Saskatchewan Sues

[train]

So Harper decides to gut the accord and propose a new deal which would pay the provinces he wants to pay exactly how he wants, but not pay more to the provinces he doesn't want to pay.

This stategy of Harpers would appear to not be terribly disimilar from the below strategy of Martins

And better yet, given how bad NL's economy has been for so many years, and how promising this oil stuff is - let's let them keep their "poor" status for a number of years, and really get the province going.

The only real difference is that they each have a different province that they feel like "paying off". With Martin it was the Atlantic provinces and Sask, while with Harper it's Quebec.

 

[train]

I agree that it is unfair, especially when a so call poor province ends up having a higher fiscal capacity than Ontario.

Someone, do you happen to know the definition of fiscal capacity in this context and how it is measured ?

 

[TQM]

and I've

already shown where you are wrong.

As for the Accord being negative, I see nothing particularly negative about it. But time will tell.

 

[TQM]

Oh,

I forgot to point out that the Conservatives did not oppose the Atlantic Accord, on May 19, 2005. They did vote against a second bill that day, which resulted in a tie vote decided in favour of the government by the vote of the Speaker of the House. The Conservatives had wanted to bring down the government, but as a gesture of support for it, chose to not vote against the Atlantic Accord.

Hidden agenda.

 

[someone]

Someone, do you happen to know the definition of fiscal capacity in this context and how it is measured ?

The details have changed that a few times over the years and it has been a while since I taught this, so I might be a bit out of date. However, the basic idea is to take the average revenues from the five reference provinces (it used to be all 10 provinces but Alberta’s oil revenues go so high that to avoid Ontario qualifying they excluded Alberta. At the same time, they also excluded the four Atlantic provinces to supposedly balance out the exclusion of Alberta). They then ask how much tax revenue a given province could raise if they had the same “taxes” as five standard provinces (I put “taxes” in quotations, as they also include things like sales of lottery tickets). If the result is that the province would get less than the average revenues of those 5 provinces, they receive an equalization payment equal to the difference. In reality, things are more completed due to many exceptions. For example, hydro power is (maybe “was”, I may not be uptodate) measured in terms of kilowatts produced rather than revenue. This benefits Quebec and hurts Newfoundland as Newfoundland gets the production of Churchill falls counted against it, even though Quebec gets most of the profits. Also, under the original Altantic Accords, 75% of Newfoundland’s offshore revenues where excluded from the calculations. After Danny lowered the Canadian flag in Quebec, that was increased to 100%.

already shown where you are wrong.

As for the Accord being negative, I see nothing particularly negative about it. But time will tell.

I think that it is clear that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, so why don't you drop it.


BTW, in case anyone is interested in Ontario's position see:

"McGuinty talks tough on equalization Ontario will oppose any deal that forces its taxpayers to help richer provinces, he warns Harper" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070615.watlantic15/BNStory/National/home

In it McGuinty states: "I know that Prime Minister Harper has made a deliberate effort to bring a principle-based approach to dealing with equalization and federal transfers to provinces and territories. I support that concept. We are very much in agreement with that kind of approach and I hope that he continues to be informed by principles rather than politics as he enters into this newest round of discussions."