During my twenty-some years living in Saskatoon, I often found myself “cursing” Op-Ed pieces mostly written by male dominated non-profit organizations such as the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation preaching some capitalistic principle bypassing Jesus’s moral teachings. Most of their disciples not only contend that they’re “self-made” men who refuse to recognize the existence of even basic public services, including the highways upon which they transport their goods to market.
I usually pigeonhole CTF Prairie Director Gage Haubrich into this group, but after reading his Dec. 9 article in the Herald, “Saskatchewan debt has been climbing too high for too long”, I’m giving him a “pass” for the moment, even though he left out most of the facts as to the historical “why” our provincial budget is in such a crisis mode.
In 1982, Saskatchewan was in relatively “good” budgetary shape, even though interest rates on personal loans and mortgages were hovering around 21 per cent. We were about to elect a surging “Progressive” Conservative government led by Grant Devine, its principal “sales pitch” being that it felt it was time to get in on the oil boom now hyperventilating Alberta’s economy – which at the time would have been fine IF they’d had a plan other than sheer greed in pursuing this agenda, as the 1972 formation of the Oil Cartel, led by Saudi Arabia, had already wreaked its hyperinflationary influence on Canada’s economy, and the Trudeau government in Ottawa was having problem explaining that in order to protect Canada from being backlashed again by this now all-powerful cartel, Canada as a NATION had to have a plan in place to either resist or marginalize any future attacks on the economy.
By 1980, however, when the federal government introduced its National Energy Program, a plan to consolidate energy production and distribution in the hands of Canadian industries, it was about four years too late for that idea to catch on; Alberta and Saskatchewan, already being hypnotized by the huge wealth American-led petroleum interests were claiming were theirs for the taking, called the NEP a blatant attempt by the federal government to redirect future wealth into Ottawa’s coffers, and “communist” in its approach. Alberta, as yet to learn the lesson that most American “capitalists” have never read Karl Marx nor can define their favourite curse word, rejected the plan outright.
Equally unfortunate, in 1980 our six national banks were still being run by courtesan “managers” whose ethics would reclassify “working girls” as saints, as they literally went to war attempting to “romance” any and all who would seek sustenance from their ever-open vaults in pursuit of this new “liquid gold”. Principal among these targets was “Smiling Jack” Gallagher, then the head of Dome Petroleum, whose goal was to unlock the Fountain of Wealth that lay at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea. He was literally capable of walking into any Bay Street establishment and in less than an hour walk out with billions in cash, leaving nothing in collateral but his vision as to just how high would be the cash mounds once his vision became reality – that is, until some tiny Bob Cratchit shareholder realized that were even ONE of Dome’s many loans to default, a bank “share” wouldn’t be worth the paper on which it was printed upon.
Thus, it came to pass that interest rates to the common folk would have to rise – except, of course, Dome Petroleum’s.
Back in present day 2025, we’ve finally clued into our greed-fed plans for the nation’s future, with American Big Oil interests now controlling Canada’s petroleum future even as Alberta’s premier Danielle Smith, knowing that her province is “selling” bitumen to its Texas-based market at “everything must go” prices, has resorted to stoking “separatist” sentiment in both Alberta and Saskatchewan by maintaining that their oil market has been sabotaged by a federal government and excessively “harmful” environmentally influenced legislation, and not for the far truer reason that Canadian “investors” prefer to invest elsewhere.
So, how did Saskatchewan’s economy fare in this malaise? Well, as my friend and former Deputy Premier under Grant Devine might now say, his plans for government that we would discuss over sips of Chivas Regal did NOT “finally shred the socialist yoke” of economic constraint placed upon Saskatchewan by successive NDP governments, but instead put our province into a fifty year economic recycling vortex, starting with the Devine Comedy’s $24 billion debt acquisition, successive NDP governments righting the economic ship and returning the province to Douglas-like surpluses, only to eventually see a new Messiah of the Right, Brad Wall, reinstate a Saskatchewan Party’s now seventeen year plundering of the provincial treasury, a debt now sitting at close to $31 billion.
Today, Scott Moe’s “plan of action” to get our economy back on course is nothing more than a plagiarized version of Alberta’s namely, “blame the feds”, all while still trying to curse the former NDP premiers, Romanow and Calvert, of “closing hospitals” that somehow always manage to invoke front page news stories maintaining that their emergency department services have to be closed, due to medical staff burn-out and increasing doctor and nurse shortages, as but one example. Equally troubling, instead of pursuing plans to diversify the provincial economy, such as its huge potential for a “green” economic future, it rails at so-called “woke” policies that defend the very rights of women and children to not be exploited or bullied by a society desperately trying to recreate the 1950’s, but without labour unions.
Still, Scott Moe claims that “his” government is STILL “the true voice of rural Saskatchewan”.
Mr. Haubrich, despite leaving out most of the historical circumstances that have led us to this economic brink, is right: WE are IN TROUBLE, governmentally speaking.
Mr. Haubrich, I suspect, still believes that only tax relief and governmental spending cuts can bring us back around to economic reasonableness, but my question to him is this: WHAT CAN this government CUT that isn’t already torn asunder by chronic underfunding?
I have some ideas on this matter, but rather than continually deferring to the aftertaste of family fiscal sickness, let’s leave these answers to the new year when we can again begin this debate.
Until then, have a Merry Christmas…
