Wall’s trade war moves from specious to petty
A previously perfectly practical premier persists in propagating partisan politics into the petty.
This is not how a political career should perish.
Exactly why Premier Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party government is carrying on — and even escalating its trade war with the Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley’s government over licence plates — is puzzling.
Supposedly, this is the antithesis of what Wall and his government are supposed to be all about.
Beyond the desired effect of annoying the Alberta NDP, what purpose is being served here? Does this trade challenge filed by Alberta to the New West Partnership secretariat that may cost Saskatchewan taxpayers millions of dollars make us better off?
“This petty and ridiculous restriction has real consequences for businesses and hard-working people,” Alberta Economy Minister Deron Bilous told reporters at his legislature Thursday. “We are going to end it.”
Saskatchewan Economy Minister Steven Bonk responded Thursday he was “taken aback” that Alberta did exactly what it’s been saying it would do for days now. “No one’s looking for a trade war or a trade spat,” Bonk said.
Really? You didn’t see this one coming?
Highways and Infrastructure Minister David Marit acknowledged last week that his government’s actions were likely breaking the New West Partnership.
When first told Alberta was threatening trade action, Wall’s response to Alberta has been let them go ahead. Yet even Wall’s own Facebook justification offers nothing to justify the Saskatchewan government’s supposed retaliation.
In that Facebook post, Wall observed: “Strong supporter of free trade.” “Believe in eliminating tariffs and other barriers to trade.” “A series of provocations from Alberta’s NDP government that regrettably make this retaliatory measure necessary.”
Where the hell are these “provocations,” sir?
While both Wall, Bonk and seemingly the Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association keep saying “vehicles with Saskatchewan licence plates are not welcome on Government of Alberta construction sites” not one stitch of evidence has been put forward to substantiate this claim that the Alberta government vehemently denies.
The same goes for Wall’s claim that “Saskatchewan contractors have been shut out of bidding on Alberta government projects” and that “tender packages available for Alberta-based contractors are not made available to companies from Saskatchewan.”
If the SHCA has proof Alberta is “taking protectionism to the extreme” let’s see it. After all, you are now going to have to put forward your defence before the NWP secretariat, anyway.
Is Wall expecting the New West Partnership to simply take his word Alberta is being protectionist, or is everyone just supposed to take his word? You are risking a maximum $5-million NWP fine that could keep Saskatchewan libraries open based on what Bilous described Thursday as untrue “rumours” presented by Saskatchewan that contractors are facing similar plate restrictions in Alberta?
The ironic thing is that Wall, leaving on Jan. 27, so hoped his enduring legacy would be moving Saskatchewan from the image of bumbling backwater to a real player on the national stage.
Ostensibly, the notion of the so-called “new Saskatchewan” that would no longer be a poor cousin of Confederation was why Wall in 2010 dropped former NDP premier Lorne Calvert’s equalization suit against former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper’s government.
Yet we now see Wall frequently tweeting about the inherent unfairness of equalization payouts both he and Harper vowed to fix.
So besides reverting to capin-hand Saskatchewan, Wall and company’s bumbling efforts to take us back to the silly protectionist mentality of past NDP governments hasn’t gone unnoticed by the very national audience that he and his government craved. Consider this week’s editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail that rightly calls Wall “so petty.”
Petty, as in, when you do harmful things for no good reason.
Surely, this is not what Brad Wall wanted Saskatchewan to be.