The Saskatchewan legislative sitting begins this week.
As sittings of the assembly go, it looks like this will be a rather uneventful one.
There will be no budget until the spring. Even the usually obligatory throne speech (however significant it ever is) isn’t required.
And given this is now a third-term government, the desperate need for game-changing legislation isn’t there.
(That said, we might see legislation toughening drunk driving laws, and that may spark some controversy.)
So one might be led to believe this should be a pleasant little gathering for Premier Brad Wall and his forces and a bit of a victory lap after the craziness of a spring election followed by a throne speech and a budget.
In fact, what controversy we may see this session will likely centre around an issue that really doesn’t even emerge out of Saskatchewan.
Certainly, Wall has every intention to make this a session about unifying the province against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s $10- to $50-a-tonne new carbon tax.
Notwithstanding the fact that Wall has offered nothing resembling a well-rounded alternative policy to combat greenhouse gas emissions, there is little reason to question his assertion that carbon pricing could cost Saskatchewan.
Even if one accepts the “revenue neutral” argument put forward by the federal Liberals who argue their carbon pricing revenue will remain within the province from which it is taken, it still is rather problematic for a province like Saskatchewan which is so dependent on its oil and mining sector.
How drilling companies might react to such a levy when they might have an option of drilling south of the border is something the Liberal government hasn’t really answered.
To this end, Wall has valid reason to re-ask questions about its impact on Saskatchewan jobs.
These are the points that Wall would clearly like to make the focal point of this session.
But as relevant as the economic concerns of carbon pricing might very well be, it’s hard to not be somewhat suspicious that one reason Wall wants to make them the province’s exclusive issues is to deflect from another very real economic reality.
The other very real economic reality is that this is a province – regardless of whatever financial straits Trudeau’s new carbon pricing might put us in – that has its own economic and budget problems that Wall doesn’t much want to talk about.
We are a province that is clearly reeling from $40- to $50-US-a-barrel oil crisis after experiencing prices nearly $100-US-a-barrel higher.
But we are also a province reeling from the decision to borrow $700 million and $1 billion in the last two budgets to pay for the government’s aggressive infrastructure plan.
Obviously, the Wall government defends this as a wise plan.
That said, one seriously doubts there is much interest in the government dwelling on this issue, especially when the consequences of nine years of spending choices are quickly becoming all too evident.
Already, we are seeing the government chip away at so-called marginal programs with many of them impacting the homeless, welfare programs and northern education.
Such cuts aren’t hitting the Saskatchewan Party’s core vote, but if this government is to deal with its now-structural deficit it can’t go on much longer without doing some things that will impact rural voters.
If everything is on the table, then everything is on the table.
It is this sitting where we may start to see the reality of that hit home.
After all, we are already hearing rumours that rural MLAs are not exactly overjoyed at the 2017 budget preparation that may soon impact their constituents.
Is it really any wonder that Wall would rather see the focus on Trudeau’s carbon tax and its impact than his own decisions?
It could be an interesting session, after all.
