Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

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." 


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

Popular posts from this blog

GORDON F. D. WILSON: When The Trick Masquerades as The Treat

Thirty-seven years ago, Halloween 1987, I became the leader of the BC Liberal Party.   British Columbia was badly polarized. Social Credit held one side and the NDP the other. It had been twelve years, 1975, since Liberal MLAs Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Alan Williams had walked away from their party to join Social Credit, one year after the lone Progressive Conservative MLA Hugh Curtis had abandoned his party to sit with Bill Bennett, the son and heir apparent to long-serving BC Premier, WAC Bennett.   An unwritten agreement by the biggest Canadian political shareholders, the federal Liberals and Conservatives, decided that if British Columbia was to remain a lucrative franchise from a revenue perspective, they couldn’t risk splitting the electoral vote and electing the real enemy, the NDP, so no resources would be used to finance either a Liberal or Conservative party provincially.   “There are two sides to every street,” I was told by a very prominent Canadian businessman who cont

FORSETH: As a BC Conservative member, and campaign worker, I will again state that the fact these errors were found -- AND brought to light BY Elections BC -- shows the system IS working

Sadly, two and a half weeks after the BC provincial election campaign, those who want to undermine our political process are still at.  PLUS, we also have one who doesn’t even live in our country, never mind our province. I speak of the buffoon running for President of the United States, who has poisoned the well when it comes to faith in the electoral process. Just today alone, comments such as the following, were being made of posts that I shared online: ... all the votes they keep finding has just favoured NDP on in all critical ridings and soon they will flip another riding in favour of NDP, Come on. ... Elections BC has ridiculed British Columbians, and I no longer have confidence or trust in their process and competence regarding the results Then there are others online, with comments like these – who are claiming fraud in the October 19th election: ... Who is the oversight for Elections BC? They should be investigated for election fraud! ... Fraudulent election ... should be red

“With the talent and dedication of this caucus we will hold David Eby to account for his government’s out of control spending and ongoing failures in healthcare, public safety and addictions" — John Rustad

Today, John Rustad, Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, proudly unveiled his shadow cabinet, a dynamic team of talented individuals ready to hold David Eby’s disastrous government accountable and present a strong alternative vision for British Columbia. “ Our shadow cabinet is a diverse and experienced group, committed to restoring prosperity, public safety, and affordability for every British Columbian ,” said Rustad. “ With experts in every field, we are focused on delivering real solutions for the challenges our province faces .” Rustad emphasized the historic appointment of Aaliya Warbus as House Leader. The shadow cabinet reflects the Conservative Party’s vision to build a brighter future for British Columbia. The appointments are as follows: Leadership Positions : Aaliya Warbus – House Leader Bruce Banman – Whip Sheldon Claire – Deputy Whip Portfolios : Tony Luck – Municipal Affairs and Local Government Sharon Hartwell – Rural Communities and Rural Development I

Labels

Show more