Good article, I especially appreciate the political analysis of the implications for Clark (and Kenney). Positing that the provinces would give up control of natural resources, a fundamental shift in the division of powers, is fantasy though. I wouldn’t rely on the the threat of that to convince Kenney of anything. If he didn’t believe in COVID, an actual threat, I wouldn’t rely on him worrying about this imaginary one.
I am aghast at the mind set and lack of forethought put into this written piece. We need this referendum to go forward as if it does not, we can not even discuss the subject of Equalization with other Provinces or the Federal Government. This is not just a Provincial issue but involves the entire county. Without a resounding majority of "yes" it dies and nothing can even be discussed about equalization, not just Provincially, but Federally as well. What the referendum creates is a place at the table where all Provincial and the Federal Government must sit to discuss the good points and flaws of the equalization formula. If you vote "No" it makes it so there is not even a table to sit at or anything to speak of. There is no intended outcome but if they can not even discuss the subject with out a referendum, how can anything ever change? Even if nothing changes, what can be wrong with a discussion on the topic between the leaders of our country. What I find most offensive is we have to have a referendum in the first place, to make the Provinces and the Federal Government come to the table to discuss an issue of great importance to the entire Nation. It should have happened long ago with no forcing through referendum, yet you would vote "no" so the discussion can not even take place?
"And yet Kenney may well be in even worse shape if the referendum passes. First, the chances of seven provinces with half of Canada’s population agreeing to remove the equalization clause is simply a non-starter. Even Erin O’Toole, should he be prime minister later this year, will face similar constraints that Stephen Harper did when he reformed the program to look much like it does today."
This is the key to the whole referendum that's never made sense to me. What does he actually expect to accomplish, having a provincial referendum on a federal issue?
Good article, I especially appreciate the political analysis of the implications for Clark (and Kenney). Positing that the provinces would give up control of natural resources, a fundamental shift in the division of powers, is fantasy though. I wouldn’t rely on the the threat of that to convince Kenney of anything. If he didn’t believe in COVID, an actual threat, I wouldn’t rely on him worrying about this imaginary one.
I am aghast at the mind set and lack of forethought put into this written piece. We need this referendum to go forward as if it does not, we can not even discuss the subject of Equalization with other Provinces or the Federal Government. This is not just a Provincial issue but involves the entire county. Without a resounding majority of "yes" it dies and nothing can even be discussed about equalization, not just Provincially, but Federally as well. What the referendum creates is a place at the table where all Provincial and the Federal Government must sit to discuss the good points and flaws of the equalization formula. If you vote "No" it makes it so there is not even a table to sit at or anything to speak of. There is no intended outcome but if they can not even discuss the subject with out a referendum, how can anything ever change? Even if nothing changes, what can be wrong with a discussion on the topic between the leaders of our country. What I find most offensive is we have to have a referendum in the first place, to make the Provinces and the Federal Government come to the table to discuss an issue of great importance to the entire Nation. It should have happened long ago with no forcing through referendum, yet you would vote "no" so the discussion can not even take place?
"And yet Kenney may well be in even worse shape if the referendum passes. First, the chances of seven provinces with half of Canada’s population agreeing to remove the equalization clause is simply a non-starter. Even Erin O’Toole, should he be prime minister later this year, will face similar constraints that Stephen Harper did when he reformed the program to look much like it does today."
This is the key to the whole referendum that's never made sense to me. What does he actually expect to accomplish, having a provincial referendum on a federal issue?
It's pretty fascinating to hear the reasoning behind Christy Clark's decision to go ahead with the HST referendum in BC. As a technocratic voter, I thought the outcome (rejection of the HST) was terrible. Even from a short-term perspective, BC ended up having to repay $1.6 billion to Ottawa (about $400 per person). https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-irons-out-plan-to-repay-ottawa-16-billion-in-hst-funding/article1358112/
Yes indeed. Skip the referendum.