Did Harper break a promise?
Yes.
Has anyone shown the financial impact on the province?
Nope.
That's a set of facts the provincial government isn't talking about.
Are there things the Premier isn't talking about besides that?
Yes. Take this excerpt:
The Premier also agrees that for now there is no cap on the Atlantic Accord. But the province will be forced in the near future to take the same alternative as Nova Scotia was forced to take in their budget last week which results in a cap on its accord revenues.What the Premier didn't say is that he's referring to the point when the provincial government goes off Equalization, i.e. becomes a so-called "have" province.
That's a cap built in to the 2005 offshore Equalization offsets deal.
or consider this bit:
The Premier also pointed out that contrary to some commentaries recently Newfoundland and Labrador in fact contributes greatly to the Canadian federation, in particular as it relates to natural resource revenue.Note the conditional language; the federal government "could take in."
“Over the life of our three existing offshore oil projects, projections indicate the federal government could take in approximately $20 billion on those projects, and several billions of dollars on the Voisey’s Bay project,” added Premier Williams. “These are just two examples of the contributions our province make to this federation; contributions which greatly assist the federal government in delivering important programs and services to the Canadian people.”
Ok. Well, over the life of the projects - upwards of two decades - it likely will hit that number.
What about the provincial take?
Well, you won't hear those figures from the provincial government.
Provincial government revenue from the offshore isn't convenient when you have been busily spreading the myth that that every single development deal ever done before October 2003 was bad, that we always gave away our resources.
And for the record, the federal revenue from economic activity in Newfoundland and Labrador ran at about $4700 per person in 2004. Federal transfers to the provincial government, to individuals and to companies ran at about double that in the same year.
The Premier is right. Newfoundland and Labrador does contribute tremendously to the country.
It also reaps tremendous benefits.
Just as well to acknowledge the facts.
The question is how the province can grow and thrive in the future.
People certainly can't support good policies if all they have is a selective presentation of "facts" in a government news release.
We sure won't get anywhere with a pointless war of words with the federal government.
-30-
7 comments:
What promise was broken in 2007 federal budget?
*sigh*
The federal commitment in 2004 or 2005? Which version do you want?
Do you want to discuss the statements, as made, or would you like to discuss the implicit commitment - indicated by the criticism of the various "side-deals" - that there would be one single Equalization system that was fair to all?
Hmmmm?
It really doesn't matter about promises, broken promises or anything else.
The point is that no harm has been demonstrated. I would contend that the resulting situation for this province is exactly what was intended by the 2005 deal and the outcome will be functionally the same. The province will cease qualifying for Equalization in three to four years and then will adopt whatever Equalization system is in place at that time.
That is exactly the situation that obtained in 2005.
Now, let's just wait for Wally or Mark to enter the fray and discuss other allegedly broken promises that weren't in fact broken either.
Fine fine.
It's just that I've reviewed every policy document, platform and speech from the CPC from 2004 through to 2007. I see no evidence of the promise that Danny vaguely alludes to that was supposedly broken. Yes, there were promises on Equalization, net effect of any reform on provinces, the 5 versus 10 province standards, different treatment [exclusion] of non-renewables, and Accord Revenues (once Accord II existed);
Obviously the CPC promise owuld have to be taken in the context of what existed at the time. By Feb 2005, there was a specific time-limited accord that was endorsed and signed off on by the province and which the CPC agreed to honour in full and protect.
Once a government was elected that apparently promised and agreed-to Danny's preferred one-off offset accord system, then the pressure became focused on achieving that and then perhap other reforms to the system after and in addition to that.
After that point where the accord II arrangement came to exist, Equalization reform would obviously be in that context, with that accord honoured . . . and that was precisely what happened in budget 2007.
At no point, however, was there any promise to ban Newfoundland and Labrador from ever again being assessed to determine whether or not it needs equalization, as Danny Williams claims. such a promise does not exist.
I think you are correct about the 2005 deal. Though I'd say Equalization system have been reformed in a way favourable to NL as compafred to that system which was fully accepted by Danny Williams as the post-Accord reality back in 2005 when he inked the Accord II arrangement.
Don't get me wrong. I admire the level of detail you have provided and the evident research you compiled in your lengthy post of your own.
I just wanted to make a much shorter argument that I think still winds up in the same spot.
Frankly, when I read the "please show me the broken promise" line I had to double check to make sure it wasn't Mark or Wally who'd written it. I laughed and trust you took any comments about that in the friendly good humour with which they were intended.
This has been a great thread. I'm all for partisan politics, but I really do feel that Williams is playing too loose with the facts on this one. He does a great disservice to the country by feeding this type of federal provincial animosity without at least having the facts on his side.
Of course, Happy, this is the second time the Premier has tackled the same issue in the same way: without facts.
Post a Comment