Lake Placid Investments Inc. proposal for River Landing Parcel “Y” in Saskatoon “falls short of requirements”

A report by the city manager included in City Council’s April 16, 2007, meeting agenda (Item F2 - River Landing Hotel/Residential Site) states:

Administration has consulted with Gwyn Symmons of CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., the author of the South Downtown Concept Plan. In a memo dated April 3, 2007, (Attachment 2) Mr. Symmons notes that:

“The rationale for a hotel was the role it could play in bringing activity to the area late into the evening through all the seasons; reinforcing it as a destination...at this stage, we would encourage Council to make a further effort to attract a hotel development for the site.”

Mr. Symmons further notes that:

“We would suggest that Council consider indicating a preference for some form of spa rather than mandating it. Additionally, they might request proponents identify any alternative to a spa that they think might assist in making this location a destination to the public but that would be consistent with the balance of River Landing.”

As such, Administration is recommending that the City re-market Parcel “Y” to potential developers using the original vision consisting of a hotel, restaurant, residential, retail, and a spa or destination facility. For clarity, a spa can be a publicly accessible geothermal spa or mineral water spa. However, Administration agrees that a spa is just one of many concepts that could serve as a destination attraction and is recommending that the provision of a spa be broadened to include other publicly accessible destination attractions allowed under DCD1 guidelines. A destination attraction’s purpose is more clearly defined under “Permitted Uses” within the DCD1 guidelines: “to build on the Downtown’s role as the cultural heart of the city by the development of cultural facilities which can improve economic prospects and encourage tourism”. Suggested uses include, but are not limited to, interpretive centres, theatres, museums, and art galleries.

Proponents will be instructed that City Council’s preference is for a publicly accessible spa. A destination attraction is suggested as a potential alternative, and will be evaluated accordingly.

It is clear that the City considers a “destination attraction” on Parcel “Y” to be very important. The purpose of a spa was to act as a “destination attraction”. City Council ultimately withdrew the idea of a spa but the fact remains the City feels a “destination attraction” is a critical element of the parcel’s development.

The Expressions of Interest (EOI) issued by the City in May 2007 called for a “destination attraction/gathering place”. It is a Priority 1 Essential Element and must be in the proposal. Unfortunately, it appears that the proposal submitted by Lake Placid Investments Inc. does not contain the required “destination attraction.” In accepting the proposal it is felt that the City has irreparably comprised the integrity of its EOI/RFP process.

The following letter to the editor on the matter was published in the StarPhoenix:

Proposal for River Landing falls short of requirements

Thursday, September 27, 2007

In Can we live with proposal? (SP, Sept. 19) civic affairs columnist Gerry Klein overlooked some important details about the Lake Placid proposal for River Landing.

The “expressions of interest” issued by the city required a destination attraction/gathering place. The EOI stated: “A destination attraction's purpose is more clearly defined under permitted uses within the DCD1 guidelines: ‘To build on the downtown’s role as the cultural heart of the city by the development of cultural facilities which can improve economic prospects and encourage tourism’.”

The public component of Lake Placid’s proposal consists of a raised plaza that includes a skating rink in the winter and a water pond/wading pool in the summer. A waterfall is also proposed. These are not cultural facilities and do not constitute the required destination attraction.

Furthermore, it appears that the proposed uses are not permitted under the DCD1 zoning for the area. These regulations state the only permitted uses are interpretive centres, theatres, heritage facilities, museums, art galleries, amphitheatres, display space, events programming, tour offices, box offices and public institutional offices.

Another important factor is development and management experience. The EOI states: “Proponents are required to provide a description of projects the company has developed and/or managed over the past 10 years. Experience in the type of development envisaged on the subject parcel (hotel, residential, retail, restaurant, destination attraction) is particularly important to note.”

Lake Placid builds condominiums. What experience does it have developing and/or managing destination attractions and hotels?

It appears the company’s proposal should not have gone beyond the EOI stage, yet city administration gave it a passing grade anyway. Why?

Equally disturbing is that city council did not review, evaluate or even see any of the EOIs. It’s time for some answers.

Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon

©The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007

Saskatoon City Council backs flawed Lake Placid Investments Inc. proposal for Parcel “Y” making a mockery of its process

For Saskatoon Mayor Don Atchison it would seem the interests of private developers and the size of their chequebook outweigh all else – including the City’s own established process.

In Council bypasses riverfront roadblock (SP Sept. 18, 2007) Atchison said any company willing to spend $125 million -- the estimated cost of Lake Placid’s proposed development -- in Saskatoon deserves congratulations instead of criticism.

“I think it’s about time that we started moving forward…I think people are anxious to see something occur sooner rather than later,” Atchison said.

At its September 17, 2007, meeting City Council unanimously gave its administration the go-ahead to begin negotiations with Lake Placid Investments Inc. for the development of Parcel “Y” within River Landing Phase I. In so doing Council made a mockery of its process.

The proposal by Lake Placid Investments falls short on several fronts and does not appear to meet the parameters City Council set out in the Expressions of Interest (EOI) it approved earlier this year – yet city administrators gave it a passing grade anyway.

The EOI called for a “destination attraction/gathering place.” City Council considers this a Priority 1 Essential Element whereas the office building in the developer’s proposal is a distant Priority 3 Allowable Use.

Section 5.0 of the River Landing Parcel “Y” Expressions of Interest (EOI) states:

“A destination attraction’s purpose is more clearly defined under “Permitted Uses” within the DCD1 guidelines: “to build on the Downtown’s role as the cultural heart of the city by the development of cultural facilities which can improve economic prospects and encourage tourism”. Suggested uses include, but are not limited to, publicly accessible interpretive centres, theatres, heritage facilities, museums, and art galleries.”

The public component of Lake Placid’s proposal consists of a “raised plaza” that includes a skating rink in the winter and a water pond/wading pool in the summer. A waterfall is also proposed. These are not cultural facilities and do not constitute a destination attraction.

Furthermore, the uses proposed by the developer do not appear to be permitted under the City’s Direct Control District 1 (DCD1) guidelines.

The DCD1 clearly state:

“The only permitted uses in the DCD1 are those listed in the following table: Uses for the DCD1.”

According to the table the only permitted uses are: Interpretive Centres, Theatres, Heritage Facilities, Museums, Art Galleries, Amphitheatres, Display Space, Events Programming, Tour Offices, Box Office, Public Institutional Offices.

Also in question is Lake Placid’s experience at developing and/or managing destination attractions and hotels.

Section 5.0 – Information to be Submitted of the EOI states:

“6. Development and Management Experience
Proponents are required to provide a description of projects the company has developed and/or managed over the past ten years. Experience in the type of development envisaged on the subject parcel (hotel, residential, retail, restaurant, destination attraction) is particularly important to note.”

The EOI’s that were submitted by Lake Placid Investments Inc. and the consortium of WAM Development Group/Concorde Group Corp. have not been made public. According to city administration, the Executive Committee “did not review, evaluate or even see any of the EOI’s.” City administration alone handled that. This is disturbing to say the least.

It’s understandable that City Council cannot possibly be expected to review every single matter that comes into city hall or get into the business of micromanaging day to day operations. But given the magnitude of the subject and controversy surrounding the South Downtown you’d think this is one time that Council should be involved and the city more open with the public.

Section 13.0 – Evaluation Criteria of the EOI states:

“To assist in shortlisting proponents the City will use a point system as a guide. Information that will be used as criteria for evaluation has been identified in Section 5.0 “Information to the Submitted”. The purpose of this information is to ensure that shortlisted applicants have financial capability and integrity, development experience and a concept that is considered with the South Downtown Concept Plan. This criteria and their point rating are summarized below:

Development and Management Experience – 30 points
Development Concept Summary – 60 points
References – 10 points
Total – 100 points”

A report by the city manager in the June 25, 2007, City Council agenda states: “The administrative committee conducted an evaluation based on the evaluation criteria and the information requirements of the EOI. The evaluation has found that both scored sufficiently to proceed to the RFP stage. The review indicated that Lake Placid and WAM/Concorde Group have captured the vision, land-use mix, and scale outlined in the EOI and have demonstrated the appropriate financial capacity.”

The report does not mention Development and Management Experience. Nor does it include a breakdown of the scores that each proposal received.

The only information that appears to be available to the public to gauge the experience of the developer is the RFP and what appears on the Lake Placid website. It seems the developer’s experience consists of two high-end condominium projects currently underway in Kelowna, BC and Calgary, AB. Destination attractions or hotels don’t seem to be listed anywhere.

This whole business calls into question the legitimacy of the City’s decision to give Lake Placid’s EOI a passing grade – when perhaps it should have been more appropriately disqualified – and City Council’s decision to allow the troubled proposal to proceed to the RFP stage.

To date the City has not provided any explanation as to how and why this mess was allowed to happen. With only two EOI’s being submitted it could be that the City couldn’t afford to lose one.

Lake Placid Investments Inc. proposal for River Landing Parcel "Y" appears to be at odds with DCD1 Guidelines

A report from city manager Phil Richards to Saskatoon City Council is recommending that Administration proceed to negotiate the necessary agreements with Lake Placid Investments Inc. for the development of River Landing Parcel “Y”.

An administrative committee comprised of city staff reviewed Lake Placid's proposal and scored it 88 out of a possible 100 points. The report states that the proposal “meets and exceeds City Council's priorities outlined in the RFP.”

Concerns remain however that the Lake Placid proposal does not appear to fulfill the requirement of a “destination attraction/gathering place” as defined in the earlier Expressions of Interest (EOI). There is also some question that part of the developer's proposal may not comply with the Direct Control District 1 (DCD1).

It should be noted that City Council apparently did not see the EOI submissions by Lake Placid Investments Inc. and WAM Group/Concorde Group prior to giving its approval that they proceed to the RFP stage. City administrators alone reviewed and evaluated the submissions.

Despite the serious nature of these and other concerns Mayor Don Atchison is already predicting that Council will dutifully approve the proposal.

In Council likely to OK river project (StarPhoenix, Sept. 15, 2007), Atchison said “I'm not a betting man, but I certainly believe with the score of 88 out of 100 it certainly will be moving forward.”

The following letter was submitted to City Council for consideration at its September 17, 2007, meeting:


September 16, 2007


Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of Council:

RE: River Landing Parcel "Y" - Lake Placid Investments Inc. Proposal Evaluation

With respect to Lake Placid Investments Inc. proposal for River Landing Parcel “Y” the DCD1 Guidelines do not appear to permit what the developer is proposing as its destination attraction/gathering place.

Section 5.0 of the River Landing Parcel “Y” Expressions of Interest (EOI) states:

“A destination attraction’s purpose is more clearly defined under “Permitted Uses” within the DCD1 guidelines: “to build on the Downtown’s role as the cultural heart of the city by the development of cultural facilities which can improve economic prospects and encourage tourism”. Suggested uses include, but are not limited to, publicly accessible interpretive centres, theatres, heritage facilities, museums, and art galleries.”

The definition used by city administration is drawn from the Culture & Tourism category of Table 1 – Uses and Facilities for the DCD1 Area.

The DCD1 clearly state:

“The only permitted uses in the DCD1 are those listed in the following table: Uses for the DCD1.”

According to the table the only permitted uses are: Interpretive Centres, Theatres, Heritage Facilities, Museums, Art Galleries , Amphitheatres, Display Space, Events Programming, Tour Offices, Box Office, Public Institutional Offices. These would be what the EOI meant by “cultural facilities.”

The public component of Lake Placid’s proposal consists of a “raised plaza” that includes a skating rink in the winter and a water pond/wading pool in the summer. A waterfall is also proposed. These do not appear to be listed in the DCD1 as permitted uses. Additionally, they are not “cultural facilities.”

The proposed uses do not appear to be allowed under the “Recreation” category of the DCD1 either where Equipment Rentals, Marinas, Pavilions, Cafes, Tour Boats, Street Vendors, Docks, and Sportsfields are listed as the only permitted uses.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon , SK

cc:

Meewasin Valley Authority Board of Directors
Darren Hill, City Councillor Ward 1

Saskatchewan Party support for The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act misleading; review and legislative changes likely if elected

“[W]e believe all but four of the major Crowns should be dispensed.”
–Brenda Bakken, Saskatchewan Party MLA for Weyburn-Big Muddy, Weyburn Review, June 19, 2002

On August 21, 2007, the Saskatchewan Party issued a news release refuting claims that if elected it would, among other things, privatize Crown corporations. Citing a leaked NDP election brochure that his party had obtained leader Brad Wall called the accusations “scare tactics.”

“[T]he NDP knows the Saskatchewan Party will not privatize any of the utility Crowns. In fact, our MLAs voted in favour of The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act, just like the NDP MLAs,” Wall said.

The news release was accompanied by a six-point backgrounder refuting the NDP’s claims. NDP Scare Tactic #5: Privatization of Crown utilities and SGI states:

Fact: The Saskatchewan Party will not privatize the Crown Corporations.

Saskatchewan Party MLAs unanimously supported The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act, introduced by the NDP government in 2004.

Saskatchewan Party Policy: That a Saskatchewan Party government supports The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act and will retain public ownership of our major crown corporations as important tools in the provision of utility services to Saskatchewan families and businesses and important partners in the economic development of Saskatchewan.

On the surface the Saskatchewan Party’s response seems convincing, but closer examination reveals that its support of The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act is not what people are being led to believe.

A good starting point to understanding the Saskatchewan Party’s true feelings about Crown corporations is a June 19, 2002, article in the Weyburn Review by Ricardo Gloria and Daniel Savoie.

Report critical of prov. gov't discusses a study by the Fraser Institute that criticizes the NDP coalition government’s tax policies and the use of Crown corporations within the province.

“Saskatchewan can achieve great prosperity and emulate the economic achievements of provinces like Alberta if it undertakes dramatic reforms,” said Jason Clemens, director of fiscal studies at The Fraser Institute, and co-author of the study in a May 27, 2002 news release.

According to the Institute, Saskatchewan’s “sluggish” investment performance could partly “be attributed to the province’s excessive reliance on Crown Corporations. Crown Corporations tend to develop with less capital and more labour than their private sector counterparts. Saskatchewan’s large Crown Corporation sector (the largest in Canada), coupled with their low levels of capitalization, remain an impediment to business development.”

The report Saskatchewan Prosperity: Taking the Next Step (May 2002) recommended that Saskatchewan immediately “Review all Crown Corporations and identify those that can be privatized quickly and those that may require more time to privatize. All proceeds from privatization must be earmarked to reducing the province’s accumulated debt.”

The Fraser report echoed the sentiments of Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall who in the legislature on March 25, 2002, said “let’s review the Crowns, let’s review them with a view to doing what’s right for the province of Saskatchewan…Pending this review, we would put a moratorium on all out-of-province investments by the Crown corporations. And…we would put an end, an unequivocal and absolute end to the amazing practice of this government of using the Crown corporations to compete with small-business men and women. You bet we would do that.”

The Fraser report also appeared to be music to the ears of Brenda Bakken, the Saskatchewan Party MLA for Weyburn-Big Muddy.

“The Fraser Institute report has all the elements of our policies and is a positive endorsement of what we’ve been saying for years,” Bakken told the Weyburn Review. “We need to get taxes down to where our neighbors are, and we believe all but four of the major Crowns should be dispensed.”

Bakken identified the four protectable crown corporations as SGI, SaskPower, SaskTel and SaskEnergy. This is important to remember because, as it turns out, they’re the only Crowns that the Saskatchewan Party supports keeping publicly owned.

Responding to the Province’s Speech from the Throne on March 18, 2004, June Draude, the Saskatchewan Party MLA for Kelvington-Wadena, confirms as much stating on her website:

“The major initiative appears to be an attempt to enshrine the Crowns to ensure they will be the engines of the economy. We have not seen the legislation so whether that means all 87 crowns or just the 4 major Crowns (which we support) will be looked at when the bill is introduced.”

On September 21, 2004, Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall unveiled his economic vision for Saskatchewan in an address to more than 200 students at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Commerce.

According to the party’s news release “The Promise of Saskatchewan: A New Vision for Saskatchewan’s Economy is a 37-page document that details Wall’s plan for rebuilding Saskatchewan’s economy and realizing the province’s great potential.”

Page eight of the plan states: “Creative partnerships, investment in new and old economy infrastructure, a focus on postsecondary education and the removal of barriers to investment in each of our key economic sectors will replace direct government investment and intervention in the economy.”

“A Saskatchewan Party government would implement this new vision for economic development through the creation of a new partnership called Enterprise Saskatchewan.”

“Enterprise Saskatchewan will be created as the central economic development agency of government replacing the economic development function currently resident in the Department of Industry and Natural Resources. The…government will cede significant control over the formation and implementation of economic development strategies to a broad partnership of economic stakeholders with the full support of the Premier and Executive Council,” the plan notes on page eleven.

Wall’s plan goes on to say “Rather than taking direction from government, Enterprise Saskatchewan will establish provincial economic development goals and strategies for endorsement by Cabinet and the Legislature. Government departments, agencies and, in some cases, Crown corporations, will then be tasked with implementing these strategies. Enterprise Saskatchewan will also monitor progress and measure results.”

Enterprise Saskatchewan will focus on Saskatchewan’s key economic sectors and implement a broad plan consisting of approximately sixteen elements with one being to “develop a systematic and ongoing process to identify and remove barriers to growth in each of our key economic sectors.”

Wall’s plan conveniently identifies Crown corporations as one of those barriers. Page thirteen states:

“[N]on-tax barriers that will require the attention and diligence of Enterprise Saskatchewan include direct competition to business from various government agencies and Crowns attempting to diversify from core functions, as well as policies of the Crowns themselves.”

The sixteenth and final element listed in Wall’s plan is Utility Crown Corporations and Enterprise Saskatchewan:

“A Saskatchewan Party government will maintain Saskatchewan’s four major utilities (SaskPower, SaskTel, SaskEnergy and SGI) as government-owned Crown corporations and they will play a key role in the implementation of the Enterprise Saskatchewan Plan.

“As the central agency for designing, implementing, and monitoring provincial economic development, Enterprise Saskatchewan will have coordinating role with regard to the major Crowns.”

This is significant because it’s here in his own words that Wall states his government would maintain just the four major crowns as public entities. And if that weren’t enough Enterprise Saskatchewan – which would be run by a broad partnership of economic stakeholders with significant control over the formation and implementation of economic development strategies with the full support of the Premier and Executive Council – will have a coordinating role in regards to the major Crowns.

On November 18, 2004, Bill No. 75 – The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act was introduced in the legislature and read for the first time.

The Act, according to the government’s news release, was introduced “to preserve the public ownership of Crown corporations.”

“The Act would require a thorough study of any proposed privatization, including an analysis of the costs and benefits. A full report would be tabled with the Legislature, and a Committee of the Legislative Assembly would debate the proposed sale. A sale would be effective only after a general election, ensuring the people of Saskatchewan have the final say.”

The legislation applies to Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan, Liquor and Gaming Authority, Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation, Saskatchewan Government Insurance, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corporation, Saskatchewan Transportation Company, Saskatchewan Water Corporation, SaskEnergy Incorporated, SGC Holdings Inc. and TransGas Limited.

This list goes well beyond the four major Crowns that Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall says his party supports keeping publicly owned.

The newspaper article NDP plans law to keep Crowns public (StarPhoenix, Nov. 19, 2004) notes that “the legislation leaves out Crowns such as the Saskatchewan Research Council and the Saskatchewan Communications Network.”

“Selling off a major portion of a Crown without fully privatizing the company would require the same legislative process under the act, said [Crown Management Board Minister Pat] Atkinson.”

The Act received second reading on November 22, 2004. Prior to the vote Wayne Elhard, the Saskatchewan Party MLA for Cypress Hills, spoke on behalf of the party: “For the record, Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Party supports this Bill. The Saskatchewan Party supports the continued public ownership of the major Crowns.”

Elhard went on to make the following comments:

“The Saskatchewan Party, like the majority of Saskatchewan people, believe the major Crowns should stay in public hands. We believe that the major Crowns and their employees do an excellent job of providing services to the people of Saskatchewan. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have no problem supporting this Bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Party believes it is the role of government to provide essential services like power, like gas, like insurance, like telecommunications services, but they need to be directed to the people of Saskatchewan at the lowest possible cost.”

“Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Party supports The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act and commits to the people of Saskatchewan that a Saskatchewan Party government will keep the major Crowns publicly owned while focusing on providing the best possible service to Saskatchewan people, Mr. Speaker, all the while at the lowest possible cost. Thank you.”

What Elhard did not tell the people of Saskatchewan, though, is that aside from the four major Crowns – power, gas, insurance and telecommunications services – his party had no intention of keeping any of the other Crowns publicly owned. The scope of The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act goes well beyond what Elhard said his party would commit to, yet he and his colleagues voted to support the Act as it was presented anyway. The Saskatchewan Party clearly wants to have it both ways and have misled not only the legislature but the people of the province.

With a unanimous vote of 57-0 the Act passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies.

In Sask. Party refuses to fight on privatization (StarPhoenix, Nov. 25, 2004) anti-NDP columnist Randy Burton said “the NDP’s “Save the Crowns” bill suggests no future government could repeal the legislation without first holding public hearings on the topic.”

Not so, according to Burton’s column.

“Anything a legislature can do, a legislature can undo,” said Gordon Barnhart, the University of Saskatchewan secretary who has also been the clerk to both the provincial legislature and the federal Senate.

“The future legislators, including the NDP if they had to and wanted to, could strike down the first bill. I mean amend it by totally deleting it,” said Barnhart.

Burton went on to say “Alternatively, this government or any new one could amend the bill by taking out the provision requiring public hearings prior to repeal of the bill and then just go ahead and abolish it. With it would go the requirement for an election prior to any privatization, and all the rest of it.”

“It’s hard to believe Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall doesn’t know this, but if he does, he’s keeping it to himself.”

Following a one-day hearing before the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies on November 29th the Act was read a third time and passed on November 30, 2004.

The question of legislative changes and its importance to advancing Wall’s Enterprise Saskatchewan scheme revealed itself a year later.

On December 8, 2005, Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall gave a speech to the North Saskatoon Business Association (NSBA) at the Delta Bessborough in Saskatoon. Wall used the occasion to peddle his Enterprise Saskatchewan plan.

Wall talked about the “first six months of a new government” and “the implementation of the Enterprise Saskatchewan plan” if his party is elected.

In the first week of a Saskatchewan Party government Wall said “A public/private partnership called Enterprise Saskatchewan is announced as the replacement for the Industry department of the department of Industry and Resources.”

“At the outset, we will direct Enterprise Saskatchewan to establish sector teams for the economic sectors that business has told me can drive true job creating economic growth in Saskatchewan,” Wall said.

“Each team will have one month to prepare its first inventory of the barriers to growth holding that sector back from reaching its full potential.”

Wall told the audience “The terms of reference of Enterprise Saskatchewan also include the end of government picking winners and losers in the economy” and that “These initiatives are non-negotiable and are hard wired right into Enterprise Saskatchewan. Legislative changes where necessary will be readied for the first Legislative session.”

Wall’s Enterprise Saskatchewan plan promises to “identify and remove barriers to growth” and already targets Crown corporations as a non-tax barrier. Wall would seem more than prepared to use legislative changes to ensure that his plans are accomplished.

In February 2007 the Saskatchewan Party Policy Book: Pride with Purpose was released. The document brings together the work that the party has done over the past three years including Enterprise Saskatchewan and a multitude of Saskatchewan Party Policy Resolutions.

In essence, the Saskatchewan Party Policy Book is leader Brad Wall’s agenda and will form much of the basis of his party’s platform in the next election. It will represent Wall’s mandate should he become premier.

Among the party policy resolutions is CC05-1: Keeping the Major Crowns Public that states:

“Be it resolved that a Saskatchewan Party government supports The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act and will retain public ownership of our major Crown corporations as important tools in the provision of utility services to Saskatchewan families and businesses and important partners in the economic development of Saskatchewan.”

Simply stated, this resolution misleads the people of Saskatchewan. It has been established that the Saskatchewan Party only supports keeping the four major Crown corporations publicly owned. Its support for The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act only goes so far as to include SaskPower, SaskTel, SaskEnergy and SGI.

Saskatchewan Party policy resolution EC05-1: Building Enterprise Saskatchewan states:

“Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Party endorses “The Promise of Saskatchewan: A New Vision for Saskatchewan’s Economy” as presented by Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall as the foundation for the economic development plan of a Saskatchewan Party government.”

This resolution enshrines leader Brad Wall’s “economic vision” as party policy.

Saskatchewan Party policy resolution EC05-2: Rethinking Direct Government Investment and Intervention in the Economy states in part:

“Be it resolved that a Saskatchewan Party government will replace direct government investment and intervention in the economy with:

a) Creation of a new partnership with business, labour, First Nations, local governments and educators called Enterprise Saskatchewan to create an entrepreneurial and enterprising economy;

d) The removal of barriers to private sector investment in Saskatchewan’s key economic sectors.”

This policy resolution ensures that Wall’s Enterprise Saskatchewan is established. It would also seem to give Wall the mandate to remove alleged barriers even if doing so meant legislative changes.

Saskatchewan Party policy resolution EC05-3: Establishing the Right Economic Development Priorities states in part:

“Be it resolved that the economic development priorities of a Saskatchewan Party government will be to:

d) Maintain public ownership of Saskatchewan’s major crown utilities focused on the provision of power, telecommunications services, natural gas transmission and distribution and insurance services to Saskatchewan families and businesses at the lowest possible cost.”

This policy confirms once and for all that the Saskatchewan Party supports only the public ownership of the four major Crowns.

Saskatchewan Party policy resolution EC05-8: Performing a Service-Based Review of Government Operations states:

“Be it resolved that a Saskatchewan Party government will perform a service-based review of government operations to ensure all parts of government are:

a) Serving a compelling public interest;
b) Affordable within the fiscal environment of the province;
c) Providing services in the most efficient way possible;
d) Accountable to the taxpayer; and
e) Removing barriers to the development of an entrepreneurial and enterprising economy.”

This policy would provide Wall with a mandate to review “all parts of government” that could include, if necessary, the use of legislative changes to further the Enterprise Saskatchewan plan of identifying and removing barriers. The Crowns are identified in Enterprise Saskatchewan as barriers.

The following three Saskatchewan Party policy resolutions relate to Crown Corporations:

“CC05-5: Renewing Crown Corporation Mandates Every Five Years

Be it resolved that a review of the mandate and dividend policy of the major Crown corporations be completed every five years with participation from business, labour, stakeholders and citizen representatives.

CC05-6: Stopping Provincial Government Competition With Private Sector Businesses

Be it resolved that a Saskatchewan Party government will immediately review provincial government competition with the private sector through government departments, agencies and Crown corporations in the delivery of services to the people of Saskatchewan.

CC05-7: Reviewing All Existing Out-of-Province Crown Business Ventures

Be it resolved that Saskatchewan Party government will review all existing out-of-province Crown business ventures and place a moratorium on further out-of-province investment by Crown corporations until the review is complete.”

Anything that gets reviewed tends to result in recommendations to address the areas of concern that might have been identified. Enterprise Saskatchewan has been entrenched as party policy and ensures “that a Saskatchewan Party government will replace direct government investment and intervention in the economy with…The removal of barriers to private sector investment in Saskatchewan’s key economic sectors.” Should a future review of Crown operations and policies determine that barriers exist and recommend their removal you can bet a Brad Wall government would move to do just that even if it meant legislative changes. Wall made that clear in his December 8, 2005, speech to the North Saskatoon Business Association.

Conclusion

It appears that the Saskatchewan Party has misled the public on its support of The Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act and continues to do so today.

In a March 10, 2007, letter to editor of the Regina Leader-Post, Saskatchewan Party MLA Ken Krawetz said “The Saskatchewan Party believes the provincial government needs to pursue a growth agenda. While that includes removing barriers to growth, such as the removal of inter-provincial trade barriers, it also means…Maintaining public ownership of Saskatchewan’s major Crown corporations.”

What Krawetz did not say is that his party only supports the Act insofar as it relates to the four major Crowns: SaskPower, SaskTel, SaskEnergy and SGI. All other Crown corporations would appear to be in jeopardy should the Saskatchewan Party form the next government. In June 2002, former Saskatchewan Party MLA Brenda Bakken said her party believed they “should be dispensed.” That strategy appears not to have changed.

In an August 16, 2007, letter to the editor of the Yorkton News Review, Saskatchewan Party candidate for Yorkton, Greg Ottenbreit repeats what now seems to have become the official party line on Crown corporations and is something that will likely be repeated often during the upcoming election:

“A Saskatchewan Party government will keep Saskatchewan’s major Crowns publicly owned. Saskatchewan Party MLAs unanimously supported the Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act introduced by the NDP government in 2004 and our party policy states: “That a Saskatchewan Party government supports the Crown Corporation Public Ownership Act and will retain public ownership of our major Crown corporations as important tools in the provision of utility services to Saskatchewan families and businesses and important partners in the economic development of Saskatchewan.”

Again, what the Saskatchewan Party is not telling people is that its support of the Crowns begins and ends with the four major ones with the rest apparently being expendable.

A vote for the Saskatchewan Party is a vote for the Saskatchewan Party Policy Book and a process that could begin the review and dispensing of nearly all of the province’s Crown corporations.

Lake Placid Investments Inc. RFP for River Landing Parcel Y in Saskatoon comes up short; public shortchanged as City rushes approval process

Released to great fanfare on September 5, 2007, was Lake Placid Investments Inc. proposal for River Landing Parcel Y in Saskatoon. For the second time in as many tries only one developer came forward with a proposal by the deadline for the chance to develop the 2.43-acre riverfront property. In May 2005, Remai Ventures Inc. was the lone developer to submit a proposal for the same land but its planned $40 million spa hotel was abandoned in February 2007 when it decided the project was not sustainable. Lake Placid’s plan is estimated to cost $125 million, not including the $4.8 million for the land.

The usual suspects have quickly lined up to give the plan the thumbs up: Mayor Don Atchison, Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority (SREDA), The Partnership, Tourism Saskatoon, The StarPhoenix and to some extent the Meewasin Valley Authority.

Saskatoon City Council is scheduled to consider Lake Placid’s proposal at its September 17, 2007, meeting. The following letter on the matter was submitted to City Council:


September 10, 2007


Dear Mayor Atchison and Members of City Council:

I do not support the Lake Placid Investment Inc. proposal for River Landing Parcel Y and would like to submit the following comments for city council’s consideration.

1) The River Landing Parcel Y Request for Proposals (RFP) calls for a “destination attraction/gathering place.” City council considers this component a Priority 1 Essential Element.

Section 5.0 of the River Landing Parcel Y Expressions of Interest (EOI) defines a destination attraction:

“A destination attraction’s purpose is more clearly defined under “Permitted Uses” within the DCD1 guidelines: “to build on the Downtown’s role as the cultural heart of the city by the development of cultural facilities which can improve economic prospects and encourage tourism”. Suggested uses include, but are not limited to, publicly accessible interpretive centres, theatres, heritage facilities, museums, and art galleries.”

A “cultural facility” can be defined as any building or structure used for programs or activities involving the arts or other endeavors that encourage refinement or development of the mind.

Lake Placid describes the public component of its RFP as a “gathering space”, “meeting place” and “cultural destination.” It includes a water pond/wading pool, skating rink and an elevated water feature. How these activities will encourage the refinement or development of the mind is a mystery. What Lake Placid is proposing are amenities not a destination attraction – something that would build on the Downtown’s role as the cultural heart of the city by the development of cultural facilities. In fact, the term “destination attraction” does not even appear in the proposal.

2) Section 5.0 – Information to be Submitted of the EOI states:

“6. Development and Management Experience
Proponents are required to provide a description of projects the company has developed and/or managed over the past ten years. Experience in the type of development envisaged on the subject parcel (hotel, residential, retail, restaurant, destination attraction) is particularly important to note.”

What is Lake Placid’s previous experience in developing and/or managing destination attractions? Its RFP does not appear to provide the public with this kind of information. The city’s administrative committee apparently evaluated Lake Placid’s EOI and found it sufficient to proceed to the RFP stage but unfortunately the public has been denied access to that document.

Page twenty-six of the Lake Placid RFP provides a brief overview of prime consultant S2 Architecture’s “impressive client base made up of school boards, government bodies, institutions, corporations, and private developers.” The RFP also states that “S2 Architecture is involved in a variety of residential, commercial and hospitality projects across Alberta, BC, and California.”

As for Lake Placid the only information concerning their experience are two short paragraphs and two pictures showing their Centuria on the Park, Calgary, AB and Centuria Urban Village, Kelowna, BC developments – both upscale condominiums. Nowhere is Lake Placid – or S2 Architecture for that matter – experience in developing destination attractions detailed. Neither of their websites appears to contain this information. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether Lake Placid has experience developing and/or managing hotels.

In the newspaper article Developers line up (StarPhoenix, June 22, 2007), Lake Placid is described as “a relative newcomer to the property development game. Its first complex is slated for a February completion in Kelowna, B.C.” This is unsettling.

3) Lake Placid’s proposal does not appear to include First Nations history or culture. At present token acknowledgement by the city in the form of tree grates and a future statue in the middle of a traffic circle represent the only Aboriginal presence in the River Landing development.

4) Saskatoon already has a successful downtown outdoor skating rink. In 2006-07 the Meewasin Skating Rink had more than 10,230 skaters from all over the world use the rink. It was named best outdoor rink in Canada by Reader’s Digest magazine. Lake Placid’s proposed skating rink could have a negative impact on the Meewasin rink. This would be most unfortunate.

5) The Lake Placid proposal shows a festival stage and water pond/wading pool. The River Landing Riverfront Park Phase I will have an outdoor amphitheatre, a children’s water play feature and a small stage area. Does the riverbank need more of the same in such close proximity?

6) Lake Placid’s proposed hotel drop off on 2nd Avenue South could increase traffic congestion. The narrow roadway, paving stone surface, roundabout and angle parking will likely create enough traffic headaches as it is.

7) The combination boutique hotel, condominium tower and office building offers nothing unique or exciting. The development lacks something special, a draw that will rival other major centres. Lake Placid’s proposal may have local appeal and perhaps regional at best but it is difficult to imagine it attracting significant interest on a national level.

8) The proposed glass and metal buildings present a cold institutional feeling. They are reminiscent of 60s style apartment complexes. A 20-storey monstrosity does not belong on the riverbank.

9) Page twenty-one of the Lake Placid proposal states: “The tenants and retailers located in River Landing would be of a higher end nature…” The exclusive nature of the development will eliminate a large segment of the population who won’t be able to afford it. In fact, the word “affordable” does not appear in the proposal. The development could be perceived as elitist, a playground for the rich.

10) The Lake Placid plan shows the laneway located behind the former Royal Canadian Legion property on 19th Street East being used as a “parkade and service zone access.” The city assessor advised me on December 6, 2006, that the land is city-owned and comprises 5,881.38 square feet or 0.135 acres. According to a Nov. 14, 2004, e-mail from the city’s special projects manager the south downtown budget does not include costs associated with the laneway. Who will be paying the costs of bringing this area up to acceptable standards?

11) The Lake Placid proposal does not provide detailed measurements. The scale of some aspects of the development does not seem plausible. This is especially apparent on page nineteen: view of plaza looking southwest. The space surrounding the people that are pictured is unbelievably large.

12) The Lake Placid development will result in the loss of the mature American elm trees on the site. Their value as natural heritage cannot be replaced.

Conclusion

I am concerned that the city is rushing the Lake Placid proposal through the approval process. The city received the RFP on September 4, 2007. It was put on public display at city hall from September 5-10, 2007. A city administrative committee will evaluate the proposal and submit a report to city council for its Sept. 17 meeting where it is expected approval will be given for administration to enter into negotiations with Lake Placid. Total time of process: 15 days.

The Remai Ventures Inc. RFP, by comparison, was received May 25, 2005. It went on public display from May 27-June 7, 2005. City council received the RFP as information at its May 30, 2005, meeting. The proposal was evaluated by a committee comprised of civic staff and consultant resources and a report was submitted to council for its June 27, 2005, meeting where council approved the proposal and authorized administration to enter into negotiations with Remai. Total time of process: 33 days.

The public had 12 days to view the Remai proposal and provide feedback but will have only 6 days with Lake Placid’s. Why the big hurry?

At $40 million Remai Ventures said its proposal for Parcel Y was not sustainable yet the Lake Placid plan at $125 million, not including the $4.8 million for the land is? What kind of tax breaks and subsidies is it going to take to get this development off the ground? Twice the public was led to believe that there was significant interest in Parcel Y and twice only one developer came forward with a proposal. It might be worthwhile to figure out why this happened and whether it had anything to do with the city’s South Downtown Concept Plan 2004.

Perhaps the city should take time to reconsider its options, including keeping the land publicly owned, and begin a process that engages all citizens in a more positive, meaningful and inclusive way.

Sincerely,


Joe Kuchta
Saskatoon, SK

cc: Meewasin Valley Authority Board of Directors

[Photos: River Landing Parcel Y Request for Proposal (Sept. 2007), Lake Placid Investments Inc.]

CGA-Canada, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Council of Chief Executives and VOIC call on PM to regulate internal trade within Canada

A coalition of disgruntled business organizations is calling on Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to develop and implement legislation to regulate trade and commerce between provinces in Canada.

The super lobby group, led by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada and the Vegetable Oil Industry of Canada, also includes the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, and the Dairy Processors of Canada.

The group is apparently frustrated with the glacial pace taken by Premiers in removing interprovincial trade barriers. The problem, though, is that the alleged barriers don’t really exist yet these organizations continue to alarm Canadians with their attempts to instill a sense of panic and crisis over the issue.

In the op-ed Is Canada a country? (National Post, Sept. 6, 2007), Sean McPhee, president of the Vegetable Oil Industry of Canada, and Carole Pressault, a vice-president with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, make the preposterous claim that after 140-years of confederation “Canadians cannot be certain that they can do business in other provinces, sell their goods, make investments or pursue their profession or trade.”

Evidence seems to suggest that this is simply not true.

The report Saskatchewan’s Internal Trade at a Glance (April 2007), prepared by Saskatchewan Government Relations, notes: “According to the OECD, Canada is amongst the most ‘open’ of all industrialized countries, both in terms of its international trade and in terms of its domestic economic and administrative regulatory ‘restrictiveness’.”

“Empirically, Canada’s and the West’s internal trade growth and their overall economic growth have mirrored each other - some economists cite this as evidence that few impediments to internal trade exist in Canada,” the report states.

Still, groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Council of Chief Executives are determined to incite hysteria over something that most credible reports have determined does not exist to the extent claimed.

“This is about differences in regulations and standards across provincial lines, not whether businesses are barred from selling goods or making investments,” notes economist Marc Lee in an excellent rebuttal posted at the Progressive Economics Forum.

McPhee and Pressault use the word “Canadians” six times in their op-ed as if to suggest they and their cohorts somehow speak for all citizens. They don’t. The primary purpose of the organizations they represent is to affect change in public policy so more profits can be generated for shareholders.

In June 1997 the Canadian Council of Chief Executives reported that its 150 member companies administered in excess of C$1.6 trillion in assets with an annual turnover of approximately C$500 billion. As of September 2007 those assets have swelled to C$3.5 trillion with revenues in excess of C$800 billion. The average Canadian did not enjoy the same level of prosperity. In fact, the gap between rich and poor has only gotten worse.

Honestly, when was the last time the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or Canadian Council of Chief Executives gave a damn about what ordinary Canadians think?

In their op-ed McPhee and Pressault also state:

“Maybe the federal government should do something. Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, allows the federal government to regulate trade and commerce between provinces in Canada.

“Don't count on it. They have never done their job in 140 years and there is no indication that they will do so now. But here’s a modest proposal: Prime Minister Stephen Harper, please develop and legislate a set of domestic trade principles that all governments could apply to their legislation, regulations, policies and administrative practices to ensure open trade within Canada.

“And do so in a manner that involves all Canadians who wish to comment and consult. Let’s get the business of reforming interprovincial trade out of the premiers' private club and into the open for all citizens.”

Sooner or later you had to know this was coming. Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has spent the last several months warning provinces that they’d either better sign the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) or emulate it – and soon.

As for the Harper government involving “all Canadians who wish to comment and consult,” one only need look at the way they conducted the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite to see that that’s not a viable option.

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper made his feelings on public consultation known on January 29, 2003, when as Leader of the Opposition he stood in the House of Commons and, on the matter of the impending Iraq War and Canada’s involvement, said:

“This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty have already given TILMA their unqualified support. Their goal is to clearly see it, or something like it, implemented in every province and territory in Canada. Any “consultation” undertaken by this government will undoubtedly come with a pre-determined outcome.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, with help from the Canadian government and organizations like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, have spent a great deal of time, energy and money developing and forcing its North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI) down the throats of North Americans without their input or consent. The BC and Alberta governments have essentially done the same thing to its citizens with TILMA. And Canadians are expected to believe their voices will be heard and opinions count for something now? I think not.

Angus Reid Forum survey on Saskatchewan issues making the rounds again; may belong to the Saskatchewan Party

Another Angus Reid Forum survey focusing on Saskatchewan issues is making the rounds again. Some of the questions appear to be identical to a June 11, 2007, survey that I believe was later attributed to the Saskatchewan Party. This one could belong to them as well.

Overall, do you feel things in the Province of Saskatchewan are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track?

Please select one response only.

	Strongly right direction
	Somewhat right direction
	Somewhat wrong track
	Strongly wrong track
	Don’t Know

What do you feel is the most important issue facing Saskatchewan that your provincial political representatives should deal with in the next three to six months? Please select one response only. Poverty Infrastructure / Roads Health care - Wait times Economy / Business issues Murdoch Carriere case More doctors Deficit reduction Government accountability Health care issues - General Aboriginal issues Crown corporations – Protecting / Not Privatizing Crime and justice issues Agriculture / Farming issues Taxes Equalization payments Promoting Saskatchewan Population Decline / Brain drain Daycare and children issues Jobs/ Employment rate Environmental issues Natural resources issues Education issues Property taxes Some Other Issue No Issue(s) Don't know

Do you have a favourable or unfavourable impression of the following provincial party leaders? Please select one response for each item. Very favourable Somewhat favourable Somewhat unfavourable Very unfavourable Don’t know / No Opinion Brad Wall Lorne Calvert David Karwacki

Based on how you feel right now, if a provincial election were held tomorrow, which party’s candidate would you most likely vote for in your area? Please select one response only. The Saskatchewan Party The NDP The Liberal Party Or Some Other Party’s candidate (Please specify) Don’t Know / Undecided Will Not Vote / Will Spoil Ballot Will Not Say

Would you say that your vote for this party is definite, likely or just leaning? Please select one response only. Definite Likely Leaning Don’t Know

And, who would be your second choice? Please select one response only. The Liberal Party candidate The Saskatchewan Party candidate Or Some Other Party’s candidate (Please specify) Don’t Know / Undecided Will Not Vote / Will Spoil Ballot Will Not Say

Of the following provincial political parties and options, are there any that you would never vote for? Please select all that apply. Liberal Party Saskatchewan Party An Independent Candidate No – I am open to voting for any of the above.

Over the last few months, has your impression of the performance of the following provincial leaders and parties changed? Please select one response for each item. Much Improved Somewhat Improved Stayed about the same Somewhat Worse Much Worse Don’t Know / No opinion Lorne Calvert and the NDP David Karwacki and the Liberal party. Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please select one response for each item. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t Know It is time for a change in Government in Saskatchewan It’s better to stick with the NDP than take a chance on the Saskatchewan Party. Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party have a hidden agenda. The Saskatchewan Party wants Saskatchewan to be too much like Alberta. Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party are too inexperienced and reckless to govern. Lorne Calvert’s NDP is a tired, old government that has run out of new ideas.

As you may know, the NDP government has made some major new spending announcements in recent weeks. Which one of these two positions is closest to your own? Please select one response only. The NDP is trying to buy votes before the next election. The NDP is providing good government by creating new and necessary policies. Don’t Know

Now, thinking about your life overall… For you, personally, what is more important – opportunity or security? Please select one response only. OPPORTUNITY is Much More Important OPPORTUNITY is Somewhat More Important SECURITY is Somewhat More Important SECURITY is Much More Important Don’t Know

Saskatchewan is currently experiencing an economic boom. Which one of these two positions is closest to your own? Please select one response only. The Calvert NDP government is largely responsible for this economic boom The Calvert NDP government has had little or nothing to do with the economic boom Don’t Know

Of the following provincial parties, which one would be the best party to turn the current economic boom into long-term growth and prosperity for Saskatchewan?

Please select one response only.

	Saskatchewan Party
	Liberal Party
	NDP
	Don’t Know

As you may know, Saskatchewan’s growing economy has caused housing shortages in parts of the province. How concerned are you about these housing shortages?

Would you say you are…

Please select one response only.

	Very Concerned
	Somewhat Concerned
	Not Very Concerned
	Not At All Concerned
	Don’t Know

Thinking about these housing shortages in parts of Saskatchewan, which one of the following 2 viewpoints best represents your own? Please select one response only. The provincial government should step in right now and solve the housing shortage problem. The provincial government should not interfere with the housing market right now – the market will soon generate more housing options. Don’t Know

Thinking about this issue, please indicate how much you support or oppose the provincial government enacting rent controls to address the housing shortage. Please select one response only. Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don’t Know

And, thinking about everything we’ve just discussed, who do you think would be best to lead as Premier of Saskatchewan over the next four or five years? Please select one response only. David Karwacki, Leader of the Liberal Party Brad Wall, Leader of the Saskatchewan Party Lorne Calvert, Leader of the New Democratic Party Don’t Know

For each of the issues listed below, please indicate what party you would vote for if the next provincial election were mainly about the future of that issue. Please select one response for each item. NDP Saskatchewan Party Liberal Party Some Other Party Don’t Know / Undecided / Will Not Vote The economy Keeping young people in Saskatchewan Crown corporations Health care

You will be asked to view a short video on the next page.

Please turn your speakers on.

If you see a message such as the one below please select Yes.


Please click Next to continue.

How would you rate the technical quality of the picture and sound? Please click the one response that best represents your viewing experience. I was able to see and hear the video without any problems. I watched, but the video or sound quality was not good. I was not able to watch the whole video all the way through. I could not see or hear the video

You will be asked to view a second short video on the next page.



If you see a message such as the one below please select Yes.


Please click Next to continue.

How would you rate the technical quality of the picture and sound? Please click the one response that best represents your viewing experience. I was able to see and hear the video without any problems. I watched, but the video or sound quality was not good. I was not able to watch the whole video all the way through. I could not see or hear the video

You will be asked to view a final short video on the next page.



If you see a message such as the one below please select Yes.


Please click Next to continue.

How would you rate the technical quality of the picture and sound? Please click the one response that best represents your viewing experience. I was able to see and hear the video without any problems. I watched, but the video or sound quality was not good. I was not able to watch the whole video all the way through. I could not see or hear the video

How likely are you to vote in the next provincial election? Please select one response only. Absolutely certain Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not likely at all

The last provincial election was held in November 2003. To the best of your knowledge, which party did you vote for?

Please select one response only.

	The Liberal Party candidate
	The Saskatchewan Party candidate
	The NDP candidate
	Some Other Party’s candidate
	Independent candidate
	Can’t Remember
	Did Not Vote / Could Not Vote / Spoiled Ballot
	Will Not Say

Do you produce or raise any agricultural product or livestock in order to sell it? Please select one response only. Yes No

The survey is now complete! Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and opinions with us today! Thanks, the Angus Reid Forum team