Promise Made, Promise Broken
In the study Dr. Locke examined the 3 options currently available to the province under the revised equalization plan:
1. Maintain the Status Quo as set out in the 2005 Atlantic Accord contract;
2. Adopt the new equalization formula with 50% of non-renewable resource revenues excluded but capped at Ontario’s fiscal capacity;
Or
3. Adopt the new equalization formula with 100% of non-renewable resource revenue included, also capped at Ontario’s fiscal capacity.
According to Dr. Locke the best direction for the province to take under the new regime is to remain under the Atlantic Accord contract until about 2009 and then switch to the 50% revenue exclusion option.
The report states that under the 50% exclusion option the province could potentially pick up an additional $5 billion in the next 13 years over and above continuing on its current course under the Atlantic Accord. But the story doesn’t end there.
This improvement in financial capability is apparently why Stephen Harper, Loyola Hearn and others have been saying the province is better off under the new plan, but Dr. Locke's study also shows that this doesn't mean there is no adverse impact to the province.
Dr. Locke based his findings on $51 dollar oil and the projected revenues for existing oil and mineral projects already operating in the province. This means there is also a potential that new discoveries and developments, or a higher average oil price, could inflate those numbers beyond the $5 billion estimated on either end of the equation.
Dr. Locke noted that he conducted his study with the intention of clearing the air and cutting through the federal and provincial political rhetoric surrounding the issue. While he was acting strictly as an economist and did not wish to involve himself in the political debate, I on the other hand have no problem charging into the battle.
Dr. Locke’s study shows that the province will indeed be better off under the new equalization plan, than it would have otherwise been, but that was never the issue from a political perspective was it? The issue was whether or not Stephen Harper lived up to his word or not and if not, would that have a negative financial impact on the province. The answer to those questions are clearly No and Yes. No, he didn’t keep his promise and Yes it will have a negative financial impact on Newfoundland and Labrador.
The study shows that while Newfoundland and Labrador may make some gains under the new forumula, it will still be far worse off than if Stephen Harper had done what he had led the people of Canada to believe he was going to do, worse off to the tune of $5 billion dollars or more.
If you are anything like me, wrapping your head around a number like $5 billion is not an easy task, so let me put it in perspective.
For years Canada was, and to some degree still is, involved in a major dispute with the United States over softwood lumber. In fact it's been the biggest and most contentious single trade issue between the two Countries for quite some time. Court cases have been fought, tribunals and panels struck and the government of Canada has essentially fought tooth and nail with its neighbors to the south over what is considered a major wrong doing on their part.
The financial impact of the softwood lumber dispute to Canada was approximately $5 billion dollars. The very same amount identified as the shortfall to Newfoundland and Labrador between what Stephen Harper said he would do and what he actually did. Yet Harper, Hearn and the entire Canadian government simply expect the province to accept this fact without argument.
If $5 billion dollars is worthy of occupying the massive resources of the entire federal government for years in an attempt to secure it for the people of Canada, imagine the impact of denying the same amount to a small and economically challenged province like Newfoundland and Labrador. Imagine what $5 billion dollars could have done to move the province forward and ensure it a stable and bright future.