Reaction was swift from both the left and right to the 2017 Saskatchewan provincial budget.
From the right flank, the reaction was negative from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who made clear its disappointment over the provincial government’s “decision to stick taxpayers with most of the bill” in the 2017 budget.
“The Saskatchewan government is trying to fix its deficit problem by forcing families and businesses to pay more taxes,” said Todd MacKay, prairie director for CTF, in a statement.
“The government is making some tough decisions to trim spending, but taxpayers are getting hit hard with the brunt of this bad news budget.”
Among the budget items include the PST going up by 1 per cent and numerous other taxes going up as well to address the deficit.
The CTF is noting that while personal and business income taxes are each being trimmed by 0.5 per cent, the total tax burden for Saskatchewanians is increasing $908 million. They also point to spending rising by 0.6 per cent compared to last year’s budget, and interest on existing debt will cost $381 million – $84 million ahead of last year.
“Saskatchewanians have been trimming their family budgets for a few years already and it’s time for the provincial government to do the same,” MacKay said.
“It’s unfair to force Saskatchewan families to pay more when the government still isn’t significantly reducing its own spending.”
Over on the left, the NDP caucus slammed the budget.
“The Sask. Party has clearly forgotten who they’re working for. Every page of this budget shows another broken promise, a tax hike or a cut to Saskatchewan families trying to get ahead,” said NDP Finance Critic Cathy Sproule in a statement.
The NDP particularly condemned the tax and fee increases and the expansion to the PST.
“To put it simply, the Sask. Party lied. On top of an increase to the PST, everything from power bills to children’s clothes, fishing licenses and a case of beer will cost the people of Saskatchewan more. The only people coming out on top will be Saskatchewan’s wealthiest, who will get a $38 million tax cut,” Sproule said.
The NDP also criticized the decision to wind down Saskatchewan Transportation Company.
“STC provides a vital service to many seniors, workers and families throughout the province and, by scrapping it out of the blue and without asking permission of the owners – the Saskatchewan people – the Sask. Party is sending a clear sign, how little they care about protecting our Crowns like SaskTel.”
The Sask. Federation of Labor also slammed the budget, particularly the government’s intention to pare back 3.5 per cent from public sector wages.
“Today’s budget is a continuation of the Sask. Party government’s attacks on hard-working Saskatchewan people,” said SFL president Larry Hubich in a news release.
“We have already seen the government blame their financial mess on some of the lowest-paid public sector workers, such as janitors, and now they are expanding that attack to education workers, frontline health care staff and the professionals in our public service.”
The Canadian Union of Public Employees also was not happy.
“The budget paints a clear picture of how poorly our province has been run over the last nine years, and it is not pretty,” said Tom Graham, president of CUPE Saskatchewan, in a news release.
“The Sask. Party’s reckless decisions, like building P3 schools, embracing Lean contracts and selling off public assets, got us into this mess. And now the only solution they have for a situation they created is to punish frontline workers and cut public services while decreasing taxes for their rich corporate donors.”
The construction industry was also complaining, with the Saskatchewan Construction Association pointing out that applying the PST to construction labour puts the province at a competitive disadvantage, with Saskatchewan becoming the only jurisdiction in Western Canada to fully tax construction labour.
“The addition of the PST onto construction labour is a tax on growth,” says SCA president and CEO Mark Cooper. “We are disappointed with the timing of the decision, especially during a period of softened consumer and investor confidence. It makes Saskatchewan less competitive, and less attractive for investors.”
On the education side, the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation accused the government of “undervaluing public education” in its news release.
“The announcement of a reduction of 1.2 per cent in operational funding is troubling,” said STF president Patrick Maze.
“School divisions are still to be briefed this Friday on the details, so uncertainty remains as to how they will actually respond. It is one thing to expect budget cuts during tough economic times, but the last thing that should be affected is student learning. We had hoped that the government would demonstrate a stronger commitment to supporting teachers based on previous assurances that they would look to administrative savings and educational governance reform first.”
Concern also came from University of Saskatchewan president Peter Stoicheff over the 5.6 per cent reduction announced in the budget, which they call the largest percentage decrease in their history.
“We have been preparing for a substantial budget reduction for many weeks. Even so, today’s budget is deeply troubling to the U of S, and to the people we serve throughout Saskatchewan,” Stoicheff said in a statement.
“The people of this province deserve to have one of Canada’s top universities, and we will not be deterred by this budget. We are determined, as a community, that it will neither define us nor diminish us. As we have always done during our 110-year history, we will find a way to provide what our province needs.”
Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association expressed relief the province did not break their “solemn promise” to stick to its revenue-sharing formula of one per cent of PST revenues to municipalities.
Still, concern was expressed about cuts to other areas in the budget, such as to library funding, urban parks and the Urban Highway Connector Program.
“Our cities, towns, villages and northern communities are no strangers to making tough choices when it comes to their budgets,” said SUMA president Gordon Barnhart in a statement.
“SUMA members balance providing programs and services that are vital to quality of life in this province, with limited ways to generate revenue and being unable to run operating deficits at all, let alone for several years.”
Barnhart also expressed concern about provincial downloading onto municipalities.
“We have a policy position to that effect, and are disappointed that Saskatchewan’s hometowns are once again bearing the brunt to continue providing the services Saskatchewan people expect and deserve.”
