Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
So this clear precedent forces parties to negotiate. That's the point, and it's possible. In regards to what to negotiate? I don't know there's lots of ways to word it around, ultimately I think it would be putting the equalization formula or it itself on the table. The point is say 'hey, Federal government, you can kick off a full blown constitutional crisis or you can ensure the construction of a coastal export pipeline and we'll continue to pay into this program as is.' You can join the waste-of-time truthers if you want but right now this is a hypothetical to find and exploit leverage points. I'm sure the federal government doesn't want to preside over bitter provincial infighting, constitutional crises, or atlantic canada/quebec losing their meal ticket. It's a bit of a bluff but it's something. Something more substantial than the tact taken in the last four years that has failed spectacularly.
|
You're still avoiding who the parties that negotiate are. The other provinces would have to beat the table, too. You're thinking this is just leverage between Alberta and the federal government, when it would have to be Alberta trying to find leverage with the other 10 provinces AND the federal government. Not sure you'll like what they find (especially when one of the provinces you'd hope to be on your side is one you want the federal government to walk over).
This idea that this is what Quebec uses to get what they want is just silly. They had two referendums that both failed and neither actually held the federal government to anything. If this is what you think he step towards progress is, you're out to lunch.
Also, the province doesn't pay into the program, so it can't make threats to hold back money.