The new equalization: from all, to all

Everyone thinks he can improve on equality. Everybody’s got a better idea. Locke and Hume and Mill might have been all right in their day, but that doesn’t mean we can’t help them out a little, with our finer appreciation of the complexities of modern life. Naive, undomesticated types who cling to the ideal of equality in its original sense, as equal treatment, are sent away with an indulgent smile and that quote about the law forbidding princes and paupers alike from sleeping under bridges. Well, we certainly can’t be accused of that, can we? Not in this country, where every case is special and every circumstance is unique -- unique, not in the way that other circumstances are unique, but in a uniquely unique way that makes it an exception to all the other exceptions. Consider, for example, our constitution. Whereas Section 15 of the Charter proclaims that every citizen has equal rights and is entitled to equal benefit of the law, by the next line we’ve already begun to think better of it: under Sect. 15.2, governments may continue to treat their citizens unequally, as long as their motives are good. Or even if they aren’t: the notwithstanding clause allows governments to override the most basic human rights, including the right to equality, for any reason whatever. Or rather, some people’s rights. The override does not apply to language rights, or to aboriginal rights, or to “Canada’s multicultural heritage.” Nor does it apply to women’s rights: after a prolonged squawk, a clause was added to the Charter stipulating that, although sexual equality is already guaranteed under Sect. 15, it should be guaranteed a second time, notwithstanding notwithstanding. And so it continued: After the Bourassa government’s initial proposal to add the “distinct society” clause to the preamble of the Constitution, the Parti Quebecois objected that this would give it less interpretive weight than the aboriginal and multicultural exceptions, which are in the body of the Constitution. So it was moved, with predictable results: every other identity group scrambled to ensure that the rights of the distinct society did not trump its own. At the height of the insanity, during the Charlottetown debacle, Kim Campbell was explaining that the virtue of the accord was that it reflected everyone’s vision of the country -- simultaneously -- including yet a third declaration of the equality of women and men. Lately we have begun to apply much the same approach to federal-provincial relations. At last fall’s “health care summit,” Ottawa agreed not to hold Quebec to the same conditions as the other provinces, justifying this in the name of “asymmetric federalism.” The significance of this may be debated, since a) the conditions the other provinces agreed to are meaningless and unenforceable, and b) Quebec actually agreed to much the same conditions, just not on the same piece of paper. Nevertheless, an important principle was established, and the principle is: There are no principles. In case there were any doubts, we were hastily assured that the same offer was available to all the other provinces. Symmetrical asymmetry, if you follow. The same, er, principle was at work at the subsequent equalization conference, at which it was agreed that equalization would no longer be about equalization: rather than allow these transfers to dwindle as provincial revenue bases grew more equal, a floor would be placed under them, together with an escalator clause. The agreement with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that suddenly has everybody up in arms should be seen as more a refinement of this concept than a departure. When it has already been established that the “have” provinces must continue to redistribute funds to the “have-nots” regardless of whether there are any have-nots to redistribute to, it is only a short hop to the idea that they should do so even when the have-nots have more than the haves. But now that it is apparent that equalization is governed by no principle whatever, any position can be made to seem reasonable. Saskatchewan, which thanks to the recent surge in oil prices is already a “have” province (keep up), is demanding the same deal as Newfoundland. As is New Brunswick. Also British Columbia. And Quebec? They’re protesting at the singling out of one province for special treatment: a “sweet deal,” Gilles Duceppe calls it. Does that mean that Ontario, which pays for much of the equalization program, is calling on Ottawa to tighten the taps a little? Not on your life: the province’s premier now says its grief can be assuaged with, oh, let’s say $5-billion. But since this money, too, comes disproportionately from its own citizens, this amounts to a demand that Ottawa should transfer money from the province’s right pocket to its left -- minus shipping and handling. To which the Prime Minister replies: We already are. Look at the money we pour into the auto industry. Not only that, but the money Ontario pays the other provinces “enables the great manufacturing heartland of the country … to benefit from a very large domestic market for its products.” Of course! Pay people to buy what you’re selling them! Why didn’t I think of that? This is the bold new future the Prime Minister promised us? It is traditional for every province to believes it is paying more into Confederation than it is taking out. Under Mr. Martin, it will be the reverse: henceforth, every province will take out more than it is paying in. Income will be redistributed from every province to every province. Those provinces who have difficulty paying will be eligible for a special tax abatement, to be funded by a levy on all the others, who will in turn be reimbursed out of a one-time relief fund, to be financed out of a tax on.… This being the 40th anniversary of the current Canadian flag, it is perhaps worth recalling in this context the late Sen. Eugene Forsey’s proposed design: ten jackasses stripping the leaves off a single maple tree.