Olauson’s flub conjures spectre of enemies list

There is never a good time for a government to have an enemies list.

But being perceived to have an enemies list at a time when your budget appears to be lashing out at ordinary folk — some of whom might feel it’s their democratic right to ask questions about how their taxes are spent — is explosive.

This is the disturbing outcome in the wake of the Saskatchewan Party’s Saskatoon University MLA Eric Olauson requesting a background check on Saskatoon resident Heather Landine, after the constituent sent him an email raising concerns about cuts to libraries and city grants in lieu.

Inadvertently, Olauson hit “reply all” to Landine in a response that stated: “Research her in compass ... Don’t reply to her about that protest. (The silent library read-in in front of MLAs’ offices.) ... I will once I know more about her. And it will be epic.”

After Landine made Olauson’s note public, the Saskatoon MLA acknowledged he “made a very bad mistake.”

The Sask. Party government rightly condemned Olauson’s sloppy and inappropriate actions and dropped the former city councillor from the Meewasin Valley Authority board.

It was just the latest punitive measure for Olauson that comes after a series of social media gaffes that saw him stripped of other legislative committee responsibilities after his ‘liking’ of a social media post labelled “boobzone” and another threatening violence against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

However, if Landine or anyone found this response something less than sincere or honest, they could hardly be blamed.

Olauson also claimed he wasn’t checking to see if Landine was a Sask. Party supporter, although Compass is the vehicle the Sask. Party uses to track party donors. How Olauson could possibly mis-type “compass” is as puzzling as why it would matter in the context of any civil response any constituent should expect from his or her MLA.

As for what he meant when he said his response would be “epic” (evidently, there was no “mis-typing” there), Olauson would only say it was “a flippant way to phrase things and the tone was wrong.”

Of course, this only begs the question why Olauson would think someone deserved an “epic” response based on what he thought her perceived political view would be. Or worse yet, it begs the question as to why a Sask. Party MLA — as a seeming matter of course — would go to the trouble to find out.

It is here where Olauson’s “epic” buffoonery becomes more nefarious.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time there have been suspicions of political lists in this province. There were suspicions that past CCF-NDP, Liberal and former Progressive Conservative governments all kept lists — either physical or mental ones — of people they were willing to hire because of their shared partisan views. Hiring friends and relatives for regular civil servant jobs was a disturbingly common practice under past NDP governments. And the Progressive Conservatives used to send out letters to supporters offering summer jobs for their kids.

But that there might be an “enemies list” that government could use to exercise its wrath on its citizenry is massively problematic. We certainly know that the Sask. Party kept a similar list as recently as 2003.

A week before the 2003 election, thenpremier Lorne Calvert’s government leaked a 2,600-name list it had somehow obtained from the Sask. Party caucus entitled “People with NDP connections.” The Sask. Party confirmed the list was theirs.

Admittedly, it was clumsily compiled (the names of soon-to-be cabinet ministers Bill Hutchinson and June Draude were on it), freely intermingling long-serving NDP hacks with board appointments and non-partisan career civil servants whose jobs were approved by cabinet through order-in-council.

But the list’s existence was unnerving. And one can only guess what role it played for the then-Elwin Hermanson-led Sask. Party in the 2003 election the polls say he could have won.

Now, at a time when a Sask. Party government needs public trust more than ever, Olauson just raised the spectre of why it shouldn’t be trusted.