coughbullshitcough

This story on Equalization contains two ludicrous premises for the price of one.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams says negotiations to give Nova Scotia more time to decide whether it should opt into a new equalization formula may be an attempt by Ottawa to pit the two provinces against each other.

First, it assumes that there is some value for the federal Conservatives in "splitting" Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador over the Equalization ruckus.

They aren't really together to be split, for one thing.

But really, the comment assumes that Newfoundland and Labrador is so important to the current federal administration that they would actually invest time and energy in developing a "split" strategy. (Danny Williams isn't really that important either. No provincial Premier ever is. But I digress)

They don't need a strategy.

The provinces were already following different tracks on this issue...

Which leads us to the second premise, namely that there is something going on here other than a bit of political theatre for the benefit of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under the status quo, Newfoundland and Labrador will become a "have" province - i.e. make too much money to qualify for Equalization without any caps - somewhere around 2009.

Nova Scotia?

When's Toronto gonna win the Cup again?

So basically, extending the period of choice for Newfoundland and Labrador wouldn't matter a row of beans.

The provincial government knew generally speaking what was going to happen on Equalization about a year ago when it was first reported publicly.

The Premier knew the 100% option was definitely off the table likely before he laced into Steve Harper last October.

He almost certainly knew what was going on (give or take a few details) last December when Loyola Sullivan came back from a finance minister's meeting and had to attend a news scrum with the Premier standing by his side.

What played out from March onwards has been pure political theatre designed to get people in Newfoundland and Labrador agitated about something 99% of Canadians don't understand.

In the end, the Premier will just do what he planned to do once the feds announced exactly what they were going to do in march: flip from one plan to the other to maximize the cash flows.

There's no way the Prem can lose cash. Under every likely scenario, the provincial government continues to make more. It was only just a matter of how much more. look at the 2005 deal. he settled for way less than he started out looking for. In the end - as he admitted himself - it came down to what the cash advance amount was going to be.

He's a smart guy. That's why he places the angles on the cash and plays the public like a violin.

Why else has he all but given up on the 100% option? He knows it's impossible to get.

Why isn't he looking to get the caps removed from the Accords? That's the part that maximizes the cash to the province. Likely because his administration already consented to amending the 1985 deal and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There really isn't any other explanation for his using the weak "Steve lied" argument instead of taking down the feds with an iron-clad example of perfidy.

In the end, there'll be some extra cash in the provincial treasury and no one will recall the current racket six months after the last polls close.

Playing to the galleries always works in the theatre of Newfoundland politics. That's why so many politicians do it. Danny Williams just does it better than just about any thespian we've elected to the office.

Sadly, though, treating politics like a sordid little melodrama is why the financial ending is always the same.

-SRBP-

Update: The other part of the political theatre here would be any federal official who actually said this:

One source said Ottawa wants to reward Premier Rodney MacDonald for taking a softer line in the dispute.

The federal government knows the same thing the provincial governments know. What the federal government may well be doing is a bit of theatrics of its own to capitalize on popular discomfort with the 2005 offshore deals. The deals are particularly unpopular in some segments of vote-rich Ontario.

That sort of thing may be what SES Research's Nik Nanos meant by a "reverse Williams" in a comment on an earlier Bond Papers' post. In other words, the federal Conservatives may be counting on Danny Williams to polarize the electorate in key segments and earn them some political support for appearing to stand up to the guy who ripped down Canadian flags and now evokes Quebec sovereignist slogans to bolster his cause.

What some commentators seem to miss is that outside Quebec, sovereignist/nationalist posturing doesn't earn a great deal of support among Canadians. Pulling down flags - a tactic ripped from the Parti Quebecois playbook - doesn't actually engender warm feelings in Canadians. It didn't work in 2004/05 for Newfoundland and Labrador. It likely won't work in the future.

But here's the thing: for the current federal administration, playing the margins is how they think of politics. They don't need big numbers; they just need to pick up a few here and there to win. Danny Williams might just wind up being the best friend Steve Harper has.

Fed changes to Accord cause worry

From the Saturday Telegram, Rob Antle's story on federal changes to the Atlantic Accord (1985). Antle quotes Ron Penney, a member of the provincial negotiating team 20-odd years ago.

That's Penney, standing second from right in the photo.

“If they’re going to unilaterally change a provision of the Atlantic Accord with respect to the equalization phase-out, then what’s to prevent the federal government from changing other fundamental provisions of the Atlantic Accord?” Penney said.

And like you haven't heard this argument before.

Hearn hits back

Federal fish minister Loyola Hearn delivered a luncheon speech on Friday in which he took a few strips off the provincial government, in return for the strips Premier Danny Williams took off Hearn's hide a few days ago.

Hearn, seen at right at a function some months ago, seemed to be either pointing fingers at the Premier or, perhaps, inviting the feisty Mr. Williams to see what happens when he pulled Hearn's finger.

There is nothing uglier than a fight within a family.

Regular Bond readers will recall the cat fight last year, left [not exactly as illustrated], over Premier's scheme to install Andy Wells as head of the offshore regulatory board. That, too, had all the earmarks of a fight a la Crystal and Alexis.

Incidentally, Hearn's remarks as quoted by the CBC story kinked above as well as other reports on the speech, will seem familiar to Bond Papers' readers. Several federal departments are regular Bond readers but that is likely nothing more than a coincidence.

One thing is certain from today: John Crosbie had some good advice for both Williams and Hearn. Premier Williams should consider Mr. Hearn a potential asset in trying to deal with the current dispute on a diplomatic level. Crosbie knows exactly how much can be accomplished by a federal regional minister on behalf of the province.

He's done it before throughout disputes between St. John's and Ottawa during both the Brian Peckford and Clyde Wells administrations. The relationship between a premier and a regional minister doesn't always have to be amicable.

Heavens knows that Wells and Crosbie often had a few choice words for each other both publicly and - to tell tales out of school - in private. Let's just say that soundproof doors aren't quite so soundproof when two strong-willed politicians are involved in what can euphemistically be termed a difference of opinion. Through it all, though, they still met and they still took each others' telephone calls.

Can the same be said of the current situation?

Maybe Crosbie has another clue to a fundamental change that needs to happen.

If not, then Hearn's comment today on fighting it out in an election might be the only way to resolve matters. Perhaps Mr. Williams would consider running as an independent Progressive Conservative in the next federal election, potentially leading - as did Lucien Bouchard - a nationalist bloquiste party.

Williams could even take Hearn on directly, that is if Hearn will be running next time out. As much as your humble e-scribbler would not like to see that blood letting on his own front lawn, that contest might just get all the testosterone out of the air and let people start building productive relationships again.

No need for Canadian Tire to stock up on mounds of absorbent pads just yet, though. Current word from Ottawa is that there won't be an election until sometime in 2008.

In the meantime, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are likely to hear the family next door in a knock-down, drag-out on the front lawn for months to come.

*sigh*

-30-

Brown and browned off

Give credit for the title to CBC television's supperhour news and the banter between the anchors after a segment on Premier Danny Williams' comments on Wednesday about the ongoing racket with Ottawa about Equalization and offsets.

Williams was back in the province today after spending a couple of weeks someplace sunny.

Brown he is, thanks to a tan.

Browned off?

Well, that's a local expression for being annoyed or upset.

In a scrum with reporters on Wednesday, Williams called for finance minister Jim Flaherty to resign. Williams also tore strips off federal fish minister Loyola Hearn - the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador - as well as Conservative members of parliament Fabian Manning and Norm Doyle.

One of the consistent problems for anyone trying to figure out the whole issue is what the federal government has actually done. Skim through the initial budget documents and one would have a hard time finding any reference to a cap being applied to both the 1985 Atlantic Accord and to the 2005 offset agreement. What you will find is the following reference to Equalization:

A fiscal capacity cap to ensure that Equalization payments do not unfairly bring a receiving province’s overall fiscal capacity to a level higher than that of any non-receiving province.

Many people in Newfoundland and Labrador - your humble e-scribbler included - took this to mean that the existing offset agreements, both of which are tied to Equalization and are limited in duration, would still operate until such time as Newfoundland and Labrador exceeded the national per capita fiscal capacity as determined by whatever Equalization formula is in effect.

It appears that Memorial University economist Wade Locke worked on the same assumption for his initial analysis, even after extensive discussions with federal officials. Danny Williams certainly appears to have taken that meaning from the federal budget. He told a CBC radio audience on March 26 that the province would likely opt for the O'Brien formula by 2009. That would be consistent with Locke's assessment, made public two weeks after Williams made those comments

It seems as well that federal fisheries minister Loyola Hearn had a similar impression. He assured Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that once they saw the details, their initial fears would be allayed. That was what he said on March 22. As recently as last Friday, he said much the same thing. Hearn is a smart old politician and he is just too smart to fall into the sort of trap that his predecessor John Efford built for himself and then jumped into.

That perspective on the offset agreements changed on Monday with Jim Flaherty's admission that in fact the federal government would be unilaterally applying caps to the agreements. Of course, in the process, Flaherty had to savage a few facts, but that seems to be a common feature of public life these days.

Taken altogether, it's easy to understand Danny Williams' latest anger. He's right, by the way: Flaherty jerked everybody around. The federal finance leprechaun has been too cute by half. Williams hasn't pointed it out - and he likely won't, but the changes to the 1985 Atlantic Accord have far more serious implications than anything else.

That deal is not just a simple piece of legislation to be changed at a whim. It represents the basis on which Newfoundland and Labrador derives all its oil and gas benefits. The federal legislation enables a landmark agreement in federal-provincial relations and the offset benefits - temporary and declining are a part of the package of financial benefits it contains. The Equalization offsets were intended to provide additional cash to Newfoundland and Labrador on a temporary basis to allow for economic infrastructure development that, frankly, hasn't really been possible until recently.

Williams winds up with a few of problems as he looks at the current federal-provincial mess.

Biggest among them is that he simply has absolutely no means of communicating seriously with the federal government. His last potential allies - the three Conservative MPs - are all dirt under his feet. Williams started the whole mess with Harper at least last October in Gander, and as much as he insists he did the right thing, kicking the Prime Minister in the crotch - publicly - isn't designed to win any friends.

And friends are needed in politics. Even if people aren't friends, you at least need them to not be enemies. Politics is about the art of the deal, about maximizing gains inside a realistic set of options. It's not about Mr. Right, to steal a phrase. Sometimes it's about Mr. Right for Now. Perfect isn't ever possible, but there are plenty of really good possibilities short of perfection. you can cut those deals - good, beneficial deals - on a range of issues if your head is screwed on properly.

But if all you do is set fire to their underwear, the odds of winning people over is slim. When you take to their Stanfield's with a flamethrower, well don't be surprised if they don't invite you over to dinner to meet the kids and the rest of the family. Be surprised if they don't look for a restraining order.

On another level, though, Williams' fundamental argument isn't designed to win converts from among the non-converts. We've said it before. For the federal government and for mainlanders generally, we need to explaining what is in it for them. The Premier hasn't been able to do that, at all.

The weakness of the whole Equalization argument about clawbacks - as fraudulent as it is - takes away the one selling point: we make money; you make money. Instead, them making money becomes a crime. They - the undifferentiated foreign exploiting demons - take what is ours and, according to Williams, by God he will get it back by force if necessary. Any wonder people have tuned out?

Of course, it really doesn't help when your finance minister rejects deficit and debt fighting all the while you are holding out a big debt as one of the big reasons you need federal hand-outs.

Danny Williams lamented recently that mainlanders don't seem to understand how prosperity here benefits there, wherever there is.

Well, the real test of his abilities as a Great Negotiator and a politician will be in how he tackles that challenge.

It's his job to explain the point. He can do it.

The question is will he.

Doing an endless repetition of one of his first interviews - three freakin' years later - just isn't cutting it so far.

Facts do matter

Except to this man, apparently.

From federal finance minister Jim Flaherty's latest Equalization news release:

To do so [not to alter two federal-provincial agreements unilaterally] would give Newfoundland and Labrador access to Equalization payments above all the other Equalization provinces even though its fiscal capacity is higher than Ontario's and British Columbia's, which receive no Equalization payments.

If Newfoundland and Labrador's own-source fiscal capacity exceeds the national standard for Equalization, then the province doesn't qualify for either Equalization or for Equalization offsets contained in the 2005 agreement between Prime Minister Paul Martin and Premier Danny Williams:

5. If in any fiscal year in the period 2006-07 to 2011-12 the province does not qualify for receipt of an Equalization payment, no additional offset payment in respect of clause 4 will be made for that fiscal year beyond the payment specified in the existing Atlantic Accord.

The federal Equalization formula currently used and the O'Brien formula contained in Flaherty's 2007 budget set the standard used to determine if a province qualifies for Equalization.

That standard in both cases is below the fiscal capacity of Ontario (the lowest non-recipient province) by several hundred dollars per person.

Yes, facts do matter, Jim.

They just don't matter to the current federal administration.

Obviously.

That was then. This is now.

Then, federal foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay said:

"It is important to note that if Nova Scotia opts for the new system, it doesn't have to give up its Accord–in fact, the Accord will be fully respected and continue to provide benefits to Nova Scotia," said Minister MacKay. The Accord provided Nova Scotia with $830 million immediately upon signing.

Then - a mere few days ago - federal fish minister Loyola Hearn told reporters much the same thing:

Hearn insists the Atlantic Accord, which the province and Nova Scotia negotiated with the former Liberal government in 2005, is safe.

"Are we going to get screwed? The answer is no, we're not," Hearn told reporters Friday.

"Are we going to be disadvantaged … by a billion dollars or by a dollar? The answer to that is no, because the government of Canada committed that we would not be disadvantaged."

Then, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons:

"The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador asked repeatedly that this government reject the recommendation of the O'Brien commission that would have put a cap on the equalization benefits of the Atlantic accord," Harper said to the House.

"The Atlantic Accord is preserved in this budget and is preserved due to the good work of the minister of fisheries and oceans and of course other members of our Newfoundland and Labrador caucus. Promise made and promise kept."

Now, finance minister Jim Flaherty admits that his budget caps Equalization offset payments in both the 1985 Atlantic Accord and a supplementary deal in 2005:

The province will also have the right to opt permanently into the new, improved, Canada-wide Equalization system. This choice provides the province with flexibility for the future and improves Newfoundland and Labrador's chance of qualifying for an extension beyond the existing system. If the province chooses the new Equalization system, it is only fair that the whole package would apply, including the fiscal capacity cap, to ensure fairness. In this case, it would not be just to other provinces if only Newfoundland and Labrador is allowed to double-dip or cherry-pick only those parts of the new Equalization program that will benefit the province.

To do so would give Newfoundland and Labrador access to Equalization payments above all the other Equalization provinces even though its fiscal capacity is higher than Ontario's and British Columbia's, which receive no Equalization payments. [Emphasis added]

To apply the cap, the Government of Canada is unilaterally amending both the 1985 Atlantic Accord signed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Premier Brian Peckford and the 2005 deal between Prime Minister Paul Martin and Premier Danny Williams.

Forget a broken election promise.

Harper and his cabinet can't even stick to the same commitment over the course of four weeks.

To see the full impact of this latest revelation, compare Wade Locke's original analysis and the one based on capping what they said wasn't capped.

If the provincial government had waited until the evidence was amassed, the impact of this Conservative perfidy would hav been plain for all to see.

-30-

Goodale calls Harper move "betrayal" of NL and NS

From Canadian Press.

"The worst betrayal of all was the barefaced failure to tell the truth on the issue of equalization and the Atlantic accord," he told Liberal MP Geoff Regan's nomination meeting.

The change Locke found

In Wade Locke's original analysis, he used the assumption that Equalization offsets provided for in the 2005 offshore revenue agreement and enabled by the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, S.C. 2005, c. 30, c. 85, would continue as originally intended.

Under that Act as it currently stands, the additional offset is calculated based on the difference between what the provincial government received in Equalization under the formula in use at the time.

The Equalization changes contained in the 2007 budget gave the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador an option of which Equalization formula would apply.

However, s.84 of the budget implementation Act (C-52) makes a significant change to the 2005 implementation Act by imposing a definition of the Equalization system in use at the time to mean the O'Brien formula.

84. The definition “fiscal equalization payment” in section 18 of the Act is replaced by
the following:

“fiscal equalization payment” means (a) for the purposes of section 22, the fiscal equalization payment that would be received by the Province for a fiscal year if the amount of that payment were determined in accordance with section 3.2 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, without regard to section 3.4 of that Act; and,

(b) for the purposes of sections 24 to 26, the fiscal equalization payment that would be received by the Province for a fiscal year under Part I of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act if the Province’s total per capita fiscal capacity were the amount determined by the formula

A + B + (C / F)

where

A, B, C and F have the same meaning as in the definition "total per capita fiscal capacity" in subsection 3.5(1) of that Act.

As a result, even in a year in which the province used the existing Equalization system (100% of resource revenues included), the additional offsets would be reduced since the O'Brien formula already offsets half of resource revenues.

Additionally, the use of the O'Brien formula, which includes a cap on payments, the proposed changes in the budget implementation legislation would change the meaning of s. 22 of the 2005 implementation Act. Under the current meaning of that legislation, no additional offset payment would be received if the provincial government did not receive an Equalization payment.

In the operation of the Equalization system and the offsets agreements as currently in effect, no payment would be paid if the province did not qualify for Equalization. However, under the O'Brien formula, the province may qualify for Equalization, but receive no payment in years where a combination of all revenues (own source plus Equalization plus Equalization offsets) exceeds the per capita fiscal capacity of the lowest non-recipient province.

Given the amendments contained in Bill C-52, Newfoundland and Labrador would actually receive no offsets at all in any year where its Equalization payment were reduced to zero as a result of the O'Brien cap.

There is no obvious reason for making this change. If the federal government wanted to give effect to both the 2005 agreement and the 2007 budget - allowing for choices - Bill C-52 would necessitate only modest changes, if any, to the implementation acts for 1985 Atlantic Accord and the 2005 agreement.

Premature gasket-blowing

From Tom Marshall, minister of finance:

The Honourable Tom Marshall, Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, today confirmed that the federal government has misled the Provincial Government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding the true implications of the new equalization program as outlined in its 2007 Budget.

However, as Simon Lono points out at Offal News, there is something odd about Marshall's release in that it provides no provincial government calculations. Indeed, the provincial government has thus far provided not a shred of information or analysis to back its original contentions on Equalization. Ditto for the federal government, represented in this case by federal fish minister Loyola Hearn.

As Offal puts it:

You would think the Hearn would release numbers of his own to defend the federal position. He does not. Instead he's reduced to a weak claim that no province will be harmed.

But does he actually have any real idea whether the province will be harmed? Apparently not.

As for Marshall, he's definitely on the warpath now. And you can expect the Premier to be leading the barbarians at the federal gate as soon as he gets home.

But didn't Marshall already know that Locke's numbers were off in the first place?

Apparently not.

Wade Locke's latest analysis is interesting for two reasons.

First, it suggests that there is an interpretation of eligibility for Equalization offsets which is different from the one used in his original presentation. More will follow on that in a separate post.

Specifically, Locke quotes this section of an e-mail from an unnamed senior federal finance official:

In effect, NL would be eligible to receive Equalization and offsets as long as long its own-source per capita fiscal capacity (including non-resource yields and 100% of resource revenues) is not equal to or greater than the own-source per capita fiscal capacity of the non-receiving province with the lowest per capita fiscal capacity. [Italics in original]

On the face of it, this section does not contradict what appears to be the intention of the 2005 offshore deal or the 2007 federal budget as announced.

What Locke has done here is identified a potential issue. It is far from proven conclusively. As well, the provincial government appears to have blown a gasket before conducting its own review. Tom Marshall stated in a number of interviews that his officials were still seeking clarification on the issue, he had endeavoured to have the issue clarified with his federal counterpart and that provincial justice officials were reviewing the federal legislation. In one interview it appeared that Marshall was entirely unaware of this issue until Locke brought it to his attention sometime before Locke's news release today.

The one thing that can be concluded from this entire episode over the past 24 hours is that federal-provincial relations are at an all time low state. Marshall's inflammatory news release, done with the full approval of the Premier presumably, will not help resolve this matter successfully.

Claiming to be misled is one thing, if you have evidence and can prove it. Flaming the federal government - or anyone, for that matter - without substantive evidence is grossly unprofessional.

Dr. Locke has provided an invaluable public service with his analysis. Would that the politicians acted with the same professionalism he has displayed.

Wade Locke's latest analysis

Wade Locke has graciously provided his latest news release, which is reproduced below in its entirety:

Updated Estimates of Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury Impacts for the Equalization Options Contained in Budget 2007

Table 1: Updated Estimates Based on Accord Eligibility Criterion Contained in the Budget Implementation Act for the Impacts of the Equalization Options on the NL Treasury from the 2007 Federal Budget - 2007/08 to 2019/20

	Status Quo	50% w Cap (original estimate)	50% w Cap (updated estimate)
Period 2007/08 – 2011/12
Oil Revenue	$7.30 B	$7.30 B	$7.30 B
Accord Payments	$2.51 B	$2.37 B	$1.72 B
Equalization	$0.59 B	$0.76 B	$0.76 B
Combined	$10.40 B	$10.43 B	$9.78 B
Period 2012/13 – 2019/20
Oil Revenue	$7.37 B	$7.37 B	$7.37 B
Accord Payments	$0.0 B	$4.96 B	$0.0 B
Equalization	$0.76 B	$0.0 B	$0.35 B
Combined	$8.13 B	$12.33 B	$7.72 B
Period 2007/08 – 2019/20
Oil Revenue	$14.67 B	$14.67 B	$14.67 B
Accord Payments	$2.51 B	$7.34 B	$1.72 B
Equalization	$1.35 B	$0.76 B	$1.11 B
Combined	$18.53 B	$22.76 B	$17.50 B

On Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 7:00 pm a presentation was given by Dr. Wade Locke in St. John’s on the estimated impacts for the Newfoundland and Labrador treasury of the equalization options specified in Budget 2007 (Government of Canada). The purpose of this presentation was to provide an objective and unbiased assessment of the net revenue impacts (oil revenue, equalization payments and payments under the Atlantic Accords) for the Newfoundland and Labrador treasury. As well, it is important to appreciate that the intent of the presentation was to provide some clarity to a complicated issue and to facilitate a more focused and informed debate. Moreover, there was a conscious effort in the presentation, and since, to stay away from the politics of this sensitive issue and deal only with the numbers in a professional manner. Although I will continue to do deal with this in a professional, non-political manner, it is my intention that after explaining the contents of this press release to interested individuals, I will have nothing else to say on this particular issue nor will I be undertaking further analysis in this specific area. I will leave it to federal and provincial officials to inform the public.

Given the sensitivity and the emotion surrounding this particular issue, I feel it is important to document how things have evolved to this point. This should enable others to judge the credibility of the approach and the results derived there from.

In any empirical assessment, it is necessary to make assumptions about how elements of each province’s fiscal capacity are expected to evolve over time. The assumptions used in the Locke analysis are clearly specified in the original presentation and interested individuals are referred to www.arts.mun.ca/arts to view the original presentation. While different assumptions will yield different specific results, they are unlikely to change the basic finding listed in Table 1. However, I would encourage both officials in Finance Canada and the Department of Finance, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to present their own simulations to test the robustness of the results presented above. If this provides more credible information that is appropriately explained and independently vetted, then the public should be in a better position to understand the specific impacts of each of the options on Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage both parties to release their own analyses and expose them to public scrutiny as I have done.

The crucial assumption utilized in the original presentation was the eligibility criterion for payments under the Atlantic Accord. Specifically, the original analysis assumed that, under the 50% option, Newfoundland and Labrador qualified for Accord payments so long as it qualified for equalization before the equalization cap was imposed. This assumption was based on the fact that it seemed reasonable to assume that pre-cap equalization was the eligibility criterion because pre-cap equalization was used to calculate the value of the Accord payments. But, more importantly, before finalizing my analysis, I consulted with provincial government officials who confirmed that the pre-cap equalization eligibility criterion was their assumption as well. In addition, I sent emails to two separate officials in Finance Canada on April 1, 2007 requesting clarification on the eligibility criterion to be used for the Accord. Based on the responses that I received from those officials on April 2, 2007, I finalized my assumption about the pre-cap equalization eligibility criterion. In particular, my reading of those emails in the context of the questions asked was that the pre-cap equalization was the appropriate criterion to employ in judging Newfoundland and Labrador’s eligibility for payments under the Atlantic Accord. Without attribution, I have reproduced both the questions and the responses to the emails to allow others to judge the reasonableness of my assumption on eligibility.

The specific questions asked and the responses received were:

Question #1: In calculating the accord under the new arrangement, is it the case that NL receives the accord if it qualifies for equalization on the new arrangement prior to the cap being imposed? In other words, while the cap can remove all equalization payments, but before that happens, the province could qualify to receive equalization pre-cap and as such be eligible to receive the accord. Is that correct?

Response #1: Your assumption is correct; it is the pre-cap equalization amounts that are used in the Accord calculations.

Question #2: In calculating the accord under the new arrangement, it is my interpretation that the province is entitled to receive the accord so long as it qualifies for equalization before the cap is imposed, rather than after. Is that correct?

Response #2: The legislation before the House proposes that under the new arrangement, the test for determining whether or not NL qualifies for the 2005 Accord is whether or not it would receive Equalization payments under the base O’Brien formula – that is, 50% inclusion of resources plus the cap. If it receives EQ under that formula, then the next steps are taken to determine how much. In this case, the offsets are determined before the cap is applied.

On the afternoon of the presentation, at approximately 2:00 pm, I was contacted by telephone by officials from Finance Canada to explain that the eligibility criterion for the Atlantic Accord that was contained the Budget Implementation Act, 2007 was not pre-cap equalization as I had assumed in my presentation. As it turned out, the Budget Implementation Act, which contained relevant legislation on the eligibility criterion for the Accord, was tabled approximately one week prior to my presentation. As explained in a follow-up email at 4:40 pm on Wednesday afternoon, government policy, as outlined in the Budget Implementation Act, specified an eligibility criterion that was different than the pre-cap equalization criterion that was assumed in my presentation. The specific criterion that was identified in that email was:

In effect, NL would be eligible to receive Equalization and offsets as long as long its own-source per capita fiscal capacity (including non-resource yields and 100% of resource revenues) is not equal to or greater than the own-source per capita fiscal capacity of the non-receiving province with the lowest per capita fiscal capacity.

At that point, I had asked for the specific legislation so that I could review it myself. I received it the next day after my presentation and reviewed it on Easter weekend. However, between 4:40 pm (the time of the email) and 7:00 pm (the scheduled start of the presentation) it was impossible to re-analyze the data with the alternate eligibility assumption. Instead, I modified the original presentation to flag the crucial assumption about Accord eligibility. I, as well, indicated in the presentation that if the eligibility assumption was changed, then the estimates under the 50% option would have to be modified, not realizing the extent of the change that would be required.

After reviewing the legislation, it was clear that a new analysis was needed. This was completed on the weekend and sent with an accompanying email to Finance Canada officials on Monday at 5:00 pm NL time and followed-up on Wednesday with a conference call. It was in that call that all remaining technical issues were addressed as Finance Canada officials explained in great detail how the legislation worked. This enabled me to finalize the revised analysis on Thursday for release on Friday, April 12, 2007.

As is clear from Table 1, the impact on net revenues flowing to the provincial treasury, if the 50% option is invoked immediately, is $17.5 B. This is reduced from the $22.8 B estimated previously. The primary reason for the reduction in the estimated impact is that the Accord eligibility standard outlined in the Budget Implementation Act is more stringent than the pre-cap-equalization criterion utilized in the original analysis.

-30-

Economics: the dismal science

Wade Locke has adjusted his assumptions.

Now he says that what was originally a big gain for the province is in fact a loss.

Yes, the 50% exclusion now goes from being a six billion dollar gain for Newfoundland and Labrador over the status quo becomes a one billion net loss.

That's with a change in the assumptions, or more specifically, as CBC's David Cochrane described it, a reading of the budget implementation legislation. He referred to a "stricter" interpretation of what it would take for the province to qualify for Equalization in the future and there
fore how the offshore offsets deals would be affected.

Some quickie observations, before getting Locke's revised views:

1. Economics is a dismal science. After all, if adjusting some assumptions produces a variation of $7.0 billion - your entire Equalization and offsets work, incidentally - then you have some basic problems. Makes you wonder what it would take to have the Danny Williams option turn into a pig.

2. For all the big numbers, remove $14.7 billion. Locke includes offshore revenue in each of projections, for some inexplicable reason. Lop out that specific figure and you'll see the specific effects of Equalization changes and the offsets. That is assuming that Locke's assumptions on any given point are valid. That's not a sarcastic comment; it's a caveat.

3. The cap in the original 2005 deal obviously exists in one way or another. No matter how you look at it the cap built into the original deals - qualifying for Equalization or not - is still active. The real question Locke seems to be grappling with is when that cap cuts in.

4. Yes, there is a cap in the original deal. The offsets only flow as long as the province qualifies for the Equalization hand-out.

And for the record both for Mainland readers and the locals, Danny Williams' original goal in 2004 - not the one he settled for in January 2005 - was for a doubling of oil and gas revenues in perpetuity.

5. The original 2005 deal did not deliver as promised. Said it before. Say it again.

6. Wade Locke still hasn't assessed the other Harper option that still exists, i.e. 100% exclusion of non-renewables with a cap. Too bad Locke is apparently hauling ass out of the debate now that he's stirred it up. Maybe he got some angry phone calls from Florida or wherever the Premier is.

To be complete though, Locke should have assessed that variation since it is on the table.

And if 100% exclusion of non-renewables is such a good idea, then maybe applying the cap is better than what we have now.

At least according to the latest numbers, based on the latest assumptions.

7. Danny Williams had numbers like the ones Locke released initially. On March 26, Danny told CBC radio's Jeff Gilhooley that in all likelihood the province would shift to the 50% exclusion option within a year or two, i.e. by 2009, based on the government's analysis.

A humourous reminder

Sometimes it's easy to forget how many times we've heard the same old arguments from the provincial government, especially when it comes to Equalization and offshore revenues.

Like this post from last October.

Last year, Danny Williams was telling us that the O'Brien formula would cost the province cash compared to what was in place at the time.

Not compared to the Harper promise.

Compared to the status quo ante.

Turns out that wasn't true, at least if you accept Wade Locke's precis.

The status quo was worth $18 billion. The O'Brien deal was worth $24 billion.

But think about it: in 2005 we were told that Danny Williams had inked a deal which was bullet proof against changes in Equalization. He got it. He told us he got it.

Apparently not.

So when will Danny Williams be fighting Danny Williams?

Equalization options, by the numbers

The link to Wade Locke's analysis, a Powerpoint slide show. [The link dispappeared.  Here's a text version from the Newfoundland Quarterly]

Read it carefully.

Enjoy all the nice graphs and charts.

This is a goldmine is useful information, including a clear indication that those who seek to poor-mouth the provincial government's revenues are dead wrong.

Update: Here's the cbc.ca story. Unfortunately, the equally solid Telegram article isn't available on line.

-srbp-

Wade Locke: the story running nationally

Here's what Canadian Press is running on Wade Locke's Equalization assessment.

Note the variance from the numbers cited in the earlier post.

In the first try at crunching the numbers, Memorial University economist Wade Locke -- one of the province's leading experts on offshore revenue deals -- has found if Newfoundland were to stick with the Atlantic Accord and the old equalization formula until 2020, it would receive $18.5 billion in combined revenues.

But if the province follows an optimal strategy -- where it would leave the accord in 2009 and opt into a formula where a fiscal cap is implemented and 50 per cent of non-renewable natural resource revenues are included -- it would receive $24.1 billion, Locke said.

While the 100% exclusion might be better, if it is politically impossible, then it really doesn't exist.

On the other hand, the O'Brien approach - trashed by the Premier and others - generates significant extra cash compared to the existing arrangement for Newfoundland and Labrador.

-30-

Locke on Equalization: Prelim views

Memorial University economist Wade Locke released his own assessment of the various Equalization options last night.

Danny-lovers will rush forward to back their man, irrespective of the facts.

The rest of us can approach the whole business a little more insightfully that the local jingoists.

When the presentation is available on line, Bond will link to it and do a more detailed assessment.

In the meantime, here is a thumbnail sketch courtesy of Bill Callahan's synopsis on Night Line and Simon Lono's debrief via telephone. Under the circumstances, details here may be off, so wait for the full report before jumping off a cliff.

1. The old Equalization system with the offshore deals - the one the province still has - will generate approximately $18 billion for the province over a period of time (to 2020 or thereabouts?).

2. If the province opted for the O'Brien formula (50% exclusion of all resource revenues with a cap), then it would gain $22.8 billion over the same period.

3. The Harper option (100% exclusion of non-renewables only) would come out at $28.6 billion over the same period.

A few preliminary observations:

- Danny Williams was dead wrong about O'Brien.

Like stone cold, in the ground, stake through the heart kinda dead wrong.

So wrong, that being wrong any other way would seem right in comparison.

He claimed it was going to cost the province money.

It does the opposite.

Big time opposite.

Makes ya wonder if Danny reads his briefing notes.

Makes ya wonder if he understands his briefing notes.

Makes ya wonder if he just makes stuff up as he goes along.

- 100% non-renewables out is the best of the three options (if you only look at how much cash it nets.). Never mind the fact, that it is politically unattainable. Contrary to Ken Boessenkool's 2001 assessment, this approach actually generates bags of cash for a province like Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, never mind that it is politically unattainable.

Unreachable.

A pipe dream.

- Danny Williams will claim vindication. His fellow jingoists will now feel their cause is just. The rest of us will wonder why they are out in the cold screaming when what they want is unattainable.

- No one wants to recall that Williams' own policy was for 100% inclusion of all resource revenues.

There's that pesky wrong thing again.

- 100% inclusion plus the offshore offset deals is still a decent option. It generates cash in the bank to the tune of $18 billion. Nothing to sneeze at. All depends on whether you piss it out the door or actually invest money properly.

- Of course, Danny Williams doesn't want to talk about developing a debt management plan right now, i.e. running the province properly. He's too busy getting his mug on TV.

- Locke apparently didn't assess another option in front of the province, namely 100% exclusion of non-renewables with a cap. Forgotten in the Premier's irk-fest is the fact that the Harperites have actually put three different Equalization formulas in play.

- The province hasn't lost anything.

- The province isn't jammed up, as the Premier seems to suggest.

- The province can still play the choice game and come out with significant bags of cash ahead of where it is today.

- Why is Danny Williams persisting in his racket and committing provincial government policy to a partisan row at public expense?

-30-

Williams: Just the facts, Ma'am

In the ongoing spittle contest with the federal government, Premier Danny Williams held a scrum today and issued a news release on the facts of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's broken promise.

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.

“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.”

Note the conditional language; the federal government "could take in."

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-

Feds take out radio, newspaper ads challenging NL Premier

OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives are hitting back at the premier of Newfoundland with radio and newspaper ads, The Canadian Press has learned.

The feds will respond to Danny Williams, who ran ads of his own last week accusing them of breaking a promise to his province with the recent federal budget.

The ads will begin running Tuesday, according to an internal government memo.

The memo includes talking points for Tory MPs when speaking about the federal-provincial imbroglio, including: Ottawa never broke its promise, Newfoundland and Labrador gets more money under the budget, and Danny Williams just wants a special deal which would be unfair to other provinces.

The budget has angered Newfoundland and Nova Scotia because it says they can only access a newer, more generous equalization program if they give up the Atlantic Accord.

That accord, signed with the previous Liberal government, excluded offshore oil revenues from equalization calculations.

Update: The Canadian Press version here.

-30-

Danny Williams: "My solution is to get rid of Harper."

From ctv.ca, based on Premier Danny Williams appearance on CTV's Question Period and reports from local affiliate NTV.

Williams told a vocm.com radio call-in show this morning that criticism of his efforts across the country are coming from or are influenced by the "communications spin" coming from the Prime Minister's Office.

Williams made the same claim during the 2004/05 flag flap. Polling conducted for Williams office showed that 60% of those surveyed were "not supportive at all" of Williams' decision to remove Canadian flags from any provincial government buildings in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Meanwhile, Williams' campaign to defeat Stephen Harper at the polls is causing rifts not only between the provincial Progressive Conservative Party and its federal cousin, but reportedly within the provincial party as well. Williams' branded federal Conservatives, saying anyone who supports the federal government has betrayed his or her province. In doing so, Williams also labelled three federal Conservative members of parliament, all of whom are very popular with local voters.

Update

Danny Williams saidon vocm.com's Open Line with Randy Simms:

But what's happening is you're being influenced by the PMO spin. I mean, you know, the Prime Minister's Office has a huge, huge communications network and, so, you know, this is where the letters to the Globe and Mail are coming from and all of that and they'll, they'll fight that.

-30-

The need for public discussion

Following is an opinion piece originally published in The Telegram during the offshore discussions in 2004. It is based on the longer piece of the same name, posted below in four parts.

_______________________

Which is to be master?
Public discussion, more information needed on Atlantic Accord changes

“The absence of public debate prevents a thorough discussion of options, a chance to see dangers and avoid them.”

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador currently receives 100 per cent of provincial revenues. Under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the provincial government gained the right to set its own revenue regime for offshore oil and gas developments and it has done so through legislation and development agreements with the companies that have brought Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose on stream. It collects every penny of the revenues defined in the Atlantic Accord, and set out in those development agreements. In addition, it collects revenues, mostly taxes, from the business that have grown up around oil production.

The Williams administration, like the Grimes administration before it, claims money is lost through an Equalization “clawback”. There is no clawback in the way that word would normally be used. Ordinarily, Equalization is a glorified top-up scheme. Any provincial government making less than a national standard from its own-source revenues gets a cheque from Ottawa to make up the difference. Make more money; get less of a top-up. If there was a sudden growth in high technology manufacturing – if the province became a Celtic Lynx – Equalization would be reduced accordingly.

The Atlantic Accord contains a provision than offsets any losses in Equalization transfers resulting from growing provincial government revenues, for a period of 12 years. The calculation is made on a 10 province standard, so it is no surprise that last year the province collected $123.8 million in oil royalties and received $178 million in offsets. The major problem with the offsets – if there is a problem - results from the fact the offset provisions are triggered by quantity of oil produced, not on their economic impact as such. Once triggered, they decline over time irrespective of how many oil fields have been developed or what their economic benefit has been to the province. Danny Williams’ current proposal is apparently aimed at changing the offset provisions of the Accord.

There are at least two major problems with the proposal from the Williams administration that would, as Danny Williams recently put it, “renegotiate the Atlantic Accord”. The most significant problem is that there is no plain English description of the problem or of the government’s proposed solution: it isn’t in writing. How can anyone judge the success or failure of upcoming negotiations between the federal and provincial governments if we do not know what the Williams administration is seeking?

The second problem is in the way the argument has been framed. The Williams administration claims that by changing the offsets, the provincial government can become the “principal beneficiary” of the offshore, as the Accord intended. Unfortunately, the Atlantic Accord does not say the provincial government will be the principal beneficiary nor is “principal beneficiary” defined as meaning provincial government revenues. The Atlantic Accord delivers significant benefits to the province as a whole. The provincial government gets the right to co-manage the offshore with Ottawa. The provincial government sets its own revenues, as if the resource was on land. The province as a whole gets industrial benefits, something Brian Mulroney considered to be a major aspect of the Accord. Those industrial benefits go against the spirit if not the letter of inter-provincial free trade agreements and the North American Free Trade Agreement, Right now, the Accord is exempt from NAFTA.

“Principal beneficiary” is central to the Accord; redefining it changes the Accord fundamentally. Change the Accord’s underlying principals and it may well become a new deal, one that would be subject to NAFTA. Of all the Accord provisions, the one that would clearly not fit NAFTA is the industrial benefits provision. We can’t be certain, in largest part because the Williams administration proposal has not be clearly stated and thoroughly examined. There is enough information, though, to encourage the provincial government to be cautious.

It should not escape notice that in making its proposal, the Williams administration is merely picking up where the Grimes government left off. There is precious little difference among the three political parties in the province on this issue. In itself, that should be cause for concern, as Mark Twain warned. More important than mere contrariness though, the absence of public debate prevents a thorough discussion of options, a chance to see dangers and avoid them. Getting more cash from Ottawa is one thing. If that comes at a larger cost, namely bringing the Accord under NAFTA, then the Premier will need wider public support to continue on his path. If nothing else, the people of the province have a right to know what is being talked about. They will either reap the reward of the proposed changes or bear the burden.

-30-