Ontario Soon to be a Have-Not Province
August 24, 2005 · By Tom Cerber
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce predicts Ontario will be a have-not province within 5 years. The reasons: 1) the equalization payments they pay out and 2) high energy prices.
The Canoe article reports on the Ontario government’s complaints about unfair equalization payments that Ontario pays out. However, I predict that high energy prices - i.e., evil Alberta - will be their main target. The reason is that Ontario needs a coalition of other provinces, including Newfoundland and Nova Scotia who negotiated “side deals” with Ottawa earlier this year, to put pressure on the feds to change the equalization formula.
Attacking Alberta is easier because Alberta’s a minority of one in the federation.
Meanwhile, the attacks on Alberta have begun, as evidence by this silly letter in today’s National Post:
I was not surprised that there was little interest shown in these classes being offered by the United Church in Alberta. However, rather than lack of interest being the cause, I would guess it had rather more to do with self-preservation, as Alberta isn’t exactly known for its welcoming attitude to gays and lesbians.
In fact, the United Church should be congratulated for even daring to offer the courses in the first place. In the province that gave us such political heavyweights as Dar Heatherington and Ralph Klein, one can’t be too hopeful for the peaceful inclusion of gays and lesbians into mainstream Albertan society.
That’s right: David Peterson, Bob Rae, Michael Harris (who tried to copy the Klein Revolution), Ernie Eves, Jack Layton, Ed Broadbent, etc. are stellar leaders. Ontario should be proud.
UPDATE: The Globe and Mail’s coverage of the report focuses on Alberta. Meanwhile, some lefty prof from Quebec wants to nationalize the oil and gas industries. When asked how Albertans would respond:
“I don’t give a damn about what Albertans think.”
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney’s visiting Alberta.
Crossposted to Civitatensis.ca
[...] Crossposted to ThePolitic.com [...]
Tom, I do not understand the connection between same-sex marriage classes at the United Church and high-energy prices driving up the cost of living in Ontario and all of this equallying Alberta hating. This seems to be a pretty dang big stretch.
Either do I. Resentment needs no logical connections. We’re seeing a concerted effort by regional Ontario leaders to stir up resentment against Alberta, which they perceive as the “fat cat” of the federation whose social and economic policies are the cause of all that grieves them.
One finds analogous linkages in European anti-Americanism: they hate Americans because they’re capitalist, socially conservative, SUV-lovers, and because they’re fat (though I’ve seen reports showing countries like Germany and Greece having the same rates of obesity as the US). One might draw a link between capitalism and high consumption rates. However, it is indeed a stretch to link them with the US Christian Right.
Tom,
Like Lyndon, I don’t follow the connection between the letter you quote and the articles. They seem to be more or less unrelated topics.
On the topic of Ontario “eyeing up” Alberta’s oil revenues, I would point out that the political - and legal - climate today is dramatically different than it was in the late 1970s.
One Quebec professor’s noises do not policy make, and I think it was fairly clear that Ontario’s politicians are quite sensitive to Alberta’s position on such matters. (Both the Canoe and Globe and Mail articles made that quite clear, I thought)
Will Ontario “look west” - probably. Will they (or the Federal Government) actually _do_ anything - I rather doubt it. It would require another “strong federalist” government to make that happen, and I see few signs of anyone on the political scene today who seems to think in those Trudeauesque terms. Even Layton seems to be disinclined towards that kind of government intervention.
Does that mean Alberta should be complacent - no. But we should be realistic about the current environment.
Good point.
In the Globe article I noticed — while Central Canada can feign moral superiority over dumb Albertans — apparently the Ontario government knows Albertans to be smart enough to see when they are being criticised. McGuinty doesn’t want to be too fast and ready with anti-Wild Rose Country rhetoric, not just yet anyway. Apparently, Ontario, the moral beacon for the rest of the country and the world, knows enough not to raise the ire of Alberta. Whether spoken or not, big oil and gas windfalls are not the only elephant in the room at premier meetings. The potential for a radicalised Alberta is the bigger one! It is a suttle whisper that the rest of the country knows full well the potential for a separatist movement to strike deep roots in Alberta—they can only pretend to deny it.
Central Canada has already expended so much political capital offending Alberta, same sex marriage being a perfect example, it already lacks any credibility in Alberta necessary if a grab at resource revenue is to be anything but an outright political war. It has been so long since the rest of the country cultivated any credibility for themselves in Alberta, officials (as in the case of McGuinty) are wary of even bringing up the Alberta boom too openly.
To put it another way, the real elephant in Confederation is a the simple question: What does Alberta get from Canada that Alberta couldn’t do for itself, on its own? Canada would be wise to find an appealing answer to this question, one appealing to Albertans for a change.
OTOH: As I responded to Lyndon, resentment, whether expressed as anti-Albertaism or anti-Americanism, doesn’t follow logic.
So far the utterances of the federal Liberal cabinet fit with your description. However, we’ve seen just how quickly they will make deals of convenience to further their ends, and ones that line up squarely against Alberta interests.
While the Quebec professor certainly does not represent government policy, his is an oft-expressed sentiment that might pick up steam. It might not. But it might.
This is very true. Central Canada would love a nationalised oil and gas industry as it would reinforce themselves as the centre of gravity in Canada. Thankfully, with discussion of more “revenue sharing agreements” with the provinces and the already extraordinary revenue of federal coffers, another NEP appears unlikely, right now anyway. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia’s recent deals with the feds have signaled that provinces are clearly entitled to natural resource revenue.
However, I think this belies a certain danger, a political incentive for provinces — likely never Alberta, but for traditionally more passive provinces — to engage in more revenue sharing agreements with the feds. Revenue sharing agreements have a built in “pass-the-buck” quality that is strategically useful for a provincial government. If there is discontent with a Premier and his government’s admininstration, revenue sharing agreements afford the advantage of blaming the feds. Such agreements make it easier for a Premier to say, “We’re already doing everything we can. The real source of the problem is the federal government who isn’t sharing enough of its fat income. Our hands are tied!”
I get a rather sick feeling everytime I read another story about revenue sharing agreements with the feds. I think they lend themselves to worse government in Canada because they further centralise the country around Ottawa and provide an incentive for provinces to run irresponsible administrations.
[...] Prime Minister Paul Martin and other federal officials are trying their best to avoid making yesterday’s news about Ontario’s impending have-not status look like an impending fight between Alberta and the Rest of Canada. Martin and Anne McClellan made soothing sounds telling people that that making Alberta “share its wealth” would be divisive. Yeah, as if that argument’s going to convince the likes of Layton, McGuinty, and others who are eyeing Alberta’s patrimony to lube their socialistic schemes. [...]
[...] Prime Minister Paul Martin and other federal officials are trying their best to avoid making yesterday’s news about Ontario’s impending have-not status look like an impending fight between Alberta and the Rest of Canada. Martin and Anne McClellan made soothing sounds telling people that that making Alberta “share its wealth” would be divisive. Yeah, as if that argument’s going to convince the likes of Layton, McGuinty, and others who are eyeing Alberta’s patrimony to lube their socialistic schemes. [...]