If equalization is essentially a wealth tax for provinces, shouldn’t all provinces be taxed on all their wealth?
Get the latest from Murray Mandryk straight to your inbox
Published Feb 03, 2025 • Last updated 6 minutes ago • 3 minute read
You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.
Precious little hydroelectric capacity like the Coteau Creek station at Gardiner Dam means Saskatchewan doesn’t benefit as much from equalization as other places.Photo by Brown Communications /SUPPLIED
Article content
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is right about one thing: equalization is not working as intended.
It was supposed to a balance the natural inequities between regions, making all Canadians more equal.
Essentially, that means it was designed to make us all feel more Canadian — something we desperately need these days as we face a very real external threat from the U.S. To some extent, equalization does still somewhat work as intended.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.
Get exclusive access to the Regina Leader-Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.
Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.
Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account.
Get exclusive access to the Regina Leader-Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on.
Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists.
Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments
Enjoy additional articles per month
Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
or
Article content
It’s worth noting that in Moe’s social media post earlier this year, essentially suggesting equalization is unfair to “have” Western provinces, he actually demonstrated that the biggest per capita beneficiaries of the program under its current formula are the perennial “have-not” Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
But where Moe’s complaint seems legitimate is that it’s absolutely bizarre that Ontario, with all its white-collar jobs and lucrative blue-collar industries, is now considered a “have-not” province.
Arguably even more bizarre is the annual reality that Quebec and Manitoba, with their hydroelectric wealth, are again massive have-nots — ostensibly because hydroelectric revenue remains exempt from the equalization formula.
Notwithstanding the well-established and sometimes politically motivated Saskatchewan/Western Canada gripes that equalization is an Eastern plot to punish oil- and natural resource-rich economies, one gets the principle that it should treat all forms of provincial revenue equally.
Headline News
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Headline News will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Article content
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The truth about former prime minister Stephen Harper’s 2006 election promise to remove all natural resource revenue from the equalization formula is that this policy quite likely would have rendered the equalization formula useless.
It would have provided Saskatchewan with $800 million in equalization, annually, while making Saskatchewan and Alberta permanent “have-nots.”
However, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces would have received proportionally less, which would have quickly become a massive source of disunity. And this can’t be stressed enough: Right now, we need national unity more than ever.
But if equalization is essentially a wealth tax for provinces, shouldn’t all provinces be taxed on all their wealth? Shouldn’t that include hydroelectric? Aren’t we already being punished for our oil and mining wealth through the carbon tax?
This week, the Saskatchewan government sought intervenor status in the government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s claim that equalization is unfair.
“Though equalization was meant to ensure reasonably comparable access to public services across the provinces, the formula unfairly affects Saskatchewan and other provinces due to the inclusion of resource revenues,” the Saskatchewan Party government said in a news release.
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
“The formula also fails to take into account the structural costs of delivering public services and overcompensates recipient provinces by distributing surplus payments to them.”
Later, Moe stated the obvious — that the equalization formula is “flawed.”
Of course, there remains reason to be suspicious that this is just more political posturing from Moe and his Sask. Party government, aimed at the beleaguered federal Liberal administration of Justin Trudeau.
To simply reignite Harper’s 2006 position that the equalization formula is flawed because it includes natural resources revenue would also be the height of hypocrisy. The courts might even observe that former Sask. Party premier Brad Wall withdrew from the last court challenge 15 years ago, conceding that exempting natural resources made little sense. (Or so Harper also concluded after his 2006 election win.)
But it is interesting that Saskatchewan is joining the case of Newfoundland and Labrador — a province that is not only a fellow oil-producing province, but one that’s getting far less from equalization than hydro-rich Manitoba or Quebec.
Advertisement 5
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
It’s also interesting that Moe’s comment comes at the time of this tariff fight with U.S. President Donald Trump, in which the Saskatchewan premier suggested broad tariffs (read: retaliating by targeting oil) would “rip this country apart.”
We need unity. We don’t need ripping.
So shouldn’t that begin with that most Canadian of all programs, the 68-year-old equalization formula designed to help all Canadians in a fair-minded manner?
When Canadians need more than ever to come together, isn’t now the time to explore what’s fair to all Canadians and what isn’t?
Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
Recommended from Editorial
Mandryk: Old problems like equalization will remain long after Trudeau
Mandryk: Tossing equalization on raging Prairie fire is political hypocrisy
Our websites are your destination for up-to-the-minute Saskatchewan news, so make sure to bookmark thestarphoenix.com and leaderpost.com. For Regina Leader-Post newsletters click here; for Saskatoon StarPhoenix newsletters click here