 |
Leader-Star News Service July 1997 Archive |
|
Leader-Star News Service July 1997 Archive |
This won't be the day that will determine the future of the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives in Saskatchewan.
Only time, the grassroot memberships and the voters will make that determination.
But this day may have a lot to say about the political future of Liberal Leader Jim Melenchuk.
Melenchuk must heal divisions at today's Liberal caucus meeting where the party will discuss the merger talks with the PCs and the now all-too-public differences within the Liberal caucus over the issue.
Failure to do so could very well set Melenchuk down the same path of uncontrollable internal dissension that led to the demise of Lynda Haverstock, his predecessor .
As is often the case in politics, Melenchuk's problems started innocently enough.
Bob Bjornerud -- the Saltcoats Liberal MLA most credited or blamed for starting this merger talk -- said the seed was likely planted in the minds of all Saskatchewan opposition on May 28, 1996, when they saw four right-wing parties split the anti-NDP vote.
"I walked into the (Saskatchewan) House that day and said (to the Tories): 'You know. Guess what the people in B.C. did? Exactly what we're going to do again,' " Bjornerud said.
If that was the seed, germination took place about 10 months later when members of the two caucuses met by happenstance.
PC caucus members Bill Boyd, Dan D'Autremont, Jack Goohsen, Ben Heppner and Don Toth headed to Regina's Memories Restaurant one night early last April and happened to bump into Liberal MLAs Bob Bjornerud and June Draude already having supper.
Suffice to say, the subject came up.
From that innocent supper gathering, a more formal meeting was organized for late April that saw Boyd, D'Autremont and PC chief of staff Reg Downs join Melenchuk and Bjornerud at the Regina law office of Garry Johnson -- Liberal strategy chair and Melenchuk's leadership campaign manager and confidant.
Why talks broke off at this meeting very much depends on whom you ask.
Liberals say that it was because Boyd wanted Melenchuk to immediately pen a letter to Chief Electoral Officer Myron Kuziak asking that the parties be dissolved and merged into one. PCs insist the meeting actually broke down when Melenchuk insisted he would have to be leader of the new party.
Regardless of which (or both) version you choose to believe, however, what is evident is the seed didn't die here. Bjornerud continued to meet with PCs all through June with the blessing, the Saltcoats MLA insists, of both Melenchuk and "the Liberal caucus."
But it is also clear by Gerard Aldridge's announcement last week that he was withdrawing from caucus over the merger talk that not all Liberal caucus members were supportive of the idea. And it's been made more clear after the comments of Athabasca MLA Buckley Belanger that Aldridge is not alone in his feelings about any merger.
It has left Melenchuk to deal with some untenable divisions.
On one side, he 's called the idea "cockamamie" and a "complete" non-starter that didn't go beyond discussion at one meeting. Yet Melenchuk presumably let Bjornerud carry on discussions with the Tories through June and even had Johnson check with Calgary lawyers over how a merger of two political parties could happen. Even today, Bjornerud is still talking openly about the idea.
On the other side, there's Aldridge withdrawing from the 10-member caucus and now dictating to the leader that MLAs like Bjornerud, Opposition Leader Ken Krawetz, Opposition House leader Rod Gantefoer, former acting leader Ron Osika and Draude be punished for even contemplating the issue.
If Melenchuk's problem was simply Aldridge, he could be singled out for his hasty overreaction to the merger talks and his harsh and inappropriate public statements about his Liberal colleagues.
But Aldridge's opposition to the PC merger has the support of Belanger, perhaps North Battleford MLA Jack Hillson and any number of long-time Liberals out there now likely wondering how Melenchuk got himself in the middle of such a mess with a bunch of discredited Tories in the first place.
In short, Melenchuk must show far more political finesse at today's caucus meeting than he's displayed to date.
Coming down hard on Aldridge may alienate long-time Liberals who do have legitimate questions about backroom plotting to merge parties without consulting the grassroots.
But placating Aldridge by punishing other MLAs or completely denouncing the merger ignores the reality that Liberals need Tory support -- formally or informally -- to beat the NDP.
Today may be Melenchuk's first real test as party leader. Failure could quickly turn it into his last.
Give Liberal Leader Jim Melenchuk a pass on the first major test of his leadership.
Not exactly a pass with flying colors, mind you.
Frankly, a more experienced leader would have avoided the unseemly Merger Mania mess with the Tories in the first place.
Come to think of it, if Melenchuk were the strong, experienced leader he still needs to become, no caucus member would have been able to challenge his leadership and integrity in the way that Gerard Aldridge did.
But if a bit shaken, it looks like Melenchuk did emerge from the whole sorry affair with something.
He's not in a bad position to one day capitalize on the one fundamental principle of Merger Mania that we all agree on -- the idea that Saskatchewan is far better off if there is only one, clear, viable alternative to the governing NDP.
It's been at least 10 years since anyone in this province could realistic imagine any party other than the NDP forming the next Saskatchewan government.
One reason is that the NDP has simply proven to be the most credible and capable of governing. Unfortunately, the other reason is, we've had no other choice.
In the province's never-ending battle between the Liberals and Conservatives for that right-wing vote, it generally has taken about 10 years for one side to win. (After Allan Blakeney assumed power from the Liberals in 1971, it took 11 years before the Grant Devine-led Tories supplanted the Liberals as the alternative. Now, it's been nearly six years after Roy Romanow wrested power from the Devine Tories. What the recent merger talks show is we still don't have one clear alternative to the NDP.)
So Saskatchewan has been stuck with not so much as a three-party system, but a virtual one-party state.
As benevolent a dictatorship as the Romanow administration has been, the lack of an alternative may be our biggest frustration.
Or at least, it's the frustrating reason why the NDP government gets away with so much.
Consider all the criticism leveled against the Romanow government in the past week: cabinet's out-of-province travel increasing 66 per cent last year; Crown boards appointments will continue to be political and unqualified ones; the government's labor relations board ruling on the Pepsi strike that PCs and Liberals say is nothing short of a ban on replacement workers, and; the government spending nearly $40,000 of taxpayers' money to poll prior to the federal election.
What do all these issues have in common?
((A) Well, Dwain Lingenfelter; (B) virtually identical condemnation from the Liberals and Tories, furthering the argument that we really just need one opposition voice on the right, and; (C) the reality that the NDP can get away with all this political hijinx because there still is no clear alternative for the voters.)
But suppose there were just one party ready and waiting in the wings to replace the NDP? Would our governing New Democrats be so eager to waste taxpayers' money on political polls and out-of-province junkets or appoint political friends to Crown boards or hand down labor rulings that most benefit big-time campaign donors from the union movement?
For the same reason every farm yard needs a big dog, voters need one solid alternative to the government.
Which all takes us back to Melenchuk's handling of Merger Mania.
Where the Liberal leader really succeeded Wednesday wasn't his firm-but-fair handling of Aldridge's dissension or putting the kibosh to the notion that a Liberal leader would ever consider dissolving the Saskatchewan Liberal party.
Where Melenchuk succeeded was in his simple suggestion that it was OK for all this merger talk to continue, if it was coming from the party's grass roots.
"The issue is out there now," Melenchuk said. "How can you say it's dead? This is Saskatchewan politics."
It was about the smartest thing Melenchuk said since Merger Mania began.
Of course, he could have never supported the merger deal as proposed -- a backroom power grab mostly benefiting then the Tories and solely based on the negative principle of beating the NDP at all costs.
But completely and for ever and ever ruling out something that so many Saskatchewan voters agree makes sense would have been just as stupid as accepting the merger deal on the Tories' terms.
Should that so-called "grassroots" movement now emerge, Melenchuk is still in a position to jump ahead of the parade. After all, it's still "out there."
And any further talk among Saskatchewan voters about the need to unite behind just one right-wing alternative will only benefit Melenchuk.
The Liberal leader may have gotten something out of this whole mess, after all.
Freedom, at last.
And, let us place special emphasis on "last."
Today, July 12, marks Tax Freedom Day in Saskatchewan -- the day when the average resident of this province has final worked long enough to pay the year's combined municipal, provincial and federal tax bill.
According to the Fraser Institute's annual study, this day -- Day 193 of our 365-day year -- is the day we in Saskatchewan stop paying the government and start frivolously blowing our pay cheques on food, mortgages and clothing for our children.
(Clothing for ourselves, however, may have to wait until the really cold weather in Saskatchewan sets in about mid-August. No worries. The Supreme Court says both men and women now have equal right to go topless. See any half-naked woman wandering around Saskatchewan and its probably less of a statement of equality than an economic necessity.)
Saskatchewan's is the last Tax Freedom Day in Canada -- 19 days after Manitoba's Tax Freedom Day on June 23 and 23 days after Alberta's on June 19.
We are the highest-taxed people among Canadians -- a fact obvious to everyone but the Saskatchewan government, itself.
In a March government poll (one we taxpayers paid $17,800 for) the NDP government had the audacity to ask us: "Do you believe that Saskatchewan's taxes are higher, lower or about the same as elsewhere?"
Duh.
A full 64 per cent of Saskatchewan's 1,000,000 people knew our taxes were higher. Five per cent of the population (the total staff in Premier Roy Romanow's office) said they were lower. Twenty-four per cent (the remainder of the NDP membership) said they were about the same. The remaining seven per cent didn't know (Liberals) or weren't sure (former Tory MLAs who, because of the strict correctional facilities' regulations, are limited to one outside telephone call a week).
In fairness to the NDP government, the Fraser Institute's Tax Freedom Day determinations may be a tad unfair.
For example, the Fraser Institute's sampling of taxes we pay includes "natural resource levies" -- the taxes charged to oil, gas, potash, other mining and forestry companies. (The institute's thinking here is, the more taxes taken from non-renewable resources, the more governments will eventually have to tax their people when those resources run out.)
Saskatchewan's New Democrat government finds this part of the right-wing think tank's thought process offensive because: (a) it skews the annual survey against resource-based provinces like Saskatchewan, B.C. and Alberta, and; (b) taxes corporations pay today reduce the amount of taxes governments have to collect from individuals.
On both counts, the NDP government has a point.
But even when you remove the "natural resource levies" from the survey, Saskatchewan's Tax Freedom Day (it would move ahead to July 3) is still the last in the country.
Why we in Saskatchewan must work so much harder to pay our taxes partly has to do with the fact we earn less.
The average Saskatchewan family will have a household income of $48,661 in 1997 -- the fourth lowest in Canada, ahead of only Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
But earning less isn't stopping the provincial and municipal governments here from gouging us to the extreme.
Although the average household in Saskatchewan earns $6,408 less than the average Canadian household, Saskatchewan households only pay $1,816 less in annual income tax because of our highest-in-Canada provincial income tax rate.
The PST, cut to seven per cent in the March budget (a $460-a-year break for the average family, the Fraser survey shows) means we will pay the third lowest sales tax in Canada this year instead of the third highest last year.
But the provincial government fuel taxes and licences ($1,371 for the average Saskatchewan family) and liquor, tobacco and entertainment taxes ($2,360, as the government drew down from the liquor board fund.) are also the highest in Canada.
And in a province with the cheapest housing costs in the country, the $1,616 average property tax bill is the second highest in Canada. (This would be before reassessment really kicks in!)
Today, Tax Freedom Day, we in Saskatchewan can celebrate the only tax rate in Canada above 50 per cent. (52.4 per cent for the average family, to be exact.)
Michael Walker, head of the Fraser Institute, says it's time the Saskatchewan government recognizes the obvious. "Maybe the reason Saskatchewan doesn't have economic development," Walker said in an interview Friday, "is because its tax bills are too high."
Freedom may have its price. But a lack of freedom -- tax freedom, that is -- can be pretty costly, too.
When it comes to labor disputes, there is one inescapable truism: Labor and management usually deserve each other.
Far more so than "jumbo shrimp", "military intelligence", "working media", "loyal Liberal", "Progressive Conservative" and "New Democrat economic development minister", the most ridiculous oxymoron is "bargaining in good faith."
But left to their own deviCes, labor and management in this province have usually found a way to sort out their differences.
In fact, when problems have occurred, it has usually had to do with the government butting in to correct some perceived imbalance.
Which brings us to the recent Saskatoon Pepsi workers labor dispute and subsequent ruling by the Saskatchewan Labor Relations Board that banned the use of replacement workers.
A classic case of strident unions versus strident management culminated with Pepsi's May 15 decision to lock out employees -- the same day the union issued its strike notice.
The Retail Wholesale Department Store Union (RWDSU) called the lockout an abuse of power because management eagerly hired cheaper replacement workers before slowdowns and study sessions had any chance to hamper Saskatoon Pepsi's productivity. (A point germane to the Labor Board ruling, as we'll see in a minute.)
Management countered that the union's slowdown was, in effect, a strike and it had the right under Saskatchewan law to bring in replacement workers as it saw fit. (A point that will be germane to the appeal of the ruling that we'll likely see in the future.)
Given all this acrimony (add the firing of five employees for supposed illegal activity including sabotage -- an allegation the union vehemently denies), it was a certainty this dispute would come before the Labor Relations Board.
Unfortunately, it is at the board level where the problems really start.
Instead of serving as an independent arbitrator, there is much to suggest that the board became a political advocate.
At issue are 1996 changes to the Trade Union Act amendments that defined the difference between a strike and a lockout.
What's important to note, though, is the changes to the legislation did not mention "replacement workers." In fact, in selling these changes to the business community, the NDP government insisted the right to use replacement workers would remain.
But in rendering her decision last week, Labor Board chair Beth Bilson said the new definition of lockout now "places greater restrictions on the use of this weapon (replacement workers) than may have been in place in the past."
"There is nothing to prevent an employer from using replacement workers to assist in maintaining production or providing services," Bilson wrote. "It is our view that what is permitted in the context of a lockout is somewhat different."
By hiring replacement workers in lockouts, the employer is not "planning to do without," the ruling stated. That balance between the tools the union and management have to inflict economic pressure on each other has been disrupted.
The board then ruled Pepsi must conform with the new definition and cease both the lockout and use of replacement workers.
What Bilson hasn't done since her July 7 decision, however, is explain where hiring replacement workers in lockout situations is now legally prohibited under the law.
In other words, her decision seems more an opinion of what the Trade Union Act should be than an actual interpretation of what the law is.
And -- despite Premier Roy Romanow's protests to the contrary -- his government is going to have to do something about this decision.
First, contrary to what the premier says, such decisions do tend to set precedents.
Second, labor is already describing this as the first step to a complete ban on replacement workers in all strikes and lockouts. (By Bilson's own logic, wouldn't the ability to strike without fear of replacement also severely tip the balance -- this time, in the unions' favor?)
Third, as an NDP government appointment, business has always had reason to suspect Bilson's biases. The former University of Saskatchewan law professor was appointed by then-labor minister Bob Mitchell and once worked for the Mitchell-Romanow law firm. Given that this is expected to be Bilson's last decision before she is replaced by the board's vice-chair Gwen Gray, why shouldn't business be suspicious this is a bone being thrown to labor?
Fourth, if this decision goes to the Court of Queen's Bench and is overturned, it will further undermine the credibility and independence of the board.
And last, that so-called balance appears to have already been achieved.
Including the Pepsi case, replacement workers have been used only eight times in Saskatchewan since 1985 out of 147 strikes and lockouts.
Replacement workers aren't an issue. Or at least they hadn't been before this need to fix the imbalance.
With the exception of the bleating of a few former Tories and their high-priced legal help, no one can say prosecution of former PCs hasn't been justified.
Add former highways minister Sherwin Petersen to the list of now-convicted former PCs and the dossier of the Great Saskatchewan PC fraud scam seems to speaks for itself.
Of the 12 former PC MLAs and one caucus worker who've so far had their charges dealt with in court, ten have been found guilty (Six more -- four MLAs and two caucus workers -- await trial) of submitting falsified expense claims.
Contrary to the PCs' complaints that the vast majority of the convictions have been for petty offenses that may not have resulted in charges were they not high-profile former politicians, only one of these cases (Lorne Kopelchuk's, that resulted in acquittal) did not involve individuals receiving cash. Not computers. Not video equipment. Cash money.
Furthermore, it's abhorrent when any politician who swears an oath to serve the public is found guilty of any theft related to the performance of his or her duties. To have 11 MLAs (so far) out of a 38-member government found guilty of theft is nothing short of a national embarrassment and a black spot on our province's history.
And what may be most irksome about this whole fiasco has been to watch the PCs -- they of the party of the rugged individual whose mantra demands people take responsibility for their own actions rather than blame society or others -- blame everyone but themselves for their actions.
All that said, there are still issues related to the Petersen case that do cause one to pause and wonder the way these investigations and prosecutions have been handled.
Or even whether the system is as fair as it could be.
Consistent with his brethren that heard the past PC cases resulting in convictions, Justice Omer Archambault also said he was "confident beyond any doubt" that Petersen knew he had obtained the $9,285 through fraudulent means.
But what's been almost overlooked in Petersen's fraud conviction is that he was acquitted on the two far more serious fraud and conspiracy charges.
There, the judge suggested Petersen deserved "the benefit of the doubt" that "he had no knowledge of the bulk of what was going on," the judge said.
It is the these acquittals on the most serious charges that do beg the following questions:
Why was Petersen charged as part of the overall conspiracy? Was what went on in the PC caucus as massive a conspiracy as we've been led to think? Does the scam go beyond two or three central figures and a bunch of minor players governed by a bit of greed and a bit of bad judgment?
Or have some of our former PC politicians (yes, there's been a 75-per-cent Crown conviction rate, but 25 per cent have also been acquitted) occasionally been victims of over-zealous prosecution?
Of the five charged in the overall conspiracy fraud scheme, caucus worker John Scraba (the central figure who's served as a key prosecution witness fingering the other Tories) and caucus chair Lorne McLaren (Scraba's direct boss) both pleaded guilty. Petersen and caucus whip Michael Hopfner were acquitted on those charges.
John Gerich was found guilty, but one can only speculate what fate the justice system might have had in store for him had he: (a) hired a lawyer, or; (b) not chose a jury trial.
Prosecution would argue that failure to get a conviction in no way suggests a charge has been unjustified. They can also point to the three other conspiracy fraud convictions and 10 lesser fraud convictions.
After all, fraud is fraud, right?
Well maybe not.
Certainly, no one should condone the bad judgment Petersen showed that led to the lesser fraud conviction. What Petersen is guilty of is what Petersen is guilty of.
But where we may sympathize with the former MLA is the tens of thousands of dollars he was forced to spend during his six-week trial that mostly centred around the two most conspiracy fraud allegations.
Defending one's self in such a long-drawn out process already does amount to a financial sentence imposed on an accused. When there is an acquittal on such a serious offense (the second acquittal in the last three conspiracy cases), it would seem perfectly legitimate to ask whether the charge should have been laid in the first place.
No, the PC prosecutions haven't been a witch hunt.
But doesn't mean the system is ever perfectly fair, either.
To Debbie Koptie and most people around Saltcoats, Anderson Lake is a lake in name only.
"It's very strong smelling about now," said Koptie, whose 1,500-square-foot Saltcoats bungalow sits about four blocks away from the 200-acre-or-so pond.
"This year, it didn't even make the official highways map or official grid road map.
"There's no fish. The only things that live in it are salamanders and lizards and bloodsuckers."
But such lake dwellers are preferred company these days to the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA) officials who reassessed Saltcoats for higher property taxes.
Why higher taxes?
Well, no one in the town of 531 people, 27 kilometres southeast of Yorkton, is quite sure.
But the first explanation Koptie was given for the new assessment -- one that was to increase Koptie's property taxes a whopping 41 per cent to $2,400 -- is SAMA deems Saltcoats sort of a "resort" or "recreational" community. Or at least, a bedroom community of Yorkton.
And after hundreds of dollars on legal fees and hundreds of hours preparing her assessment appeal, Koptie hasn't received an explanation that's any better.
So maybe the time's now come for the NDP government -- which has gleefully washed its hands of the entire reassessment uproar by noting SAMA is an arms-length organization -- to show some leadership.
If the disdain Koptie and other Saltcoats people now have for SAMA is any indication, the provincial government is going to have to do something to restore public confidence in our whole property tax assessment system.
Koptie's story began March 7 when she received her property assessment, vaulting her property taxes to $2,400 for 1997.
Within a week of receiving her assessment, she got SAMA's field sheet for her property, which pointed to higher "market adjustment factors."
Asked what these factors were, Koptie and other Saltcoats residents were told the town was considered a bedroom community for Yorkton -- a sort of recreational or resort community because of the aforementioned Anderson Lake.
Bryan Hebb, SAMA's CEO, says the "resort community" explanation has been blown out of proportion. What happened, Hebb said, is certain lake-front property in the town had been sold for higher value in recent years. The new property assessment reflected that in the "market adjustment factors."
The next problem:
Koptie said they were also told at a March 26 meeting with SAMA officials those "market adjustment factors" for the whole town were really based on the sale of only one property.
She said SAMA then broadened the base to include 24 property sales in town from 1991 to 1995. (Hebb says SAMA had used more than one property in Saltcoats.) Whatever the case, the "market adjustment factors" didn't change.
Koptie demanded to know for her appeal which specific properties were used as comparisons when SAMA determined her own assessment. She was told by SAMA that information would only be made available at the time of her appeal. Her May 7 appeal hearing came and she asked for the information. Instead of giving it to her, SAMA requested her hearing be rescheduled.
Koptie's hearing was then rescheduled to June 25. Minutes before it started, a SAMA official furnished her with a brown envelope, but it only contained information on some of the 24 sales, she said. It also contained a document for her to sign swearing she would not share it with other Saltcoats residents appealing their taxes. She refused to sign. The hearing was then postponed until July 16.
By this point Koptie had found out what the other 24 Saltcoats properties were sold for, anyway. "You know a small town," she explained.
She had discovered there were discrepancies with what some of the sales prices SAMA had and what her neighbors told her their properties sold for.
Hebb explained that was because SAMA also has confidential information on sales (like details on mortgage arrangements and inheritances) not normally available to the public.
This partially accounts for the discrepancies, the requests for confidentiality and all the ensuing postponements, SAMA officials and SAMA lawyers that became involved in Koptie's appeal said.
But Koptie said it was nothing more than typical SAMA belligerence and intimidation.
And her bottomline after months of frustration, hundreds of hours spent on the issue and hundreds of dollars on legal fees, is neither she nor anyone else in Saltcoats knows how SAMA arrived at its "market adjustment factors" that caused Saltcoats property taxes to skyrocket.
It's about here where provincial government must do something to make the assessment system more accountable. More explainable. Maybe add an informal process prior to the confrontational appeal process. Make it user friendly.
After all, if it can't clearly explain why they are paying higher taxes, why should they pay?
It was the1996 provincial budget day and Regina Mayor Doug Archer had just blown a gasket.
Actually, "somewhat peeved" or "cross" would have more accurately characterized what one saw from Archer on March 28, 1996.
But to hear cries of "drastic" and "totally unacceptable" from Archer -- not exactly a man known for wild mood swings, emotional outbursts or even smiling, for that matter -- was like watching Yosemite Sam in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
By his standards, Archer popped his top.
And for good reason.
Since the NDP election in 1991, Archer stoically sat back and watched layoffs, the announcement of the closure of the Plains Health Centre, and municipal underfunding erode Regina's tax base.
Archer is a New Democrat who once opposed former NDP MLA Bob Lyons for the Regina Rosemont nomination, and many in the business community saw this as nothing less than another civic politician toadying to the province's big NDP machinery.
But the 1996-97 budget was the last straw.
Despite its third straight surplus and new-found prosperity from gaming ($120 million worth) the provincial government was still off-loading on municipalities in general and Regina in particular.
Then-finance minister Janice MacKinnon had announced a one-quarter or $20-million cut to the municipal revenue-sharing pool for the following year -- a $2.7-million hit for the City of Regina.
Furthermore, of the 544 civil servants receiving layoff notices provincewide, 80 per cent would be from "urban" (read: mostly Regina) areas, the Public Service Commission announced.
Those layoffs alone were $10 million out of Regina's economy annually, Archer told reporters.
The normally reserved Archer was going "ballistic," described one NDP insider. So he was gently ushered out of the way with the promise of a private meeting with Premier Roy Romanow.
At that meeting, Archer outlined a series of grievances with the province, topped by the fact that government did not pay property taxes or acceptable grants-in-lieu on Crown buildings.
Romanow penned a note to his then-economic development minister Dwain Lingenfelter saying the "status quo wasn't good enough."
Some 16 months later, Archer and Lingenfelter sat side by side to announce that the province would now pay close to $30 million a year to all local governments in grants in lieu of taxes on government property -- about 40 per cent, or $11 million to $12 million of which would go to Regina, which has the most government buildings.
Archer then immediately announced a three-year phase-out of the hated business tax -- the $18 million annually collected from city businesses for reasons that have had to do with the province's unwillingness to pay municipal taxes.
What's happened in the 16 months leading up to Friday's announcement tells us much about what's going on in internal NDP politics these days and how things in government get done for both the wrong and right reasons.
First the right reasons.
It is an absolute given that the provincial government should be paying its fair share of municipal taxes at a time when it's asking homeowners to do the same through reassessment.
There is also little argument (and, remember, this is coming from yet another beleaguered Regina homeowner) that ridding the city of its business tax had to be the first priority.
As ridiculously high as Regina property taxes are, even more absurd is Regina's business tax.
But given that the province has a big say in how its grants-in-lieu are spent, it's still odd an NDP government would allow the tax problems of businesses addressed before the tax problems of homeowners.
Call this the changing face of the NDP.
That's N-D-P, as in New Dwain Party.
For much of the past 16 months, progress on getting the government and Crowns to pay their fair share of municipal taxes was bogged down at the Crown Investments Corp. (CIC), which offered the traditional excuse for why government should be exempt.
The reason why it hasn't been a priority is it's never been seen as a Regina issue. (Need we remind anyone the premier and former finance minister both reside in Saskatoon?)
By no small coincidence, progress was suddenly made within a month of the Regina Elphinstone MLA becoming CIC minister.
It will also be no small coincidence if we one day see Archer -- who quietly worked behind the scenes with Lingenfelter these past 16 months to get Friday's deal done -- supporting Lingenfelter at some future NDP leadership forum. Or a lot of Regina city councillors. Or Regina business people.
Lingenfelter's business-based, Regina-based approach is taking hold of NDP policy.
One more small step towards the leadership.
One that began 16 months ago with the task of making a very unhappy Regina mayor happy.
"OK guys, that $6.2 million you lost last year was your worst year since the Tories were running things.
"Your operating expenses are 35 per cent above industry standards and you have 7.6 per cent more employees than you had two years ago plus a 13-per-cent higher payroll.
"Heck, you guys lose $1.27 for every mile you travel and you haven't made a profit since disco was hip. To top it all off, you just lost this month your biggest freight contract, putting your whole package express business in jeopardy.
"Boys, I'm going to have to make some changes around here."
"So what are you going to do, boss? Privatize us? Slash our budget? Cut jobs? Cut routes? Get us out of the express courier business?"
"Privatize? Are you nuts? Do you know how that would go over with the party? Don't you realize the majority of your ridership are seniors that vote for us? Of course not.
"We're giving you an $8-million annual grant, forgiving your $24.8-million debt and reminding the public you're an essential service. Keep up the good work."
Let's be clear on this.
There's nothing wrong with Crown Investment Corp. (CIC) Minister Dwain Lingenfelter serving notice that the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (STC) will remain a publicly run, unprofitable Crown either subsidized by profitable Crowns like SaskPower or Saskatchewan taxpayers directly.
Deciding it's worth running the buses at a loss because that's still the best way to get granny in Muenster to her doctor's appointment in Saskatoon or to get Fred in Eastend his combine part from Regina are the tough decisions governments are elected to make.
But what Lingenfelter managed to do Monday is repeat what's been wrong with STC for the past 20 years -- the entrenched notion at STC that it's acceptable to mismanage the Crown bus company simply because it's deemed some kind of ill-defined social service.
What's been most frightening about the way the Romanow government has run STC is how remarkably similar it has been to the way the PCs ran things.
Thankfully, no longer are people going to jail because of a kickback scheme to buy buses from a Texas company, nor do we hear allegations that those buses were bought in Texas only to punish Manitoba (and its bus manufacturer, Motor Coach Industries of Winnipeg) for not supporting the Rafferty-Alameda dam project.
But what hasn't changed is the way the bus company is bleeding money.
While STC rolled up a $30-million debt under the 10 years of PC government, it lost another $22.9 million in the first five full years of the NDP administration.
Furthermore, a report last year on STC's future, prepared by Proteus Transportation Enterprises Inc. for the Crown review, showed STC would lose another $30 million in the next five years. (Those five-year losses could be cut to $20 million if STC increased passenger fares and retained a large part of its freight business, Proteus said. Earlier this month, STC confirmed it has lost its $1.1-million contract with its biggest freight client -- Lyndon Air Freight.)
What hasn't changed is the lack of direction for STC. While the PCs dithered over whether STC should be privatized (the Tories planned to, until a March 1988 Tanka Research poll showed 58 per cent outright opposed) the NDP have more quietly entertained similar notions.
Former STC president Peter Glendinning, days before his resignation, penned a letter insisting CIC administration was advocating privatization. And even Lingenfelter mentioned Monday that privatizing more marginal STC routes was something that might be considered.
Also, Monday's announcement did little to clarify what might happen to the STC express business (two weeks ago, STC President Gord Nystuen said it would no longer exist as we know it) or why an $8-million grant was needed. (A month ago, former STC minister Clay Serby said any subsidy would be significantly less than the $6 million STC lost last year.)
Nor did the announcement in any way reflect any of the five options for STC suggested in the Proteus report.
What hasn't seemed to change at STC is the level of patronage and political involvement.
The PCs had long-time party loyalist Bill Rudichuk as its chair and a reputation of meddling. But the NDP's appointment of first Glendinning (a long-time New Democrat), then Nystuen (a former NDP treasurer), plus former NDP candidates and union representatives on the board, and political loyalists at all levels of STC administration, hardly instills confidence that politics has been removed from the place.
And what surely hasn't changed is government attempting to solve STC's problems with unaccounted-for subsidization.
Based on Lingenfelter's announcement, losses at STC aren't just acceptable -- they're now built in to the Crown's corporate structure, and, larger than ever.
If this was Lingenfelter's first real test as super Crowns minister, consider it a failure.
| Back to Archive Index |
 |
Go to Leader-Star August 1997 Archive |
| Regina City Beat | Features & Columns | Sports | Connections | Customer Service |
| Prairie Mall |
Wellness | Business Link |
Classifieds | 'Rider News |
LP OnLine Index |