Dear Editor
Shortly after I immigrated to Canada in 1967, I was talking to a Canadian friend who mentioned that one of the better aspects of Canadian society was the development of the Crown corporation, an organization much like an ordinary business, but owned by the government and run for the benefit of the people. I learned the Crowns generally were limited to the kind of business that would otherwise, by nature, be prone to being monopolistic, such as mail services, or that would have important human or environmental concerns, such as liquor stores or power utilities. It seemed like a good idea to me at the time.
I believe most Canadians still think there is some validity in the idea of having Crown corporations, but, with the rise of radical “neoconservative” and “neoliberal” economic theories, especially in the last 30 years, right-wing politicians have begun to view the Crowns as not being within their preferred ideology. The result has been that many have been sold to private interests — Potash Corporation being an example — and many have simply been used by governments in ways to make them deviate from the idea of running “for the benefit of the people.”
Brad Wall, who learned his politics from Grant Devine (who sold Potash Corporation for “peanuts”), also learned something in 2003, when the Sask. Party leader lost an election (most thought they would win) for saying he would sell the Crowns. He government has now decided to take some time to “consult” with the people before actually selling off most Crown-owned liquor stores and allowing more private liquor sales in rural areas. No doubt, Wall’s reason for that is purely ideological, the privatization imperative. How could it possibly be for the benefit of the people?
Russell Lahti
Battleford
