Peckford: Why East-coast
equalization is fair
Posted by Kevin on 2/17/2005 @ 5:44 pm
From today’s National Post:
What is happening now is an increase in the amount of the equalization the province can keep. No new precedent is being set. This is necessary given the collapse of the federally managed ground fishery collapsed and the loss of 40,000 jobs (which would be equivalent to 800,000 jobs in Ontario), the doubling of oil prices, the need to catch up to standards near the national average and to fulfill the constitutional provision (Section 36) that states that “Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.”
Well done, Mr. Peckford.
Without this recently announced improvement, levels of service and levels of taxation in Newfoundland and Labrador would have no chance of being “reasonably comparable.”
A. Brian Peckford, former premier of Newfoundland
9 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
On another topic, anyone see any of the ads this article refers to? I did see it last night. What an absolute waste of money.
I’m so disappointed in this provincial government. I strongly suppported them in the last provincial election because I wanted the horrid spending of the Liberals to stop and they turn around and do this? And I don’t care if it is $200,000 or $2! Waste is waste and preaching to the converted is just plain stupid!
Sorry Kevin for changing topic but I am p***ed off.
Offshore ad contract awarded without tender
WebPosted Feb 18 2005 07:08 AM NST
CBC News
ST. JOHN’S — The provincial government is spending more than $150,000 to promote the offshore oil deal it signed with Ottawa, in a contract that has the Opposition fuming.
The contract for the advertising – which will involve television and newspaper spots celebrating the new Atlantic Accord – was not tendered.
It was awarded to M5, an advertising company with strong ties to the Progressive Conservatives.
M5’s vice-president, Craig Tucker, was co-chair of the Tory election campaign in 2003.
Tucker was also recently appointed to the board of directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Opposition leader Roger Grimes says the government is funnelling money to their political friends.
“It’s clear that there was no process,” Grimes says.
“It was directed from the premier’s office and a well-connected company was given an opportunity to fill their coffers.”
This week’s signing ceremony, the M5 contract and the newspaper and televisions ads will cost taxpayers about $200,000 in all.
The federal government will cover some of those costs.
Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says government did not have to go to tender to award the advertising contract it had to M5.
He adds the cost is small compared to the $2-billion advance the provincial government will be receiving as part of the offshore pact.
“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going out to the public and making the people feel good about an issue,” Sullivan says.
Sullivan says this advertising campaign is modest in scope, especially when it is compared to marketing blitzes conducted by previous Liberal administrations.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 2/18/2005 @ 9:10 amI couldn’t agree with you more Brenda. This government has made it their mandate to be fiscally responsible. The ad was a peace of bad propaganda. Telling us to feel proud. I don’t feel any pouder because we are 2 Billion dollars - $200 000 today than I was before the deal. I also don’t like to be told to feel proud. I feel what I want to feel, not because the conservative gov tells me too. What a waste of money. A small amount says Sullivan. Well That money is a lot to any rural community, like Harbour Breton or Fortune, or, or, or. Or the schools that are falling down and or bursting at the seams.
I’m not happy Mr. Williams
Comment by Sarah — 2/18/2005 @ 1:22 pmCompletely irresponsible use (and awarding) of provincial money! That is EXACTLY the same crap that the sponsorship scandle in Ottawa is made of. It demonstrates an ongoing contempt for voters! A complete lack of having “their” finger on the pulse of the people (like us) who stood behind Danny during this whole ordeal.
It makes me sick to think that Ed and WJM may have been right! It almost validates McGuinty!
Please Danny, reign in this crap. Especially since the sponsorship scandel, $200K should NEVER go out to ADVERTISING with out a bidding process. Worseover, everybody in the province KNOWS that we won one! Why not just divide $200K by 200K and send a cheque out to the people below the equalization clawback figure, who you think might not have heard!?
Why in the name of all that’s holy would we need to waste any money ("the cost is small compared to the $2-billion advance") telling everybody what we already know!!??
It’s $1.85 billion now you twit!
Fuming I am!
Fred from CBS
PS If I qualify for a cheque, send mine to Labrador to shut-up WJM. Send his too for that matter!
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/18/2005 @ 4:21 pmHey!
I do not think that too many would argue with you all. Shameful!
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/18/2005 @ 7:43 pmI wouldn’t have approved the ad. Certainly nothing so elaborate and expensive. I see no real utility in it. This makes me re-state my wish to see the full amount put towards NL’s debt.
That said, I don’t think Grimes has much of a leg to stand on as the person to criticize this. . . especially after his Voisey deal ad blitz.
To comment on the PEckford leter, I’ll just say that he has been consistent in his interpretation of what was expected with the Atlantic Accord. It’ was funny to watch Martin and co for years try to claim Atlantic Accord was about something else or that parts of it weren’t “binding” as if that ended the discussion. Meanwhile the drafters of the thing are alive and well and being quite honest and straightforward about what it was supposed to mean. The truth was a lot simpler: Chretien and then Martin stonewalled for as long as they could because they fundamentally didn’t believe in Peckford’s vision of the country.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/18/2005 @ 8:02 pmApparently Liam, Peckford doesn’t even believe in his vision of the country. After criticisng people for attacking his deal, he has turned out to abandon the very deal and all its provisions that he signed.
Your comment contains claims that are factually incorrect, by the way. No federal minister or PM ever said parts of the Real Atlantic Accord weren’t binding or that it was about something else. Not a one.
The fact is, as Mr. Peckford implicitly admits, he accepted a deal that was very good but he sold it based on exceedly optimistic (false??) projections of revenue.
On the whole, I now seem to be the ONLY one willing to argue that the Real Accord was an awesome accomplishment in our history and that the Real Accord is the thing that will produce lasting and substantial benefits for the province. Those of you who put a partisan cast to things take note: I have never been a Tory in my life! But fair is fair.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/19/2005 @ 3:54 pmSorry Ed, I guess I was referring to one of the federal Liberal staffers: WJM ….who on many forums would always refer to the “principle beneficiary” part as precatory, as if that somehow meant it was ok morally or politically to ignore it (as Paul Martin did for years). I consider WJM part f “Martin and Co.” Especially since he’s the only one who came close to decent deflection of this issue for the Liberal Party of Canada over the last few months and years. And John Efford did indeed lecture NLers in spring of 2004 about how NL was receiving 100% of the revenue from its offshore… basically dodging the clawback question. It was a message track for a long time “but NL *IS* getting 100%” when they knew damn well what they were taling about…
I think this accord is fairly close to what Peckford was after from the very beginning. That they didn’t get the nitty gritty right in 1985 is hardly all that surprising. I still think both accords were only part of what NL truly deserved. NL should never have had its legal claim to ownership of the continental shelf challenged by the government of Canada. Canada should have accepted that claim. That part isn’t a partisan thing, I doubt the federal tories of the day, even if slightly less obsessed with fighting provicnes, would have done much better on that one. Too bad really.
And since we’re giving cues on “fact", I think you shoule be a lot more careful with your own. Just started to read your blog after Kevin linked to it:
you said on feb 13:
“Williams is the Premier, not Tom Rideout who, until 1985, sat as a Liberal MHA before the lure of a cabinet seat caused him to run to Brian Peckford’s side.”
Tom Rideout was a Progressive Conservative before 1985. He was elected to the house as a liberal in general elections twice – 1975 and 1979. The next year he crossed to the PCs.
Just thought I’d correct you on that one. I appreciate a frank exchange of corrections on this front.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/19/2005 @ 6:24 pmA couple of things Liam:
1. The “PB” caluse of the Real Accord was never intended to refer only to provincial government revenues. This is a gross misrepresentnation by proponents of the Equalization fiddle. Therefore, the feds never “ignored” or disregarded anything. The Accord worked as intended. Anything John Crosbie has said lately to the contrary flies in the face of contemporary fact.
2. As for Tom the Crosser, I double checked. From my available info he crossed around the time of the 82 election and it might have been as early as 1980 as you note. The date may be off in my comment but you didn’t contradict the point about his motivation.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/22/2005 @ 6:43 amEd said:
“Therefore, the feds never “ignored” or disregarded anything.”
Sure they did. they ignored the intentions of thje Accord. They did their absolute best to minimize the ffects of the accord. They were not in favoure of provincial interpretations of the accord or its benefits.
As for Tom’s motivation, I think that it’s just plain arrogance to pretend we understand Tom’s Motivation any better than Tom Understands it.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/25/2005 @ 12:46 am