Veteran Tory MP Might Vote Against

[BC_chick]

Hard to imagine all the whining with all the other things that were given to the provinces in the budget.

Do the Liberals really want to trigger an election over this?

Hard to imagine that your only defense of such an outright deception on two levels - first with the accord, and second with the promise to allow MP's to vote on their conscious - you are blaming the Liberals for wanting to trigger an election instead of defending Harper's actions.

Tell me, if you were an elected MP whose province was about to lose $500mil to $1billion dollars because of a broken promise from your party leader, what would you do?

Seriously, is party-loyalty that important to you that you would go against every grain of your what your conscious tells you to do?

Oh never mind.... I know the answer to this.

[Michael Bluth]

Tell me, if you were an elected MP whose province was about to lose $500mil to $1billion dollars because of a broken promise from your party leader, what would you do?

Seriously, is party-loyalty that important to you that you would go against every grain of your what your conscious tells you to do?

Two false premises to your questions.

Looking at the budget overall there isn't a net loss for Nova Scotia.

If the budget really goes "against every grain" of Casey's conscious why did he support it earlier?

Any real reason why you felt the need to set up such false arguments?

Maybe because there really is no merit to your argument.

[BC_chick]

Looking at the budget overall there isn't a net loss for Nova Scotia.

Um, they're two separate issues.

So I take it if I owe you a $100, and we have an agreement together which will also give you another $10, you won't be upset if I say I'm not going to pay you and I don't understand why you're upset since you're still walking away with $10.

If the budget really goes "against every grain" of Casey's conscious why did he support it earlier?

How does that excuse or justify being told to vote on his conscious and that turning out to be a blatant lie?

[Michael Bluth]

So I take it if I owe you a $100, and we have an agreement together which will also give you another $10, you won't be upset if I say I'm not going to pay you and I don't understand why you're upset since you're still walking away with $10.

False again. Nova Scotia is still better off than they were before the budget.

How does that excuse or justify being told to vote on his conscious and that turning out to be a blatant lie?

When was Casey speifically told to vote his conscious?

You aren't saying that Casey took MacKay's balther after first reading as being told to vote his conscious. Are you?

[BC_chick]

So I take it if I owe you a $100, and we have an agreement together which will also give you another $10, you won't be upset if I say I'm not going to pay you and I don't understand why you're upset since you're still walking away with $10.

False again. Nova Scotia is still better off than they were before the budget.

Oh, I see, so you wouldn't mind me stiffing you on the $100 I owe you as long as you're still $10 ahead. Okay, good to know.

How does that excuse or justify being told to vote on his conscious and that turning out to be a blatant lie?

When was Casey speifically told to vote his conscious?

You aren't saying that Casey took MacKay's balther after first reading as being told to vote his conscious. Are you?

Sorry, you're right, I must've misunderstood something in this quote from MacKay:

“We will not throw a member out of caucus for voting his conscience. There will be no whipping, flipping, hiring or firing on budget votes as we saw with the Liberal government.”

[Michael Bluth]

Nova Scotia has more net money now then they did before the budget.

Your $100/$10 analogy is false and doesn't capture that at all.

So you are saying that MacKay's blather was taken by Casey as a direct instruction to vote his conscious?

You aren't adding anything.

Please try and bring anything new to the thread. If not, then I guess you can have the last word on this one. for the night.

[BC_chick]

Nova Scotia has more net money now then they did before the budget.

Your $100/$10 analogy is false and doesn't capture that at all.

So you are saying that MacKay's blather was taken by Casey as a direct instruction to vote his conscious?

You aren't adding anything.

Please try and bring anything new to the thread. If not, then I guess you can have the last word on this one. for the night.

Make the Analogy 50/50, 90/80, whatever you like. If I owe you money for two separate issues and I stiff you on one and ask for your understanding because you're still "on top" in the end, are you saying you'd be perfectly alright with that?

As for voting on his conscious, you're really stretching.... even by your own standards. Yes, of course it would be assumed that one is free to vote on their conscious if they are promised, in front of the House, that they will not be penalised for it.

[geoffrey]

Make the Analogy 50/50, 90/80, whatever you like. If I owe you money for two separate issues and I stiff you on one and ask for your understanding because you're still "on top" in the end, are you saying you'd be perfectly alright with that?

Hey, if your giving me more than I had before, why would I take issue?

[BC_chick]

Make the Analogy 50/50, 90/80, whatever you like. If I owe you money for two separate issues and I stiff you on one and ask for your understanding because you're still "on top" in the end, are you saying you'd be perfectly alright with that?

Hey, if your giving me more than I had before, why would I take issue?

Because I owe it to you... in writing and separate of the other money.

[geoffrey]

Because I owe it to you... in writing and separate of the other money.

That's silly, don't you think. You'd rather them throw out all the extra money and keep the Atlantic accord.

I'll take more money each and every time. I could care less what I was promised if I end up getting more. Nova Scotia isn't giving anything up really through this, they are just getting more.

Seems silly to make a stink over it. A dollar is a dollar no matter how it arrives. If I get more of them, I'd hardly say that's a broken promise.

[BC_chick]

You'd rather them throw out all the extra money and keep the Atlantic accord.

It's not about what I want, it's about what was promised.

If Harper thinks it's too much, that's something he should've considered before making promises he can't keep. Not hold it against the province he made promises to.

Sorry, but that's just bad leadership.

[geoffrey]

Wow, it's not like me to make that ugly of spelling mistakes... definitely too much wine.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here BC Chick. I stand behind my statement that if you end up better off, I don't see why I'd argue about the details.

It's not very rational.

[BC_chick]

Fine, agreed to disagree.

And regarding the, um, thing. I edited it out. Take it out of your post too... not too many people on board. Nobody has to know.

[gc1765]

Fine, agreed to disagree.

And regarding the, um, thing. I edited it out. Take it out of your post too... not too many people on board. Nobody has to know.

Hey, I saw it! You can't hide it from me!

[BC_chick]

Saw what? I didn't see anything.

[geoffrey]

Hey, I saw it! You can't hide it from me!

Saw what? I didn't see anything.

Good to know someone has my back. Sheesh gc. You were one of my favourites to debate with until that one. Sheesh.

[nbguyca]

Nova Scotia has more net money now then they did before the budget.

By scrapping the signed deal NS had on the accord, they will lose 1 billion dollars over the life of the agreement. They may end up with more in this current budget but in the long run they will get less.

Seems like a bad deal to me for a province that is trying to become more self-sufficent.

[Michael Bluth]

Make the Analogy 50/50, 90/80, whatever you like. If I owe you money for two separate issues and I stiff you on one and ask for your understanding because you're still "on top" in the end, are you saying you'd be perfectly alright with that?

Hey, if your giving me more than I had before, why would I take issue?

geoff, maybe people just don't understand bidness

As long as I'm better off in the end why whine?

[Shakeyhands]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/224019

I sat and listened to Casey yesterday on QP (I think) show where the accord was being changed. Is this a new semantic argument that Harper is raising ? What are the implications if this ends up in court?

[Who's Doing What?]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/224019

I sat and listened to Casey yesterday on QP (I think) show where the accord was being changed. Is this a new semantic argument that Harper is raising ? What are the implications if this ends up in court?

One implication is, before any verdict is reached, that this is going to cost the taxpayers money.

[jdobbin]

What are the implications if this ends up in court?

That the federal government could lose.

[geoffrey]

What are the implications if this ends up in court?

That the federal government could lose.

No, the Federal government won't lose. They'll just honour the line by line accord and take all the extra money on top of it back.

How these people think they can win out of fighting this fight is beyond me. I really don't get it. If someone gives you extra stuff, maybe not exactly honouring your contract but you take home more money and benefits... you don't bitch about it and demand your original outcomes as well!

[Shakeyhands]

What are the implications if this ends up in court?

That the federal government could lose.

No, the Federal government won't lose. They'll just honour the line by line accord and take all the extra money on top of it back.

How these people think they can win out of fighting this fight is beyond me. I really don't get it. If someone gives you extra stuff, maybe not exactly honouring your contract but you take home more money and benefits... you don't bitch about it and demand your original outcomes as well!

but if we take a simplistic view of this, as a court would, an agreement was reached and signed, the province wants the original agreement honoured, from my viewpoint, its pretty easy to reach a conclusion.

I don't hear anyone saying anything else about extra money, with the exception of the usual cast? Am I missing it somewhere?

[Michael Bluth]

but if we take a simplistic view of this, as a court would, an agreement was reached and signed, the province wants the original agreement honoured, from my viewpoint, its pretty easy to reach a conclusion.

I don't hear anyone saying anything else about extra money, with the exception of the usual cast? Am I missing it somewhere?

The court will look at the consideration received.

The Atlantic provinces are better off with the budget. Ergo no harm, no foul.

[Argus]

but if we take a simplistic view of this, as a court would, an agreement was reached and signed, the province wants the original agreement honoured, from my viewpoint, its pretty easy to reach a conclusion.

I don't hear anyone saying anything else about extra money, with the exception of the usual cast? Am I missing it somewhere?

Economic deals are complex. It's hard to get a simple understanding without going through page after page of text and documents. Here is the clearest I have read of what Danny Williams, for one, is whining about.

During the 2006 federal election, Williams wrote the leaders of the three major parties, asking for their positions on a variety of federal-provincial issues. This was Harper's reply on equalization: "We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenues from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada."

What the Conservatives delivered in the federal budget was more complex than that. After months of talks the premiers had failed to reach a consensus on equalization, so Ottawa gave them a choice.

In the case of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, they could stick with their Atlantic Accords, with 100 per cent of oil and gas revenues sheltered from equalization clawback and no cap on payments once they reach Ontario's fiscal capacity. Or they could opt for the new formula with 50 per cent of all non-renewable resource revenues sheltered, but with a cap.

In the words of Harper, "promise made, promise kept."

Williams disagrees.

"That's the spin that the federal governments are going to put on it," he says. "The status quo is fine and that's the Atlantic Accord and that's what you've got. But that's not what we were promised."

The premier says a literal application of Harper's promise would have excluded all non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization calculations, and that would have done two things,

One, on top of the protection for oil and gas in the Atlantic Accord, nickel revenues from Voisey's Bay and iron ore revenues from Labrador West would also have been sheltered from equalization clawback.

Two, those revenues would have been sheltered forever, not just until the accord expires in 2012 or 2020.

So what it seems like the argument is about here is not that Harper isn't honoring the Atlantic Accord, but that he isn't honoring the interpretation Williams put on his promise to exempt them from taxes on all resource industries forever.

Atlantic Accord disagreement

Screw Williams, if that's the case.