Wall knows ‘no’ always works in Saskatchewan

Long before he heard what the federal Liberal government had to say this week on carbon pricing options for provinces unwilling to implement their own levy, Premier Brad Wall’s answer was “no.”

It was “no” during the 2015 federal election, when it started to become rather obvious that Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper had severely misjudged Justin Trudeau and was desperate for political help.

It was “no” last October when Wall’s Saskatchewan Party government produced its own “white paper,” and it was “no” during his debate speech on the matter, when selected oil companies invited to the legislative gallery heard the premier’s speech peppered with language describing the feds’ carbon tax as “shocking,” “appalling” and “betrayal.”

It was “no” a week ago, when Wall’s flight of fancy landed him on a heavily redacted federal memo the Saskatchewan premier concluded was proof positive that federal Liberals were tying carbon pricing to equalization and other federal transfer money — this, despite federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna vehemently denying the memo said anything of the sort. Nevertheless, it still had Wall comparing the federal government to a “crime family.”

And the loudest “no” to date came this week, when Wall described the federal government’s white paper that would exempt agriculture as a ransom note and vowed to fight Ottawa in court.

Admittedly, Wall does not hold the monopoly of political petulance on this — or any other — federal/provincial issue.

While exempting agriculture in the white paper was good, the feds’ one-size-fits-all approach hardly takes into account Saskatchewan’s unique problem with its coal-fired electrical plants and heavy economic dependence on the mining and oil sector. For Wall to suggest that Saskatchewan industry can ill-afford Ottawa’s carbon levy — which starts next year at $10 per tonne and concludes at $50 per tonne by 2022 — is not an outrageous thing to say.

The federal white paper somehow even seems to gloss over Saskatchewan’s $1.6-billion investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) at Boundary Dam, which McKenna gushed over when she visited it a year ago.

Clearly, the Liberals knew imposing their white paper wouldn’t fly. That they proceeded to go ahead and present the take-it-or-leave-it document pretty much defines the federal Liberals’ 50-year problem with Saskatchewan and the rest of the West.

Sadly, though, it appears both sides prefer things that way.

One might think politicians would normally lose when they are just being politically obstreperous, as Wall is clearly being on the federal carbon tax. But to obstinately oppose any form of change in Saskatchewan — whether it be the changing nature of rural Saskatchewan, daylight saving time or carbon pricing that’s being accepted around the world and even by the oil sector — somehow remains a badge of honour.

Upon release of her white paper that will impose levies on polluters, McKenna expressed equal confidence that her federal government was on “very strong ground.” She might very well be and Wall and his provincial government — at least privately — might know the same thing.

Also contrary to what you might hear publicly from Wall — whose government introduced its own carbon levy in 2009 — the province was well-briefed on the white paper.

Jonathan Wilkinson—the Saskatchewan raised-and-educated former adviser to Roy Romanow’s NDP government and now North Vancouver Liberal MP who serves as parliamentary secretary to McKenna — was again in the province before the release of the white paper.

And contrary to federal Liberal/Saskatchewan history, Wilkinson insisted the Trudeau government hopes it can still find common ground with Saskatchewan on carbon pricing.

“We have really tried to work to engage Saskatchewan,” Wilkinson said in an interview Thursday, adding CCS will not work as a saleable commodity anywhere without some sort of carbon levy.

But Wilkinson said there has been no interest by the Saskatchewan government in such practical matters — even though the oil sector and others clamour for some level of economic certainty. What works better, politically, is simply saying “no.” This has always been the case.