เกี่ยวกับตอนนี้
The vast majority of workers get more from federal programs than they give.
By Jim Stanford.
The biggest single grievance weaponized by the Alberta separatist movement is the long-held belief that the province "subsidizes" the rest of the country. Since Alberta as a whole pays more to the federal government than it directly receives back, the argument goes, the rest of the country is sponging off the province's largesse — and Albertans would be richer if they cut ties and left.
There is no more potent symbol of that supposed subsidization than the federal equalization program, which provides federal fiscal top-ups to provinces with below-average economic capacity. The principle is that all Canadians should have access to quality health care and education, no matter how rich or poor is their province.
Redneck animosity for Quebec (the largest single recipient of equalization payments) pours gasoline on these fires of resentment. The rhetoric implies Alberta cuts billion-dollar cheques to Quebec year after year.
This claim of interprovincial subsidization is completely false. Alberta pays no money to Quebec, or to any other province. The Alberta government, like other provinces, receives huge transfers from Ottawa to help pay for health care and other programs.
All these transfers, including equalization, are funded from the federal government's general revenues. No extra levies are imposed on the higher-income provinces (currently including B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan) that don't receive equalization.
Since money is fungible — that is, dollars are interchangeable and equal in value — Albertans can't claim their taxes paid for Quebec's equalization payments. Quebecers could equally claim that their taxes paid for federal expenses in Alberta, such as grants for public transit, wildfire fighting or subsidies to oil companies. "Sacré bleu," they could rage, "stop subsidizing those western bastards!"
For all the smoke and fury that equalization generates, it is a modest program, making up just four per cent of total federal spending in 2025-26. And while it is superficially true that more money flows from Alberta to the federal government than comes the other way, the separatist interpretation of this as a ripoff is very misleading.
First, some of the money flowing to Ottawa "from Alberta" doesn't come from Albertans. For example, corporate taxes levied on multinational businesses — such as super-profitable oil companies — are paid by their foreign owners, not by Albertans. Indeed, a good chunk of those profits originated from sky-high prices paid by Canadians in other provinces for products sold by Alberta-headquartered petroleum giants.
Second, Albertans benefit from many federal services, from passports to national defence to currency and central banking, that are essential but not physically provided in Alberta. They must be included in any cost-benefit calculation.
More fundamentally, the entire focus on whether federalism benefits Alberta as a whole is misplaced. Alberta's economy is not a homogeneous entity, in which each Albertan holds a proportionate stake. Individual Albertans interact differently with the "economy," depending on what they do, what they own and how secure they are. In fact, by most measures, Alberta is the most unequal province in Canada.
Whether federation costs or benefits Albertans, therefore, depends entirely on what kind of Albertan we are talking about.
Most workers in Alberta — those who survive mostly through wages and salaries from employment — receive below-average incomes. Alberta's economy produces about $200,000 in gross domestic product for every employed worker, the highest in Canada. But the average worker gets only about $70,000 of that. So how federalism affects Alberta's economic pie may be less important than how it affects each worker's slice of that pie.
Workers also depend proportionately on federal income supports such as Canada Pension Plan, employment insurance and child ben...
By Jim Stanford.
The biggest single grievance weaponized by the Alberta separatist movement is the long-held belief that the province "subsidizes" the rest of the country. Since Alberta as a whole pays more to the federal government than it directly receives back, the argument goes, the rest of the country is sponging off the province's largesse — and Albertans would be richer if they cut ties and left.
There is no more potent symbol of that supposed subsidization than the federal equalization program, which provides federal fiscal top-ups to provinces with below-average economic capacity. The principle is that all Canadians should have access to quality health care and education, no matter how rich or poor is their province.
Redneck animosity for Quebec (the largest single recipient of equalization payments) pours gasoline on these fires of resentment. The rhetoric implies Alberta cuts billion-dollar cheques to Quebec year after year.
This claim of interprovincial subsidization is completely false. Alberta pays no money to Quebec, or to any other province. The Alberta government, like other provinces, receives huge transfers from Ottawa to help pay for health care and other programs.
All these transfers, including equalization, are funded from the federal government's general revenues. No extra levies are imposed on the higher-income provinces (currently including B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan) that don't receive equalization.
Since money is fungible — that is, dollars are interchangeable and equal in value — Albertans can't claim their taxes paid for Quebec's equalization payments. Quebecers could equally claim that their taxes paid for federal expenses in Alberta, such as grants for public transit, wildfire fighting or subsidies to oil companies. "Sacré bleu," they could rage, "stop subsidizing those western bastards!"
For all the smoke and fury that equalization generates, it is a modest program, making up just four per cent of total federal spending in 2025-26. And while it is superficially true that more money flows from Alberta to the federal government than comes the other way, the separatist interpretation of this as a ripoff is very misleading.
First, some of the money flowing to Ottawa "from Alberta" doesn't come from Albertans. For example, corporate taxes levied on multinational businesses — such as super-profitable oil companies — are paid by their foreign owners, not by Albertans. Indeed, a good chunk of those profits originated from sky-high prices paid by Canadians in other provinces for products sold by Alberta-headquartered petroleum giants.
Second, Albertans benefit from many federal services, from passports to national defence to currency and central banking, that are essential but not physically provided in Alberta. They must be included in any cost-benefit calculation.
More fundamentally, the entire focus on whether federalism benefits Alberta as a whole is misplaced. Alberta's economy is not a homogeneous entity, in which each Albertan holds a proportionate stake. Individual Albertans interact differently with the "economy," depending on what they do, what they own and how secure they are. In fact, by most measures, Alberta is the most unequal province in Canada.
Whether federation costs or benefits Albertans, therefore, depends entirely on what kind of Albertan we are talking about.
Most workers in Alberta — those who survive mostly through wages and salaries from employment — receive below-average incomes. Alberta's economy produces about $200,000 in gross domestic product for every employed worker, the highest in Canada. But the average worker gets only about $70,000 of that. So how federalism affects Alberta's economic pie may be less important than how it affects each worker's slice of that pie.
Workers also depend proportionately on federal income supports such as Canada Pension Plan, employment insurance and child ben...
ภาษาอังกฤษ
สหรัฐอเมริกา
สำเนาบทสนทนา 🔗
Are you the producer of this podcast?
Add a podcast transcript
Need Audio-to-Text?
Transcribe with Listen411 in Just 60 Seconds
ตอนอื่นๆ ใน PODCAST นี้
A study on viral disease outbreaks raises questions about federal government oversight and farms' future.
By Gideon Mordecai and Don Svanvik.
A new study with unprecedented access to Atlantic salmon farms in British Columbia raises urgent questions about the federal government's approach to regulat…
Now the NDP needs to figure out why so many of its voters chose to stay home, while Doerkson watches for internal rifts.
By Crawford Kilian.
The 2026 B.C. election wasn't decided by Conservative voters. The outcome was driven by NDP and Conservative voters who didn't show up.
A striking aspect of t…
NDP votes fell by almost 30 per cent from 2024, but Conservatives lost votes too.
By Andrew MacLeod.
Despite winning a large majority government under leader designate Lorne Doerkson, the BC Conservatives received 50,000 fewer votes than it did two years ago.
While 911,142 people voted for the Cons…
Disappointing as they are, referendum results so far are also a wake-up call. And an opportunity for change.
By Richie Assaly.
As the dust settles on the Alberta referendum, many Canadians have been struggling to parse through a mix of emotions.
There's relief. As expected, voters overwhelmingly ch…
As countries meet to rescue a global nature agreement, scientists warn of a 'dramatic weakening' of Canada's biodiversity protections.
By Sarah Cox.
The southern resident orca whale population is so endangered that the birth of every new calf, shiny black and peachy orange, makes headlines.
Last we…
ข้อสงวนสิทธิ์: พอดแคสต์และอาร์ตเวิร์คที่ฝังอยู่ในหน้านี้มาจาก The Tyee ซึ่งเป็นทรัพย์สินของเจ้าของและไม่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องหรือรับรองโดย Listen Notes, Inc.