The Saskatchewan NDP is calling for transparency after a significant financial decision was made without the presence of the responsible minister. The official opposition is raising questions following the approval of $800 million in funding for SaskPower during a committee meeting where the minister was notably absent.
Minister's Absence Raises Eyebrows
The controversy centers on a recent committee meeting where the substantial financial allocation for the provincial power utility was advanced. According to reports, the minister in charge, who would typically be expected to oversee and defend such a major expenditure, was not in attendance. This has prompted the NDP to formally seek an explanation for the minister's no-show during a critical discussion involving public funds.
Questions Over Accountability and Process
The NDP's inquiry highlights concerns about governmental accountability and the proper process for approving large-scale spending. The party is pressing for clarity on why the minister was not present to answer questions or provide details on the $800 million funding package for SaskPower. The absence has fueled opposition criticism regarding the government's handling of major financial commitments and its duty to be answerable to the legislative assembly and, by extension, the public.
The incident occurred on December 04, 2025, as reported by Wayne Mantyka. The NDP's move to question the event underscores ongoing political scrutiny over the management of Saskatchewan's energy sector and public finances.
Seeking Clarity on a Major Decision
With no minister present to provide context or justification, the approval process for the massive funding injection has been left under a cloud. The NDP's demand for answers is not just about a single meeting but touches on broader principles of ministerial responsibility. The party's stance suggests that decisions of this magnitude, which impact the province's budget and energy future, require direct oversight and explanation from the elected officials tasked with those portfolios.
The outcome of this political challenge and the government's response could set a precedent for how major spending initiatives are handled in committee moving forward. All eyes are now on the government to provide a satisfactory explanation for the minister's absence during this key vote.
