Why Privatize Public Services?

NOTE:  A slightly shorter version of this post was published in the Leader Post, September 16. 

The mainstream media and our political leaders insist that the only real question involved in the building of a new sewage treatment plant for Regina is who can do it cheaper, the government or the private sector. But there are much more important issues.

Regina's Wascana Lake

In the 19th century in Canada and elsewhere basic public utility services were provided by private corporations. As we know well in Saskatchewan, the private corporations provided services only where they could make a profit. Governments were then elected that created Crown corporations on the provincial level and municipal public services on the local level. The goal was always to provide essential public utility services to all, no matter where they lived or how low their incomes happened to be. This was the co-operative democratic approach.

The Reagan/Thatcher revolution
Beginning in the mid-1970s, private capital and their organizations made it clear that they would like governments to privatize these successful public services. This was one of the major policy goals of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in Great Britain and Ronald Reagan’s Republican administration in the United States. In 1989 the Thatcher government privatized the water/sanitation public utilities in England and Wales.

In Saskatchewan, the Conservative government of Grant Devine (1982-91) closely followed the model set by the Thatcher government as it privatized a number of important provincial Crown Corporations. They even used Thatcher’s advisers.

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government shares a similar political ideology and that is why the federal tax money provided to local governments for constructing new public facilities is limited to projects which involve contracting out construction and operation to private corporations.

The spread of right-wing neoliberal program
This political program, pushed by all the large business organizations, was carried over to international organizations. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization created a policy package known as “The Washington Consensus.” As governments in the less developed countries experienced financial difficulties, these organizations provided some monetary assistance as long as they agreed to the package of structural adjustment programs that included deregulation and the privatization and contracting out of public services.

When the housing and finance industries collapsed in 2008, governments went deep into debt to bankroll the private banking sector. As a result, we are now experiencing “austerity programs” in the advanced industrialized countries. In Europe the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Common Market provide assistance to governments with serious debt problems but insist that they adopt a package of policies which include the privatization and contracting out of basic public services. They also insist that there be major cuts in public sector employment.

The general attack on the public sector trade unions
For good reason CUPE is concerned about these developments. The neoliberal agenda of the political right includes a strong attack on the trade union movement. Where privatizations have taken place in public services, management numbers and remuneration have increased significantly while large numbers of front line workers have been sacked. Our neighbours who work for the City of Regina have every right to earn a decent income that allows them to raise a family and even buy a home. No one wants to have to work for Walmart wages and benefits.

Regina used to be an NDP town. There was always a majority on City Council who supported the NDP. The general public had greater influence over major policy decisions. Builders and developers were not in complete control. The neoliberal policies of the Romanow-Calvert NDP governments disillusioned great numbers of NDP supporters. They left the party, and it is clear that many don’t even turn out to vote. When the turnout in municipal elections falls to 25 to 33 percent of eligible voters, it is inevitable that right wing political forces will win. Numerous studies show this to be the case. That is why the Mayor and the City Council are so sure they are going to win the referendum.

The stupidity of Saskatchewan's "clean coal" project

  What happened to all the environmentalists in Saskatchewan? Are they only interested in nuclear power? Why are they all silent about Sask Power's ridiculous "clean coal" project? Are they all silent because this project was first pushed by the Saskatchewan NDP government?

Sask Power's Boundary Dam facility

   The final face of the carbon capture and sequestration project at Sask Power's Boundary Dam Station is being pumped by the mainstream media. Sask Power executives argue that we have hundreds of years of "cheap" coal to burn, why should we turn our backs on it? The NDP and the Sask Party agree. The project as it currently stands has a new coal-fired generator which is rated at 160 megawatts (MW). After the energy used to capture the carbon, it will produce between 100 and 115 MW to pump onto the grid. The total cost is reported to be $1.24 billion. What a bargain!
   The project is again being promoted by Bruce Johnstone, the financial editor of the Leader Post. Putting everything else aside, haven't these people ever heard of opportunity costs? If $1.24 billion was spent on other alternative energy projects, how much carbon dioxide would be saved? How many more jobs would be created? Since no one wants to take on this issue these days, and I am too busy to again visit the subject, here is a piece I wrote in 2007. There are very good alternatives to burning our grossly polluting coal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Clean Coal” is the Wrong Road to Take

by John W. Warnock

Regina Leader-Post
May 3, 2007

    Lorne Calvert’s NDP government and SaskPower seem determined to saddle the people of Saskatchewan with a new “clean coal” generating facility. The research has been done, the Estevan site has been chosen, and the project’s supplying corporations are on side. The 300 Megawatt (MW) plant will cost between $1.5 and $2.0 billion. But this is clearly not the best way to produce energy nor to reduce carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions.
    In the first place, coal fired generators are very inefficient, capturing only around 33% of the energy in the combustion process; the remaining two thirds of the energy produced is dissipated into the environment. This waste energy cannot be captured and used where power plants are far removed from industrial projects and population centres.
    The “clean coal” aspect of this project is the Oxyfuel system used to capture around 90% of the carbon dioxide, compress and chill it to liquid form, and then pump it deep into the ground for sequestration. Unfortunately, this is an expensive and inefficient process. Of the total 450 MW of electricity to be produced by the new plant, 150 MW will be used in the Oxyfuel and geological storage process. As many studies have argued, down the road carbon dioxide sequestration may permit the continued use of coal for power generation. But it is no solution to the current problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.    
    Furthermore, the carbon dioxide extracted by the proposed SaskPower plant will be used to enhance oil recovery. The liquid carbon dioxide is pumped into the permeable oil bearing rock strata, is dissolved in the oil which reduces its viscosity, and it then sweeps the more mobile oil to the production wells. This is the system presently used by EnCana at Midale. Some of the pumped carbon dioxide escapes in this process. And of course this strategy completely undermines the goal of carbon sequestration as more petroleum is extracted and consumed, creating even more greenhouse gas emissions.
    Building a very expensive new power plant at Estevan further commits Saskatchewan and Sask Power to a highly centralized system of electrical power production and distribution. We have a great many alternative sources of energy, and their development requires a decentralized system. We must also plan for disasters which are caused by climate change. In January 1998 there was an ice storm in Quebec, and many areas were without power for several weeks. What would a similar event do to Saskatchewan?  How many people would die?


Seattle shows how it should be done
    Last January I was in Seattle doing research and I looked into the energy strategy of Seattle City Light, a municipal public utility. In the 1920s they built three dams on the Skagit River which serve as their base supply. They also contract for some power from the Bonneville Power Administration. In 1976 they opted out of the Washington Public Power Supply plan to build nuclear reactors and chose instead to promote conservation. In 2002 they contracted to purchase power from the Stateline Wind Project on the Oregon-Washington border.
    But the Seattle area has the highest annual population growth of any region in the United States. Therefore, in 2006 Seattle City Light produced an integrated plan for power development for the period 2007-2025. Over this period they will add 460 MW of electrical power. This will include 142 MW from conservation, 100 MW from geothermal development, 55 MW from additional wind sources, 25 MW from landfill gas, and 15 MW from biomass energy. The total projected capital cost of these additions is only $170 million.
    For many years Seattle City Light has been providing direct financial incentives to promote conservation and the purchase of more efficient appliances. They have a very basic demand management system: for the first 10 kilowatt hours (kWh) consumed a household pays 3.76 cents a kWh, above that the cost is 7.93 cents kWh. They are now promoting individual household and business production of solar, wind and biomass electricity. Through a net metering system households are paid market price for the energy they provide to the city grid. Households and businesses who install new generating facilities get city, state and federal rebates and tax incentives.
    Seattle City Light is only one example of how communities can shift to renewable energy. How long do we have to wait before a Saskatchewan government takes this issue seriously?

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and environmental activist.

Are you being monitored by Big Brother?

It seems a bit strange that Canadians and Americans show surprise when a whistleblower reveals that the U.S. government and its NATO allies are monitoring all of their communications. This has been going on for years. Does anyone remember Echelon?

Here is a very brief description of the extent of this monitoring, from a chapter in my book, Creating a Failed State: The US and Canada in Afghanistan (2008):

National Security Intelligence  
     Paired with its new military deployment is the U.S. government’s attempt to enhance its ability to gather and use intelligence. Under the Patriot Act and similar legislation in other countries governments have expanded their ability to acquire information through wire taps. The U.S. government even monitors what books people borrow from libraries and the web sites they access while doing research.
    The U.S. military finances several key organizations which specialize in high tech intelligence-gathering, including the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency do work in this area as well. In contrast to past systems of surveillance, there is no longer an emphasis on focusing on individual suspects. Today, the entire population is constantly under surveillance.
    Telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, Internet communications, telegrams and telexes are all sent by communication satellites under the control of Intelsat, which is ostensibly an international agency but actually  controlled by Lockheed Martin Corporation. The National Security Agency monitors all of this traffic. Communications utilizing short wave and very high frequency radio waves are monitored by a series of U.S. bases. Additional surveillance is carried out by the National Reconnaissance Office, under the  NSA, which operates a series of spy satellites. These also send back photo information. To this has been added the Space-Based Infrared System satellites which are part of the anti-ballistic weapons system.
    Using all of these capabilities, the U.S. intercepts all messages going through the copper cable and high-capacity optical fiber networks. The interception of fiber optic messages is done by a series of nuclear submarines. The United States also uses signals intelligence bases (Signit) to monitor communications. These are fields of antennas, satellite dishes placed at over 100 U.S. bases around the world.
    Many people who use the Internet are familiar with Echelon, which developed as part of the official Anglo-American political alliance that was founded at the beginning of the Cold War. The intelligence agencies of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have a classified agreement for the exchange of all security information. It is also known today as the “UKUSA signals intelligence alliance.” On a daily basis the Echelon program scans millions of conversations and messages for traffic patterns and key words, which are then tagged and sent for further analysis and surveillance. It is not only used for surveillance of potential foreign espionage or terrorism but also for domestic individuals and groups. Echelon operates and monitors around 120 intelligence satellites.
    The five countries not only share intelligence information; the agreement gives member countries the right to spy on each other and their respective citizens. No special advance permission is required. In one well-known instance, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had the Canadian Communications Security Establishment monitor the telephone conversations of her political opponents in the Labour Party.
    President George W. Bush told Bob Woodward that he was “fascinated” by the ability of the U.S. National Security Agency to listen to telephone conversations around the world and to intercept a whole range of other communications.

Is there an alternative to the neoliberal regime?

We are now into the fifth year of The Great Recession. In all of the advanced capitalist countries economic growth rates lag and real unemployment remains high. Inequality of income and wealth steadily increases. This is the fallout from the neoliberal model of the free market and free trade. Margaret Thatcher insisted that There Is No Alternative (TINA). Is that true?

Great Britain, Ireland and the countries of Continental Europe show no signs of recovery. Governments all have consistently supported right-wing austerity policies. None of the major political parties have offered a different strategy. Surely, there must be a political alternative.

The new issue of Social Justice (Vol. 39, No.1) has some interesting articles on the struggles that are going on in Europe, “Conflicts within the Crisis.” There are several themes to these articles.

The European setting
First, capitalism in the advanced countries is now very much dominated by the FIRE sector: finance, insurance, and real estate. The central focus of the European governments, the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund has been to prop up the banks at all cost. That is, of course, to defend the private investors in the large banks. The bad debt that the banks took on through real estate and the derivatives markets has been transferred to the governments. The socialization of private debt. Government programs must be cut to pay off this sovereign debt.

Second, the various European governments have been hindered in dealing with the crisis partly because of the loss of sovereignty. The European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are strongly committed to defending the interests of capital and have significant powers over national governments. They are quite prepared to use their powers to punish governments which move to protect democracy and social justice.

Third, the social democratic parties and the leadership of the mainstream trade unions have adopted the same basic policies as the traditional right wing parties. Thus there is a monopoly of power in the hands of the ruling classes. It does not matter which of the major parties forms the government, the results are the same. Thus parliamentary government and electoral systems have lost legitimacy. This is reflected in the steady decline in voter turnout to around 50%.

Fourth, the existing governments have all adopted police state tactics, militarizing the police, using brute physical force against demonstrators, jailing dissenters, and moving to reduce historic civil rights and liberties. The same thing is happening in the United States and Canada.

The Crisis of Social Reproduction
The Great Recession has had an impact in Europe that has not reached North America. Unemployment has risen to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Youth unemployment is now over 25% in the European Union and around 50% in some of the southern countries.

There is a crisis of care, as wages for many have been substantially cut. Pensions have been cut. Unemployment insurance has been reduced. Social services have been cut. The welfare state is being steadily downsized. Who would have believed that this could happen? Only in the former Third World, under the impact of the Washington Consensus, known as structural adjustment.

Is there a future for social democracy?
Across Europe, beginning in Great Britain and Ireland, social democratic parties have joined with the rich and powerful to bail out the banks and impose the neoliberal package. Thus the traditional major party of the left, which was created by the organized working class, no longer offers any alternative. As Margaret Thatcher once said, her greatest achievement as Prime Minister was transforming the British Labour Party into another conservative party, i.e., a party of pro-business neoliberals.

In Greece and Italy, the social democrats went so far as to form an alliance with the traditional parties of the right and impose unelected pro-austerity technocrats to run the government! Who needs parliamentary elections?

The leadership of the mainstream trade unions have also lost their legitimacy. They refuse to cut their ties to the social democratic parties even when their parties, in government, cut the programs that were enacted to provide security for those working for a wage and a salary. In Greece, the trade union leadership declined to support a general strike against "their government." The rank and file was forced to take the lead.

Struggling to find an alternative
Given the paralysis in the economy and in representative government, it is no surprise that in Europe the disaffected have turned to extra-parliamentary opposition. As we have seen in Greece and the other southern countries, mass demonstrations and general strikes have become the political opposition.

The other main political development is the grass roots movements, begun by young people, tied together by the social media. In Europe there was strong support for the street movements of the Arab Spring. A similar movement was prominent in Greece. The massive occupation of city squares across Spain, the 15M and the indignados, were another example. The call for a "Democratic Revolution" reflects the disaffection of European citizens with mainstream politics, representative government and the priority of the free market. “They call it democracy, but it is a dictatorship!”

The rejection of the current political system has resulted in the determination of the youth in particular to construct “new democratic organizations and institutions.” But there are limits to “leaderless resistance,” as we have seen throughout North Africa. There comes a time when grassroots democratic dissent has to shift to formal political organization if there is going to be change.

Cameco uses dummy corporation to avoid taxes

Cameco's operation at Cigar Lake, SK

For the past few months the media has been carrying stories on how large transnational corporations are using offshore dummy corporations to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they are actually based. The corporations identified include Apple, Microsoft, Staples, Hewlett-Packard, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, and many more.

This is nothing new. The collapse of energy giant Enron Corporation in 2001 revealed to the general public all the tricks of the modern transnational corporation. Indeed, executives from oil and gas corporations denounced U.S. government actions against Enron and its corporate officers, arguing that these practices were common to all in the industry.

Do Saskatchewan corporations dodge taxes?
What about the large corporations that have major operations in Saskatchewan? A few years back when I was researching Saskatchewan’s oil and gas industry I asked the provincial ministry of finance if any of our corporations used similar practices. I was given the brush off. This was a federal and not a provincial responsibility. No answers were forthcoming.

But now we have clear evidence that these practices are used by Saskatchewan based corporations.  In early May of this year it was revealed that the Canada Revenue Agency has challenged the practices of Cameco Corporation. While this story made the national press, it seemed to escape the attention of the Saskatchewan media and our political leaders.

Cameco as a case study
In 1999 Cameco created a subsidiary, Canada Europe Ltd., and located it in Zug, Switzerland. Switzerland is well known as one of the favourite low tax hosts for corporations seeking to avoid paying normal corporate tax rates. Cameco “sells” the uranium it extracts in Saskatchewan to Cameco Europe at the very low prices that were set in 1999. Cameco Europe then sells the uranium at the market price. CRA reports that Cameco is allocating its profits to Cameco Europe and recording very low profits for its operations in Saskatchewan.

The Ontario media reports that over the past ten years Cameco has avoided reporting income of $4.9 billion which allowed it to save $1.4 billion in federal corporate taxes. The corporate tax rate in Switzerland is 5% compared to 27% in Canada.

The Globe and Mail (May 1, 2013) reports that a study of Cameco by Veritas Research Corporation concluded that Cameco in Saskatchewan “performed virtually all operating functions” for Cameco Europe. They concluded that all of Cameco Europe’s profits should have been declared in Canada and taxed at Canadian levels.

Why pay taxes in Saskatchewan?
In Saskatchewan the uranium industry enjoys very low royalties and taxes. In recent years annual  uranium sales have exceeded $1 billion. But total royalties and taxes paid to the provincial government have averaged only around eight percent of sales.

Why should this matter? When corporations do not pay taxes to the provincial government, programs are cut or else revenues are raised by additional taxes on individuals. In this boom period for Saskatchewan, royalties and taxes on resource extraction are still among the lowest in the world, and our governments are cutting services.

 It is most important for corporations operating in the area of extraction of non-renewable resources to pay high taxes. The reality is that all the large corporations operating in the resource extraction area in Saskatchewan have a majority of their stock held by people who do not live here. In fact, most of them are majority owned by shareholders who live outside the country. A system of low resource royalties and taxes on corporate profits means the surplus rent from resource extraction does not flow to the owners of the resource, the people of Saskatchewan, but flows out of the province and the country.

Is Another Potash Glut on the Way?

Leader-Post

There is a boom in the Saskatchewan economy, and economists all point to the increasing exploitation of our resource industries. A major factor has been the expansion of the capacity of the potash industry.

Over the past few years all of the potash corporations in the province have invested capital in their existing mines. These “brownfield” developments have brought thousands of workers to the province. The three existing potash corporations are presently adding new capacity which will total 14 million metric tonnes (mmt). The two new “greenfield” mines being developed by K & S Potash Canada and Western Potash will add an additional 5 mmt.

BHP Billiton has already spent $2 billion developing their Jansen Lake mine and is currently using state of the art borer machines to construct the two shafts. It is hard to believe that the corporation will actually put this development on hold. The first phase of this mine will provide 4 mmt, with capacity to be doubled down the road.

What does this mean for the Saskatchewan industry? In 2010 the existing capacity was around 20.7 mmt. Actual potash production was only 10.4 mmt in 2011 and 8.8 mmt in 2012. So why are the corporations adding another 23 mmt capacity?

This has happened before, during the administrations of T.C. Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Ross Thatcher. Ten corporations developed new mines, and given the world market, created significant excess capacity.

Why does this happen? Investment is enticed through government subsidies. These have included exemption from federal and provincial taxes, greatly accelerated depreciation rates, and very low royalties paid to the provincial government for the extraction and use of the resource. In the first round Saskatchewan taxpayers provided special low rates for electricity and natural gas and then built roads, a canal system to provide water, pipelines and a reservoir.

As economist Eric Kierans detailed in his famous 1973 study of mining in Manitoba, Canada has a long history of preferential treatment for this industry. The corporate taxes they paid were significantly lower than those of other Canadian industries. Nothing has really changed.

In 1969 farm prices fell on the world market, and farmers responded by cutting their purchase of fertilizer. A number of potash mines in Saskatchewan were on the verge of shutting down. Premier Ross Thatcher negotiated a classic cartel with the government of New Mexico:  a floor price was set for potash and production shares were allocated to the different corporations. The cartel was managed by the Potash Conservation Board, now known as Canpotex, which has  responsibility for all offshore sales by the existing Saskatchewan potash mines.

Today Canpotex forms an unofficial cartel with the three Russian and Balarus potash corporations. Uralkali and Belaruskali, linked through ownership, export through the Belarusian Potash Corporation (BPC).  Canpotex and BPC control around 70% of world potash sales. In this arrangement the Russian and Balarus firms follow the lead of the Potash Corporation. The corporations in concert curtail production to follow demand. Pricing of sales is remarkably similar. Recently, the three Saskatchewan corporations and Uralkali paid fines to the U.S. government to settle anti-trust charges.

In recent years the world market for potash has been between 50 and 60 mmt. Russia and Belarus have had 30% of this market. Uralkali is expanding capacity by 6 mmt. Farmers around the world are hoping that the excess capacity will result in price competition. Already China and India have managed to reduce prices to around $400 per tonne. Further reductions can be expected, and this will put a strain on Saskatchewan mines. BHP has pledged that it will not be part of Canpotex and will engage in price competition to gain their share of the world market. In a few years the government of Saskatchewan will again have to face the problem of overinvestment in the potash industry.

John W. Warnock is retired from teaching political economy and sociology at the University of Regina. He is author of “Exploiting Saskatchewan’s Potash: Who Benefits?” published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 2011.

How Can the NDP Get Back on Track?

Act Up in Saskatchewan
March 3, 2013

Labour delegation meets with CCF government 1961

As everyone knows, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is no longer Saskatchewan’s “natural governing party.”  In the 2011 election they won only 32% of the vote and today Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party government, in its second term, has an approval rating of around 70%. All four of the young men who have been seeking the leadership of the NDP have stressed the need for a serious renewal and revitalization.

So where should they start? With the disappearance of the provincial Liberal Party, the NDP will have to get close to 50% of the vote to once again form the government. In the past, how was it possible for the CCF-NDP to win 50% of the vote in a Saskatchewan provincial election?

The success of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)
In 1944 the CCF, under the leadership of T.C. Douglas, won the election with 53% of the vote and won again in 1952 with 54%. The CCF was actually a vehicle for a broad democratic movement which included family farmers, the trade union movement, the co-operative movement, teachers and other groups. While in office they regularly consulted with community organizations before implementing new policies.

The CCF party through the Annual Convention, the Provincial Council and the Legislative Advisory Committee exerted considerable influence over the CC F government. Furthermore, the government itself respected and encouraged this co-operation. In addition, there were other links to the grass roots of the party. Within the CCF and then the NDP, the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation jointly met every year to co-ordinate policy approaches to present to the party and the government.

When the CCF formulated the platform for an election, they set forth policies they fully intended to implement, and they did so. In the election campaigns they would remind voters of what had been accomplished. Defend the family farm. Rural electrification. Build the grid road system. Hospitalization for everyone. A progressive social assistance program. Modernize the school system. Civil service legislation. A new Trade Union Act. Diversify the economy. And so on.

Following the 1956 election, where the vote for the CCF fell to 45%, the Douglas government feared that it was getting out of touch with its supporters. In 1958 they began a process of expanded consultation with citizen groups. As one example, they created the Rural Development Council to advise the government, with a broad membership representing rural organizations and the general public. Conferences were organized to engage the public on more specific issues. They actively sought presentations from organizations and community groups. To help them come up with programs, they created the Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life.

The key issue in the 1960 election was to be the introduction of a comprehensive government backed medicare program. An Advisory Planning Committee was appointed by the Douglas government with representatives from the government, the medical profession and the general public. It eventually held hearings, received briefs, and presented an interim report, although its activities were greatly hindered by the representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce.

The political parties of the right, representing first of all the interests of big business and finance, have the advantage of access to extensive resources as well as support from the mainstream media. The only way the political parties of the left can effectively confront the power of money is through the mobilization of the broad public. Even in Saskatchewan, the CCF and the NDP have required a large body of committed activists in order to win elections. People are attracted to a party of the left when they agree with the policies they advance.

The CCF won the 1960 election with 41% of the vote and introduced the medicare program. In 1964 their vote fell to 40%; the Liberals also took 40% of the vote but won a majority of the seats in the legislature and formed government. There was a repeat in 1967, with the Liberals winning 45.6% of the vote and the CCF 44.4%. A party renewal was in order.

The NDP wins a major victory in 1971
In the 1971 election the NDP won 55% of the votes and 45 seats in the legislature. They won a solid majority of the seats in rural and small town Saskatchewan. Why did this happen?

First, it was a time of mass participation in political activities by citizens across North America. In the United States the civil rights movement was making great advances. There was broad popular opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam, both in Canada and the USA. The women’s movement was on the rise. The Red Power movement was beginning to take form, even in Saskatchewan. There was strong public support for the anti-colonial movement in the Third World. The public mood was for the expansion of democracy.

In Canada political discussion focused on foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy as well as American cultural domination. In 1968 the Waffle group was formed within the NDP, an organized caucus that advocated an independent, socialist Canada. The Waffle was quite strong in Saskatchewan. There was widespread debate on the key political issues of the day, both within the NDP and in the general public. Citizens were engaged in important political and economic issues.

The Waffle caucus, whose meetings were always open to all, had a major influence on the party in Saskatchewan. They contested for the leadership in 1970, won by Allan Blakeney. Through policy resolutions adopted by the party, they had a major impact on the platform for the 1971 election, A New Deal for People.

The Blakeney government (1971-82) is best known for the success of its policy of creating greater ownership and control over the natural resource sector, through Crown corporations in oil and gas, potash, uranium and the forest industry. With much higher royalties on resource extraction, the NDP government was able to introduce and fund new social programs, expand public housing for low income people, and increase services for seniors.

The Waffle was expelled from the NDP in 1971, and many activists left the party. Over the period of Blakeney’s government links with the party’s extra-parliamentary allies were weakened. The NDP was not only becoming an urban party, it was also shifting from a political movement towards a traditional political party. Part of the reason for its defeat in 1982 stemmed from a number of major conflicts with the trade union movement, a large group of traditional supporters.