Whiners

Of course, it's so simple. All us easterners have to do is get up off our duffs and come out west to work. It all makes sense now.

Wait a second, we are already out here.

Hey Lance,

I'll give up the equalization if you westerners (since we are regionalizing each other) give up all farming, livestock and land aid and subsistence, every penny. Maybe we can convince Ontario to give up it's automobile & manufacturing subsidies and Quebec can give up the Bombardier aid. How about BC and the pine beetle, aw forget those forest companies and their 1000's of employees, bunch of whiners. Not much of a country or economy left after that hey Lance?

Equalization is nothing but a welfare wall. Harper recognized it in opposition but can't seem to want to sell it to Ontarians & Quebecers, best to buy them off. Therefore, no nation building, only central Canada appeasing. SK would do good from its proximity to AB. Atlantic Canada (the Maritimes do not include NL) are annexed from Canadian opportunities because of Quebec. Why doesn't SK and MB charge ON & QU rider fees on the nat. gas (TransCanadaPipeLines) that passes through those provinces on their way down east like QU charges NL on access to power markets in ON and eastern seaboard from Churchill Falls?

Did you read the AIMS report? I'll post the link for the 5th time here
http://www.aims.ca/library/Equalization3.pdf

Cheers to you Lance,
Glenn

Give up the subsidies and you'll give up equalization? Done. Just make sure that we include ALL the subsidies.

Following the Money Trail II
http://www.aims.ca/library/MoneyTrail.pdf
Dated: 1/6/06
In Following the Money Trail II, AIMS sets the record straight about the real scope of subsidization of the region’s private sector. It shows that Atlantic Canadian businesses remain among the most heavily subsidized in the country.

The 100% Solution is indeed a good paper, but it's not the only one. AIMs also has several other good papers on equalization that should also be read as they are part of the 3 part series.

The Flypaper Effect
http://www.aims.ca/library/Equalization2.pdf
Dated: 22/6/06
Does Equalization really contribute to better public services, or does it just 'stick to' politicians and civil servants? The second of AIMS' special Equalization Series.

Why Some are More Equal than Others
http://www.aims.ca/library/Equalization1.pdf
Dated: 20/6/06
In this first of a Commentary series on Equalization, AIMS looks beyond the dollars and cents to the actual public services. It shows Canada over-equalizes.

Nothing about equalization is simple.

Here's another approach. How about all Provinces with over-representation in the House of Commons give up their seats in return for the 100% solution? Regionalism works a lot of different ways.

" Is there a disconnect between socialist theory and socialist policy? I thought sharing was the whole point"

You even have to ask this? The socialists theory,and policy,is simple....what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine. Simple.

The socialists theory,and policy,is simple....what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine. Simple.

Toronto mayor David Miller, is that you?

As Kate said before, Socialism isn't a political ideology - it's a pyramid scheme

The socialists theory,and policy,is simple....what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine. Simple.

Toronto mayor David Miller, is that you?

As Kate said before, Socialism isn't a political ideology - it's a pyramid scheme

Mississauga Matt...Who is this David Miller? He is simply a wantabee,taking advantage of the sheeples of Trawana. REAL socialists go after countries.Oh wait.My mistake.That would involve WORK,which is against the social policy of the leftie.If it ain't free or stolen from the taxpayer,the social's don't want it.

Whiners indeed and the mouthiest whiner ever is Danny Boor Williams.
Let's scrap equalization, let 'em sink or swim in a free market. We'll see how the whiners feel next time things go bust in their newly rich fiefdoms.

The province of Quebec is one rich in resources and should not be a have-not designation either.

Ah Liz....but this is the way of the fleur-de-lis...let others save you,and live of the avails.

While Bono and Geldof have the media on side whining, misquoting(lying and spinning)and dragging this out, PM Harper again shows backbone and doesn't let them get away with it ...his speech is tucked in to video selection on CTV.
But who gets the headlines?
Harper is stressing accountability...if that is what Bono is referring to when he claims Harper 'blocked' discussion, what does Bono have to hide?
The worst thing any of the G8 could do is send money to someone like Mugabe, and the people of Africa would never see a dime.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." –George Bernard Shaw

Sorry ...should have commented under 'readers tips'...where the discussion is about the other whiners...

whining at every level . Bronco Dave is still whining about the largest provincial budget in history.

Liberalism and duffism runs deep in this country , from whiner Danny Williams to whiner Phil Fontaine they just cant get their paws on enough for nothing.

lance asks, "I thought sharing was the whole point?"

Well, yeah, it is IF you're on the receiving end of the sharing.

IF, on the other hand, you're being asked to be on the giving end of the equation, that's a different matter for Whiny Williams and Covetous Calvert.

Sheesh. O Canada...

socialism, government sanctioned destruction of wealth.

I'll post this again, because it is relevant:

I went to Stats Can and summed up all the transfers to provinces from the Fed government.

Who does the best per capita? Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm tired of them.

Check out the graph: http://www.clangmann.net/?p=9

I think the dust up over the Atlantic accord and the censoring of a Maritime CPC cab-min as well as Danny Williams bleeting is not so much about what the Maritimes got per se as it was about the CPC breaking an election promise on the accord.

Although I agree that there is far too much wining for fed transfers, I think it is far more incideous that the CPC now seem to operate the way the Chretien Liberals did...hurling solid MPs from office for calling attention to brioken promises....then there's the broken election promise that started all this.

This latest crap compounded with the CPC flip flop on GHG/GW and their lip service to many other Liberal misdirects tells me this party has an identity crisis.

Are they Liberals? Are they a coalition? Most of all are they a real alternative.

"Is there a disconnect between socialist theory and socialist policy?"

To ask if there is a disconnect is to imply that there might once have been a connection. Socialism is about doing things that make no sense, but explaining it away by saying it's because you care about people.

I remember seeing an interview with P.E. Trudeau saying they ran deficits because they cared more about people than they did about numbers. Thanks P.E.T. Only $550 billion in debt left to retire, all because a socialist didn't understand that you can't spend more than your income for an indefinite period of time. And now we have Trudeau Jr. lecturing schoolkids on the weaknesses of capitalism. History repeats itself.

Equalization should be eliminated. All it does is create dependence on government money, a sense of entitlement and a defeatist mindset. The same thing can be seen in healthy, employable people who are nonetheless chronically dependent on welfare.

Compare Maine to New Brunswick and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As long as we're linking to AIMS, here's a piece called "rags to riches: if only governments would stop 'helping' so much".

http://www.aims.ca/library/rags.pdf

kinda sums up Danny "Hugo Chavez North" Williams

3w.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070609.RDECLOET09/TPStory/Business

Danny Chavez makes life harder on the Rock
Headshot of Derek DeCloet

DEREK DeCLOET

June 9, 2007

Nothing can stop Canada's sizzling job market, and it's not just an Alberta story any more. In every province but two, unemployment is lower today than in 2000, and in absolute terms, no province has enjoyed a bigger decline in the jobless rate than Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, this week's employment data prove it: As Premier of the Rock, Danny Williams is an economic disaster. No, really. He is. The drop in Newfoundland's unemployment rate to 12.9 per cent sounds good - it was nearly 17 per cent at the start of the decade - but the statistic hides as much as it tells. It flatters Mr. Williams.

A more meaningful figure is the employment rate, which tells you what percentage of the labour pool is actually working (as opposed to the number who are looking for work but can't find it). The hard facts are these: barely half - 51.5 per cent - of working-age Newfoundlanders have a job, trailing everywhere else by a country mile. Forget Alberta. If only Newfoundland had the same employment rate as tiny Prince Edward Island (61 per cent), it would have 40,000 more inhabitants drawing a paycheque.

How can this be, in a province blessed with abundant oil reserves, during the greatest energy boom in a generation? I doubt that Newfoundlanders are that much lazier than other Canadians. It's about opportunity, or lack of it. Newfoundland's jobs boom is a mirage: Roughly the same number of jobs exist there today as in October, 2003, when Mr. Williams was elected. It's the size of the labour force that has shrunk, because residents are moving to Fort McMurray and other points west.

"If [companies] want to deal with South American dictators, they can go to South America," says Charles Cirtwill, acting president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Halifax. He's referring, of course, to Mr. Williams' latest gambit - to demand a 5-per-cent stake in all future oil and gas projects, at no cost to the province. A similar demand has put the brakes on Hebron, a massive offshore oil development led by Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

If that smells vaguely like expropriation, or perhaps extortion, we assure you that it's merely Mr. Williams trying to get a "fair share," to use the phrase that often accompanies Newfoundlanders' grievances. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder, though. Wade Locke, an economist at Memorial University, found that government's take of offshore oil projects is 51 to 55 per cent of pretax cash flow - "similar to the shares found in Alaska, Alberta and Australia." The province gets a larger piece than Ottawa.

So lush are the royalties from energy that they could turn Newfoundland into a "have" province by about 2012, ending decades of equalization payments from the feds, Mr. Locke writes. Inconveniently, that would also bring an end to Mr. Williams' popular stunts to protest that multibillion-dollar gifts of equalization are not enough. Politically, that's magic. Mr. Williams' Conservatives enjoy more than 70 per cent approval in recent polls.

But if extreme confrontation works for squeezing more dough out of Ottawa, it doesn't work for business. When it comes to the Premier's tiresome Danny Chavez routine, oil companies don't know where the demands will stop. In Hebron, the government first demanded a 4.9-per-cent stake. Mr. Williams' Natural Resources Minister is already warning that it will ask for more, once negotiations resume. "If you're an investor, you're not interested in finding a resource that may be nationalized four or five years from now," says Mr. Cirtwill of AIMS.

Don't laugh. That's essentially what happened to Fishery Products International. The province didn't reclaim ownership of FPI, but successive Liberal and Tory governments neutered the company. Twice since 2001, the province amended the FPI Act, obstructing a merger attempt and meddling in restructuring plans. John Risley, who was part of the investor group that took control of the company in 2001, remembers getting a phone call from FPI's lead banker. "He said, 'You guys don't run this business any more. The government does.' "

FPI is being sold now in pieces - only after the province imposed conditions that will force the buyers to prop up rural towns in Newfoundland. Mr. Risley says breaking up the company was the only way to get it out from under the government's thumb. The quickest way to fix the poisoned business environment would be for voters to kick Mr. Williams out this fall, but Mr. Cirtwill just laughs at the idea. "The only real question is, is he going to win every seat?"

I just read an Article written by Minister Flaherty in an east coast paper ( its at National Newswatch)
He explains the deal pretty clearly.
If a province has a choice and chooses the option that does not include the accord, how exactly is that a broken promise by the feds?

Re: Saskatchewan (aka The Backward Province)

That's a boom? heh

Oh forgot, the standards are always lower for socialists.

There is NO boom in Saskatchewan right now.

All the rumour has done is artificially inflate the cost of houses in most towns. If you say the word "oil" in a town then house prices jumped $75,000 and we are told to "buy right away before all the people moving back from Alberta drive the price up higher."

Meanwhile our responsible government has released NO statistics on this phenomena. But you can guarantee the rumour still circulates through articles like this.

The trouble with socialists is they always want something for nothing. In the real world "there is no free lunch"
I am ashamed that Calvert spends so much time and money to access more welfare. If he got off his duff and let the province earn a real living to pay its bills I could give him more respect.
We have ruined the work ethic and self esteem of the natives with handouts and are doing that same thing to the "have" not provinces.
The Nashville Predators rely on equalization and don't want more butts in the seats as it would drop their revenues.
The main reason socialism doesn't work is that socialists don't like to work.

Fact is, Lance, Deceivin' Stephen and his 12 Saskatchewan stooges refuse to honor their election promise to SK to exclude non-renewable resources from equalization. That's the issue: conservative duplicity.

To some, a broken promise is, "this is what I decided you meant, and it was a promise, and you broke it." They misinform on the "promise" and then cry it was broken.

Lance, I agree Bombadier should be cut off. Welfare, corporate or otherwise, creates dependency and stifles creativity. Policy becomes crying for more money.

Sask is rich in resources, this should be their time, yet Calvert wastes energy crying about "promises."

The Maritimes is an economic basket case precisely because they suck off the equalization tete. They need to be weened. Williams, if I hear him right, wants payments to continue no matter how wealthy Nfld becomes.

Well, buddy, then it's not equalization anymore. Alta pays because they have natural resources. What would Williams think if they took they resource revenue out of the calculation?

The Maritimes share similar geography and demographics with NE coast of US, yet it flourishes, without equalization. What is the difference here? It's this paradox of welfare designed to help people that makes them dependent. Instead of a hand up they want a handout. It doesn't work and (Dionsky would shudder) isn't sustainable.

Murphy, I cant find any reason why i should believe Calvert on this issue rather than Mr Flaherty.
When The Government Broke their word on income trusts, they admitted it and explained why it had to be done.
I expect that if it was true that they had broke their word to Mr. Calvert, they would do the same.

"Re: Saskatchewan (aka The Backward Province)

That's a boom? heh

Oh forgot, the standards are always lower for socialists.
Posted by: ol hoss"

When's the last time you turned down a farm subsidy, hoss?

Are non-renewable resources excluded for Alberta? Isn't that duplicitous?

When's the last time you turned down a farm subsidy, hoss?

Just last year. And the year before that, and the year before that.... Why do you ask?

On the other hand, I am forced to pay, through land taxes, to school (to use the term loosely) your spawn who will grow up to produce more spawn who will expect free indoctrination.

"Are non-renewable resources excluded for Alberta? Isn't that duplicitous?"

I could be wrong but I do believe that they are. However, the point is that Harper and his stooges reneged on an explicit promise to SK. If you want to hear whining, let Alberta be on the the receiving end of the same kind of treatment.

I agree, there should be no exemptions from the equalization formula. In addition, I feel that excluding natural resources only encourages their explotation at a greater rate on the provinces side, a bad thing.

However, as already pointed out, my objection is with the broken promise of a government/party that campaigned on standing up for Canadians and keeping their promises (something the previous Liberal Government certainly wasn't doing). If Harper and his 12 Sask parrots hadn't stomped around this province for months yelling to the rooftops their promises then we wouldn't have a problem would we.

What is interesting is how so many of their supporters can so easily look the other and even try and justify a broken promise (one of many that are mounding up as the Conservatives try to out Liberal the Liberals).

As for socialism being a bad thing. Why does Saskatchewan boast one of the best cost-of-living's in the country, the lowest utility bundle in the country and the lowest auto insurance, not to mention no healthcare premium to speak of? If that is the ill's of Socialism then I will gladly take it any day.

Spin away....

"Just last year. And the year before that, and the year before that....

Sure, hoss. Pull the other one.

Why are all of you worried about exclusion or inclusion of natural resources.
Sask. doesnt have any do they?

The following are quotations from Prime Minister Stephen Harper (then-opposition leader) in the House of Commons during a debate on November 4, 2004 (over the Atlantic Accord):

"This is a commitment that was made by me in my capacity as leader of the Canadian Alliance when I first arrived here and has its origins in the intentions of the Atlantic accord signed by former Prime Minister Mulroney in the mid-1980s. These are longstanding commitments, our commitment to 100% of non-renewable resource royalties. It was our commitment during the election, before the election, and it remains our commitment today."

"The eight year time limit and the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign. Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? Remember in particular that these are in any case non-renewable resources that will run out. Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario?"

"The Ontario clause is unfair and insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its message to that province, to Nova Scotia and to all of Atlantic Canada is absolutely clear. They can only get what they were promised if they agree to remain have not provinces forever. That is absolutely unacceptable."

"What is at stake is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have not status that has bedevilled them for decades. What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister (Paul Martin), and all he has to do is keep his word."

Wow, " all he has to do is keep his word." The CPC got sooo much milage out of the hapless Paul Martin Liberals over this at the time. Remember those days. So now I have a question, a poll if you will, to all the CPC supporters out there: After reading the above statement would you agree that PM Stephen Harper and the CPC either (a) lied or (b) were incompetent to make such a promise they couldn't possibly keep. Which is it?

And before anyone starts calling me names and everything else let me say I loathe premier Williams and his policies to the nth degree. I am busy waging that war on another front.

This is about making equalization, a constitutional program which would need support from all provinces in order to eliminate the program, into a program that removes the shackles of dependency and promotes economic growth in economic depressed areas. Right now there is no incentive to get off the dole.

Socialism in Canada isn't going to disslove overnight, it didn't get here that way to begin with. Much the same as the CPC party brass keep telling us disgruntled Conservatives to hold on and support them as they move the country towards the center from the left. As I mentioned earlier, there is going to be a 20 seat spread in the next election from what the CPC could of had and what it will get. Those numbers aren't being made up in Ontario and Quebec. Where's our majority we are being promised? Is this another lie from the CPC?

WL Mackenzie Redux,

my sentiments exactly.

Belisarius,

I agree, lets remove equalization all together, as well as ALL farm aid and subsidies, every single penny, as well as all other government programs and corporate welfare handouts. Everything.

For NL specifically, the feds could have said we won't claw back any of your equalization dollars if you take 50% of the oil and gas revenues and put them towards the debt. It would have costed the feds 12 billion over 12 years to do this. NL would have paid their debt down by half (4.8 billion) and would have been saving 480 million a year in debt servicing charges that they could re-invest into the province. After 10 years the savings would have been equal to the amount of oil revenue put against the debt in the previous 12 years. That's akin to getting paid for the oil twice. That's a 22 year outlook though, tough to sell in today's 4 year election cycles.

And please, lay off the Newfie/Maritime bashing. If I want to read that crap I'll go over to the Globe and Mail comment sections.

As far as 'broken promises', the expectation that a policy is carved in stone and can never be change, is naive. What if the context changes?

The income trust promise was viable only in the context that all the big companies wouldn't jump on the bandwagon to exclude their earnings from taxation. If they did that, the shortfall in taxes would have to be made up by the individual taxpayer. And - that's exactly what happened; more and more were moving into income trusts to escape taxes. The gov't had to act - to prevent the shortfall from becoming a burden on the individual.

Policies are not massive stone monuments to gaze at in a museum, they are ALIVE and contextual and must adapt to prevent harm to others. All the complainers are hiding their head in the sands, ignoring that they, (and others who don't have savings), would have to make up the shortfall through their individual taxes. Is that what everyone wants?????

By the way, on another issue of 'hiding our head in the sands' - are we aware that Canada is teetering on the edge of falling off the road of democracy?

When the Liberals were in power, they governed via their unelected, patronage appointed buddies: in the Senate, the courts, the civil service, the MSM. They ignored the House; most decisions were from the PMO and the unelected; the House was a front for legitimization. And we watched how they manipulated that elected House.

Now that they Liberals don't have that legitimization, they are still using their unelected appointed buddies to govern.

Their Senate is blocking senate reform; it has blocked Harper's accountability act - removing the Senate from legitimate accountability. So, we get Senator Colin Kenny sitting on the review committee to review whether he and his fellow Senator's trip to Dubai was wasteful; Kenny decided it was not a waste of tax money. No accountability.

And- we get the Senate now insisting that a private member's bill insisting that Canada MUST comply with Kyoto requirements by the deadline. Hey - that decision is the role of the House. Not the Senate.

And a Senator saying that the G-G must fill vacant seats in the Senate. Hey- that's the role of the PM. Not the G-G.

We get selective leaks from the civil service.
We get the MSM acting as unpaid advertising for the Liberals - with constant CBC denigration of Harper etc.

My concern is the Senate. It is moving out of its 'reflective' role into a dominant active role, and moving itself into making legislative decisions that are the prerogative of our elected House. The Senate is removing power from the electorate, from us, the taxpayers - and that is moving Canada to a dangerous space in democracy.

Murphy said: "Fact is, Lance, Deceivin' Stephen and his 12 Saskatchewan stooges refuse to honor their election promise to SK to exclude non-renewable resources from equalization. That's the issue: conservative duplicity"

As much as I'd like to refute you I can't...the CPC did not honor an election promise to Sask and now have done it again in the same area of resource revenues with the Atlantic... most recently they did not honor their election promise commitment to the Atlantic provinces on their resource revenues...particularly MS.

Bill Casey a rock solid Tory MP has risked a boot from caucus over voting against his party on this CPC flip flop on provincial resource revenues.

These are not the actions of the party I voted for.

Censoring a MP for voting his concience and to his constituents wishes

Chewing revenues out of exclusive provincial resource jurisdictions

Breaking election promises.

Flip flopping on GW/GHG science/policy

This is not an alternative to the Liberals.

Sure, hoss. Pull the other one.

I realise a socialist can't invisage anyone taking what they haven't earned. But, it's true.

Why does Saskatchewan boast one of the best cost-of-living's in the country...

Gee, you'd think everyone would want to move there, instead of the other way around.

When I lived in the Maritimes I was appalled at the massive quantities of government cash poured into useless make-work projects. Bridges in the middle of nowhere with no connecting road. Huge concrete jetties for tiny villages with no fishing fleet. Subsidies for non-profitable mines, etc, etc. Federal and Provincial governments thought they could manage the economy to prosperity.

Same thing happened in Alberta under Getty, and what a mess that was. Saskatchewan is resource rich, and should be just as prosperous as Alberta. The fact it has lagged is a testament to the folly of socialism and government meddling in the economy. Newfoundland seems determined to follow the same, stupid course under Williams.

hoss - Good luck on convincing a socialist you turned down a subsidy, they wouldn't believe it even if they were present at the time. To maintain the righteous zeal they have to convince themselves everyone else has their begging bowl in hand.

Nice crack on "indoctrination", that's about the size of it.

I believe Canada's New Government has broken this promise and I am starting to have trouble telling the difference between this government and the old one because of it. Liberals said anything to get elected and then promptly forgot their promises after being elected. Deja vue anyone?

When Eastern Canadian leftists stop whining about how they don't have enough of the treasure gained from the sweat and blood of Albertans, they begin whining about how Alberta's success should be regulated because of global warming...

Sometimes I wish Conservatives would fuel the flames of Quebec separatism like the Liberals used to. Alberta would be the first to show them the door, and the first to follow them through it.

[Flip flopping on GW/GHG science/policy

This is not an alternative to the Liberals.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at June 9, 2007 12:03 PM]

Missed the G8 meeting results, did ya ??

Kyoto is dead and buried, thanks in large part to Prime Minister Harper. That is for another of Kate's threads, I am sure will come.

Equalization; The problem stems from the fact that;

Some countries have too much history. Canada has too much geography.

Also, why is it that the Maritimes are perenial non-boom participants ?? (The US east coast has always done very well, thank you)

I would bet it is 'not' the Maritimers themselves' fault, but that of the system.

WLMR:
The Liberals broke promises and got away with it time and again, the worst was the one about getting rid of the GST, they didn't and they got re-elected next time around. Historically a Liberal broken promise is a necessary change of plan, a Conservative broken promise is a mortal sin. Double standard.

Provincially Ontario's Liberal McGuinty broke every one of his promises, we'll see how he fares come October.

Is it my imagination or is Calvert looking more gormless, like he did himself a mischief and Williams looks like he's on auto pilot, his lips are moving with the same chant. They want to keep the booty and let Ontario and Alberta share their wealth according to the rules.
Stingy stinkers.

It seems to me folks, that there is a second side which hasn't been explored here. How about this little tidbit from the budget document (http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/themes/bkrfbse.html)

Resource Revenues
The core elements of the O’Brien report—a 10-province standard with a 50-per-cent exclusion rate for natural resource revenues and a fiscal capacity cap—provide a higher Equalization standard than either the previous system or one that fully excludes non-renewable resources. As a result, the O’Brien formula provides both a substantial incentive to provinces to develop their natural resources and higher payments to most provinces than one that fully excludes non-renewable resources.

Consistent with the Government’s commitment, Budget 2007 proposes to ensure that, under the new Equalization formula, all provinces will receive the greater of the Equalization entitlements under the formula based on a 50-per-cent exclusion rate, and the amounts they would receive under the same formula based on full exclusion of all natural resource revenues. This will further improve incentives for resource-producing provinces and provide them additional protection against future declines in resource prices and production levels, and fulfill the Government’s commitment to fully exclude non-renewable natural resources revenues from the calculation of Equalization—without lowering the payments to any province.

So basically what was said is that the new standard is 50% of the Renewable Resource revenues with a 10 province standard, but that for those provinces with accords, you would not get less than what you would have gotten with 100% of resource revenues excluded for 2007-08 fiscal year.

The only thing that Mr. Harper DIDN'T do is make it a permanent part of equalization to treat three provinces differently (which would pretty much be the opposite of equalization if you ask me), but I would have to agree with Lance - Williams and Calvert should shut up and spend more time developing their provinces and their fiscal capacity and less time whining about losing welfare payments.

Alberta is doing very well. BC is feeling direct effects. So is Sask. The rest are recieving EQUALization $$s.

Question: Who initially got Alberta's energy sector going ?? Albertans ? Nope. Ottawa ? Nope. Other provinces ? Nope. ---- Americans.

And it is not just Alberta that was lucky in the Nat Resource draw. BC has horrendous off-shore reserves. (Just ask Suzuki) Sask has enormous deposits. Also Maritimes.

So what's the problem ??

ET: The Senate is removing power from the Electorate, from us, the Taxpayers and that is moving Canada to a dangerous space in Democracy.

Canada has been on this sloap for too many years, Socialist have been gaining control in many areas from Municipal councils, to Courts, to the highest government & Now they are being threatened, their lifestyle is under attack so they must make every attempt possible to regain control before it is too late, the Senate & MSM have great powers, However the People have greater Powers when they band together. Time has come for the Question to be put to the People, Reform or Abolish.

Feudalism to Capitalism to Socialism these are the thoughts of Marx & Engels.
We are very near that

Alberta lucked out on the natural resource front, more so then BC and Sask (in terms of oil and gas at least). That alone makes it disingenuous to keep comparing Alberta and Sask in terms of where the jobs are, unless you contend that Sask has more natural resources at their disposal.

The fact that so many people have left the for jobs in Alberta isn't the fault of the government, people go were the jobs are and during the 90's and 00's those jobs have been in Alberta. Just look over at NS and NL, there has been a mass migration of labour to Alberta as well but you don't see too much blame being passed onto those governments.

Now if you turn your sights on Alberta and ask what their population has given up in order to create the current "boom" going on in their province? Unlike Saskatchewan, a culture of exploitation (of both resources and people) has been created by massive tax breaks and government hand outs to the oil and gas sector (Especially the oilsands). In order to pay for this the everyday citizens of Alberta have seen massive cuts in their core services (education, health, infrastructure, etc...) for years and years. Only now are they starting to see their money (if you believe natural resources are owned by the people) being re-invested back into their society.

However, in Saskatchewan higher royalties have been put in place precisely to ensure that some return is seen by the people of the province for exploitation of their natural resources. Of course there is a fine balance between having such fees being too high, such that nothing is developed, and too low, where you develop a situation similar to Alberta. I would rather see a government err on the side of caution, for both their people and their environment, then to let private companies right rough-shot over the province. One only has too look towards the current run-away train that is the Oilsands industry, that type of situation is not sustainable.

"I realise a socialist can't invisage anyone taking what they haven't earned. But, it's true."

No nisa, no cais, no crop insurance, no aida, not a penny in ad hoc payments, no discount on your vehicle insurance, not a dime in ANY ag program? Bull... Doesn't the god you pray to have some admonition against lying?

[One only has too look towards the current run-away train that is the Oilsands industry, that type of situation is not sustainable.]

More proven reserves than all the Middle East. Train will be going for a long time, I would think.

High-tax, socially-inclined provinces will "hang" on to theirs till .... till ... till they become obsolete ?? Like hay ?

More like killing the Golden Goose. Do-gooders demanding candy from the do-ers