Jay and I have been discussing the Atlantic Accord and likely both been making errors all over the place but none as silly as the ones likely being made in the political forum these days:
“I am concerned about this allegation we’ve broken the [Atlantic] accords…We have done no such thing. It’s a contract. We don’t break contracts. We respect contracts. Normally, I expect, if someone says you’ve broken a contract, they are going to follow that up by going to court to make you abide by the contract. But I don’t see that happening…We can’t let that allegation stay out there forever. At some point we will consult tribunals ourselves, if that’s necessary, to get a ruling on our respect for the contracts.” The political dare was met with scorn by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald, who said they will not be drawn into legal battles that would only deflect their criticisms of the recent federal budget…
Stephen Scott, a professor of constitutional law at McGill University in Montreal, said the Atlantic Accord is a political arrangement, not a contract, so a lawsuit could not be used to force the federal government to uphold its provisions. But, he said, the premiers could go to their own provincial appeals courts to get orders declaring how the agreement should be interpreted.
So you have the leader of the country daring other leaders into a court case over a legal principle that probably does not exist. Classy or troubling?
But to what political end? Where is a seat one with this approach? Maybe rural Alberta, itself the beneficiaries of the greatest non-reimbursable Federal windfall in Canadian history, will now vote 75% Conservative instead of 70%. But what is a Conservative government without seats in Atlantic Canada? Unless, it takes Ontario – nothing. Is there now a practical resignation to the reality of minority government?