« Home | Majority Of Republicans Believe In Creationism » | The Best Witness Money Can Buy - Conrad Black Pays... » | FAREWELL TO NOVA SCOTIA - dedicated to federal Con... » | MLADIC and KARADZIC - The World's Most WANTED War ... » | Regina Police Raid Home Of Ex Prof For Hate Crimes... » | Newfoundland Premier Says Ottawa's Trying To Isola... » | Talks With Federal Government "Is Like Alice In Wo... » | Colin Powell Calls For Immediate Closure Of Guanta... » | Canadian Taxpayers Federation BRAGS About Offendin... » | Supreme Court Of Canada Rules That Collective Barg... » 

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 

Why Harper Needs To Have His Sorry Tory Ass Sued Off By Saskatchewan!

I hope the people of Saskatchewan successfully sue the ass off our lying Conservative Prime Minister and his 12 lying Saskatchewan Members of Parliament.

Here is why:

Excerpt from Stephen Harper’s Letter to Premier Calvert, June 10, 2004

“The Conservative Party of Canada will alter the equalization program to remove all non-renewable resources from the formula, as well as move the program to a ten-province standard.”

Conservative Party Platform 2004 ('Demanding Better')

“A Conservative government will also revisit the equalization formula. We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula, and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the current formula provides.”

Conservative Party Platform 2006 ('Standing Up For Canada')

“Work to achieve with the provinces permanent changes to the equalization formula which would ensure that non-renewable natural resource revenue is removed from the equalization formula to encourage economic growth. We will ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula.”

Question by Stephen Harper to Prime Minister Paul Martin in the House of Commons, November 16, 2005

“The prime minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over 750-million dollars in lost revenue. When will the prime minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so that Saskatchewan does not lose this money?”

In the recent Federal Budget, Harper 'said' that he was removing non-renewable resources from the equalization formula. He then set a cap on the amount Saskatchewan could qualify for!! At no point, in ANY of Stephen Harper's statements, did the concept of a 'cap' get mentioned.

Where I come from, we call this, 'lying through your teeth!'

Government of Saskatchewan News Release


You can't sue a politician for "lying through his teeth" in making political commitments, right?

I'm not saying Calvert doesn't have a case, just that your quotes (as politically damning as they may be) will have nothing to do with it.

There was no contract sadly, since election platforms are not contracts, even if they have staged signings to act as election time PR.

"no contract" ... the concept of a contract is an element JUST thrown into the debate since yesterday by the PMO. Since 1867, the nation has not operated by 'contract' between the Federal and Provincial governments.

I am not a lawyer but there are broader undertakings that are legally binding based on statements, letters, pledges, etc.

No there is no 'contract' because in Canadian intergovernmental relations, commitments are generally laid out in letters or a 'memorandum of understanding'.

Harper lied.


Because he does not like the political party that is in power in Saskatchewan and he is so mean spirited and rightwing nasty, he simply cannot bring himself to keep his pledges even if he has to lie and act in an unethical and immoral manner of governing.

"Calvert is upset with the federal Conservatives and the way they chose to follow through on an election promise to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the formula used to calculate equalization transfers to the provinces.

But Calvert stressed that the legal challenge will not be about a broken promise. "If I were to hire lawyers to sue on every broken promise from Mr. Harper so far, I don't think we have enough lawyers," he said.

"It will fundamentally be based on provisions within the Constitution around equalization, around fairness and equity and the provision that natural resources belong to the people of Saskatchewan."

Saskatchewan has long argued for the exclusion of non-renewable resources such as oil and gas, saying the revenues come on a one-time basis and should not negatively affect the amount of money the province receives through equalization payments from Ottawa."
News 1130

I'm not competent to say whether or not he has a legal case, but I hope he does and wins.

"Saskatchewan has long argued for the exclusion of non-renewable resources such as oil and gas, saying the revenues come on a one-time basis and should not negatively affect the amount of money the province receives through equalization payments from Ottawa."

This is exactly what Ontario was complaining about during the Summer of 2006. Ontario paying more than its share of equalization payments, because other provinces not paying, but collect.

If equalization payments are going to be fair, natural resource revenues need to be either excluded for the payment calculation or the equalization payment system needs to be replaced with something else. Green house/pollution credits can be traded between the provinces, but it is not an equalization system.

The one-time revenue argument does not make sense because Saskatchewan also receives industry and research development money and will continue to receive equalization money after their natural resources are depleted.

I have taken the liberty of copying your entry to my blog. It shows the promises made by the Conservatives and backs up Calvert's argument. As noted by another commentator Calvert is not suing for a broken promise but on grounds of unfairness and equity.

Contract or no contract, Harper lied. That's the long and short of it.

The nice bit about lawsuits like this is that they rattle around in pre-trial hearings and motions for years. During that time, lots of insinuations can be made - and the twins of insinuation and innuendo are the currency in which Harper traffics himself.

His own lies and dishonest dealings on all fronts have a political price to be paid, and the check is coming to his table.

Post a Comment

Follow leftdog on Twitter

About Me


  • -Carmichael-
  • Things I Read

    • -Canadian Political Viewpoints-
    • -ZAG-
    • -Next Year Country-
    • -Huffington Post: Canada-
    • -Let Freedom Rain-
    • -Informed On Information-
    • -Wellington Post-NDP-
    • -Trapped In A Whirlpool-
    • -Larry Hubich's Blog-
    • -ROGERISM-
    • -Leftdog's Daily KOS Blog Page-
    • -Dipper Chick
    • -Ideagist -
    • -Al Barger's MORETHINGS.COM-
    • -Canadian Cynic-
    • Saskatchewan Progressive Bloggers
    • My Zimbio
      Top Stories
    • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
    • Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
      View blog authority
    • Display Pagerank
    • Canada's NDP
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates