Running a province is complex. Turning around (or stabilizing) one of the worst economies in Canada is complex. Perhaps that "monumental" task should be undertaken. Surely the province can develop a framework on how monies are allocated regionally. Likewise, as with any academic endeavour, notes about how determinations are made in a subjective fashion (and alternative interpretations) can be included - and later debated. Until that data is available, there is no certainty to what degree we are funded, either under or over. What is certain is that our regional economy is one of the worst performers, that a large set of economic indicators point to a great disparity comparing the two largest municipalities, and that this disparity challenges the intent of the Federal Equalization programs investment in the province ("reasonably comparable services for reasonably comparable levels of taxation"). I'm not sure there are much better cases than Cape Breton that compel this type of comprehensive assessment.

I don't know Joe. What you're proposing sounds to me like another in the long string of efforts to cast Cape Bretoners as victims, to place responsibility for Cape Bretons's future well-being on some real or imagined Injustice. Something the world has done to us. Something the world owes us. We went through that for 20 years over the tar ponds, embroiling the community in an ugly, destructive debate, at precisely the time when the community needed all its energy and creativity to figure out how to make our way in the world after coal and steel. This is a poor province with many needs and few revenue sources. Do you really think the roads are better in Yarmouth, or the hospitals better in Amherst? Do you really think we'd be better off without a more or less healthy urban center in Halifax? Rural areas throughout Canada, throughout the world, have a lot going against them, Cape Breton more so than most. If there's a solution to those problems, it has to be found here, with the hard work and talents of people who live here. It's not going to be solved by casting blame or imagining that Halifax is conspiring against us. That is a completely unproductive road to go down.

Joe, if you want to see where this kind of thinking leads, Kandi Douglas's charming comment via Facebook, below. Does anyone really think the island is going to progress with that kind of approach?

I don't think anyone would recommend that our political leaders take the communication approach of many (if not the majority) of web commenters, though I still believe every comment has some value embedded with them, even if simply a measure of the degree of discontent (or even misunderstanding). There's always lots of noise disrupting the signal. But I think there's a signal here conveying valid data, sufficient to justify a much deeper look.

Parker, it seems Kandi Douglas was a fake profile created on Facebook and we have now banned the profile and comment from goCapeBreton.com

Check your speakers, the signal coming through must be distorted, because it's not what I intended. :) What I've just recommended was analyzing data. I didn't use the word "victim". There is a distinct possibility that available resources are not being applied effectively, and it's possible that even the term "fairly" may be quite appropriate if the funds are not being allocated as they were intended. If there is uncertainty as to whether it's "real" or "imagined", or somewhere along the spectrum, then good data is the starting point of making that determination. Turning our economy around is going to require a multi-faceted approach. But what strategist would ever ignore a potential source of considerable resources to be had? There's no incentive to play the game handicapped if that's unnecessary. As your chart pointed out, a basic commitment would be to simply increase the transfer, particularly as it's been frozen, but also reflecting your inflationary adjustments. I don't think to double it to $64 Million, province-wide is out of reach. I think the province shares many of the challenges that Cape Breton municipalities face, though many of these can and are measured quantitatively, and they are not consistent across the board. I also do not advocate for making a less healthy urban centre like Halifax, though if it's proven that more provincial resources (disproportionately so to a great degree) there than in another population centre like the CBRM, then there should be a correction. If we were playing a video game, we might just decide to withdraw all resources from outlying territories and concentrate them in the area demonstrating the greatest area for growth. But we can't do so. So we're left with the challenge of strategically determining how we can keep other municipalities from declining and (long-term) failing. Let's start with the data.

Yarmouth and Amherst are being under funded at the same rate as the rest of us.Amherst receives 1,260,382 when it should be 19,661,956 and Yarmouth,rural and town combined receive 857,845 but it should be 13,382,382

You are assuming that every cent of federal equalization should be passed on to municipal governments. The province should spend none of it. Municipal governments should get it all. With respect, that's incorrect. It is not what the Constitution says. It's not what the various federal-provincial agreements on the equalization funding formula say. It's not what any federal Government has ever asked for. And it's not what any other province or territory does. So there is no legal, constitution, historic, or moral basis for your claim that Amherst "should" receive $19,661,956. Do have-not municipalities get enough support from the province? I don't think they do. The $32.05 million fund was small to begin with, and it has been frozen for more than a decade, so it's buying power is reduced with every passing year. But lots of very worthwhile programs in the province could use more money. There is tremendous competition for funds. CBRM is hurting the cause by making demonstrably false demands for a share of federal equalization funds proportional to our share of the population. It should instead make common cause with other municipalities and lobby for an increase in the fund.

Please don't misquote me.I said 26% of the transfer should be divided up between these communities.That still leaves 1.5 billion for the province to do with as it sees fit

Where did you say 26%? What is the basis of that number? Your "should get" numbers are 15.6 times the actual numbers. Why? Also, you sidestepped the main point. There is nothing in the constititution that says municipalities should get all of the equalization transfer—or 26% of it, or any of it—to spend themselves. Where do you get this idea? It has no basis in law, in policy, or in the practice of any other province. Please explain.

Do you think it's a lack of resources or poor management of funds?

If you had to guess, what would you say Halifax has/does to make them prosperous? Starting from most to least when considering economic success? I worded this badly. It's mind boggling. Ok. They have population = more tax base. Other than that, why does Halifax prosper so much better than the rest of the province, and our climate is the same. Is is momentum? What?

It's a really good question, and a much better starting place for this discussion then misrepresenting equalization.. I'm no expert, but I'll offer a few possibilities. All over the world, rural people are moving to cities. They want the jobs cities offer. They want the opportunities, the amenities, the bigness. Cape Breton is battling a powerful worldwide trend. Halifax is the commercial center of the province and of the region. It is also the seat of government. The provincial government is there. Regional Offices of federal departments are there. Most of our universities are there. All of our teaching hospitals are there. Head offices of Nova Scotia companies are often in Halifax. Regional Offices of national companies doing business in Atlantic Canada are there. The armed forces are in Halifax. I'm sure I'm leaving some out. These are huge advantages to Halifax's economy and they are a magnet for people throughout the region to move there. I think it would be really useful for Cape Bretoners to think seriously about how we can make ourselves an attractive place for people to live and work. I don't think whining and stomping our feet and misrepresenting Federal Equalization is helpful. I don't think falsely marketing Sydney as "the worst toxic waste site in Canada" was helpful. Those things don't make people in other parts of Canada or Nova Scotia want to live here. One thing we could do is to work harder encouraging the international students who pass through Cape Breton University to stay here after they graduate. We complain bitterly about our young people moving away but we barely lift a finger to encourage the young people who study here to stay. We are battling powerful worldwide forces. It's not going to be easy. But this equalization campaign isn't helping at all.

Parker, I'm not on either side of this issue (yet) as I'm still hoping someone provides validated data ... so I'm trying to learn, but regarding your two thoughts ... (1) It would not be a monumental task, but even if it was, there are countless number-crunchers in the government getting paid very well to do this exact thing. They seem to have enough time to (badly) crunch numbers that torpedo good programs (like Film Tax Credit, Digital Media Tax, etc.) so they should be able to find the time to do some better work. (2) Positive attitude (ie, not being a "victim") alone does not fix bridges, build roads, finance startups, put food on the table, etc. Money does that. If you don't mind me saying, I read your Equalization article with interest, hoping I would find some real numbers but was disappointed to only find an opinion piece with no real data.

With respect, Mathew, it kinda sounds like you ARE on one side of the issue. Be that as it may, what sort of data were you looking for? The main point of my article was that the claim constantly advanced by the equalization fairness people, that Cape Breton receives only $15 million of the $1.8 billion Nova Scotia receives in Equalization, is demonstrably a false. Surely the onus for providing data ought to lie with those who have built a movement movement based on a false claim. I know a lot of people really really want to believe the Cape Breton''s problems come from our being discriminated against by Halifax. But when the only evidence they can offer is the false claim that we get only $15 million dollars out of $1.8 billion received from Ottawa, they're off to a poor start.

Check the NSEF.ca site and click on documents.The historical equalization allotments are listed

The government gets1,838,000,000.They distribute 32 million between 42 communities.That leaves the province with1,804,000,000.(95%) I fail to see the EQUALITY in these numbers.

The only reason our province qualifies for these equalization transfers is because of the economic disparity in these 42 communities.26% of this equalization payment(477,880,000)shou.ld be distributed in these communities.But instead only 32 million is.I guess 74% isn't enough for the provincial coffers

Would you say it's demonstrably false, if the statement was, either: Taking all provincial revenue sources into consideration, including the large annual Federal Equalization transfer, Cape Breton gets a disproportionately lower per capita amount of provincial spending/investment? or Taking all provincial revenue sources into consideration, including the large annual Federal Equalization transfer, Cape Breton gets an insufficient level of provincial spending/investment to achieve the criteria of having a "reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation"?

I know of no evidence for the first statement. (It could be true in some years, although from 1967 to 2000, Cape Breton received more than its proportional share because of the vast sums spent on the Steel plant. Similarly for the years from 1984 to 2012, when hundreds of millions were spent cleaning up the tar ponds.) In the narrow context of the municipal equalization program, I'm inclined to agree with the second statement, although I wouldn't phrase it that way, because singling out federal equalization is misleading and only serves to incite envy. But whether it's true or not depends entirely on what "reasonably comparable" means. I'm really curious, Joe. Why you continue to cling to the canard that we're being treated unfairly under federal equalization? I have demonstrated that, although the two programs both have the word "equalization" in their names, they have nothing to do with one another. Federal equalization doesn't require what people are asking for, no province uses it that way, the proposition that CBRM is owed a share of federal equalization literally couldn't get to first base in court, despite $1,000,000 squandered on a Toronto Constitutional lawyer. In comments on my post, people have called me a draft dodger, they have commented on my face, they have asked for massive audits, and complex, utterly subjective comparative accounting. But not one commentator has written a single word that refutes my main point: the claim that we are owed a share of federal equalization is a lie. So why do you cling to it?

For the first statement, lacking the evidence (i.e. data) is precisely what I've stated several times today. We need to see the data to make an objective determination. Your agreement with the second statement didn't really require the exception since I indicated that *all* provincial revenue sources (including but not limited to Federal Equalization funds) be considered in total. There are some other considerations which I'll indicate below. If we don't feel confident that we understand what "reasonably comparable" means, then we should make sure that we get Federal and Provincial clarification so that we can evaluate the standard (including contesting it). Imagine distributing and spending $1.8 Billion, with poor results, and no standard of evaluation of outcomes, despite the magnitude of Canadian taxpayer expenditure. What I assert is: in respect of the size of the Federal Equalization transfer as provincial revenue, and the lack of achievement of its intended objective (reasonably comparable services/levels of taxation) in all parts of the province, that there is a strong likelihood that municipalities such as the CBRM are being underfunded in terms of all sources of provincial expenditures/investments/transfers. Further, that in order to make such a determination, we require the data and an analysis that shows the amount of expenditures/investments/transfers broken down by the region/municipalities in which they are spent. Further, that Federal Equalization can be compared at a per capita distribution, but that its objective is not about equal distribution "per capita", but instead a sufficient allocation in all areas of the province that results in reasonably comparable services/levels of taxation. Further, that economic indicators within each municipal unit within the province are the key performance indicators upon which the success of provincial handling of the Federal Equalization transfer should be evaluated.

That's the part we agree on, Parker -- that $15 million versus $1.8 billion is not the right way to frame this. This is why I'm asking for real numbers that show how much of the billions in transfer payments is used to support the 50 municipalities in the spirit of federal equalization. I certainly accept that the math is too complicated to be exact, but surely the province can do some work to provide reasonable broad strokes so we all know where we stand. Maybe Cape Breton is actually getting more than its share. Or not. I don't know. But I do know that it's a provincial responsibility to show us the numbers ... and for all municipalities. See I'm not on one side of the other :-)

Mathew, point taken. But the "spirit of equalization" is not to "support the 50 municipalities." It is to support PROVINCIAL programs, of which the municipal equalization fund in only one small part. How, exactly, would you do what you are proposing? Is funding for the IWK Halifax money? There is no question it's spent in Halifax and it employs hundreds of highly paid workers in Halifax. But my grandson is currently being treated at the IWK this very day. One of my sons was treated there dozens of times, with advanced life-saving treatments. I'm beyond grateful that it's there, and I'd be horrified to see any of the money it receives diverted to CBRM council because someone with no understanding of equalization squawks incessantly about "fairness" and "Birthrights" and all the other inflammatory rhetoric Fr. Maroun uses. Many programs benefit the entire province. Many others are spent in particular areas because that's where they apply. Truro doesn't get a lot of money for fisheries. Yarmouth doesn't get spending for coal mine inspectors. Cape Breton doesn't get funding for a symphony orchestra. There would be so many subjective judgments required, and if it didn't show that Cape Breton had been cruelly short-changed, the NSEF crowd would simply reject it.

Ten years ago, a Supreme Court Judge refused to hear John Morgan's doomed constitutional challenge about equalization funding. Normally NS courts bend over backwards to give citizens their day in court. Only the most frivolous are rejected before trial. But the judge ruled that Morgan's suit had "no chance" of success. Morgan's response? "What else can you expect from a Halifax judge?" The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with the judge, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal the ruling. Along the way, Morgan squandered something close to a million dollars on a Toronto lawyer pursuing this case. That money could have been spent on real programs that actually benefited CBRM. It could have paved roads, filled potholes, bought fire trucks, and repaired community halls. Instead it was squandered on a naked attempt to boost Morgan's popularity by playing the Cape Breton victim card. This has got to stop. It is long past time for Cape Brtetoners to call out those, like NSEF, who inflame people with false claims.

We cannot demonstrate the claim is false, without the data. Otherwise, there is no basis to make a determination one way or another. The claim that it is true has an advantage in that the disparity in economic indicators throughout the province are symptomatic. This does not sound like a dismissal as a "frivilous" lawsuit: "In a written ruling issued Friday, Chief Justice Michael MacDonald stated that while the court recognizes that CBRM suffers from economic disparity, neither municipalities nor citizens have the right to sue the provincial government over alleged disparities in equalization payments." You're demonstrating outcome bias when you mention the ~$1,000,000 cost. That's a small loss in the context of what would have happened should Mayor Morgan and the CBRM have prevailed.

No, you can demonstrate it is false by reading the Constitution. I really don't enjoy arguing with you, Joe, because, to paraphrase Monty Python, "the automatic gainsaying of your opponent's position is not an argument." I've tried to listen respectfully to everything you've said, and I've tried to respond thoughtfully. But it's as if you haven't listened to a single thing I said. Either that or you're too proud to concede the tiniest point. It makes for a very boring discussion.

Hi Parker, I appreciate you sparking the discussion, giving your take, and allowing everyone to respond. I've read everything you posted, and although I don't agree with several aspects of what you've said, you have made some reasonable points. My replies were specific enough about each of your comments that it was clear I was paying attention, unless the infinite monkey theorem is responsible for that happening randomly. Ha ha :) I think you'll enjoy this video as much as I did: https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y :)

Parker now rights creative writing pieces in which he intentionally misrepresents facts, adds irrelevant information. Don't engage him, his ego loves it when he gets attention!

Just because the court refused to hear that matter doesn't make it right. If this is your argument it falls on deaf ears. The ploititians of Nova Scotia KNOW the equalization funds are shared disproportionately, yet you continue to argue that it holds no fact. Tell me, what steak to you have to work against the communities getting more of the equalization money?

Agree. The NESF group jas been able to get these numbers up to about 2013. Now they are hidden. The question I ask is why? Tje only reason people keep secrets is to hide the truth. I think there's much more here than some people want to admit.