April 16, 1984

April 16, 1984
The Assembly met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
ORAL QUESTIONS
Tender Price for Highways Equipment
MR. LUSNEY: -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Premier of Saskatchewan. Mr.
Premier, my question is regarding your continuous statements of how this government is, and it has to
do with some of the questions relating to last Friday, in estimates, to the Minister of Supply and
Services, where we tried to get some answers, and he continuously, for about two and a half hours,
refused to answer.
Could the Premier at this point tell the House as to whether Brown’s Auction Rooms of Regina, the
people who received the contract for selling off the highways equipment, the equipment belonging to the
people of Saskatchewan, was this bid the lowest of the 47 that was received by the Minister of Supply
and Services or by your government?
HON. MR. DEVINE: -- Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Supply and Services knows much
more about the details with respect to tenders that come in than I do. I would be glad to let him respond
to the question and, I think, this is rather irregular anyway with respect to question period.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, surely, or am I
wrong, do you not know what was given, or what the tender price was of Brown’s Auction Rooms for
the sale of all of this public equipment, the Department of Highways equipment? Do you not know what
the tender price was?
HON. MR. DEVINE: -- Mr. Speaker, I can only talk in general about tenders, and maybe that’s what
the hon. member wants me to do. When we have something for sale, we ask people to submit tenders,
and we look at the qualifications of the individuals, which means their experience, their reputation, the
kinds of things that they can do for how much money, and the quality of their staff, the quality of the
program, the price, and the whole works.
When we finally decide on any one of these, we make the decision on the best judgement to look after
whatever it is we’re marketing on behalf of the public sector, and I’m sure that was the case in this
instance.
MR. LUSNEY: -- A question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, I totally agree with you there are many other
considerations to be made in it. But along with the other considerations, what is the tender price, or the
bid price of, or the commission which will be charged by Brown’s Auction Rooms for selling the
highway equipment?
HON. MR. DEVINE: -- Mr. Speaker, if I’m not mistaken, what was involved in this situation was a
proposal call which is different than a tender. Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall . . . We have a lot of tenders,
Mr. Speaker. I don’t recall all the details of any one particular tender. I don’t do that day in and day out.
Like I said, the minister responsible – you’ve had the opportunity to visit with him, and you can
continue to talk to him with respect to questions on those kinds of details, so I would refer to . . .
(inaudible) . . .
MR. LUSNEY: -- Well, Mr. Premier, since this is, as you say, a proposal, if I understood you, which it
is, would you not agree that the people of Saskatchewan are entitled to know what it is going to cost
them to sell off their equipment through an auction process on the 16th and 17th of May? Do you not
agree that the people of Saskatchewan are entitled to know what it is going to cost them and, therefore,
along with the other criteria, they should be entitled to know what the percentage is that they will be
charged for selling that equipment?
HON. MR. DEVINE: -- Mr. Speaker, I believe that . . . I believe this is a reasonable estimates question,
because I don’t have all the details. The estimates of the minister responsible are coming up after
question period. He can provide the information.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Well, Mr. Premier, we have tried the same questions for two and a half hours. Would
you not, at this point, tell the people of Saskatchewan, since the Minister of Supply and Services refuses
to tell the people of Saskatchewan what it is going to cost them – a simple answer – what it is going to
cost them to sell their equipment through the auction process on May 16 and 17?
HON. MR. DEVINE: -- Mr. Speaker, maybe I can come at it another way. With respect to doing things
in the public sector versus the private sector, there’s clearly a difference in our administration over the
previous administration. We are trying to provide as many opportunities as possible in the private sector,
whether it’s in roads or whether it’s in transportation or whatever it may be.
So when you start to looking at the costs, obviously we are downsizing government under our
administration, where formerly they were making it larger. We’re trying to make it smaller. As a result,
Mr. Speaker, we will be selling some things like equipment that we don’t have.
As a result, we will be saving money, we will be building more roads for the same amount of money,
and so forth. So what he wants to know what it costs, it costs much less under our system than it did
under theirs.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- I have a question for the Premier with respect to the policy of his
government with respect to employing private sector auctioneers. He has outlined that it is the policy of
his government to sell goods at auction by using private sector auctioneers. I’m not aware that any other
policy has ever been followed, but that’s his policy.
With respect to that, he indicates that either tenders were called, or proposals were called, in order to
select an auctioneer. He indicates that one auctioneer was selected and will be recompensed. Will the
Premier indicate whether he and his government are willing to indicate on what basis the successful
auctioneer selected will be remunerated?
HON. MR. DEVINE: -- Mr. Speaker, we are asking for proposal calls and tenders on various things –
from highways to equipment to roads to whatnot. Right? On the specific details of a particular tender or
proposal call, I have to refer to the ministers responsible because I don’t have that kind of information.
So I will refer that question, with respect to this proposal call to the minister who is responsible.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry, I clearly didn’t make my
question clear. I was not asking what remuneration is going to be paid to Brown’s Auction. I wasn’t
asking that. I was asking whether or not, as a matter of policy, your government is prepared to reveal,
prepared to tell the public, what it pays to Brown’s Auction if it selects it as the successful auctioneer.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks a very specific question from
a very specific department. Certainly it should be clear that I would answer that as the minister
responsible. The criteria, as I said on Friday in the estimates of this department, the criteria upon which
the proposals were evaluated were the following: the management plan submitted by the auctioneer; the
experience of the auctioneer; the advertising plan, which is very important in this area as well; the
commission; and the Saskatchewan content. Those were the five criteria under which each of the
proposals was evaluated.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the question just answered by the
Minister of Supply and Services in which he outlined the criteria for selection of the successful
auctioneer. The auctioneer has been selected. These criteria have been applied. Would he kindly advise
the House, just with respect to one of them, what commission rate was included in the criteria which you
accepted to handle this very major auction?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- No, Mr. Speaker. I said that the five criteria, all of them being a package – the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that – the five are all in a package. The commission rate is one of
the five. And the whole package in terms of evaluation of the proposal had to be taken in conjunction
with each other; and they were, and the commission rate was a part of that and continues to be that. And
I might add as well, Mr. Speaker, I said that all of the proposals, when the proposal call went out, they
were all told, all 47 people who submitted proposals were told, that the details of their proposals will be
kept confidential, and they will be.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Speaker, I ask another supplementary. I’m not quite sure whether I
understood the minister, but is he saying that he called for tenders, or at least proposals, and that he gave
the assurance that all of the proposals would be kept confidential, not only the unsuccessful ones, which
is common enough, but even the successful one? And here, in effect, you have selected someone to do
business on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, and you are unwilling to give even any details
as to the basis on which you have employed this person?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Speaker, I have given . . . I have said to the Leader of the Opposition that
these five criteria were decided. These five criteria were the criteria under which the proposals were
evaluated. All of these five are important, all of these five are important. And as the Leader of the
Opposition, I gave this example to some of your colleagues on Friday. If you would, for example, take
the commission rate only, and someone on your side – and I don’t believe this to be the case, but it may
well be – but some of your colleagues would suggest that the only criteria under which an auctioneer
should be selected is on the basis of commission rate.
AN HON. MEMBER: -- Who suggested that?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- You did. As I would say to you, that all five criteria are important. The
commission rate is one of the five. It was part of the whole package, and continues to be that.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Given that the minister says that all five
criteria are important, would he equally agree that all five criteria are now, for that particular applicant,
public, or ought to be public?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The five criteria, Mr. Speaker, are important. The five criteria, because of the
way in which we dealt with the proposal., we said that the proposal to all of the proponents, we said to
all of them: your proposals will be kept in strictest confidence. They have been, and they will be.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well you will find out after the sale is on. And I invite
you to go to the sale. It will be an absolutely excellent sale. We are selling a lot of equipment that the
Government of Saskatchewan should probably never have owned in the first place. There was a surplus
of equipment. You believe in big government. We believe in smaller government. We say we must sell
it. The Department of Supply and Services is in place to dispose of surplus equipment, surplus materials,
that we found in this government, and we are doing that. We are doing it in a responsible way. And I’ll
rest my case, Mr. Speaker.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We have heard from the minister a great list
of the things in which he believes. Does he believe that if somebody is hired to perform services on
behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, and the contract is made, that the public are entitled to know
the basis on which he is employed, and the basis on which he will be remunerated, whatever the criteria
may be?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The Leader of the Opposition full well knows . . . Other examples, individual
lease space costs, and so on, never ever were made public by your government, aren’t by our
government, for obvious reasons in dealing with the marketplace out there. You know that’s the case. It
was in your government’s case. It still remains that in our case.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister asserting that he ought not to
make public the basis upon which this auction firm has been employed by the public of Saskatchewan,
and that there’s some valid reason, some valid reason for keeping secret the basis on which he is going
to pay Brown’s?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I have made clear, Mr. Speaker, the basis upon which the auctioneer was
selected – those five criteria. I have made it very clear. Those are the criteria we decided on. The best
proposal, taking into consideration all of those five, was chosen. That auctioneer will be conducting the
sale on the 16th and 17th of May. It will be an excellent sale.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make public the proposal
which he accepted – all five criteria, all five that were met by this successful applicant who is going to
be paid by the public? Will he make public the proposal which he accepted, or does he propose to
continue to keep it secret?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I will not make the proposal call public, Mr. Speaker, because all of the
proposals, when they were submitted, all of the proponents were told it would be in strictest confidence,
and it will be that. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the successfully bidder – the
successful auctioneer, who is a licensed auctioneer in Saskatchewan and has been an auctioneer in this
province for a long time – are you suggesting they are unable to do this sale? Is that what the Leader of
the Opposition is saying, Mr. Speaker?
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Speaker, I thought my suggestions were fairly obvious, and they were
that the particular auctioneer was going to be paid, and that we, as an opposition, and we, representing
the public, were entitled to know what he was going to be paid. And I ask you again: are you prepared to
say what you’re going to pay this firm, or are you going to continue to keep it secret?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Speaker, when the sale is over, the sale will be extremely successful on
the basis of these things. We’re confident of that. The Leader of the Opposition will see the success of
that sale when it’s held, and he will know. And that’s all I can say about it any more at this time.
Increased Railway Costs Passed to Farmer
MR. ENGEL: -- Mr. Speaker, I’d like to pursue a new question. This morning in the news we heard
that the railway companies are proposing to pass on the increased costs that they’re facing to the farmer.
In your budget you suggested that the farmer was going to be helped, and I’m concerned, I’m concerned,
Mr. Minister of Agriculture: did you know, before you levied that 8-cent a litre tax on locomotives, did
you know beforehand that they could, because of Bill C-155, pass all this cost on to the farmer? Did you
know that before you levied that tax?
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- Mr. Speaker, the sources that this government gets its revenue from are
wide and varied, and that is only one of them and, quite frankly, I would much rather see the
Government of Saskatchewan getting revenues from big business, if you like, and large corporations
who are better equipped to handle it, rather than off the backs of the farmers.
MR. ENGEL: -- Are you saying, Mr. Minister, did you . . . I asked you the question: did your lawyers
or your department, before you levied that tax, check to see whether that cost – those increased costs –
would all be passed on to the farmers? Did you check that or didn’t you? – is our first question.
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- I have no knowledge of any consultations with lawyers relative to any of
the revenue aspects of the budget, quite frankly.
MR. ENGEL: -- Mr. Speaker, I’m really impressed with this minister. They are saying that they have
help for the farmers in Saskatchewan -- $19 million worth of revenue that they’re charging to the
locomotives for tax is going to be passed on to the farmer. And you’re standing up in this House and
saying you didn’t check and see if that cost would be passed on to the farmer? Did you check it?
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- Mr. Speaker, is so far as what may or may not be passed on to the
Saskatchewan farmer will remain to be seen, and there are processes in place to check that. In so far as
what I want to see passed on to this farmer is zero in terms of increased transportation costs. At the same
time, I realize that we do need an efficient rail transportation system. What we expected of the federal
government was outlined in debates in this House which your members supported in so far as our nine-
point resolution, and that would continue to be our position.
MR. ENGEL: -- This morning, Mr. Minister, the railway companies both said they were passing on that
8-cent a litre fuel tax directly to the rail lines affected. They have that right, according to the bill. You
are levying $19 million from the railways, and you’re not levying it from the railways for your budget.
You’re levying it from the farmers of Saskatchewan, in the name of helping farmers.
Is this the stance your government is taking, that the farmers are supposed to not only cough up the
increased rail freight rates that we lost because of the Crow rate, but an additional $19 million this year
for your fuel tax?
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- No, and there are regulatory agents, as the member full well knows,
regulatory agencies that look at whatever the railways propose in terms of asking for increased revenue.
MR. ENGEL: -- The act is clear. In the railway and The Transportation Act the minister can read the
act that eligible costs can be passed on in the crop year that they are incurred. Read sections 29 or
section 30, section 40. Have you never read the railway act and the act in bill C-155? Haven’t you read
that act?
You have in your budget, in your budget in the name of helping the farmers, have added another $19
million bill. How are you going to compensate the farmer for that? You’ve transferred the fuel tax from
the railways direct to the farmers that are affected on the branch lines, and on the rail lines in
Saskatchewan on grain. And we’re picking up that tab for your mismanagement. And you are saying
that you didn’t even check that out before you increased the bill? That’s my question.
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- No, we have not put any additional burden on the Saskatchewan farmers,
and yes, there is a regulatory agency called the CTC (Canadian Transport Commission) that looks at
that.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Minister, would you not agree that
that fuel tax, that additional $19 million, is definitely going to have some effect on all the farmers of
Saskatchewan in this coming crop year when they have an increase in freight rates? Would you not
agree that this is going to be passed on to the farmers?
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- As I’ve mentioned previously, and I’ll say it again, there’s a regulatory
agency that looks at the railways’ costs, investments, what they expect for return, and makes a
judgement based on that. And if they’re doing their job, certainly we should expect not to see
Saskatchewan farmers get ripped off.
MR. LUSNEY: -- A question, Mr. Minister. Mr. Minister, do you not agree that in the act the agency
that has the powers to enforce increases will also consider, or has the power through the act to consider,
increased cost to the railways which will, in turn, be passed on to the farmers through increased freight
rates? Do you not agree that this is what will be done, because that is what’s listed in the act?
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- This is not a new tax, I would suspect the hon. members would know. It’s
been there for some good long time. And I wonder whose side are you on – the railways’ or the farmers?
Make your point, and make it clear, so the people of Saskatchewan, and the farmers of Saskatchewan
understand where you’re coming from.
MR. LUSNEY: -- New question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Minister, would you
not also agree that every time that fuel tax is increased, that all it is doing is passing that cost on to the
farmer, because the railways will not pick it up themselves? Would you not agree that the railways are
not going to accept the additional costs without passing that on to the commodity that they haul?
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- What I have read recently, and I don’t recall the exact numbers, but it
seems to me that in recent . . . in fact, in the last week, I may have read somewhere that the railway had .
. . CN had $241 million in profits. Are you trying to tell me that the tax there is unfair, given that profit
picture and, in fact, that there is no regulatory agency place to examine that scenario?
MR. ENGEL: -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. New question. The minister suggests that we are trying to
defend the railways. That’s what you’re suggesting. And the minister knows full well that we’re the only
ones that took a stance on what the Crow rate should be, and you allowed that Crow rate to change. My
question, Mr. Speaker is: you didn’t seek any legal opinion; you didn’t check out whether that cost
would be passed on to the farmer. Do you think that the protection of Saskatchewan family farmers
wasn’t your role? Are you saying that to these people, that it’s not your role to decide that you can pass
on a $19 million tax increase on fuel to the railways? And they, in turn, because of the provisions in
their new act, can pass every cent of increase on to the farmer, and every time the railway passes on an
increase, we get stuck with it double fold.
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- Mr. Speaker, this government gets revenues from several sources and, in
fact, in the last budget we increased taxes on fuel for the air lines; as well, increased taxes on liquor. We
increased taxes on cigarettes and cigars and, unfortunately, even chewing tobacco. Now if the hon.
member is suggesting that we should raise revenues by taxing farmers and small-business men in the
face of profits by the railways in the hundreds of millions of dollars, then I would suggest that you are
sadly out of touch with the realities out there.
Minimum Wage Survey
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. And it has to do
with minimum wage and the minimum wage survey which he conducted, details of which were revealed
last Friday and on which occasion, as I understood the record, he indicated that there would be yet
another survey this summer. My question to the Minister of Labour is this: do you propose to take any
action to review the levels of minimum wage before you complete this second survey of employees that
you referred to would take place this summer or this fall?
HON. MR. McLAREN: -- Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s our intention to get all the data from our surveys in
place, first, to determine what, if any, move we should be making on the minimum wage. I want to have
the facts first, and when we have the facts we’ll make that decision.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Initial Grain Price
HON. MR. HEPWORTH: -- Mr. Speaker, in light of the initial prices which were announced last
Friday, I would like to inform you and through you, the members of the Legislative Assembly, that I
have sent the following telex to the federal Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Eugene Whelan, and it
reads:
The across-the-board reductions and Canadian Wheat Board initial prices for the ‘84-85 crop year which were announced last Friday are unwelcome news for Saskatchewan’s 67,000 farmers, their families, and communities. The announcement has put further strain on hard-working farmers already caught in the cost-price squeeze. To help improve the situation of farmers I ask you and your cabinet and government colleagues to remove immediately the federal taxes on farm fuels. This action will result in savings of thousands of dollars for farmers. This relief is vitally needed as farmers enter seeding season. The Government of Saskatchewan has advocated the removal of these taxes for some time, but the announcement of reduced initial prices and the removal of the taxes is more essential than ever. In additional, our government requests that farmers receive an immediate pay-out from the Western Grains Stabilization Fund. The fund now totals, as all hon. members know, nearly $1 billion, and one-third of that money came from farmers’ pockets. We firmly believe that farmers should have an immediate pay-out from the fund for which they have made such a significant contribution. Action by your government in these areas would greatly improve the cash-flow positions of Saskatchewan farmers. These are urgent matters, and I urge you to act now. I offer to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss the pressing need for these changes. It was signed by myself. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is little need to elaborate further, except
to point out that our government is continuing to pressure the federal government to assist this province'’
farmers. We have stood up and spoken for Saskatchewan farmers in the past; we are doing it now, and
we will do it in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ENGEL: -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is fine time that the minister finally stood up after
a little prodding, a little prodding, and after the fact. We had a resolution in this House where this very
same motion was debated. We said in view of the news report, “– suggested an imminent federal
government decision.” We suggested that we act urgently. We just did this on April 10.
Today the minister is reading off a telex that I sent him a copy of, that is line for line for what I did back
on April 8, last Tuesday. The minister knows that he’d better come out with a statement today because
$10 million of it in your tax the farmer’s picking up. You said you’re taxiing the railroad. The farmers
are picking up that tax for hauling their grain. It’s part of the act that you had passed.
It’s more essential than ever that the minister get in there and start crying for farmers. It’s time you stand
up, but I’d suggest you stand up before the fact rather than after the fact, when you know it’s happening.
I suggest you not only wait for Mr. Argue and the guy with the green hat to come down to Saskatchewan
but you get to Ottawa and you start negotiating with the railways and say, “There’s no way you’re going
to pass on that increased tax to farmers,” because $19 million is a lot of money.
MR. SPEAKER: -- Order. The member is not speaking to the point that was raised in the ministerial
statement.
MR. ENGEL: -- Mr. Speaker, I am summing up what the minister spoke, into one nutshell, and that is
increased cost to farmers. He’s looking at a pay-out of the stabilization fund. We’ve suggested that
should be happening. I think that’s important that he deal and use his office to get down to Ottawa and
negotiate some deals for the farmers of Saskatchewan, that they can get back on their land, and that we
can get out and do our seeding and have some money to operate with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 48 – An Act to amend The Marriage Act
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Health, I move first reading of
a bill to amend The Marriage Act.
Motion agreed to and the bill ordered to be read a second time at the next sitting.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
ADJOURNED DEBATES
MOTIONS
Referral of Motion to Standing Committee on Estimates

That the estimates and supplementary estimates for the Legislative Assembly, being subvotes 1-3, 6-7, 17, and 20-23 of vote 21, be withdrawn from the Committee of Finance and referred to the Standing Committee on Estimates. Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE OF FINANCE
CONSOLIDATED FUND BUDGETARY EXPENDITURE
SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Ordinary Expenditure – Vote 13
Item 1 (continued)
MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Mr. Chairman, again in question period we attempted to get from the
Premier of the province, and from the minister, an explanation as to why a certain auctioneering
company was given a contract for one of the largest auction sales in the history of the province, by the
government’s own admission. And we’re not questioning whether this firm should get it or not.
I think some questions have been raised by auctioneers I have talked to on the weekend as to whether or
not this firm, who has not carried out a major heavy equipment auction, should have been the firm to get
the contract or not. I think that debate is not what we’re talking about at the moment.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, what we are questioning is the right of the government to allocate, and
to give a major contract in the area, well, at least in excess of $1 million to one firm, and not disclose to
the other people who have bid and to the public why, in fact, this firm was successful. I think that it
raises a great number of questions about the tendering process of this government, especially in light of
the fact that the minister earlier on in the discussion told u unequivocally, that in no case was anything
other than the low bid accepted by his department.
Mr. Minister, I wonder whether, over the weekend, you have had an opportunity to talk to some of the
public, and other auctioneers – the other 46 who have put in bids and spent a good deal of money getting
together a proposal, in some cases in the area of 2 or $3,000 that they had spent getting their proposal
ready for your department, only to be told that not only were they not successful, but the government
was not going to release any of the detail of the successful bidder.
And I say to you, Mr. Minister, that you’re comparing it to the rental of leased space by the government,
and the amount paid per square foot simply isn’t a comparison that should be made, because you will
know that this sale is one of a kind that will happen probably this year, and that the amount you pay will
not reflect on any other auction sales that your department will hold. And I will ask you once again, Mr.
Minister, to come clean on this issue. Why is it that you’re being secretive and not telling the public of
Saskatchewan what the amount of the tender was, and what the conditions of the tender were, so that
other auctioneers will know, in fact, why they were refused in this process?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the hon. members persist, and this suggestion that he keeps on
saying what the amount of the proposal was, the amount of the tender I’ve pointed out on I don’t know
how many occasions, but certainly numerous occasions on Friday, and again this afternoon, and here
again now, that there are . . . all of the criteria that were taken into consideration. I said as well, the other
day, that we have each of the proponents that puts in his proposal, is basing his proposal on the basis of
their own experience and the basis of business practice that they’ve been into for an awful long time.
And we said that these proposals will be kept in the strictest confidence, and they should be, and they
will continue to be.
The former government operated in a very similar way. No question about it. All of these things –leased
space, proposal calls for leased space – exactly the same situation. We do the same thing. Proposals calls
for option to purchase leased space – systems acquisition – comparative evaluations of systems
acquisitions where you’ve got the details in computer systems and so on – proposal calls in the same
format. Commissions for design of buildings – the same format altogether. Because, let’s take that one
for an example, commission of an architect for the design of a building. Those designers put their
proposals forward on the basis of their best experience and so on, and we choose the best one that comes
forward.
Why would we make that public? And no architects would ever ask us to make their proposals public,
whether they’re successful or unsuccessful. They would be very, very disappointed —well, disappointed
is saying the very least – in a government that would do business in such a way. We continue to operate
in that way, and its’ a reasonable way to operate. And this auction sale, and the selection of an
auctioneer on the basis of a proposal, will follow in that same vein.
MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Mr. Chairman, over the weekend I talked to an engineer – or not an
engineer, but an auctioneer – who has had experience in selling not only some heavy equipment, but a
good deal of agricultural equipment. And he was listening to the five points that you outlined. And he
said the tendering process is very important. But part of the tendering process is letting the people know
afterwards, so they know what they did wrong, how they failed to get the contract.
And sure, you have five main points. But they would like to know how this company advertises better
than some of the other people. They would like to know, based on experience, how an auctioneer who
has no experience – and you say this is one of your criteria – how an auctioneer who has no experience
in heavy equipment outweighed some of the auctioneers who have years and years of experience in that
area.
And some of them are saying that they believe that their tender, in terms of the other criteria, that is, the
percentage that they will be getting on the auction, was actually lower than the successful bidder. And
there’s many auctioneers who are saying that in every one of the criteria their bids were better.
How are you going to prove to them, how are you going to prove to the public and to the other
auctioneers if you keep it a secret? They say that on every one of the five criteria their bid was better.
And you’re saying: we’re not going to tell anyone whether they were better or not – its’ a secret.
And I say to you, Mr. Minister, that that’s unfortunate, and you should come clean on this and tell how
this company was better than the other 46 auctioneers in each of those five criteria that you have
proposed.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, I’m sure that a number of the 46 proponents who are, were not
successful, believe that their bids were better. That’s the case in a great number of things that this
department deals with. Those who lose the tender, or lose the bid, believe that their proposals were best.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there has never been, by the purchasing agents of our department, a refusal. In fact
we have encouraged auctioneers and we will, through the purchasing agency, we’ll talk to individual
auctioneers in the same way that we did prior. We’ll talk to them on a confidential basis. We’ll talk to
them about why they didn’t win the proposal call. That’s not a problem. That’s always been the practice,
and it will continue to be.
So for the hon. member from Shaunavon, or any other hon. member sitting across there, to stand up and
say he’s speaking on behalf of this auctioneer or that auctioneer who can’t find out why they didn’t win
the bid, it is not the case because the individual auctioneer or the individual proponent can come into our
agency, as they did with their bid, as they did with their proposal, and hear about why they didn’t win
the proposal. But they will not – I repeat that – in that process they will not get the copy of the
successful bid. And if they had won it, any one of the individuals had won the bid, had won the
proposal, they wouldn’t like it to take all of the years of experience of their business practices and have
it out to their competition. This is what they put in there.
The point is, it does have the experience. It does have, and will run a . . . (inaudible) . . . sale, has the
best proposal there. Good and competent people have chosen them, and I’ll stand by that, as I said the
other day.
MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Mr. Chairman, you’re saying that the other auctioneers don’t have as much
experience as Brown Auctions who were successful in this competition, and I say that Brown’s Auction
Rooms, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, are not experienced in handling of heavy equipment.
And the reason that many auctioneers are saying that there is a scam going on here, Mr. Minister, is
because of your refusal to say why Brown Auction rooms got the bid, when what they’re in the habit of
auctioning when he was still working (he’s now retired), but when he was an auctioneer the things that
he auctioned were household effects: bedroom suites, chesterfields – and I say that he was an expert in
that area. But when you’re trying to explain that a retired furniture salesman is the best person in the
province to auction off heavy equipment, you’re insulting the integrity of the intelligence of the people
of Saskatchewan and the other auctioneers who bid.
Mr. Minister, we’re going to spend some time on this because I have here in the annual report, 1982-83
of your department, list after list of the tendering process where you give out very detailed information
on the bidding process. And I have one here, for example, on the Teachers College Day Care Centre
renovations, and it lists out six different companies that bid on that project. It lists them out in order of
the amount of the bid, and it says that Scantec Development of Saskatoon awarded $75,999. In the high
bids, Smith Bros and Wilson, Ltd., of Saskatoon, $88,888. And in between there are four other tenders,
and it’s made public, and it’s printed in your annual report.
Mr. Minister, we’re not talking here about 88,000. We’re talking in the area of $2 million or $3 million
of taxpayers money. And I think that it’s an important issue on principle, as well as in fact, that you
come clean on this and tell us why this company got the bid.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, I explained the other day and I will again, the difference. The
hon. member in his references to the various lists that he’s reading form, from a former annual report, is
quoting from tender lists, lists of successful bids in the tendering process, in the tendering process.
Okay? And I pointed out very clearly the other day the very difference between the tendering process
and the proposal.
A tender is given to the low bidder if they meet very specific specifications, in the case of building a
building or whatever. That’s true, and it still remains the case within this department. It was the case
under your department. Proposals, which is the case under this department now, and was the case under
the former department of government services, and supply and services under the former administration;
proposals where there are many factors to be considered, not necessarily only the low price – many other
factors. Proposals are kept in confidence. Those are the things that were done before with proposals.
Those are the things that are done now with proposals.
A couple of examples that I gave on Friday, I will give them again: computer systems, a very detailed
and complex industry; computer systems and the purchase of -- proposals go out for that, because it’s
very, very difficult as the hon. member, I would think, knows – it’s very, very difficult to put absolute
specifications straight down, so you say: these are our needs; what are your proposals to fill those needs?
You choose the best selection.
But in that very highly competitive industry, which is not unlike the auctioneer industry, we say: here it
is, here’s a proposal, and we do it – computer systems. Lease space where options are wanted, and the
options such as: where is the location, where have you got some land, and the location that would best
suit our needs. And we say that, and we don’t put them into the public, and we won’t do it on this one;
we don’t on those. You never did on those. I don’t understand how you can stand here and be so pious . .
.
AN HON. MEMBER: --What are you talking about? We never had a sale like this.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, you certainly didn’t. but you are being rather sanctimonious over the
whole process. You know exactly how the process works. You know exactly how the process works.
Mr. Chairman, I know they do, but they’re trying to raise these points. They’re trying to raise these
points but they know exactly that the process is not changed from when they were in government, or
from what happens in any other province in this country.
MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Mr. Chairman, the question is, Mr. Minister, is on each of these points, why
you won’t give an explanation. On the point of experience, can you tell me how Brown’s Auction room
was more experienced than the other 46 on that one very narrow point? The fact that he never had one
heavy equipment auction that any one knows of, in his life, and then retired after auctioning furniture –
why in that category was he preferred over the other 46, four or five of them who have a great deal of
experience in western Canada in selling heavy equipment? Can you tell me why, and what reason you
outweighed the other four or five who have a great deal of experience, and chose a furniture auctioneer?
Can you tell me that?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The proposals were
evaluated on the basis of these five criteria. In all cases, in all, the five criteria were considered very
carefully. All the proposals were laid up against the five criteria. In some areas, any proposal, any given
proposal numbered 1 to 47, might be strong in one area and weak in four others, and so on. And that’s
why it’s very important to leave the five in a total package. When the total five as a package were taken
into consideration, this was the best proposal, and this proposal won the award.

MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Mr. Chairman, I want to go over those five items one more time. In the area
of advertising, Mr. Minister, I think you would be hard pressed to say that this individual, or this
company, has more experience in advertising than other auctioneers who have gone through the
proposal of making up books of machinery and advertising sales and held very successful heavy
equipment sales.
You don’t have that on Brown’s record, very simply and straightforwardly, because he hasn’t done it.
On previous experience, your point number two, he has no experience in this area. On the management
of sale, you can argue that point, but I would be hard pressed to accept if other auctioneers wouldn’t
break even.
On the compensation or commission, by your own admission or lack of confirming it, you’re saying that
he wasn’t the low tender. On the Saskatchewan content, there are other auctioneers who have as much
Saskatchewan content as your successful bidder.
And I think when you weigh this up, there’s a good reason why four or five or maybe 15 other
auctioneers are very upset about this closed-shop arrangement that you have here.
What I would like from you, Mr. Minister, is who made this decision that Brown’s Auction Room would
be the successful tender on this sale? Who, in fact, made that decision in your department, and were you
personally involved in making the decision?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the member has clearly stated here: he says, well, Brown’s
Auction doesn’t have this experience, and can’t advertise, and can’t put together a management plan,
and doesn’t have whatever else. . .
All I’m saying to the hon. member, and I’ll say to you, Mr. Chairman, what that member is saying is that
this particular auctioneer, the professional auctioneer in the province of Saskatchewan, auctioneers in
this province for an awful long time, what he’s really saying is that they can’t do the job.
I would say to you that the proposals were . . . (inaudible interjection) . . . They absolutely are. You’re
saying that they can’t do the job. I would say to you that the proposals were . . . (inaudible interjection) .
. . You absolutely are. You’re saying that they cannot do the job through all the reason you’re saying.
We say: on the basis of the proposals submitted, and what they’re prepared to do on all those five
criteria, it’s the best proposal that we received. On behalf of the taxpayers of Saskatchewan we are to
sell the surplus equipment which you left us with, to get the best dollars possible. The decision was
made by the Department of Supply and Services purchasing agency, good people within whom I have a
great deal of confidence. And that’s it.
MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Mr. Minister, I would like to know who was involved. And I asked you
very specifically whether you had input into the decision, and that’s the question: whether or not you
influenced the decision that Brown Auction Room would get the bid over other very qualified
auctioneers, who have much more experience, who many of them say had a tender in lower than what
we have accepted here. And, Mr. Minister, the only way that we can get to the bottom of this is if you
will make public the successful bidder and tender, and Mr. Minister, many, many people are asking why
you will not come clean on this when it’s a tradition in the annual report. And you can go through the
report for page after page after page where the tendering process is made public, and I’ll tell you on
issues that are not as controversial and not as expensive as this one. Mr. Minister, we’re talking about 1,
or 2, or $3 million depending on an answer that you will give us at some point in time. And I think the
public has a right to know why this auctioneer was given this bid and this tender.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the process, as I have outlined it on Friday, and as I will
outline again, the purchasing agency through the Department of Supply and Services, through the deputy
minister came to me and said, “Here is our recommendation of where we should go on the basis of the
proposals that have been evaluated on the basis of these criteria.” He gave me the recommendation. I
said, “go with it.” That’s exactly what my involvement would be. That’s what the involvement of the
minister should be in any of this tendering. And that’s the way it is. So I don’t know how it was under
your government – I have my suspicions – but I know exactly how it is under this government.
MR. LINGENFELTER: -- Well Mr. Minister, I would like to say that under our administration if there
was an issue where the low tender was not accepted, that there was a good explanation why. And I’m
telling you, Mr. Minister, that by your denial of this committee, and to the public of Saskatchewan, any
information on why – and we assume a low bidder was not accepted – many, many people are beginning
to question your credibility. Because I’ll say that it’s been the process, and I’ll say it again, in the annual
report that when a low bidder was not accepted, that there was an explanation as to why that occurred.
And we’re not fooling around with 1,000 or $2,000. We’re talking about millions of dollars going to
what many will suspect is because of political patronage. And I’ll accuse you of that, Mr. Minister,
because you were ultimately in the final decision-making chair. You decided; you can’t blame your
department for this. You have admitted in this committee that you made the final judgement, that
recommendations came to you, and you chose this one. And I would like to say to you, Mr. Minister,
that you have an obligation to the public, and to this committee, to come forward and to clean the record
as to why you chose this company.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, Mr. Chairman, the proposal selection in this case was done no
differently than what it is always done when the proposals are selected in all . . . (inaudible interjection) .
. . It is not. It is done exactly the way in which they’re supposed to be done. And they all went . . . Those
are tenders.
The hon. member waves the annual report which he continues to refer to. He’s comparing apples with
oranges, Mr. Chairman. He refuses to admit, and I would say this clearly. He refuses to admit that he
understand s the difference between proposals and tenders. I believe that he understands the difference
between proposals and tenders.
As it relates to the auctioneers, he has said that the auctioneers can’t find why they didn’t receive the
tender. Every one of the people who submitted a proposal to us can come to the purchasing agency of
the department, as some have done, and as some have not done, but some have done, and every one of
them can come to the purchasing agency and find out where they were weak, in which areas they were
weak, on the same confidential basis that they submitted their proposals. That’s the way business should
be done, and that’s the way it is being done by this department.
MR. ENGEL: -- When Brown’s Auction rooms submitted this proposal, did they submit a proposal on
behalf of a group of auctioneers or other auctioneers that were going to handle the sale, or was this an
individual proposal by the people listed on this yellow advertising sheet?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The proposal was on behalf of . . . I guess you could call it a group. It was
Brown’s Auctions of Regina and Saskatoon, both together.
MR. ENGEL: -- When you looked at the proposal as far as . . . I suppose that would come under your
point five as to Saskatchewan content. Did they list or put together a proposal? When we used to bid
sewer and water jobs, Mr. Minister, we had to list and make a proposal stating that this is the equipment
we’re going to use. You’d put the package together and say, if I get a certain job, say at Central Butte,
for example, I’d bid that with saying I’m going to have a new dragline. If I get the contract, I’ll buy that
particular machine to do the job.
When they put this proposal together, did they list an expertise of who was going to be conducting the
sale for them? Did they list . . . In their group that was going to put the package together, did they list
who was going to . . . or the kind of personnel and the amount of auctioneers they were going to have on
site? You know, to sell 400-plus pieces of equipment, you need to roll through quite a bit of equipment.
And how many auctioneers did they say are going to be working on the project?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, as part of the management plan, the successful bidder, as well
as the other bidders who submitted proposals, submitted their management plans – how they would
conduct the sale, how they would conduct it, how they would line the equipment up, and all the rest of it.
So yes, they submitted all that material, and it came under the heading of the one criteria, which I have
mentioned to you, the management plan. We’re confident that their management plan of conducting that
sale will carry that sale through in the two days allotted to it.
For the member’s information, I believe Ritchie Bros. in Edmonton does these kinds of sales, and they
move this through as much as 700, 800 pieces of equipment in a day, and their management plan
handles that. This guy’s management plan says that they can handle it on the days of those sales, and we
feel very confident that they can, on the basis of what they submitted.
MR. ENGEL: -- There are a number of firms like Ritchie Bros, even here in Saskatchewan. Great
Plains out here out at White City can put together a management plan that Ritchie Bros. would have to
take a second seat to. I know, because we’ve been to some of those sales where groups like that can put
together a great sale.
On Wednesday this week, Mr. Minister, the town area of Assiniboia, for example, the dealers around
there got together – dealers from Lafleche and Gravelbourg and all over – bringing their equipment to
Assiniboia, and there’s going to be a giant auction sale in Assiniboia. They’ve done this annually for
years, and it works out good. I have yet to see Brown’s Auction rooms involved in that kind of sale.
I come out here to White City, and I go to a sale where dealers – and they have consignments from
dealers from all over the province – and they have multi-million-dollar sales. And what we’re saying is:
who is on the management team with Brown Auction rooms that they all of a sudden were able to buy
the experience?
It can be done; they can buy that kind of expertise. And we’d like to know: are they buying that kind of
expertise to put that management package together, or are they doing it themselves? Because if they’re
doing it themselves, it’s like a contractor that remodels basement suites or rumpus rooms and is all of a
sudden takes on a job to build a 50 or $60 million building. And that’s the same kind of comparison
we’re making.
And if you want to question me, you tell me where Brown’s Auction Rooms have ever held a multi-
million-dollar sale where it was a consignment of that kind of equipment. You know, even that volume-
wise. You hired them on a basis that they’re able to put that management practice together. We’re
questioning that. So how many auctioneers are involved in this package, first of all?

HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the management plan was a very satisfactory one. I’m going to
tell the hon. member the only way that you will find out the details of it, you can go and talk to the
auctioneer, or you could go to the sale, or whatever. But we have every confidence that the sale will be
conducted in a very professional manner.
The proposal that was put forward was a very, very sound one, I assure you – all of those things. They
will have people there. You say they bought expertise, or they’re going to hire somebody, whatever.
You’re surmising that, certainly, but fine, go ahead and surmise all you like.
All I’m saying to you is that the sale will be well-conducted – an excellent management plan by an
excellent, long-standing auctioneer firm in this province. And they’ll be conducting the sale on behalf of
the Government of Saskatchewan, the people of Saskatchewan, to get the most money possible for the
surplus equipment that we were saddled with after taking over the government from you.
MR. ENGEL: -- That’s the management plan. The other area of concern is on the advertising. Now it
says here that if you want a detailed catalogue free of charge, additional detailed catalogues are
available. I know a person that has phoned and has written and has asked for a detailed catalogue on a
number of occasions from as long as three weeks ago. He still hasn’t got his catalogue. What seems to
be the hold-up in this case? Because we’re within a month . . . If somebody wants to buy some
equipment, they’ve got to get their financing in place. How come they’re so slow at getting out the
catalogues?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know where the members . . . Here’s one right
here for you to look at. I would just ask . . . You could take this over to the hon. member. Anybody
who’s asking for this catalogue, and certainly has them available, as you have today, and there it is.
MR. ENGEL: -- That’s good because, as of this weekend, I had a number of contractors tell me that –
ask us when those catalogues are available because they haven’t been able to get them yet.
On the auctioneers, will the minister assure this House that the auctioneers or the member from Melfort
aren’t going to be involved in actually direct selling; that we’re not going to have to raise an issue of
conflict of interest?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the criteria were evaluated. Brown’s Auction Rooms of
Regina and Saskatoon, the combination of those two firms have won the proposal, and they’re
conducting the sale.
MR. ENGEL: -- And they can hire whatever auctioneer they want to help them do the sale, and that is
of no concern of yours, then, is what you’re saying?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- No, what I’m saying is that they will be conducting the sale. If someone wins
a tender or a proposal to provide computer equipment or whatever to the Government of Saskatchewan,
somebody has computer expertise, and they hire them, I guess that’s what they do. But I’m not saying . .
. I don’t know, but I don’t think that anybody from Melfort is involved in this sale. I really don’t believe
that that’s the case. I really don’t believe that’s the case. I don’t know, and all I would say to the hon.
member: go to the sale. If you see anyone there that you feel shouldn’t be there, raise it with me when
the sale is over.
MR. ENGEL: -- That’s about the size of it, I guess. I suppose this is why Brown’s were maybe put up
to front the sale because I have information – and I’m not going to say it’s a rumour because it isn’t a
rumour – where the member for Melfort and his father were busy making lists of serial numbers up for
that sale. Now maybe they want to buy a lot of equipment to resell, and maybe this is why you’re not
telling us anything.
But if you’re saying that Brown’s can hire whoever they want to conduct the sale for them, and then that
is not a conflict of interest, maybe that’s why you’re being so secretive here today . . . (inaudible
interjection) . . . You didn’t hear the question? Well, the entire question is that: are you making
assurance in this House that that is not a conflict of interest if Brown’s hires an MLA to help him
conduct the sale?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well I’m not aware that there should be any concern in that area, that
Brown’s Auctions won the proposal. You know, I mean, you can go off into dream-land all you want to,
but I just tell you that Brown’s Auction Rooms of Saskatoon and Regina won the proposal, and they will
be conducting the sale. They submitted the management plan we evaluated on the basis of their
experience of the advertising program which they would put out, the part of which is that catalogue, the
very good catalogue that I sent to you today. Their commission rate, the Saskatchewan content, all those
things are involved. Brown’s won the proposal, will be conducting the sale, and that’s really all I can tell
you about it.
MR. ENGEL: -- When you selected the auctioneer to do the sale, and the question I asked, and I’ll
repeat it: did you look at who the auctioneers are that he was going to have employed that will conduct
the sale, or didn’t you? Was that part of the management team? Is this why he rated so high on
experience? This is the question I’m asking. Because the experience that Brown’s Auction rooms have
I’m questioning, because I don’t think they ever sold anything bigger than a muffler on a D-9 Cat, let
alone the Cat. I’m suggesting that.
You haven’t told me yet, and you name one big sale they had where they were selling some construction
equipment, and I’ll say, okay, they’ve got the management experience. On the advertising you’ll pay . . .
The catalogues are out a month before. We’ll say that they’ll get them distributed. I hope they do better
than what they have done in our area where contractors and people that have contracted, and he said
they wrote for them as much as two weeks ago and still haven’t got the catalogue.
And the compensation you won’t tell us now. I suggested on Friday maybe the compensation’s at 8 per
cent, because you’re giving 5 per cent to somebody else to conduct the sale for him, and they’re only
making 3. Maybe that’s part of the package. We don’t know because you’re not coming clean. If you
want to settle this issue today, all you have to do is tell us: these are the auctioneers that are going to
conduct the sale; this is the commission we’re paying them; it’s legitimate. Every farmer who goes to an
auction sale knows that the auctioneer, be it Kramer or whoever it is, he knows what that’s costing to tell
sell the stuff. If I put a machine, my drills, on a consignment sale in Assiniboia tomorrow, I know that
that’s what it’s going to cost me. And everybody knows that it did. That’s the facts of an auction sale.
There is nothing to hide when it comes to commission because all the auctioneers advertised that, and
we know the kind of program they put together. Why are you afraid to tell us who is involved in the
sale, and how much they are getting for it?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- It’s just the very point, Mr. Chairman, that I’ve been making. It’s not a matter
of being afraid to tell anything. All I’m telling you is that the proposals came in. It’s not a matter of
being afraid to tell you anything. It’s a matter of the proposals came in in strictest confidence. They are
being kept in strictest confidence. I would say to the hon. member on the 16th and 17th of May, go to
the sale, see how it’s conducted, see who conducts it. If you have any problems with anyone who was
conducting it, with anything that went on, certainly we could talk about it after the fact . . . (inaudible
interjection) . . . Well you may have a problem right now, but it’s all on the basis of the surmising that
you’re doing in your own group, and it’s not reasonable.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister. I am puzzled by what you say about your
calling for proposals., and then you are not disclosing the terms of the successful proposal accepted.
Does your department call for proposals for architectural projects?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, Mr. Chairman, for the Leader of the Opposition, when we do submit
proposals, when we do ask for proposals for architectural firms, we do it in the same way we’re doing
here. On some cases we commission an architect to d a particular job, as was the case before, and
continues to be the case.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- I thought so. And do I understand now that when you call for proposals, as
has been common in the past, and I’m sure will be on occasion in the future, and when a proposal is
accepted that you will decline to tell us what the commission rate is. Certainly it’s never been declined
before. This is why I’m trying to figure out why you would decline to tell us the commission rate with
respect to auctioneers, when we freely did so with respect to architects.
-HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, we’ll announce who the successful architects, and we don’t publish the
commission rate. But in the case of architects, as the hon. member as well knows, the commission rate
for architects can almost be said it’s a standard commission rate, and that’s true for architects.
It’s certainly not true in the case of this auction sale where you have a sale like this . . . (inaudible
interjection) . . . No, it’s not the case in the case of auction sales where you’ve got to go through all of
the various aspects. You know, if you take that argument that the hon. members opposite have been
raising, as it relates to commission rate only being the way in which you would choose an auctioneer,
someone could come in at one-tenth of 1 per cent and have no expertise in any of the other areas, and
they would say: well that’s the low bid. Because you’re using terms like “low bid” or “high bid”; “low
tender,” “high tender.” You’ve been using those terms in the discussion of this matter. And that criteria
is not reasonable or acceptable.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- This is not unusual for other things. You can get somebody who has no
experience to bid on a major highway project or building project. And their bid is not likely to be
accepted, even though it’s the low bid, if they haven’t a track record.
What we’re asking you, Mr. Minister, is to tell us, to give us, not the names of the criteria – we know
experience, everybody can ream those off --- but the elements in the successful bid. Commission:
commission was so-and-so; experience: we find that the Brown firm has this type of experience, as they
indicated in their bid. Whatever other . . . the management plan, or sales plan. There’s no reason why
that shouldn’t be public.
I could understand why the unsuccessful applicants may not want their material public – fair enough.
But the successful applicant should have no objection whatever to knowing on what basis he is going to
be paid out of public funds. And I’m frankly surprised; I’m surprised at your telling us that Brown’s
want to keep this secret, and that it’s on behalf of Brown’s that you are keeping this secret. There’s
certainly no public interest in keeping it secret. It can only be for the benefit of Brown’s, and I’m
surprised that Brown’s, the applicant you chose, is an auctioneer who would not want the public to know
what his experience is, what he offers, and, therefore, it certainly renders suspect your assertions that
he’s got all this experience but we won’t tell you what it is. He’s got a great management plan, but we
won’t tell you anything about it. That certainly renders suspect your assurances that this particular
auctioneer is thoroughly competent.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition used the example of architects
and when you’re commissioning an architect. What we do, which is no different than what’s been done
for many years, we conduct an annual survey of the various firms in the province to find out just what
there . . . how big is their shop, what’s their experience have they got some new people with different
expertise, all those kinds of things.
That annual survey of architectural firms never was published. It is not published now, but we certainly,
in the department, need to know who can do what, and at the time of commissioning an architect many
things are taken into consideration, including the information that comes from that annual survey, how
busy they are at the time in which you need them and those kinds of things.
And it’s the same thing here, Mr. Chairman. As I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition, to the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition’s colleague a few moments ago, proposals that were submitted for this
sale, and for any sale of this magnitude, are submitted by auctioneers who bring together, obviously, the
best possible business experience for the longest period of time to put the best proposal forward. And
why they would want, or why we would on their behalf, or against the strictest confidence that we took
them in, put them out to the public to their competitors, doesn’t make any sense.
As I have said as it relates to the competitors, those competitors, the 46 proponents who submitted their
proposals can go to the purchasing department on the same confidential basis that they submitted their
proposals, and they can find out where they were weak and where they were strong, if, in fact, there
were some areas in which they were strong. They can find that out from our department. We wont’ hide
that at all from those proponents.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- What you’re saying, Mr. Minister, is that you will comment on the Ajax
Auction, you will tell them why you think they were weak and they were strong. But you won’t sit down
with them and say: here is your bid or your proposal – I’ll keep the term appropriate – here is the
successful proposal, and here are all the reasons why you were less successful than the successful one.
Are you telling us you will do that? You will lay out the successful proposal for the unsuccessful Ajax
firm, and give them all the information bout the successful bidder, and let them make up their own mind
whether or not they felt that they were successful or less successful, competent or less competent than
the successful bidder.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I’m saying we will not lay them out in detail, side by side, certainly, but we
will go through every one of the criteria and in relative terms tell them where they are weak, and where
they had a strong case, and if they were close or so on. But we will not lay that out in detail, side by side
with the other proposal.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister. The Ajax Auction firm may well know
quite a bit about themselves. So your views of whether or not they were weak or they were strong are
interesting. But what they want to know is whether the successful one you chose was, in their judgment,
weak or strong. And you’re telling us you wont’ tell them what he successful person laid before you.
Again, Mr. Minister, this is not only a matter of whether or not the Ajax firm is being treated fairly. It’s
a question of whether anyone else who might in the future, want to deal with your department has the
assurance that they will be treated fairly and reasonably.

Again, I’ll come back to this. Your reference to the survey of architects is no-relevant. That’s a survey
of all architects – a survey of all architects, and I’m not asking that you disclose all of the material with
respect to all of the people who put in proposals. That’s not what I’m saying. I am saying the successful
one ought to be disclosed, just as I would say, architecturally the information with respect to the
successful proposal ought to be disclosed.
If you are relying upon expertise, you shouldn’t be afraid of saying in what that expertise consists. If
Brown’s Auction has made an arrangement with some other auctioneer who has more experience in
dealing with heavy machinery, and that was part of your thinking, we, and the public, have a right to
know that. You’ve made up your mind on some bases. It’s unlikely to be the basis of Brown’s previous
experience in selling heavy machinery. You have not outlined that for the very good reason that it’s not
extensive. Obviously there’s something else. Obviously there’s another connection. Obviously Brown’s
have brought in some expertise. And this is pretty interesting to know who it might be, and under what
circumstances.
We are aware of your colleague, Minister of Health, who has given contracts to firms, and they have
brought in expertise in the form of Mr. Louis Bud Sherman, and we thought that was relevant. He said it
wasn’t, after all he wasn’t dealing directly with Bud Sherman. It just happened that the person he gave
the contract to had decided to use Bud Sherman’s expertise. Now you have given another contract to
someone who, at least on the face of it, is not experienced in the field of heavy machinery, on the face of
it. And if you can roll off half a dozen major sales they have handled, or even one or two, then I will
revise my view on this – in the last year or two. So obviously, and you’re unlikely to give it to an
inexperienced auctioneer unless they’ve got some other people coming around . . . What we’re asking is:
who are going to assist them – if I were going to put this in a relatively pejorative way – who is the Bud
Sherman who is going to assist Brown’s Auction with the sale?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The hon. Leader of the Opposition is laying out an example which, you know,
I reject that. There is nobody. I would say to him once again the sale has been awarded to Brown’s
Auctions of Regina and Saskatoon. That’s who’ll be conducting the sale. They will conduct the sale.
They’ve got experienced, good people with them, and they’ll do the job, and we’re confident of that. We
are very confident of that.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Well I just want to address the minister on this. It seems to me that you have laid out
the five criteria: the advertising ability; the previous experience; the management of sales – that is the
management of sales plan, how well they can conduct it; compensation; and -Saskatchewan content.
Now Saskatchewan content: you indicated already that 44 of them out of the 47 were Saskatchewan
auctioneers. So Saskatchewan content seems to hot be a very relevant one if 44 of them, in fact, were
Saskatchewanites. And then you go into the advertising which is, I thin, you have to look fairly
subjectively at the capacity there for advertising. Previous experience: I think we can demonstrate to you
that Brown’s Auctions hasn’t got the previous experience of heavy equipment sales that many other
Saskatchewan-based auctioneers. I’ll tell you, Mr. Minister, that there’s one area here which is
essentially objective in reviewing it, and that is compensation. And I want to ask you point blank: was it
in fact the lowest bid, or the lowest fee being requested by Brown’s over and above the other
Saskatchewan people who put in the tender. Can you advise us whether or not it was the lowest?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I can advise you once again that the commission rate is one of the five criteria
taken into the package with all of the other four. Commission rate is not the only criteria that you look at
in this, and I’ve been over this ground many times before, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KOSKIE: -- I’m going to tell you when you go out for a proposal, as you said this was, that one of
the very essential ones is, in fact, how much it’s going to cost. That’s vital. And I want to ask you
whether again, in view of the fact that the price is a vital consideration, because you are dealing with
taxpayers’ moneys, I want to ask you again: why won’t you tell us whether or not the vital criteria of
compensation whether they put in the lowest tender . . .
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the most vital thing in going to a sale of this nature, or any
type of sale, is how successful will the sale be, how much will we get for the equipment on behalf of the
taxpayers that you mention? How successful will it be? So in order to ensure success you put the
package of the criteria together to make sure that all bases are covered – commission rate certainly being
one of them. As I have said before, we won’t get into the details of any one of the particular ones, but
the five together, added together and worked side by side with each other, pointed to Brown’s of
Saskatoon and Regina, and Brown’s received the successful award.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Mr. Minister, your reluctance to give this information – who are you protecting? I ask
you: are you protecting the people of Saskatchewan by the refusal to indicate whether, in fact, this is the
lowest tender? I would have thought that the prime consideration here is to protect the taxpayers of
Saskatchewan. Who are you protecting?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- When we take proposals, we protect the integrity of the people that are
proposing. When they submit proposals, they are comfortable that their proposal will be kept in
confidence, in all cases. That way we get the best proposals; like, people come through with their
proposals. They put their best experience for whatever period of time they’ve been in business and
whatever they’ve been able to muster, the best thing together, and they want that protected for them
from their competitors. If you have the formula for Coke, you don’t give it to Pepsi, and that’s what
we’re saying to you here today. That way we get the best proposals, the most creative proposals, and in
they come, and we choose the best proposal.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Who decided that the proposals that were put in to, submitted to the government,
would, in fact, be confidential? Who decided that?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The same officials who sent out the proposals made the recommendation of
who it should be chosen, the same officials in the purchasing agency of the Department of Supply and
Services.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Are you in agreement that in future and in respect to this that major contracts, which
the public is tendering for or putting in a proposal, that they should be confidential? All of these should
be confidential in the future? Is that the established policy of this government?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I’ve made it very clear before, Mr. Chairman, the difference between a tender
and a proposal. What I’m saying is that the way in which proposals are dealt with is no different than
proposals are dealt with before, and no different than they have been by our government before, by their
government in the past, and by other jurisdictions . . . (inaudible) . . .
The hon. member from Quill Lakes is suggesting that he, as well as several of his colleagues, don’t
understand the difference between tenders and proposals. I know that they do understand the difference.
They believe they should cloud the issue for some reason, but there is certainly a very clear distinction,
and that distinction is extremely important to the department in the way in which we do business with
the private sector in this province, who, by the way, are very, very pleased to do business with this
department when they think back to the way in which they did business with the former department.
The hon. member mentions auctioneers as one group who are not happy doing business with this
department. The auctioneers in this province have never, ever been sent the opportunity to bid or to send
proposals before. They now have that.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Mr. Minister, assuming that your department and that you, in fact, confirmed it, that
all this information should be confidential, I ask you: how are you, in fact, protecting the public by non-
disclosure?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- We’re protecting the public because, as the proposals come in, we get the
very best proposals that the people can muster, the vest best and most creative proposals they can
muster, knowing full well that their proposal and their formula for success, if you will, is not going to be
disclosed to their competition. Because, what you’re really saying is, if one auctioneer is successful and
puts in his proposal and it’s successful under those criteria, and we disclose that, it means if there’s ever
another auction sale at some time in the future his formula is out there. How confidential is that?
So what we’re saying got you is that we get the best proposals possible. They stay there. We have said to
the people that when they put their proposals in there. And you will know, Mr. Chairman, that if there
had been seven proponents or 47, as it were, or three – one successful one – the others are certainly
going to be disappointed. We understand that. We know they are disappointed. Some of them are more
than disappointed. But they have every opportunity to come and talk to our purchasing agency, and
some of them have already done that.
MR. KOSKIE: -- I’d like, Mr. Minister, if you could provide me with the dates: that is, when did you
first submit your request for proposals? Did you submit the request for proposals, on what date, and to
whom? Can you give us the list of to whom you submitted the list to, for a proposal?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- On December 30, proposals went out to every registered auctioneer in
Saskatchewan and, I believe, to Ritchie Bros in Edmonton, Alberta.
MR. KOSKIE: -- And can you give me the deadline by when the individuals had to have their
proposals in?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The proposals were to be received by 2 p.m., January 12, 1984, by
Saskatchewan Supply and Services purchasing agency . . . (inaudible interjection) . . . January 12.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Mr. Minister, in awarding the contracts to Brown’s Auctions, what were the terms of
awarding that contract? What were the terms of awarding that contract? Surely you didn’t say that we
accept your proposal, and now you sell that equipment; we’re really not going to lay down any terms for
doing that. Were there some terms involved in awarding that contract?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Okay. The proposal was awarded on the principle of the evaluation criteria
that I have mentioned many times here. We said okay, and on a weekly basis since the awarding they
must give a progress report about how they’re coming along with the sale. And that’s the way it should
be done.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Were there time limits in the proposal that had to be adhered to when you sent it out,
or not? Was there a certain time by which this auction had to be held, in your proposal, when you sent
the proposals to the auctioneers?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- One of the dates – and I believe I understand what the hon. member is getting
at – one of the dates here, this auction sale was to be conducted by May 15. As it turns out the sale is on
the 16th and 17th. One of the things in that proposal was because there’s an industrial trade show on in
Saskatoon, but I would assure the hon. member that the date of the sale by one day is not the criteria
upon which this would be awarded. But there’s an industrial trade show on in Saskatoon at the same
time, and it’s a good thing to have in conjunction with it.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Were all the auction services that you had sent the proposals to aware of the fact that
you would allow them to hold it at a different date other than the May 15 deadline?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- One of the things that we asked for was: state your recommended dates for the
auction, and one of the other ones was that proponents would be able to say if they had an alternative
site, that they should say so and where and why and so on, if they thought that this would be better. So
those things were part of the proposal call, and from our point of view, always with a view to getting the
most, and having the best and the most successful sale possible.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Mr. Minister, when you awarded that contract, was there some discussion, or how
was that contract awarded? Is the government going to pay any additional costs to the commission that
the auctioneer is going to receive? For instance, are you going to pay any advertising? Are you going to
pay any preparation of the grounds, or are you going to pay any costs of the grounds where it will be
held? Are there any additional costs to the government on top of the percentage commission that’s going
to be paid to the auction service?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Okay. Mr. Chairman, the proposals came in with a wide variety, a different
sort of a mix. Some said, “Look you pay the advertising and you rent the grounds, and we’ll do these
other things.” So we picked the best one. And in this particular case the grounds are rented by the
auctioneer, I believe. The advertising is paid by the auctioneer, and that’s part of the advertising
program submitted. And the advertising in the total package is conducted by the auctioneer who was
successful in the proposal.
MR. LUSNEY: -- You said, you believe, Mr. Minister. Am I clear to understand that whatever
percentage is being paid, a percentage which you refuse to disclose, that that is going to be the only cost
to the government to dispose of this equipment? There are no additional costs – no sharing of
advertising, no sharing of the grounds, no sharing in any management of the sale or any preparations of
that sale, no other sharing to the government. You have given the contract totally on the basis of he gets
his commission rate, whatever it is, and all other costs associated with that sale are going to be that of
the auctioneer.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, Mr. . . . I’ll get the details of what’s all included in that sense, and I can
give you that. I once again emphasize that the whole package, including the management plan for how
the sale will be conducted, was all a part of it, including commission, and I would say that once again.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Well, I understand that, Mr. Minister. What I’m asking is: just what part of this is
going to be part of the commission? What part is going to be paid by the government on top of the
commission? And when you said you will get those figures, are you going to get those today, or are you
going to get them some other time, or are you going to get them now?

. . . (inaudible) . . . Okay. I appreciate that. The reason for the questioning is that I have some concerns
as to what the total cost might be. We could say it’s a 4 per cent commission, but if we’re paying the
advertising, and paying the transportation, and paying the grounds, those will be additional costs. I am
asking just what are the costs associated with this auction, and who is paying them?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to give . . . I will give you the
cost to the government, and will get that in a minute or two, okay? – if there are any.
MR. KOSKIE: -- . . . (inaudible) . . . on which the decision was made to accept the Brown’s as the
successful auctioneer.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, Mr. Chairman, the 18th of January; the successful proposal was advised
on the 18th of January. As it relates to your former question for the hon. member from Pelly, the other
costs besides commission, I believe I said that the site, which is at the exhibition grounds in Saskatoon,
the rent would be paid for by the . . . these are the things, in fact, that are the cost to the government. We
were responsible as a government to move the equipment there. Some of it was beginning to move there
prior, so we moved the equipment there, and we’re responsible for repairing and fixing and getting the
equipment sale-worthy, and we are responsible for the rent of the exhibition grounds.
So those are the three costs to government. From there on, the whole sale and the management of it, and
the whole operation is conducted by the successful proposal.
MR. LUSNEY: -- Could you tell me what the costs of fencing the grounds would be
for the two days?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I will provide that to you. I’ll just . . . while they look it up, if you have other
things we’ll carry on.
MR. LUSNEY: -- While they’re looking up that information, Mr. Minister, could you also find the cost
of moving that equipment, and what trucking firms moved that equipment, what the cost of it was, and
the firms involved?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The moving of the equipment and the repairing and fixing of the equipment
were both done by the Department of Highways. And we wont’ have the total cost of that until all of the
bills are in, and so on. But we have no hesitation about . . . as a government have no hesitation about
providing to you what the costs of moving the equipment, and repairing and fixing equipment. But I
don’t know when all the bills will be in, but you know, I could undertake to get that to you, whether it’s
under here or from the Department of Highways.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Mr. Minister, you indicated that the deadline for the submission of the proposal was
January 12, 2 p.m., ’84. And you indicated that the decision to award it was made on January 18, 1984. I
ask you: during the period in between January 12, the closing date, and the date of awarding the contract
to Brown’s, whether any of the auctioneers who, in fact, had submitted proposals, had any further
communication and discussion with you or your department officials during that period from the
deadline –you get me? – from the 12th to the 18th?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, the officials don’t have any, you know, particular dates on
what dates. But I would tell you this: that from December 30, from the time the proposals went out, we
had many, many phone calls in our department from auctioneers and from potential buyers and from all
sorts of people. And I believe there were calls right down to the time that the successful proposal was
awarded because, as the member can well imagine, there was a good deal of interest in it, and
auctioneers were calling our offices on many days. But I don’t have a record of who called what day or
anything like that?
MR. KOSKIE: -- Well, I’m interested to know, Mr. Minister, because it’s of interest to other
auctioneers of this province. Because they have indicated to me that some selected ones were given the
opportunity to go in and to review with the department officials and/or yourself, after the proposal
deadline, and to clarify any weaknesses within their proposal.
And I’m asking you to give us a record of those that came and contacted your office, and which
meetings were held, from the period of the closing of the deadline for the proposal and the date of the
final awarding of it. And you’ve got to have those records, or else you’re totally hiding it.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- There were no such meetings with the intent of impacting on their proposal . .
. (inaudible) . . . No such meetings. No such meetings between our department officials and people who
had submitted proposals between the 12th and the 18th.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Well a few moments ago you indicated that there was telephone calls. I mean,
whether or not they have called in to the office, or you have a discussion of it, did you have contact with
any of the auctioneers between the deadline for submitting the proposal and the awarding, whereby you
were asking or receiving clarifications, or where an addition was added to the submission?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- As I indicated to you, there were phone calls, and there were, by auctioneers
and interested parties, from the 30th and right down to the end. Near the end, what the calls were about
were: when will the award come out, and all those kinds of things. I don’t know the dates of any of those
things, but I can give you the assurance, and I will give you that assurance now, that there were no
adjustments made to any of the proposals after the 12th, the deadline date, the 12th of January of 1984 at
2 o’clock.
MR. KOSKIE: -- Are you indicating that, in respect to the request for the proposals, you didn’t indicate
within that the likelihood of the date on which you would make the awarding of the successful one?
You’re saying that they were phoning in and asking in respect to the dates as to when the deadline for
awarding the successful contract. Surely within the proposal you would ask for their proposal and
indicate when you wanted the sale and when you would be making the decision.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- No, there was not a date. There was not a date in the proposal to say that at
this particular date the award will be made. That was not the case. As the hon. member can well
imagine, had we said that, the successful bidder will be notified and people will be notified by the 13th,
by one day later, there would still have been phone calls. Phone calls were coming as soon as the
proposals were in there because people were extremely interested; there’s no question about that. And
that’s no different than it is with any other proposals that go out, regardless of what the subject matter of
the proposal is.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, I want to know whether you leased any
office space or court-house space in Yorkton in the last several months.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- With respect to the court-house space, would you indicate who the lessor
is, and what the rent being paid is?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The space is leaded from the company called Broadcast plaza, and I believe
that that may be the building that they’re in.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- And what is the rent being paid?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Mr. Chairman, I’m advised that the rent being paid has never been disclosed
in the House, and we don’t disclose the rent that’s being paid for the . . .
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Yes, you tell me that you rent something from something called Broadcast
plaza, and you are unwilling to tell us what you pay for the space. Will you tell us how much space
you’re renting?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- We’ll provide it. He’ll take it out here now, and we’ll provide it to you, the
amount of space.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Is Broadcast plaza the building that is, or was managed by Maximum
Management Incorporated, operated by one Dick Richards, now, or formerly, and I believe now again,
executive assistant to your colleague, the Minister of Labour?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- I believe it is, yes.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- And again, you do not wish to tell us how much you are paying? You
don’t wish to tell us how much you are paying to this company which is now, or formerly operated by
the EA to your colleague, the Minister of Labour?
HON. MR. McLAREN: -- There were three proposals submitted. That was the successful one. That’s .
. . (inaudible) . . .
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- With respect to these proposals, were there an area of the city of Yorkton
with respect to which the proposals were to be submitted?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- The answer to one of your former questions, there were 3,000 square feet,
3,000 square feet of space. And Broadcast plaza is in an area within which we ask that the court house
space be provided within this approximate area. And we asked that, and it fits that bill.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Could the minister then explain why Alderman Ed Magis, of the city of
Yorkton, was unaware of the fact that Broadcast Place was within the area you had indicated, but
indicated that the Yorkton City Council, to Yorkton City Council in a public council meeting, that it
was, in fact, outside the area?
And while he is not called upon to make this judgment, he is reported as saying that the questioned the
legality of the contract going for Broadcast Place location because the building was outside the
downtown area the government specified in its call for tenders, convincing fellow aldermen to put the
issue on the agenda for council at its annual meeting with Mr. McLaren.
Would you have any idea why Alderman Magis was confused on this point, or are you confused as to
whether or not this space was within the area which you had earlier specified?

HON. MR. McLAREN: -- No, I would have no idea why Alderman Magis would be confused on it.
But I would say that we had an approximate area where we wanted the space. We chose that proposal of
the three that were submitted.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- I perhaps didn’t make myself clear then. You may well have had an
approximate area that you sought to have the space in. What I’m asking is: what did you tell the public?
Did you specify an area where the space was to be located, and was this space within the specified area?
HON. MR. McLAREN: -- Mr. Chairman, the public proposal call went out with an area, a defined
area, and the successful proposal was right on that street.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- I don’t want to be confused. Are you telling me that the Broadcast Place
where the court-house is now – the space is located – was within the are which you defined as the area
where you were seeking space?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- No, what I’m saying is the line went down the streets. The Broadcast plaza is
– and I don’t know the name of the street, but it’s not hard to find – Broadcast Place. It’s right on that
street and it’s . . . well, it’s across the street I guess you could say. But it’s on the same street.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Well I could easily think of defining space within the legislative area and
drawing a line around here and wanting to locate some office space and, indeed, office space could be
on Albert Street which obviously goes through this area, but it could be on Albert Street and outside the
area. And what I’m asking you is not whether it’s on this street or that street. I’m asking you very
simply: was it within the defined area?
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- Well, first of all, let’s make this very clear, Mr. Chairman. The three
proposals that came in – one of them was blocks away from it; one of them was inside the area, with a
higher cost and with a longer term to get into it, to occupy it, for occupancy; and this one was right on
the same street, just across the street, of the three, obviously the best choice.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- What you’re telling us is that you defined an area, that you rented space
from a building which was outside the area – you say “close by,” but outside the area – from somebody .
. . Broadcast Place, managed by . . . this company which is run by Dick Richards. You tell me how much
space it is. You wont’ tell me the cost of it. You won’t . . . You just tell me it’s a better deal, but you are
unwilling to put forward any figures which indicate it’s a better deal, and you are unwilling to tell me
what the bids were and why it’s a better deal.
HON. MR. McLEOD: -- That’s what I’m saying to you is that we defined the area; we had three
proposals. As you can well imagine, there weren’t a great series of proposals coming in in Yorkton. One
was block away, as I’ve said. One was inside, but with a longer term before occupancy could be realized
by our client department. We needed to get the renovations under way at the court-house, so we said,
“We’ll go with this one.” And it is a better deal in terms of . . . with the . . . as it compares to the one that
was just inside.
HON. MR. BLAKENEY: -- Well, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, I’m sure it was a better deal. I’m
just trying to figure out a better deal for whom. What evidence do you offer this House that it was a
better deal, other than your say-so that the term of the lease was shorter? Will you offer any comparable
figures indicating that the price per square foot per year was lower or significantly lower or that the
space . . . Will you show us why you chose the building outside the area you had designated, the

Source: http://docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/Legislative%20Assembly/Hansard/20L3S/840416Hansard.pdf