Anyone trying to buy a house in Vancouver compared to buying one in Regina or St. John’s, quickly realises that a dollar goes a lot farther in some parts of the country than others. Ditto for an employer trying to hire workers in Fort McMurray compared to hiring that same worker in, say rural Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Yet Canada’s equalization program, and the recent Expert Panel’s report that recommended enriching that program, both wrongly assume that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar anywhere in the country, at least in terms of its purchasing power. In this special Commentary Series, produced in the wake of the Expert Panel’s report, AIMS examines how this flawed assumption produces perverse results for the country, unfairness for taxpayers and unequal access to public services that favours equalization-receiving provinces. To read the first Commentary in the series, Why Some Provinces are More Equal than Others, click here. 
To read the third Commentary in the series, The 100 Percent Solution, click here.
To read the fourth Commentary in the series, Still More Equal than Others, click here.
The AIMS Commentary Series has attracted the attention of media across the country. Click on the links below to read some of the stories written in response to the Commentaries.
- Finally, a limit on Ottawa’s Robin Hood act – Neil Reynolds in The Globe and Mail
- A high price tag for our civil service – The Guardian
- How have-nots are more equal – Nigel Hannaford in the Calgary Herald.
- Some are more equal than others – Lorne Gunter in the National Post.
- Over-equalization: Comparing apples to apples – The Telegraph-Journal.
- Some provinces are more equal than others – The Globe and Mail.
- In the catbird’s seat – Gerald Flood in The Winnipeg Free Press
-
AIMS suggests new approach to non-renewable resources – The Telegraph-Journal