On unsustainability

Most of the discussion about this week's developments in Saskatchewan's legislature has focused on the question of whether the Wall government is actively looking to sell off Casinos Regina and Moose Jaw. But I haven't yet seen any pickup on the more important question of whether they generally see selling assets as part of their future budget plan - and there's reason to worry on that front:

Mr. Wotherspoon: — As an article said this weekend, Mr. Speaker, again that minister is being disingenuous. This opposition has been crystal clear from day one that this budget was tabled as it relates to our concerns around potash revenues.

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago the government sold its 49 per cent interest in Saskferco. The sale provided a net profit of $783 million for Crown Investments Corporation. That was money Crowns like SaskPower and SaskEnergy could have used to help maintain and build their provincial-wide networks while keeping rates low, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister confirm that by the end of the current budget year virtually all of the $783 million profit will have been squandered to try to cover up the mistakes of his irresponsible budget?
...
Hon. Mr. Gantefoer: — Mr. Speaker, implied in the member’s question is that we have introduced a lot of spending that isn’t needed or wasn’t appropriate or wasn’t appreciated by the people of Saskatchewan. And I would like to know which kind of things would the opposition have suggested we not do. Would they suggest that we not raise taxes? Would they suggest that we shouldn’t have tax relief for our citizens . . .

In the past, the opposition’s answer to any of these challenges was to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, what we have done is important to the people of Saskatchewan. What we have done is the biggest property tax decrease in the history of the province. What we have done is $300 million of real savings for people who pay taxes in the province, mostly the most vulnerable. Which of those things would you suggest we not do in order to meet the budget targets?

Now, it would seem that Gantefoer had a fairly easy out if he wanted it. After all, he's already acknowledged having completely misread the potash market for the year - and while that's obviously problematic as an indicator of his judgment, it would seem to provide at least some basis to argue that this year might be considered an exceptional circumstance where some capital income might need to be redirected toward ongoing expenses.

But Gantefoer's answer suggests just the opposite. In effect, rather than making a case that a billion-dollar hole in Saskatchewan's budget is a single-year problem, Gantefoer is trying to make the case that it isn't a problem at all - such that he doesn't see any reason to bother meaningfully cutting costs or increasing revenue in order to balance the books.

At first glance, that might raise concerns about running a long-term deficit. And that too might be a serious problem as time goes by. But for now, it's equally clear that Gantefoer is perfectly happy to use Crown capital sales to try to keep budgets nominally in the black even as his party depletes Saskatchewan's public trusts.

As a result, the most important issue surrounding the Sask Party's budget management isn't so much that of what public bodies are next on the auction block. Instead, it's the fact that Gantefoer genuinely sees no problem with selling the fridge to keep caviar on the table - leaving only the question of how long Wall and his party can go on convincing Saskatchewan citizens to demand the unsustainable rather than seeking a government which is actually willing to make responsible decisions.