Funding Cuts Back on the Table

Remember that stupid thing Harper tried to do in late 2008 the precipitated a huge crisis and almost cost him his government? Yeah, he just ordered his minister to try and push for it again.

---

Fletcher -- the minister of state for democratic reform -- has been talking about gearing up to take on the vote tax again. He has indicated it is something his government still plans to pursue.

"We believe that political parties should support themselves with people who voluntarily donate to whichever party they wish to support," said Fletcher.

Last November, you might remember, Conservative plans to cut off the per-vote subsidy which parties get led to a near meltdown of Parliament. The opposition parties accused the government of trying to use the threat of a recession to kill off its opponents by bankrupting them. Then the Liberals, NDP and Bloc banded together to form a coalition and were prepared to vote down the government and take over.

---

This will end well no doubt.

Conservative MP Calls for Sweeping Internet Censorship

Story

---

Canadian MP Joy Smith introduced a new bill this week designed to cleanse the Internet of child pornography, racial hatred, and material that promotes violence against women. All noble goals, to be sure, but the cure might be almost as bad as the disease: Smith's plan calls for government censorship and the licensing of all ISPs in the country.

---

Craaaaaazyyyyyyyyy

The most "Liberal Budget ever"?

John Ibbitson over at the globe and mail adds insult to injury with his comments on the budget

---

How Liberal is this allegedly Conservative budget? It's so Liberal that it actually revives the sponsorship program.

---

and

---

There was a time when some of us thought Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty were conservatives: prudent politicians who were definably to the right of, say, Jack Layton or Stéphane Dion. What fools we were.

---

and

---

The only losers -- apart from the opposition parties, which are left slack-jawed, with nothing meaningful to oppose (although that won't stop them) -- will be those few remaining citizens who would actually like to vote for a conservative party. No such creature exists any more.

---

and finally (and funnily)

---

This is so Liberal, the Grits should sue for breach for copyright.

---

I (like most dippers) have always said "Liberal, Tory, Same old Story" but who knew just how true that was?

How is the Conservative budget playing with Conservatives?

Or at least the bloging ones?

From The Calvinball Dairies

---

The 2007 Budget is a complete sell out. I would have nothing good to say about this document if a Liberal government tabled it, and I have nothing good to say about it now. This is a budget without one redeeming feature.

---

From Sham the Tory Man:

---

After watching Jim Flaherty deliver the Harper government's second budget lets just say I wanted to reach for the Pepto Bismol since there wasn't anything conservative about it apart from the blue cover (which might as well have been pink).

---

From A Step to the Right

---

Well, I’m disappointed with the 2007 Federal Budget. I really had my hopes up for an income tax split cut, but I guess I’ll have to wait at least another year for that.

---

From Proud to be Canadian

---

I’ve heard a Mr. Flaherty deliver a budget for the past while, but I heard the Conservatives were going to spit one out today. Still waiting.

---

From Political Staples

---

The highest spending government in the history of Canada and three parties to the left of that party. That's how Andrew Coyne characterized the budget on an ad hoc edition of the At Issue Panel.

---

From Kerplonka!

---

I guess you could sum up my reaction in the word "underwhelmed". The fundamental problem is that Harper's trying to be all things to all people, trying to do too much with too little.

---

From The Politic.com

---

An unconservative, election-ready budget. I’ll be forgiving, because I don’t want to see a Liberal government in a month, but this had better not be a pattern. Seven percent increases in spending are appalling, and not what I expect from this government.

---

From BC Tory

---

As far as this budget goes, it's great for politics, but not for policy. It's a safe, centrist budget that is designed to woo voters, but, as far as the Conservative base goes, it leaves a sour taste in their mouth. It may gain votes, but it lacks the one thing I've long clamoured for in this budget: some delicious fiscal conservatism. I've got the napkin on my lap, fork and knife in hand, and it seems as if I will go home starving. Quite a sad state of affairs.

---

From Wundrick Blog

---

And now word comes that the NDP and Liberals are going to oppose it anyway. Good grief - if that's the case, I certainly hope it's because they think we're spending too much.

---

And - saving the best comment for last, From Kerplonka! (Again)

---

"What's our next step? Start the Reform Party?"

---

Geeze, with this kind of endorsement, maybe I will have to change my mind and support the budget.

Update: Not just Tories are pissed off at the budget

Response To Paul Well's Letter Writer

Paul Wells was kind enough to link to my blog yesterday and then (in the spirit of bipartisanship or something) posted an e-mail that he got from a reader criticizing me and/or my blog.

---

Maybe I’m a bit slow, or maybe it’s the over gleeful partisan nature of you and that mouse thingy you linked to, but I’m not seeing where the Tories are in trouble. We’ve got a Radio Canada leak of possible solutions, and then the Brad Trost quote looks only to guarantee the “best deal” ever, which doesn’t even seem to be violated by the RC leak.

---

The e-mail writer then went on to say:

---

Post some information rather than a smirk, or link to someone who can write for an audience that doesn’t already agree with him 1000%. Partisan blogs more than have their role, but to explain to the public outside of Sask. Such partisan abstruseness doesn’t help.

---

Mr. Wells then went on to eviscerate this person's attack on Wells' blog. Very, very effective.

This is my pale imitation of Mr. Well's - only I will be standing up for my own blog.

1) The Reader (a Graeme H) says "the over gleeful partisan nature of you and that mouse thingy you linked to"

First of all, Paul Wells is anything but partisan as he himself so eloquently points out. I on the other hand, have made no secret that I support the NDP. I am a member of the NDP as any sort of half-assed examination of my site would tell you.

I mean, my god, if the trolls over on Small Dead Animals can figure it out, we are not talking rocket science here, and they attack me for being an NDP shill and a lefty crazy all the time.

Secondly, "mouse thingy"? - I'm hurt. :-)


2) link to someone who can write for an audience that doesn’t already agree with him 1000%. Partisan blogs more than have their role, but to explain to the public outside of Sask. Such partisan abstruseness doesn’t help.

The link that Mr Wells was kind enough to provide simply listed the quotes, from Hansard, of the 12 conservative MP's. If these words now seemed bias and partisan - it is because the CONSERVATIVES LIED. Nothing I say or do can change that fact and if the reader doesn't like it, perhaps he should take it up with the CONSERVATIVES who LIED and not me and my blog for pointing it out.

Sheesh!


3) I’m not seeing where the Tories are in trouble. We’ve got a Radio Canada leak of possible solutions, and then the Brad Trost quote looks only to guarantee the “best deal” ever,

Right here, right now, I am going to predict the future. The Conservatives will take out resource revenues from the equalization formula and claim, as a result, that they lived up to their election promise. Then they will apply a cap (the O'brian formula) and say that this is nothing new and that they have still lived up to their promise.

Here is the problem. Applying the cap would mean that Saskatchewan would get a few million a year from the Federal Government. Brad Trost will claim that this is still the "best deal that Saskatchewan has ever had" because yes, 99 kicks to the head from the Torys is better than the 100 kicks to the head from the Liberals.

Heres the problem. The conservatives will still be breaking their promise.

Here is what the (now) Prime Minister Harper had to say when he was in opposition:

---

The Prime Minister is also failing Saskatchewan on equalization. The government promised to reform the equalization program in 2004 for Saskatchewan. The government now says it will not get to that until at least 2006, costing Saskatchewan over $750 million in lost revenue. When will the Prime Minister overrule his finance minister and make the changes necessary, so Saskatchewan does not lose this money?

---

Here is what Saskatchewan Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski said

---

"By my understanding, if Saskatchewan were allowed to keep 100% of its non-renewable natural resources, it would mean an estimated $800 million yearly and perhaps even higher than that".

"In fact, if Saskatchewan had a proper, fair and just equalization formula right now, at today's oil prices Saskatchewan would be receiving, by my calculations, anywhere between $800 million and $1.5 billion in additional revenue each and every year. Of course we do not have that agreement"

---

And here is what Saskatchewan Conservative MP Brad Trost had to say:

---

Brad Trost said while caucus discussions are confidential, MPs from Saskatchewan are intent on keeping their promise to get a new equalization deal for the province. "Let me give you a 100 per cent guarantee, Prime Minister Harper will give Saskatchewan the best deal it's ever had from any prime minister ever, " he said. Asked if that would be the same deal the Conservatives campaigned on, Trost said: "If it isn't, it better be better."

---

For the record they did not campaign on putting a "cap" on payments after taking resource revenues out of the system.

So the numbers that the Conservatives talked about (inlcuding Mr. Harper) were in the $750 million to $1.5 billion range.

If Saskatchewan gets $100 million a year is that living up to what they said?

I think not.

The New Federal Cabinet - Winners and Losers

Rona Ambrose Moves from Environment to Intergovernmental Affairs - Loser

This is a bit of a downgrade for Ambrose but with here skills in this area it is actually a better fit for her. The real winner here: The environment


John Baird Moves from Treasury Board to Environment - Winner

This is an upgrade for Baird but the problem is that the CPC is in negotiations with the other parties (particularly the NDP) when it comes to environment issues. Baird is going to have to drop his "whatever the question in QP kick the shit out of the Liberals" level of partizanship and learn to work and play well with others. The real winner here: The liberal critic for the treasury board.

Rob Nicholson Moves from House Leader to Justice - Winner

This was a big surprise and a major upgrade for Rob Nicholson. Given his stance on things like capital punishment and abortion back in the Mulroney days, look for the same brand of social conservatism as Toews brought to the portfolio. The real winner here: Rob Nicholson


Monte Solberg Mooves from Immigration to Human Resources - Winner

This is a lateral transfer or perhaps an upgrade to Solberg. 'nuff said.

Vic Toews Moves from Justice to Treasury Board - Loser

Serious downgrade for Toews. And as I said earliers, probably not due to his conservative views given who the replacement was. Perhaps he just wan't a good cabinet minister? The real winner: Provincial Justice departments who repotedly hated dealing with Toews' office.

Peter van Loan Moves from Intergovernmental Affairs to House Leader - Loser

He loses a portfolio and a ministery and gains having to shepard things through a minority parliament. The real winner: Rob Nicholson

Jason Kenney as secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity

The real loser: Multiculturalism

Here's an overview of other blogger reactions:

Calgary Grit:

---

If you take those four spots as young MPs being groomed for future Cabinet positions then, boy, does it ever suck to be James Moore this morning. Diane Ablonczy has also got to be feeling a bit jilted that another Calgary MP got a Cabinet spot before she did.

So that brings us to the shuffle part of this Cabinet shuffle. And it's really a mulligan for Harper. Rona Ambrose's expertise made her a logical choice for Intergovernmental Affairs back in February so that's what she gets now. Not that it really matters since it appears that Harper's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has fewer responsibilities than his chauffeur. Vic Toews was also a brutal choice for Justice but now that the messy Same Sex vote is beyond him, Harper has moved in a much more competent and moderate man to the portfolio. As for Baird...well, good luck - he'll need it. I'm really not sure what to make of the Solberg/Finley moves and I suspect they'll get overshadowed quite a bit; I'd be curious to hear any theories on those ones.

---

Buckdog

---

Jason Kenney, former Reform Party MP and extreme right wing ideologue is the new Secretary of State for multiculturalism. His former job as CEO of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has prepared him to be a 'fox in the hen house' and Harper is going to use those skills on multiculturalism.

---

My Bhlag points out the problems for those who praised Harper's small cabinet earlier

---

The size of cabinet has increased from 27 to 32 positions, with a smaller percentage of women on the team. So I guess, according to the right whingers, PMS' new cabinet is less effective, less efficient, doesn’t pay attention to the concerns of taxpayers and is now primed for nonsense.

---

Jason Cherniak

---

2) Jason Kenney is now in cabinet. To earn this spot he misled Parliament, fibbed in his apology and supported a terrorist organization. He might be a good Parliamentary performer, but I cannot wait for his next big mistake.

3) Dianne Abolonzy has been overlooked again. Harper should be ashamed.

4) A number of Secretaries of State have been added. Harper obviously recognizes now that it was a mistake to start with such a small cabinet. Those Conservatives who lauded him for the move at first will surely condemn him now for backtracking. Or admit that they were wrong...

5) John Baird is good at pushing just about any subject in the most partisan way possible. His selection suggests that Harper was looking for a better salesperson on the environment and not a better policy. I predict that this will not work and Baird will end up looking like a bully.

---

Accidental Deliberations

---

While John Baird will presumably hold up to questioning better than Rona Ambrose did in the Environment role, it's worth noting his own dubious record to date.

Baird's previous assignment likewise involved the Cons' signature piece of legislation for the year. But by the time the Accountability Act became law, it had been drained of many of the Cons' promises and had undergone major revisions to clean up serious drafting oversights...resulting in an awful lot of work for a very small increase in actual accountability. And while that kind of outcome may have been acceptable on a file where the Cons' main competitors genuinely preferred to see nothing done, it won't be good enough in an area where every other federal party has taken up the cause.

Moreover, it was Baird's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the realities of existing election law that exposed the Cons' convention fee scandal. And PMS surely can't relish the prospect of the Cons' similarly-flawed assumptions on the environment coming to light.

---

Galloping Beaver

---

Ambrose was made the minister of intergovernmental affairs at the morning swearing-in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa. She will also be minister of western economic diversification

I'm sure she will ponder the state of Prince Rupert, unless she continues to take all her direction from the hacks in the Prime Minister's Office which would result in her doing absolutely nothing of value and blaming the previous government for any and all conditions she feels compelled not to address.

---

And the final word, fittingly, goes to Paul Wells:

---

Have you noticed that cabinet shuffles routinely get more attention than, say, cabinets do? Does it particularly matter which minister holds which portfolio if, after nearly a year, packs of trained pundits can't identify photos of some of them?

---

The Wheat Board and Conservative Manipulation

Is there any doubt that if it was put to a vote by farmers that the Wheat Board would remain?

From CBC:

---

The results of the Canadian Wheat Board election are in, and it appears those who want to maintain the board's monopoly over exports of Prairie wheat and barley have come out on top.

Five of the 10 farmer-director spots were up for grabs and, according to one of the successful candidates, four out of the five elected on Sunday support the existing "single-desk" system for marketing grain.

---

So what do the conservatives have to say about this 80% endorsement of the single desk system?

---

"Farmers are divided on this, I think," Strahl said.

---

Arrrrrrrggggggggg!

So much for democracy

Conservatives Break Promise to Saskatchewan

As I said in an earlier post:

---

The conservative MPs from Saskatchewan told the people of this province to vote for them in the last election campaign because they would deliver on an equalization deal for the province. Now they are cutting and running from that promise

---

Premier Calvert went to Ottawa to ask, if it wasn't too much trouble, could Harper please, please live up to his promise.

You know - those promises?

The things he claims he always keeps?

Not so much

It turns out that the lastest news isn't so good

---

According to Calvert, nothing Harper said suggested he intends to keep his $800 million-a-year promise to Saskatchewan. In fact, the prime minister even hinted he would adopt the Al O'Brien commission report that would cap the formula, the Saskatchewan premier said. That would mean Saskatchewan won't get one thin dime more than it does now.

---

the story goes on to say

---

Calvert is being purely political -- and, frankly, a bit nasty -- but there's really no reason to believe that his assessment of his meeting with Harper is anything but accurate. In fact, given the duplicitous and mealy-mouthed displays we continue to see from the Saskatchewan Conservative MPs whenever the equalization file comes up, there's every reason to suspect Calvert is completely justified in now playing the political card.

---

And finally, on the Conservative Hypocrisy:

---

...in an interview with James Wood of the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on Friday, [Carol]Skelton had the audacity to scold Calvert for this poor "negotiation" tactic.

"There are still negotiations going on," Skelton aid. "When you negotiate -- and the premier of all people should realize -- when you negotiate you don't go out babbling to the media. If I was dealing with someone I wouldn't be kicking them in the shins, shall we say."

But Ms. Skelton, you promised the $800 million in the election. There are no negotiations here. Either you're an honest politician who keeps a promise or not. Which is it, Ms. Skelton?

---

Exactly, which is it?

Conservatives and Handcuffs = Bad Association

I took this screen cap off of the Conservative Party of Canada web site. Here in Saskatchewan there is an entirely different connotation when it comes to Conservatives and handcuffs.

The Spending Cuts' Impact on Saskatchewan

Yesterday I posted about the CPC spending cuts. Today I would like to follow up on the issue - particularly the Saskatchewan perpective.

As Greg over at Polical Staples has pointed out:

---

"An academic study of the 2004 election, for example, underlines that fewer aboriginals are voting, and Canadians in lower income brackets and young people generally turn up less often at the ballot box."

---

His reasoning being that since young people and aboriginals don't vote, this will not impact the CPC a whole lot. This has particualr note in Saskatchewan where the First Nations population is higher than elsewhere. what bothers me the most is one of the programs that they cut for First Nations people was one o the better ones.

The CPC cut off funding for an anti-smoking campaign aimed at First Nations and Inuit people, an effort that Conservative ministers suggested was wasteful and ineffective.

I agree with one of the NDP MP's who said:

---

Dennis Bevington, the NDP member for Western Arctic, said the $10.8-million cut means "more aboriginal Canadians will get sick and die due to smoking." The were "no consultations, no debate," he said, calling the decision "another sign of just how arrogant and controlling this prime minister is at a time when this country has record surpluses."

---

And the cuts also target people (who Greg points out, don't vote) that need the help the most. People who are helped by say, groups who teach them to read:

---

"This is a black day for us," said Wendy Desbrisay, executive director of the Canadian Literacy Movement. "We did not see this coming."

She accused the federal government of "abdicating" its leadership role in encouraging a pan-Canadian literacy strategy.

---

And further more, the impact on the museums in Saskchewan from the funding cuts is something the 12 MP's from Saskatchewan are going to here more about.

---

12 Conservative MP's from Saskatchewan in Trouble

Welcome to Paul Wells' Readers: (And there are a lot of you!) this post is from last year
Read my latest post on this topic here

The conservative MPs from Saskatchewan told the people of this province to vote for them in the last election campaign because they would deliver on an equalization deal for the province. Now they are cutting and running from that promise:

---

"Let me give you a 100 per cent guarantee, Prime Minister Harper will give Saskatchewan the best deal it's ever had from any prime minister ever, "

- Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost

---

So the Prime Minister was in Saskatchewan yesterday and his office was running the show with typical arrogance. They told one reporter from Regina that, “What you see on (the Prime Minister's itinerary) advisory is what we want you to know. If we're not telling you, we don't want you to know.”

Can you believe these guys?

Of course, PMSH made no comment on the biggest federal-provincial file in the province, the only one that all the newspapers have been writing about and the one that his own MP’s sent him a letter saying it could cost them thier seats in the next election. The one that one of his MP’s went out on a limb to say that PMSH would give us the “best deal it’s ever had from a Prime Minister”

Well, just to keep the MP’s on their toes – here is what the Saskatchewan MP’s have had to say about the equalization deal – before they formed government of course. It would be weird if ALL 12 SASKATCHEWAN CONSERVATIVE MP’s spoke out against the current equalization deal and called for an immediate change.

Yes, that would be weird. (the links are to the actual quotes in Hansard)

---

“The matter of equalization has to do with Saskatchewan's natural resources which by right of the Constitution we should have complete access to, we should have total and complete benefit of. It is a right which is being taken away from us through the equalization process…. We want nothing more than the basic principles of fairness applied.”
- Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) Hansard

---

“Saskatchewan has been ripped off by the federal government when it comes to equalization …Because of equalization, revenues from the very resources that are keeping the province afloat are being handed to the federal government which in turn distributes the money among the have not provinces”
- Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) Hansard

---

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the equalization question…. We can find inequities that exist between provinces particularly as they relate to Saskatchewan. In that regard, there have been many studies commissioned showing that Saskatchewan has had the bad end of the deal on this one… All Saskatchewan wants is to be treated fairly and equitably… It is our position that non-renewable resources such as oil and gas should not be in the formula. The Minister of Finance, a native of Saskatchewan, has an obligation to the citizens of Saskatchewan and those in particular in Souris—Moose Mountain to ensure that the past injustices done to Saskatchewan are not repeated again.
- Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) Hansard

---

Saskatchewan is simply not getting its fair share out of equalization…. Just last week the Prime Minister visited Saskatoon, but refused to substantially negotiate or discuss the equalization matter with our premier…. Saskatchewan faces challenges. Its population has increased 14% since the Great Depression, while other provincial populations have flourished. With major industries in crisis, a static population and mounting fiscal pressures, we cannot afford to wait forever for this federal government to attend to this problem…. We need our NDP government in Saskatchewan to be supportive of our efforts to get a better deal for Saskatchewan. We need a provincial government that wants our province to prosper on the backs of its own industries. At the very least we need a provincial government that will hold the federal government to its constitutional obligations…. I plead with the government and the minister across the way to negotiate a fair deal with the province of Saskatchewan and to do it without delay.
- Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) Hansard

---

“The equalization formula that we have has totally shafted the province of Saskatchewan from every standpoint…. A good deal of the problem I have identified is the gross unfairness in the equalization formula. I want to point out a couple of those discrepancies. I also want to point out that the Conservative Party has clearcut policies on this matter as opposed to the government across the way…. I want to make it clear that this formula is grossly unfair to a province that has non-renewable natural resources…. This is bad policy. It is terrible policy…. This formula is unfair. It is shocking. I do not know what terminology I could use to describe the matter….. As a resident of Saskatchewan, I am looking at a formula that does not serve our province very well at all. As I stated at the onset, in many respects it shafts the people of Saskatchewan to the umpteenth degree. What is the government's response to this very serious problem? The finance minister says that it is too complicated to discuss.
- Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) Hansard

---

"The truth of the matter is that in Saskatchewan the only elected official who is not demanding the same deal as was afforded Premiers Hamm and Williams is the Minister of Finance. That is shameful. Will the minister or his designate stand in the House today and do what is right, do what is fair, and simply commit to the elimination of the clawback provisions and give Saskatchewan people the same deal as afforded to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?"
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) Hansard

---

"Representatives of the people of Saskatchewan are obliged to speak out against an equalization system that penalizes our province with an over-emphasis on non-renewable resources and a complete failure to accurately measure fiscal capacity. The detrimental effects of the present equalization formula should not be under-estimated. It has and continues to have a real effect on the prosperity of the residents of Saskatchewan, robbing them of economic benefits resulting from energy revenues…. The concept of equalization is to assist have not provinces. However, under this formula, we could conceivably cement the economic stagnation of some provinces, such as my own, for decades to come. The treatment of Saskatchewan's non-renewable resources under the equalization formula is, to quote Courchene, “not only inequitable, it is fiscally and economically immiserating”`. We cannot allow this situation to persist."
- Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) Hansard

---

“A tremendous number of our graduates and our kids are working in Alberta in that oil patch that Alberta started before this equalization formula became a hindrance. I take exception to that…. The whole equalization process, and the fundamental word in there is equal, has become a political process, not a practical process. One can argue that formula is as flawed as the equalization one and I would agree. It needs to be changed…"
- Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) Hansard

---

"I have a lot of people in my riding who would like to know why, when those parties were making this deal, there was not a single penny for agriculture and not a single penny for a fair deal for Saskatchewan in terms of equalization, an agenda that this party has been driving for months as the only ally of the Saskatchewan people in moving this issue forward."
- Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina Qu’appelle, CPC) Hansard

---

There is no equalization deal for Saskatchewan, which is what the Conservative Party has been consistently demanding from the government. To put it into perspective, a new equalization deal would have meant an additional $750 million for Saskatchewan, my province, this year alone.
- Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC) Hansard

---

It was interesting to hear him say that equalization is not really about equality. It seems to me that it is…. We know that the current equalization formula is flawed…. We agree that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserve to keep their offshore gas and oil revenues. However, we think that what is fair for those provinces is also fair for Saskatchewan…. . This change should be a slam dunk.
- Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) Hansard

---

"This is not something just unique to the Conservative Party, but we believe there is a tremendous flaw in the current equalization formula… It is estimated that Saskatchewan, had it received that same deal a decade ago, would have received an additional $8 billion for the province from non-renewable resource revenues…. In regard to equalization, Saskatchewan is being treated very unfairly…. By not providing a fair deal for Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have turned their backs on our province"
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) Hansard

---

That's all 12 Saskatchewan MPs!