: Québec is a partner of Western Canada and wants it to prosper | Financial Post". Retrieved 2019-11-23.
  26. ^ "Speech: Canada's Equalization Program Is Unfair and Ineffective". Maxime Bernier — English. Retrieved 2018-05-06.
  27. ^ "For a proud, responsible and autonomous Quebec". Maxime Bernier — English. Retrieved 2019-11-24.
  28. ^ "Conversations from the Frontier" (PDF). Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 19 May 2010. Retrieved 5 May 2018.
  29. ^ "PPC Platform". PPC Website. 2019. Retrieved May 6, 2019.
  30. ^ Robert Benzie (2012-01-25). "Ontario shortchanged in wealth-sharing system, censored federal report suggests". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2012-01-29.
  31. ^ Robert Benzie (2012-01-26). "Dwight Duncan demands Ottawa release censored report showing Ontario is shortchanged by equalization". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2012-01-29.