Buckdog

Buck,

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.

Why?

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.