FELDSTED: Central Canada has circumvented the ethics of confederation through a series of grants and supports, to Ontario and Quebec, which are not available elsewhere
Few
Canadians are aware of the Tax Rental Agreements, which was in force in Canada
between 1941 and 1977.
The
Tax Rental Agreements were a system by which the provincial governments
accepted to "rent", to give up, to the federal government the three
standard direct taxes (personal and corporate income taxes and succession
duties) for a limited period of time. In return, provinces received payment of
certain fixed sums of money.
The
method to be used was reminiscent of the one suggested by the Rowell-Sirois
Commission.
The
occasion for the introduction of the Tax Renting System was the Second World
War, when it became necessary for the federal government to raise such a high
level of taxes for the conduct of the war. Had an agreement not been reached,
it is likely that the war effort would have been impeded, and provinces would
have found themselves incapable of supporting fully provincial services.
However, it would be difficult to consider that the war alone created such tax
renting agreements ... the war merely precipitated an action that many in the
poorer provinces, had been demanding for a period of time.
The
true source of the Tax Renting Agreements is to be found, on the one end, in
the imbalance which developed in the period of 1920 to 1940 between the
expenditures of provinces, and their capacity to levy taxes locally to meet
such expenditures. On the other end, the
problem was magnified in some provinces, because of their relative poverty and
their inability to provide to their citizens services equivalent to those
offered by the richer provinces.
Ultimately,
the poorer provinces could only offer such services by imposing larger than
average taxes on their citizens, thus lowering even further the standard of
living of their local population.
It
became socially unacceptable to Canadians (especially in English-speaking
Canada) for some citizens in the country, because they were born in a poorer
region, to accept lower services than their counterparts in richer areas. It
was apparent that the more fortunate provinces would have to contribute
financially to the support of the have-not provinces.
The
role of the federal government would have to be that of a funnel, through which
financial resources would be redistributed across the country. This new ethic
of canadianism was doubly justified because many Canadians came to the
realization that they had not shared equally, in the prosperity, that
Confederation was supposed to bring to all.
Prior
to the 1930's, provinces had often complained and managed to extract some
concessions from the federal government -- but always on the grounds that some
promise at Confederation had not been fulfilled, or that the terms of the union
had not been equitable enough.
What
developed, in the 1930's, was an entirely different kind of argument.
Norman McLeod Rogers |
The
new position was well summarized by Norman McLeod Rogers, before the Nova
Scotia Economic Inquiry in 1934: "It
is urged that Nova Scotia is entitled to relief and compensation, not merely in
pursuance of the assurances given on the occasion of its entrance into the
Canadian federation, but also on the broad equitable ground that a federation
defeats its primary purpose, if through its constitutional arrangements or
through policies instituted by the national government it accomplishes the
gradual debilitation of one or more of the provincial communities of which it
is composed."
For full information: http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/taxrent.htm
The
struggle for equality of treatment of provinces, by the federal government, has
been ongoing since Confederation. We seem to take two steps forward followed by
one step back. The problems articulated respecting Nova Scotia in 1934 persist
today.
Block
funding and equalization payments are not working.
Central
Canada has circumvented the ethics of confederation through a series of grants
and supports, to Ontario and Quebec, which are not available elsewhere. And
domination by central Canada continues in new guises.
Part
of the solution is to get the federal government out of the compassion and
corporate welfare business, and to change its focus to its constitutional
responsibilities.
John
Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Comments
Post a Comment