Jay and I have been discussing the Atlantic Accord and likely both been making errors all over the place but none as silly as the ones likely being made in the political forum these days:
"I am concerned about this allegation we've broken the [Atlantic] accords...We have done no such thing. It's a contract. We don't break contracts. We respect contracts. Normally, I expect, if someone says you've broken a contract, they are going to follow that up by going to court to make you abide by the contract. But I don't see that happening...We can't let that allegation stay out there forever. At some point we will consult tribunals ourselves, if that's necessary, to get a ruling on our respect for the contracts." The political dare was met with scorn by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald, who said they will not be drawn into legal battles that would only deflect their criticisms of the recent federal budget...So you have the leader of the country daring other leaders into a court case over a legal principle that probably does not exist. Classy or troubling?Stephen Scott, a professor of constitutional law at McGill University in Montreal, said the Atlantic Accord is a political arrangement, not a contract, so a lawsuit could not be used to force the federal government to uphold its provisions. But, he said, the premiers could go to their own provincial appeals courts to get orders declaring how the agreement should be interpreted.
But to what political end? Where is a seat one with this approach? Maybe rural Alberta, itself the beneficiaries of the greatest non-reimbursable Federal windfall in Canadian history, will now vote 75% Conservative instead of 70%. But what is a Conservative government without seats in Atlantic Canada? Unless, it takes Ontario - nothing. Is there now a practical resignation to the reality of minority government?
Comments
Hans - June 12, 2007 9:22 AM
What I find funny is how Harper is positioning himself as the Great Federal Centralist in relation to the poorer/weaker provinces while previously having positioned himself as the Great Anti-Centralist in relation to the stronger provinces of Alberta and Quebec.
While playing this game in public helps Danny and Roddy in their home provinces, Harper has obviously seen the polling numbers in the rest of the country and doesn't mind rattling the sabres. For whatever reason (probably related to votes) and at whatever risk, Harper doesn't seem to care a fig about the wishes of Atlantic Canadians. Talk about assymetrical federalism: "Quebec, you're a nation in a united Canada; Nova Scotia, sue me or shut up."
I would recommend that these premiers take their fight out of the papers and possibly underground.
Gordo - June 12, 2007 9:55 AM
Surely you jest, Alan. "Grown-ups"? snort
Jay Currie - June 12, 2007 3:51 PM
I suspect, politically, Hans has nailed it. Sure Harper would have to throw MacKay under the bus but MacKay might be headed in that direction in any case with the ever strange (and rather likable) Ms. May running without Liberal opposition for the seat. As for the rest of the Maritimes? Who needs them?
The CPC won all of 9 seats in the region in the last go round. They have now fired one member of caucus and look to lose a couple more. But in the grand scheme of Canadian electoral politics even a minor breakout in Quebec would compensate for the complete obliteration of the Tories (and I use the term advisedly) in the Maritimes.
Running against double dipping is likely to make the CPC sound fiscally prudent and in favour of equal treatment of all the provinces. No bad thing especially if the government is prepared to otherwise transfer jurisdiction to the provinces as this one seems to be.
(I rather doubt that this will have any impact at all on CPC fortunes in rural Alberta or the Bible Belt of BC or the burbs of TO. "Transfer payments", "federal provincial jurisdiction", "constitutional challenge" are the soporifics of Canadian electoral politics.)
Hans - June 13, 2007 8:43 AM
Moreover, I half suspect that this is all an orchestrated show. Everyone looks tough in their core/home constituency but it is a drama full of sound and fury ultimately signifying nothing.
Alan - June 19, 2007 4:37 PM
On the uniqueness of the alleged double-dipping, see this note from the Senate Committee today:<blockquote class="smalltext">Senator William Rompkey (North West River-Labrador) said denying the Atlantic provinces resource revenue and equalization payments would relegate them to have-no status forever. "This is a window of opportunity for us ... this is a life preserver for us," Rompkey told the committee. Rompkey pointed to the fact that <b>Alberta was allowed to receive both revenue streams back in the 1950s and, as a result, became a "have" province.</b> Flaherty argued that under the new equalization formula, the provinces will receive $39 billion over seven years. </blockquote>Is the 39 billion net?
Jay Currie - June 19, 2007 5:23 PM
It would have been a short period in the 50's as equalization was introduced in 1957. However, the point was that as the resource revenue rose the entitlement to equalization shrank. Which makes sense. However, the Atlantic Accord basically said that as resource revenue rose it would be ignored regardless of whether it put NS and Nfld in the position of "have" provinces. Which is nuts.
Alan - June 19, 2007 5:28 PM
Well, I think you are really against equalization as with the clawback there is now equalization and the local natural resource get easten up out east without local benefit whereas out west the windfall continues.