Fiscal imbalance

A tanned and refreshed Glorious Leader, back from one of the innumerable and lengthy breaks that the House of Assembly, the laziest legislature in Canada, gives itself these days, went before the microphones today and laid this hilarious turdlet:

What you have to do here is compare apples to apples. You have to look at a situation, for example, like Quebec. Or New Brunswick. New Brunswick has no oil and gas. But New Brunswick over that same period of time will get about $22-, $23-billion, according to Dr. [Wade] Locke’s calculations. Our $18-billion is Accord, equalization, and oil and gas revenues. So you have other provinces in a similar position, but have no oil and gas revenues, that are going to get a significant amount of federal money, and good for them, I have no problems.

O... K.

Interesting logic, with the use of the word “But” in the phrase “But New Brunswick...”

On par with an old French exam question, “Il est luthérien, mais il aime les fleurs.” (He is Lutheran, but he likes flowers.)

In Dannystan, if a province has oil and gas revenues, it should get more transfer money under the equalization formula.

Conversely, if a province does NOT have oil and gas revenues, it should get less.

This should come as great news to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Well, especially to those who are now resident in Alberta, the province with the largest oil and gas revenues, and the province whose government would benefit most from this – what’s a charitable word? – Martian understanding of what equalization is or should be.

Because yes, if the latest official Dannystan pronunciation on equalization is to be applied consistently, Alberta, too, should be compensated for having to collect all those oil and gas revenues.