Saskatchewan Developer Claims System Encourages Corruption
- The Saskatchewan Legislature across Wascana Lake
This story is rather shocking to people who expect that it’s a crime to give a government employee favours or gifts in order to obtain a government permit. The claim by Mr. Lee laid out on his web page, is that a Minister in the Calvert government suggested that if Lee hadn’t done something to sour his personal relationship with a particular RM Administrator, then Lee’s zoning problem would have had a better chance of being resolved.
[The Minister] ruled that my only option, as the [developers’] agent, was to “carry more flowers, chocolates and perfume” to [Rural Municipality Administrator] Strudwick so as to be “more successful with the zoning issue”.
[All] small developers are placed in a impossible situation. I repeat, the Minister Responsible and all three levels of Court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have ruled that the only option the Developers have to obtain zoning for their subdivision is to “carry flowers, chocolates and perfume” to the Rural Administrators and Councils but it is a contravention of Section 123(1) MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION of the Criminal Code to carry “a benefit of any kind” to a Municipal official, and the Premier of Saskatchewan has refused to deal with the problem […]
I’d encourage you to read Lee’s web page, even though it’s a bit long. It’s not a difficult read. It explains the background to the story, and what has been tried to resolve it through the politicians, courts of Saskatchewan, and Canada.
Are Administrators and other government officials now entitled to token gifts before they rubber stamp our building permits? It appears to me that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this is the case, even though it’s still on the books as being illegal.
–
I came to know of this story because one of the government entities involved in the land development was where I grew up, and still have family who live there.
Sphere: Related Content![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
July 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Saskboy - I am glad that you posted this. It is an amazing story because I follow the MSM closely on Saskatchewan issues and this is pretty much the first I have heard of this. Considering that it got to the supreme court of Canada I am doubly surprised that nothing came up in the Leader Post of Star Phoenix.
You will also recall there was quite a bit of conflict in another RM - the RM of Sherwood, where the Prov. Gov’t had to call a byelection because of ongoing paralysis on the Council.
It seems to me that part of the problem here is that RM councils should not have dictatorial powers to decide about subdivision, etc. From the one court ruling, it seems the the legislation may be giving far too much discretion to a Reeve.
As for the allegation that a Minister told Lee to ‘bribe’ the Reeve, I tend to agree with the SCOC that this is not what the Minister was suggesting - but it does show that under the existing legislation, the Minister, the courts and the Legislature have given sweeping powers to the local governments to determine their future expansions or lack of expansions. I personally agree with local govenment having the final say in these matters. If a town or an RM do not want expansion, that should be their call.
Look at Maple Creek as an example. Decades ago, they decided that they did NOT want the Trans Canada highway to go thru their community WHILE Medicine Hat Alberta decided they DID want the highway to run thru. Maple Creek is quite small based on their own desires for their community. Medicine Hat is huge for the same reason.
Saskboy, I am glad you brought this forward. I still need to think about this complicated issue a bit more.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Note that while the hold up in the approval of development was taking place, the law was different, due to a change implemented by the NDP/Liberal coalition government. The change was an effort to allow developers to find a municipal government willing to proceed with approval, and that municipality would do an “end run” around the municipal government causing the hold up. The friendly municipality would annex the land, and it would then be governed by them instead. The SCOC didn’t seem to understand that was the purpose of the law.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:11 pm
It’s unfortunate that there’s such an accountability deficit in many of the RMs. The fact that the provincial government undermines many RMs ability to carry out their responsibilities by raiding their tax base aside, there needs to be some sort of oversight.
Perhaps the citizens of RMs with particularly serious problems need to start forming watchdog committees.