Talk:Equalization payments in Canada

Text and/or other creative content from Equalization payments was copied or moved into Equalization payments in Canada with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Criticisms

The issue is not about Sask having been a receiver of payments historically, the section is about criticisms of the system, the article referenced is talking about the "current" situation, where as an oil rich province their $ are being drained out to "needy" provinces, namely Québec according to the article.--UnQuébécois (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Saskatchewan is a terrible example because they have been receiving payments for a VERY long time and have only recently come into money. How can they be a good example of a province against it when they have received it for decades. Ontario, Alberta, these provinces have given for decades, these are good examples. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No language issue here, I speak/read/live in English, mais je parle/lis/vis en français aussi. The CTV Article specifically speaks of the Sask Premier and his criticisms in re natural resources. Ontario has nothing to complain about at this moment as it is receiving eq. payments, but they have also complained in the past. The section is about criticisms, not historically who has been a "needy" or "have" province. --UnQuébécois (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the article until it has been settled. I'm not saying Sask isn't complaining. I'm saying they aren't the best example to be in the article considering they have received for many years. They are the equivalent of a homeless man who has begged on the street their whole life finally getting off the street and in his first years off the street start complaining about people begging on the street. Their are much better examples than Saskatchewan. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing properly sourced material from the article. There is no consensus to remove the information in question. --UnQuébécois (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no consensus to add poorly cited material. You obviously have little comprehension on the subject. Perhaps you should read up on the subject and come back when you aren't so ignorant on the subject, I have compromised and removed the ridiculous partial list and just put "more prosperous provinces". No province is happy to pay. Singling out 3 provinces is odd. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read up on proper wiki behaviour before continuing this discussion.--UnQuébécois (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read up on how to properly edit an article as your editing style is both disruptive and bordering on vandalism. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very frustrating when dealing with an editor who clearly has very little to no knowledge on a subject he is editing which he/she continues to vandalize. I will try to explain it to you in a very simple manner. I removed the word "Saskatchewan" from the line. "The premiers of oil-rich Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as Ontario, with its large manufacturing and service sectors, have criticized a perceived drain on their finances" because the links you provided did not mention anyone being "oil-rich" therefor making "oil-rich" a Peacock word. Sasks entire oil production is generates under $6 billion a year for the Sask economy, about 1% of Ontario's economy. To claim it is "oil-rich" is non-neutral. Who are you to decide who is "oil rich" and who isn't. NewFoundland produces about 75% of Sask's production, are they "oil-rich" as well ? The article goes into depth about NF premier as well but no mention in the article about them. The other link you provided is a terrible reference. It just explains how a town near a new oil well is growing and building a school. Also as I mentioned before Sask has long been a recipient of equalization so they're not the best example to use. In short every province that pays into equalization argues about it "ripping them off", should we just list all provinces that have complained about it at any given time ? Again who are you to decide what provinces are listed and who is considered "oil rich". The partial list should be removed and it should simply read "the premiers of the wealthier provinces (or contributors) have criticized a perceived drain on their finances. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. Let me say something straight off: there's some vitriol flying around on this talk page, and it will go a long way towards resolution if we tone it down a bit. Special note: neither of you has been vandalizing the article, so don't accuse each other of it. Edit-warring on both sides, yes; vandalism, no. Let's all calm down, take a nice, relaxing cup of delectable tea, start assuming good faith on all sides, and relaz while I take a look at this issue. I'll post again when I've finished my initial research. If I don't do so in 24 hours, drop me a line on my talk page, or just relist the issue on the 3O noticeboard to try and find someone else. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it doesn't seem to be quite as complicated as I initially thought. I agree with the conclusions of UrbanNerd, but not with his reasoning. I don't think it's particularly relevant whether Saskatchewan received or didn't receive equalization payments in the past. The section is about current criticism. I'll agree that it may not be the *best* example, but it's not a bad one and isn't bad enough to warrant removal, and certainly not an edit war. I also disagree with the objection to the phrase "oil-rich." In this context, "oil-rich" doesn't mean Saskatchewan is monetarily wealthy from their oil; it just means they have a lot of oil. The second source certainly seems to support the claim that they have a lot of oil. There's really nothing that's non-neutral about it.

However, as I said, I do think that Saskatchewan should be removed from the article; it is not sufficiently sourced. I can't read the full text of the first source, so I can't speak to whether it talks about equalization payments; it seems to just be claiming that there is oil in Saskatchewan, which is not in dispute. Quebecois, since I assume you have access to the full text of the article, can you provide any I did read the second source I did read, and it doesn't claim that Saskatchewan is criticizing the equalization payment system. It only claims that Saskatchewan is criticizing the proposed changes to the formula used to calculate the payments, or rather, the lack of changes. According to that article, Saskatchewan is opposing the proposal to give a 50% exemption to revenues generated by non-renewable fuels, as opposed to the 100% exemption it promised. This does not imply opposition to the program as a whole. Therefore, I would propose removal of Saskatchewan at a minimum. To be honest, given that the rest of the sentence is unsourced, I feel like this version would be best, since it avoids making unattributed claims about specific regions. Thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper, thank you for providing a hand. Although I might not necessarily agree with your final conclusion, I agree with your reasoning steps. I appreciate the civil and professional way you involved yourself. --UnQuébécois (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. :) I was waiting to get UrbanNerd to comment on this, as well; perhaps he doesn't have the page bookmarked. Let me post on his talk page to see if he has anything to add. Let's give him another day or two, and then we'll wrap this up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your resolution sounds good to me. I completely agree with your final conclusion. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to change the article back to the version I suggested. Let me know if you have any more concerns, or if you think I can help in any other way, by putting a note on my talk page. Thanks, all! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia page have a lot of false informations and misunderstood of the subject. Also this wikipage look is done to make some Québec bashing...

transfer payment are calculated per population. For a simple exemple (a kid could understand that) you cannot compare directly the total amount of transfer payments a provinces receives. If I compare the total amount of what New-Brunswick receives vs Québec (this year), for sure Québec recipe more... but in reality Québec have more than 10 times the population of New Brunswick and per population, New Brunswick has receives more than Québec this year. So telling Québec receives more than others provinces is not true abs the way is done currently is to make Québec look like a bad province. Also this wiki page have too much political point of view... When someone reference something a prime minister say... 70.30.197.117 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False information alert

This page has repeatedly been edited to say that Alberta has never received a transfer payment. This is false. The reference cited ( http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp ) only shows data as far back as 2005. Alberta received regular transfer payments up until the early 1960s. https://business.ualberta.ca/Centres/~/media/business/Centres/WCER/Documents/Publications/155ElectronicApril2final.pdf (p.5) - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta 2020-21 - gets payments or not?

Just want to clarify - below the table of recent equalisation payments, there is a statement that Alberta along with some other provinces (Ontario is one of them I think?) won't receive payments in 2020-21. Right below that, there is a few lines of text then saying Alberta will receive payments in 2020, for the first time in 55 years. Will Alberta be getting payments or not? Thanks --iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply) 02:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamthinking2202: I agree this is confusing. If I understand it correctly, an economist/professor has done some forecasting and predicted that federal spending in Alberta will exceed federal taxes collected in Alberta in 2020. This is something that hasn't happened in a long time. However, "federal spending in Alberta" is not the same as equalization, which is a transfer of funds from the federal government to the provincial government. For 2020, equalization payments were scheduled before the year began, and won't change once the year begun. Alberta's equalization for 2020 is 0. Again, that's my understanding, and I'm open to corrections. Indefatigable (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clarifying iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply) 03:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]