NDP overplays its hand on privatization

Well, until Thursday it was shaping up to be a very good session for the NDP in exposing the irrational brinksmanship of Premier Brad Wall and his Saskatchewan Party government.

Certainly, Wall’s you’re-either-with-us-or-not mantra opposing federal carbon pricing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been irrational — especially given that he ran in 2007 on the notion of achieving significant GHG reductions.

So surely the readily apparent shortcomings of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are worthy of an intelligent conversation that goes beyond the histrionics of Wall calling it “shocking,” “appalling” and a “betrayal.”

Maybe such language has short-term appeal to Wall’s base, but the long-term consequence for the premier and his government is that it doesn’t come across as thoughtful, rational or reasonable — key elements that allowed him to build a broadbased electoral coalition.

But if Wall is being irrational on GHG emissions, how does one describe the NDPs visceral reaction to Sask. Party legislation that — at least at this point — does nothing more than clarify the definition of “privatization” in another piece of legislation?

In his opening salvo in Thursday morning’s question period, Opposition Leader Trent Wotherspoon spoke of “betrayal, desperate, unacceptable’’ — some of the words he had heard in the wake of “a massive sell-off our Crowns.” It came after less than 24 hours of New Democrats working themselves into a lather with conspiracy theories of “backdoor” privatization and creative ways for the government to supposedly get around the Crown Protections Act.

“Saskatchewan New Democrats will fight this every step of the way,” Wotherspoon said. “Privatization is privatization is privatization.”

Fill your boots, sir, but that’s likely the fight Wall and the Sask. Party want you to be engaged in.

There is something about the mere existence of the word “privatize” that causes New Democrats to fly off the handle, which is exactly what Wotherspoon and the NDP have done.

And notwithstanding whether there is a desperate need for the government to clarify the meaning of the word “privatize” in amendments to the Interpretation Act, the side benefit for the Sask. Party is that it’s already changed the conversation from far more tangible concerns like the GTH land deal mess or the pending vicious budget cuts — issues far more damaging to taxpayers.

The intent of the amendments, Justice Minister Gord Wyant told reporters on Wednesday, is to pave the way so that pension funds and similar entities can legally invest in Crown corporations.

For example, the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board currently has $148 million invested elsewhere in Canada and $370 million invested outside the country. Yet it can’t invest in a Crown like SaskPower, which is actually rather desperate for such capital infusions these days. With $13 billion available in various provincial pension plans, this could be a vast resource for the Crowns.

Of course, it’s never that simple.

Technically, such investments require further changes to each and every Crown corporation act. We are seeing no signs of such changes.

A more critical question might be how this impacts Crown profitability and Crown dividends, which help pay government expenses.

And Wyant threw out the intriguing notion the definition means, at least theoretically, that 49 per cent of a Crown could be sold off without the public having a say. At least in theory, that could mean Telus buying 49 per cent of SaskTel.

But is this reality or meaningless speculation?

Why would Telus make a massive investment in SaskTel in the hope of somehow surreptitiously exercising control over it? How would that even work, if government still owned 51 per cent and controlled the board, policy and rates? Do pension plans invest to “control” companies? Do you, I or Wotherspoon have any control over the companies in which we invest through our RRSPs?

Unfettered by any such logic, Wotherspoon ranted in Thursday morning’s question period about Wall lacking “backbone” and “decency” on the privatization wording, while simultaneously accusing the premier of being “in on it” in reference to the GTH land purchase deal.

Wotherspoon sounded unhinged. One suspects that is exactly what Wall and the Sask. Party hoped for.