PROVINCE’S MOVE UNFAIR, ILL-INFORMED
Astory published April 19 explains Bill 64 (An Act to amend The Power Corporation Act and The SaskEnergy Act) well. It covers how the legislation cancels all contracts for payments-in-lieu to 109 hometowns, allows the province to redirect millions to their general revenue fund, and prevents municipalities from defending these contracts in court.
However, SUMA remains deeply concerned over the continued misperception about what our members are losing through Bill 64. Indeed, Government Relations Minister Donna Harpauer has repeatedly sowed confusion about the contracts for payments-in-lieu between SaskPower, its subsidiaries, and 109 municipalities.
In question period on April 24, she said, “(Payments-in-lieu) was a very inequitable program that we have targeted … I’m not even too sure if it was given to a third of the municipalities. I believe it was even less than that. All of the cities did not receive it. The majority of the small towns didn’t receive it, Mr. Speaker.”
When Harpauer says it’s unfair or inequitable that only some communities received these payments-in-lieu, it’s clear that she is forgetting or choosing to ignore history. These 109 hometowns were not receiving these payments by chance, or at the free will of the Crown corporations. These 109 SUMA members were the only ones who had created their own power utilities — the only ones who sold to SaskPower.
After SaskPower was created in the 1940s to expand electrification, it bought out existing municipal power utilities to create a provincial grid. These purchases created 109 legal agreements between hometowns and SaskPower.
Those agreements cover the initial payment for capital investments and regional distribution rights. But they include a guarantee that SaskPower and any subsidiaries (in this case, SaskEnergy and TransGas) would pay royalties in perpetuity on all future sales of power.
Because these towns were giving up their utility companies and the revenue they brought in, the Crown corporation promised to pay these hometowns a small share of what they sold.
It’s not unfair that 109 hometowns received these payments; it’s unfair that the provincial government used the excuse of a temporary budget shortfall to permanently take this revenue away from SUMA members. The provincial government clearly made cuts that they don’t fully understand. Instead of taking the time to undertake meaningful consultation with hometowns before they drafted a budget, they are trying to revise history and change the rules with Bill 64.