There is a fine line between a party — especially a governing party — acting in our interests and acting in its own interests.
Consider the emphasis by the Saskatchewan Party government and its leadership candidates hopefuls on the issue of federal Liberal government’s carbon tax.
Let’s be clear this is no hobby interest for the Saskatchewan government.
If and when the full $50 a tonne federal levy on CO2 emissions comes into effect in 2022, it will cost the oil, mining and agriculture sectors billions a year.
That would be a hefty blow to the Saskatchewan economy because of its impact on farmers and international mining and oil companies who might be drilling and mining who might opt for U.S. jurisdictions that have no such tax
It would seem to be a clear case in which the Sask. Party government is on the right side of an issue — one in which they are abetted by their own philosophy that emphasizes economic development in these areas.
However, it’s also rather helpful to the Sask. Party that a lot of farmers are its supporters. Similarly, those running the mining and oil industry — most of whom are in Alberta where the Sask. Party has in the past held its fundraisers — have been known to donate rather generously to the Sask. Party.
So while it may see rather obvious that Wall and his government are acting in the broader interests of Saskatchewan, it likely doesn’t hurt that what it’s doing happens to benefit some of Sask. Party’s biggest supporters.
Of course, there is nothing new about this.
Under the former NDP administration, we had labour laws far more favourable to a union’s ability to organize.
Before the Sask. Party government, no union certification vote was needed if a union presented to the Labour Relations Board signed documentation that it showed 50-per-cent-plus-one of a workplace signed a union cards.
What benefited the union (who generously donated to the NDP) was changed to something that benefitted business (who generously donate the Sask. Party).
But this is also about where governing parties tend to get into problems — when they do things to benefit stakeholders (and, thus, themselves) rather than things that help the province as whole.
Consider the feud right now between Alberta and Saskatchewan over Alberta vehicles having to be registered in Saskatchewan if their owners are going to work on highways or infrastructure projects.
According to Highways Minister David Marit, it’s the perfect solution to Alberta companies enjoying the bidding advantage in Saskatchewan because they haven’t paid this province’s now six-per-cent PST on their equipment.
The problem is, it’s also direct violation of the New West Partnership agreement that allows free movement on companies to bid in other jurisdictions without penalty.
That Alberta chooses to make their businesses more competitive with no PST is really no different than Wall and Saskatchewan trying to make this province more competitive with lower corporate income tax.
Moreover, neither the provincial government nor the Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association has produced any evidence of Alberta government policy disadvantaging out-of-province companies.
Yet we hear Wall talking about “provocations”, how Saskatchewan vehicles are not welcome on Alberta construction sites and that “Saskatchewan contractors have been shut out of bidding on Alberta government projects.”
So we are left with a government stirring up a lot of animosity towards the NDP government in Alberta. This is politically beneficial to the Sask. Party.
But does it benefit Saskatchewan taxpayers if Alberta companies choose to no longer bid on Saskatchewan projects?
When a government forgets it’s in the business of governing for everyone best, it usually gets itself into a lot of trouble.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 22 years.
