Moe’s pandering to separatists makes little sense

Premier would be better served taking practical approach, Sarath Peiris says.

Premier Scott Moe’s recent musings about Saskatchewan creating its own tax collection agency and seeking control over immigration to the province make little sense as sound public policy.

Rather, the premier seems to be engaging in a destructive political game of pandering to nonsensical secessionist notions among a small fraction of his base even as he publicly disavows separatism as a viable option for the province.

Moe tossed out the notion of expanding provincial autonomy to begin collecting provincial income taxes separately from the federal government by citing what’s being done in Quebec, where the provincial government has been granted control over such things as tax collection and immigration.

Not coincidentally, Premier Jason Kenney in Alberta is making a similar argument for autonomy on tax collection, and going further by proposing the creation of a provincial police force and a retirement income system to supplant the Canada Pension Plan.

Yet, angry verbiage about separatism, and a shared antipathy toward the federal carbon tax don’t serve to qualify Saskatchewan and Alberta for recognition as a distinct society constituting “a nation within a united Canada,” as Stephen Harper’s Conservative government did in 2006 with Quebec.

Moe and Kenney are in lockstep as they seek to capitalize on public consternation at the climate policies of the federal Liberal government, and a peculiar animosity toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau personally.

However, Moe in particular needs to be careful in playing footsie with Wexit separatists, given the findings of a recent survey conducted by a team at the University of Saskatchewan that showed nearly 85 per cent of respondents rejected the idea of the province leaving Canada.

And the premier’s notion of forming a Saskatchewan tax collection agency runs into the reality of the costs involved, with Alberta economist Trevor Tombe telling Global News that it would cost his province about $500 million annually to operate.

While Saskatchewan’s costs are likely to be lower given its smaller population, the expenditure of several hundred million dollars to replicate a service already being provided by Ottawa is foolhardy at best.

Consider that less than a decade has passed since a Saskatchewan Party government led by Brad Wall took a whack at the provincial civil service with a “four-by-four” policy to shed 1,500 jobs over four years. What makes Premier Moe think that there’s any public appetite to add another government agency to the roster, or to add a second set of tax forms that need to be filled out to part with their money?

One need look no further than at hapless Andrew Scheer to understand the ramifications for political leaders who get out of step with the majority of citizens they seek to lead, especially when they are perceived to be serving the needs of special interest groups at the expense of the general public.

Saskatchewan voters may have given the climate change obsessed Trudeau Liberals the cold shoulder in October’s election, but that doesn’t mean everyone is on board with the stance of Moe, Kenney et al.

As for gaining more control over immigration as the Saskatchewan Party government seeks to increase the provincial population by about 250,000 people to reach 1.4 million, there’s little to suggest that the current system that includes the Saskatchewan nominee program isn’t delivering results.

Far more to the purpose would be to invest in the education system and provide other supports that help immigrant families settle and thrive in the province — a measure that would help retain newcomers and attract others, and avoid the kind of pratfalls that have faced potential immigrants seeking entry via an ill-defined and poorly administered investment program.

Rather than taking a bellicose approach to dealing with the feds, Moe would be well-advised to confront the reality a new Conservative government isn’t around the corner, and that Scheer’s replacement isn’t likely to be as accommodating of demands on industry-friendly climate change provisions or environmental assessment processes not in keeping with court-mandated requirements.