Excuse us Premier Wall but it does appear your right wing is showing more than usual.
Now this might simply be a case of hubris, and one can hardly blame Wall, nor the Saskatchewan Party of feeling bulletproof right now. After all, Saskatchewan voters returned the premier and party to power with a third straight majority government April 4, of this year. The Opposition New Democrats making zero inroads. In fact, the Sask Party gained two seats as the Legislature expanded by a pair this time around, and had just more than 62 per cent of the popular vote.
That is an undeniable mandate, but whether voters were expecting a quick side step farther right is a question worth asking.
So where do we see the move right?
Well, a pending deal in Manitoba has opened the door for Wall and company to start playing around with the idea of privatizing the province’s Crowns.
The Party will suggest that privatization is not a core value for them, but that has never rung as much more than rhetoric on their behalf. Politically, Wall has been savvy enough to keep such a plan off the agenda at election time, but when a door cracked open he is at least peeking through to see if they might pull off a sale.
The government has come out and stated it wants a risk analysis done on SaskTel, following news Bell will buy Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. in a friendly deal worth $3.9B. That is a lot of money at a time Wall’s government is going to face tough budget decisions even though the province has enjoyed its best economic times ever in recent years.
It was reported by CBC Wall has said the deal leaves SaskTel as “the only, sort of quite small, regional player—the only one on this island.”
In the same story, Wall said the government-owned company already has to share its telephone infrastructure with its private competitors, which had made the competition increasingly tough. “Does the takeover [of MTS] mean anything, in terms of SaskTel’s ongoing competitiveness?”
Supporters of Wall will say it’s just a look at the situation, but given political ideologies it is rather hard not to see this as a prelude to creating the ‘reason’ to finally sell-off a major Crown, and to rationalize it as a way to buffer the province through an economic downturn since the government couldn’t save enough through the good times.
While Wall and his Party might be forgiven a review as reasonable, if you discount that bigger picture political optics of it, the throne speech was a wakeup call in terms of where the government is moving, huge mandate in hand.
The implicit rejection of climate change science, which was described as “some misguided dogma that has no basis in reality” is at best … well there is no best case here. The statement is reactionary at best, if not outright counter to the government’s own position.
The provincial government has stated on its website that it “acknowledges the science-based reality of climate change.”
And the outlandish verbiage of the throne speech runs counter to a growing portfolio of climate change science, which widely suggests fossil fuel extraction, production and usage is a key factor in the ongoing increase in average global temperatures.
Certainly, Saskatchewan’s record in terms of emissions is dismal.
“Saskatchewan sports the highest per-capita emissions of any province: at last count, the province accounts for 10.3 per cent of the country’s emissions despite only boasting three per cent of its people. Between 1990 and 2013, its total emissions increased by 66 per cent, compared to Alberta (the second highest in the category) which increased by 53 per cent,” reports www.desmog.ca a site which does have a mandate of pushing for cleaner air.
“The oil, gas and mining sector accounts for 34 per cent of the province’s emissions, with the electricity sector chipping in an additional 21 per cent (close to half of the province’s power is generated by burning coal).
“This is all in spite of a 2020 target of cutting emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels as articulated in the unimplemented Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act of 2009.”
While we might allow Wall to be wary of the impact of some imposed federal goals in terms of emissions, especially as the government faces the tight budget realities of a slower economy, but to suggest the science of climate change is “misguided dogma” is, well, even more misguided dogma Mr. Wall. And it does the future of our world a disservice in its mere utterance.
