Alberta needs revised equalization status

By Letter to the Editor on September 21, 2019.

Re: “MLA’s flawed argument made before by some on Alberta’s political right,” Sept. 13

Letter writer Greg Cote has, unfortunately, fallen into the dilemma of leaping to criticize political opponents of his socialist, “ilk” before thinking it through carefully.

I use the word ilk because it was used by him. It refers to a “type of people,” and is commonly used as a phrase to express distain when describing a group. Ms. Glasgo and myself are the same “people” as you Greg. We just have different political view points.

Perhaps you can be persuaded to see the logic and fairness of our viewpoint.

First of all, the contribution by Alberta tax payers is a fact taken from the records of Statistics Canada. It is relevant to the “fairness” of the Federal Equalization Program as it is applied to Alberta. It sets up the Alberta justification for a fair and equitable “payback” when the province is in need. Not a refund, or windfall, just a fair sum to help pay the bills when Alberta is suffering.

Second, payment of taxes is the source of the contribution to the equalization fund by the federal government. It is not a function of a separate tax or transfer from the province. Reference to reducing tax rates, or withholding payment are irrelevant.

The Alberta UCP government’s and Ms. Glasgo’s position is that “some” payback to Alberta, which is running a huge yearly deficit, is only fair and equitable.

The follow up position is that if we in Alberta have no expectation of receiving a cent from the Federal Equalization Program, then its up to Albertans if they want to continue to support the “payment of taxes” to a federal administration that will not revise the rules to help Alberta. You recall that the federal lieutenant governor in counsel just inked a five-year renewal of the current rules without any change whatsoever.

No, you don’t carve out a sum from your CRA bill and withhold it. Instead, you make a legal move to amend the Constitutional basis for the equalization fund by a referendum which is allowed on questions of federal treatment of a province. Quebec has done this over language rights and sovereignty. It is up to the UCP government to lead on this and put this position forward.

Surely, even socialist Albertans are able to support such a reasonable step to keep Alberta’s books balanced, when the province’s revenue and expense amounts are in a deficit position in spite of the administration’s efforts to curb spending. What can you do if you disagree? You lost the election Greg.

Those deficits mean a reduction of future tax revenue, and that means less money to spend on “free stuff” that socialists expect from a government.

Finally, the federal assistance to Alberta during the depression is a precedent for some “equal treatment” now. When the agreement was made in 1982, it was unforeseen how the “rules” would separate Alberta from the other provinces, and pay Quebec while it runs a surplus, and nothing is paid to Alberta which is building a huge debt.

The argument is not flawed Greg; it is misunderstood. It is an argument that seeks fairness for you and your ilk as well as our ilk. We all benefit if our province has a revised status at the equalization table.

R. Barry Miskuski

Medicine Hat

16
-15