Speech - April 2, 2001: Budget Response

BUDGET SPEECH RESPONSE

Mr. Wall: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to second this motion, to speak in favour of seconding this motion, on behalf of the member for Canora-Pelly, particularly because, Mr. Speaker, it’s a constructive amendment. More than simply opposing a budget that many people in Saskatchewan are already agreeing deserves to be opposed on principle, it suggests an alternative.

And specifically, Mr. Speaker, it suggests an alternative for the Liberal members of the government opposite. Because certainly they are less hidebound to support a budget that is clearly wrong for the province, than members of the governing NDP. Mr. Speaker, they have an opportunity now, especially considering that one of those Liberal partners in the coalition is the Minister for Municipal Affairs, they have a unique opportunity to vote with the official opposition to vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the member for Canora-Pelly. They don’t defeat the budget, Mr. Speaker, but they will make it better to be sure, Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wall: — They have a unique opportunity to improve on one of the woefully inadequate portions of the budget, Mr. Speaker, and that portion deals with municipalities — that body, that third level of government in our province, that arguably affects economic development more than any other. That was the area of economic development that I practised for some time, Mr. Speaker. And I can tell you that municipalities have a very clear impact on job creation and on job retention. And perhaps most important in that formula, in the formula of local economic development, is the level of local taxes that both residences pay and that businesses pay, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The level of local taxes is absolutely crucial not only in terms of attracting new jobs to your community, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of retaining . . . Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in terms of retaining jobs that are there already. And so this amendment affords the opportunity for the member from Melville who has a duty to his constituents as well as to the rest of the province, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it affords him the unique opportunity to vote for the amendment and improve the budget, not defeat it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we look at issues like a provincial budget, we look at them from different perspectives I think as legislators. We look at them from a local perspective, from the perspective of our constituents, and we also look at them from a more provincial perspective, maybe from our critic duties or just generally its impact on the province of Saskatchewan. Just very briefly as it relates to the local economy of Swift Current and surrounding area, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, just to mention a few brief points from that perspective, I can tell you that it falls far short for the people of southwest Saskatchewan, this budget does. Now, more than ever, now more than ever, the people of Swift Current and the people of southwest Saskatchewan were looking for a long-term plan; they were looking for a long-term commitment to the reduction of personal taxes. They were looking for a long-term vision for job creation, a reason to stay, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our province. They won’t find it in the budget. They won’t find it in the budget that was presented this last Friday in these legislative chambers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is nothing in the budget on tax relief, save for a very, very thin, a very, very thin reduction in the small-business tax in the province of Saskatchewan. The other perspective from which they will look at this budget in my constituency and in the southwest is as it relates to health care. Mr. Deputy Speaker, health care is the number one issue that we field in our office, and they’re going to look toward to this budget in terms of the impact that this new funding has in Swift Current, because, to tell you the truth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the past hasn’t been all that great in Swift Current, in terms of new funding allocations from the province and them actually trickling down to places like Swift Current, far away from the province’s capital. But that will be the measure of this budget in Swift Current in terms of health care. How it impacts our hospital, our clear need for a new regional hospital in Swift Current, and how it intends and how it allocates resources to reopen long-term care beds and medical beds that have been closed by this government in the Swift Current constituency and across the southwest? But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in more general terms, I think when people look at any budget in any given year from a provincial government, or a federal government for that matter, they’re going to look at it from the basis of both its impact on the year in question, in this case 2001-2002, but they will also look for a long-term plan — a medium and a long-term plan. At least some commentary in every budget about the government’s plan for the future, about its plan for expanding the economy, or perhaps its plan for at least retaining the economic base we have now that funds health care, social services, and all the things that we prize here in the province of Saskatchewan. But I think they look for long-term commentary in the budgets of new governments, and more specifically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a budget that comes from a new Premier. Arguably the government is the same tired old bunch that has sat to your right hand since 1991 but, by their own declaration, they put a new face on it. They have a new leader; there’s a few Liberals interspersed amongst the benches across the way. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think people in Saskatchewan were looking to this budget . . . they were looking for clear signals in terms of the direction that this new Premier would go, that the member for Saskatoon Riversdale would take this government. And so in that context, they were looking for a long-term plan, perhaps even more than were they looking for just the short-term 2001-2002 budget. And I could tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was surprised when I went home for the weekend, after all of the ballyhoo on the budget from the government on Friday, I was very surprised when I went home to my constituency this weekend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and found that people back home simply weren’t talking about it. They had almost completely ignored it. In fact, if I didn’t raise the question with them, if I didn’t say what did you think of the provincial budget that came down Friday, they absolutely had no comment. They had heard — and frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many of them didn’t believe it — they had heard that the government had the gall in the budget Friday, when it needed to present a long-term plan for sustained tax reduction and job creation, when it needed to do that, it introduced a budget of a bigger government, of a 1970s-style government, of 570 new government bureaucrats. That was its answer for Swift Current and area. That was its long-term plan for the people of southwest Saskatchewan — a 1970s budget. It’s not hard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to understand why there was that influence, why this tired old government turned to an approach that has been rejected around the world in terms of government budgeting.

And it’s because of the people that have surrounded them in terms of their staff. We know that the premier, through the 1970s, Mr. Allan Blakeney, is one of the most key advisors to this current Premier if you can believe it. The man who was premier in this province through most of the time that I was in elementary school and junior high and into high school, I guess, for some it, he is now the key advisor to the Government of Saskatchewan, to this Premier. And you don’t have to look very hard to have been able to see his mark on this budget. It is a budget for bigger government. It is a budget that basically presents to Saskatchewan people the tired, old, and rejected concept that government has the answer, when there are issues that we need to resolve in terms of our economy, you look to the government. That’s what this budget says, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We on this side of the House, hold strongly to the view that when there is difficulties facing any jurisdiction, when there are difficulties facing our economy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you don’t look to government for results. You look to the people of the province. You look to our small-business sector and you get out of the way. You do everything you can by lowering taxes and ensuring that labour legislation in our province is friendly. You do everything you can to lower red tape and you get out of people’s way. They don’t understand that across the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they never have, and the budget clearly indicates that they do not today. As my colleague, the member for Canora-Pelly, has indicated, the other thing that people will know when they look at this budget is that it does is completely lack a vision. There is nothing in there that speaks of the year 2011, 2012 — 10 years down the road. There is nothing in there that would give any of us hope to believe that there is a long-term vision presented in the budget on Friday. There is no specific long-term and proven commitments in terms of job creation in our province. There’s absolutely nothing in the budget on that. What we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that in jurisdictions around the world, those who have in earnest have tried to create jobs by lowering taxes on a sustained basis and taxes of all description, Mr. Deputy Speaker, those are the jurisdictions that have had success. And that’s why we look to this budget for more of that. We look to this budget for that sort of direction, and it’s not there. In fact the record belies what members opposite are now shouting from their seat — that we have in fact lost 13,200 jobs in the last year. Those are Statistics Canada’s numbers, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And isn’t it amazing — the member for Saskatoon Nutana should take particular note of this — that every other jurisdiction in Canada, Newfoundland included, in that same period created jobs, Mr. Deputy Speaker; including Manitoba, they’ve created 7,000; Alberta created 42,000. And what happened here in the province of Saskatchewan? What happened here? We lost 13,200 jobs under the direction provided by those captains of industry across the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the record of this government.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wall: — I noted in the budget feedback though, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was one unqualified voice of support for the government. And even the ones that were being quoted today by the Premier and by the Minister of Finance, third parties who were commenting on the budget, you notice they all sort of qualified their response to the budget. And it’s interesting that that’s all the government could find today in question period; those qualified quotes from third parties in the province, were all that they could point to as to the success of their budget. Quotes like, well it’s better than a kick in the head. Obviously I’m sort of summarizing them. But basically . . . (inaudible interjection) . . . and paraphrasing them. Thank you. But basically that’s what they were, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except for one. There was one, there was one unqualified supporter of the budget, and I hope I have his name correct, but I believe it was Doug Blanc who is president of the SGEU (Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union), Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is the only voice of unqualified support for this government and it’s not hard to see why. He just got 570 new members at a cost of 50 million taxpayer dollars, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That’s why he’s happy. He got more union dues which he will in turn be able to pay to the parties of his choice, Mr. Deputy Speaker — that’s what he got from the budget. And I’m not sure what party that is, but he’ll be able to make that choice. He is the only voice of unqualified support for this government’s budget, is the president of the SGEU. That is the fact; that is a matter of record after Friday’s budget.

But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it’s important as we look at the budget, in light of the amendment that’s been put forward by the member for Canora-Pelly, he specifically is talking about property taxes. And of course property taxes are an issue whether you live in urban or rural Saskatchewan. They’re an issue across the province. But clearly, as was pointed out by many of the cities in the lead up to the budget, property taxes are a huge issue in the cities of our province. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a number of the cities made that case in the lead up to the budget, including the city of Regina who I believe met with the government caucus, who also invited us to meet with them. I think they demonstrated a very, very, very positive and heartfelt commitment on behalf of their taxpayers in their approach to both the government and the opposition parties. And I can tell you that it was the week preceding Monday, February 5, where they were meeting with different government officials and as well as members of the official opposition. And I am quoting from the city of Regina press release dated Monday, February 5. It’s an executive summary of a press missive entitled “City Council Meets with MLAs to Seek Help From Province”. That’s what it was titled. And I’ll just read one very quick quote over there that puts everything that we’re going to be talking about later this day in the context that we need to look at it in. The Province, over the last ten years, has slashed our funding (ours being the city of Regina) by 70 per cent, from $18 million to just $5.4 million. That’s what the mayor of the city of Regina said in an executive summary dated February 5.  And it formed the basis of the case that he made passionately — and very reasonably and rationally, I might add — to the Government of Saskatchewan and to the members of the government caucus from the city of Regina. They made a very strong case and then they offered a solution, and that solution was an increase in funding of $20 million. They felt that perhaps, even though it wasn’t anywhere near the money that has been taken almost exclusively just from the city of Regina, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though it’s not even near what they have taken from municipalities across the province, they ask for that reasonable number — and again I ask for the members for Regina to pay attention — they ask for that very reasonable number of $20 million as a way to hold the line on property taxes, to ensure that they could hold the line on property taxes here in the province of Saskatchewan. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we all know what happened on Friday. We all know exactly what the cities of this province got on Friday. They got absolutely nothing for their efforts, for their rational and well-thought-out presentation, for their meeting with their own MLAs whose job it is to represent them in the caucus and in the cabinet opposite. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they got absolutely nothing. And so the title on their press release, the title on their press release changed as of today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today it says mayor’s office offers news release: “Municipalities (got) Shut Out By (the) Province.” That’s what the headlines say today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And if you look across the province, the same is true, the same frustration is there for many other centres. I know in my own city of Swift Current, in the last decade they have watched the revenue sharing drop from $1.3 million annually to $688,000 annually. But you know what, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they’ll be able to go ahead with their budget planning as usual because instead of betting that the government would listen to cities in this budget, they were betting that the government would ignore them. They bet that the government would ignore them and so they were going ahead and planning for absolutely nothing from this government. And it proved to be prudent planning because once again that’s exactly what they got, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That’s exactly what they got. And that’s progress. Mr. Deputy Speaker, SUMA, which of course represents many urban governments across this province, they also had some words to say to this provincial government and this budget. And here’s a different issue. I’ll be getting back to the tax issue in a moment here, based on what SUMA had to say, but here’s what SUMA had to say about another promise that this government made. And the Minister of Justice will be interested in what SUMA had to say: The province is also taking only a small step forward to provide the additional 200 police officers promised to communities during the last provincial election. And I recollect that promise and who made it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was made by the former premier of this province to a convention of police officers gathered here in Regina, and there was a lot of ballyhoo and there was a lot of hype around that promise. And no doubt, no doubt, police officers in this province may indeed have decided to support a government that would make that commitment, that solemn commitment to them at their convention.

Where is the commitment today, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Halfway, halfway into this government’s mandate where it’s promised to create 200 jobs, SUMA points out that: Only 20 new positions are being funded . . . And I’m quoting, Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only 20 new positions are being funded this year, in addition to the 25 added last year. This leaves us less than one quarter of the way to the target despite being half way through the four-year . . . (term of the government). Basically SUMA is questioning, and so are we and so are the people of Saskatchewan, whether this government has broken another promise. And I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allay that concern that the Minister of Justice at his earlier opportunity stand either in the legislature or gather the media together and make the commitment, make the commitment, reaffirm the former premier’s commitment that there will be 200 new police officers for municipalities in our province before the next two years are up. I would recommend that the Minister of Justice do that. I do that through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the issue of taxes, SUMA had something to say as well. And I’m quoting from their president, Mr. Badham, now: “We have given the Provincial Government fair warning about what will happen if there is no commitment to re-instate our transfer payments . . . Urban governments are looking at property tax increases (Mr. Deputy Speaker) that could average between three and six per cent this year, combined with cuts in local services like street (repairs and) repaving.” And the quote continues: “We shared the pain of eliminating Provincial deficits, and that pain will continue after this Budget . . . We have been left on the waiting list, and this continues to put our economic development at risk.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, that’s what the urban municipalities of the province of Saskatchewan have to say, and what’s alarming about that is that this group, SUMA, represents the third level of government that controls so much of the taxation in our province. And they are left to no recourse but to increase taxes. I understand the city of Saskatoon announced today they’re looking at a 3 per cent plus tax increase for property owners in that community. I understand that confirmation has come as of today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So for the government to claim that there are no tax increases in this budget is frankly misleading. There is clearly tax increases in this budget. We heard about the first one in Saskatoon. We’re going to hear more as the full impact of this budget is felt at city halls across this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They were let down again by the government and now they have nowhere to turn but to the beleaguered taxpayer of the province of Saskatchewan, those ones that have chosen to stick it out so far here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the day of the budget, there were six major centres here, represented in these chambers — the mayor of Regina, the mayor of Saskatoon, the mayor of Estevan, the mayor of Weyburn, the mayor of North Battleford, and the mayor of Yorkton. And they issued an immediate statement: “Municipalities Shut Out By (the) Province” was their immediate statement. And they began their statement, and I quote, Mr. Deputy Speaker: Today, six mayors of major Saskatchewan cities angrily denounced the Calvert coalition government’s budget. Angrily denounced. You know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Liberal coalition member of this government generally has to go to a Liberal convention to be angrily denounced, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wall: — But the mayors of our province were prepared to do it here and outside the Chamber, and they did it in reaction to a budget that lets cities down and that lets the property taxpayers in those cities down. Just very briefly to read from this statement from the mayors of those six centres: The Province (and I’m quoting, Mr. Deputy Speaker) the Province misrepresented funding to municipalities in the budget briefing by saying they put new money into the Canada-Saskatchewan Infrastructure Program. The increase actually represents new federal money for infrastructure. So even in those elements, even in those elements where the government was touting itself by demonstrating that it increased spending in this area, it was taking credit again — it did it in the Throne Speech; it didn’t learn its lesson so the government was doing it again in the budget — taking credit for a federal initiative. And that is just sad, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A budget with the chance to demonstrate to the people of the province of Saskatchewan that there is a vision for our long-term future instead takes credit for a federal program. That’s pitiful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is what that is, and the six major centres recognized that.

Interestingly, interestingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the cities went on. They said: In addition the Grants in Lieu of taxes from the Province will be based on last year’s tax assessment and tax rates. In other words, (and I’m quoting still) the Province will provide funding based on 2000 rates while Saskatchewan residents will be required to pay this year’s reassessment and a possible increase in mill rates. So they retroactively basically carved themselves in at the lower rate of this year so they don’t have to go through the mill rate increase that they themselves knew would result from their budget. It’s clear the Province is saying (and I’m quoting again) it’s clear the Province is saying the property tax system is unfair and they provided . . . themselves a one-year tax break in paying the new rates. It sounds all too familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It sounds like their approach to Crowns. When Crowns need a rate hike to ensure that they remain actuarially sound, they’ve got no problem in asking for rate hikes. We hear there’s one coming at 40 per cent for SaskEnergy. But where do the people of Saskatchewan turn when their government continually knocks on their door for more money? They have nowhere to download it to. They have absolutely nowhere to go. That’s what this government fails to realize in documents like this budget. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the cities have been clear on this budget, and municipalities have across the province as well. I heard the president of SARM (Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities) issue very real concerns about this budget because it does represent downloading. The fact that municipalities are frozen out again by this government — again — represents or is an indication that they have been frozen out, and is a further indication that we can look forward to local tax increases in the coming years, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And my encouragement to ratepayers and to citizens across this province is that instead of phoning when the mill rate hikes are announced — like apparently they were today in Saskatoon — I encourage them not to contact their local city councilor because I believe those city councillors and those reeves and those rural councillors are doing all that they can do with what they have. I encourage them to phone the member for Regina Wascana Plains, Mr. Deputy Speaker; to phone the Minister of Health, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope they phone the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Highways. I hope they phone every government member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, NDP or Liberal, when they look at their local tax bill going up. Because that’s where the fault lies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That’s where the fault lies.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wall: — You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to conclude with what I feel are some pretty good summary comments that came courtesy of the editorial board of the7 Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

And of course we all don’t agree with editorial boards — all the parties in this Legislative Assembly have been taken to task by them — but every once in a while they get it right. And I think this was an example over the weekend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of an editorial board getting it right on a budget.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, just very quickly, to quote from the editorial. It says, I’m quoting this, Mr. Deputy Speaker:. . . Cline projects that Saskatchewan’s economy will continue to grow over the next 12 months, albeit at 2.2 per cent, down from 3.4 per cent last year. Meanwhile, he pegs oil prices to remain relatively stable at $25.50 US (a barrel) this year and $23 in 2002, along with commodity prices for potash, wheat, barley and canola. Only natural gas is expected to decline significantly. Yet, despite it all (and I’m still reading), here’s the message Cline gets out: “The 2001-02 budget will once again be balanced despite a projected revenue decrease of about $750 million from 2000-01.” Consider that the tax take over the next year, after the reforms, are projected at . . . (3.1) billion, down just slightly from . . . (3.2) billion in 2000-01. Meanwhile, resource revenues actually are projected to hit (Mr. Deputy Speaker) $877 million this year, up considerably from the . . . (700) million last year. And yet when municipalities ask for a very reasonable $20 million to hold the line on municipal taxes, they were told there were not enough resources. Apparently there’s enough to hire 570 new bureaucrats at $50 million salary increase to the government. 

Apparently there’s enough money for that. Apparently there’s going to be more resource revenue to the government this year — over a hundred million dollars by the minister’s own numbers — but there’s not enough to give municipalities $20 million, $20 million, so that they can hold the line on taxes so that municipalities will have a chance to do what this government can’t — to retain its business and maybe to attract new ones. And so for those reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take a great pleasure in being able to tell you that I will be supporting the amendment put forward by the member for Canora-Pelly. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.