Sask. leadership hopefuls again playing politics on equalization

Milking issue for partisan advantage once a decade doesn’t help to solve problem

You wonder what’s more ludicrous: A single Saskatchewan leadership hopeful now demanding a new equalization deal or his counterparts ignoring the issue altogether.

It would seem a little bizarre to ignore the equalization file — especially, if you are a New Democrat leadership hopeful. Complaining about the inherent unfairness of equalization was a hallmark of the last NDP government under premier Lorne Calvert. Equalization gripes should roll off the tongue of New Democrats as easily as complaining about the federal Liberal government carbon tax and income tax changes comes to Saskatchewan Party would-be leaders.

Yet neither Ryan Meili nor Trent Wotherspoon are so far making this an issue, although the former is talking more about “fairness” and having experts review Saskatchewan revenue sources to pay for his leadership platform promises.

Nor has the issue passed the lips of most Sask. Party leadership candidates. But that may be because criticizing equalization would be an admission of the miserable failings and broken promises of both Premier Brad Wall and former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. In a Sask. Party leadership race all about paying homage to Wall and courting federal Conservatives, most have, evidently, decided party interests/political ambitions take priority.

Alas, such politics has always gotten in the way of any reasoned equalization formula discussion.

Back in 2005, then-opposition leader Wall and the Sask. Party — joined by the federal opposition Conservatives in unprecedented Saskatchewan political unity — were fully on board with Calvert’s raise-a-flag for fairness campaign to convince thenprime minister Paul Martin to exclude non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula.

And no one was louder on the issue of removing oil, gas and mining revenue from the formula than the Sask. Party after then-opposition leader Harper promised to do precisely this in the 2006 election — a move that would have added $800 million, annually, to provincial coffers.

But when it quickly became clear Harper and the Conservatives had no intention of making good on this costly (and questionable) promise, Wall, as premier, flip-flopped on the issue and scuttled the lawsuit Calvert started against the Harper government for its broken promise.

And he got away with it because hypocritical conservative supporters offered Wall glowing support, arguing that the “new Saskatchewan” under Wall would forever be a “have” province and would no longer subscribe to the old NDP welfare ways.

Well, fast forward to today and Quebec has a balanced budget and will continue to have a balanced budget for the next five years, as it expects to pay down $5.3 billion in debt in the next three years. Meanwhile, Alberta’s current budget deficit is $10.5 billion, and here in Saskatchewan we have a $685-million 2017-18 deficit (after a nearly $1.3-billion deficit in 2016-17), with public debt expected to rise to almost $21 billion by year’s end.

Admittedly, the complex 35-point equalization formula has less to do with provinces’ debts and deficits and more to do with taxation capacity (read: the more you tax, the more equalization you get) of each province and needs based on demographics. So Alberta is a perennial “have” province because of nonrenewable resource revenue, but also because it has a young population still earning big salaries in a low-tax (no sales tax) regime.

Into this fray wades Sask. Party leadership hopeful Gord Wyant, vowing to sue Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government over the “unfair” formula that “punishes provinces like Saskatchewan that have worked hard to develop their natural resource sectors and rewards those that have not.”

It would be nice if Wyant or some leader would dedicate himself or herself to addressing this decades-old problem. However, it’s hard not to be a little suspicious that this is another example of politicians seeing equalization as nothing more than a convenient talking point — one that Wyant might use to distance himself from his unhelpful Liberal ties.

Equalization fairness is still an issue, but it won’t be solved if it’s nothing more than a once-every-decade political rallying cry.