 |
Leader-Star News Service February 1997 Archive |
|
Leader-Star News Service February 1997 Archive |
You'd think politicians who grew up in this climate would have a slightly better comprehension of the word "freeze."
Perhaps a couple of our Saskatchewan cabinet ministers could be forgiven.
Premier Roy Romanow and Economic Development Minister Dwain Lingenfelter have had to forgo much of their January and February in Saskatchewan in favor of travelling to the Philippines, Thailand, Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe to ensure worldwide commerce does not collapse. With so much of our winter spent in warm climes, the concept of becoming congealed in ice and solidified by the abstraction of heat may already be a foreign concept to these two.
Far more bothersome, however, is the inability of anyone in the NDP government to understand the secondary definition of the word "freeze" -- as in, to immobilize by governmental regulation.
Ask them what freeze means and don't be surprised if you get a blank stare -- particularly if you are asking them about one-time promises to "freeze" Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) auto insurance rates or "freeze" SaskEnergy hikes.
Much of the government's recent trouble with terminology has emerged from the legislature's Crown corporations committee -- the very body that many NDP politicians trumpet as the only thing us taxpayers really need to protect us from unfair utility rate hikes.
At a Dec. 5 gathering of the Crown corporations committee last year, Eldon Lautermilch, minister responsible for SaskEnergy, made the following observation: "The corporation has a, as you know, a purchasing strategy and they do a number of things -- buy short-term gas, buy long-term gas -- trying to build in a stable price over a longer period of time. As it stands now, we have -- as I understand it -- gas prices locked in to late 1997. So the fluctuation and the increase in the price of natural gas won't be impacting our consumers for a period of time, based on the purchasing policy of the corporation."'
In fairness to Lautermilch, he did use the term "lock into" as opposed to frozen. But let us not quibble over the real intent of the minister's comments -- no gas price increases in 1997.
Then on Jan. 23 this year -- a short 49 days after Lautermilch's initial comment -- SaskEnergy issues a news release announcing it is applying to the government for a 2.3-per-cent natural gas rate increase for home and business consumers.
Lautermilch's freeze quickly melted.
(By way of information, this latest SaskEnergy release went to great lengths to mention its natural gas rates have decreased by 11 per cent in the last two years. It didn't mention the first major rate reduction of 6.5 per cent in 1995 came only after considerable public pressure or that SaskEnergy had hiked our gas rates by 9.5 per cent in January 1994.)
In the ever-fluctuating world of natural gas wellhead prices, one might be inclined to forgive a government for not keeping its "freeze promise." (Even a promise made barely a month earlier.)
But another Crown corporations committee meeting this week, reminded us that other similar NDP utility rate promises have sometimes seemed as lasting as an August snowball.
One of the NDP government's most compelling arguments leading to the implementation of no-fault insurance -- effective Jan. 1, 1995 -- was the rising cost of auto insurance without it.
Without "no-fault", drivers will face eight-per-cent premium hikes in each of the "next three years," then-SGI minister Keith Goulet explained in 1994.
With no-fault, we would have a three-year freeze in premiums.
PC MLA Dan D'Autremont noted at the committee meeting that SGI is now talking about a premium hike for 1997 -- only two years, not three -- after the implementation of no-fault insurance.
But current SGI Minister Clay Serby countered the government wouldn't be breaking its three-year freeze promise if it hiked SGI rates this year because the government counts 1994 -- the year we were still debating whether we should have no fault insurance or not -- as part of that three-year freeze.
I guess we should have asked for it in writing.
What Serby and Lautermilch really gave at these Crown corporations committee meetings is further evidence as to why we need a formal rate review process other than a legislative committee consisting of a majority of their caucus colleagues.
After all, what is there now that holds politicians to their word even when they do promise a rate freeze?
There's that word again.
Gee, wouldn't it be great if the rest of Saskatchewan thawed as quickly as an NDP government rate-freeze promise?
The essential reaction to this week's compelling interview with the man who blew the whistle on the PC fraud scandal is to demand that Saskatchewan immediately adopt some form of whistle-blower legislation.
Civil servants who find themselves in such situations likely do need such protection.
The problem is, whistle-blower legislation -- a better concept than a practical law -- may not be the complete solution.
In fact, there is a legitimate argument that the wrong whistle-blower's law could cause as many problems as it solves.
In Leader-Star bureau chief Mark Wyatt's interview with the man who blew the whistle on the Tories that ran in Monday's editions of The Leader-Post Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the man said he almost didn't go to the RCMP because he was afraid he and his wife would lose their government jobs.
"This whole issue came within a hair's breadth of not becoming public because of that," said the man, who agreed to the interview with Wyatt on the condition that his name would not be used.
Most intriguing was the way the man came across the information -- purely by happenstance.
Because his wife worked in the Legislative Assembly, he happened to be out for Friday-after-work drinks with other members of Legislative Assembly staff, including its director of financial services, Marilyn Borowski. At the bar, he overheard Borowski tell his wife that she had concerns about the Conservatives' communication allowances. (Later court testimony at PC fraud trials showed that Borowski had years earlier raised those concerns with her boss, Clerk of the Assembly Gwen Ronyk. Ronyk, in turn, raised the matter with then Speaker Arnold Tusa, who did not see any reason to pursue the issue.)
Fearing for his and his wife's jobs, the man sat on the information for a few months before going to the RCMP in July 1991 -- about three months before the PCs were ousted.
The most disturbing aspect of this story has to be that neither Borowski nor Ronyk felt comfortable taking the matter to the police themselves.
And before anyone faults either, you might want to ponder the following questions.
How quickly would you be willing to put your career on the line, knowing full well what was at stake? Would you have gone to the police after your boss told you he saw no reason to investigate further?
This concern alone should have been enough for our government to begin examining the need for whistle-blower legislation.
But there is another aspect of this issue that may need to be examined before any such legislation is implemented.
Let's remove the benefit of hindsight that includes a series of convictions of PC MLAs: they make what this man did appear completely honorable and justifiable.
This man went to the police armed with little more than bar-room gossip.
Suppose someone else one day goes to police with bar-room talk that might even be third or fourth hand. Or suppose this: a different civil servant has a less noble intent -- one motivated by either political partisanship, or by a grudge against a minister or government that happened to cut back his department.
Now, suppose the information of a police investigation into politicians leaked out, as sometimes happens. And suppose we had a whistle-blower law that afforded such people absolute protection.
You can see why politicians -- even those who have nothing to fear from whistle-blower legislation -- might suddenly feel a tad vulnerable to its potential misuse.
Especially when you have some unions claiming such whistle-blower legislation should be extended to protect civil servants who criticize or disagree with government policy.
Of course, there are those who would claim such abuse could easily be curtailed.
Abusers of the whistle-blower legislation would not receive protection if they were malicious.
Or they could face civil lawsuits.
But wouldn't such provisions just defeat the purpose?
Suppose you were a civil servant with perfectly legitimate reasons to raise concerns about your boss. Would you not be as intimidated if you still faced possible malice charges or civil suits?
Admittedly, it's a tad unnerving to hear politicians seemingly stonewall a law that would force them to be more open and accountable.
But if we do have a whistle-blower law in this province, we should make sure we have the right one.
Otherwise, it's no better than the system we have right now -- one that depends on the good graces of politicians and civil servants to do the right thing.
Emmet Reidy has spent most of his adult life as a political warrior As such, he would be familiar with the adage applicable to all old warriors.
He who lives by the sword, dies by it.
It's a fitting epithet for the Liberal party executive director who was rather unceremoniously ousted last week from his position.
Citing a "conflict in management style," new Liberal Leader Jim Melenchuk held a news conference last Friday to announce he was firing Reidy. Adding injury to insult, Dr. Melenchuk went one step further by adding that Reidy's ongoing health problems were also a factor in his dismissal.
That latter comment particularly riled Reidy, who told reporters he had a three-year contract with the Liberal party and resented hearing about his demise on a radio newscast.
On the surface, it appeared to be a cold, crass act -- the latest in the long, tiresome history of Liberal party in-fighting.
Elements of how the Reidy situation was handled are as bad as they appear. Certainly, Melenchuk has much to learn about political tact. (He described Friday's dismissal of a, sickly, long-time party servant to one reporter as ''just business.")
But for those inclined to feel badly for Reidy, you may want to revisit the oath of the old warrior.
To begin with, it stretches the imagination to believe Reidy's version that the first time he heard about his pending demise was on the radio.
Liberal party sources say negotiations have been going on for a couple of months to move Reidy to a lesser capacity in the party, in charge of membership. It might have paid him on more of a commission basis.
At issue for many Liberals was Reidy's annual salary -- estimated to be in the $60,000-plus range. Many party people simply believe they weren't getting their money's worth from a man who admittedly has had health problems.
Furthermore, the concern about both Reidy's style and whether the party was getting enough bang for its buck goes back much further than Melenchuk's leadership -- perhaps further back than Melenchuk's involvement in the party.
When then-leader Lynda Haverstock appointed Reidy to the executive director's role in January 1994, the party was in shambles with virtually no organization in many constituencies. It was the same job he held 30 years earlier under Ross Thatcher, so Reidy immediately added elements of experience and history, both badly needed by the party.
But accompanying all his experience were his hard-nosed, sometimes-confrontational "old-style" methods -- something that resulted in him being at odds with Haverstock's "new-style" politics.
Haverstock rightfully took the bulk of the blame for what was a disastrous 1995 Liberal campaign -- one where she simply couldn't explain how her party could find the money to replace the promise of $1.325 billion in tax cuts.
What was unfair, though, was that Reidy got very little of the blame for a campaign that failed to get out the party's message in this era of TV cameras. (Liberal events were often small, evening rallies that missed the six o'clock news and never built momentum, anyway. The "red book" -- such as it was -- wasn't even released until six days into the campaign.)
The rift between the two after the election could never be bridged. It was evident that either Haverstock or Reidy was going to go.
Reidy's campaign strategies may have been 30 years out of date, but he was still a far superior politician.
Upon her resignation in November 1995, Haverstock blamed "people who undermine leadership" with the Liberal office.
Ironically, though, it's not likely his role in Haverstock's demise -- whatever that role really was -- that did Reidy in last week.
Had he just been able to put away his sword -- or better yet, forged it into a plowshare -- and gone about the business of building the Liberal party in the past year, he might have continued in his role.
But it became apparent by the handfuls of people showing up at Liberal leadership delegate selection meetings that the party organization and fundraising was still in shambles in many areas.
When confronted by this, Liberal sources say Reidy did what he did best -- he turned the issue into another messy "conflict in management style."
Emmet Reidy's departure reminds us that politics can be a messy business. But that's something Reidy already likely knew.
After all, he already has lived and died by the political sword.
How much Dr. Julian Raphael wants to stay in Shaunavon is evident by the way he does his job.
For most of the seven years since he moved from his family medical practice in Northampton, England, to this small prairie town 352 kilometres southwest of Regina, Raphael has been on call 24 hours a day for 24 of every 28 days.
He works too hard. He has to, because if he doesn't, his hospital closes.
The District Health Act states hospitals must close if there is not doctor within 50 kilometres on duty. The four closest hospitals at Eastend, Gull Lake, Climax and Ponteix -- between 33 and 68 kilometres away -- now have a total of three doctors among them.
So Shaunavon's two doctors, Raphael and Dr. Martin Vogel have to work to be on 24-hour-a-day call at least every second weekend to keep Shaunavon's and the area's hospitals going.
"Fergus (his 12-year-old son, one of his three children)," calls me "stray dog," Raphael laughs. 'Oh look, stray dog's home,' he says."
How much Raphael wants to stay in Shaunavon is evident in the way he talks about how much his community has meant to family.
"My kids are in hockey, my kids are in basketball, my wife curls," Raphael said. "I want to stay here for all the right reasons. It's a fabulous community with lots of things to do."
How much Raphael wants to stay is also evident in chances he has to move elsewhere -- options that would mean more take-home money for less work.
Each day he receives more and more invitations -- far more lucrative invitations -- to join hospitals across Canada and the U.S.
"At first you throw all the envelopes in the garbage," Raphael said. "Then you begin opening them, then you open an atlas and ask: "How bad would Wyoming be?"
Among the more tempting recent offers was one last year to join the emergency ward at Winnipeg -- an offer that came just as 14-year-old daughter Daisy was studying with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.
The offer was for about $120,000 a year with a 37-hour week, he said. No overhead. No office costs. Far less hours and likely far more take-home money.
As a rural doctor, with an extraordinary volume of work, Raphael grosses $200,000-plus annually.
But the Shaunavon doctor estimates his office costs and other expenses to be $11,000 a month. Also, he logged 5,112 hours last year. (Work a normal 40-hour week with three-weeks vacation, you spend 1,960 hours a year at your job).
He says his pay works out to $41.87 an hour, before $11,000 a month in overhead.
"I'm getting physically tired. I know it," he said.
How much the people of Shaunavon want him to stay is equally apparent.
It was evident three weeks ago when his decision to take his nine-year-old son Bruce to a weekend hockey tournament almost forced the closure of the local hospital.
Shaunavon residents flooded telephone lines to the health board and to local Liberal Glen McPherson's office. Yet none of the criticisms were directed at Raphael or his decision.
Shaunavon people understood. They know how hard he works. (The near-closure was resolved when the Climax doctor agreed to work the weekend at Shaunavon for an extra $2,200.)
What is also apparent is how much Raphael is caught between health politics.
From one perspective, you have Opposition Liberal politicians who have used the near-closure to supplement their argument that there is a Saskatchewan health crises. Then you have NDP government politicians, subtly suggesting the issue is doctors wanting more money.
Strangely, though, Raphael has also found himself caught between politicians who do want to do the right thing.
It's been 10 years since Shaunavon has had three permanent doctors, even though the money is there to pay a third. What McPherson, Health Minister Eric Cline and everyone else all agree on is third doctor is needed as soon as one can be found.
Cline's announcement of a $1.3 million fund to pay local doctors or doctors from a locum pool an extra $1,500 to fill in on weekends has been put forward as at least a temporary solution.
McPherson criticism that it is a Band-Aid solution is equally sincere.
How long Raphael lasts in Shaunavon may now depend on how soon that third, permanent doctor gets to Shaunavon.
And when -- if ever -- the problem of the rural doctor shortages will end is anyone's guess.
If you can get past his bitterness, anger and obvious partisanship, Rick Swenson raises at least one legitimate question about the PC fraud investigation.
Is it fair that it's taken this long?
At an emotional press conference last week, Swenson took square aim at the RCMP and Crown prosecution, still laying charges five and half years after the PC fraud scandal was first brought to their attention.
What's worse, said the PC MLA who served from 1985 to 1995, is that the RCMP isn't ruling out the possibility of more people being charged at a later date.
Swenson says he can't go to church or his son's basketball game without people asking him if he's next to be charged.
"I'm just saying, charge us all. Charge me for, ---- sakes," Swenson said in an interview Tuesday. "The way it seems to me, is: 'because you're a Tory, you're dirty.'
"Yes, I'm part of a government that racked up a big debt. At times, it seems like that's why I'm being punished."
As suggested, Swenson is not a dispassionate observer.
As a lifelong Tory and former acting PC leader, he's watched the investigation destroy his party.
Also, the 1995 suicide death of close friend and caucus colleague Jack Wolfe -- partly due to, according to Wolfe's suicide note, the pressures of the RCMP investigation -- have made this issue a very personal one for Swenson.
"Certainly, I have those feelings," Swenson said. "But right now, I want put food on the table."
Since the police have said more Tories may be charged, Swenson says he's run into a brick wall trying to set up a private consulting company -- the victim of guilt by association.
"What would be so bad about the police saying: 'We've investigated the following people and have found no grounds for laying charges?' " said the former MLA first interviewed by RCMP about this scandal in 1992.
"There's a lot of us that didn't go anything. We didn't screw anybody, but you can't get on with life."
Despite all his near-uncontainable anger, there is one question Swenson can't easily anwser: Why isn't his beef with his former caucus colleagues found guilty and not the RCMP and Crown prosecution just doing their jobs?
After all, it's hard to argue with the numbers.
Of the 11 PC MLAs that have so far appeared before the courts on charges related to the Tory caucus communication fraud scandal, eight have been found guilty. That's a .727 batting average for the RCMP and Crown.
And despite the acquittals of three and the conditional discharges of a couple of others, it's equally hard for Swenson to argue the former politicians have been dragged before the courts for public amusement or trifling matters.
What Swenson's angry complaints somewhat gloss over is the fact that this fraud investigation has revealed the misuse of hundreds of thousands in taxpayers' dollars -- at least $125,000 of which made its way into the PC party's bank account.
And at least in the case of MLAs Lorne McLaren and Michael Hopfner and caucus communication director John Scraba, court evidence clearly proved they stuffed their pockets with tens of thousands of dollars.
But Swenson argues that's precisely why he's likely more angry at those central players in the PC fraud scheme than most of the Saskatchewan public.
"I am extremely ----ed off at them," he said. "Don't forget. That was my tax money they were taking, too."
That, however, just causes him to again ask: Why so long?
If McLaren was charged in 1994 with the fraud related to the $125,000 transferred to the party, why has it taken almost three more years to charge two other people with the same offence, Swenson asked.
Certainly, the evidence is long and detailed, Swenson acknowledged. But should the public accept the explanation that the RCMP and Crown prosecution's office only had one RCMP officer and prosecutor to spare to investigate "the biggest scandal in Saskatchewan history?"
Swenson touches on one other intriguing point.
When it takes an excessive amount of time for an accused person to have his or her day in court, they say justice delayed is justice denied.
When you have a group of 30 to 40 ex-politicians all under suspicion by the police and courts for actions taken six to nine years before, is not a case of justice delayed also justice denied for ones that will never be charged?
For those of you hoping that Saskatchewan politics might somehow revert to a more civil level this upcoming session, I have some disappointing news for you.
New Liberal Leader Jim Melenchuk is a doctor turned politician.
Premier Roy Romanow is a 30-year politician who sees an opportunity in a former doctor being the rookie Liberal leader. Romanow also showed last week, sadly, that he's not above playing the game of nasty personality politics.
It's all the ingredients we need for a rather unpleasant session.
The first salvo came from Romanow himself last week as he announced the March 6 Speech from the Throne and March 20 budget release at a press conference.
Even long-time reporters were taken aback at how many times Romanow made political -- and often rather personal -- references to the new Liberal leader who we won't see in the chambers until he wins an election.
Romanow referred to the element of "high confusion" and "mean-spiritedness" in provincial Liberal ranks.
By the accepted rules of the game we expect a premier to play by, Romanow's former comment was in bounds. Any politician has to be allowed to point to the perceived incompetence within your opposition's ranks. It's part of the game.
But Romanow's latter remark -- presumably, a reference to Melenchuk's handling of Liberal critical assignments and the unhappiness we saw from some Liberal MLAs like June Draude -- could only be interpreted as a personal attack on Melenchuk's character. Under the current game's rules, that is definitely out-of-bounds for a premier.
Our premier -- one who normally prides himself on his political civility -- was, sadly, being rather "mean-spirited" himself.
Why Romanow took square aim at Melenchuk is easy to see.
Health care remains the NDP's Achilles heel and Melenchuk -- as a doctor -- would have more insight into health's problems than any other opposition politician.
His M.D., however, may also bring political baggage. Political legend suggests the Saskatchewan voters like their doctors, as long as they remain doctors and not politicians.
With the bitterness over 1962 passed down a generation or two -- particularly, within NDP families -- Romanow's attempt to paint Melenchuk as a "mean-spirited" man may be a rather politically-calculated and self-serving exercise. (Let us not forget Romanow is under siege from the left and from a new left-wing party accusing him of abandoning Tommy Douglas's roots.)
"The leader of the Liberal party indicated to the people of Saskatchewan that coming from the medical system, he knows where the savings can be made," Romanow said seconds before his out-of-the-blue references to Melenchuk's "mean-spiritedness."
"I'm hoping journalists will ask exactly where those savings are going to come from. Can there be savings by changing the method of payment from fee-for-service to salaries? Will the new Liberal leader support that?"
But exactly why Romanow would then cross the line into personal character remarks remains an intriguing move.
After all, personality assassination and references to unhappiness within caucus is not exactly where Romanow would want to go these days.
For one thing, it would be easy for Liberals to accuse Romanow of similar "mean-spirited" treatment of backbench MLAs like Pat Lorje, who've been kept out of cabinet at least partly because their views haven't coincided with Romanow's.
Also, ask Lorje, Labor Minister Bob Mitchell and former social services minister Bob Pringle about minimum wages for baby-sitters and you see that Liberals aren't the only ones with problems of caucus solidarity.
But there's another more important reason why Romanow's little gambit into personal politics may accomplish nothing other than make for a very noisy, nasty session.
Most intriguing in this little drama has been Melenchuk's reaction. We've seen a level of political maturity missing from the new leader who, undoubtedly, was rather awkward in his handling of critical assignments and recent dismissal of party executive director Emmet Reidy.
Asked about Romanow's "mean-spiritedness" remark, the rookie Liberal leader responded that political name calling isn't something he's about to lose any sleep over.
"You can't have a career of 15-years-plus in medicine and be mean-spirited to people," Melenchuk said. "What it (Romanow's remark) says is he has a Liberal bee in his bonnet and it's me."
But if Saskatchewan politics is about name calling, Melenchuk doesn't seem to be all that offended.
"If it involves some increase in the rhetoric along the lines of partisan politics, we'll play their game," he said.
"Oh, you betcha."
It could be a very unpleasant session.
Whomever it was that once argued people may change but their principles don't, obviously never paid much attention to Saskatchewan politics.
Those of us who have watched the last transition of government would have had to have been blind, deaf and dumb not to see that so-called principles do change faster than the politicians did.
But for those of you who don't care to trust the opinion of a hard-bitten political columnist, I offer to you a far, far brighter person with far better insight.
John Beke has been a lawyer for 36 years, Allan Blakeney's former law partner and one of only two lawyers in this province with a doctorate in law.
He also represented Alameda farmers Ed and Harold Tetzlaff in their battle against the SaskPower/PC administration's policy to expropriation farmland to make way for the Alameda dam.
And now he represents the farmers who have formed Condie Line Evaluation and Review (CLEAR) corporation in their battle against the SaskPower/NDP administration's policy to expropriate farmland to make way for the Condie power line.
"I've seen it at every level of government and it happens to all parties," Beke said. "Once people are in seats of power, they are all-wise, all-omnipotent.
"That's exactly what's happened (in both cases) and that's exactly what's dangerous when governments are not subjected to the rule of law."
To better understand, we need a short lesson in current events.
Much of the late 1980s political heat in Saskatchewan generated from what the then Roy Romanow-led NDP Opposition called a $156-million "boondoggle" known as the Rafferty-Alameda dam projects.
The PC government argued the mega-project was needed for flood protection, but most galling to the NDP Opposition was the government's eagerness to expropriate the Tetzlaff's farmland without conducting a proper environmental assessment.
The government argued the project had been studied to death for 40 years and the environmental impact on the sparse, arid region would be minimal, anyway. The government agreed to build a new wildlife park to replace the one that's flooded and told its voters unsubstantiated environmental concerns shouldn't stand in the way of progress. The Tetzlaffs retained Beke and sued to stop the expropriation. The government issued a counter-suit, threatening the Tetzlaffs with costs of construction delays.
Now let's fast forward to today where much of the political heat is being generated by a government/SaskPower plan to commence construction on a high-voltage (230 kV) transmission line extending 250 kilometres from the Condie switching station just outside Regina to Saskatoon's Queen Elizabeth power station.
The government argued the line is needed because the current transmission system loses about 20 megawatts of electricity annually, but most galling to today's PC opposition is the government's eagerness to expropriate CLEAR members' farmland without conducting a proper environmental assessment.
The government argued the project had been studied to death since 1982 and the environmental impact on migratory birds would be minimal, anyway. SaskPower commited $100,000 annually to Ducks Unlimited and told its ratepayers unsubstantiated environmental concerns shouldn't stand in the way of progress. CLEAR retained Beke and sued to stop the expropriation. The government issued a counter-suit, threatening CLEAR with the costs of construction delays.
"The parallels are striking," Beke said. "That's exactly what they're doing again."
Most apparent is the startling disregard for federal environmental law shown by both the NDP and PC governments, Beke said.
In CLEAR's case, Beke said, SaskPower has issued a statement of defense saying they may not have complied with federal environmental law, but will do so if they are required to. In the Tetzlaff case, the government repeatedly stated it was not required to comply with federal environmental law.
But most disturbing in the CLEAR case, Beke said, is the NDP government's willingness to "turn on its own people" just like the PC government did.
Both provincial governments of the day have used the unconscionable tactic of "slap suits" -- counter suits threatening huge costs for construction delays -- to intimidate the landowners, Beke said. "Whether it's huge corporations or huge governments, the little guy has very little power."
But Beke reminds us that in the Tetzlaff court case -- one the NDP government settled in September 1992 about a year after taking power from the Tories -- judges ruled the farmers were acting in the interest of all Saskatchewan people by forcing the government to abide by the law. The government (well, we taxpayers) picked up all the Tetzlaffs' legal costs.
CLEAR's lawyer is confident courts will repeat history.
After all, principles of law do seem somewhat more rigid that principles of politics.
Having a provincial government that cries wolf at the slightest provocation, the challenge for us who monitor life at Saskatchewan's marble palace is trying to sort out when the government here actually means it.
Federal budget day is particularly trying.
Particularly when you consider that what the Saskatchewan government most vociferously criticizes Ottawa for is precisely the same thing that Saskatchewan government has done so well.
As federal budgets go, Saskatchewan likely had far less reason to complain this year than others.
And, certainly, far fewer reasons to be surprised.
Yes, federal Finance Minister Paul Martin's announcement late last week on the restructuring of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) will have a severe impact on the poor, disabled and the young working generation, but far less of an impact on the seniors and baby-boomers that federal Liberals will be courting on at the ballot box. (We will go into more detail on this particular issue later this week.)
But virtually everything else in Martin's Tuesday budget that affected Saskatchewan was known well in advance.
The provincial government had already been told of Ottawa's $600 commitment to a new child tax benefit program and that Saskatchewan would be getting $11 million as its share of the second national infrastructure program. (Both came to fruition. Both, according to the NDP government, are hardly enough.)
Also, the Saskatchewan government knew last year its social transfers from Ottawa would be slashed by another $92 million in 1997-98, following last year's evisceration of $114 million in social transfer to this province. (Presuming you didn't spend last winter hibernating in a cave, you, no doubt, heard about the cuts too.)
Even Saskatchewan Finance Minister Janice MacKinnon admitted in advance of Martin's address that it was not likely Saskatchewan was to get any more bad news in a budget in that's bound to be the last budget before the federal Liberals go to the polls.
By the end of the day, however, what we were hearing from MacKinnon, Premier Roy Romanow and rest of the NDP hierarchy was pretty much same old complaints of how Ottawa its off-loading its social responsibility to solve its own deficit problems.
It's not as if much of their argument isn't valid.
Frustrating for the NDP has been the fact that much of the news coverage these past 51Ž2 years have been on provincial tax increases and not the fact that these tax increases have gone to noble purposes like trying to maintain provincial services in the face of federal cuts.
But as politically astute as this government tends to be, it's hard to see why the NDP government always seems so surprised that so much of the media focus has been on provincial tax increases and provincial government cuts.
Bad news, after all, takes priority over good news in most aspects of our lives.
My wife seldom reports to me that I've left the toilet seat down.
Besides, if the province's incessant harping on federal off-loading has often fallen on deaf ears, it's likely has to do with the reality that the province has done precisely the same thing to civic governments. Worse yet, we've recently heard the province state that municipalities must take responsibility for ever-increasing property taxes.
(There is an equivalent political scenario that is sometimes played out in our household. It goes like this:
Wife: "Murray, someone left the toilet seat up again.
Murray: "Bad dog."
Don't bet that our two-year-old Bichon Frise-Shih Tzu cross will be successful in her civic election bid this October, regardless of how long she promises to take to phase in reassessment.)
This takes us back to the most difficult job on federal budget day -- the job of determining when the provincial government criticism of Ottawa is real and when it is political posturing.
Complicating matters even further is the reality that it it's likely a little of both.
Part of the reason the Saskatchewan government has had to reduce grants to its municipalities has been the near-endless task of backfilling federal cuts to the province the Liberals have made to fulfil their redbook promises.
But part of the Saskatchewan government's survival depends on its ability to deflect responsibility for the worsening state of provincial taxpayers on both federal and municipal sources.
It makes for a particularly challenging problem on federal budget day.
The problem of figuring out what's real and what's not.
One of the perils of being from a small province like Saskatchewan is, it's sometimes hard to be taken seriously.
That may be unfortunate for all Canadians, because Federal Finance Minister Paul Martin and his colleagues could actual learn a lot from governing Saskatchewan New Democrats who have already done an admirable job of dealing with massive annual deficits.
Admittedly, the Saskatchewan government's propensity to complain about everything Ottawa does makes it its own worst enemy when it comes to exercising influence in the nation's capital. Nor does it help matters that Martin and Saskatchewan Finance Minister Janice MacKinnon don't like each other.
But the way Ottawa roundly ignored some reasonable, creative solutions from this province that would have helped deal with the 30-years-in-the-making Canada Pension Plan (CPP) problem speaks volumes to how frustrating it must be for a small, provincial government to deal with a far away national government of another political stripe.
Just four days prior to his budget this week, Martin presented a bill in Parliament to change the CPP -- changes that will mean an increase in the premiums we pay (based on $35,800 annual salary) by $945 to $1,635 by the 2003.
That's a $690 or 73-per-cent increase that will be coming out of your pocket in the next six years. In percentage terms, the CPP increases from today's rate of 5.85 per cent to 9.9 per cent six years from now.
Of course, Martin is right when he points out that something had to be done about a plan paying out $17 billion annually while taking in only $12.5 billion -- a plan that would be insolvent in 20 years without changes. The federal finance minister blamed past administration for refusing to deal with the problem years ago and took aim at those provincial government (eg: Saskatchewan) who would obfuscate the reality of the pending CPP crisis.
(Unfortunately, what -- if anything -- Ottawa has learned from Saskatchewan seem to be the wrong things: How to off-load on junior governments, how to frame cuts and tax increases as necessities because of the debt left by the previous incompetent PC administration and, generally, how to blame others.)
With Ontario, Alberta and the Maritime Liberal premiers on-side, Martin had no problem getting the two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds the nation's population on side to back this fundamental change. (Again, the joys of being from a small province.)
Almost lost in all the back-slapping offered to Martin for making the tough decisions on the CPP were some decent alternatives coming from Saskatchewan.
Contrary to what might have been going on in that parallel universe where Saskatchewan Liberals live, the Saskatchewan NDP government here back on earth were at the forefront of the CPP issue. Last June, the NDP government was issuing news released warning that changes to CPP should not dramatically affect current benefit levels.
It has also been no secret for months now that MacKinnon had been urging Martin for months to take advantage of the massive surplus( $5 billion this year) in the (Un)Employment Insurance Fund and reduce rates (U)EI rates to offset rising CPP rates. (Instead, Martin took the employee/employer contributions and applied them to his federal deficit -- one the truly irritating elements about Tuesday's budget that drew some of the sharpest criticism.)
MacKinnon also long ago supported some other interesting options for CPP changes -- not the least of which, was raising the cap on what you pay your CPP well past the $35,400.
This would have meant Canada's wealthier working people -- presumably, older baby boomers who should be paying more of their way after having caused this shortfall -- would have been asked to carry more of the burden of the CPP changes.
But older baby-boomers vote. So do seniors. Martin and the Liberals have an election this year. Neither baby boomers nor currently retired seniors are being as affected by these changes as younger working people.
Saskatchewan was ignored by the federal Liberals, who, suspiciously, have taken an approach that least offends the voters federal Liberals will be courting this year.
Instead, the CPP changes will most affect, as MacKinnon has rightfully pointed out, the disabled (who will have a harder time claiming) and the poor (who will have to pay a greater percentage of their income to CPP).
As a small, sometimes-too-vocal province, Saskatchewan was again ignored by Ottawa.
Sadly, that's how politics sometimes works in this country.
The Saskatchewan government is regulating everything in sight again. Run for your lives.
Unless you happen to be a white-tail deer -- one of the many species of Saskatchewan life recently afforded the protection of a provincial government that's serious about its perceived role as overseer of all matters of morality and humanity within its domain.
A government news release this week warned "dog owners that it is illegal to allow their pets harass deer and other big game."
Fines are a minimum $1,000. Worse yet for Fido, he may be shot on sight, according to a little-known section of the Wildlife Act.
Now don't get me wrong.
I, too, love wildlife and can't imagine anything more hideous than half-starved deer being chased to death by wild dogs. Nor do I assume that Saskatchewan conservation officers known for their common sense and decency -- especially any I might meet this summer during my annual fishing trip to Clam Lake -- have any desire to gun down the family pet.
But it's also hard not to have some sympathy for our farmers who've had to sit back this winter and watch those "rats with antlers" wreak havoc with their shrubbery, grain and hay.
The reason we have an over-abundance of half-starved deer, many farmers argue, is the government's over-regulation of hunting, including an $11 tax to provide a fund to compensate farmers with wildlife damage that boosted the licence for a white-tail buck to $55.
One government policy created the problem that's destroying farmers' property, many farmers contend. So they implement another government policy that penalizes dogs for doing what dogs do to fix the first policy they had no business implementing in the first place.
The law even puts city people like us in a bind. We have a dog, who occasionally becomes a farm dog on weekends at the in-laws. We also like to consider ourselves law-abiding citizens.
So I sat down our 10-pound, eight-inch-high Bichon-Shih Tzu cross last night and explained the issue to her from the government's perspective. I explained the issue wasn't about legislating the morality of dogs as much as it was about the deer's dignity and respect. Deer only mooch our shrubbery and eat our grain because they are socially disadvantaged -- especially with federal cutbacks that make providing them with provincial government assistance an impossibility.
Furthermore, I told her that if I caught her chasing deer, I would stuff her 10-pound carcass in her kennel and leave her there.
(I would have threatened more severe punishment, but our government also announced this week it was considering banning corporal punishment in our education system.)
The dog looked at me with her sad puppy eyes, tilted her head as if she understood and slunk off.
In fairness to the environment department, however, their policies have been the models of consistency compared with what we heard from Saskatchewan's Liquor and Gaming ministry this week after a Court of Queen's Bench Judge ruled it was illegal for the province to ban stripping in the province's bars and lounges.
Immediately, Ice and Dice Minister Clay Serby announced stripping was "the type of entertainment unacceptable" to Saskatchewan people and vowed the province would take the matter to appeal court so we could remain the only place in Canada courageous enough to ban such immorality.
You see, it's the government's view that it's completely proper and socially acceptable to drink and gamble in a Saskatchewan bar or casino, where the proceeds of both vices go directly to government coffers.
But stripping or watching strippers -- an activity the government has not yet found a way to tax -- is wrong and must be banned by way of provincial regulation.
In other words, if you are going to lose your shirt in a Saskatchewan bar or casino, the proceeds had better be going to the NDP government.
Of course, not everyone views this issue as lightheartedly as I.
My wife, for example, somewhat sees this issue from the government's perspective. She explained the issue isn't about legislating morality of people as much as it is about dignity and respect.
Furthermore, she broadly hinted if she ever caught me in a strip bar, she'd stuff my 200-pound carcass into the dog's kennel and leave me there.
I looked at her with my sad puppy eyes, tilted my head as if I understood and slunk off.
It's been that kind of week.
| Back to Archive Index |
 |
Go to Leader-Star March 1997 Archive |
| Regina City Beat | Features & Columns | Sports | Connections | Customer Service |
| Prairie Mall |
Wellness | Business Link |
Classifieds | 'Rider News |
LP OnLine Index |