Wait to see `just transition' before judging
There may be potential for the so-called federal “just transition” bill to be a little more “just” than some in this province think.
Elements of it might even enhance what the Saskatchewan Party government is already doing to help offset lost jobs in our changing world.
Unfortunately, any fair assessment of the pending federal legislation by the province would have to be made free of the usual politics. The chances of that seem slim and none.
And `slim' might have just rode out of town on the back of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's horse that's perhaps galloping off to a United Conservative Party victory on the popularity of her opposing Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's “just transition.”
By sheer coincidence, Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre is also now saying her government may use the Saskatchewan First Act introduced last fall to scrutinize the federal government's “just transition” legislation.
Talking to reporters after a Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce speech on Wednesday, Eyre said the economic tribunal her government will appoint might critique this federal legislation.
“We have to see what's in the bill,” Eyre said. “We're just very concerned about what will be in it.”
At least she's waiting to see the bill. Smith appears ready to fight Alberta's May vote on the just transition issue.
Obviously, Eyre's instincts are not totally off base. There's long-standing reasons not to trust any Ottawa economic restructuring plans (see: the cod industry closures). Moreover, Trudeau's original 2015 carbon tax promise alone is ample reason to dispense with blind trust.
Eyre issued a statement earlier this week telling Saskatchewan's workers and industries that “we have your back.”
There are “70,000 people directly and indirectly employed by our agriculture and energy sectors,” her statement said, emphasizing “our agriculture sector is the most sustainable in the world” and the importance of these people “literally working to put food on the table and keep the lights on.”
Alas, it's about here where we also see the provincial government's political game.
While Eyre and company admit they have no knowledge of what might be in the federal legislation, they seem to have little problem muddying the waters by hinting “just transition” will probably go after farmers as well.
On what basis should anyone be speculating that “just transition” is also about farming? What purpose does such speculation serve?
Well, it stirs the pot among already-angry anti-trudeau farmers in the same manner the Sask. Party government did this summer when it called in justice staff on a nice weekend to amend provincial trespassing laws to harangue federal health inspectors testing pesticides levels.
Eyre and her government probably do have real concerns about this legislation. But if anyone in government is considering the federal bill, shouldn't they also consider how it might help Saskatchewan deal with changes already happening?
In no small irony, the Sask. Party government has been putting thought to our changing realities for awhile now.
It's been a point of pride with Finance Minister Donna Harpauer that she has made her budgets less susceptible to fluctuating oil revenues. Both Alberta's budgets and its economy have had less success.
Saskpower Minister Don Morgan is leading the charge toward small modular reactors to replace coal-fired electrical generation that his government supports phasing out by 2030.
Estevan may host the province's SMR to replace dwindling jobs in both the oilfields and at the area's local coal-fired electrical plants. Isn't that “just transition?”
Of course, we really don't know exactly what the federal government has in mind, but we do know Ottawa is pouring $100 million into BHP Group Ltd.'s Jansen Potash mine — a project Premier Scott Moe can't stop talking about — to make it green and viable.
If that's what federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has in mind with just transition, is it all bad for this province?
Eyre is right. We don't know what's in the bill. Isn't that all the more reason to wait and assess it objectively?