Listening to wrong stakeholders a growing issue for Sask. Party

One might think that business tycoons pouring tens of thousands of dollars into various Saskatchewan Party leadership campaigns would be the most untoward example of undue influence hampering this party and the provincial government.

This surely is a problem given the questions surrounding the Regina bypass and Global Transportation Hub. However, it’s a problem that could be easily rectified by electoral reform legislation (and used for future leadership races) that severely caps how much individuals, corporations and unions can contribute.

But the arguably bigger problem for a rapidly aging Sask. Party government and its leadership hopefuls is one all too common: Too many bad decisions are being made to pander to the political base or to narrow interest groups.

The notion of the “flaps of the broad Sask. Party tent becoming narrower” has become a recurring theme at the leadership debates raised by Gord Wyant, in particular. Less obvious is what the Sask. Party is doing to rewiden the now-narrow flaps on its supposedly big tent.

The leadership race’s nearobsession with the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax (compared with virtually no interest in talking about the bypass or the GTH) is one such example, given how it’s especially hated in the agriculture and oil communities.

A likely better example is the pandering to the RightNow survey and the anti-abortion crowd by leadership candidates like

Ken Cheveldayoff.

We got a healthy dose of this problem this fall in Education Minister Bronwyn Eyre’s inaccurate characterization of how her own son’s treaty education curriculum both superseded and demeaned the history of her own settler white European grandparents. It may have led to a public petition demanding her resignation, but the incident seems to have done little to curb her popularity within the Sask. Party base or caucus, which offers rousing applause every time she gets to her feet defending this and her education policies.

More recently, we heard deputy premier and Labour Minister Don Morgan — normally, a pretty thoughtful guy — suggest paid days off in the event of a woman having to leave an abusive domestic situation would not be considered because a few business types said they might be less inclined to hire women. If this is the sole reasoning, the government is listening to the wrong people.

But the most ridiculous example of late comes from Highways Minister David Marit and his decision to ban all Alberta and other out-of-province plates on government infrastructure work sites.

Marit described ordering all Alberta company vehicles to be plated in this province (thus, forcing Alberta contractors to pay the six-per-cent PST on equipment) as the “perfect solution” to concerns raised by contractors who the minister said were not being allowed on Alberta work sites with Saskatchewan plates. A couple of problems, though:

It would seem to violate the New West Partnership agreement, while blowing up Saskatchewan’s reputation as a free-trading province, and; Notwithstanding Premier Brad Wall’s Facebook post that this is all due to “provocation” by Alberta’s NDP government, neither he nor Marit nor the Sask. Party government have produced one bit of substantive evidence to back the Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association (SHCA) claim “that vehicles with Saskatchewan licence plates are not welcome on Government of Alberta construction sites” or that “Saskatchewan contractors have been shut out of bidding on Alberta government projects.”

In Wall’s eagerness to accuse Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley of not being a “a strong supporter of free trade, both within Canada and outside our borders” he seems unconcerned he was attempting to poach Calgary head office oil company jobs with Saskatchewan taxpayers’ dollars as incentives last March.

Nor did Wall et al. have many past concerns about companies from Alberta or Texas driving around Saskatchewan to install smart meters or work on the bypass.

What he and his party and government are concerned about is the complaints received from perceived friendly stakeholders. That’s a problem.