Meili’s erratic budget criticism not helping NDP

For an Opposition already driving rather erratically, Wednesday’s 2019-20 Saskatchewan budget won’t make their trip any easier.

New Democrat Opposition Leader Ryan Meili needs to pick a lane — preferably, one not on the left-hand side of the road where he risks slamming into oncoming traffic. In Saskatchewan, we don’t normally drive on the left side. Meili, who has a natural tendency to drift left, needs to present a better argument why we should. Wednesday’s budget won’t help him make that case. This is not to suggest Finance Minister Donna Harpauer’s budget was especially left wing, nor is it that there isn’t anything to criticize. No budget is bulletproof.

A great starting point for an Opposition that vowed to make this spring sitting all about kids might have been to observe advanced education spending went nowhere, and whether K-12 truly got anything more than commitments to replace a few schools.

Education was one of the last things Meili noted in his embargoed news conference Wednesday. Instead, he questioned whether the budget was really balanced and whether the public debt was too high.

To be clear, public debt increasing to $21.7 billion by the end of the 2019-20 budget year and to as much as $26 billion by March 2023 is an issue.

But budgets for both governments and oppositions quickly become all about making your case as to whether the financial plan does or does not work. For the Opposition, that means focusing on a consistent theme and sticking to it.

Meili is not leading the budget criticism because he’s swerving all over the place. Pick a lane, sir.

In Thursday morning’s question period, Meili opened up by chastising the government for its “mission accomplished” and “strange sort of self-congratulations.” “This was a budget with a huge deficit ... (although) maybe not by an accounting deficit.” Huh?

Sure, governments are always far too self-congratulatory, but this was a budget that had the Saskatchewan Association for Applied Behaviour Analysis (SASKABA) offering congratulations “for increasing the amount of funding available to families of autistic children under the age of 6.” It had the Saskatchewan representative of the Canadian Mental Health Association calling the additional $30 million for mental health funding a good first step.

These stakeholders aren’t Saskatchewan Party government cheerleaders. Many of them have come to the legislature — often, accompanied by the NDP — with specific spending requests. Many such requests were met Wednesday.

(Interestingly, one of the NDP’S traditional allies — the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union — was talking Wednesday about government getting a bigger share of cannabis profits. Why? Well, maybe because the list of 2019-20 government employees released Wednesday show only six fewer full-time jobs.)

One of Meili’s more telling comments was his suggestion the Sask. Party stole NDP ideas.

Indeed they did: Mental health, focusing on highway intersection safety as opposed to more visible and popular paving, and a royalty rate review so that potash companies paid a fairer share through royalties.

So unbeknownst to potash companies like Nutrien, which seemed rather unhappy, the Sask. Party government changed outdated incentive programs, enabling it to collect an additional $117 million for provincial coffers. New Democrat finance critic Trent Wotherspoon, in his budget reply Thursday morning, described this as a shoddy way to treat worldclass companies. Again; huh?

Finally, you need a ballpark explanation of what you would do differently if you are going to clamour for balanced budgets and lower debt. Meili’s response Wednesday was it’s too early to have that conversation. A third time: Huh?

The Dominion Bond Rating Service credit rating agency issued a statement Thursday morning suggesting the Sask. Party government “has fulfilled its three-year commitment to balance the provincial budget” — this despite DBRS’S own misgivings about whether it’s a balanced budget in 2019-20 when you properly account for capital spending.

So where does Meili’s “off-balance” criticism go? What would he do differently from a government that stole his ideas? How would his ambitious spending agenda lower the debt?

What is Meili driving at?