There it is, then. It doesn’t matter who you get, or what party they belong to, it is evidently electoral suicide for any party leader to talk about how equalization shortchanges the West. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is but the latest politician with strong Western connections and assumed sympathies to tell Western Canadians that if elected, nothing about the west-east flow of dollars is going to change.There are, of course, other reasons to vote for Mr. Poilievre. Nine years of the Liberals is enough, and none of those offering to replace Justin Trudeau represent a change of mentality, much less of policy.However, there are Westerners who perhaps against their better judgment remain connected to the idea of ‘Canada, the true north, strong and free.’ For them, it is truly disheartening to be reminded once more — by a prime ministerial candidate in whom they have placed trust and their great hopes for reform — that the Western independence analysis is correct. That is, Laurentia rules, and nothing changes that. Therefore, anybody running for prime minister can be absolutely sure that if he digs in on making equalization fair to the West, they will lose Central and Eastern Canada. Once they have done that, it matters not how much of the West they win. They will not form government.Mr. Poilievre knows that. That is why he said yesterday that he would avoid making major changes to the federal equalization program if he becomes prime minister, as ‘the system does not require a major overhaul.’ He also knows, but did not say, that supporting Alberta’s claim on the assets of the Canada Pension Plan — however just they might be — would be for him just another form of electoral suicide.So much for our vain hopes..Poilievre vows no ‘big changes’ to equalization program under Conservative government.It is a peculiarly Canadian situation.In the abstract, one could support the principle of equalization. The high-minded goal of the decades-old federally administered program is that by distributing funds to provinces based on their ability to raise revenues, all of them should be able to offer roughly equivalent government services. Some years you give, some years you get. We’re all Canadians, we look after each other. And if some provincial governments are incompetent, venal and led by premiers who share Prime Minister Trudeau’s understanding of economics, well eventually the voters replace them with smarter people. Things even out in the end, eh?But of course, they don’t and they haven’t.Equalization assumes a practical equivalency among the provinces which does not in fact exist. The majority of the population is aggregated in the middle of the country, while the larger part of Canada's wealth and enterprise is concentrated in the West. The centre can therefore always vote for the West to send more money.One cannot fault Laurentian Canada's analysis, of course; how else would one expect them to vote? If you live in just about any province but Alberta, of course 'the system doesn't need overhaul.'But as a result, one part of the country has become a permanent payer, and other parts permanent recipients. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation makes the point nicely: since the program was established in 1957, Alberta received one payment, once, 60 years ago, that represents 0.02% of all equalization payments ever distributed.As equalization goes, that is the very opposite of equal.And it is even worse than just being a permanent payer. Equalization turns Western Canadians into permanent enablers for a pernicious political philosophy that is far more popular in eastern Canada than it is west of Ontario.To be specific, Western Canadians who favour independence are certainly quick to condemn the practical effects of equalization. But to choose a handful of issues out of legion, they also don’t like Eastern-oriented governments that are soft on crime, ignore national defence and take a condescending, even hostile, attitude to a part of the country that produces the wealth that pays for their eastern pretensions. They ask with good reason, what exactly is this Canada you have defined, that you think we ought to love? (They also harbour a lingering suspicion that that if equalization tended to favour Western Canada, there would be a vocal Eastern constituency for reform.)The system therefore, is not equal, not fair, lacks respect and the distribution of Canada’s population bakes that in. But, such are the consequences of demographics, in a confederal country where two thirds of Canadians live in two provinces. Democratic government in Canada has essentially devolved into finding Peters to rob, so that the Pauls may be paid, with the perpetual Peters, of course, being in the West.Therefore we pose this challenge to Mr. Poilievre. Even as you close in on the Prime Minister's Office, you have dismissed one of Western Canada's cherished aspirations as something that 'does not require overhaul.'Western Canada has options, however.So make the case. Why should Western Canadians care about a 'rest-of-Canada' that doesn't care about them, a 'rest-of-Canada' whose values are often deeply repugnant to them and why should they continue to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.Here at the Western Standard, we will give you as much space as you need.
