IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2005s-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

La réforme fédérale proposée de la péréquation : le mauvais remède pour l'un des organes vitaux du fédéralisme fiscal canadien

Author

Listed:
  • Luc Godbout
  • Suzie St-Cerny

Abstract

This report was generated in the framework of consultations by the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing. The study first presents a brief history of equalization and the evolution of its main parameters. The principal issues are discussed next, in particular the volatility of equalization payments, the integration of certain revenue sources, and the revision of standards of comparison. Certain impacts springing from these issues are also illustrated. By analyzing the evolution of equalization over the past ten years, the authors illustrate that gaps between the Canadian provinces in fiscal capacity have become more pronounced while the impact of equalization has decreased. The new equalization framework ensuing from the federal offer of 2004, including the existence of several specific bilateral agreements, is also analyzed. The authors conclude that the new framework must be abandoned and that a reform of the equalization program that respects the initial goals is required. In particular, a return to the ten-province average is recommended, along with backtracking on the fixed global envelope of equalization. Other recommendations address adding a smoothing mechanism and doing away with bilateral agreements. Cette étude a été réalisée dans le cadre des consultations du Groupe d'experts sur la péréquation et la formule de financement des territoires. Elle présente d'abord brièvement l'historique de la péréquation et l'évolution de ses principaux paramètres. Puis, les principaux enjeux sont discutés, notamment la volatilité de la péréquation, la révision de certaines assiettes et la révision de la norme de comparaison. Certains impacts liés à ces enjeux sont aussi illustrés. En analysant l'évolution de la péréquation au cours des dix dernières années, les auteurs illustrent que les écarts de capacité fiscale se sont accentués entre les provinces canadiennes pendant que, de son côté, l'impact de la péréquation diminuait. Le nouveau cadre de la péréquation découlant de l'offre fédérale de 2004, incluant l'existence de plusieurs ententes bilatérales particulières, est aussi analysé. Les auteurs concluent au rejet du nouveau cadre et à la nécessité de réformer le système de péréquation en gardant les objectifs initiaux. Il est en particulier recommandé de revenir à la norme des dix provinces et de faire marche arrière en ce qui concerne l'enveloppe globale fixe de la péréquation. D'autres recommandations concernent notamment l'ajout d'un mécanisme de lissage et la fin des ententes bilatérales.

Suggested Citation

  • Luc Godbout & Suzie St-Cerny, 2005. "La réforme fédérale proposée de la péréquation : le mauvais remède pour l'un des organes vitaux du fédéralisme fiscal canadien," CIRANO Working Papers 2005s-27, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2005s-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2005s-27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    equalization; fiscal capacity; federal government; fiscal imbalance; federal transfers; provinces; Quebec; standard of comparison; capacité fiscale; déséquilibre fiscal; gouvernement fédéral; norme de comparaison; péréquation; provinces; Québec; transferts fédéraux;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H27 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Other Sources of Revenue
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2005s-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.