Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I disagree actually, I was all for an Equalization review, but the wording of it making it seem like it was going to be eliminated? Thats a hard 'No.'
Realistically Equalization isnt going anywhere, nor should it. But can it be more equitable? Or fairer? Maybe.
But complete elimination? That is so preposterous as to be laughable.
|
I think the reason that they phrased it the way they did is because removing it from the constitution is (obviously) a constitutional question, while revising the formula is a comparatively routine matter. There are conservative pundits who claim that there's a precedent set by the supreme court case regarding Quebec's referendums (specifically that the federal government would be obligated to negotiate in good faith with Quebec concerning separation following a successful referendum); and that precedent would require the federal government to enter into negotations with Alberta following a successful referendum. (Obviously, the federal government wouldn't, and then perhaps the Alberta government would pursue legal action.)
I'm skeptical that the precedent applies here, but I think this is the confrontational path forward they've identified.