Applying the rules fairly…but only for Alberta

June 21, 2005 · By Peter Rempel

When Newfoundland and Ontario wanted sweet-ass side deals and unilateral alterations to Canada’s equalization formula, federalism was a mere inconvienence to Paul Martin. When the cities wanted to entirely by-pass Canada’s federal arrangements, Paul Martin was all for it. After all, Martin is a flexible federalism man who believes in “asymmetrical federalism.”

How times change. That was before Alberta needed some of that asymmetrical sweetness, a meager side deal to help with a disaster that is destroying lives as we speak. Then, all of a sudden, the federal Liberal Party decides to conform to the letter of the federalism law and refuses to budge an inch:

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said it’s up to Alberta — not Ottawa — to decide whether federal flood assistance dollars will start flowing toward the waterlogged province…..But Ms. McLellan said Ottawa won’t write a cheque until the provinces decide what level of financial help they require.

”The province submits their receipts and claims to us, we assess them and the dollars flow,” Ms. McLellan said. ”[But] no request has been made.”

That’s right Alberta, deal with the problem yourself, submit your receipts, and you might get a partial reimbursement once the red tape can be maneuvered through. Where is the urgency associated with Paul Martin’s dealings with Ontario’s “fiscal gap?” Where is the willingness to be innovative, to not be held up by mere rules?

This might help to explain it: The federal Liberals are pre-occupied with something other than Alberta’s disaster:

Ms. McLellan said the federal government is also looking at setting up a nationwide emergency warning system, which has taken on new importance in the wake of the floods.

”But we are very interested in having a national system so that people are working towards the same standards,” Ms. McLellan said.

That’s right: As Alberta drowns, the federal Liberals are investigating new ways to ensure national standards. In other words, the Alberta flooding is sufficient impetus to cause the Liberals to think about how not to treat Alberta an iota better than they would treat any other province. Ontario’s fiscal gap represents a crisis which justifies disregarding federalism in favour of a side deal. Newfoundland’s resource problems justify ripping up Canada’s equalization arrangements. A genuine Albertan crisis justifies…caution and a need to ensure national standards.

Did Albertans really need another demonstration of the fact that the rules of Canadian federalism only exist to constrict the colonies? Ontario doesn’t live by the rules; the arbitrer simply changes them once they pose problems.

And you know what, you useless federal blood-suckers? I think your reprehensible behavior toward Alberta in the middle of its crisis is great. You know why? Because every time you demonstrate your manifest uselessness for us, you enhance the view that Alberta can go it alone. In other words, you add legitimacy to the Alberta Agenda and members to Ted Morton’s leadership team.

Keep it up.

Crossposted to Rempelia Prime

Comments

3 Responses to “Applying the rules fairly…but only for Alberta”

  1. Tom Cerber on June 21st, 2005 2:24 pm [#]

    Who cares about Ottawa. We don’t need its help.

  2. J. Franklin on June 21st, 2005 4:19 pm [#]

    Damn straight.

  3. George Freeman on June 21st, 2005 8:08 pm [#]

    Yeehaw!

    Apart from the question of federalism, I’d like to know since when did “natural disaster” warrant the egalitarian approach of “national standards”. If it is a natural disaster, usually it is both unexpected and catastrophic. Will Canadians in a rich province cease to be the responsibility of the Canadian government if their province has all the money it needs? How does the Canadian government, which seems to want to micro-manage every other aspect of our lives, even get away with talking about national standards to natural disasters? Someone should point out the irony of their “two-tier” approach to disaster management.

    The mantra of universal healthcare remains the steadfast sermon of the federal government, but apparently when it comes to catastrophic acts of God universality takes a hike.
    Provinces can submit their receipts, the nerds in Ottawa can run them through the formulaic national standards on freekish acts of God, and voilla, you either are or are not the responsibility of the government to whom you are a subject and you pay taxes. Ridiculous talk from bureaucratic ass holes!

Got something to say?