Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Equalization payments aren’t just controversial in Alberta anymore! Ontario poll shows overwhelming negative view

Published

4 minute read

News release from Fairness Alberta

POLL: VAST MAJORITY OF ONTARIANS SAY EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS ARE UNFAIR

Fairness Alberta calls for $8 billion rebate for Ontario

Fairness Alberta has released a poll showing 73% of Ontarians believe ever-growing Equalization payments are unfair given the narrowing wealth gap between provinces since 2015.

The poll, from a weighted survey of 1,000 Canadians recently conducted by the Toronto firm One Persuasion Inc. (MoE +/-3.1%), showed a large majority of Ontarians said it is unfair that Equalization payments rose 23% since 2015, making Ontario’s share of funding the program equivalent to roughly $2400 per family of four (see bottom). Opposition to the status quo on Equalization was highest in the 905 region of suburban Toronto.

(To see the full results of the poll click here)

“Ontarians have been funding unfairly high Equalization payments for others while their own provincial government was struggling to pay for services even before COVID-19,” said Fairness Alberta Executive Director Dr. Bill Bewick.  “Given the collapse of the wealth gap between provinces, the so-called ‘have’ provinces should get the share of Equalization that came from their taxpayers rebated until we achieve meaningful reforms to federal-provincial funding.”

As Dr. Bewick outlined in the National Post, even a 50% rebate would mean a bump to provincial budgets of $4 billion in Ontario and $1.5 billion being returned to B.C. and Alberta as their provincial responsibilities come under strain.

“The $21 billion-and-growing price tag for Equalization is totally unnecessary and unaffordable given how much more equal provinces have become since 2015,” added Dr. Bewick. “This isn’t just an Alberta problem. Ontario, B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland make up nearly 70% of Canada’s population and it has become obvious that the program is unfair to all of them.”

A recent study by Ben Eisen and Milagros Palacios illustrates the “Great Convergence” in provincial fortunes since the 2015 energy downturn. While the gap between the median ‘have’ and ‘have not’ fell from $5000 per person in 2015 to only $1600 in 2020, Equalization payments grew 23%. With increases tied to national GDP rather than need, a $20.9 billion windfall is going to 5 provinces (with less than 1/3 of the population) in 2021.

About Fairness Alberta:

Fairness Alberta is a grassroots, non-partisan, and non-separatist association of concerned citizens, aiming to increase awareness across the country about Albertans’ disproportionate contributions to Canada, while also providing clear, factual information on unfair federal policies that will further undermine the prosperity of Alberta and other contributing provinces.

Fairness Alberta previously released analysis and recommendations for reforms to Equalization and the Fiscal Stabilization program, with an overview of fiscal federalism as well at www.fairnessalberta.ca.

Previous releases, interviews, columns, and two presentations to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance can be found in the NEWS section of our website. For more information on Fairness Alberta, its mandate, and future plans, please visit our website at www.fairnessalberta.ca.

For further information or to arrange interviews, please contact:

Bill Bewick, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Fairness Alberta
Cell: (780) 996-6019
Email: bill.bewick@fairnessalberta.ca


*per-province calculations based on provincial contributions to general revenue proportionally applied to the $20.9b spent on Equalization in 2021.  Source for per-province shares is this Library of Parliament document: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201701E

Alberta

ASIRT investigations concluded on fatal officer-involved shooting involving the RCMP.

Published on

Incident investigation report from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

Introduction

On December 22, 2022, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Police Act to investigate a then non-fatal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting. The shooting of the affected person (AP) was reported to have happened during an interaction with him, as a result of him being a suspect in a complaint of a man with a gun.

While AP initially survived, he died of complications from the shooting the following day.

ASIRT’s Investigation

ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols and principles relating to Major Case Management. Information from civilian witnesses, the subject and a witness officers, and importantly video recordings provided sufficient information to determine whether the force used by the subject officer during this incident was reasonable.

Circumstances Surrounding the Officer-Involved Shooting

On December 01, 2022, Maskwacis RCMP received a call reporting that a male [AP] had been drinking and left the caller’s house with a gun. AP was shooting the gun in the country (believed to be the area around the residence). Two RCMP officers responded.

Witness officer (WO) located AP walking on the road with a rifle. AP walked toward WO’s marked police vehicle with the rifle pointed at the vehicle/WO, while WO was seated in the driver’s seat. WO then exited his vehicle with his carbine rifle and moved to the rear of his vehicle while AP kept the rifle pointed at the police vehicle. The subject officer (SO) arrived on scene, but came from the opposite direction. AP turned around and walked toward SO with the barrel of the rifle pointed upwards. SO exited his police vehicle with his service pistol drawn and walked toward AP while he
repeatedly provided verbal direction to AP to drop the firearm. AP and SO were walking toward each other; at that time AP still had the barrel of the rifle pointed upward. As SO and AP got within approximately five meters of each other, AP lowered the barrel of the rifle and pointed it directly at SO. SO fired multiple rounds and struck AP with four rounds causing AP to stumble, drop the rifle and fall to the ground. AP initially survived the shooting and was transported to an Edmonton hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery. The following day, AP succumbed to his injuries.

Analysis

The subject officer was lawfully placed and acting in the execution of his duties in dealing with AP as a person who was the subject of a complaint about him being in possession of a firearm and shooting it off.

The Use of Force

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for the execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection.

A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight.

With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently. That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses.

Proportionate Response

Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds. Here, the subject officers were faced with an individual that was armed with a gun and pointing it in their direction. As such, the response by the subject officers in using their respective firearms to shoot AP was proportionate to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm that he reasonably posed to both of them.

Reasonably Necessary

As set out previously in this report, AP presented as a lethal threat to both SO and WO given his actions in pointing his rifle at them. While WO did not shoot during this incident that does not impact the analysis of SO’s actions. Under the circumstances as then faced by SO, no other use of force options were reasonably available for attempted use. The use by SO of his firearm to incapacitate this lethal threat was reasonably necessary. Given the above, the defence available to SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code would apply.

Conclusion

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code a police officer is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so. Force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm is justified if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the force was necessary to prevent the death or grievous bodily harm of the officer and/or any other person. The analysis under s.34 of the Criminal Code leads to a similar finding that subject officer’s actions were lawfully permitted.

After a thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officers, it is my opinion that they were lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of their duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that any officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. The force used was proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta requests more control over provincial immigration system

Published on

Alberta is requesting more control over its provincial immigration to address its skilled workforce shortage, including increasing Ukrainian evacuee participation in the job market.

Premier Danielle Smith has written a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asking him to re-evaluate his government’s decision limiting the number of allocations for Alberta’s provincial nominee program in 2024. Last week, the federal government informed the province it would only receive 9,750 such allotments – which is the same number of allocations Alberta received in 2023 and is less than the 10,140 for 2024 the federal government had originally allocated.

As of February 2024, Alberta accounts for just under 12 per cent of Canada’s population, but it leads the nation in net employment growth, with 42.8 per cent of the country’s employment gains between January and February 2024. By not providing the requested increase to Alberta’s provincial nominee allocations, the federal government is restricting the province’s ability to keep up with its growing labour market demands, especially as it relates to integrating Ukrainian evacuees into Alberta’s job market.

“Alberta is growing and that is good news. Since January 2023, more than 100,000 new jobs have been created in our province and our employment rate has led the country even longer. At the same time, we continue to experience labour shortages that could be resolved by welcoming skilled workers from around the world, including evacuees from Ukraine, many of whom have the exact skills that our job market most needs. Alberta has long been the economic engine of Canada and we are once again requesting Ottawa respect section 95 of the Constitution and let us welcome the skilled individuals we need into our province on our terms.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

With Alberta’s population growth at levels not seen in four decades, Alberta’s Provincial Nominee Program is best placed to address the province’s unique immigration and economic goals.

Part of Alberta’s population growth has resulted from Russia’s invasion in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Since that time, Alberta has welcomed a significant number of Ukrainian evacuees to the province. While it is anticipated that many will return to Ukraine following the war, Alberta is also expecting a number of families to apply for permanent residency via the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. An increase in the number of allocations from the federal government would assist these new Albertans to fill positions in the province’s workforce.

“Immigration is key to Alberta’s ability to address labour shortages and to grow our economy. This limitation imposed by the federal government on our provincial nominee program will be a very difficult pill to swallow, not only for businesses that need this skilled labour but also to the many Ukrainian evacuees who have the skills we need and wish to stay permanently in Alberta.”

Muhammad Yaseen, Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism

Quick facts

  • The federal government through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada sets provincial immigration nomination limits. It also approves all permanent resident applications.
  • Alberta maximized its 9,750 nomination allocations in 2023, with a total of 10,029 nominations issued within the federal government administrative buffer.

Related information

Continue Reading

Trending

X