Comments | canpolitik: The Atlantic Accord

onewayfreak in canpolitik

The Atlantic Accord

Dec 23, 2004 12:32

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/22/offshore-williams041222.htmlRead more... )

Comments 15

tridus December 23 2004, 08:42:13 UTC

For me its pretty simple. Liberal Party promises are worthless, they have a track record of breaking them nearly 12 years long. Martin promised it so he could win the election, not because he actually intends on doing it.

onewayfreak December 23 2004, 08:48:51 UTC

Haha I figured that one out on my own - Harper did the same back in June, about two days before Martin. But do you think Newfoundland deserves to have this deal honored? And not just because election promises should be fullfilled. Do you think Newfoundland should get a break on this?

siobhan63 December 23 2004, 08:53:47 UTC

I do. People tend to forget (or don't know) that natural resources revenue was not always factored into the equalization equation. Alberta used to be a "have not" and received equalization, while also keeping 100% of the revenue it got from it's oil and gas. It was in 1964 (i think) that the formula was changed to include natural resources revenue, which bumped Alberta from have-not to have status. But during the years where they were able to collect both without penalty, it allowed them time to grow both their oil and gas industry and their economy in general. I don't see why we can't allow both NL and NS to do the same.

allhatnocattle December 23 2004, 19:38:44 UTC

But wasn't equalization payments implemented in 1982?

I've tried to find info on Alberta being a have-not province. 1964 you say? I've heard this rumour a few times but have failed to find any links to verify it. It's not that I don't believe it, it's entirely plausible/possible. I'ld just like to learn more about the wealth and poverty of this province. I'm sure in the coming centenial they'll be history sites to visit explaining more.

Thread 5

bluejupiter December 23 2004, 10:58:02 UTC

The Atlantic Provinces should be able to keep their revenues. We ALL know what happens to the money that goes to Ottawa to be 'redistributed'. That money disappears down the big ol' black hole that is the Ottawa bureaucracy.

emptymotel December 23 2004, 11:21:21 UTC

Not to rain on any parade but it may come down to a choice for Ottawa between letting provinces keep their own resource revenues and being able to finance these new health care promises. What if part of the deal with NL and NS required them to fork out more for healthcare once they were able to stand on their two feet again?

canadianpyramid December 23 2004, 12:48:12 UTC

At this rate, it's a moot point, since they're not going to be able to get on their feet until they get to keep the revenues.

siobhan63 December 23 2004, 13:05:00 UTC

Not exactly sure what you mean. The Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), which is the money the feds transfer to ALL the provinces and territories for healthcare and other social programs, is completely separate from equalization payments. The smaller provinces like NL, NS, PEI, NB are already at a disadvantage when it comes to the CHST because that money is divied out on a per capita basis; consequently, those provinces have been getting less money over the years because their populations are stagnant or declining.

emptymotel December 23 2004, 13:57:38 UTC

of course they're at a disadvantage. No one would deny that. I'm trying to see things from the federal side to be prepared for their conditions. The CHST program is about to be upped, right? Regardless of how little the maritimes get or will get, they will still get something. Now if Ottawa, in a sense, loses money by giving up any revenues they were getting from NL resources, less will be able to go into the CHST. So I'm guessing that something like what I said above will happen: a trade off of sorts. Now, this isn't what happened in Alberta but they have their own healthcare quarrels.
Believe me, I'm not siding with Ottawa here. I just think it's too good to be true that they'll just let go of that cash source without conditions.

Thread 5

jawnbc December 23 2004, 14:35:56 UTC

I think Newfoundland gets the short end of the stick often. What I've never understood is how the province that produced Joey Smallwood (for better and worse) hasn't elected NDP MPs instead of Libs or neoCons/Tories?

onewayfreak December 24 2004, 05:16:27 UTC

I wonder that myself sometimes. But, we've got an aging population. And, being an island, we were kind of isolated for a lot of our history, so we've always been a little bit old-fashioned. To be honest, I nearly had a stroke when I heard about the same sex marriage legalisation. I thought for sure there'd be more of a fight - I always said it'd be a cold day in hell before any government on this rock would do something progressive. I guess I don't have much faith in the residents of my province.

allhatnocattle December 23 2004, 20:00:46 UTC

Ahhhh the Newfoundland advantage! I saw a little bit on History channel about the Maritimes being a place of prosperity back in the olden days. People flocked there for the wealth of fishing jobs, big timber, and aristocrats to sell their artisan wares to. So much has changed. So much for the worse ( ... )

onewayfreak December 24 2004, 05:29:53 UTC

I know 9 kids (in their early twenties) who've moved to Alberta in the last two years. And none of them wanted to leave, and they all still refer to Newfoundland as home, but they say there's no way they can come back. They're earing twice as much as they would be here ( ... )