It's in the nature of any equalization program that the provinces with greater fiscal capacity will transfer some of their resources to the provinces with less fiscal capacity. Alberta, to its credit, will probably continue, under whatever system we adopt, to be a net contributor in the way many other provinces will not.
Having said that, I do want to underline a point that's already been made by my fellow presenters. The formal equalization program is not necessarily the way we need to give expression to what section 36 of the Constitution says. In fact, you could do a very good job of equalizing resources among the provinces if the federal government were to collect money with the taxes it deploys, which are sensitive to income, and redistribute it on an equal per capita basis. Something of that sort happens with the Canada health and social transfers, but there are strings attached, particularly in the health transfer, and the equalization program ought not to have such strings attached.
I know I'm describing a very different system from what we now have, but when you look at how the formal equalization program has changed over time with various caps related to overall GDP and certain provisions put in place to make sure that certain provinces do not become equalization recipients when otherwise the formula would have made them eligible, I think it's fair to say that this program is not very fit for purpose.
I'll repeat what I said earlier: There's nothing in the logic of intergovernmental transfers or theories of federalism that dictates we should have the current set-up, so I think the equalization program is due for a revamp. It could be to the advantage of both the contributing provinces and also some of the recipient provinces, because there is a bit of a welfare wall clawback, as I'm sure members of this group know. When provinces take steps to increase their own revenues, they get penalized by the program. I think it would be worth looking at formulas that would not have that effect.