 |
Leader-Star News Service October 1996 Archive |
|
Leader-Star News Service October 1996 Archive |
All right. That does it. Roll up the red carpet. Line up the wrecking ball.
The time has come to abolish Canada's Senate if for no other reason than bringing down the walls of the Upper House may now be the only way the law can serve Saskatchewan Senator Eric Berntson with the subpoena that would force him to testify at former PC MLA Michael Hopfner's fraud trial.
Born on May 16, 1941, Berntson was summoned to the Senate on Sept. 27, 1990 (one of former prime minister Brian Mulroney's infamous "GST senators" added to the Upper House to ensure the Goods and Services Tax became law).
By the rules of the Senate, Berntson can sit as a senator, without fear of dismissal by the electorate, until his 75th birthday on May 16, 2016.
For the past month, the RCMP have been trying to serve the 55-year-old senator with a subpoena that would force him to testify at Hopfner's trial, but tradition dictates that MPs and senators can't be served by the police while they are serving the public on Parliament Hill. Unfortunately, the Mounties haven't been able to get their man at home either -- Berntson's wife has told reporters that the senator hasn't been returning to their Ottawa home at night.
Evidently, it seems Berntson plans to spend the next 30 years bunking out on the couch of his Senate office, ordering in from Domino's.
Of course, all this is predicated on the giant assumption that Eric Berntson can spend the next 10,454 days in one place.
Given his track record, this seems highly doubtful.
As Saskatchewan's economic development and tourism (EDT) minister, Berntson made current Eat, Drink and Travel Dwain Lingenfelter look like an absolute homebody (albeit, with a smaller, slightly less controversial house.)
In fiscal year 1993-94, Berntson ran up travel bills of $77,113 -- tops among all senators and even exceeding the $43,828 run up by fellow Saskatchewan PC senator Dave Tkachuk. (Berntson justified the expense by explaining he needed $11,000 to cover the costs of moving and "house hunting" in Ottawa where he took up permanent residence in May 1994.
Also, Berntson's fond affection for his place of employment would seem somewhat new-found.
Despite his lawyer Clyne Harradence's contention that Berntson is not obligated to appear as a Hopfner witness while the Senate is in session or 40 days before and after the Senate sits, Berntson hasn't ever really viewed attendance as a mandatory thing.
During his last year as a Saskatchewan MLA in 1990, Berntson only managed to attend the legislative sitting six out out of 67 days (even though he had no problem claiming 63 days worth of the then $141-a-day per diems.) Since his appointment to the Senate, his commitment to daily attendance of its sessions haven't been all that much better.
Yet today we now have Berntson intimating that he will use his parliamentary privilege to avoid testifying in court for reasons only known to Berntson and his lawyer.
Is this what the upper chamber of sober second thought has become? A hang out for the hole-in-the-wall gang where you ride in to enjoy immunity from the courts?
The best solution would seem obvious.
A truck-load of dynamite and Guy Fawkes.
Or at least abolition of the Senate in favor of something elected and accountable where the Berntsons would have to assume some responsibility at the polls for their actions.
Presuming the Senate ever was at one time a place where relatively harmless old political curmudgeons went to their great political rewards for their years as bagmen, the Berntson fiasco becomes the latest event to cast the Senate in a new light.
But if MPs and senators still refuse to take a look at what role the Senate is now serving, the absolute minimum they should consider is a hard look at Berntson's actions.
Starting with Speaker of the Senate through the Upper Chamber to the House of Commons and into the Saskatchewan legislature, there should be unanimous condemnation for an individual appointed to uphold the laws of the land who is now thumbing his nose at the laws of the land.
After all, if senators don't respect the law, why do we need a Senate?
There are mixed signals coming from the party that wants to govern the province but has yet to convince us it can govern itself.
For the past two weeks, the five candidates vying for the job as Saskatchewan Liberal leader have debated in six forums across the province in the hopes of impressing potential delegates heading for the Nov. 22 and 23 convention. (That real process began in earnest Thursday night in Yorkton with the selection of the first delegates.)
These debates have been just what the doctor ordered for beleaguered Liberals.
They've given the party the opportunity to blue-sky about the direction of the province, with ample opportunity to take pot shots at both the NDP and PCs.
For example, at Wednesday night's forum in Saskatoon, Jim Melenchuk vowed he would repeal the Health Districts Act in an effort to restore decision-making at the local levels. New Democrats are so fat and arrogant they "can no longer be called a people's party" and the Conservatives are "so corrupt they don't deserve a moment of your thoughts," Melenchuk said.
Tom Hengen, a Saskatoon businessperson, offered his plan to help First Nations in Saskatchewan become self sufficient through mentoring programs and through aggressive marketing of Indian businesses. Hengen also proposed a margarine plant near Clavet's canola crushing facility, more uranium mining in the north and development of nuclear reactor components in the south, and the reverse of Saskatchewan's brain drain by marketing hospitals and universities outside Canada to generate revenue.
Canora-Pelly MLA Ken Krawetz offered to defend Saskatchewan people from an intrusive NDP government and swollen bureaucracy. Thunder Creek MLA Gerard Aldridge said he would create an excellent health system and stop off-loading on the municipalities while maintaining roads and streets. Humboldt MLA Arlene Jule stressed the need for greater moral conscience in government and lower taxes to keep business in the province.
Political cheap shots? Pie-in-sky ideas without the detail needed to make them credible? Perhaps.
But that's what leadership races are and should be about.
Even if such ideas are too off-the-wall, too right wing, too left wing or too incomplete, they are the fodder needed to get people talking about your party.
And the byproduct of interest and debate in your party is always support.
Were such philosophical debate the only thing going on in Liberal ranks, the forums would be an unqualified success.
Unfortunately for Grits, philosophical debate hasn't been the only thing emerging from the forums.
Also re-emerging is the party's tiresome clashes of personality politics that has kept the Liberals out of power for more than a quarter century now.
Real debate has often been overshadowed by the never-ending saga of former Liberal leader Lynda Haverstock.
The so-called Haverstock question came up in one form or the other at most of the six forums -- no more ugly than at Regina's forum where Jule suggested the time had come to apologize to the former leader for her treatment and give her back her membership.
Jule's proposal immediately drew fire from Aldridge's camp that's run by fellow caucus member Glen McPherson -- one of the key architects in Haverstock's demise. McPherson noted that Jule was one of the MLAs in the room who vowed not to sit under Haverstock's leadership after last year's confidence motion and wondered out loud how Jule could run a province if she couldn't figure out what was going on at a meeting.
More rifts. More tiresome petty, personal squabbles among Liberals.
Clearly, the problem in Liberal ranks has not stopped and started with Lynda Haverstock.
Personalities have often taken precedent over ideas in the Saskatchewan Liberal party and we see it carrying on today in some leadership camps where there is as much emphasis on who is supporting the candidate as the candidate's ideas.
We saw it in the stage-managed announcement where MLA Harvey McLane lent his support to Melenchuk. We see it from the Aldridge camp in daily press releases announcing every local Liberal who has come on board.
And as long as the candidates' lists of supporters -- those Liberal guidebooks to who gets along with whom -- are as important to Liberals as the candidates' ideas, the party is doomed to repeat the mistakes of its past.
Given that divisiveness has been the Liberals' number one problem for the past 25 years, one can only wonder what they were thinking when they chose the format they are now using to select their delegates for the Nov. 22-23 leadership convention.
There again, maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised. This is the Saskatchewan Liberal party.
Nothing beats a good internal fight -- especially when you get to spill the blood publicly. After all, you don't just spend a quarter-century out of power. You have to apply yourself.
In fairness to Saskatchewan's Liberals, the convoluted process they've selected may not be all that much worse than any other system for choosing a leader. Some would argue it's actually far more democratic.
But the problem with their system is, it is particularly designed to produce intensively competitive battle for delegates in a short time-frame.
For a party already suffering from deep internal divisions, this may not be such a good thing.
In a period of slightly more than a month, the Liberals will hold 72 meetings (for 58 provincial constituencies and 14 federal ridings) to select their convention delegates. Each such meeting can select a maximum of 16 elected delegates (including four youth delegates) with five ex-officio delegates (the riding association president, the local MLA or candidate, a youth delegate, a woman delegate and an aboriginal delegate) receiving automatic status.
Besides these 1,512 delegates from the provincial and federal ridings (21 multiplied by 72), the party is giving Liberals with lifetime memberships (about 100) automatic delegate status. That means as many as 1,600-plus Liberals from across the province will vote for the new leader.
Or maybe not.
The process the Liberals have chosen, means as many as 1,152 elected delegates (16 multiplied by 72) automatically have their votes register for the first ballot.
The party is determining how these delegates vote by a separate vote at each of the 72 delegate selection meetings where each Liberal in attendance selects which leadership candidate he or she would support at the November convention.
For example, at the vote for the federal Yorkton-Melville riding last Thursday, it is believed that all 16 delegates selected to attend the convention were supporters for Ken Krawetz. However, Krawetz only got 80.3 per cent of the popular vote, compared with 10.2 per cent for Tom Hengen, and 4.7 per cent each for Jim Melenchuk and Gerard Aldridge.
Presuming that all 16 elected candidates (or their alternates) from Yorkton-Meville do show for the provincial leadership convention, their vote on the first ballot would be proportioned as follows: Krawetz, 12.8 of the 16 votes; Hengen, 1.6 of the 16 votes; Aldridge, .75 of a vote, and; Melenchuk, .75 of a vote.
The first problem will be the confusion (and additional reason for internal bickering) this system creates. Do you round each off to the nearest full vote? If so, isn't that 17 votes in the above example?
The next problem is, it might not be any more reflective of the delegate selection process. Even though the top 16 Yorkton-Melville delegates selected all supported Krawetz, he'll get only 13 will votes on the first and potentially only ballot. If all five ex-officio delegates (who are allowed to cast a vote as they see fit on the first leadership ballot) vote for other candidates, we have a scenario where Krawetz would have swept all the delegates from the riding, but only received 13 of 21 votes from those delegates on that first ballot.
Another problem is, this process may not be building either the interest or the base the party hoped. There will more than two meetings each and every day this month, so a lot of delegates will be selected at meetings where there will be few candidates and very little public interest.
At such events, it would be in the interests of a particular candidate to work towards ensuring only his or her supporters came out. That way, the candidate would have a better change of sweeping the delegates or winning the highest percentage of popular vote for the crucial first ballot.
It can be an exclusionary process. It can mean more backroom politicking.
Yet with each and every such nomination as important as the last, each riding will be fiercely contested one way or the other.
And that may lead to divisions that the Liberals just don't need.
The difference between patronage and cronyism is neither easily distinguishable nor of much significance to most of us.
The first, says Merriam-Webster, is "to make appointments to government jobs on a basis other than merit alone." The second is "the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications."
"Patronage" generally refers to the random doling out of jobs to party faithful. "Cronyism" usually implies rewarding personal buddies who may or may not be easily identifiable as political partisans.
But the two are remain basically interchangeable . . . or at least they do until something with such an appointment goes terribly wrong.
Immediately, those who have benefited from patronage quickly label the failure as a result of cronyism.
Which brings us to Tuesday's announcement that Ron Stengler is no longer Saskatchewan Gaming Corp.'s president and chief executive officer.
For the public consumption, Gaming Minister Joanne Crofford described the move as nothing more than the logical course of action for an emerging corporation. While Stengler was "a go-getter" who was the ideal person to get the Casino Regina up and running, a new person was needed to run it on a day-to-day basis.
A tactful response. Also, completely opposite from what many New Democrats in government are privately saying about why Stengler is gone.
"Just read the newspaper for the last six to eight months," grumbled one government-employed New Democrat. "It's actually kind of amazing that he's lasted this long."
Headlines related to the Regina Casino do tell the story. Initial profit projections of $20 million fall to $8 to $10 million. Profit projections further fall to $3.6 million. Undisclosed amount paid to Holland Casino said to be reason for profit loss. Employees allege racism at Regina Casino. Labor Board orders casino to rehire employee allegedly fired for union activity.
Opposition parties were quick to suggest Stengler has become the scapegoat for what has been bad cabinet policy. To a certain extent, they are right. Stengler can hardly be blamed for Economic Development Minister Dwain Lingenfelter's bold prediction the Regina Casino would make $20 million in its first year.
However, the volume and variety of problems -- labor issues, contract fights with the touring company, racism issues -- suggest there were problems with the casino's day-to-day administration.
Many New Democrats in government directly attribute this to Stengler and privately question how he got the job running the casino in the first place. "At this particular moment, everyone is denying responsibility," said one government official.
But how Stengler got where he was at the Gaming Corp. isn't , all that unique.
First hired by the Blakeney government in the 1970s, Stengler worked his way to the top of the PC administration hit list after its 1982 takeover partly because he had the audacity to attend a farewell party for other fired NDP executive assistants. (Politics is a cruel business.)
He went to Howard Pawley's NDP government in Manitoba then kicked around in the private sector before re-emerging in when Roy Romanow regain power in 1991.
While perhaps not demonstrably partisan, Stengler did have personal connections going back to his Blakeney days. One was current SaskEnergy president and former Romanow deputy Ron Clark. The other would be current executive council deputy Frank Bogdasavich.
Since returning to the Saskatchewan government, Stengler served in economic development and in executive council where he earned his reputation, as Crofford put it, as "a go-getter," (Some in the party would suggest "go-getter" is code for "bull in China shop.")
From there, he was promoted to head of the Gaming Corp. and the Regina Casino. Unfortunately, his tenure has been plagued by its inability to finesse its way through sensitive public issues.
Normally, government partisans rally around such trouble spots well past the bitter end. There collective survival depends on it.
But that hasn't happened in Stengler's case and the intriguing question is: Why?
There is one simple answer.
Stengler is seen more for his personal connections than party connections.
That, in itself, may have made party people less willing to rally around the casino's problems. To do so, would be an admission that such problems are what happen when appointments are patronage-based.
It's just better to label it something else. Cronyism, maybe?
Even if the difference between patronage and cronyism is hardly distinguishable.
An Open Letter to Eric Berntson, Saskatchewan Senator, Potential Defense Witness.
Dear Sir:
On behalf of the good people of Saskatchewan, thank you for your letter/faxed correspondence dated Oct. 11, 1996.
Imagine our surprise Friday upon receiving your letter after your failure to return telephone calls from reporters back here in Saskatchewan and a mere week after telling an Ottawa reporter from the Hill Times: "I having nothing to say. Not now. Not ever. I have no comment. That's all. That's the long and short of it. I have no comment. Period."
Evidently, "ever" isn't as long as I thought it was. (And I was engaged for eight years.)
In your aforementioned Oct. 11 correspondence, you indicate you received a court subpoena on Oct. 10 to appear as a defense witness for your former PC caucus colleague Michael Hopfner and you now want to "set the record straight" on your alleged reluctance to testify.
Your letter states you've been subpoenaed to appear as a witness at three previous trials and did in fact give evidence at John Scraba's trial (a fact that, admittedly, has been somewhat overlooked) and that "at no time was there any attempt made" to serve you with a subpoena for the Hopfner trial prior to Oct. 10.
Furthermore, you state that you have carried on your normal routine and "in no way, have I attempted to evade service of a subpoena."
Perhaps, sir, you could expand on your definition of what you view as attempting to evade being served with a subpoena.
We have been told that long before Hopfner's trial started Sept. 3, it was the defendant's wish that you testify in Regina on Sept. 17.
We know that Jay-Lynn Kalynchuk -- an employee with a Lloydminster accounting firm that is voluntarily helping Hopfner arrange the court appearances for the trial -- says she was told by the RCMP that they allegedly left messages at your home and office all last month. You, allegedly, never returned any of their alleged telephone calls.
We have also been told that Ms. Kalynchuk telephoned your Ottawa home directly the week of Sept. 9 and allegedly talked to your wife about whether you had received the subpoena.
Your wife, Ms. Kalynchuk alleges, responded that she would not take any messages for you and suggested Ms. Kalynchuk contact you at your office.
Your Oct. 11 letter further goes on to state that you have never "invoked the privileges" of a senator not to testify and that it is your full intention to co-operate with the court.
You explain that your Sept. 27 letter from your lawyer, Clyne Harradence, was merely informing Mr. Hopfner of the "privileges of a member of Parliament" in response to a "threat" made to your wife from an unknown alleged representative of Mr. Hopfner that an arrest warrant would be sought if you did not obey a subpoena.
You further say the Harradence letter was necessary because you were being "threatened with possible arrest" even though you hadn't been served with a subpoena.
The first problem, sir, is Ms. Kalynchuk insists that she never discussed an arrest warrant with your wife and only inquired whether you had received your subpoena.
Second, if both you and your wife were sincerely concerned about threats of arrest when Ms. Kalynchuk called in early September, you must have known they were trying to serve you with a subpoena. One might think your logical course of action would then have been to return your alleged messages from the RCMP and collect your subpoena.
Third, your belief that the Harradence letter did not leave the impression you were considering invoking your Parliamentary privilege seems a minority opinion. Presiding Justice Ross Wimmer stated at Hopfner's trial: "The (Harradence) letter implies (Berntson) will be claiming immunity."
In conclusion, sir, we are all about where we've been for the past month: Wondering, are you going to show up and testify or not?
To perhaps clarify this matter, Mr. Senator, perhaps you might consider writing another open letter to the people of Saskatchewan.
One that is, preferably, a little more open.
Yours sincerely,
Murray Mandryk
There are mixed signals coming from the party that wants to govern the province but has yet to convince us it can govern itself.
For the past two weeks, the five candidates vying for the job as Saskatchewan Liberal leader have debated in six forums across the province in the hopes of impressing potential delegates heading for the Nov. 22 and 23 convention. (That real process began in earnest Thursday night in Yorkton with the selection of the first delegates.)
These debates have been just what the doctor ordered for beleaguered Liberals.
They've given the party the opportunity to blue-sky about the direction of the province, with ample opportunity to take pot shots at both the NDP and PCs.
For example, at Wednesday night's forum in Saskatoon, Jim Melenchuk vowed he would repeal the Health Districts Act in an effort to restore decision-making at the local levels. New Democrats are so fat and arrogant they "can no longer be called a people's party" and the Conservatives are "so corrupt they don't deserve a moment of your thoughts," Melenchuk said.
Tom Hengen, a Saskatoon businessperson, offered his plan to help First Nations in Saskatchewan become self sufficient through mentoring programs and through aggressive marketing of Indian businesses. Hengen also proposed a margarine plant near Clavet's canola crushing facility, more uranium mining in the north and development of nuclear reactor components in the south, and the reverse of Saskatchewan's brain drain by marketing hospitals and universities outside Canada to generate revenue.
Canora-Pelly MLA Ken Krawetz offered to defend Saskatchewan people from an intrusive NDP government and swollen bureaucracy. Thunder Creek MLA Gerard Aldridge said he would create an excellent health system and stop off-loading on the municipalities while maintaining roads and streets. Humboldt MLA Arlene Jule stressed the need for greater moral conscience in government and lower taxes to keep business in the province.
Political cheap shots? Pie-in-sky ideas without the detail needed to make them credible? Perhaps.
But that's what leadership races are and should be about.
Even if such ideas are too off-the-wall, too right wing, too left wing or too incomplete, they are the fodder needed to get people talking about your party.
And the byproduct of interest and debate in your party is always support.
Were such philosophical debate the only thing going on in Liberal ranks, the forums would be an unqualified success.
Unfortunately for Grits, philosophical debate hasn't been the only thing emerging from the forums.
Also re-emerging is the party's tiresome clashes of personality politics that has kept the Liberals out of power for more than a quarter century now.
Real debate has often been overshadowed by the never-ending saga of former Liberal leader Lynda Haverstock.
The so-called Haverstock question came up in one form or the other at most of the six forums -- no more ugly than at Regina's forum where Jule suggested the time had come to apologize to the former leader for her treatment and give her back her membership.
Jule's proposal immediately drew fire from Aldridge's camp that's run by fellow caucus member Glen McPherson -- one of the key architects in Haverstock's demise. McPherson noted that Jule was one of the MLAs in the room who vowed not to sit under Haverstock's leadership after last year's confidence motion and wondered out loud how Jule could run a province if she couldn't figure out what was going on at a meeting.
More rifts. More tiresome petty, personal squabbles among Liberals.
Clearly, the problem in Liberal ranks has not stopped and started with Lynda Haverstock.
Personalities have often taken precedent over ideas in the Saskatchewan Liberal party and we see it carrying on today in some leadership camps where there is as much emphasis on who is supporting the candidate as the candidate's ideas.
We saw it in the stage-managed announcement where MLA Harvey McLane lent his support to Melenchuk. We see it from the Aldridge camp in daily press releases announcing every local Liberal who has come on board.
And as long as the candidates' lists of supporters -- those Liberal guidebooks to who gets along with whom -- are as important to Liberals as the candidates' ideas, the party is doomed to repeat the mistakes of its past.
As a gauge of political trends, it's important not to read too much into byelections.
But the way governments handle by-elections does say something about the administration of the day.
In the case of Premier Roy Romanow's NDP administration, byelections seem to indicate politics is a more subtly manipulative art than it was in former premier Grant Devine's days.
First, though, a caution to those who may think byelection results tell you a lot about a government's future:
The only byelection during Romanow's first term -- in February 1993 to fill John Solomon's Regina Northwest legislative seat -- turned into a colossal defeat for the NDP.
In what should have been a safe urban Regina seat, the NDP still couldn't get its vote out. What was even more amusing is Romanow's failure in Regina Northwest came despite flooding the doorsteps of the riding each night with umpteen political assistants who had just been guaranteed (and eventually got) ridiculously hefty raises.
But any thought that this signalled a trend disappeared when the general election votes were counted on June 21, 1995. Not only did Romanow's NDP win back this riding seat as part of its 42-seat majority -- it also took every urban seat in the province but one (Lynda Haverstock's in Saskatoon Greystone).
Similarly, byelections held during Grant Devine's 91Ž2-year administration didn't always forewarn us of what was about to happen.
But what was far more revealing about the Devine government, is what transpired after its last byelection in Assiniboia-Gravelbourg.
Voters in Kindersley and Indian Head-Wolseley hold the dubious distinction of going longer without political representation than any Canadians in post-war history. After Bob Andrew and Graham Taylor resigned from their respective seats in September 1989 to head foreign trade offices, the seats remained vacant for two years until the October 21, 1991 general election.
Even more ludicrous was the way Devine treated the most fundamental right of voters as nothing more than part of the political game. Whenever asked about the situation, all Devine would say is he had the right to call the election whenever he felt like it.
The byelections -- or lack thereof -- came to symbolize the contempt the PCs had for the process. The outrage we heard from Romanow was genuine.
In fact, he vowed that, when elected, he would passed legislation making it illegal for constituents to go any longer than six months without representation. Romanow's announcement Monday of the Nov. 19 byelection in North Battleford was making good on that promise.
But given what else we've seen from Romanow when it comes to this North Battleford byelection, it's not hard to conclude that he's just replacing Devine's political games with more sophisticated ones.
Let's begin with the news release announcing the byelection, where Romanow states:
"The people of this constituency are used to having a strong voice in government. This byelection gives them a choice between strong representation in government or another opposition representative. Saskatchewan has witnessed a spectacular comeback in the past five years. We have balanced the budget. Our economy has turned around. We've created 10,000 new jobs . . ."
Were this a speech or even material sent from Tommy Douglas House, we'd consider it rubbish propaganda.
That it came as a release from the "Government of Saskatchewan" produced at the expense of all taxpayers is a shameful abuse of power and possibly even a violation of the election laws.
(No government information is to go out to the riding during the byelection. North Battleford people can find this release on the Internet.)
It's also untrue. The government hasn't created 10,000 new jobs in the past five years. In Nov. 1991 when Romanow came to office the average size of the workforce that year was 458,000. In 1996 to date, the average size of the workforce has been less than 462,000 with the worst unemployment months still ahead.
But such blatant pro-government, pro-NDP propaganda from information services -- not run directly by political appointees from Romanow's offices -- is apparently acceptable these days.
So is arranging a Jackfish Lake cabinet retreat -- again, at substantial taxpayers' expenses when it could have been held in Regina at facilities in the legislature -- in the vicinity of the byelection so your ministers can campaign.
How governments handle byelections may tell you more than the result. And what the Romanow government is now telling us is the old political games of Devine's days are slightly more sophisticated.
Who is Tom Hengen and why do a lot of Liberals want him to be their leader?
And why -- by the time the second ballot is passed out at the Liberal convention on the afternoon of Nov. 23 -- will many other Liberals want anybody but Hengen?
Despite being in a virtual deadlock for first ballot support with well-known former Saskatchewan Medical Association president Jim Melenchuk (and well ahead of both high profile MLAs, Ken Krawetz and Gerard Aldridge), remarkably little is known about this guy. So let's begin with: Who is he?
A Saskatoon education consultant, former teacher and school superintendent, Hengen has a masters degree in school psychology from the University of Wisconsin (yes, he is definitely a Badger) and a doctorate in education from the University of Regina. A doctor's son, he was born in Broadview, but raised in Regina and Humboldt and studied in the Jesuit Order.
He stresses his longtime Liberal roots, drops Liberal names like former Liberal premier Bill Paterson -- a frequent supper table guest at the family's Regina home on Leopold Crescent, Hengen says. (Hengen's detractors have questioned whether he has been as committed to the party as he claims. They say he had very little role in the party until the latter days of former leader Lynda Haverstock.)
But Hengen maintains his own leadership platform comes directly from the 1994 grassroots input project known as the fault-tree analysis. He also says his campaign values are the essence of Liberalism. And he is acutely blunt when asked: Why should you be premier of Saskatchewan?
"Because a free-enterprise government with a social conscience is critically necessary," he explains. "The Liberal party is the only viable option in that regard.
"And Hengen is the only Liberal candidate who really understands what the broad-based membership of this party really wants."
Which brings us to the next question: Why do many Liberals want him as their leader?
His gravel-voice addresses to potential delegates has sounded like the right-wing Liberalism of Ross Thatcher -- a sentimental appeal to oldtime Liberals and a practical one to those who understand annihilation of the PC vote is the only way Grits can beat New Democrats in Saskatchewan. It also doesn't hurt that Hengen has specific economic policies like spin-offs in the nuclear industry and value-added processing in agriculture.
The first to jump into the leadership race, Hengen's organization has simply done a better job of getting his message out -- particularly in ridings beyond the Regina-Saskatoon corridor.
By convincing Humboldt MLA Arlene Jule to come on board when she withdrew from the leadership race, he's been able to stress social issues. Jule's presence has also fortified his message he is the candidate who wasn't directly involved in Haverstock's embarrassing ouster last year -- still a huge issue in Saskatoon and in many rural ridings.
Subtlety in this area, however, has not been Hengen's strength.
He has taken square aim at Melenchuk (for disloyalty to Haverstock ) and his "Regina cabal" -- the "secret society" of Regina lawyers that did in Haverstock and has been running the party from the backrooms for far too long.
It's a message many of the party's disenfranchised have listened to.
But it also partially answers the third question of: "Why will many Liberals be saying they want anybody but Hengen when the final leadership ballots are counted?"
Even before the first Liberal delegates were selected in Yorkton three weeks ago, Melenchuk and Krawetz forces were already half joking about combining forces to beat the brash, cocky Hengen.
Sources say it's no longer a half-joke.
Hengen's shots that Melenchuk is being run by Liberal backroom boys have infuriated those in other camps because: they feed the notion that the Liberal party is still divisive, and; they contain the ring of truth.
But the backroomers also note that Hengen seems to be a supporter of Haverstock only as far as it benefits his campaign. Hengen, too, has taken his swipes at Haverstock's leadership when that seems to be what his particular audience wants to hear, they say.
Who is Tom Hengen?
He is the guy that will finish either first or second on the first ballot. That likely makes him the guy the other camps will gang up to beat or the guy the party rank and file will rally around. In short, Tom Hengen is the guy the Liberal leadership race is revolving around.
Regardless of the outcome of his trial, we may owe former PC MLA Michael Hopfner a debt of gratitude.
This gratitude won't likely be for the credibility and good faith that Hopfner -- charged with helping the PC caucus defraud the taxpayers of $837,000, and with himself obtaining $57,348 in cash, through false expense claims -- is injecting back into our political system.
Reams of documented evidence presented by RCMP Insp. John Leitch suggest only a quarter of that $837,000 was spent on the intended purpose -- pooled advertising.
Some of it -- $240,000 in large bills -- was found in safety deposit boxes rented by already-convicted former caucus employee John Scraba. But some of it also made its way into the pockets of MLAs, Leitch contends. Hopfner's personal bank records show he deposited $60,000 in cash between 1987 and 1991. (In 1991, Hopfner deposited four $1,000 bills that were in sequential order with those found in Scraba's safety deposit box.)
Leitch also presented $464,670 worth of cheques signed by Hopfner as caucus whip -- cheques that enabled Scraba to withdraw cash from the PC caucus account.
How successful Hopfner will be at refuting this evidence will play a big role in whether Court of Queen's Bench Justice Ross Wimmer rules the ex-MLA is guilty or not guilty.
For his part, Hopfner has described himself as a victim -- albeit, a "gullible and naive" one -- in a scam run by Scraba.
Even if so, this won't exactly be a faith builder for the electorate.
But where Hopfner may have actually provided the Saskatchewan people with a huge public service is through the somewhat gratuitous testimony that is emerging from his trial -- information that might not have otherwise come out without a costly judicial inquiry.
For this, we should also be thankful for the Job-like patience of Justice Wimmer.
Hopfner has represented himself throughout this proceeding, saying he cannot afford a lawyer. (He applied for a court appointed lawyer, but another judge turned him down, noting the ex-MLA had $34,000 in disposable income.)
Because Hopfner is representing himself, however, Justice Wimmer has allowed Hopfner latitude that might not be afforded a defense lawyer.
The net result is that testimony at Hopfner's trial has sometimes veered away from the specific charges against him into other areas, leading to testimony about what may have been going on in the PC caucus.
Most significantly, during former Rosthern MLA Ralph Katzman's testimony last month, we heard that $455,000 was transferred in December 1985 from the PC caucus account to a bank in Martensville. (What was left of that account that didn't go to pay for party polling -- $69,139 -- was transferred to Katzman's personal account at the bank in December 1986. That amount has suddenly been returned to the Saskatchewan taxpayers.)
There was testimony of a "dirty tricks squad" of caucus whose job it was to discredit Roy Romanow, who then led the Opposition, in any way possible.
(Some of the named members of the squad have confirmed the existence of the squad.)
We also heard of the alleged involvement in the fraud of everyone from former premier Grant Devine, to other MLAs, to caucus staff and government employees in the fraud.
(In fact, the police have even asked some of Hopfner's witnesses to make further statements.)
Heck, Hopfner even got Senator Eric Berntson on the witness stand.
As Senator Dave Tkachuk rightfully pointed out, such accusations from some of Hopfner's witnesses -- particularly, given their own records and court admissions -- can hardly be taken as the gospel.
But what we have heard under oath at the Hopfner trial is also what likely would have emerged -- more or less -- from an inquiry.
If more charges result, it will have served the same purpose.
And not only has it come at considerably less cost, but it's been far more timely.
Given that inquiries like the one into Nova Scotia's Westray mine could not be held until after the criminal charges were dealt with, who knows when we could have held such an inquiry into the past Tory caucus? Who knows what good it would have done by then?
How much a lot of this testimony has had to do with the actual charges against Hopfner is questionable.
But if anything good is coming out of the Hopfner trial, this testimony may be it.
| Back to Archive Index |
 |
Go to Leader-Star November 1996 Archive |
| Regina City Beat | Features & Columns | Sports | Connections | Customer Service |
| Prairie Mall |
Wellness | Business Link |
Classifieds | 'Rider News |
LP OnLine Index |