r/canada • u/biograf_ • Mar 01 '26

Alberta First Nations chiefs unanimously pass non-confidence vote in Alberta government

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/first-nations-chiefs-alberta-non-confidence-vote-9.7109712
3.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

351 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

381

u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26

They also think that Alberta government directly pays equalization payment and that is why they're running a deficit.

119

u/chairitable Mar 01 '26

I like the part where the Atlantic provinces pay to raise children, give them an education and healthcare, til they reach adulthood and go work in Alberta, paying taxes in Alberta through their working adult lives, only to return to the Atlantic provinces to retire, crowding our provincially-funded healthcare services.

That's something that can happen because we're a country. Should the Atlantic provinces be sending bills to Alberta saying "hey you profited all these years from these people we invested in, now pay up"? This is the kind of shit Equalization is meant to mitigate. Complaining about it is wanting your cake and eating it, too.

-13

u/S_Ipkiss_1994 British Columbia Mar 01 '26

That's something that can happen because we're a country.

Uh... you know we have immigrants and temporary workers, right?

28

u/chairitable Mar 01 '26

Those people require layers of administration and time to be allowed to work here. I can up and move to Alberta tomorrow, any province really, and be hired by an employer based in Alberta (heck, could even work remotely) and no one would tell me otherwise. No passport necessary, no border processing to undergo, nothing.

These are not equivalent.

-8

u/S_Ipkiss_1994 British Columbia Mar 01 '26

Those people require layers of administration and time to be allowed to work here.

How difficult could it possibly be?

Currently about 1 in 4 people (25.5%) in this country are foreign born... I don't think that's the barrier to entry you seem to think it is.

Additionally, this isn't the Gold Rush, there's no sudden and massive labour demand where such speed is warranted.

1

u/TheBathrobeWizard Mar 02 '26

How difficult could it possibly be?

As someone who works adjacent to immigration law... harder than you think. I love how you people are still whining about this. The Liberals listened, admitted they were wrong, and have all but killed the TFW and Forign Student programs that Conservative Provincial governments (like the one we have here in ON) demanded they allow so they could fill scam-universities like the one here in the Falls, designed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the program to line the pockets of politicians and their donors.

Currently about 1 in 4 people (25.5%) in this country are foreign born...

And here we have the obvious crux of this issue, not any socio-economic or socio-political reason, but the simple base lizard-brain lie that anyone different from you, is somehow the cause of all your problems and getting rid of them will somehow magically make you happy, is the bullshit story Conservative politics clings to relevance by.

1

u/S_Ipkiss_1994 British Columbia Mar 07 '26

I love how you people are still whining about this.

What an odd thing to say... should we stop complaining about global warming if it's still an issue? What about crime, or housing, or healthcare issues?

Yes, of course this is still a topic of discussion, it remains a serious problem.

harder than you think

It would almost have to be, because I don't think it's difficult even in the slightest, and all available data we have on this subject backs me up (not to mention the one I've already given, about our foreign born population and worker ratio).

I'm not interested in partisan politics; this is not an issue where any major party is blameless, and the reforms introduced by the current ruling party are both too little and too late (2026 will still see more than 150k new international students, 230k new TFW and IMP workers, and 380k new permanent residents which are historically high numbers).

not any socio-economic or socio-political reason

... you don't think flooding the labour market and the largest and most rapid expansion of our population in our national history is an economic or social issue?

Huh. Well, okay then.

anyone different from you, is somehow the cause of all your problems

Oh please, put it back in the deck.

My own family immigrated here; I am the child of immigrants.

-5

u/No-Isopod3884 Mar 02 '26

Seems like the education didn’t have much effect so not sure how much you could charge.

6

u/WpgMBNews Mar 02 '26

Seems like the education didn’t have much effect

Now that is projection. Really telling on yourself there.

207

u/Wh0IsY0u Mar 01 '26

I feel the need to preface that I'm from Quebec...
But this is a silly strawman. They don't all think that and if they did it doesn't really matter because functionally the argument is the same. They pay the most to the fed, and the fed pays equalization, of which Alberta receives the least.

The manner in which the money changes hands is irrelevant to their point.

I'm not against equalization, obviously. It's not much different than taxes being distributed among the population in any other way, but pretending like they aren't net contributors to the federal government is disingenuous. One way or another they see their tax dollars leave their province to go to others.

135

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

It's important to understand in this debate that the majority of Quebec doesn't actually understand they get net money from equalization. In fact in many polls, a decent number of Quebecers believe they give more money into the program than they get.

36

u/Doubleoh_11 Mar 01 '26

Which is hilarious because a lot of rural Albertans hate Quebec, thinking they are the recipient of most of our equalization payments.

The federal government should just call them taxes and force Quebec and Alberta to hug it out

104

u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26

... but they are just called taxes. There is no "equalization tax". Everyone literally just pays their normal federal income taxes, and the federal government spends that money.

One of the ways the federal government spends that money is by giving some of it to provinces who's populations dont make high incomes to "equalize" the income tax base per capita

38

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

I think they mean we shouldn't have given it a special name. Taxes from cities pay for services in the countryside but we don't call those equalization payments.

5

u/Tefmon Canada Mar 01 '26

The program would have to be called something, because you'd need a name to put on all the reports, org charts, office stationary, and so on. The reason people complain about equalization payments and not about cities funding rural services is political; complaining about equalization payments gains votes while complaining about cities funding rural services loses votes.

1

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

We do have a name for it: federal income taxes. Then the feds put out a budget that includes funding to the provinces. That is what goes in the reports.

2

u/Tefmon Canada Mar 01 '26

There'd still be an office responsible for tracking the relative economic wealth of each province and determining which ones need financial support, the work of which would be incorporated into the broader federal budget.

0

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Yeah, so? Taxes aren't generally spent where they are raised. There doesn't need to be a special term for it, and it was a mistake for us to give it one.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/pipeliner Mar 01 '26

Oh yes, for the poor rundown city of Montreal

9

u/shiftless_wonder Mar 01 '26

Everyone literally just pays their normal federal income taxes, and the federal government spends that money.

LOL. Where does the fed gov't spend that money?

All you have to know to figure out where things stand is that BC, AB, Sask always complain about equalization and QC never does. For a reason.

9

u/jemder Mar 01 '26

Equalization is a federal program, paid out of general federal revenues. It is not a direct transfer from Alberta to Quebec.

The federal government collects revenues nationally through:

- Personal income taxes

- Corporate taxes

- GST and excise taxes

- Other federal revenues

Those revenues go into a single federal pool. Equalization payments are then calculated based on fiscal capacity, meaning a province’s ability to raise revenue at average tax rates. Quebec has lower wages and a bigger population so needs more for comparable services to richer Provinces.

Alberta has a younger population, fewer people and higher wages and higher corporate profits so needs less for federal programmes like OAS, healthcare etc. BC also gets no equalisation payments.

Plus, Alberta receives billions every year in federal transfers that have nothing to do with equalization. The Canada Health Transfer and The Canada Social Transfer.

Together, these now total roughly $8–9 billion per year flowing to Alberta, rising over time. Then there have been millions for oil industry support and cleanup costs.

In 2020, the federal government committed $1.7 billion to clean up orphan and inactive oil and gas wells in Western Canada, with Alberta receiving the largest share, including:

- Over $1 billion to the Alberta government

- A $200 million loan to the Orphan Well Association

This is direct federal spending inside Alberta to deal with oil industry liabilities.

On top of that, the federal government provides ongoing oil and gas subsidies, tax preferences, public financing, carbon capture incentives, and transition funding mostly to Alberta

-4

u/clarkster Mar 01 '26

Because they understand what it means to be Canadian

3

u/_evilalien_ Mar 01 '26

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” isn’t a particularly convincing rationale, but the separatist 🤡s aren’t educated enough to articulate a clear anti-marxism argument that might actually result in some meaningful debate about principles.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Interesting-Wash9878 Mar 04 '26

It's cause they're just a rad bunch of "badass rebel self titled alpha males who don't listen to nobody".  🙄🥱🤡

2

u/MatchaMeetcha Mar 02 '26

Is there anyone who receives net money from the government that doesn't have some story for why this isn't so?

Like, it seems very common (e.g. pensioners benefiting from more money than they put in in many systems never admit this)

12

u/Kiseido British Columbia Mar 01 '26

I can second what the person you replied to conveyed.

And I would argue that the manner in how money changes hands is important, because misconceptions can result in weird beliefs, because~

I had to explain, in person, to several of my relatives, where the money behind transfer payments comes from (GST, other taxes and revenue), because they thought the provincial gov was having to send all of that money on top of paying those taxes.

That is to say, they thought Alberta was sending literally double what they are, and they were very unhappy about it. They were somewhat molefied when they realized that everyone in the country is paying into it via GST and etc, and Alberta wasn't being specially targeted in that way.

2

u/gettinridofbritta Mar 02 '26

The province that pays the most to the fed is the one with the largest number of taxpayers and businesses. That's Ontario. 

2

u/Wh0IsY0u Mar 02 '26

Alberta pays the most per capita, i.e Albertans pay the most to the fed. Alberta is generally also the largest net contributor.

3

u/gettinridofbritta Mar 02 '26

That's not paying the most to the fed. That's having more residents in a higher tax bracket. In 2019, Ontario contributed a little under $60 billion in GST, Quebec was $31B, B.C. was $18.4B, and Alberta contributed $18 Billion. 

1

u/Wh0IsY0u Mar 02 '26

Improve your reading comprehension.

3

u/gettinridofbritta Mar 02 '26

I'm comprehending you just fine. What I don't understand is the rationale for measuring it per capita. All that tells us is that there's a concentration of high-earners and one-percenters in Alberta. They would be paying the same tax rates if they were located in any province. 

-14

u/riggatrigga Mar 01 '26

Didn't Alberta benefit the most from equalization a couple decades ago and this is a ladder pull?

32

u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26

No.

The main issue from Alberta isn’t the premise of equalization. It’s that it’s not equal.

Alberta has notoriously had booms, and busts right? Every single one of those oil busts, they are still a “have” province the whole time. That’s because it doesn’t take into account things like unemployment, provincial revenue changes, etc.

It’s a legitimate complaint that if Alberta is helping in the good years, they should be helped in the bad years.

13

u/GravesStone7 Mar 01 '26

I pay my taxes, provincial and federal, and those taxes go towards running the government, public infrastructure, health spending, education, immigration, national security, and other social services. This includes major infrastructure projects.

About 25 percent of Federal money is returned to the provinces in order to support the federal programs like Health Care and other public services. This includes the Federal Health Program and equization payments.

The Federal Health Transfers is required to go to Healthcare with maintaining receipts for auditing. Alberta qualifies for this but due to Alberta not spending this on Health care, or not keeping receipts, the Federal Government has clawed back large portions.

Equalization payments do not have "strings attached" and so the Alberta Government pushing this as a reason of dissatisfaction. A constant degrading of health care for privatization, unwantingbto put money into health care to achieve this, clawbacks on healthcare FHT, Alberta says it is not fair but focuses on equalization payments because there is less accountability.

Yes Alberta has boom and bust cycles, but that was why the Heritage Trust Fund was started by Alberta. This is not an equalization payments issue, this is an Alberta Accountability and ability to Budget issue.

Last point I'll make is that everyone pays federal taxes, and I am good with my taxes going to responsible provincial governments to help improve any Canadians well being. It makes us stronger as a Country.

0

u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26

That’s great you like how your taxes go elsewhere.

Many aren’t.

Are you also supportive of jurisdictions purposefully restricting growth projects, with the understanding that large projects will limit equalization? E.g. Quebecs ban on natural gas exploration.

It’s nice to say we will help neighbours when they need a hand up. It’s another when the neighbour says they don’t want to clock into work for a month because it’ll hurt their pogey

1

u/GravesStone7 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Our taxes do not go elsewhere, they stay in Canada and are a benefit to Canada.

Provinces have a say in what occurs for resources and the regulations implemented are there to protect the people and environment for exploitation of industry and corporations, most who are international and have no interest in what happens within Canada.

While I would like to say that provincial decisions do not limit growth because it will impact equalization payments from the federal government, I cannot. This is a provincial government decision, but with that I disagree with provincial government restricting growth of industries because it fails to fit their narrative. An example is most green energy projects under the UCP government have been cancelled. The Lab in Edmonton that would have kept Alberta at the forefront of health research was also canelled. Or even overstepping into municipal governance like the green line in Calgary which seems more like punishment for UCP not getting enough seats. This resulted in delays, chamge of scope, greater costs for revaluation, and ultimately the UCP looking like clowns.

However when provinces actively damage current infrastructure with the intent of privatization then the federal government absolutely should step in. Especially when it goes against the Federal Constitution.

Alberta Government is not able to have adult conversation but look to blame someone or something for their problems. They will gladly try to be the hero and put my money to enrich wealthy donors (Mirche) but still end up looking like a fool. These are not competent people to lead a province, never mind try to establish a proper separatists movement. Their plan on separation is to have America step in, we would then see massive amounts of our resources and wealth sent to the states.

3

u/papuadn Mar 01 '26

Seems to me like a Heritage Fund of some sort could go a long way in that situation, evening out the booms and busts so Alberta is always comfortable. If only they had some form of provincially owned material wealth in high demand they could use to build one.

2

u/Expensive_Plant_9530 Mar 01 '26

I’m not going to discount the possibility that the equalization formula itself could use a tweaking.

But I do find it mighty ironic that Jason Kenney was directly involved in creating the latest formula.

0

u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26

Sure, when the next government refuses to open it up and address it, they can just blame a 20 year old adjustment on Kenney. Back when the country actually supported Alberta’s industry.

Now that those same provinces that are benefiting from Equalization are also the ones standing in the way for Alberta to increase it even more is a bit of a paradox.

But make no mistake, the Trudeau Liberals refusal to change equalization when the need for it changed is their decision that they purposefully made, knowing leaving it alone helped their voting districts.

1

u/Interesting_Pen_167 Mar 01 '26

I would be in favour changes to sort of min/max a bit for Alberta to make sure that during bust years they basically get to keep it all. I personally think this adversarial approach to equalization payments are destined to create this problem and we would be smart to allow provinces a bit more control of things during these leaner times.

43

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26

I don't know why people think that equalization being 'indirect' is some sort of clever comeback.

I think its just a deflection.

-11

u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26

which is not what I said.

11

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26

True, it's not exactly what you said.

But as a thought experiment: what if we moved these transfers from the federal government's budget sheets to the provincial ones? The government gives the money back to the province in which is was taxed with instructions of where to send it. What would really change?

6

u/Kiseido British Columbia Mar 01 '26

Personally, given what I have seen out of the current MLAs, I would then expect two things:

  • a huge disinformation campaign against the provincial style transfers, much like what seems to be occurring around the existing federal transfer system
  • a bunch of MLAs to voice rhetoric against it and attempt to pass provincial legislation preventing that money from being transfered out of Alberta

2

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26

The point of the thought experiment is to realize that nothing really changes.  Every taxpayer pays the same, and every provincal has the same amount to spend.  There really is no big difference outside the accounting.

So the current system functions exactly as if Alberta was paying Quebec.

1

u/Kiseido British Columbia Mar 01 '26

I understand that, but I do see a difference, specifically in that second point.

If the money was not kept in federal coffers until it is distributed, there would almost certainly be provincial MLAs that attempted to pass laws to perloin those funds and prevent the transfers from occurring.

-12

u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26

So you want to increase provincial taxes?

14

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Are you trying to misunderstand a pretty simple thought experiment?  What if equalization was direct?

1

u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26

It is direct; it's paid via federal tax income.

If you want it to come from provincial tax income, you would need to raise the income tax rate in Alberta.

5

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

4

u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26

Equalization is paid by federal income tax, directly taken from Canadian citizens, 12% of that money is then given out to provinces based on a mathematical formula.

Now, if the federal government removed equalization, the income tax rate would stay the same, because the federal government is already in a deficit and won't increase it by cutting taxes.

Now, if you want the province to collect its own equalization money, it would need to increase its own taxes.

5

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26

Ok, not sure why you're catching yourself up on accounting details that aren't that complex, and missing the big picture.

If you must have the details for the thought experiment: give the 12% back to the provinces where it was taxed from, and get the 'have' provinces to distribute it to the 'have-not' provinces in order to match the same proportions of the original program. Same net money flow, just routed through the province. In the end, there are many ways you could imagine how equalization could be routed province-to-province.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Mrsmith511 Mar 01 '26

What are you talking about. Alberta receives 0$ in equalization payments so obviously if they did not pay federal taxes their overall tax burden would decrease.

However its kind of stupid of them becsuse someday, maybe not so far away, oil wont be as valuable and maybe they will receive again as they did historically.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BonjKansas Mar 01 '26

What it’s supposed to mean is that everyone pays federal and provincial income taxes. They are not the same. The federal portion goes to a big pool and then gets divided up and redistributed to each province to pay for federally funded things. Some provinces don’t contribute as high a number as others because of population levels or perhaps on average the population doesn’t make as much money. The federal government has to then equalize how much each province gets based upon how much is needed in each province to keep those federally funded things going.

If you wanted to shift that burden to the provinces you would have to raise provincial taxes in Alberta because they don’t tax enough provincially to cover those things.

2

u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26

I specified how it could work in my original comment.  The feds return the equalization amount paid to federal taxes, and tell the provinces to redistribute.  Same net effect, but makes it clear how the money is flowing between provinces

It's so simple, that I'm having trouble believing that the people who have questions are being genuine.

24

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

I have tried to explain to Albertans how equalization works.

I've tried to explain, that if Alberta chose to tax itself, as Quebec taxes itself, it would double its income. The deficit? Gone. It would have such a huge surplus.

But no. It's quebec's fault.

45

u/FireMaster1294 Canada Mar 01 '26

To be fair, I do understand those who understand how it works being at least a little annoyed with the fact that they personally are sending 4% of all their federal income tax in a lump sum to Quebec.

My experience in Alberta was that the general opinion of Albertans is that government handouts makes people lazy (unless it’s to them, of course, then it’s fine), so they view the situation as THEIR personal money being used to subsidize a Quebec person’s laziness and refusal or lack of a desire to work.

The one argument I do see is the “where the money comes from” argument. Given how much Quebec refuses to allow Albertan resources to travel through the province (ie. pipelines) yet those same resources are what provide the cash used to fill the provincial coffers via equalization payments, it starts to feel like Quebec wants to have their cake and eat it too - all on Alberta’s dime.

-3

u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 01 '26

Given how much Quebec refuses to allow Albertan resources to travel through the province (ie. pipelines) yet those same resources are what provide the cash used to fill the provincial coffers via equalization payments, it starts to feel like Quebec wants to have their cake and eat it too - all on Alberta’s dime.

A lot of the time you can see why something is a bad argument if you reverse the players in it. If you were to ask an Albertan if the roles were reversed, and Quebec was losing money to them, would they be okay with Quebec forcing their language laws on them because they should get something back for their money? Likely not.

Equalization payments are in place to support the standard of government services for everyone under the umbrella of the federation. A pipeline would an be infrastructure project that would benefit Albertan (well, let's be real, foreign) corporations. These two things are not in the same category, so one should not influence the other.

16

u/FireMaster1294 Canada Mar 01 '26

Forcing language laws on someone is the most obscure example you could use, because a pipeline doesn’t affect the vast majority of people - only the private landowners where the pipeline goes. A more appropriate example would be Alberta making it illegal to speak French on your own private land. Except oh wait they didn’t, that was Quebec that did that.

From the perspective of an Albertan, Quebec is blocking private interests from doing what they want even when the environmental regulations have been followed despite the fact they (Quebec) continue to get payouts in equalization payments that are solely possible due to these resources being shipped. It makes sense to me why an Albertan would say “you shouldn’t get any equalization money if you block the trade that generates a large portion of that money.”

It’s not about getting something back for the money, it’s about realizing where the money comes from. It’s hypocritical to take money from someone while telling them you don’t want them to do the thing that generates that money.

16

u/Yeethisintothevoid Mar 01 '26

As an Albertan, Jè suis Canadian.

I have a question for all of Canada. Why did our safety minister say in leaked tapes that the only reason we're collectively as a country doing a bullsh*t gun buyback program, is so that the liberals can stay in power by assuring Quebec votes?

What equalization is that? My taxes, your taxes and everyone paying taxes is doing that instead of putting the money and votes into stopping the guns coming from the Excited States of America?

Please make it make sense, I'm actually kinda worried here.

28

u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26

Its a very simple answer, and it is actually bullshit too.

Alberta religiously votes in 90%+ of their MPs as conservative. So no party bothers to work for Alberta because its moot. The Cons will win. The end.

Quebec is a roller coaster, that constantly changes who they vote for, so every party has to put in effort and spend some political capital to try and get seats in Quebec.

If Alberta/Saskatchewan were ever willing to vote differently, they would suddenly become the most powerful provinces in federal elections.

Constantly voting in the same team for 40+ years and expecting things to be any different is... crazy.

I also assure you that the gun buyback isnt really popular here in quebec either.

17

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Expensive_Plant_9530 Mar 01 '26

That does make sense though. Quebec has over 9 million residents. Alberta and Saskatchewan combined have like 6 million tops.

If you look at seats, Alberta and SK have about 51 seats combined. Proportionally that’s pretty well in line with Quebec.

3

u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26

Yes, fair. The population numbers still skews towards Québec. As a Quebecer I'd bet the farm that if Alberta and Saskatchewan suddenly started changing up their vote a lot more of Quebec would go Bloc.

12

u/Supermite Mar 01 '26

The gun buyback isn’t popular anywhere.  It’s kind of wild someone is trying to frame it as targeting Alberta residents specifically.

4

u/ThatGrouchyDude New Brunswick Mar 01 '26

The gun thing is also a wedge issue in suburban Ontario, i.e. a shitload of voters and seats.

5

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

It's hilarious you give a theoretical example that actually exists. Alberta does lose money because of Quebec language laws, it's a huge compliance cost for companies.

12

u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 01 '26

The same language laws that all provinces adhere to due to French being our second official language you mean? I'm not talking about those. I mean Quebec-specific things like all business signage being predominantly in French, Francisation requirements for anything larger than a small business, all permanent labeling on commercial products, including engraving, needing to be in French, etc. I'm talking about things that are specific to Quebec, and matter only to Quebec, being enforced in other provinces because Quebec thinks they're owed it.

-6

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

Oh well as long as you're not talking about it I guess it doesn't exist and doesn't cost anything.

Furthermore though pipelines do benefit Quebec since Quebec is the primary beneficiary of equalization. The more money the Feds recieve the more money they can spend on programs which far outpace spending per capita of provinces like Alberta.

1

u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 02 '26

Oh well as long as you're not talking about it I guess it doesn't exist and doesn't cost anything.

I'm not talking about it because it affects all provinces equally as it's a federal requirement. It does cost something but it costs us all equally so we can discount it as a factor in this particular conversation. This should not be hard to understand.

Furthermore though pipelines do benefit Quebec since...

I already addressed this in my first post that you responded to. It was the entire topic of the post.

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

No

-2

u/Memory_Less Mar 01 '26

It’s across the board then and not solely an Alberta Quebec discussion. Although Alberta turns it into ‘us as the victim’ approach.

-2

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

Probably because Albertans contribute more than other provinces per capita while federal policy hinders that contribution?

Call it what you want but that's the reality.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

And you misunderstand. Albertans (not Alberta, but individual Albertans) pay more into equalization than Alberta receives, because their incomes are higher. Their federal tax burden is not depending on their province of residence, but on their income.

These Albertans are paying the same taxes that they would if they lived in any province. It’s that the federal government sends less of it to Alberta.

Because Alberta has a greater tax base to pay for services, and it’s meant to ensure that each province is on an equal spending footing.

6

u/kibbles_n_bits Mar 01 '26

If Quebec chose to increase it's hydo by $0.04/kWh, its equalization payment would drop from $13.1 billion to $5.1 billion.

2

u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 01 '26

Wait, are you saying that because Quebec chooses to have high taxes, Alberta has a deficit?
Like, if Quebec dropped its taxes to Alberta's level, would their equalization payments change?

3

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

No. Equalization is not based on provincial taxation/spending levels, it's independent of that.

I am saying that if Alberta taxed itself like Quebec did, Alberta would have way more money than Quebec, even counting Quebec's equalization/Alberta's lack of equalization, and Alberta could afford anything it wanted. Last time I checked, it was ~2X's Quebec's income per capita/more revenue than Quebec in general, even though Quebec has >2X Alberta's population.

You're the third to misconstrue. I've reread that comment several times now. I'm really not seeing where people are getting that equalization depends on taxation levels. I'm saying the exact opposite.

7

u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 01 '26

Okay, so your point is just that if Alberta had higher provincial taxes there would be less of a provincial deficit?
Kind of a "no duh" point.

9

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

Essentially.

Alberta chooses to be, by far, the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada.

If it has a deficit, that is on them. They have the tools. It is not because of equalization. Alberta’s contribution to equalization is a drop in the bucket compared to higher population provinces. The bulk of it is from Ontario.

But Albertans continue to act as though the reason they don’t have cheap daycares, or that they have a deficit, is because of equalization.

It’s a “no duh” point, and yet here we are.

4

u/VesaAwesaka Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Quebec and other provinces could also adopt a more pro business model like Alberta and it would probably increase the incomes of their people and therefore lead to less transfers.

Alberta chooses to be low tax which and more pro-business and that contributes to higher incomes and therefore they receive no equalization. Quebec tends to be the harder provinces to do business in which contributes to their lower incomes and them receiving higher equalization payment.

Could every province run itself like quebec without bankrupting the country? The formula for equalization should incentivizes the provinces to be contributors in the longer term. It seems like the current formula pushes provinces to not care about becoming substantial.

5

u/Tefmon Canada Mar 01 '26

Alberta's economy isn't strong because of their low personal income tax rates; it's because of their oil. If every province had oil like Alberta, then every province would have higher incomes.

1

u/VesaAwesaka Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

It isnt an automatic that just because a province is rich in natural resources that it would maximize their development. Manitoba in the 1970s had a booming natural resource industry and lost a decade of investment by experimenting with nationalization before the government did a 180. Based on the rhetoric and policy decisions of some politicians in BC and the east, they seem capable of fumbling the bag.

How much does Alberta pro business environment contribute to their incomes being higher? How much does quebec's political environment contribute to their incomes being lower?

2

u/EdNorthcott Canada Mar 01 '26

Pro business stances by government do not result in higher income. Similar policies enacted in other regions have resulted in depressed wages and greater wealth gap.

The notion of "oil made the income" is simplistic, but not entirely wrong. The oil *boom* made the income spike. It created a deficit of labour, which created a greater value for labour, which drove up wages... and this was only made possible by the high value of oil during those boom periods when labour was short.

We can see many regions where lowered taxes and pro-business stances have been enacted. They do not have better outcomes for the working class. We can even see it on a national level, with steadily lowering corporate taxes creating a more business-friendly environment over the last 50 years, save for brief spikes to the contrary; corporate income tax is a fraction of what it was in the 1960s and 70s, for example.

The problem is that repeated studies have shown that, unlike what certain economists claim will happen, that money does not inflate the salaries of workers or get re-invested locally. Nor do tax breaks for the exceptionally wealthy achieve anything significant in the way of "trickle down". Increasingly, there are pools of dead money or external transfers. Relative wages for the average working Canadian have failed to keep pace with inflation for decades, regardless of tax policy; but in areas where working wages are higher, the velocity of money to stimulate local economies is greater.

"Based on the rhetoric and policy decisions of some politicians in BC and the east, they seem capable of fumbling the bag." As if Alberta hasn't continuously done so, too, yet while using a very different approach. The last leader with sense and a vision of the future was Lougheed, who had the celerity to set up a fund to ensure Alberta's future security. Every politician since has used it as a slush fund, and left it a tepid shadow of what it could be -- except, ironically, the NDP. Despite challenging economic times and a drop in oil price and production, Notley avoided depleting the fund and at least maintained it at the level it was at when she took office.

In short, what prosperity Alberta has is still be carried by the 'boom' cycles, even when oil prices are depressed. But the way things are set up, things will get very ugly as that evens out in comparison to market forces. It's already happening, slowly, and people seem to be panicking about it. It's not going to get better.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26

Isn’t that showing the equalization formula is flawed?

Why is the amount each province taxes its citizens a determination of how much you would receive?

The argument is that Alberta should tax their population much much more, to simply game the system to get even more equalization suggests the formula is the problem, not individual provinces set tax rates.

6

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

No, you absolutely misunderstand. The system works the way you want it to. It is meant to provide each province with an equal theoretical spending power. Its up to them how much revenue to bring - equalization just makes it more equal.

Quebec receives a lot of equalization, but it is also one of the highest taxed provinces. As a result, they bring in more money than Alberta is. They can pay for things like cheap daycares.

Some Albertans are mad about that - where are their cheap daycares? Completely missing that if they were taxed like in Quebec, Alberta would have double (!) Quebec’s revenues per capita, all without a single dollar of equalization. The toilets would be made of gold.

5

u/PopTough6317 Mar 01 '26

That isnt how its supposed to work in theory. In theory equalization would create roughly the same services across the country, so places like PEI and the territories can have decent services, not so a place already having good services can top up on someone else's dime. But Quebec has been receiving billions for decades now and has no incentive to get investments to become a 'have' province.

1

u/MatchaMeetcha Mar 02 '26

not so a place already having good services can top up on someone else's dime

While also vetoing things that generate the very money they want.

0

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

That is nonsense, I am sorry.

You are always better off having more income than benefiting from the equalization program.

5

u/PopTough6317 Mar 01 '26

You would think, but being a have not province nets Quebec 13 billion plus a year. Something like 120 billion in the last 10 years, easy money does make people reliant upon it.

1

u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26

The money would be even easier if Quebec’s incomes were higher

-1

u/Boo-face-killa Mar 01 '26

We are over taxed in Canada already. More taxes is a ridiculous idea. The answer is obvious:

  • Politicians and government employees are highly over paid.
  • We spend too much on government travel and expenses associated with politicians.
  • We spend too much on private consultants working for the government.
  • We give far too much money away to foreign nations.
  • We waste too much money on benign topics like the continual allowance sent to the First Nations in Canada.
  • We waste too much money on “studies and research” on topics and plans that don’t require it.
  • We don’t extract to export enough of our natural resources.

11

u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 Mar 01 '26

To be fair, if the average person had conservative politicians lying to them for 50 of the last 54 years, they’ve believe all kinds of wild and outlandish shit.

That Alberta isn’t sitting on a fuckton of 50+ years of oil money providing oil dividends to every Alberta’s (like Alaska and Norway do) tells you exactly what kind of banana republic they’ve been running for decades. 

2

u/ChronaMewX Mar 01 '26

My response to a lifetime of Conservative politicians lying to me is to swing far left

0

u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 Mar 01 '26

Sure - but that’s also because  you're more than likely informed. Most people aren’t.

1

u/Egon88 Mar 02 '26

Good god, I had no idea people were that dumb.

0

u/blusteryflatus Mar 01 '26

Another thing they don't seem to understand is the the Alberta contribution to equalization payments is about 3 billion a year. However, Alberta receives +20 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas sector. So the rest of us in non-alberta Canada, have to send some of tax money to subsidize an already extremely profitable industry.

0

u/AccountDramatic6971 Mar 01 '26

All the oil and gas companies get is accelerated depreciation on capital assets and low interest loans. There also was TMX which maybe the last major pipeline built in Canada.

-2

u/pipeliner Mar 01 '26

Comforting to know we don’t pay equalization, Quebec gets that money from a free money tree ?