So the Liberal feds make a dumb agreement to buy the ever attractive Maritime vote and the CPC feds tear it up. I suspect this will lose the CPC a few seats down East but it was and remains the right thing to do. I only wish Harper showed this much spine on a few other issues.

So he should also rip up the 1930s agreements that gives western provinces the same rights over natural resources? That is quite an admission, Jay.

We might want to make this a group project: I am just about certain that the so called Atlantic Accord had to do with oil and gas resources found in Canadian territorial waters outside the jurisdiction of the provinces in question. And I am quite certain that transfer payments were not in issue in the 1930's as they were only invented in the 1950's.

All just jurisdictional choices. How deep is the right to oil on your land? And were transfer payments the only benefit in being Canadian?

In the instant case the feds ceded part of their right to revenue from the offshore oil and gas which was pretty clearly on their land. The transfer payment piece is about the Maritimes wanting their oil revenue and their transfer payments even if they become "have" provinces. The Liberals were delighted to buy some votes by saying yes, the CPC recognized that this was simply wrong and have repudiated the bribe.

Alberta acquired 53.7 million hectares of mineral rights from Canada in 1930 by virtue of the
Natural Resources Transfer Act. The details of why the feds chose to do this need not detain us, (it was certainly not to hand over the oil - the oil was not discovered in quantity until the late 1940's), the fact is that they did. they could have done the same thing with respect to the mineral rights to the offshore, the fact is that they didn't.

What is in issue here is whether the folks in Nfld and NS should be entitled to double dip. The Libs were just fine with double dipping as long as on one of the trips to the trough the Maritimers remembered to vote Grit, the CPC don't like the double dipping and are willing to offend to have an end of it.

One of the few laudable things I've seen the "New" Government do. (Generally it is looking pretty old to me but then I look at Kyoto's master and dispair.)

You confusedly consider the vertical profoundly different from the horizontal. That one aspect of interests in land was transferred in the 1930s and a lesser interest (a <i>profit a prendre</i> of sorts) was transfered in recent years should not confuse you. It may not because only that confusion allows you to consider this a double dip despite two equally legally binding documents (though to be fair I think we agreed somewhere in the past that the Atlantic Accord was never fully processed) and who semi-jurisdictions getting different treatment from central authority. I would suggest that if the oil were in Quebec or Saskatchewan, not one conservative would be in favour of the current state of affairs. It is merely the neat juxtaposition of the heartland with the windfall after others invested in the development of the province pre-oil that makes the principle so charming.<p>[By the way, I deserve an award as my last previous post was made at a public institution on a computer with a dead keyboard. Cutting and pasting has many charms.]

I'll switch over to the new thread in a moment (and type blindfolded with one hand tied behind my back in the interests of fairness).

My point about the double dip is not about the legality of the agreements vis a vis land rights or revenue share; rather it is about the fact that Nfld and NS get to keep their transfer payments regardless of how much revenue their revenue share brings in. In effect, the Atlantic Accord as negotiated by the Liberals, gives NS/Nfld the right to entirely exclude the resource revenues from the calculations of their eligibility for transfer payments. (It is the rough analog of a person on welfare being allowed to have a $3000 a month job without his benefits being cut so long as he votes Liberal.)

I am delighted that NS and Nfld are participating in the revenues as most of these resources could not be exploited or transported without access to onshore facilities in those provinces. And when we drill the Hecate Strait between the Charlottes and mainland BC I look forward to a similar arrangement for BC. But I've no doubt that those resource revenues need to be counted in the general revenues of the province. (And yes, I do know that the CPC Budget fudges this and I am not happy about it.)

Note: a Liberal exclusion of revenue is the same as a Conservative exclusion of an expense to Alberta - the freedom of the oil patch to comply with health reguations over emissions.<p>And the analogy is not apt. It is the welfare person not having to sell his house and live on the proceeds before applying for state assistance.

I used my nose to type that one above.

Things are not even safe in the heartland for our rural overlords:<blockquote class="smalltext">Despite Alberta's booming economy, a poll recently found Tory support declining across the province, especially in Calgary. Many residents are concerned that Mr. Stelmach, who hails from rural northern Alberta, doesn't understand their needs. They point to his cabinet, which is light in Calgary representation and heavy in its rural ranks, and the recent budget, as proof the party has turned its back on the province's biggest city.</blockquote>