New Atlantic Deal More Than Fair

[jdobbin]

Why is it ok to quote all the reports out of Ontario based media but when a non-partisan think0tank based in Atlantic states a position on th issue, it is a blatant attempt to smear the government?

And attempt to offer a critique of Harper policy is a smear against the government and a victory for terrorism.

[hiti]

Deflection from the cons with the talking points they are forcing the faithful to parrot will not distract from the real issue......

The issue was whether or not Steve lived up to his word or not and if not, would that have a negative financial impact on the province. The answer to those questions are clearly No, he didn’t keep his promise and Yes it will have a negative financial impact on Newfoundland and Labrador.

Study show that while Newfoundland and Labrador may make some gains under the new formula, it will still be far worse off than if Stephen Harper had done what he had led the people of Canada to believe he was going to do, worse off to the tune of $5 billion dollars or more.

This is lies, this is hypocrisy, considering the broken promise Harper delivered to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in his March 19 budget.

PROMISES MADE, PROMISES BROKEN!!!

Here are the options for NFL and NS.

1. Maintain the Status Quo as set out in the 2005 Atlantic Accord contract;

2. Adopt the new equalization formula with 50% of non-renewable resource revenues excluded but capped at Ontario’s fiscal capacity;

3. Adopt the new equalization formula with 100% of non-renewable resource revenue included, also capped at Ontario’s fiscal capacity.

"The prime minister himself stated in this House on October 26, 2004, that when it comes to the Atlantic accords, there is 'a moral obligation to keep these promises: no caps, no clawbacks, no limitations, no conditions, no big exceptions in the fine print,"'

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/cponline/.../A33362022.html

[hiti]

Why is it ok to quote all the reports out of Ontario based media but when a non-partisan think0tank based in Atlantic states a position on th issue, it is a blatant attempt to smear the government?

And attempt to offer a critique of Harper policy is a smear against the government and a victory for terrorism.

Don't you mean a victory for the Taliban?

Betcha Osama bin Ladin is behind Danny Williams being so rude to Steve.

[hiti]

PROMISES MADE! PROMISES BROKEN!

God bless Hansard. Here’s what Deceivin' Steven was saying about the Atlantic Accord and election promises less than three years ago...

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 022

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 4, 2004

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) moved:

That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers' Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.

He said: Mr. Speaker,I will be splitting my time with our deputy leader from Central Nova.

On June 5 of this year the Prime Minister arrived in St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland and Labrador. The context was the following. Obviously it was an election campaign when the Prime Minister was asked to respond to a longstanding Conservative commitment to ensure that the Atlantic provinces would enjoy 100% of their non-renewable resource royalties.

This is a commitment that was made by me in my capacity as leader of the Canadian Alliance when I first arrived here and has its origins in the intentions of the Atlantic accord signed by former Prime Minister Mulroney in the mid-1980s. These are longstanding commitments, our commitment to 100% of non-renewable resource royalties. It was our commitment during the election, before the election, and it remains our commitment today.

For the Prime Minister, this was something that he had opposed for 11 years and for most of his political career. But suddenly in the midst of an election campaign on June 5, he met with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams. He came out of that meeting and said the following:

"I believe that Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be the primary beneficiary of the offshore resources, and what I have said to the premier is that I believe the proposal that he has put forth certainly provides the basis of an agreement between the two of us."

Premier Williams specified in a letter dated June 10 that:

'The proposal my government made to you and your Minister of Natural Resources provides for 100% of direct provincial revenues generated by the petroleum resources in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, to accrue to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and be sheltered from the clawback provisions of the equalization formula--'

The Prime Minister said he agreed with the Premier's proposal and he gave his word as Prime Minister of Canada. Premier Williams was asked at the press conference announcing the deal how he could be sure the Prime Minister would keep his word after the election. He replied that as a man of honour, that the solemn word of the Prime Minister was sufficient. Premier Williams said: “It's by word of mouth, and I'm taking him at his word, and that's good enough for me”.

Unfortunately, the solemn word of this Prime Minister turned out to be not good enough. The Prime Minister ignored letters from Premier Williams on June 10, August 5 and August 24 urging him to confirm his promise. Suddenly, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Natural Resources fell silent.

Finally, on October 24, two days before the first ministers' conference, the Minister of Finance finally replied offering:

--additional annual payments that will ensure the province effectively retains 100 per cent of its offshore revenues--

Then the minister added two big exceptions limiting the offer:

--for an eight-year period covering 2004-05 through 2011-12, subject to the provision that no such additional payments result in the fiscal capacity of the province exceeding that of the province of Ontario in any given year.

The eight year time limit and the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign.

Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? Remember in particular that these are in any case non-renewable resources that will run out. Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario?

The Ontario clause is unfair and insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its message to that province, to Nova Scotia and to all of Atlantic Canada is absolutely clear. They can only get what they were promised if they agree to remain have not provinces forever. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Everyone in Canada would be happy if one day our Atlantic provinces could fully benefit from their natural resources, everyone except the federal Liberals.

The Liberal attitude is as typical as it is senseless. There is no point pulling back non-renewable resource revenues from a have not province. This is an opportunity and it is a one time opportunity. It is a short term opportunity to allow these provinces to kick-start their economic development, to get out of have not status, to grow this short run opportunity into long run growth and revenue that will be paid back to Ottawa over and over again and that will benefit the people of those regions of Canada for a very long time.

This is what happened in the case of my province of Alberta. Alberta discovered oil and gas in the 1940s and 1950s, Alberta was a have not province. From 1957 until 1965, Alberta received transfers from the equalization program. Alberta was allowed to keep 100% of its oil royalties and there was no federal clawback. This is what allowed Alberta to kick-start its economy, to expand and diversify, to build universities, to advance social services and to become one of the powerhouses of the 21st century Canadian economy.

Of course the Liberals expended endless effort to limit the growth of Alberta's revenues, culminating in the experience of the national energy program. Now we see already, with this opportunity in Atlantic Canada, the same attempts to limit the opportunity. The Prime Minister's Ontario cap effectively limits the maximum benefit of the offshore resource to $452 per person in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. After that, every dollar will be clawed back by Ottawa, no matter how many billions the offshore resource turns out to be worth.

The Prime Minister, before he was here, was president of a company that largely depended on offshore activity. Does he not understand that energy resources are finite, temporary and a short term opportunity? The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia should be allowed, indeed should be encouraged, to improve the living conditions of their citizens and to use this to attract new long term businesses to replace the temporary opportunities provided by the offshore resources.

Instead, when the Atlantic provinces rejected the latest federal offers, the caps, the limits and the exclusions, the government engaged in a clumsy divide and conquer tactic, a tactic which gave away its obvious objective of holding back the development of the Atlantic provinces. It has tried to negotiate with one province and not the other, but both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have made clear that their positions are the same and that they want to be dealt with fairly and at the same time.

Whether we live in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta or anywhere else, we are all Canadians. We all have a right to a better future. That future is not for the Liberal Party to decide to speed up or to slow down, to start or to stop. It is not to negotiate. The Prime Minister gave his word. The terms of his proposal were clear. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia requested and were promised 100% of their offshore revenues without equalization clawback, period. There is nothing to negotiate.

What is at stake is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have not status that has bedevilled them for decades. What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister, and all he has to do is keep his word.

http://tinyurl.com/2tyn2p

[geoffrey]

Again, the provinces can keep the previous agreement. Are you all that dense or are you being deliberately deceptive.

[hiti]

Again, the provinces can keep the previous agreement. Are you all that dense or are you being deliberately deceptive.

PROMISES MADE! PROMISES BROKEN!

[geoffrey]

Again, the provinces can keep the previous agreement. Are you all that dense or are you being deliberately deceptive.

PROMISES MADE! PROMISES BROKEN!

Oops. I forgot the third choice. Having not passed the intellectual level of which you just babble phrases you hear in your immediate environment.

Exactly how do you break a promise to exclude resources when they have the ability to exclude resources by choice?

I really don't get it. You people must seriously have your heads so far up your ass that reason beyond a partisan catch phrase can no longer be seen.

[Argus]

Again, the provinces can keep the previous agreement. Are you all that dense or are you being deliberately deceptive.

PROMISES MADE! PROMISES BROKEN!

Oops. I forgot the third choice. Having not passed the intellectual level of which you just babble phrases you hear in your immediate environment.

So many of the people on this site now are nothing more than childish, petty ideologues who have no substance to their posts.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Why is it ok to quote all the reports out of Ontario based media but when a non-partisan think0tank based in Atlantic states a position on th issue, it is a blatant attempt to smear the government?

And attempt to offer a critique of Harper policy is a smear against the government and a victory for terrorism.

Don't you mean a victory for the Taliban?

Betcha Osama bin Ladin is behind Danny Williams being so rude to Steve.

Steve who, do you know this Steve personally or are you always this rude to everyone

[nbguyca]

I'm not surprised at the Toronto media's reaction to the Accords, etc.

It certainly hasn't translated into popular support for the Tories in Ontario though given the last Decima poll.

Hmmm, given the issue broke this week it makes sense that a poll released today wouldn't factor in people's feelings about the issue.

Is that a blatant attempt to smear the Government?

Defintely not fostering debate at all.

I suggest you try www.rabble.ca

Why is it ok to quote all the reports out of Ontario based media but when a non-partisan think0tank based in Atlantic states a position on th issue, it is a blatant attempt to smear the government?

Still waiting for an anwer to this question.

[Canuck E Stan]

Why is it ok to quote all the reports out of Ontario based media but when a non-partisan think0tank based in Atlantic states a position on th issue, it is a blatant attempt to smear the government?

Okay how about another think tank from Nova Scotia-The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.

New accord broken in Nova Scotia's favour: AIMS

Ontario would be getting twice as much equalization money as Nova Scotia if the system were fixed, according to a local think tank.

The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies released a report yesterday saying the new system is broken in Nova Scotia's favour.

"Despite it being called an equalization program, it doesn't really make things equal at all," he said.

The report concludes that if cost adjustments were made, Ontario would be in line to receive almost $3 billion in equalization.

[NovaScotian]

"The report concludes that if cost adjustments were made, Ontario would be in line to receive almost $3 billion in equalization."

Ontarians are always looking for a handout!!!!

As for AIMS, it is only good in small doses.

[Canuck E Stan]

Ontarians are always looking for a handout!!!!

Not really,Ontario is just wanting to keep some of it's own "have province" cash in their own province instead of sending it to the formally "have not provinces" in Maritimes.

[NovaScotian]

Ontarians are always looking for a handout!!!!

Not really,Ontario is just wanting to keep some of it's own "have province" cash in their own province instead of sending it to the formally "have not provinces" in Maritimes.

It should however be noted that 70-75% of the equalization budget goes to non-Atlantic provinces.

[Canuck E Stan]

It should however be noted that 70-75% of the equalization budget goes to non-Atlantic provinces.

All of them are have-not provinces.

The Maritimes is in the money now, and by rights should be paying their own way and not receive anything.

The same way as Alberta and Ontario who give and do not receive any equalization money.

[Michael Bluth]

It should however be noted that 70-75% of the equalization budget goes to non-Atlantic provinces.

So that means 25 to 30% of the equalization budget goes to the Atlantic provinces.

A region of the country with about 8% of the Canadian population.

Yup seems fair to me.

[NovaScotian]

It should however be noted that 70-75% of the equalization budget goes to non-Atlantic provinces.

So that means 25 to 30% of the equalization budget goes to the Atlantic provinces.

A region of the country with about 8% of the Canadian population.

Yup seems fair to me.

Not exactly fair math.

25%-30% of equalization budget goes to 20% of the equalization receiving population of Canada.

[sharkman]

Bottom line, the main reason all of these premiers are whining about equalization is because of the budget surplus. Just as a cat will come running and rub hair all around your legs when he hears the can opener, the premiers are loudly mewing, trying to outdo each other and score cheap political points with their voters by bashing the Feds. Politicans are so predictable. Harper needs to open a can of whup ass.

[jdobbin]

Federal provincial relations are about as poor as they were in the Trudeau era. Either Harper continues his attacks or he finds a way to make peace. It is a fight that will cost him dearly with a minority government.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/06...265342-sun.html

Nevertheless, Harper needs to brush off the insults, roll up his sleeves and sit down with these premiers and their finance gurus and see where the misunderstandings and bad feelings come from. Maybe some tweaking is in order.

[geoffrey]

Not exactly fair math.

25%-30% of equalization budget goes to 20% of the equalization receiving population of Canada.

Don't worry. We in Ontario and Alberta understand how much more of our money goes to pay for Quebec's socialist wonderland.

I thought equalisation was meant to level the services offered by each province. Interestingly, Quebec has more variety in social programs (all underfunded and poorly managed) then anywhere else.

They also get to play with private health care consequence free more than any other province as well.

Hmmm... I think we've found the reasoning why equalisation is being adjusted.... the province that benefits most from resource inclusion is Quebec.

[Michael Bluth]

Not exactly fair math.

25%-30% of equalization budget goes to 20% of the equalization receiving population of Canada.

Even with your "fairer" math it's still not very fair.

[jdobbin]

John Crosbie weighs on the Conservative policy.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Newfoundlander and former federal Tory finance minister John Crosbie thinks the current Conservative government is making a big error in its handling of the offshore resources issue.

"I'm a Conservative and I intend to continue to support the Conservative government for many reasons, but here they've made a mistake," Crosbie told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live on Tuesday.

Crosbie helped push the original Atlantic Accords signed back in 1985 and 1986 when he was a cabinet minister in the Progressive Conservative government of then-prime minister Brian Mulroney. The previous Liberal government had won a court battle entitling it to control of offshore resources.

[geoffrey]

The cap limiting payouts to less than Ontario's revenues is reasonably.

No sane person (other than Danny Williams, but I question the sanity) can claim that the Maritimes should received equalisation from Ontario when they are richer.

In fact, lets do that in Alberta! Send us your money! We deserve it because we say we do!

[jdobbin]

The cap limiting payouts to less than Ontario's revenues is reasonably.

No sane person (other than Danny Williams, but I question the sanity) can claim that the Maritimes should received equalisation from Ontario when they are richer.

In fact, lets do that in Alberta! Send us your money! We deserve it because we say we do!

Somehow this is not very convincing to Atlantic Tories like Crosbie.

[geoffrey]

Somehow this is not very convincing to Atlantic Tories like Crosbie.

If representation was equal in Canada, we likely wouldn't even be caring about what Crosbie is yapping about.

The bottom line is that the fair choice to the majority of Canadians is to cap the Maritimes from being richer than the rest of us, yet still getting equalisation.

If you disagree, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say your a blind partisan. A reasonable person understand that equalisation means reasonably equal, not Alberta and Ontario paying for everyone else to have more money than they do.