To the credit of this Saskatchewan Party government, it has generally stayed out of the way of small business.
For this, it has frequently received the accolades of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) that has lauded efforts to “cut red tape.”
In fact, one of the few Saskatchewan Party promises during the March election campaign was to “eliminate regulations that currently prevent home-based food businesses from preparing low-risk foods like cookies, candy, pies and buns in their home and selling them directly to consumers.”
It really wasn’t much of a campaign promise, but sometimes it is important for government to take care of the littler irritants bothering voters.
And certainly some of the prohibitions against selling home-cooked products - including past prohibitions on advertising - were viewed by those impacted as unnecessarily restrictive.
At the very least, it was a testimonial to the Saskatchewan Party’s commitment to the government getting out of the way and allowing people to earn a living.
The problem, however, is that the need to regulate is a struggle for every government, especially ones that have been in power for some time.
While one might think time in office affords a government even more confidence in its own decisions, governments often become even more tied to the advice of the bureaucracy. Similarly, they can be even more vulnerable to prolonged lobbying.
Or at least, this is what Saskatchewan’s smaller outfitters feel is now happening to them, as the Saskatchewan Party government contemplates changing how outfitters conduct their business.
Elliott Maduck, a small Foam Lake-based outfitter, fears his industry is now fighting a losing battle with those pushing for more regulations.
According to Maduck, the government and theSaskatchewan Outfitters Association (SOA) are trying to force all outfitters to belong to a mandatory commission, even though the majority of outfitters either oppose the idea or are just not interested in it.
Outfitters already require a mandatory license, Maduck noted, arguing that the initiative seems designed to benefit only the big outfitters (who he says mostly make up the SOA) at the expense of the majority of smaller outfitters.
“The days of the mom-and-pop outfitters may be over,” Maduck said.
“Maybe this is part of the plan.”
Maduck classifies himself as such a small operator, running his outfitting operation on a part-time basis to supplement other income.
As such, he has a smaller number of regular clients for his bear and other hunts. Most of them are blue-collar Americans who appreciate the value-for-money a smaller outfitter can provide.
In fairness to the government, hunting and guiding are a big part of the province’s tourism industry, and protecting the reputation of that industry is important.
Moreover, a self-regulated industry - as the government seems to now be proposing - is better than having rules foisted upon all outfitters by government.
But Maduck, who has developed his clientele over 22 years through both his website and word-of-mouth, said a bad reputation gets around.
He added that he doubts the changes are being driven by complaints as much as government and the bigger players in the outfitting business.
Maduck said the OAS has been trying to foist this on the smaller outfitters for 20 years now and, until now, the government has resisted.
In fact, Maduck said he received an April 2011 letter from Premier Brad Wall, in which the premier stated the Environment Ministry was “committed to open and ongoing dialogue with its many stakeholders, including the outfitting industry.” The 2011 letter went on to suggest the government would not be proceeding with draft legislation further regulating outfitters.
Something has obviously changed, Maduck noted.
And he wonders if that change has simply been dictated by a government’s need to regulate.
