Leadership hopefuls take step back on issues

Five-month campaign has tempered opinions of Sask. Party contenders

The Saskatchewan Party contenders vying to replace Premier Brad Wall have clearly shown growth during this five-month leadership contest. Less clear is whether it will be enough growth.

This newspaper has generously provided ample newsprint in Saturday’s edition to allow the five leadership hopefuls to answer some of the most pressing questions (D1) facing today’s Saskatchewan — some of which didn’t come up during the party-run debates and some that did, but bear re-asking.

The answers provided were prompt and, as requested, succinct.

However, perhaps the toughest question for each of Wall’s potential successors to answer is which policy questions require one to stay the course of the past 10 years and which need a change from the current Wall government direction.

On the latter point, Sask. Party candidates have done some soul-searching of past Wall government policy and direction, and figured out some things clearly no longer fly.

Consider the candidates’ collective rejection of the group thought of last spring’s 2017-18 budget process that led to calling for a 3.5-percent rollback in public sector wages and remuneration:

“I support continued collective bargaining efforts. We cannot ignore compensation measures when we are trying to get back to balance and this is our single largest expenditure,” said Tina Beaudry-Mellor.

“Our government has stepped away from this objective and will look to achieve efficiencies through attrition and by other means. I support this,” said Ken Cheveldayoff.

“We respect the collective bargaining process and understand that the target will not be met this current year,” said Scott Moe.

“I believe in the collective bargaining process and the responsibility of all parties to negotiate in good faith. I believe the goal of balancing the budget can be achieved without a rollback by looking at other efficiencies,” said Gord Wyant.

And Alanna Koch, who as chief civil servant was charged with finding these cuts and implementing the 3.5-per-cent wage rollbacks for politicians and senior executive positions, replied with a to-the-point “no.”

Similarly, the candidates were equally blunt in rejecting whatever notion emerged in ranks in 2017 that Crown corporations could be sold off and revenue could be used to reduce debt. Again, we tended to see a succinct “No” across the board. However, all seem to be supporting the long-standing practice of using Crown dividends to pay for departmental expenses.

Even the question of achieving a balanced budget in three years sees an interesting divide, with Koch and Beaudry-Mellor wanting to slow things down to four years and Cheveldayoff, Moe and Wyant pressing forward with the government’s current three-year plan.

That said, candidates seemed less thoughtful or definitive on other issues that may hamper future success of the party — not the least of which were ideas to reduce the legislature’s current 61 seats, redistribution to reflect more equitable representation by population or seeing the same rural municipal amalgamation as we’ve seen in health and school boards.

They have collectively rejected relaxed rural property defence laws, but are divided on the age for legal marijuana purchase and possession, with looming federal changes on July 1. There’s a wide division on candidates’ personal views on abortion.

There is uniform support for more privatization of MRI/CT scans and perhaps other private health care delivery. One issue that clearly has grown in this debate is the idea of dedicating more health budget dollars to mental health — perhaps another sign a leadership process does expand government thinking.

Interestingly, there has been movement on an inquiry/audit into the Global Transportation Hub (GTH) — notions the Wall government had rejected. However, none seem to have changed their thinking that no further exploration is needed on the decision-making process behind the $1.9-billion Regina bypass expenditure.

All this seems to suggest growth in policy exploration emerging from this race. Whether it’s enough, however, is something that only time will tell.