TQM said:
Technically, he is upholding the letter of the accord.
I believe that that is technically false.
From the accord:
Recognizing that the obligations intended to be assumed by the Government of Canada, as outlined in this document, will require legislation, the Government of Canada will seek legislative authority from Parliament that will authorize additional payments to provide 100 per cent offset against reductions in Equalization payments resulting from offshore resource revenues.
You are trying to spin that as per this statement the province of Newfoundland maintains its 100 per cent offset. On the new plan, though, there is an impact on the percentage offset (one harmful to Newfoundland - but only harmful in comparison to some of the other provinces). That is, with the new plan there is the de facto appearance of a lesser offset for Newfoundland, given the increases to the other provinces.
I’m not trying to spin anything. I’m just trying to explain the issues to you as you don’t seem to understand them. Under the changes, Newfoundland is free to stick to the old rules, as they have decided to do. Thus, they are free to keep getting handouts even through they now have a fiscal capacity that is greater than Ontario’s. They are no worse off in comparison to other provinces as no other province with a fiscal capacity greater than Ontario is entitled to ANY equalization. Therefore, they are better off than any other have-province. Thus, you are just plan incorrect.
TQM said:
The other provinces didn't complain when Newfoundland was given the 100 percent offset - it seemed like the right thing to do. But more to the point, there was no de fact violation of any clause, as there is here.
You are completely wrong here. Other provinces did object and immediately demanded the same treatment, but did not get it. If you use Google, you should come up with plenty of references to Saskatchewan’s objections to not getting the same treatment. In fact, the way the formula worked out, at the marginal Sask’s equalization payments were effectively being clawed back at over 100% (this is because they were part of the 5 province standard and hence an increase in their oil revenues increased the 5 province standard, making them even worse off than a straight dollar-for-dollar deduction. However, I won’t borrow you with the details as I doubt if they are important to you).
Regarding Martin’s changes, I have no idea how anyone could possibly say that “it seemed like the right thing to do”. From the point of view of the country, it was a very stupid move.
TQM said:
I wouldn't presume to predict how a court would decide the matter, but it's foolish to think there isn't the makings of an interesting case here.
Well, I will presume to predict how the courts will decide the matter regarding NL and NS. Even if the federal government had broken the accords, it would not matter. The accords are not a contract. Contracts commit both parties to an exchange of actions (DQ can likely give you a more detailed explanation, I believe lawyers would use the term “consideration”). The Accords do not require NS or NF to do anything in exchange for favourable treatment from Ottawa. Hence, constitutional legal experts think that the courts will have to conclude that the accords are simply a statement of government policy. Governments are allowed to change policy as they like. Don’t forget, the courts have already made a similar ruling regarding the pledge Ontario’s premier signed with a tax lobby group during the last provincial election. However, technically, he has not broken the accords to begin with, so they have even less of a case.
As far as Sask is concerned, their premier has only asked the government’s legal people to investigate the possibility of taking this to court. It is hard to imagine any grounds they could have that would be successful. It is likely just a publicity stunt. The provinces tried the same thing when the federal government introduced the GST. Although the constitution actually says that only the federal government has the power of indirect taxation (sales taxes), the provinces actually took the feds to court for what must have been a publicity stunt.
TQM said:
Harper's dare was an act of extreme stupidity, and it will cost him at the polls.
I won’t predict the effect it will have on public opinion, but in terms of the merits of the case, it is good policy. I’m sure that you would realize this if you understood the issues involved (normally, I would not be so blunt, but as you are blunt with others, I’m sure you won’t mind me being honest with you). Whether it is good politics, I don’t know. Time will tell. It may cost him his three Newfoundland seats (although I lived in Hearn’s riding through two federal elections and he was pretty popular, so I would not discount his getting reelected). However, it is unlikely that three seats would affect the outcome of a federal election.
