Roundup: Equalization and Spending

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, one of the best things that I read was an exploration by economist Trevor Tombe about Alberta’s misplaced anger over the so-called “unfairness” of equalization, as the real issue is the fact that they have disproportionately higher salaries (and fiscal capacity) than everyone else in the country. Meanwhile, Tombe also has a good thread on the history of federal transfers to and from Alberta, and it’s interesting to get some of that perspective.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the McKinnon Report on public expenses was released yesterday, detailing that there needs to be some $600 million in cuts if the budget is to be balanced between 2022-23, and while it notes that it the province needs more stable revenues (*cough*sales tax*cough*), though it didn’t get into their revenue problems, as it wasn’t their mandate. That means that there are going to need to be cuts to healthcare and education. Here are three surprising tidbits from the report (but also ones that I think need to be drilled down into – for example high public servant salaries are not because of cost of living, but competition with the private sector, and high college drop-out rates are likely to do with jobs in the oil patch). More in this thread from Lindsay Tedds.

In reaction, Jason Markusoff points to the fact that the report’s conclusions were predetermined, given that it was created specifically to find cuts as raising revenues was not an option they were allowed to present, and it bears reminding once again that Alberta is in deficit because it chooses to be so – they could raise their revenues and not rely solely on oil royalties anytime they wanted, but they don’t want to (so all of those pundits taking this report as proof that the province has a spending problem are being a bit too cute about it). On a broader perspective, Max Fawcett argues that if Alberta wants to send a message that if they really want to have their issues taken seriously, they need to stop voting Conservative – and then enumerates all of the ways in which the federal Conservatives have taken the province’s votes for granted as they did things that disadvantaged them.

Good reads:

  • As the government is trying to roll out announced “guns and gangs” funding in advance of the election, Bill Blair is still negotiating with Quebec and PEI.
  • Canadian forces are now pulling out of Mali, despite the fact that it leaves a gap in capability until Romanian forces can get established.
  • General Jonathan Vance says he has no regrets for how he handled the Mark Norman affair, and that they bungled the Afghan war memorial dedication.
  • After Airbus pulled out of the fighter jet procurement process, Saab says they remain undecided.
  • The final report of the MMIW Inquiry contained statistical errors that were quietly corrected on some versions, raising questions about other conclusions.
  • Here’s a discussion about the strategy of when to draw up the writs.
  • BC’s Privacy Commissioner has ruled that the federal political parties are subject to the province’s privacy rules – which could be very interesting.
  • More speculation as to why Liberal MP Eva Nassif’s nomination was blocked, and the party’s plan to appoint someone rather than have an open nomination.
  • Backbench Liberal MP Ramesh Sangha says the government – and the Sikh Cabinet ministers in particular – is pandering to Sikh separatists.
  • Andrew Scheer spent the weekend perpetuating a false story that a UK child killer could be sent to Canada – showcasing misinformation dominating the election.
  • The Conservatives announced that they have a full slate of candidates nominated, including a (party) record number of women (no word if they’re winnable seats).
  • The NDP have declared that “In it for you” will be their campaign slogan, and unveiled new ads, one of which in Quebec aims to address his pride in his identity.
  • Fourteen former NDP candidates and a member of their federal executive in New Brunswick have headed over to the Greens, citing Jagmeet Singh’s neglect.
  • Elizabeth May says she wouldn’t support any party in a hung parliament given the state of their climate platforms.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column evaluates the chances that a private member’s motion or bill on restriction abortion might have.
  • Economist Lindsay Tedds fact-checks Andrew Scheer’s claims about his plan to make maternity and parental benefits “tax-free.” (It’s not tax free).
  • Susan Delacourt explains how parties rank potential voters in their databases.
  • Delacourt also worries that the nastiness seen over the Labour Day weekend is a preview of what’s to come in the campaign.
  • My weekend column took apart some of the rhetoric that parties use when they talk about “affordability,” because it’s not actually what they’re talking about.
  • My column wonders if our political operatives are so enamoured with replicating American politics, if our elections are just West Wing (or Veep) LARP sessions.

Odds and ends:

It was a bonkers day in Westminster, with a floor-crossing and the expulsion of 21 MPs from the Conservative ranks, and a possible election on the way.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

One thought on “Roundup: Equalization and Spending”

  1. What a lousy lot of offerings. I guess this means it’s majority or bust for the young quantum-mathematics teacher and the sanity party. Sensible centrism works as a bulwark against irrational populism, who could’ve seen that coming? Oh, right. The sensible centrist quantum-mathematics teacher and the sanity party. Unexpected tactical strategy from the Liberals after self-immolation in the winter and spring: set up an advantage by default because your opponents are nuts.

    To our right, Scheer and his wretched hive of Rebel stormtroopers, milk-swigging Proud Boys, Internet trolls, QAnon conspiracists, fake-news promulgators, fetus fetishists, bigoted preachers, Harper IDU SPECTRE minions, MAGA hatters, austerity fanatics, and “clean coal” petro-patriots are on the wrong side of the border and the wrong side of history. Max is, well… Max; he’s just more honest than Scheer about the Conservative Republican American Party’s ethos, because he can afford to shoot off his mouth on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.

    To our left, meanwhile, the NDP are clueless (and, apparently, have a bit of racism in their own ranks contributing to a mutiny). They really should just fold and become the AOC wing of the Canadian LibDems. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

    Now party-of-one May has revealed herself as a power-hungry saboteur with delusions of grandeur, acting like a spoiled brat. The Greens’ all-or-nothing fringe manifesto is unrealistic as it is. Come to find out her backup plan includes wasting even more money on an unnecessary forced election if the Veruca Salt of Canadian politics doesn’t get everything she wants and a pony. “I want a Green New Deal NOW, Daddy!” Ask for a fully costed platform that doesn’t break the bank? Shame on you, running dog capitalist! You’re killing the planet! Hey, you say you want a revolution, we’d all love to see the plan.

    Acting like a female BoJo and holding the government hostage is really going to garner sympathy for her cause. She’s mirror-universe Jason Kenney (or vice versa). Is she an eco-warrior or an ego warrior? She’ll crash the government if she doesn’t get them to adhere to her ransom demands and give into her tantrum. Scheer won’t sacrifice the outright denialists in his base and Trudeau isn’t going to kill the economy or risk the western equivalent of the FLQ Crisis. So to cut down on CO2 emissions, she’s going to stomp her feet, hold her breath and suck out all the air in Parliament until she turns the whole place, uh… green with envy? Isn’t it ironic, as Alanis might say, that the self-declared environmentalist either can’t or won’t see the forest for the trees!

Comments are closed.