Now while to call Quebec—a province on the verge of another succession movement—the right hand of our country is likely a bit of a stretch, the subversion of the latter by the former is still very real. To view evidence of such—at least by a fiscal measure—one need not look farther than the nature and details of Canada’s equalization program. This concept, embedded in the most basic legislation of our nation—the Constitution Act of 1982— states
"Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.”I should qualify my stance in saying I do not host objection to the idea of equalization payments in and of themselves. The ebb and flow of money at the direction of the federal government should in theory make for a stronger Canada, assisting provinces in temporary times of recession at the expense of those still standing strong. The unfortunate reality, however, is that for a give and take system to work, each province has to eventually give. It seems that Quebec missed that memo.
Since the introduction of equalization payments in 1957, Quebec has taken more than it has contributed every fiscal year. That has equated to a total net influx of 253 billion dollars—just 1.6% less than the payments to all other provinces combined. I suppose if water ever hits $100 a barrel things might even out, but if that becomes the case we’ll have bigger problems to solve.
I’d like to think that—if that was the only problem—I could look past it. Perhaps in some parallel universe Quebec has oil, we have lakes, and the fiscal sponge has shifted west. I cannot blame a province for a lack of natural resources. If that was their only offence, I think I’d understand. For many years, Newfoundland and Labrador leeched western dividends to compensate for collapsing fish stocks. What they didn’t do—and I don’t know how much I can stress this—is complain. They lived quietly, humbly and by modest means. When they couldn’t find work, many packed a duffle bag, bought a Greyhound ticket and took the long ride to Alberta. Here they provided straight edge labour in the patch, and were appreciative for the opportunity.
On the contrary, however, many of the people of Quebec seem perpetually dissatisfied with their cozy conditions. In 2012, large protests broke out among university students over tuition increases. These increases resulted in average undergraduate tuitions still less than half of what we pay in Alberta. Pardon my lack of sympathy.
If one expects federal welfare, one cannot concurrently demand that they pay less than their benefactors. Costs can be subsidized or income can be supplemented. It is unreasonable to expect both, and ludicrous to complain when that expectation is not met. If Quebec wishes to break free from our nation—be their motive cultural, political or otherwise—I avow we let them do so. It seems to me they’d make a better neighbour than a roommate: it is far cheaper to lend a cup of sugar than to pay the grocery bill. If the hand subverts the body, cut it off. If the same hand is willing to perform the amputation, how much simpler it all will be.