Province relents on lawsuits
Clause to keep municipalities from fighting loss of grants to be axed
The Saskatchewan Party government says it plans to remove a controversial clause limiting legal challenges against a bill that is expected to redirect into government coffers $33 million paid annually to municipalities by three major Crown corporations.
Three weeks after Government Relations Minister Donna Harpauer said the clause prohibiting cities and towns from fighting Bill 64 was included “because they were going to (challenge it),” she agreed to push for the bill to be amended.
“I do not feel that it is necessary, so I will ask the committee members’ support to vote that clause down,” Harpauer said Tuesday afternoon during a meeting of the government’s standing committee on intergovernmental affairs.
Cathy Sproule, SaskPower Critic for the Opposition NDP, replied by saying Harpauer’s decision to remove the clause preventing any “action or proceeding based on any claim for loss or damage” was a “good decision.”
The controversy stems from the government’s 2017-18 budget, which aims to trim the $1.3 billion deficit by around $600 million.
The budget surprised many by eliminating grants paid annually to cities by SaskPower, SaskEnergy and TransGas.
The province contends that the grants are inequitable, while the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association and several mayors argue the grants are based on historic and perpetual agreements with the Crown corporations.
Harpauer’s acknowledgment that the clause prohibiting loss or damage claims is unnecessary may, however, be a symbolic gesture.
Legal experts have argued that cities exist at the pleasure of the province, and have no constitutional standing whatsoever.
“As a matter of law, the province can do pretty much whatever it wants with municipalities,” University of Saskatchewan law professor Felix Hoehn told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix last month.
When asked to explain her reasoning, Harpauer said the clause was included by Ministry of Justice officials as a “cautionary measure” and that it was no longer needed.