Evidence abounds that taking money from one group and giving it to another does not work. Redistribution is the basic belief of Marxism, socialism, and liberalism and appears in various forms. Instead of solving problems of inequality it prevents the problems being identified or resolved, and those responsible being held accountable.
Canada now has the most expansive and generous, redistribution of wealth system, in the world. We call it equalization, and it started in 1957 to give residents of every province the same per capita revenue as those in the two wealthiest provinces, British Columbia and Ontario. It was determined using personal, corporate and inheritance taxes. In 1982, it was included, by an amendment to the constitution, through the Canada Act.
Wikipedia describes how “equalization payments are based on a formula that calculates the difference between the per capita revenue yield that a particular province would obtain using average tax rates and the national average per capita revenue yield at average tax rates.” Provinces are designated ”have” or “have not” if they receive payments or not.
Ontario was a “have” province from the start, but that changed in 2009-2010 when it became a “have not” province. In that year Newfoundland and Labrador, a “have not” province from the start, became a “have” province. The current “Have” provinces are Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan. The common denominator is they have all developed their oil, gas, and energy resources.
Ontario was a “have” province when Maurice Strong was appointed Chairman of Ontario Hydro in 1992. In that same year he chaired the “Earth Summit” of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), in Rio, at which the concepts of global warming, as a threat to the planet, were formalized. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) objective was designed to produce scientific proof that human CO2 was causing global warming.
We know the IPCC failed because every prediction they ever made was wrong. But that did not stop governments adopting green energy policies. Strong did it in Ontario with devastating results. Michael Moles was one person very aware of what Strong was doing:
“Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.”
Moles realized what was going on at Hydro and paid the price. Like most who dare to ask questions he was fired. You can read more about his story and discover why free speech is a myth. If it were true we wouldn’t need whistleblower protection.
Strong used Ontario to apply his green energy policy and, as always, the people pay the price. Even more troubling, it was completely unnecessary, because, for the last 19 years, global temperature leveled and declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. The cold winters of recent years made the costs even more damaging.
Ontario’s leaders knew about the failure of green energy policies at home and in other countries yet they continue to pursue them. The negative impacts of Strong’s policies grew as a 2010 Toronto Sun headline warned, “Expect a 46% hydro rate.” David Suzuki’s interference in McGuinty’s re-election likely guaranteed the continuance of Strong’s policies.
Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government continues the destructive policies because the real costs are masked by Federal Transfer payments. In 2009 – 2010 Ontario received $347 million in transfer payments while Newfoundland received nothing.
Ontario leaders avoid reality while pursuing even more damaging policies. They reject fracking, clean coal and development of nuclear power. Wynne now rubs salt in frozen wounds with a proposed “carbon tax”. Why do people keep voting for those who promise programs that are proven failures? Thomas Jefferson provides part of the answer:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
George Bernard Shaw identified another reason for the practice: “A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.” The Canadian equalization scheme aids and abets them by removing incentive to change. It protects governments from accountability for their failed policies and perpetuates socialism that fails whenever it is tried.
Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.