The Hurt Locker: Monkey-tossing can’t work when people know the truth

Remember that right from the start Bond Papers pegged this latest Equalization flap as a way of pretending that whatever fiscal mess the government is in, the whole thing is really someone else’s fault.

Now for those who don’t know, monkey-tossing is one Danny Williams’ great political skills.  If they gave gold medals in tossing the monkey from his own back, Danny Williams would own them all.

He tried to toss responsibility his own failure in the Andy Wells/Max Ruelokke affray.  For those who are keeping score, incidentally, it’s worth taking a look at the judge’s decision in that case.  The number of times the provincial government changed its position  in the case rivals its multitude of contradictory stands on on Equalization.

He monkey-tossed the whole smelter in Long Harbour a couple of years ago, although hat one is still a wee bit odd.

Now it’s the whole $1.5 billion. 

Look at how the Premier puts the thing in a letter to the National Post on Saturday. 

Guaranteed by now the thing has been blasted over the plant internal comms system such that come Monday every single one will be talking  - on the open line shows and anywhere else plants turn up  - about the recent federal offset changes as if the impact comes entirely in one year:

Not in our most pessimistic moments did we dream that we would be negatively impacted to the tune of $1.5 billion — approximately one quarter of our annual provincial budget.

The thing is: that statement isn’t true.

The provincial budget was short for the coming fiscal year by $1.5 billion before anyone learned about the Equalization/offsets thingy.

The loss represented by the offset changes – even if we accepted the provincial government assumptions and projections -  would be a little over $400 million in 2009. That works out to be six per cent of the 2008 budget and, as we’ve said before, it’s not even a real number.  It’s entirely made up base don a raft of assumptions which might not turn out to be true.

What is true, as it turns out, is the Bond Papers prediction  over the past few months that the provincial government is facing a $1.5 billion shortfall on the annual budget.

That is about 25% of the upcoming budget.

The culprit?  Oil mostly:  down a billion next year over last year using an assumed value for oil in the mid—50s Canadian.  Incidentally, for all accounts that is exactly what the provincial government is currently using for their estimates.

The other culprits?

Well, you can hack off another few hundred million for the collapse of mineral prices.

Then, there’s the impact of tossing 1,000 highly paid paper workers to the curb.

On top of that there’s the 4,000 or so migrant labourers who were making Alberta money but now will have to subsist on the earnings from Lotto 10-42.  Notice that the downturn in the oil sands alone is having four times the job impact in Newfoundland as Abitibi.

That means fewer purchases and hence a drop in sales tax.  That means a sizeable chunk of income tax revenue will disappear.

By the time you add it all up, the provincial government is in the financial hurt locker:  expenses as big as 2008 – around $6.0 billion  - and the income from 2004 – somewhere around $4.5 billion.

No wonder the Premier is trying to toss that monkey off his back.

In 2004, he could toss the fiscal monkey onto the shoulders of the crowd who’d been in office.

He did.

He also tossed the cost of cuts onto the backs of the province’s public sector workers. 

The Premier could monkey-toss for England.

He does it all the time.

-srbp-

PurPle haZe

“Who the f*ck’s he trying to impress?” came the voice of a steadfast friend as soon as the phone came up close to an ear.

“Who?” says your humble e-scribbler still choking back the hello.

“Ignatieff” he said, then reeled off a section of some online story about the Liberal leader’s statement that he will let Liberal members of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador vote against the federal budget this evening even though the party caucus will be voting for it. Five of the six had already said publicly they’d be bucking Iggy and the caucus anyway.

“No one,”  says your scribbler.

“Well, he’s doing a great job.”

“You know,” he added after a long silence, “sometimes it seems like you and me are the only ones around this place not on acid.”

He hung up the phone as if this was just a snippet of an ongoing conversation.

A couple of days ago, another old friend brought up Michael Ignatieff’s increasing tendency to refer to the country  - Canada  - as The Federation.  “I thought Danny was the only trekkie”, he’d said over a coffee, “but that stopped once he got a piece of the action and became a have province.”

The second friend took to calling him Sarek after that. “Buddy started out playing a Romulan, you know,” he reminded, tapping his finger on his nose, as if that meant something.

The Canadian Press story my steadfast friend had been reading over the phone had a few more of those mind-benders in it.

There was Danny Williams praising Sarek for letting members of caucus buck the whip:

“He shows real courage this early in his leadership to be making a move like that. The MPs are being allowed to do what they need to do on behalf of their province and I think the fact that a national leader recognizes that is very important.”

Williams’ own caucus, of course, is not allowed to think for themselves without permission from the Premier’s Office, let alone follow the direction of another party leader. 

The six federal Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador got bombarded with telephone calls and e-mails this past week, most of them coming from Williams’ caucus directly or at their behest. The original orders came from the 8th, of course.

Someone on the 8th even managed to rouse John Hickey out of his hibernation.  Hickey, who is rumoured to have some  cabinet responsibilities, has been all-but-invisible until the day after Groundhog Day. He called the local morning call-in show on voice of the cabinet minister to list all the wonderful things for Labrador his master could have done with federal money. 

Things like the a power line designed to take the hydro-electric power that wasn’t going off to somewhere else in North America down to the island of Newfoundland.  This would somehow benefit Labrador even though there was no provision for any juice to bleed off to light the odd home in Labrador.

Or the Trans Labrador Highway.

Never mind that Hickey, as highways minister once claimed to have a deal with Ottawa on the thing already on his desk only being forced to admit that he really didn’t.

This is the same John Hickey, incidentally,  who sued former Premier Roger Grimes not for what Grimes said but for what Danny Williams said Grimes said. No one knows what became of the lawsuit.

On another part of the front, the mayor of St. John’s, good Provincial Conservative that he is, took time from walking by a Tim Hortons drive-through to insist the Liberals must vote against the budget or risk their political careers.  At the same time, he tells a national radio audience he can’t wait to get his hands on the federal infrastructure cash.

The foolishness isn’t confined to this latest racket the Premier’s Office acknowledges something called purple files it creates to prepare the Premier for media interviews. The most accountable and open government in civilization denies they exist when reporters ask for them under the province’s open records laws.

Then there is Equalization.

Aside from anything else, a surprising number of the crowd filling up comments on news websites or calling the talk shows on the voice of the cabinet minister think it is time to separate from Canada.  Ottawa is not giving us enough handouts, they say, so we should pack up and leave and get no handouts at all. 

The more loopy of the crew have taken to suggesting that Newfoundland should join with Quebec in a separate country.

The host of the night-time version of this psychedelic extravaganza of the airwaves fuels the chat with his preamble to the show the night of the budget vote. This is the same guy who, as editor of a local newspaper – the Independent – mused about separatism, denied he was a separatist when he ran for the New Democrats last time out and now is back banging the drum about a need to rethink the place of Newfoundland and Labrador within Canada.

Such is politics in Newfoundland and Labrador these days.

Such is public policy in Newfoundland and Labrador these past five years.

And a week after declaring that the budget changes would cripple the province’s economy, Danny Williams is praising Ignatieff for something that, in the end, means absolutely nothing. The budget still passed and the money will go – if it ever really would go – and anyone not in a state of altered conscious would wonder what the fuss was about in the first place.

What about the cash? 

Even Danny Williams is nonplussed this Tuesday.  Williams admitted to reporters on Tuesday afternoon that the federal government will only lift the O’Brien 50% option for this year.

This warp in space-time continuum - Newfoundland circa 1959 - once confined to one part of The Federation has spread.

The five members of parliament who panicked when Danny called did not waste time thinking of what they might do. Like say, finding out if what Danny said was right.

And if it turned out he was, come up with a plan of their own.  Maybe work on the caucus and government to see if a deal could be worked.  Maybe even try proposing an amendment that suspended the specific change for one year. That’s something Danny Williams wanted at one and – since it was aimed at once province – likely wouldn’t upset too many applecarts.  It might have passed.

As it turned out, the one year suspension was an option that the feds already tossed out at some point – did any reporter think to ask when the feds told the province this? - and Danny Williams accepted.

But the Liberals couldn’t even take credit for having anything to do with it.

Instead, Michael Ignatieff asks Stephen Harper if he would entertain a change.

Harper says no.

Case closed.

The six MPs get a pass on the whip – just this once, Iggy insisted – because springing a change is no way to run a Federation. Other provinces, affected as seriously or moreso than Newfoundland and Labrador by the Equalization changes, get no such consideration.  While it is no way to run a federation, according to Iggy, it is apparently not enough of no way to cause a change in who is running the place.

No clearer message could they send.

They might have even considered saying they did not want to become party to the excuse that whatever bad budget decisions this current provincial administration makes over the next three years, Danny Williams can say it’s all Harper’s fault even though that wouldn’t be close to true.

They could have left the job of backing Danny against the unions to the provincial labour leaders, the head of the province’s labour party and the former provincial labour party politician now sitting in Ottawa from this province.

And even if the amendment failed, the whole Liberal caucus might have showed it was willing to try something substantive. Something that ultimately didn’t look like they were responding to the sound of a bell coming from the blackberry upside Danny’s head as he drove his Avalanche down the Parkway.

Or was it the Queensway?

Meanwhile, the Liberals ought to know – every single one of them in Ottawa – that this is not a one shot deal. 

Williams will be back.

He knows what he can do to the federal Liberals and Ignatieff’s promise that this permission is a one-off won’t mean a thing. 

A guy who tells a gaggle of national and local reporters that he has been building up a war chest for when the “feds” come after “us” again, is not a guy who is going away any time soon. 

In a year’s time, Sarek might be the fed Williams is at war with. 

He’ll be back sooner than you think.

-srbp-

Equalization “best of” times, the worst of times

As your humble e-scribbler writes this latest Equalization post,  Liberal member of parliament Scott Simms is telling some reporter at CBC that – quelle surprise – he will be siding with Danny Williams on whatever it is Danny wants on Equalization this time.

Scott’s got a history of playing follow-someone-else’s leader on the basis of bogus information.  He did it in the first round of the Equalization Follies and he’s apparently bent on keeping at it despite the previous experiences.

Simms joins a group of politicians from Newfoundland and Labrador who belong to the same club or who – inexplicably  - have been stampeded into creating problems in their own political backyard, robbing them of whatever influence they did have and setting themselves up for yet more of the same old pattern of hysteria and blackmail.

Politicians who refer to the e-mails and phone calls to justify their decision should note that the whole thing was orchestrated.  If they’ve been alive in this province at all over the past five years, they should know how things work. Sounds like they are just hunting around for convenient excuses.

If a Provincial Conservative member of the legislature is on the phone it is usually because someone in the Premier’s Office directed or approved the call.  They don’t have the luxury of voting against the wishes of their leader, at least not if they want to keep their seats, let alone get into cabinet.

Ditto e-mails.  You get one from “at gov.nl.ca” and you know it’s been approved from the top.

And all those calls from listeners to talk shows at the voice of the cabinet minister are pretty much from people who have faithfully followed whatever position the current administration is pushing irrespective of the fact it contradicts the position taken a year ago.

Or yesterday.

Is there an issue on Equalization this time?

Not really.

It all has to do with the words, some of them on agreements signed by the provincial government over time.

The 2005 transfer deal, for example, states in part that if another province gets a better deal than this one on Equalization and offsets, then the provincial government here gets it too. 

That’s the reason why the previous round of discussions by which Nova Scotia can toggle back and forth between the different Equalization options also applies to Newfoundland and Labrador.

It’s that ability to pick the “best of” that sits at the heart of the current round of nonsense.  Danny Williams is a little miffed  - or so he claims – that there is only a choice between two options instead of three. A better-of choice, instead of a best-of.

But then that new Nova Scotia thing cuts in and the whole problem vanishes. Odds are that the budget implementation deal, and that’s the bill that matters,  will apply the best-of provisions to both Atlantic oil and gas provinces. They have before.

This thing isn’t about and never was about screwing over Danny Williams, as much as he might like to think so.  It was about dealing with Ontario receiving Equalization and not bankrupting the federal piggy bank Williams lusts after in the process. 

Now if you really want to get a sense of how much a problem this Equalization thing isn’t, bear in mind that under the Equalization program there have always been provisions that shield a province against catastrophic drops in Equalization from year to year.

If that wasn’t enough, since 1994 Newfoundland and Labrador has had the ability to chose an Equalization option retro-actively to always ensure that it gets the one which gives the most cash. In a month’s time – March 1 to be precise – the provincial finance minister can pick which Equalization option delivers the most cash for the year that is almost over.  And then next year, he gets to chose again based on actual experience for the year that is already past.

That too makes this whole thing a bit premature if not downright silly.

Then there’s oil prices.

News stories this weekend refer to oil prices being close to the province’s projected US$40 a barrel from the December budget update.  The only problem is that the price they give isn’t for the local oil.  The local oil has been trading considerably above US$40 and with the 25% premium for a weak Canadian dollar, the provincial treasury is getting more cash from oil than it forecast.

If those prices just hold where they are, finance minister Jerome Kennedy will have more real cash from this year to carry over to next year and he will definitely have more cash than he will let on in his April budget.  By next March, there likely won’t be an issue at all involving a mere $400 million on a budget of over $6.0 billion and an economy that churns out $25 billion in goods and services annually.

By then it will be time for yet another Equalization fooferah and people will be playing what is rapidly becoming the replacement for the March Madness of the seal hunt.

But what of members of parliament from this province?

Well, some of them will wind up having the worst of political times, yet again.  If they think this is bad, just wait for the games that are coming from the same quarter and based on the same completely false set of premises.

Those guys will be having the best of the same federal politicians yet again.

And none of those games are in the best interests of the people any of them were elected to serve.

-srbp-

Shocker: Provincial Tory pol threatens federal MPs over budget

Provincial Conservative Doc O’Keefe  - the mayor of St. John’s - says that Liberal members of parliament from this province are putting their political careers on the line if they don’t vote against the federal budget on Tuesday.

"I mean this is a serious, serious blow to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and for any MP from any party to even think about not voting with the population of Newfoundland and Labrador is just unthinkable — aside from the fact it would be political suicide."

In a CBC Radio New story running as well, Provincial Conservative deputy mayor – Ron Ellsworth – expresses confidence that one MP – Siobhan Coady – would vote the way the Premier wants. That was never in doubt, as Coady made clear on voice of the cabinet minister’s Open Line Friday morning. 

Of course, which Danny Williams’ position the federal members of parliament are supposed to support is anyone’s guess.

O’Keefe is running with the first version, coming from the late Tuesday night scrum.  That’s the serious-blow-to-economy, must-vote-against version.

CBC’s online story uses the Premier’s second position, uttered a day later, calling for a one year moratorium on the changes to the Equalization formula.

None of them noticed the Premier’s position from Friday.  He told an audience of construction industry officials that the Equalization changes didn’t matter  - at least as far as that mortal blow to the economy thing was concerned - since the provincial government already planned to spend $700 million on public works in the upcoming budget as a means of stimulating the economy.

HMV Update:  On the one hand anti-drive through crusader and notorious municipal policy flip-flopper Doc O’Keefe wants the budget defeated.  On the other hand he told CBC Radio’s The Current this morning that things in The Great City are wonderful for 2009.  O’Keefe’s also got his hand out for the federal infrastructure money in the budget.  O’Keefe said he’d like to see the money right away, something of course that wouldn’t happen if the budget is defeated and the country faces another federal elections within six months of the last one.

Meanwhile, Premier Danny Williams is morphing the message yet again in the Globe and Mail:

"They [federal Conservatives]  have to start wondering about how quickly they have to dump Harper," said Mr. Williams, who has been no friend of the Prime Minister in the past, although he said he asked him three months ago for a meeting to discuss federal-provincial relations.

-srbp-

Steadfast shifting

A day after a Bond Papers post documenting the flips, flops and contradictory positions taken by the provincial government on Equalization over the past five years, voice of the cabinet minister reassures all that Premier Danny Williams “is steadfast in his approach”.

The Premier “says this is an issue of principle”.

Of course it is, just like it was an issue of principle to oppose previously the Equalization issues he now supports.

The principle is cash.

-srbp-

Equalization flips, flops and fumbles

Danny Williams once scorned the O’Brien formula that counted only 50% of the province’s oil and mineral revenues saying that the concept had “Ralph Goodale’s fingerprints” all over it.

Premier Danny Williams called the report "some kind of joke - otherwise it was just a bad dream."

He said the idea unfairly penalizes Newfoundland and Labrador, and is essentially the same plan that led him to storm out of first ministers' meetings in the fall of 2004.

"It's got (former Liberal finance minister) Ralph Goodale written all over it," Williams told reporters at Confederation Building.  [Rob Antle and Jamie Baker, “Report would erase Accord gains”, Telegram, 6 June 2006]

Instead, Williams wanted a formula that didn’t count any of the province’s non-renewable resource revenues.  Danny Williams wanted that 100% exclusion so badly he went to war with Stephen Harper hurling every name imaginable at the Conservative leader for not living up to the campaign promise in two elections.

Never mind that in letters to the federal party leaders in December 2005 Williams stated that the provincial government wanted to see the 100% inclusion of non-renewable resource revenues.

Now, that 100% exclusion isn’t the good deal after all.

Now the one with Ralph’s fingerprints all over it is the right one.

And Danny Williams wants it.

The fingerprints one.

Not the no-greater-shame-than-a-promise-unkept one.

He wants it so badly he’s prepared to go to war to undo a slight targeted directly and deliberately at Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, maybe not war, exactly he said a couple of days after launching the latest Equalization jihad.

Maybe a one year delay.

Still keeping track?

The tale of Danny Williams’ positions on Equalization since 2003 has more twists and turns in it than a road along Newfoundland’s rugged coastline, and the feisty Premier has followed every one doubling back on himself countless times in five short years.

Actually, the O’Brien 50% formula is good this time only because it apparently allows the 1985 Atlantic Accord – the real Atlantic Accord – to unlock more cash for the provincial coffers.

But Danny wasn’t always in love with the 1985 Accord.

Shortly after coming to office, Danny Williams launched the first of his now trademark hyperbolic assaults on a deal he said was robbing Newfoundland and Labrador of its offshore oil revenues and sending them off to Ottawa.

Nothing could have been further from the truth and those of us who dared say so publicly at the time suffered either scorn or curious pity for daring to doubt the Premier’s judgment.

When Williams snagged a $2.0 billion cheque from Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale in January 2005 as part of a new offshore transfer deal, the first thing he had to admit was that nothing had been further from the truth than the line he’d been spinning:

Newfoundland and Labrador already receives and will continue to receive 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues as if these resources were on land…

What’s more, a Telegram story from late January 2005 by Rob Antle contained this nugget of truth:

Because of quirks in the system - Accord offsets are tied to previous-year equalization drops - Newfoundland actually got back slightly more than 100 per cent between 1999 and March 2004.

The province took in $429 million in offshore revenues, a senior federal official said, while receiving total offset payments of $466 million.

Senior provincial officials had no beef with those figures, acknowledging that contention sounded accurate.

In effect, up to March 2004, the so-called clawback had no claws.

It never did.

And that 2005 deal?

Well, the public heard all sorts of predictions  - at the time - that the deal was worth $2.6 billion up front (even though the cheque was for $2.0 billion) and maybe even more later on.

Jack Harris, then the provincial New Democratic Party leader predicted $4.9 billion.  Wade Locke, destined to become the Premier’s favourite economist, predicted $5.2 billion over the first eight years of the deal.

Of course, at the time, projections (including one by Wade Locke) had the province going off Equalization within five years – just as it did – even without the insanely high oil prices that turned up.  The odds of getting more cash was in doubt from the beginning.

Nonetheless they persisted.

In fact, at least one of them got annoyed when someone point out that his math skills were suspect.

As it turned out, the deal was never worth more than the first cheque.

The provincial government doesn’t qualify for Equalization any more and as such can’t earn any more credits against the cash advance.  There is more than $1.1 billion sitting  in the credit column, according to the latest audited public accounts for the province  and odds are it will never be drawn down let alone generate double as the politicians originally predicted.

This pattern of flips, flops and alarums on the big issues isn’t the only aspect of the annual Equalization tirade.

In December 2007, former finance minister Tom Marshall announcing the government had opted for the O’Brien formula in late 2007, kicking the crap out of the 1985 Accord offset formula and former premier Brian Peckford along the way.  Four months later, Marshall announced the provincial government would be sticking with the old Equalization formula and the 1985 offset in his spring budget.  All the while, Marshall fell over himself trying to explain offsets and the virtues of O’Brien versus 1985.

Note at the time that Marshall indicated sticking with the old formula would offer the best cash return over the following five years.

Then there was the Great Cap. Wade Locke’s initial assessment [full article here] of the 2007 federal budget led him to recommend switch to O’Brien/50% in 2009 to maximize revenues.  He then sparked a controversy when he discovered caps on the province’s offset deals the feds hadn’t previously disclosed.  Locke’s analysis served as fuel for the provincial government’s attack on the federal government.  It produced no assessments of its own but relied exclusively on Locke’s public analysis.

Locke then produced a new analysis that still excluded an assessment of 100% exclusion but which found that  - get this -  the old fixed formula delivered a better deal than O’Brien/50%.

Incidentally, Danny Williams told a CBC Radio audience on March 26, 2007 that the provincial government planned to flip to O’Brien in 2009 to maximize its cash take.

Then, most recently, Wade Locke told NTV News on January 28 that the net loss to the province would be $500 million or less from the most recent federal budget.  Less than a day later, he revised his projections after speaking with provincial finance officials.

A proviso on his estimate prepared for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council  released January 29  suggests more information is needed.   Nevertheless, Locke’s new assessment – prepared and released less than a day after his first assessment  - now backs the provincial version.

Oddly, Locke’s new observations do not appear to include an assessment of O’Brien/100%. It’s even more odd considering that his 2007 analysis suggested 100% exclusion was the best.  Now it is supposedly not good at all.

Confused?

That’s not surprising.

Confusion appears to be the order of the day when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador and fiscal issues.

Makes you wonder, though, with all this flipping, flopping and general policy confusion, why would anyone – including reporters and politicians  - accept anything these guys say without evidence.

-srbp-

The scrum, raw

From the cbc.ca/nl website, the raw video of the Premier’s Tuesday scrum.

Two things to note:

1.  CBC’s David Cochrane is persistent in asking the Premier to explain in simple terms what the problem is.  Time and again he pokes and probes with straight-forward questions.

2.  Cochrane doesn’t get a clear answer either because the Premier isn’t interested in giving one or he couldn’t give one.

-srbp-

De-spinning the New Family Feud newser

Q:  When did Premier Danny Williams announce that Newfoundland and Labrador was a have province and  - by definition – wouldn’t be receiving Equalization any more?

03 November 2008.  Bond Papers de-spun the scrum two days later.

Q: When did the provincial government decide to opt for the O’Brien formula and start receiving Equalization again?

Well, that isn’t clear, but on November 3 the Premier told reporters that the provincial government was looking hard at it.  He said a decision didn’t have to be made until March 2009.  The Premier confirmed in his Tuesday night scrum that the province had already decided to opt to start receiving Equalization again this fiscal year, something that hadn’t been reported publicly thus far.

Q:  When did the provincial government learn that the feds were planning to cap growth in the Equalization program to keep the costs under control?

03 November 2008, if not earlier:

In today's meeting, Flaherty will reveal the Conservatives' plan to place a limit on what Ottawa sends to poorer provinces under one of its key revenue-sharing measures, the $13.6 billion equalization program.

Q:  Which provinces are affected by the cap?

Any that receive Equalization.  Ontario will be capped just the same as all the rest, including Newfoundland and Labrador, if Newfoundland and Labrador opts to start receiving Equalization again. That’s the money the Premier mentioned in his scrum. Quebec will reportedly lose approximately the same amount.

Q.  What does the Equalization formula now provide as reported by VOCM legislative reporter Cheryl Gullage?

100% exclusion of non-renewable resources from Equalization calculations.

Q.  What was the ABC campaign – better known as the Family Feud  - all about?

The federal Conservatives promised to exclude 100% of non-renewable resource revenues from Equalization calculations but they didn’t put that in place initially.  Williams went on the war path over the issue promising to work for Stephen Harper’s defeat.

Q.  How big will the provincial government’s deficit be next year?

Even before now, it was pretty clear the provincial government would be short upwards of $1.5 billion in cash based on reduced commodity prices if spending remained where it was in 2008. A cash surplus this year  - of maybe 500 to 700 million - may have helped defray that somewhat but a deficit of $500 million on a cash basis – the largest in the province’s history – was a likely figure given some spending cuts and some borrowing.

Q.  So what’s the fuss?

The Pattern of blaming someone else. It’s a stock provincial government approach.

In this case, the provincial government is in a financial bind largely due to its overspending of the past two or three years based on unreliable income.  They were warned repeatedly by the province’s auditor general. The government made spending commitments – including 20% wage increases for public sector workers  - that it may not be able to afford.

Spending cuts will have to come to keep the deficit from ballooning to unmanageable proportions.

Far better politically to blame that on someone else for provincial government problems. The facts of the situation likely won’t matter since they likely won’t be reported in the conventional media, at least if the past is any guide.

Beyond that, five years of conditioning the public might pay off.  Some initial comments – like from provincial labour leader Lana  Payne – would suggest that some knees are already jerking across the province even before the full story showed up anywhere.

Speedy Gonzales Update:  The Premier turned up on CTV apparently to make sure everyone got the story the Feud was back on:

Williams made the comments on CTV Newsnet Tuesday evening. He says the federal budget will cost his province $1.5 billion in equalization over three years because of changes in the formula used to make the payments.

"In an economy the size of Newfoundland and Labrador, at a time when they are spending a lot of money on stimulus, it seems like an attempt to basically cripple this province," Williams said. "In a time of economic downturn, I'm at a loss at why (Harper) would do it.

Words matter.

The economy of Newfoundland and Labrador is running at something on the order of $25 billion annually.  The $1.5 billion noted here – over three years – is a drop in the bucket compared to the $75 billion the provincial economy would produce in the same time frame.

A change to Equalization doesn’t cut anything from the economy per se;  it just affects provincial government spending. 

And a half billion dollars is a lot of money to a government staring at a record deficit even assuming they had somehow completely forgotten they were told about the cap last November.

Yep.

The Pattern repeats.

The Morning After Update:  Just how confusing could the Premier’s middle-of-the-night rant be?  Read CBC’s version which is short on details but long on the nasty, vindictive – and inexplicably angry  - language the Premier apparently used.

The iPod People update:  Listen to the really short clip on the CBC website. It includes the Premier’s comment that the Equalization changes will affect Newfoundland and Labrador.  Apparently, they’ll have a “pretty crippling effect in the sense we’ll survive it.”

“Pretty crippling effect in the sense we’ll survive it.”

That’s exactly what he said.

Go figure.

 

-srbp-

Nice cap d'ere buddy

Unless the federal government is drastically changing the Equalization program yet again, entitlements are capped at the level of the lowest non-recipient province.

And might that be Newfoundland and Labrador setting the cap for transfers to provinces like Ontario?

-srbp-

The real meaning of dignity and self-respect

For the first time since the Government of Canada  created the program in 1957, Newfoundland and Labrador does not qualify for Equalization payments from the federal government.

This is a goal of every administration since 1957, except for the current one which has repeatedly campaigned  to find a way of extending Equalization payments to the provincial government indefinitely.

In 1982, Brian Peckford concluded his provincial election victory speech with words that embodied both the goal and the perceived ignominy of the hand-out: ""I am more convinced than I have any time in the past that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians speak [with] one voice when we all say one day the sun will shine and have-not will be no more."

Less than a decade later and facing economic circumstances not seen in the province since before Confederation, Clyde Wells said he longed for the day when the provincial government didn't receive a dollar of Equalization. In his remarks well pointed to self-respect - genuine self-respect - and to the sort of genuine self-determination that cannot come from the sort of the dependence of the provincial budget on federal transfers:

By doing this, and by having equalization cut this way, we are coming closer to looking after our own needs and we are coming closer to recovering some of the dignity and self-respect you lose when you depend on the federal government for 47 percent of the revenue [in the provincial budget].

I can't wait to see the day when we don't get a dollar.

Dominion Bond Rating Service recently noted the current provincial government's dependence on federal transfers as an area of concern.

Energy deals from Hibernia (begun under Peckford and completed under Wells) to Terra Nova and White Rose (negotiated under Tobin) and mineral deals like the Voisey's Bay agreement (negotiated under Roger Grimes) - savagely attacked by Danny Williams while in opposition - generated the revenues necessary to propel the province off Equalization.

Economists have forecast since 2003 that Newfoundland and Labrador would cease qualifying for Equalization within five years (i.e. by 2009/2010), based on revenues developed before October 2003 and long before anyone thought US$70 a barrel oil was anything more than the predictions of lunatics and amateurs.

-srbp- 

"Reality Check" reality check on Equalization and the Family Feud

The crew that put together's CBC's usually fine "Reality Check" can be forgiven if they missed a few points by a country mile in a summary of the Family Feud.

Forgiveness is easy since the issues involved are complex and  - at least on the provincial side since 2003 - there has never been a clear statement of what was going on.  Regular Bond Papers readers will be familiar with that.  For others, just flip back to the archives for 2005 and the story is laid out there.

Let's see if we can sort through some of the high points here.

With its fragile economy, Newfoundland and Labrador has always depended on money from the federal government. When they struck oil off the coast, the federal government concluded it would not have to continue shelling out as much money to the provincial treasury. N.L.'s oil would save Ottawa money.

Not really.

Newfoundland and Labrador is no different from most provinces in the country, at least as far as Equalization goes.  Since 1957 - when the current Equalization program started - the provincial government has received that particular form of federal transfer.  So have all the others, at various times, except Ontario.  Quebec remains one of the biggest recipients of Equalization cash, if not on a per capita basis than on a total basis. Economic "fragility" has nothing to do with receiving Equalization.

In the dispute over jurisdiction over the offshore, there was never much of a dispute as far as Equalization fundamentally works.

Had Brian Peckford's view prevailed in 1983/1984, Equalization would have worked just as it always has.  As soon as the province's own source revenues went beyond the national average, the Equalization transfers would have stopped.

Period.

That didn't work out.  Both the Supreme Court of Newfoundland (as it then was called) and in the Supreme Court of Canada, both courts found that jurisdiction over the offshore rested solely with the Government of Canada.  All the royalties went with it.

In the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the Brian Mulroney and Brian Peckford governments worked out a joint management deal.  Under that agreement - the one that is most important for Newfoundland and Labrador - the provincial government sets and collects royalties as if the oil and gas were on land.

And here's the big thing:  the provincial government keeps every single penny.  It always has and always will, as long as the 1985 Accord is in force.

As far as Equalization is concerned, both governments agreed that Equalization would work as it always had.  When a provincial government makes more money on its own than the national average, the Equalization cash stops.

But...they agreed that for a limited period of time, the provincial government would get a special transfer, based on Equalization that would offset the drop in Equalization that came as oil revenues grew.  Not only was the extra cash limited in time, it would also decline such that 12 years after the first oil, there'd be no extra payment.

If the province didn't qualify for Equalization at that point, then that's all there was.  If it still fell under the average, then it would get whatever Equalization it was entitled to under the program at the time.

The CBC reality check leaves a huge gap as far as that goes, making it seem as though the whole thing came down to an argument between Danny Williams and Paul Martin and then Danny and Stephen Harper.

Nothing could be further from the truth, to use an overworked phrase.

During negotiations on the Hibernia project, the provincial government realized the formula wouldn't work out as intended. Rather than leave the provincial government with some extra cash, the 1985 deal would actually function just like there was no offset clause. For every dollar of new cash in from oil, the Equalization system would drop Newfoundland's entitlement by 97 cents, net.

The first efforts to raise this issue - by Clyde Wells and energy minister Rex Gibbons in 1990 - were rebuffed by the Mulroney Conservatives.  They didn't pussy foot around. John Crosbie accused the provincial government of biting the hand that fed it and of wanting to eat its cake and "vomit it up" as well.

It wasn't until the Liberal victory in 1993 that the first efforts were made to address the problem.  Prime Jean Chretien and finance minister Paul Martin amended the Equalization formula to give the provincial government an option of shielding up to 30% of its oil revenue from Equalization calculations.  That option wasn't time limited and for the 12 years in which the 1985 deal allowed for offsets the provincial government could always have the chance to pick the option that gave the most cash.  It only picked the wrong option once.

The Equalization issue remained a cause celebre, especially for those who had been involved in the original negotiations.  It resurfaced in the a 2003 provincial government royal commission study which introduced the idea of a clawback into the vocabulary.  The presentation in the commission reported grossly distorted the reality and the history involved. Some charts that purported to show the financial issues bordered on fraud.

Danny Williams took up the issue in 2004 with the Martin administration and fought a pitched battle - largely in public - over the issue.  He gave a taste of his anti-Ottawa rhetoric in a 2001 speech to Nova Scotia Tories. Little in the way of formal correspondence appears to have been exchanged throughout the early part of 2004.  Up to the fall of 2004 - when detailed discussions started -  the provincial government offered three different versions of what it was looking for.  None matched the final agreement.

The CBC "Reality Check" describes the 2005 agreement this way:

The agreement was that the calculation of equalization payments to Newfoundland and Labrador would not include oil revenue. As the saying goes, oil revenues would not be clawed back. Martin agreed and then-opposition leader Harper also agreed.

Simply put, that's dead wrong.

The 2005 deal provided for another type of transfer to Newfoundland and Labrador from Ottawa on top of the 1985 offset payment.  The Equalization program was not changed in any way. Until the substantive changes to Equalization under Stephen Harper 100% of oil revenues was included to calculate Equalization entitlements.  That's exactly what Danny Williams stated as provincial government policy in January 2006, incidentally.  The Harper changes hid 50% of all non-renewable resource revenues from Equalization (oil and mining) and imposed a cap on total transfers.

As for the revenues being "clawed back", one of the key terms of the 2005 deal is that the whole thing operates based on the Equalization formula that is in place at any given time. Oil revenues are treated like gas taxes, income tax, sales tax, motor vehicle registration and any other type of provincial own-source revenue, just like they have been as long as Equalization has been around.

What the federal Conservatives proposed in 2004 and 2006 as a part of their campaign platform - not just in a letter to Danny Williams - was to let all provinces hide their revenues from oil, gas and other non-renewable resources from the Equalization calculations.  The offer didn't apply just to one province.  Had it been implemented, it would have applied to all. 

That was clear enough until the Harper government produced its budget 18 months ago. What was clear on budget day became a bit murky a few days later when Wade Locke of Memorial University of Newfoundland began to take a hard look at the numbers.

Again, that's pretty much dead wrong.

It became clear shortly after Harper took office in 2006 that the 100% exclusion idea from the 2004 and 2006 campaigns would be abandoned in favour of something else.  There was nothing murky about it at all. So plain was the problem that at least one local newspaper reported on a fracas at the Provincial Conservative convention in October 2006 supposedly involving the Premier's brother and the Conservative party's national president. That's when the Family Feud started.

As for the 2007 budget bills which amended both the 1985 and 2005 agreements between Ottawa and St. John's, there's a serious question as to whether the provincial government actually consented to the amendments as required under the 1985 Atlantic Accord.

The story about Equalization is a long one and the Family Feud - a.k.a the ABC campaign - has a complex history.  There's no shame in missing some points.  It's just so unusual that CBC's "Reality Check" was so widely off base.

-srbp-

Layton shafts Williams on key ABC demand

Jack Layton's promise to "honour the Atlantic Accord" doesn't meet one of Danny Williams key ABC demands and would deliver nothing in new federal transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador under the 2005 Williams deal with Paul Martin.

Williams is seeking to have the province's revenues from offshore oil and onshore minerals  - likely $2.0 billion this year - left out of the formula used to calculate Equalization transfers from Ottawa to the provinces.

Canadian Press gets it wrong:

Premier Danny Williams estimated the difference between the accord and the Tories' revised equalization plan was $10 billion - a sum he recently demanded Ottawa pay over 15 years.

The $10 billion number comes from the pledge made by both Stephen Harper in 2006 to drop non-renewables from Equalization. The estimated value to the province came from projections by a Memorial University economist. The actual value of the Harper 2006 promise Williams is looking for now would be considerably more given the current high prices for oil and minerals.

Harper didn't deliver in 2006.  His government instead went with a revised Equalization formula based on recommendations from an expert panel. It's that failure that ignited Williams' anger at Harper.

In 2006, Layton promised only to deliver an Equalization formula with "A better measure of fiscal capacity."

Evidence of Layton's confusion between Williams' demand and the 2005 deal is in the estimated value of the new Layton "commitment, said by Canadian Press to be worth $400 million according to NDP researchers.

Under the 2005 deal Layton referred to on Friday, the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government will receive extra federal transfers to offset declines in Equalization coming as a result of growing oil money.  But the extra cash comes only as long as the province qualifies to receive Equalization in the first place.

The provincial government won't qualify for the federal transfer this year, hence it won't be entitled to cash under the 2005 deal. 

Layton's commitment won't actually involve any new cash transfers either.

As part of the 2005 deal, Newfoundland and Labrador received an advance payment - essentially a credit against future earnings under the deal. That money won't be completely exhausted this year by the time the province goes off Equalization.  The credit in the account is considerably more than $400 million.

-srbp-

Gimme your lunch money, dork: the sequel

That $10 billion Equalization debt thingy is curious, dontchya think? The Premier and his followers bandy it about like it was fact.

Where did it come from?

Wade Locke. Well, at least one set of assessments done by the Memorial University economist.

Funny thing, though, if you look way back to last June, you'll find a study Locke did for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council (APEC), along with a buddy of his, Paul Hobson, an economist from Acadia. Hobson, incidentally proposed a totally different approach to the treatment of resource revenues, one that went completely unnoticed in all the fooferah over the past couple of years.

Anyway, Hobson and Locke, point out that all four Atlantic provinces are adversely affected by the new Equalization formula:

Nova Scotia - $159 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.4 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;

New Brunswick - $68 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.1 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework;

Prince Edward Island - $7 million increase in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $196 million less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed
Framework;

Newfoundland and Labrador - $654 million reduction in revenues for the first two years under the new Equalization program, an increase of $22 million in the third year, and reduced revenues in each year thereafter compared with the Fixed Framework: in aggregate, the province receives $1.4 billion less under the new Equalization program than under the Fixed Framework. It should be noted that Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be a recipient of Equalization after 2008-2009, under both the Fixed Framework and the new Equalization program. [Emphasis added]

Now this was before the Nova Scotia side deal which also works for Newfoundland and Labrador as well. But notice, in particular, the figure for New Brunswick. You see, the lovely province slightly to the west doesn't get much of its own cash from non-renewable resources. The reduced pot of cash involved in the new Equalization system doesn't work quite as well for them as the old way of doing things.

That's not really the whole story though.

Flip back to Ken Boessenkool's 2001 paper for the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies wherein the whole idea of taking non-renewables out of the Equalization calculation was laid out. At that time, the 10 province standard without non-renewables may have only dropped this province's Equalization transfer by a paltry $3.0 million but new Brunswick would have lost over 10 times as much cash and that's just by changing the way the formula was worked out.

The impact of various ideas for Equalization reform was also presented by the O'Brien expert panel. Go back and take a look at that report again since it includes a very good overview of Equalization and the history of the program.

You see, that's one of the things some locals keep forgetting. The Harper Equalization promise wasn't made to just one province. It was party policy across the country, affecting potentially every province. Some provincial governments like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador may have thought it was absolutely wonderful. Others? Not quite so enthusiastic.

That's the political situation - painfully and patently obvious at the time of two successive general elections - that makes it seem foolish for any provincial government to have banked on it or even expected it to be politically feasible. No surprise that the federal government went with the expert panel's recommendations and why most provinces have accepted it. The new system isn't perfect, but at least it works. And for provinces like Manitoba and new Brunswick it works considerably better than taking all non-renewable resources out of the formula.

Beyond banking on a completely unrealistic expectation, there's something else in all this some people in Newfoundland and Labrador like to ignore: After 2009, Newfoundland and Labrador won't qualify for Equalization any more under either the new scheme or the old one. As Locke and Hobson note, the provincial government would receive - by their calculation - about $1.4 billion less under the new approach compared to the Fixed Framework.

$1.4 billion.

Where does that figure turn up again?

The Public Accounts, Volume I, note 4 on page 37, released just this week:

The deferred revenue totalling $1,646.2 million consists primarily of $1,458.5 million relating to the Atlantic Accord (2005), which represents the unearned balance of the $2.0 billion advance payment received in 2005-06. In addition, the deferred revenue balance consists of $51.7 million relating to Federal Government funding for various health care initiatives, $44.9 million relating to Federal initiatives in support of post-secondary education, public transit and affordable housing, $16.4 million relating to gas tax initiatives, $62.3 million relating to entities in the education sector, $7.4 million relating to entities in the health sector, and $5.0 million related to other miscellaneous programs. These amounts will be recognized as revenue in the periods in which the revenue recognition criteria have been met. [Emphasis added]

Curious, huh?

It's likely a coincidence, but remember that when the provincial government signed the 2005 transfer deal - it wasn't about offshore oil revenues, by the way - the up front cash was offered and accepted because both the federal and provincial governments knew that, at least for Newfoundland and Labrador, it offered more cash than would be obtained before the province went off Equalization if the thing was just run on a year-to-year basis.

At the time the deal was signed, both public and government estimates were that Newfoundland and Labrador's provincial government fiscal capacity would put it off the top-up scheme called Equalization such that the second eight year phase was unlikely to be realized. As the premier noted at the time the transfer deal was signed, the whole thing came down to a discussion of the cash - the quantum, as he put it - and by simply adjusting the assumed average price of oil, the up front cash went from $1.4 billion from October to $2.0 billion in January 2005.

Poof, the deal was done. Never mind that the principles laid out in the January deal were actually inferior in some respects to the October offer. It was the up front cash that counted.

All of this should be a reminder that provincial governments across the country all look at the federal government as a source of cash. There's nothing new in this at all. The pretexts vary, but the demand is still the same. Danny Williams is looking for $10 billion or so based on what he calls a broken promise. Dalton McGuinty has a figure double that and earlier this month he went looking to Ottawa looking for another $350 million. Just this week, the arch-provincialist party the Bloc Quebecois put $15 billion of demands on the table as its price for supporting Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Saskatchewan is looking for cash, too.

Just to give a real sense of just how much the $10 billion - for example - is merely a pretext for the usual game of federal-provincial relations, look back at the letters Danny Williams sent to Stephen Harper through December and into January. The 'ask', to use Danny Williams sales talk, is the federal shares in Hibernia, which he appears to want for free. Harper doesn't dismiss the subject out of hand, as some local media erroneously reported. rather he clearly leaves the door open to discussion on a purchase price.

But the question that goes begging is why Danny Williams would be prepared to trade off an old demand of his demands in settlement of supposedly new and humiliating grievance of The Broken Promise. If The Broken Promise was both as new and as grievous as the rhetoric would suggest then it could only be genuinely settled with some new compensation.

Not so. And the willingness to trade off - to say yes to less - isn't really a constructive effort to settle an account. Take a look at what else would supposedly settle the grievance and you see a raft of things the provincial government has been seeking for some time or something else that's cropped up lately.

What we have here is old-fashioned federal-provincial relations but reduced to a highly dysfunctional set of confrontations. As noted here before, the entire thing, at least in Newfoundland and Labrador's case, is now structured in a way to frustrate the sort of political discussions that have worked on small and large projects in the past.

But that's not just a function of Danny Williams' style, although his partisans will be quick to leap forward and spew the Blackberry Talking Point du jour. Even in the most intense period of the "Fair Deal" crusade, federal-provincial relations still managed to function. Back room chats, informal exchanges and formal proposals flew back and forth between Ottawa and St. John's. There was a resolution to the major impasse, but there were also other issues that were addressed. Take the offshore board thing as a case in point. The federal and provincial governments engaged in all sorts of discussion out of public view in an effort to resolve the issue. Read the decision in Ruelokke v Newfoundland and Labrador; the evidence is there.

Like the old saying, it takes two to tango and in the current dysfunction in federal-provincial relations it takes two to tangle. The resolution to the problem may well come in the next federal election but it won't because of any ABC campaign by any one politician. You see, just looking at Newfoundland and Labrador, one can see that historically the province tends to vote anything but Conservative, whether we mean the current version of the party or the old Progressive Conservative crowd. There are some compelling reasons in front of the voting public that are likely to reinforce that tendency next time not just locally but across the country.

The old game of "Gimme me your lunch money" won't vanish. That's too entrenched in the federal-provincial system. But there is a possibility that the next federal government will take a different view of how the system should operate, one that restores the sort of political accommodation and compromise that has made Canadian federalism as successful as it has been.

And locally, when the provincial government gets a sense that things are different, well, maybe it will start focusing on those "other things to talk about" everyone has raised lately in the cell phone story. They'll start talking about fiscal responsibility and about the policies needed to sustain the province's new-found status as a major economic engine for the country.

Bullying for lunch money - looking for handouts to pay the bills - is the domain of the insecure and weak. It's time we moved on to something else. Heaven knows the province as a whole is long since past that sort of stuff even if some politicians and their supporters still have an entire forest of chips on their shoulders.

-srbp-

[h/t to Dulse and Fog for the APEC link]

In a nutshell

1. The finance minister admitted today in comments to reporters that the government had paid scant attention to the provincial debt thus far in its mandate. The government will apparently use the bulk of the 2007 budget windfall (estimated at more than $800 million) to reduce the public debt. Check the video when it comes available. Tom Marshall's comments show the hollowness of his previous claims about debt fighting.

2. Words to watch out for: "Once we account for the change in capital assets, the balance will reduce the province’s net debt." It's a question of assets and liabilities. Since the equity position contains both, let's see how the provincial government accounts for those in its upcoming budget. The windfall might actually go out the door with the debt only appearing to be reduced.

3. The only principle is cash. Not in the media reports by mid-day, but the provincial government is accepting the Harper Equalization deal, as amended by the agreement with Nova Scotia.

There's a gigantic surprise.

Not.

4. The finance minister still likes to pump out nonsense: "It is also important to acknowledge the Atlantic Accord 2005, which was successfully negotiated by Premier Williams, and its remarkable contribution to the overall improvement to the province’s fiscal position."

The improvement in the province's fiscal position is driven entirely by the results of the 1985 Atlantic Accord (the real one), three offshore development deals signed before 2003 and high mineral prices flowing from deals signed before 2003.

As the government statement said: "the change is due to much higher oil prices, increased production from the offshore projects, higher royalties for the White Rose project and higher than expected mineral prices."

Update:

5.  A portion of the finance minister's remarks are available from CBC [ram file].  Marshall refers to the cabinet decision to put $55 million of the last budget against the debt as being "not enough".    That isn't what Marshall said at the time of the budget.  In fact, his budget speech trumpeted the great strides in debt reduction he and his colleagues had made.  Rather than quote the Telegram editorial (even though the words are worth heeding), Marshall might well have pointed to those of us who have been drawing attention to the current administration's debt-reduction nakedness for some months now.

Turns out the Emperor and the entire court had no clothes and knew it all along.

6.  While you're listening try asking yourself a simple question:  who is Marshall trying to convince that paying down the debt is a good thing?  Is his audience inside cabinet or outside?

-srbp-

The best of both worlds for NS

The Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia today reached a deal to settle a dispute over the 2005 offshore equalization offset payments deal.

Under the deal, Nova Scotia will be able to chose either the O'Brien formula with a cap or the Equalization formula as it existed in 2005, whichever delivers more cash to the provincial government.

The agreement is similar in principle to an arrangement reached by the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in the early 1990s in order to maximize equalization and offsets available to the province.

Danny Williams dismissed the agreement as saying "yes to less."

He's wrong.

The ability to toggle back and forth between the two formulas means the Nova Scotia government can always choose the mechanism that will deliver the most cash. Under the federal 2007 budget, Nova Scotia would have been required to switch from the existing formula to the amended O'Brien arrangement with no ability to change, even if the original agreement proved more lucrative.

The agreement works to Nova Scotia's advantage since the province is not forecast to become a "have" province before the expiration of the deal and therefore qualifies for both equalization and the 2005 bonus payments. By contrast, Newfoundland and Labrador will cease to qualify for equalization - and by definition become a "have" province - within the next two years. That change is due entirely to the performance of the provincial economy, especially oil and gas deals signed long before Williams became premier.

The 2005 agreement delivered a single $2.0 billion advance payment. No additional money has been received since the original cheque, despite false claims by the province's finance minister that the current budget contains money from the 2005 offshore deal. The provincial government merely draws down against the advance each year based on a calculation of what the province is entitled to receive. The figures in the budget represent an accounting practice, not new money.

By contrast, in 2005 Williams did say yes to less than he had earlier requested. Williams' initial demand was for a payment from the federal government equal to all the provincial government's offshore revenues, paid over the life of offshore production. In today's terms and based on the provincial government's own figures, that demand would have been worth in excess of $16 billion for the Hebron project alone.

Williams settled for $2.0 billion in cash.

-srbp-

The case against Mr. Harper

"A little neglect may breed great mischief"

The Harper administration's move to alter fundamentally two bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and two provinces is proof of Ben Franklin's age old aphorism on the great consequences bred of the seemingly smallest of actions.

Stephen Harper and his administration are neglecting the commitments not only contained in the agreements involved but the fundamental principles on which those agreements are based.

Two Travelors On the Road to Perdition

John Crosbie has waded into the affair, through private correspondence now provided to the news media, and his memoranda identify the core of the problem. Unfortunately, along the way he engages in an example of historical revisionism which would make Stalinists seem like rank amateurs at the game of altering the public record to state the opposite of what occurred. He also proposes an unduly complex series of possible actions that would, on some level, also strike the fundamental principles underpinning the agreements he helped negotiate.

For his part, Premier Danny Williams has met the Harper affront with entirely appropriate anger and indignation. Sadly, his mercurial temper has led him to run bare headed at the whole matter. In the process, the Premier has set himself on a course that cannot attain its destination.

He has set an impossible policy goal, namely removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the calculation under Equalization of a province's fiscal capacity. The results of such an approach would be to create fundamental inequities in a federal program that ought to be equitable in its treatment of all provinces. As difficult as some may find the O'Brien Equalization formula, cap or no cap, it is at least an honest compromise among contending proposals on Equalization. It's result would be fair.

Mr. Williams has set himself on a political goal - namely defeating Harper at the polls - which is, if not impossible, one which also sets an appalling - if not downright dangerous - precedent. For the first time in recent memory, an administration of one province has set itself on a policy of defeating the administration of another jurisdiction.

Were the Premier to carry his campaign beyond a few speeches, he is unlikely to achieve that political goal either, but at the same time he has set a precedent which would justify any administration in Canada, federal or provincial, overtly or covertly conspiring to defeat Mr. Williams or any of his successors. His anti-Harper campaign is potentially as dangerous for the future of the country as the grievance he seeks to redress; while his intentions may be excellent, Mr. Williams might well find in his actions proof of another truism about the road to perdition.

Casey has it right

Of all the politicians discussing Equalization and the various accords, the only one to get it right is Nova Scotia Tory Bill Casey.

He said a Canadian signature on a contract should mean something and if the government can walk away from its commitment, what does the future hold?

“It is our reputation as a country,” he said in the House. “It is important that people around the world know when the government of Canada signs a contract, it is bullet proof, one can depend on it. It is important. It is bullet proof, solid gold.”

No one has said it as cleanly as that. Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Williams are chasing irrelevant side-issues and each does so for his own individual reasons.

Both are missing the issue of greatest importance to the people of the province. That is as unconscionable as it is unfathomable.

Section 60 of the 1985 Atlantic Accord - the real Atlantic Accord - states simply that neither party can amend the enabling legislation unilaterally. Yet that is exactly what Stephen Harper is doing in one consequential amendment in his current budget bill.

If Mr. Harper can change one provision of the Accord and get away with it, what else can he change in that deal? Management? Revenues? He can change anything he wants.

Successive Liberal and Conservative federal government's have honoured the Accord both in letter and spirit since it was signed. (Mr. Crosbie ought to know that his claims are false on this point) Successive federal governments have improved on the original deal to cope with problems. That would include, incidentally, the 2005 subsidiary agreement that delivered - apparently - what Mr. Crosbie could not get himself or - if we look to 1990 - didn't want to give the ingrates in his own province.

In the end, Mr. Crosbie seems to embody his own cheap words about cake and regurgitation. Entirely appropriate, given how many Conservatives seem to be guilty of the same failings they usually have attributed to others.

But all that ignores the very dangerous course Mr. Harper is on, one made no less perilous by the focus of both Mr. Williams and Mr. Crosbie on the irrelevant.

Changing the 1985 Atlantic Accord - the real one - can take away the very basis on which the second one even exists. Changing the original agreement can take away the entire industry, not merely the extra revenue from federal transfers.

And it's not like that thought hasn't been tossed into the public discussion. Conservative Norm Doyle told a VOCM audience yesterday that times changes and so the Accord must change as well. He warned that nothing is permanent, or words to that effect. Under pressure, it would seem that something a little closer to the truth slipped out than anything Doyle has said previously on the offshore.

Fundamentally, the case against Mr. Harper is exactly as Bill Casey has described it.

It remains a mystery why Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn, cabinet minister's in Newfoundland when the 1985 Accord was reached, would put the whole thing in jeopardy.

Likewise, it remains a mystery why both Danny Williams and John Crosbie have each gone off
on their own tangents, ignoring in the process a simple point with potentially profound consequences.

Bill Casey figured it out.

What's wrong with the rest of them?

-srbp-

Promise made? Promise knee-capped

From Saskatchewan comes a simple statement of the case against the federal Conservatives and their verbal dancing over language, promises and caps on offshore offsets:

During the House of Commons finance committee session Monday, here's what the Calgary backbench MP said to Calvert: "There was no mention of an (equalization) cap when this was discussed in (Conservative) election rhetoric, but there was no mention that there would not be a cap, either." This isn't quite the case. In fact, the Conservatives were absolutely clear -- at least with one part of the country -- that there would be no equalization caps.

"The Conservative Party of Canada believes that offshore oil and gas revenue are the key to real economic growth in Atlantic Canada," then-federal opposition leader Stephen Harper said in a mailout directly to Atlantic voters, ironically headlined with the Gaelic proverb "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept." "That's why we would leave you with 100 per cent of your oil and gas revenues.

"No small print. No excuses. No caps." The problem with Ablonczy's remark is you simply can't promise voters in one part of the country "no small print, no excuses, no caps" and then tell the Saskatchewan premier "there was no mention that there would not be a cap, either." That would be a lie.

That last sentence just about says it all.

-srbp-

Ahhh, but what if...

Funny how everyone is in a high dudgeon over Equalization.

Well, not e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e, as was painfully obvious at the Rally for Danny.

Despite the claims of the rally organizers, it looks like about 1500 people showed up on a fine and glorious Friday. None too impressive.

[Photo removed by request] For those who don't know, that was the non-partisan rally organized by DW's political supporters and attended by...well, ...his political supporters, like this gaggle of political staffers (left). That's the Premier's parliamentary assistant standing there in shades, likely keeping an eye on his promotion to cabinet.

Paul Oram's boss worked the crowd like it was a Tory rally and at an appropriate moment took a spot behind the podium to deliver what was likely seen by most to be the keynote. They even chanted "Danny! Danny! Danny"!

The whole thing featured a bunch of speakers, culminating in a few politicos, but the high point was surely DW himself, as would be fitting at a Rally for Danny.

There was Steve Kent, on behalf of municipalities in the province, but oddly enough an aspiring DW candidate, as Bond revealed last January. He'll formally announce tomorrow but Bond isn't expecting a thank you for saving everyone the six months of suspense.

There was Kevin Noble, a fine local actor who has lately taken to calling every VOCM talk show on the go to attack anyone saying anything about DW that might look like criticism. No small irony Noble spent a chunk of his professional time playing Joe Smallwood.

Noble could parlay the whole thing into a kind of eerie one man show in which he plays both premiers simultaneously. Challenge people to guess which one said what.

But I digress.

Then there was a police officer speaking on behalf of police officers.

Yes, at a political rally.

Odd that no one bothered to read RNC Act and regulations.

And there was The-Only-Locally-Owned-Newspaper editor who tried to out-speechify the best political speechifiers. He was evidently taking a break from fearlessly tracking down all the stuff that conforms to his political biases, at least when it comes to the crowd Up-a-long, to give speech which confirmed once again that he is a master at saying one thing and doing another:

"I'm here to say it's time for Newfoundland and Labrador to grow up."

Speak for yourself, there buddy. The rest of us are wondering why the nationalists seem to project personal shortcomings, like immaturity or a lack of self-esteem, onto an entire population.

They all shared the view of the guy singing a song in praise of the Fearless Leader and encouraging him to keep up the fight against the evil enemy of the moment.

Anyway...

All of that is just a way of reminding regular Bond Papers readers that the problems with Harper Equalization problems were well known.

And they were known some time ago.

Well known to everyone, it would seem except Fearless Leader who, during the last federal election, was supporting the guy he has now turned on. The year before that he was trashing Harper - carrying an even better version of the later promise - and sucking on to Paul Martin.

But by 2006, there was this piece for example, that noted the vagueness of the 2005/06 version of Harper's commitment.

Then there was this one that predicted a nasty Equalization fight was on the way.

In March, 2006 - a mere two months after Canada's New Crowd took office - the rest of the world knew what Danny Williams apparently still didn't realize in October. [or did he?]

Then there was the little piece on bullshit, which is the main fuel for most of the Canadian political system apparently.

And even in this seemingly unrelated piece, there is evidence of what Stephen Harper was proposing and how it would benefit the provincial government, at least in comparison to the system the Premier himself proposed originally.

As yes, if only more people read Bond Papers.

or just grew up.

-srbp-

Just say no

It's not on line but this story appeared in today's Telegram.

It appears here thanks to someone with better typing skills than your humble e-scribbler.

Analyses remain secret; Province won't release examination of system

by Rob Antle

It's been an argument fought largely without the help of any hard numbers or firm facts. And the provincial government is doing its part to ensure the situation stays that way.

The Williams administration confirmed this week it won't make public any of its analyses of changes to the federal equalization system.

Requested data

The Telegram requested the data a month ago under provincial access-to-information laws.

The province says doing so would violate both cabinet confidences, and a portion of the law dealing with the financial and economic interests of a public body.

A spokeswoman for Premier Danny Williams steered questions to the provincial Department of Finance, which denied the request.

Williams has been at war with Ottawa since the federal budget was tabled March 19.

The Harper government sidestepped a key election promise on equalization, instituting a cap on benefits.

Williams was apoplectic, commissioning a nationwide advertising campaign condemning the prime minister.

The feds, meanwhile, insist the province can stay in the old equalization system and retain the uncapped Atlantic Accord.

No hard numbers

Neither side has tabled any hard numbers to back up their respective opinions about the benefits of the new system versus the old.

Earlier this month, Ottawa told The Telegram it would require 1,056.67 hours just to prepare to release 31,700 pages of documents analysing the potential impact of the new system on Newfoundland and Labrador.

The federal Finance Department said it would take another 69 hours just to find the information. Total bill: $17,500.

Province just said no

The province, meanwhile, shut the door entirely.

Last month, Williams skated around three separate questions from reporters about whether he would release provincial analyses.

"It depends on how far we can go," he said April 18.

Equalization is fiendishly complicated, with factors as diverse as the price of oil, the value of the Canadian dollar and the economic performance of every province potentially shifting benefit levels.

Projections released

To date, the only person who has publicly released any projections of the new system's impact is Memorial University economist Wade Locke.

Locke first calculated that the new system could provide a boon of $5.6 billion to the province.

But a new set of parameters - based on changes in federal budget implementation laws - turned that boon into a bust. Locke's revised analysis showed the new system would provide $1 billion less than the status quo over 12 years.

The MUN economist has urged the feds and the province to make public their own projections.

Neither side has expressed much interest in doing so.

-srbp-

Back to the future: an overview of Equalization

Lost in most of the current kerfuffle on Equalization is any understanding of what the federal transfer program does or how it evolved.

Thomas Courchene contributed a simple historical summary of the program to Policy Options in March. The following extract suggests that the current Equalization approach is very similar to the one introduced in 1962:

At this juncture, it is important to recognize that equalization has played another key role in the evolution of our federation. Over the years the federal government transferred progressively larger shares of the PIT [federal personal income tax] and CIT [federal corporate income tax] to the provinces, which made Canada one of the most tax-decentralized federations in the world. Arguably this tax decentralization would not have been politically acceptable to the "have-not" provinces were it not for the existence of equalization. In this sense, equalization also benefits the rich
provinces, since it allows them to reap the benefits of their superior tax bases.

In the 1962 quinquennial revision of the tax arrangements, the share of PIT entering the equalization formula was increased to 16 percent (with an interim increase to 13 percent in 1958). For present purposes, however, the importance of the 1962 revisions is that natural resources entered the formula for the first time, thereby beginning a complex and volatile relationship that has influenced the evolution of Canadian federalism well beyond the fiscal arena. The concern at issue in this time frame was that resource-rich Alberta was receiving equalization.

To prevent this, the formula was expanded to include resource revenues — 50 percent of the three-year average of provincial resource revenues would now be eligible for equalization. While this would exclude Alberta from receiving equalization, it would have substantially increased the total level of equalization. To temper this expansion the equalization standard was reduced from the TTPS [top-two-province standard] to a national-average standard (NAS).

This modification was short-lived. Following up on its 1963 election platform, the new Pearson government restored the TTPS standard and removed resource revenues from the formula, replacing them with the "resource-revenue override"; henceforth, 50 percent of the resource revenues accruing to a province would be deducted from that province’s equalization entitlement. The return to the top-two-province standard meant that Ontario was again the only "have" province, but the resource revenue override precluded Alberta and BC from receiving equalization.

-srbp-