Budget similarities misleading

At first blush, you might be inclined to view the federal and provincial budgets this week as further evidence of how similar the Saskatchewan Party and Conservatives are.

Compare the stated priorities in the 2013-14 budget brought down by Saskatchewan Finance Minister Ken Krawetz Wednesday with those in federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget: infrastructure money for municipalities, spending restrictions, money for job training, etc. Those inclined to believe that Premier Brad Wall and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are one and the same will certainly not be dissuaded by their budget-day rhetoric.

But while there are undeniable similarities between the Saskatchewan and Canadian governments in their goals and broadly shared philosophies, a more in-depth look at their respective budgets this week helps better understand where the two conservative-minded administrations tend to part ways.

Let us first, though, examine Thursday’s federal budget, labeled in our news stories as “a no-frills budget” designed “to connect Canadians with jobs” — a description that could have also aptly applied to Krawetz’s budget Wednesday.

“We will not waver from our commitment to create jobs and fill jobs for Canadians”, Flaherty said in his familiar-sounding budget speech Thursday. “We will not spend recklessly.” (Although, perhaps the first major difference is that the federal Conservatives talk about having a balanced budget some day and the Sask. Party government actually keeps tabling them.)

Certainly, Flaherty’s talk of improved skills training by extending tax breaks to the manufacturing sector does neatly align with Wednesday’s provincial budget, which tossed $117.4 million at student support programs and included more money for graduate retention. Also, there was a 3.1-per-cent increase to the operating budget for skills-training colleges that will add 300 more apprenticeship seats.

Add to the comparison the 10-year municipal infrastructure plan Flaherty unveiled, which could have been lifted from Wall’s own talking points about the so-called “infrastructure deficit” in Saskatchewan the premier loves to talk about.

The federal government also removed tariffs on sports equipment like skates and golf clubs in a shameless appeal to the middle-class vote. And while Wall is not above making similarly shameless appeals to the middle class, it might be here where the line between the Conservatives and Sask. Party can be drawn.

Assess the total federal budget package and what you basically have is an ode to the business community to keep the economy growing, with a few shout-outs to the middle class voters Harper desperately needs.

By contrast, Wednesday’s provincial budget was not a big victory for the Saskatchewan business community, which saw postponement of corporate income tax cuts and the phasing out of ethanol subsidies. There’s very little in the federal budget — with the possible exception of doing away with venture capital tax incentives— that is going to make the national business community unhappy..

Even the federal approach to jobtraining is tax incentives to business to meet business needs. The Sask. Party government budget also targeted job training, but the emphasis was clearly on individual recipients.

The province also found money for women’s transition houses, 1,300 new affordable rental units, paratransit and other programs for the disabled. Rather obvious in comparing the two budgets is the fact the Sask. Party better understands that governance is about serving a wide breadth of interests.

There really wasn’t the cold calculation of whether these beneficiaries will vote for the Sask. Party. Instead, the provincial government seemed to recognize that helping those who need a hand-up makes for a stronger province.

Also evident is that there must be very little discussion of such concepts in the very right-wing federal Conservative caucus. That would seem to differ from the still-evident influence that one-time Liberals like Krawetz and Social Services Minister June Draude must have had on provincial budget consultations.

As one Saskatchewan government insider said, the federal Conservatives do still have trouble finishing the sentence: “Growth is needed because...” By contrast, the Sask. Party seem to far better understand the reasons for having growth and prosperity.

Herein lies difference between the federal Conservatives and provincial Sask. Party, best illustrated in the budgets each tabled this week.