The Equalization Fog: Alberta, Confederation, and the Constitutional Racket in Canada
A Nation on Uneven Ground
While King Charles III prepares to address Canada in a show of continuity and unity, what he won’t mention is that the country he speaks to is more economically divided than ever—and the rift is written into law. Canada’s Equalization Program, long trumpeted by the framers of the Constitution Act of 1982 (who I know personally and who read my stuff) as a noble act of national solidarity, is in fact a politically weaponized mechanism that systematically penalizes productive provinces like Alberta and subsidizes fiscal irresponsibility elsewhere. A regressive dependency loop that any dope can tell you how it will end.
The Political Ritual of Redistribution
The Equalization Program, enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1982 under Section 36(2), is supposed to ensure all provinces can offer "reasonably comparable" public services at "reasonably comparable" levels of taxation. In practice, it creates perverse incentives: rewarding provinces with weaker economies while stunting the fiscal potential of provinces that innovate, produce, and generate.
Consider this: Alberta has not received a single Equalization dollar since 1965. Yet Albertans contribute billions more annually in federal taxes than they receive in services.
Equalization is funded from federal general revenues—but the majority of that revenue is generated in high-productivity jurisdictions like Alberta. The net result? A reverse reward system where effort is taxed and inertia is subsidized, and where Ottawa's size and policy influence grows non-linearly with Liberal-infused policy rationales for new areas of federal government activity that have no constitutional basis. Even when I was studying at Fudan University in Shanghai, my finance professors would ask with all seriousness in perfect 上海話, "why do you retard your economy?"
"The size of the Canadian public service once again requires attention. Despite the government belatedly acknowledging the need to restrain the growth of the federal bureaucracy, more decisive action is required," says Conrad Eder, Associate Researcher at the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), which estimates that restoring pre-Trudeau public service levels could save $10 billion annually by 2029. Yup, easy, and that's just a peek at the expenditure reduction side. You should see what I've modelled for deadweight loss, productivity regression, and lost net revenue due to fiscal policies that have stagnated the entire economy and produced the worst socioeconomic conditions in recent Canadian history. Dead stop.
No Budget, No Plan, No Accountability
Mark Carney’s incoming government has already made headlines by confirming there will be no federal budget until after the next throne speech. There is no plan, only ceremony. While Parliament postures, the public service remains bloated, pipelines are stalled, and productive sectors are politically marginalized.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the delay, saying, "There is no road map forward, no economic vision and no willingness to lead. The failure to table a budget in this moment is not just an oversight — it’s a betrayal of workers and families across the country." Carney will drone on about our stolen “middle-class tax cut" today, but he's doing it only to extract the brand damage value for his Party; hence the 1% which doesn't impact the revenue potential of Ottawa that much (they'll spend spend spend), and gives them a line about tax reduction, but still manages to cost by my estimates $160 million – $365 million CAD (one-time cost) for total systems changes from legislative changes to tax compliance training in industry. This excludes the ongoing revenue loss from the tax cut itself, which could be $10–15 billion annually, depending on bracket specifics and economic behavior changes.
The Crown as Constitutional Restraint, Not Rubber Stamp
The monarchy in Canada is meant to symbolize continuity, unity, and constitutional restraint. But when our head of state visits in the middle of a budget vacuum—and without demanding fiscal clarity or accountability—it raises an urgent question: Are we misusing the institution as a political distraction rather than as a moral compass?
To be clear: a throne speech without a plan is manipulative. It courts legitimacy through heritage while evading accountability through policy and administrative law.
Alberta: A Case Study in Confederation Capture
Alberta’s energy wealth, economic dynamism, and entrepreneurial spirit have made it a net contributor to Confederation for decades. Yet it is systemically penalized under the Equalization framework:
Equalization is calculated using hypothetical fiscal capacity, not actual revenue.
Resource revenues are only partially included, often to Quebec’s benefit.
Political will blocks new pipelines, while federal transfers fund other provinces' green experiments.
The message is clear: contribute more, get less.
As the National Post recently reported, Mark Carney's cabinet contains more MPs from Brampton than from Alberta and Saskatchewan combined—a geographic imbalance that speaks volumes about the priorities of Ottawa.
Equalization Is Not Neutral
Contrary to its branding, the Equalization Program is not apolitical. It is deeply tied to federal electoral calculations. Provinces that consistently receive equalization payments also tend to vote Liberal. The result is a fiscal system that doubles as a political machine, underwriting partisanship with Alberta's money.
What Comes Next?
Demand fiscal transparency. If there's no budget, there should be no throne speech.
Reopen the Equalization formula. Alberta must refuse to be Canada's ATM.
Resist symbolic distractions. Ceremonial gestures are no substitute for economic stewardship.
The constitutional promise of opportunity has become a federal racket. For Albertans, for Conservatives, for all Canadians who believe in fairness and fiscal sanity, it’s time to reframe the debate.
Let His Majesty visit the Dominion. But let us not be ruled by illusions.