Owls and Roosters

"I love you too," she said softly.

2011-09-15T21:56:00.001-07:00

River Landing Parcel “Y” development delayed again; Victory Majors Investments Corporation seeking zoning changes

2011-08-18T19:18:00.001-07:00

Karim Nasser of Victory Majors Investments Corporation says public opinion is strongly against the raised plaza in the long delayed Parcel “Y” development at River Landing. Why are we only hearing about it now? It’s been nearly four years since Lake Placid submitted its original proposal that called for this feature. All we’ve ever heard from Mayor Don Atchison and other councillors is about how great the project is.

Last November, when Victory Majors rescued the development by providing the city with last minute documentation saying it had the financial capacity to bring the project to grade level, the StarPhoenix reported that the developer was required to build the exact same project pitched by Lake Placid and approved by the city.

Nasser told reporters, “We’re doing it exactly the same.”

Now it’s learned that Nasser’s company has been working behind closed doors with the city and Meewasin Valley Authority on revising the plans. The developer wants to decrease the size of the parking structure underground and amend existing zoning for the area to increase the height and size of the development.

We’re told that public consultation to consider the changes will take place in September. Why bother? According to Nasser, city administrators have already decided that the new plans complement the area. Council approval is a given.

Victory Majors has the city over a barrel, as did Lake Placid and Remai Ventures before it when those companies were interested in developing Parcel “Y” as well. Council has never had a Plan B – at least not publicly.

Nasser claims it was public concern over the raised plaza that led his company to revise the plan. The reality is it sounds more like a weak excuse to push for higher density and less expensive underground parking.

The project was supposed to break ground in spring 2011. Now it’s 2012 at the earliest. What else is new?

Lake Placid’s proposal – a boring mix of condos, office space and hotel – was bad enough, a hulking monstrosity looming over the riverbank. Nasser’s plan only makes it worse.

Corporate media donations to Saskatchewan Party top $410,000

2011-08-14T11:54:00.000-07:00

The corporate media in the province have long been biased in favour of the Saskatchewan Party. It would be denied of course but, the numbers don’t lie.

Saskatchewan Party financial statements filed with Elections Saskatchewan show that for the 13 year period from 1998 to 2010, private media companies donated $412,615.81 to the political party.

The high-water mark for donations occurred in election years. In 2007, the media stuffed $132,730.93 into Saskatchewan Party coffers, more than triple the $38,306.57 that the party received in 2003. In 1999, the figure was $50,500.00.

Rawlco Radio and the Rawlinson family, through numbered companies, are by far the Saskatchewan Party’s biggest media benefactors with corporate donations totaling $236,795.35.

In addition to that, Gordon Rawlinson, president of Rawlco Radio, made personal donations to the party of $2,261.31 in 2009 and $3,000.00 in 2007.

Rawlco, a private, family-owned company, has 15 stations (12 in Saskatchewan and 3 in Alberta), including NewsTalk 650 in Saskatoon, the home of right-wing talk show host John Gormley.

Gormley, a former one-term Tory MP in the despised Brian Mulroney government, frequently uses his live radio show (and weekly StarPhoenix column) as a soap box for vicious anti-progressive, anti-NDP, union-bashing tirades.

Gormley is a big fan of the province’s current premier, whom he’s known “since he was a kid in high school.” [Tasteless tape sparks tacky outrage (StarPhoenix, April 4, 2008)]

“I trust and like Saskatchewan Party Premier Brad Wall, who has done nothing yet to shake my faith,” Gormley said in a column earlier this year on silent majorities and public opinion polling. [How dare the silent majority (StarPhoenix, January 7, 2011)]

Most people don’t know this, but when the Saskatchewan Party was searching for a new leader to replace Elwin Hermanson following the party’s 2003 election loss, Gormley’s name popped up as a successor.

According to the StarPhoenix, Gormley apparently received calls from people wondering whether he might be cajoled into the race. Two years prior, he was mentioned as a possible Saskatchewan Party candidate. His preference, though, seemed to be broadcasting. [Sask. Party looks for leader (StarPhoenix, November 20, 2003)]

Another radio industry friend of the Saskatchewan Party is Manitoba broadcast pioneer Elmer Hildebrand, whose holding company 629112 Saskatchewan Ltd. has contributed $4,089.98 to the party.

Hildebrand’s company owns Saskatoon Media Group, a multi platform media company consisting of radio stations Country 600 CJWW, Magic 98.3 FM, The Bull 92.9 FM, as well as an internet information portal Saskatoonhomepage.ca and Saskatchewan’s internet only radio station, Jazzavenue.ca. The media group and CJWW/Hot 93/Magic 98.3 have donated a combined $2,017.68 to the Saskatchewan Party.

Vic Dubois, general manager of Saskatoon Media Group, contributed $1,480.00 in 2010 and $300.00 in 2008.

After Rawlco, the next biggest media contributor to the Saskatchewan Party is Access Communications Co-operative Ltd. with $48,037.99.

Established in 1974, Access Communications (formerly Regina Cablevision Co-operative) operates as a non-profit, community-owned service co-operative. It provides customers across the province with cable television, including digital and high definition services, and home security service, as well as high speed internet and home phone services.

Access operates under a broadcast license granted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Through Access7, a community channel, the company produces thousands of hours of local programming each year.

Access President and CEO Jim Deane is a long-time Saskatchewan Party supporter. Records show that since 2001 he has contributed $7,825.87 to the party.

On November 18, 2008, the Wall government announced that Deane had been appointed chair of the Co-operative Sector Team for Enterprise Saskatchewan — one of 18 sector teams that were established to enhance industry/government communication and collaboration in developing policies to build on competitive advantages and reduce barriers to growth.

The sector team process eventually proved cumbersome, costly and inefficient. As result, the Wall government consolidated of some sector teams in order to reduce the number of teams from the current 18 to eight. The Co-operatives sector team was re-constituted as a Strategic Issues Council.

Four members of the 2010 Access board of directors have contributed to the Saskatchewan Party. Three of those individuals currently work for the Wall government:

▪ Denise Batters, chief of staff to Don Morgan, the Minister of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety and the Minister Justice and Attorney General, has donated $1,762.95 since 2007.

▪ Warren Sproule, chairperson of Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), contributed $347.90 in 2009 and $1,131.25 in 2008.

▪ Howard Louie, director of project services for eHealth Saskatchewan, a Crown corporation, donated $640.00 in 2010.

▪ Harry Cook donated $2,160.00 in 2010 and $424.84 in 2009.

Shaw Communications Inc., a diversified communications and media company headquartered in Calgary, is on the books as having contributed $10,787.36 to the Saskatchewan Party. Through Shaw Media, the company operates one of the largest conventional television networks in Canada, Global Television, and 19 specialty networks.

Shaw CEO Bradley Shaw of Calgary appears to have donated $500.00 to the Saskatchewan Party in 2007, likely during one of leader Brad Wall’s fundraising junkets to Alberta.

On September 14, 2006, Shaw announced that it was partnering with Rawlco Radio station 650 CKOM to simulcast Gormley’s nasty morning drive show on Shaw TV, Channel 10 in Saskatoon.

The Hill family of Regina is represented on the list of media donors through Harvard Broadcasting Inc., which currently owns and operates 8 radio stations throughout Saskatchewan and Alberta including 620 CKRM, Lite 92 FM, and 104.9 The Wolf in Regina and CFWD - Wired 96.3 in Saskatoon.

Harvard Broadcasting has contributed $6,002.93 to the Saskatchewan Party since 2005. This is by no means the extent of the Hill family’s involvement with the party. Other businesses belonging to the Hill Companies that have donated thousands of dollars more include: 584770 Saskatchewan Ltd. (Paul J. Hill), Famhill Investments Limited, Harvard Developments Inc., Western Surety Company and Harvard Energy.

On the print media side, Conrad Black’s Ravelston and Argus Corporations each donated $25,000.00 to the Saskatchewan Party in 1999. Ravelston, through Argus, owned 78.3 per cent of Toronto-based Hollinger Inc., a holding company itself with substantial interests in the newspaper publishing business, including the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and Regina Leader-Post.

Hollinger Inc. announced the sale of the StarPhoenix and Leader-Post to CanWest Global Communications on July 31, 2000, and the sale became official November 16, 2000. Each newspaper that year donated $10,000.00 to the Saskatchewan Party, the only time either publication has made such a contribution to the party. Since that time, the newspapers’ support for the conservative cause has been primarily through a steady stream of editorials and columns from people like Gormley, Randy Burton (the executive director of communications for Saskatchewan Finance since January 2009), Les MacPherson, Bronwyn Eyre, Dwight Percy, Gerry Klein, Murray Mandryk, and Bruce Johnstone.

In 2007, CanWest MediaWorks, a subsidiary of Winnipeg-based CanWest Global Communications, contributed $5,000.00 to the Saskatchewan Party, as did company president and CEO Leonard Asper.

The StarPhoenix and Leader-Post changed hands again July 13, 2010, when it was announced that Postmedia Network Inc., an organization led by Paul Godfrey and backed by U.S. private-equity player Golden Tree Asset Management among other investors, had completed a $1.1 billion transaction to purchase CanWest Global’s newspaper chain.

Any hope that the right-wing slant might change were dashed when nearly every Postmedia newspaper, including the StarPhoenix and Leader-Post, published editorials calling for a majority Harper Conservative government in the May 2, 2011, federal election. Only the Victoria Times Colonist and Windsor Star refrained from endorsing anyone.

In contrast, corporate media donations to the Saskatchewan NDP have paled in comparison. For example, the NDP from 2004 to 2006, its last three full years as the governing party, received $15,547.00 in contributions from various media sources. Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan Party took in $52,277.40.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate Media Contributions to the Saskatchewan Party (1998-2010)

565509 Saskatchewan Ltd. (Doug Rawlinson) — $113,098.36
629112 Saskatchewan Ltd. (Elmer Hildebrand) — $4,089.98
Access Communications Co-operative Ltd. — $48,037.99
Argus Corporation Ltd. — $25,000.00
CanWest Global Communications Corp. — $516.00
CanWest Mediaworks Inc. — $5,000.00
Central Broadcasting Company Ltd. — $272.00
CJWW/Hot 93/Magic 98.3 — $515.28
CTV Television Inc. — $11,547.15
Dekkerco Holdings Limited (Northwestern Radio Partnership) — $5,000.00
Global TV Network — $297.20
Harvard Broadcasting — $6,002.93
HDL Investments Inc. (CKCK Regina) — $6,151.69
Jilltd Investments Ltd. (Lana Jill Rawlinson) — $25,000.00
News Talk 650 — $295.80
Ravelston Corporation Ltd. — $25,000.00
Rawlco Capital Ltd. — $19,254.00
Rawlco Communications (Sask.) Ltd. — $7,300.23
Rawlco Radio Ltd. — $71,846.96
Regina Cablevision Co-operative Ltd. (Access Communications) — $500.00
Regina Leader-Post — $10,312.82
Rogers Group of Companies — $3,410.02
Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association — $1,517.64
Saskatoon Media Group — $1,502.40
Saskatoon StarPhoenix — $10,000.00
Shaw Cablesystems G.P. — $329.14
Shaw Communicatons Inc. — $10,458.22
Western Producer Publications — $360.00
Total: $412,615.81

Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan receives ‘threatening’ email from Premier Brad Wall supporter

2011-06-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

Ever since it was established in 1997, the right-wing Saskatchewan Party has been home to rednecks, racists, bigots, sexists, homophobes and others with extremist views.

The challenge for party brass has been how to keep this unsavory bunch happy, but in check, and out of the public eye as much as possible.

Every so often though, one of these Neanderthals manages to break from the pack and says or does something asinine to embarrass the whole lot.

On June 24, 2011, Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan president Cathy Dickson issued a special message to all members alerting them to a threatening email she had received the day before from a supporter of the Brad Wall government.

“During our lengthy strike action, we have received many e-mails from both members and non-members, offering their opinions on our public statements, negotiating strategy or approach to job action,” said Dickson. “That is everyone’s right to share their opinions.

“However, one e-mail I received a few days ago concerns me greatly,” she said. “It is a threatening e-mail, which comes from someone who describes himself as a strong supporter of Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party. He equates the work of our union with “treason” and goes on to suggest that he and other Saskatchewan Party supporters have the money and the power to “chop us down to size”.”

Dickson called on the premier and health minister to back up their often repeated claim of how much they ‘respect’ the specialized health care professionals in the HSAS “by publicly renouncing these types of threats from their supporters.”

The Wall government has so far remained silent on the matter and the media, who are aware of the situation, have said nothing.

The email in question appears to have been sent by Saskatoon resident Blair Pischak.

According to his Facebook page, Pischak owns a business called ‘professional home detailing’, hence the sender’s email address phdservice@shaw.ca. However, a search of the provincial corporations branch database shows no company by that name is registered to Pischak.

Pischak apparently attended Mount Royal Collegiate (1976-1980) and the University of Saskatchewan (Class of 2004). Given the number of mistakes in his email it would seem that spelling and punctuation were a struggle.

Prior to 2000, the provincial Public Service Act required that any promotions, transfers, resignations and dismissals of employees in the public service be published in the Saskatchewan Gazette.

The October 27, 1995, edition of the Gazette shows that a Blair W. Pischak was terminated with cause by the Department of Health. When something this severe happens it’s usually for a good reason.

The HR Council, an Ottawa-based agency (funded in part through the Government of Canada’s Sector Council Program) that takes action on nonprofit labour force issues, states on its website that “termination with cause or termination with just cause means that an action or omission by the employee has irreparably damaged the employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Usually, termination with cause occurs when an employee is dismissed for a serious reason related to the employee’s conduct.”

It appears that unions aren’t the only target of Pischak’s wrath. Earlier this year it seems that Pischak, under the username “blairgolf511” (the same as his Twitter account), posted a message at WrongPlanet.net railing against new immigrants to Canada.

In response to a Winnipeg Free Press story on February 5, 2011, about Muslim families in that city wanting their children excused from compulsory elementary school music and coed physical education programs for religious and cultural reasons, Pischak had this to say: “I’ve had it with immigrants showing up in Canada and expecting all of us to accomodate any and all of their traditions, customs, ways, religious beliefs, religious ways, etc, etc! BS! Like the leader of

Australia

said recently, “ if you don’t like the way we do things here, LEAVE!!!” That statement was in response to some muslim group wanting special considerations. Enough is enough. Our country is being watered down with some immigrants believing it is their Allah given right to act the way they want when they arrive in Canada. Pretty damn nervy! Yet, take a trip to their countries and see how far you get practising your beliefs, traditions and ways! You will quickly find yourself in a scummy prison being beaqten and tortured for having an opinion different from the state sponsored opinion. Like the old saying goes, “don’t let the border gate hit your ass on the way back to the hell you came from, IDIOTS!””

We know that Premier Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party despise working people, especially those belonging to unions, but do they share Pischak’s disturbing view of immigrants as well?

In his email to Dickson, Pischak criticizes union leaders for recently pulling crop insurance adjusters off the job and for “belly aching about essential services laws.”

“We were the LAST province or territory in North America that didn’t have this type of legislation,” wrote Pischak.

One person that deserves to be called on the carpet for their rotten behaviour on these files is Pischak’s hero, Premier Brad Wall.

Leader-Post political columnist Murray Mandryk said last week that Wall was “overreacting” to the 470 crop adjusters, made up mostly of farmers or former farmers, for hitting the picket line for a couple of days after being without a contract for nearly two years. [Banging head against a Wall (StarPhoenix, June 25, 2011)]

He called Wall’s angry letter to Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union president Bob Bymoen on June 22, 2011, condemning the strike “over the top” and suggested its use of loaded words such as “unconscionable” and “deplorable” were for the benefit “of farmers and others on the political right who are predisposed anyway to hate anything and everything unions do.” Someone like Pischak, perhaps?

Wall’s ridiculous threat to recall the legislature because he’s mad at the SGEU leadership “also makes for bad public policy and bad politics.”

Mandryk made the important observation that “crop insurance adjusters have no responsibility for health or public safety. In fact, we likely have never legislated back to work a bargaining unit that has so little responsibility for the public’s well-being.

“And having crop adjusters walking the picket line for slightly more than 24 hours doesn’t constitute a provincial catastrophe.”

The main duties for the province’s crop insurance adjusters’ are to help farmers with three forms: the unseeded acreage benefit claims; the stored grain declaration; and the benefit establishment claim that counts the number of plants per square yard that have germinated.

“While the forms are somewhat annoying and difficult to fill out, it’s something farmers can do themselves,” said Mandryk. “As happened last year, adjusters could do spot checks later. Given that the government also announced [June 22] that the deadline for all these forms would be pushed back to June 30, there is also no urgency.

“Wall could have taken a more measured approach. He could have appealed to the better nature of people to do the right thing.

“Instead, he chose to demonize union members as untrustworthy and to order them back to work - a move that was drastic, unnecessary and not all that politically wise.” [Acting in anger bad policy (StarPhoenix, June 24, 2011)]

That’s Wall’s M.O. though. He, too, is one of those individuals that Mandryk says are predisposed to hate anything and everything unions do. His government’s attack on labour has been non-stop since winning the provincial election in November 2007.

Prior to the election, the public was told that essential services legislation wasn’t necessary. However, within a month of taking office the Wall government introduced it then insisted that was the plan all along.

Thanks to Mandryk, both Wall and Health Minister Don McMorris were exposed as dishonest and two-faced.

In a column on December 7, 2007, Mandryk noted that on October 1, 2007, a mere 10 days before the election call, McMorris told CBC reporter Geoff Leo that legislating essential services was “not on.”

According to Mandryk, McMorris also told the Leader-Post in a June 28, 2007 story, after the Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan strike, that an agreement around essential services should be forged between the parties without having to legislate the matter.

Mandryk noted that Wall himself in a September 22, 2007, story said the same thing.

“There’s some common sense at play here that simply says before collective bargaining begins, before the expiration of a contract, both sides (should) sit down and agree to providing essential services.” Wall told LP reporter Angela Hall, even going so far as to say legislation wouldn’t necessarily be required to set out essential services.

“How is this a clear message from the Saskatchewan Party that it really was contemplating essential services legislation all along?” Mandryk asked.

“The minimum expectation voters should have is for their politicians to be honest and forthright.” [Basic honesty minimum expectation (StarPhoenix, December 7, 2007)]

Wall and McMorris were neither.

HSAS president Cathy Dickson is correct when she says that in other provinces where a union’s right to job action is limited by essential services legislation there is always an independent resolution process, like third party binding arbitration, but not in Saskatchewan. But union-bashers don’t want to hear that.

HSAS also has the public’s support behind it.

The results of a public opinion poll conducted on behalf of HSAS and released on May 24, 2011, shows 67.5 per cent support for independent, binding arbitration to settle the current contract dispute between specialized health care professionals and health care employers.

The poll also shows that 40.6 per cent of respondents say the essential services legislation has hurt negotiations, while only 23.7 per cent say it has helped.

In March 2010, labour leaders were vindicated when the United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO) issued a ruling that found Bill 5, The Public Service Essential Services Act, and Bill 6, Amendments to the Trade Union Act were in violation of international law and the human rights of working people in Saskatchewan. To this day, the Wall government refuses to comply with the ILO’s recommendations. The anti-union crowd doesn’t want to hear that either.

Taxpayers on hook for any Art Gallery of Saskatchewan fundraising shortfall; Public open-house and online survey an insulting sham

2011-06-20T19:32:00.000-07:00

Saskatoon taxpayers had better hope that Art Gallery of Saskatchewan capital campaign chair Doug Hodson finds the remaining $5 million needed to reach the current fundraising goal of $20 million, otherwise they will be on the hook for it.

Infrastructure Canada’s project review report, dated June 2010, for the new art gallery shows that city administration told federal officials more than a year ago that it would cover any shortfall in the original fundraising target.

“Should the City of Saskatoon not be successful in reaching their fundraising target of $8,000,000, they have confirmed that they will borrow the necessary funding to make up for any shortfall,” the report states. “The City notes that it has sufficient debt limit to borrow additional money if required.”

The city failed to share this information with the public.

It’s a slap in the face to other non-profit organizations in the city that fundraise the hard way, one dollar at a time. Who could possibly compete with the city’s seemingly endless capacity to borrow?

The Mendel Art Gallery never received this kind of special treatment. The gallery was expected to raise its share to help pay for expansion and renovation plans.

On December 12, 2005, city council approved the Mendel expansion subject to “confirmation that all fund raising and third-party grants for the total project are in place or committed, based on independent audit verification.”

In a report to the budget committee on December 5, 2005, corporate services general manager Marlys Bilanski said that because the Mendel is a city-owned facility, council is responsible for all renovations and/or expansions. Accordingly, council needs to be assured that all funding is in place prior to awarding construction contracts, as the city will be liable for all contract payments.

“Therefore, your administration is recommending that the contracts not be issued prior to verification of receipt of all funding/funding commitments,” Bilanski said.

Administration also recommended that verification of fundraising commitments should be sought from the Mendel board, with concurrence from an independent source (i.e. the city’s internal auditor), including information and processes around projected pledge defaults.

There was no talk of a bailout from city hall if efforts failed. In fact, the Mendel’s 2007-2011 Business Plan Capital Expansion Program (September 5, 2007) notes that should the gallery’s plan to raise public and corporate funds for the renovation and expansion project be unsuccessful, “the Board and senior management will be required to source additional potential funding sources immediately.”

At the time of the federal report, the gallery had raised $600,000 in cash and pledges. However, most, if not all, of these funds were from supporters thinking they were donating to the gallery’s expansion.

A timeline submitted by the city to federal officials last year shows the project going to tender in March 2012 with construction of the underground parking beginning in June 2012 and the gallery itself in January 2013.

This would mean that Hodson has just over eight months to raise $5 million before the construction bid tender is issued. It will be interesting to see if council follows through on its promise to backstop any shortfall prior to that.

The federal report also reveals that the city intended to cover any resulting shortfall had the Saskatchewan Party government turned down its request to redirect the $4,092,877 previously committed to the Mendel expansion under the Building Communities Program (a provincial program that provides funding for culture and recreation facility projects) to the new art gallery.

“Should the City of Saskatoon not be successful in obtaining this funding, they have confirmed that they will borrow the necessary funding to make up for nay shortfall,” the report states.

City manager Murray Totland and Mendel CEO Vincent Varga had written to Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport deputy minister Wynne Young on November 16, 2009, to formally request that the BCP commitment for the Mendel project be reallocated to the new gallery.

Totland and Varga met with Young on March 15, 2010, in Regina. At the meeting, Ms. Young confirmed verbally that moving the money from the renovation project to the new gallery project would not be an issue.

The provincial cabinet approved the city’s request through an order-in-council on September 2, 2010. However, since $1,023, 219.25 of the BCP money had already been spent on the Mendel, only $3,069,657.75 was available “for the capital development and construction” of the new gallery.

The key message in the federal report is that the city is responsible for any cost overruns and has basically guaranteed to cover any funding shortfalls. In short, the Art Gallery of Saskatchewan is being built on a blank cheque. Just like River Landing, the project is too big and too political to fail. Council will spend whatever it takes to get it done.

In a one-page briefing note, dated June 15, 2010, prepared for the Infrastructure Canada Project Review Panel, federal officials manage to offend those who oppose moving the Mendel to River Landing by saying, “These stakeholder concerns should be lessened by the creation of a permanent collection space that will showcase the 13 original paintings donated by Mr. Mendel.”

This is what happens when faceless bureaucrats in Ottawa make decisions that affect a community some 3,000 kilometers away. They’re generally clueless about local history. The only information they have is what city officials and Mendel management give them. It’s probably safe to say that some federal officials working on the file have never been to Saskatoon let alone visited the Mendel. They are ignorant of the fact that the Mendel building, the idyllic riverbank location, the Mendel name and story, and the paintings donated by the family are so deeply intertwined that they’re inseparable. Sadly, we’re dealing with people that either don’t understand the situation or just don’t care.

According to the federal report, once the Mendel closes it appears the non-profit organization that runs the gallery (the Saskatoon Gallery and Conservatory Corporation that was established by the city in 1967) will no longer exist: “While a final decision has not been made regarding the not-for-profit that currently manages the Mendel Art Gallery, the proponent has indicated that this group will likely be dissolved once the Mendel Gallery ceases to operate.”

If and when that happens, it will signal the final betrayal of the late Fred Mendel.

The public open-house scheduled for June 22, 2011, at TCU Place to view the concept drawings for the new art gallery is a bigger sham now than it was three weeks ago when it was first announced.

On May 30, 2011, council approved the schematic design concept for the new art gallery and underground parking. Councillors also gave the go-ahead for administration to proceed to the public input phase of the project, which was immediately rendered meaningless because it comes after the fact.

Council went a step further on June 13, 2011, when it instructed administration to proceed to complete the final design and construction drawings for the new gallery and parkade based upon the approved schematic concept design.

To say that the process is insulting is an understatement.

The Mendel board had already approved the design at a special in-camera meeting held March 27, 2011. The city’s executive committee, comprised of all councillors, did the same thing at a private meeting on May 16, 2011. The concept drawings themselves were developed behind closed doors.

The open-house consists of four parts: A short presentation by KPMB Architects; a Question and Answer period; viewing of the concept drawings; and, a survey for residents to leave comments on what they think of the new building.

An online survey is available at the Mendel website for those unable to make the open house. Some of the statements and questions include:
▪ The building design takes full advantage of views of the river.
▪ The building is welcoming.
▪ The design incorporates the features that interest me most.
▪ The Gallery will enhance the value of River Landing.
▪ What elements/aspects/features of the design of the Remai Art Gallery of Saskatchewan do you like the most/least?
▪ Do you have any other comments?

Naturally, the survey does not ask people if they support moving the Mendel or whether they agree with spending $84 million on a new gallery when the existing facility can be upgraded for less than half the cost.

It doesn’t matter, though, because the survey is not statistically valid. Names are not required and respondents can make multiple submissions. It’s a farce.

Individuals answering the online survey are thanked for their time and told: “You [sic] input is very valuable to us.”

This is a load of crap. The public, the Mendel family, and most gallery donors and supporters were kept in the dark when the decision to move the gallery was secretly made in March 2009. From that point on the public has always been one step behind in the process. The only time input is sought is after decisions are made. That’s how much the city and current Mendel board value the public’s input.

The only reason the city could have for conducting a survey is to say that consultation occurred and to use the results as a propaganda tool to justify council’s decisions and promote the facility.

UPDATE: The city suffered a humiliating setback on June 22 when, according to the StarPhoenix, only 40 people attended the first of two open house sessions to view the schematic drawings for the new art gallery. The public was split between those with praise for the plans and those who took issue with them. [Public get peek at new gallery (StarPhoenix, June 23, 2011)]

Worthless survey, name not required

Art Gallery of Saskatchewan cost soars to $84M; closed-door meetings continue; Remai donation changes little; StarPhoenix misleading public

2011-06-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

More spending, more secrecy, more sham meetings and more lies. In other words, it’s business as usual on the Art Gallery of Saskatchewan (AGS) file.

At a press conference on May 25, 2011, Mayor Don Atchison and Mendel Art Gallery board chair Art Knight unveiled a series of schematic drawings for the new gallery by architectural firms Smith Carter Architects and Engineers and Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects (KPMB). It was also revealed, almost as an afterthought, that the estimated cost of the new building has soared to $84 million, a 52.7 per cent increase from the $55 million price tag that was originally announced on April 3, 2009.

The size of the project has grown as well, going from 104,000 square feet to 125,000 square feet. The fundraising goal has been increased from $8 million to $20 million.

According to the StarPhoenix, Atchison tried to downplay the controversy surrounding the move of the Mendel Art Gallery from its Spadina Crescent home to River Landing and the removal of the Mendel name from the building that has plagued the project since day one.

This is no surprise, since it was Atchison and Knight that started the controversy two years ago in the first place.

One of the more outrageous comment belonged to Doug Hodson, chair of the capital fundraising campaign, who said, “Our city and community is eager to see an art gallery emerge as the centrepiece of the south downtown.” [Gallery price tag jumps (StarPhoenix, May 26, 2011)]

It’s hard to believe someone could be so oblivious. Either Hodson has been living under a rock the last couple of years or he’s simply not being honest. The new art gallery has seen nothing but controversy since April 1, 2009, when the StarPhoenix first reported that the Mendel was moving.

Within months a website called Save the Mendel was launched and has collected almost 2,100 names and comments, including Fred Mendel’s grandchildren Camille and Chip Mitchell. City council and the StarPhoenix have received well over a hundred letters and emails on the subject. And it was even an issue during the 2009 civic election.

The StarPhoenix reported that roughly 40 city officials and dignitaries attended the news conference at River Landing.

The building received rave reviews at the unveiling of the concept drawings, with politicians, officials and members of the public variously describing it as cosmopolitan, connected and balanced, the newspaper said. [Reaction mixed to first look at $84M building (StarPhoenix, May 26, 2011)]

Of course the people at the unveiling were excited, they were invited to attend. Events like these aren’t spontaneous affairs. They’re carefully orchestrated. Nothing is left to chance. The last thing organizers wanted were protesters.

The Mendel sent out an email late on May 24 urging friends of the gallery to attend the news conference the next day at 11:00 a.m. at River Landing.

“Look for the white tent, southwest of the Prairie Wind sculpture and due south of the new AGS site at Spadina Crescent @ Second Ave.,” the email stated. “Mayor Donald Atchison, Mendel Art Gallery and AGS Board of Trustees Chair, Dr. Art Knight and AGS Capital Campaign Chair, Doug Hodson will be sharing some exciting news and you are invited to be a part of it all.”

There was no advance press release for the general public.

City council approved the schematic design concept for the new art gallery and underground parking at a special meeting held May 30, 2011. It was also decided that administration will report back to council by the end of June 2011 regarding the capital cost estimate and the funding strategy, including confirmation of the amount of community contribution through the capital campaign, as well as operating costs.

In a presentation to council, Hodson informed councillors that an expected major donor announcement would be made near the end of the week. As a result, councillors passed a last minute resolution instructing administration to enter into a naming agreement for the new gallery if there is a significant contribution made to the capital campaign and report further to council at the appropriate time.

The use of closed-door meetings to move the process along continues to the plague the project.

The recommendation to approve the design for the new gallery is contained in a report from city manager Murray Totland dated April 21, 2011. The report notes that the Saskatoon Gallery and Conservatory Corporation (Mendel Art Gallery), at a special meeting held on March 27, 2011, approved the schematic design for the AGS. The Persephone Theatre Board of Directors, at its meeting held on March 14, 2011, approved the schematic design for their theatre shell expansion which is included as part of the AGS contract. What Totland doesn’t say is that both meetings were conducted in-camera.

Furthermore, in an email dated May 27, 2011, the city clerk’s office confirmed that Totland’s report had already been dealt with by the executive committee — consisting of all council members — at a private meeting on May 16, 2011. None of this was reported by the StarPhoenix.

Other private meetings that have been held recently include a secret get together that occurred on February 23, 2011, at city hall “with a group of people to review the plans for the AGS.” The meeting included members of the Mendel Gallery Group who were asked not to discuss the plans with others. The executive committee considered the same issue at an in-camera meeting on March 28, 2011. The city is refusing to release any records regarding the meetings.

The next step in the so-called process is an open house on June 22, 2011, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at TCU Place. According to a news release by the city on May 25 the purpose of the meeting is so the public can “offer their feedback on the gallery design.”

The open house is a sham. Council and the Mendel board approved the design weeks ago. Council’s decision on May 30 was a formality.

Regarding the open house, Totland said in his report that administration “will provide information on the public’s response to the schematic design in a future report to City Council.”

Citizens are being asked to comment on a plan it had no hand in creating. This is the way the public has been treated since 2004 when the city first began developing the concept plan for River Landing behind closed doors.

On June 3, 2011, a news conference was held to announce that Saskatoon resident Ellen Remai had donated $30 million to the gallery, including $15 million toward construction and $500,000 annually toward programming and exhibitions for 30 years.

Because of the donation, which is believed to be the largest private donation in provincial history, the new gallery will be known as the Remai Art Gallery of Saskatchewan.

According to the StarPhoenix, the Frank and Ellen Remai Foundation made the pledge, the foundation’s largest-ever contribution. Ellen and her late husband Frank made their fortune in real estate and have made a number of significant donations around Saskatoon during the last decade.

Atchison thanked Remai for “(coming) to the rescue of everyone in Saskatoon.

“There are a lot of naysayers who keep saying you can’t raise $20 million, it’s not possible,” Atchison told reporters after the announcement. “Quite frankly, negative connotations like that don't help a fundraising campaign. . . . I think (this) should really put those people’s thought process to rest.” [$30M for art gallery (StarPhoenix, June 4, 2011)]

If Atchison is right about Remai coming to the rescue and basically bailing the city out you have to question the project’s stability.

It’s also embarrassing to see Atchison use the donation to try and silence critics and buy the public’s support. The man appears to have no shame.

Remai’s donation certainly makes Hodson’s fundraising job easier, but it doesn’t change the fact that the project still costs $84 million, three times more expensive than expanding and renovating the Mendel which city administrators say will serve the gallery’s needs and the required capacity to see it through the next 30 to 40 years of operation.

The cost of the new facility could go even higher. AGS board chair Art Knight said on May 25 the $84 million is “a good firm estimate.” The project hasn’t even broken ground yet.

Furthermore, Remai’s donation does not excuse council’s deplorable conduct over the past two years or justify its decisions.

One thing the donation does is skew the level of support the public might have for the project. We’ll never truly know how many citizens really do back it. Thousands of people still support the Mendel and are concerned about the new gallery’s price tag. And what about admission and parking fees for the new gallery? The city hasn’t addressed these issues yet. The Mendel is free on both counts.

The StarPhoenix’s support for relocating the Mendel to the south downtown dates back to at least October 2005 when the city first floated the idea. Unfortunately, the newspaper’s most recent editorial advocating the move resorts to lies and twisting facts to bolster its case.

In New gallery will maintain Mendel’s vision (SP, May 28) the StarPhoenix accuses what it calls the “naysayers and detractors” of the new gallery of comparing the current $84 million price tag with “an almost decade old estimate” for expanding and renovating the Mendel. The fact is city administration updated the estimate every year during the capital budget process.

In 2007, the cost to renovate the Mendel was $18.3 million. In 2008, it was $21.3 million. And in 2009, the price was $24 million. The Mendel was not listed in the 2010 capital budget. Had it been included, the figure would likely have been about $27 million, less than one third the cost of the new gallery.

The editorial was incorrect to say the city’s share of the new gallery is $21 million, including $13 million for underground parking. The cost of the parking is separate. Saskatoon taxpayers are actually on the hook for $34 million.

The StarPhoenix claims that Saskatoon couldn’t get senior government support for the Mendel expansion. On the contrary, in April 2005, the gallery received $438,513 in funding from the Government of Canada to undertake Phase 1 of its facility renovation and expansion project. The assistance was provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage through its Cultural Spaces Canada Program.

In July 2007, the city received $4.09 million from the province through the Building Communities Program for the renovation. The current federal government has never publicly stated its position on capital funding. However, as late as April 1, 2009, Infrastructure Canada was indicating that the Mendel expansion was still “potentially eligible” for Building Canada Funds. This was the same day the StarPhoenix first reported that the Mendel was moving to River Landing.

The StarPhoenix says the reason why Saskatoon couldn’t get senior government support for the Mendel expansion was because they have little desire to get into supporting the renovations of local facilities.

This is a lie. The Government of Canada website is littered with cultural projects that are receiving federal money. Here’s a small sample:

▪ Beaverbrook Art Gallery expansion and renovation project – $1,878,564

▪ Renovation of a performing arts facility in the City of Barrie – $2,500,000

▪ Malton community centre & library expansion – $3,333,333

▪ Interior renovation of the Red Deer Museum and Art Gallery – $1,428,934

▪ Renovation and upgrades to Laurel Packinghouse in Kelowna – $1,100,000

▪ Renovation of the Manitoba Children's Museum – $3,750,000

▪ Expansion of the Maison Saint-Gabriel – $3,297,003

▪ Upgrade and expansion of the Royal Canadian Regiment Museum – $1,500,000

▪ Modification of the Woodstock Art Gallery and Community Arts Centre – $1,683,333

▪ Restoration, preservation and rehabilitation of the York Theatre – $1,790,000

▪ Jasper Municipal Library renovation and expansion – $1,500,000

▪ Expansion and renovation of an arena - Town of Smiths Falls – $2,183,426

▪ Renovation and expansion of the Maritime Museum – $1,660,000

▪ Expansion of the Wellington County Museum and Archives – $1,522,800

▪ Expansion and renovation of the Lloydminster Agricultural Exhibition Association facilities – $3,540,886

For years the public was led to believe that the city could not afford to expand the Mendel without federal funding. Recent events, however, show that this is nonsense.

This spring the city announced that the cost of the new police headquarters could top $130 million. Council has no qualms about borrowing every penny to pay for it.

The Shaw Centre, a state-of-the-art aquatic and fitness facility that opened in 2009, cost $47.2 million, with $34.1 million coming from the city. The facility was budgeted at $23 to 25 million in 2005.

The city’s share of the new art gallery is $34 million, which is galling because it’s more than enough to cover the Mendel’s plans.

Then there’s River Landing. What began in 2004 as a $42.1 million project has ballooned to more than $145 million today. The development has become too big to fail, which is the main reason why the Mendel is being sacrificed. City council desperately needs a year-round attraction at River Landing to make it successful.

It’s clear, now more than ever, that the cost of the Mendel project was low enough that the city could have handled it on its own.

Regional health authorities say Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan employees ‘good to work with’

2011-05-29T13:53:00.000-07:00

The Saskatchewan Party government’s deep contempt for working people, especially those belonging to unions, could very well damage the positive working relationship that the regional health authorities (RHA) say it has with striking Health Sciences Association of Saskatchewan (HSAS) employees.

According to a Ministry of Health briefing note dated October 6, 2010, feedback regarding the priority of current tabled items was sought from the RHA’s last summer in order to ensure a fully informed bargaining process between the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (SAHO) and the union.

Collective agreement articles were reviewed by the RHA’s with respect to alignment with the Wall government’s Strategic and Operational Directions for the Health Sector.

Eleven of the twelve provincial RHA’s responded to a letter dated July 27, 2010, requesting feedback on the currently tabled articles. Keewatin Yatthe Regional Health Authority was the only RHA that did not respond.

“Overall message from the RHA’s is that the package is quite reasonable, but they are willing to live with the removal of items if necessary, as HSAS employees are quite good to work with,” the six-page document states. “There was very little outright opposition to any of the outlined initiatives.”

Unfortunately, health ministry officials blacked out most of the remaining five pages.

The briefing note was one of 10 (totaling 33 pages) that were recently released by the health ministry under an access to information request. The majority of the records were heavily censored.

The collective agreement with HSAS expired on March 31, 2009. On February 22, 2011, members voted 88 per cent in favour of job action, citing a wage increase below the cost of living, no improvements to workplace benefits, a series of contract take-aways, and a threat to eliminate retroactive pay unless members accepted SAHO’s January 27 offer before March 31.

The average wage rate of HSAS members is 25 per cent less than their counterparts in Alberta, a union news release said.

On March 11, SAHO presented the union with what it called the employers’ “best offer,” a 7.5 per cent wage increase over four years, a marginal improvement over the 5.5 per cent SAHO initially offered on February 22. The latest offer also expands the number of classifications that would receive a market adjustment.

“We have indicated to them that although we believe this is kind of the parameters of which a settlement could be reached, we do have a little bit of room to move, but it’s very little,” said Susan Antosh, SAHO president.

“The employers’ goal is to ensure that we’re providing market-competitive wages and by that we mean market competitive in western Canadian health care to all of the workers within the health-care system.” [SAHO offer not enough: health union (StarPhoenix, March 12, 2011)]

HSAS, which represents more than 3,000 health care professionals across the province, said the offer represented “some small progress” but was “far from adequate.” The union is seeking 18.5 per cent over four years.

On April 27, HSAS called on Premier Brad Wall to agree to submit the union’s lengthy contract dispute with health care employers to independent, binding arbitration.

“After more than two years without a contract and no indication health care employers are ready or able to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement, we believe independent, binding arbitration is the best option to prevent job action. We call on Brad Wall to act now to introduce independent, binding arbitration of our contract dispute,” Health Sciences President Cathy Dickson said in a news release.

“At the bargaining table yesterday, Health Sciences presented its fourth new contract proposal in the past four months to try to jumpstart negotiations, but health care employers, represented by SAHO (Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations), rejected our proposal, admitted they had no authority to negotiate its terms, and refused to even discuss it,” Dickson said, noting that SAHO cancelled the remainder of the bargaining sessions planned for that week.

Dickson said the union reminded SAHO of the commitment by Health Minister Don McMorris in the Legislature on March 16 to make HSAS a contract offer that would be ‘competitive’ with Alberta. Shockingly, SAHO pretended not to be aware of it and then dismissed it saying the minister was not at the table and added “we don’t know where the Minister gets his information.”

Alberta is Saskatchewan’s main competitor in Western Canada, followed by British Columbia. However, SAHO stubbornly insists on including Manitoba, with its significantly lower wages, in its rate comparisons to drag down the average.

On May 9, McMorris shot down the idea of arbitration telling reporters it was premature. He confirmed that SAHO has “room to move,” but would not say whether the government had authorized more funding for a new offer. [Health workers walk the line (StarPhoenix, May 10, 2011)]

The following week Wall and SAHO both said no as well.

According to the StarPhoenix, Antosh said in an interview that binding arbitration allows for too many variables in that “arbitrators do not have to follow policy decisions and those kinds of things.”

HSAS president Cathy Dickson responded by saying, “If the government doesn’t feel comfortable with it, it’s probably because they know (their offer) is not something that’s very fair. And an arbitrator is going to look at that right off the bat.”

Dickson added that the problem is that the Saskatchewan Party government’s essential services legislation contains no independent resolution process such as arbitration.

About 50 per cent of union members have been declared “essential” under the law and cannot strike.

Meanwhile, Wall told reporters the government’s continued preference is for a negotiated settlement.

“There’s a good reason why governments of all stripes have avoided (arbitration) as a way to settle disputes. The best solutions are found at the bargaining table. We need to exhaust every possible avenue to get that, to have that resolution happen.” [HSAS ponders next move (StarPhoenix, May 17, 2011)]

It appears that after more than two years of stonewalling by SAHO and the provincial government, the only thing Wall is exhausting is the public’s patience.

On May 24, HSAS released the results of a province-wide public opinion poll conducted on behalf of the union that shows 67.5 per cent support for independent, binding arbitration to settle the current contract dispute.

Premier Brad Wall threatens striking teachers with talk of ‘massive layoffs’; Ministry of Education flouting freedom of information law

2011-05-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

“Be it resolved that a Saskatchewan Party government will recognize and respect the valuable role that labour and the collective bargaining process have played and will continue to play in the growth and development of Saskatchewan.”
– Saskatchewan Party Policy Resolution LB05-1 Recognizing the Contribution of Labour and Collective Bargaining in Saskatchewan

Premier Brad Wall respects organized labour so much that he recently threatened striking teachers with the spectre of “massive layoffs” if they didn’t lower their wage demands.

On May 5, thousands of members of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (STF) rallied at the Saskatchewan Legislative Building in Regina as part of what the Leader-Post described as “the first-ever, provincewide, one-day teacher walkout” to protest stalled contract talks.

At the time, the government was offering a 5.5 per cent salary increase over three years (which is less than the current rate of inflation in Saskatchewan) while teachers were asking for a 12 per cent increase over one year.

During question period at the legislature that day, Wall warned teachers about what happened in Alberta after that province signed a large contract settlement.

“The Alberta situation is instructive and important for us here because we want to avoid a settlement where our school boards would have to, because of budgetary constraints caused by a settlement, potentially look at layoffs,” said Wall, who encouraged the parties to return to negotiations. [Teachers make a statement (Leader-Post, May 6, 2011)]

The legislative Hansard shows that Wall’s scare tactics went further than what was reported by the Leader-Post and StarPhoenix.

In addition to job cuts, Wall said teachers in a number of school districts in Alberta are “working 20 per cent more in terms of teaching time or assignable time.” They are also seeing “teacher/student ratios that are too high.”

“They are high also in centres in this province. We want to see that problem relieved, not exacerbated,” Wall said, the implication being that the same thing would happen here if teachers secured a large contract.

Education Minister Donna Harpauer said after the rally that both sides needed to start talking again, and then promptly declared the offer of 5.5 per cent is firm. [Contract lessons: Teachers walk out of class for first time in Saskatchewan (Globe and Mail, May 5, 2011)]

So much for good faith bargaining.

Teachers have been without a contract since August 31, 2010. In April, they voted 95 per cent in favour of job action. Wages are the main issue in the dispute.

The STF and the government-trustee bargaining committee, which is comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Education and the Saskatchewan School Boards Association, returned to the bargaining table on May 17, however, talks broke down two days later.

The teachers’ federation has asked the government to increase salaries by about 5.4 per cent per year over three years, for a total of 16.3 per cent, or agree to binding arbitration -a third-party, legal settlement both sides would be obligated to agree to, the StarPhoenix reported.

The government and school boards rejected the proposal, refusing to budge from its offer of 5.5 per cent over three years, with a 1.5 per cent increase the first year and two per cent the next two years.

The STF says it would take an increase of 10.8 per cent for Saskatchewan teachers to be situated between the salaries of Manitoba and Alberta. During bargaining, the STF added a further 5.5 per cent in its demands to account for cost-of-living increases and moved to a three-year proposal from its original request of a 12 per cent increase over one year.

On May 20, the STF announced plans to strike on May 25-26.

“Our two parties are extremely far apart on direct compensation,” Gwen Dueck, spokesperson for the STF said. “It was disingenuous of the government to invite us back to the table without being willing to move off of their original proposal.” [Teachers plan strike (StarPhoenix, May 21, 2011)]

Meanwhile, officials in the Ministry of Education are busy flouting the province’s freedom of information law.

On May 3, an access to information request was submitted to the ministry for copies of any briefing notes regarding the STF contract negotiations since January 1.

Access and Privacy Coordinator Marie Syrnyk responded on May 6 acknowledging receipt of the request and to say that a review of “all the records” relevant to the request was underway. A formal written response in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act would be provided as soon as possible.

Then, just four days later, the ministry advised that access to the records was denied.

“The reason for refusal of these records is that they provide information related to current negotiations with the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation and release of such records could interfere with current and future negotiations,” said Drew Johnston, the ministry’s access and privacy officer, in a letter dated May 10.

A follow-up email was sent to Johnston on May 16 asking how many records and the total number of pages was being withheld. The reply from Johnston later that day was stunning to say the least:

“I cannot tell you how many briefing notes, pages etc. have been prepared on this issue as we did not ask the branches of the ministry to submit them since we knew we wouldn’t be releasing them under the legislation,” he said. “This would have required several hours of work for staff searching, reviewing and copying documents knowing that they would not be released. As you can appreciate planning for and conducting negotiations requires confidentiality, particularly given that negotiations are continuing at this time. Thank you again for your interest in this matter.”

So it would appear the ministry lied on May 6 when it said that “all the records” relevant to the request were being reviewed.

Under section 8 of the province’s freedom of information legislation, government institutions are required to give access to as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information to which the applicant is refused access. When asked if this mandatory section was applied to the request, Johnston replied:

“From speaking with the people who prepared briefings on the matter, there would be very little left in as the notes go over what is offered and what is proposed and next steps. We cannot disclose proposals, analysis of those proposals, possible options, next steps or strategy. Some information such as what the STF is requesting in terms of pay and the response of the collective bargaining committee has been publicly communicated and is already publicly available. Some proposals have not been made public and would not be disclosed. In summary, once severing was done on a briefing note the only information left in it would have been what is already publicly available through media reports and other public communications.”

The short answer is no, the ministry did not follow the law.

The Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner publishes a document entitled Helpful Tips – Best Practices for Public Bodies/Trustees for the Processing of Access Requests (Sept. 2010). Page 6 states: “The public body/trustee has a duty to search for, identify and consider all responsive records. We highly recommend that public bodies/trustees thoroughly document their search efforts.”

The ministry failed to do this.

The freedom of information legislation contains two types of exemptions: discretionary and mandatory.

In his May 10 letter, Johnston cites sections 17 and 18, both discretionary, and 19, which is mandatory, as the reasons for denying access.

The ministry failed to exercise discretion. In Saskatchewan OIPC Report LA-2011-001 involving the City of Saskatoon, the information and privacy commissioner states:

“As we received minimal submissions from the City, it is unclear whether the City has exercised its discretion. However, based on the fact that of the over 500 pages of responsive records only eight pages were subject to any severing, while the rest were withheld in their entirety, it seems that the City did likely apply the exemptions in a blanket manner without regard for whether there are actual reasons or a need to withhold the specific document, or to sever portions and release the remainder of the document.”

The Ministry of Education did the same thing. It applied a blanket denial without properly reviewing the responsive records.

On the issue of discretion, Report LA-2011-001, states:

“[45] I also wish to make a note about the exercise of discretion. The exemptions applied in this case are primarily discretionary exemptions. That is, the language in the legislation is that the record “may” be withheld, as contrasted to “must” be withheld. Whenever a public body invokes a discretionary exemption, my office looks for evidence that the public body has properly exercised its discretion. A good discussion of discretion can be found in Alberta’s FOIP Guidelines and Practices:

“The exercise of discretion is not a mere formality. The public body must be able to show that the records were reviewed, that all relevant factors were considered and, if the decision is to withhold the information, that there are sound reasons to support the decision.

…

“Discretion amounts to the power to choose a particular course of action for good reasons and in good faith, after the decision-maker has considered the relevant facts and circumstances; the applicable law, including the objects of the Act; and the proper application of the law to the relevant facts and circumstances.

…

“The Commissioner can, however, require the head to reconsider a decision if it appears that the obligation to exercise discretion has been disregarded, or where discretion has been exercised without due care and diligence or for an improper or irrelevant purpose (see IPC Order 96-017).”

The ministry showed no discretion whatsoever.

On the issue of severability, Saskatchewan OIPC Investigation Report F-2007–001 states:

“[108] There is nothing in the procedure document that makes reference to severing certain parts and providing the balance of the document to the claimant which is a requirement of section 8 of FOIP. Severing requires a line-by-line analysis of the record.”

The Ministry of Education has already admitted that no records were retrieved and no severing took place. They simply didn’t feel like doing it. To them it was a waste of time.

Apart from responding within the required thirty days, the ministry has made a complete mockery of Saskatchewan’s freedom of information legislation.

Art Gallery of Saskatchewan secrecy continues; Mendel Gallery Group members attend private meeting, asked not to talk about city’s plans

2011-05-17T05:35:00.000-07:00

Secret discussions continue to be held on the City of Saskatoon’s despicable plan to move the nationally recognized Mendel Art Gallery to the city’s troubled River Landing development.

According to the minutes of a meeting of the Mendel Gallery Group on March 8, 2011, the chairperson, Alison Lawlor, reported that a meeting regarding the new Art Gallery of Saskatchewan took place on February 23, 2011, at city hall “with a group of people to review the plans for the AGS.”

Lawlor and another group member, Gwen Barker, were invited to attend.

The meeting was “very informative.” Lawlor and Barker “had the opportunity to look at the plans of the AGS, and provide feedback to the group.” They “were asked not to talk too much about the plans.”

The document states that the AGS information was scheduled to go to an in-camera meeting of the executive committee (city council) on March 28, 2011.

The Mendel Gallery Group, comprised of volunteers, meets each month at the gallery to discuss and organize annual events, fundraisers and special events. All funds raised by the volunteers assist in purchasing new acquisitions for the gallery’s permanent collection. The group appears to have at least 64 members, 14 of which were at the March 8 meeting where the AGS plans were discussed.

It would be interesting to know who else participated in the private meeting at city hall in February and who it is was that told the group about the in-camera executive committee meeting in March, because not even the public is told what items are on the committee’s agenda. Clearly, some citizens are more privileged than others.

The agenda for the gallery group’s April 12, 2011, meeting shows that the AGS was once again up for discussion. The group was also to receive correspondence from Mendel board chair Art Knight.

The city is refusing, at least for now, to release any information on the two meetings held at city hall.

On May 10, 2011, the city clerk denied an access to information request made in April for the following records:

1) Copies of any agenda (or agenda package), minutes, list of attendees, reports or materials circulated regarding or relating to a meeting that occurred at city hall on or about February 23, 2011, to review the plans for the Art Gallery of Saskatchewan.

2) Copies of any reports that were considered by an in-camera meeting of the executive committee on or about March 28, 2011, regarding or relating to the Art Gallery of Saskatchewan as well as an excerpt of the minutes for any agenda items concerning the AGS that were considered at the same meeting.

The city’s refusal was made pursuant to sections 15 (documents of a local authority) and 16 (advice from officials) of the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

“The records which you have requested relate to issues such as the design of the new Art Gallery of Saskatchewan, issues which are still under active consideration and review by City Council, and to release the records while this review is still taking place would jeopardize the successful completion of the project. There will be a report submitted to City Council in very short order, and certainly once City Council has made all of its decisions (which will, of course, be made in public) we will be happy to release most, if not all, of the requested records,” the city clerk said.

It’s true that final decisions are made at a public meeting of city council. However, it’s the secret discussions and closed-door meetings where resolutions are passed in the months leading up to the decision that are the problem. By the time a particular item reaches city council the final vote is a formality.

A perfect example of this was in early 2009 when the gallery’s board and city council stabbed the Mendel family in the back at two closed-door meetings. On March 14 the Mendel board passed a resolution to pursue the construction of a new gallery at River Landing. The city’s executive committee approved the plan in principle on March 23. Both decisions were the culmination of secret discussions and back room dealing involving the provincial and federal governments. The public, Mendel family and gallery donors were never consulted.

The deplorable decisions were made for two reasons: the availability of federal Building Canada funds and the city’s desperate need for a year-round attraction at the cost-plagued River Landing development.

It wasn’t until a press conference on April 3, 2009, when Mayor Don Atchison and Mendel board chair Art Knight, in a stunning act of betrayal and breach of trust to the gallery’s namesake, Fred Mendel, announced plans to move the gallery to a proposed new $55 million building located at River Landing, that the public was finally informed.

The cost of the project has now reached $66.5 million, with more spending to come. It’s wasteful and unnecessary. The Mendel can be renovated and expanded for less than half that amount.

The so-called ‘final decision’ by council wasn’t made until November 30, 2009, when councillors approved, in principle, the development of the Destination Centre with an expanded art gallery (Saskatoon Art Gallery and Conservatory Corporation) as the anchor attraction. Councillors didn’t even have the guts to call for a recorded vote.

The obvious reason for the extreme secrecy is that the city wants maximum control over the way the new gallery’s design gets rolled out to the public. With the media’s help, the city will dazzle residents with colorful diagrams and pictures hoping to sucker enough people into forgetting what happened in March and April of 2009. With any luck the plan will not succeed.

Sask. Party government refusing to disclose occupational health and safety briefing notes; Don Morgan no better than Rob Norris on labour file

2011-05-14T12:47:00.000-07:00

The Saskatchewan Party government is refusing to release records containing details of its review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

On May 5, 2011, Labour Relations and Workplace Safety (LRWS) deputy minister Mike Carr denied an access to information request made in April for copies of any briefing notes since October 1, 2010, regarding or relating to any type of review of the Act. Four records, totaling 11 pages, are being withheld in their entirety.

According to Carr, access to the records was denied because they contain cabinet confidences and advice from officials.

The ministry violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by not applying section 8 pertaining to severability, which is mandatory and states: “Where a record contains information to which an applicant is refused access, the head shall give access to as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information to which the applicant is refused access.”

This is the second access request for OHS related records that the Wall government has turned down.

In February 2009, the former Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour received a request for copies of any reviews, analysis or studies that had been conducted by or for the provincial government since May 1, 2008, of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The then deputy minister of AEEL, Wynne Young, denied the request outright on March 24, 2009. Not one scrap of information was released. Young’s decision was subsequently appealed to the province’s information and privacy commissioner for review. The case is still pending.

On April 20, 2011, LRWS announced the launch of consultations on proposed amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

“The proposed amendments are aimed at improving workplace health and safety to help us achieve Mission: Zero,” LRWS Minister Don Morgan said in a news release.

The proposed amendments include the sufficiency of current levels of penalties, benefits of alternative types of penalties, and whether the revenue collected from these penalties should be partially re-directed toward furthering public education and prevention efforts.

The deadline for public feedback on the amendments is May 20, 2011.

News of the proposed amendments came as a complete surprise. There was no advance warning.

As part of the consultation process, the ministry sent out a package to approximately 200 stakeholders and 5,400 Occupational Health Committees inviting them to participate in the consultation process.

One the organizations to receive a package (comprised of a discussion paper, questionnaire and a letter from Morgan dated April 19, 2011) was the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour. However, they did not receive it until April 27, giving them barely three weeks to respond.

This prompted a letter from federation president Larry Hubich to Morgan expressing concern and disappointment over the government’s actions.

Even if the SFL had received the minister’s letter on the very day it was dated, Hubich said a deadline of May 20 for considering changes to the OHS Act would still be unrealistic.

“The Act protects the safety of the working people in this province and one month is simply not nearly enough time to thoughtfully consider changes to the legislation,” Hubich said in the letter dated May 6, 2011, which was shared with other individuals and groups and forwarded to the media.

“Because your Ministry has already prepared a list of desired changes, research and preparation must have begun some time ago. We cannot understand why we were not given adequate notice and time to participate in this important process. Major stakeholders should have been notified at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Asking for surveys to be filled out only a few short weeks before proposals for changes are finalized does not constitute consultation, Hubich said.

Don Morgan was named Minister of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety in a cabinet shuffle by Premier Brad Wall on June 29, 2010, replacing Rob Norris on the labour file. Norris was quite possibly the worst labour minister the province had seen in many decades. Labour leaders were hopeful that relations with the Wall government would improve under Morgan.

According to the StarPhoenix, on the day of his appointment to the labour relations portfolio, Morgan apparently left a message for Hubich seeking to set up a meeting.

In an interview with reporter James Wood on July 5, 2010, Morgan acknowledged part of his role is to develop “a better working relationship” with organized labour.

“When you’ve had some difficult times, sometimes a fresh face can put some of that personal animosity behind. . . . I’m certainly willing to try and meet with people that are active on the labour side and try to see if there are more areas of common ground,” said Morgan. [Labour leaders eye better relations with gov’t after cabinet shuffle (StarPhoenix, July 6, 2010)]

It would appear that Morgan has since squandered any goodwill that might have existed between the parties.

In his letter to the minister, Hubich notes that Morgan last year committed to a meeting with the SFL’s occupational health and safety committee, a commitment he failed to live up to. The SFL human rights committee had asked for a meeting with Morgan to discuss legislative changes to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, but that, too, failed to materialize. Labour relations practitioners also asked to meet with Morgan to discuss the proposed amendments to the Trade Union Act regulations, but the request was turned down.

“When it comes to the laws and regulations that affect workers and their families, it is time you respected and welcomed the labour movement’s expertise and commitment,” Hubich wrote.

Like the song says, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

LRWS suggests in the discussion paper sent to stakeholders that the amendments are needed to improve the safety performance of Saskatchewan workplaces, which continues to have the second highest workplace rate in the country.

“While the majority of the proposed amendments are based on the Occupational Health and Safety Council’s 2006 recommendations following the review of the adequacy of the Act and have been consulted upon, a number of additional proposals are being made in which stakeholder input is sought. These additional proposals have arisen based upon review of best practices in industry and other jurisdictions, and issues emerging since 2007,” the document’s introduction states.

It should be noted that a copy of the 2006 report and recommendations was not included in the packages sent to stakeholders by LRWS. It doesn’t appear to be posted online either. How are stakeholders supposed to refer to it if it’s not made available?

Exactly who conducted the review of best practices in industry and other jurisdictions or what specifically were the issues emerging since 2007 is not explained. An email asking these questions was sent to LRWS communications consultant Jennifer Veri on May 10, 2011. Veri’s name appears on the April 20 government news release as the contact person for further information. A follow-up email was sent on May 13 to see if a response was forthcoming. So far no one from the ministry has bothered to respond.

First the briefing notes were denied and now general questions about the process are being ignored. What on earth is the Wall government hiding?

Buried at the bottom of page two of the discussion paper is the following sentence: “Please note that when updates to the OHS regulations are proposed, further consultations will occur.”

This means the issue will only uglier as time goes on.

Update: In an email response dated May 16, 2011, Christine Markel, a senior policy analyst with the occupational health and safety unit in LRWS, has advised that “the additional proposals being made on issues emerging since 2007 arose from and were researched and reviewed by Ministry staff.” She also states that the Occupational Health and Safety Council’s 2006 report “is considered a report to the Minister and has not been publicly released.” A lot of good that does stakeholders who would like to review the report before answering any questions in the latest so-called consultation.

Saskatoon board of police commissioners refusing to release in-camera records concerning new headquarters

2011-05-08T13:41:00.000-07:00

Saskatoon city council and the board of police commissioners should be ashamed for insisting that the process around the change in scope of the new police headquarters was open and transparent.

Police Chief Clive Weighill noted in a recent op-ed to the StarPhoenix that on April 26, 2010, Rebanks Pepper Littlewood Architects Inc. (RPL) was named consultant for the project “through an open process.”

The request for proposal document that RPL responded to was prepared by city administration and issued March 9, 2010. It was never tabled a public meeting of city council, executive committee or police board. The city recently advised that it would only consider releasing the document if an access to information request were submitted.

The decision to award the contract to RPL was based on a recommendation by the executive committee made a private meeting on April 19, 2010. The issue was dealt with by the police board at an in-camera meeting prior to that but the date of the meeting has not been disclosed.

The administrative report that went to city council on April 26, 2010, gave no hint that RPL’s work might result in an increase in the size and cost of the project.

The process may have been open to the companies submitting proposals but it was closed to the public.

On October 22, 2010, the police board learned that the original estimate was low and that the plans should be updated. The board requested the executive committee consider increasing the scope of the RFP.

On November 1, 2010, the executive committee, which consists of all city councillors, gave the go-ahead to proceed with a revised RFP. It also directed administration to identify funding options to supplement the approved capital budget shortfall.

The city manager provided a verbal update on the RFP to the executive committee on December 13, 2010.

The police board subsequently approved changes to the scope of work to include an overall increase in building area from approximately 221,000 square feet to 329,000 square feet. On March 28, 2011, the executive committee determined that a revised budget of up to $131 million be approved.

These meetings, all chaired by Mayor Don Atchison, were closed to the public. At no point during this time was a report on the subject tabled at a public meeting. Weighill’s lone verbal update during the public portion of the February 24, 2011, police board meeting was far too little too late.

The city has released some information from the November 1 executive committee meeting, but only because an access request was filed. The records show that the police service, working with RPL, knew in July 2010 that a larger building would be required. City administration also knew because it assisted in refining the space needs program to a concept design development stage.

The police board, on the other hand, is refusing to release any information whatsoever from its in-camera meetings.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the police board and service, unlike most other provinces, are not subject to freedom of information laws.

However, the board’s lawyers, Scharfstein Gibbings Walen Fisher LLP, in a letter dated April 14, 2011, seem to suggest that even though the board is not covered under the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it is operating as if it were and is using the legislation to deny access to records. And that’s not all. The board is even refusing to disclose the dates of its closed-door meetings. How absurd is that?

The attorneys’ letter was in response to an informal request to the board on March 18, 2011, for copies of any reports pertaining to the new police headquarters as well as the minutes to the meetings where those reports were tabled.

The chief says that letters were sent to members of council, Broadway and Riversdale BIDs, North Saskatoon Business Association, Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce, the Partnership, school boards, community associations bordering the north-downtown area, FSIN and Saskatoon Tribal Council asking for input.

What goes unsaid is that the July 2010 letter to these stakeholders discussed the new police headquarters only in general terms and did not mention that the building might be larger and more expensive.

Furthermore, restricting discussions to a privileged few is not being open and transparent.

In November 2010, the same groups were sent a letter inviting them to an open house to answer questions and address any concerns that may exist. Like the previous letter, nothing was said about the scope of the project changing.

Weighill and councillors point to the open house held December 7, 2010, at the Frances Morrison Library as evidence of transparency. The open house was a farce. The police service ran one tiny, inconspicuous ad in the StarPhoenix on December 4, 2010, to promote the event. There was no ad in the Saskatoon Sun, which is delivered free to nearly every household in the city. Additionally, the ad and police service news release for the open house gave no indication that a larger, costlier building would be discussed.

Only 12 people attended the open house, five of which had received a personal invitation from Weighill. The other seven were youth who, according to Weighill, were presumably walking by, saw coffee and cookies and decided to drop in and see what was going on.

Let’s be honest. By the time the matter reached city council on April 4, 2011, the vote was a formality. Both the police board and executive committee had already given the thumbs up to proceed.

Tiny ad for police service open house, StarPhoenix, Dec. 4, 2010

Toronto Star endorses Jack Layton and the New Democrats; 50 reasons to avoid the Conservatives like the plague

2011-05-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

The Toronto Star, Canada’s largest daily newspaper, is endorsing Jack Layton and the New Democrats in the May 2 federal election.

As shifts go this one is huge.

In each of the last seven federal elections dating back to 1988, the Star has supported the Liberals. This time things are different.

“Voters who believe that Canada can — and should — aim higher have an important decision. Until 10 days ago, they had only one realistic alternative to the Conservatives — the Liberal party under Michael Ignatieff. Today, that is no longer the case,” the Star editorial board said on April 30.

“The New Democrats have been reinvigorated under the leadership of Jack Layton. After Monday, they may well challenge the Liberals as the principal national standard-bearer for the roughly two voters in three who disagree fundamentally with the course charted by the Harper Conservatives. Progressive voters should give them their support on Monday.”

The Star says the biggest disappointment has been the Liberal party under Ignatieff.

“Going into the campaign they had by far the biggest challenge — to connect with voters and offer a strong alternative to the Conservatives. They had to overcome the Conservatives’ brutal but effective framing of Ignatieff as something other than a real Canadian. With only two days to go before voting day, all the signs are that they have fallen short,” the board said.

With Stephen Harper, the board states that another Conservative victory would be bad for the country. “The last thing Canada needs is an affirmation of a government obsessed with control, dismissive of critics, and determined to further diminish the role of the state in charting a better future for the country.”

In the past it has been easy to dismiss the federal NDP as naive idealists, the board said. That no longer applies. In this campaign they have emerged as a credible force, for many reasons.

▪ The party is on the verge of a historic breakthrough in Quebec, which would go far toward establishing it as a truly national party.

▪ The platform the NDP offers voters is ambitious and puts people first.

▪ On economic issues, long the NDP’s weakest point, the party is much sounder than it has been in the past.

▪ In Layton it has a leader who has won the trust of many voters — a rare feat in a time dominated by cynical, ultra-partisan politicking.

“Elections are about the future, and the Liberals have not made a persuasive case for themselves as the alternative in 2011,” the board said.

“Fortunately, this time there is a real choice. Voters who believe Canada should aspire to something greater than the crabbed, narrow vision offered by the Harper Conservatives should look to Jack Layton and the New Democrats on Monday.” [Toronto Star endorses the NDP (Toronto Star, April 30, 2011)]

Over at the National Post and the Globe and Mail it’s more of the same old, same old with both newspapers backing the Harper Conservatives.

In the case of the Post, it comes as no surprise. Ever since the first issue on October 27, 1998, the newspaper has been staunchly conservative. It backed Tories Mike Harris and John Tory for Ontario premier. It has supported Stephen Harper in four straight elections now.

When it was clear the federal Liberals under Jean Chretien and provincial Liberals under Dalton McGuinty would win in 2000 and 2003 respectively, the Post hoped for stronger showings by right wing candidates the next time around.

The Post also has the dubious record of endorsing George W. Bush for president of the United States. Any newspaper that would back a war monger and criminal and support the illegal U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

The Post gives Harper a free pass saying that during his tenure he has provided “intelligent, sober leadership”. [Conservatives a clear choice in uncertain times (National Post, April. 28, 2011)]

They must be talking about a different Stephen Harper; the one that’s not mean, vindictive, contemptuous, deceitful, petty and unethical.

The Globe and Mail is often considered the newspaper of record in

Canada

. That’s why its (third straight) endorsement of Harper on April 27 is so disturbing. The editorial is one of those pieces that you have to double check the masthead because you can’t believe what you’re reading. It’s as if the previous five years didn’t exist.

The first hint comes in the opening paragraph when the board says the current election campaign has been “unremarkable and disappointing”. This is odd given that advance polls showed a record number of voters turning out. And what’s not remarkable about Jack Layton’s sudden explosion in popularity?

The board states that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has “failed to show how the Conservative government has failed.” The editorial board chooses to ignore the stories within its own newspaper documenting Harper’s sorry record over the past five years.

The board comes off the rails with this preposterous passage:

“Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let’s call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper’s successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.

“Those who disdain the Harper approach should consider his overall record, which is good.” [Facing up to our challenges (Globe and Mail, April 27, 2011)]

The board is clearly out of touch with reality, a fact that’s driven home by many of the 4,700 comments left by readers. Unfortunately, this disappointing piece of work has cost them whatever journalistic integrity they may have had left.

Here is some of Harper’s record that the Post and Globe ignored:

1) Squandered before the recession the $13.2 billion surplus it inherited from the previous Liberal government

2) Ran up a record $55.6 billion deficit in 2009-10

3) Projecting a $40.4 billion deficit for the 2010-11 fiscal year

4) Chuck Cadman affair

5) Maxime Bernier affair

6) Rahim Jaffer affair

7) Helena Guergis affair

8) Bev Oda affair

9) Bruce Carson affair

10) Toronto G20 Summit debacle

11) Refused to implement the Kyoto agreement

12) Scrapped the Kelowna accord

13) Lost bid for U.N. Security Council seat to Germany and Portugal

14) Reckless GST cuts

15) Reckless corporate tax cuts

16) Prorogued Parliament twice to avoid defeat in the House of Commons

17) Axed mandatory long-form census then lied to defend it

18) First government in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament

19) Promised to spend billions building new prisons as crime rates declined

20) Ignored police report on long-gun registry that says the registry is a crucial weapon in fighting crime and gang violence

21) Harper broke his own fixed election law

22) Produced a 200-page manual to control and disrupt committees

23) Changed the Government of Canada to the Harper Government

24) Federal Court of Appeal ruled the Conservatives’ 2006 election ad spending violated the Elections Act in the so-called ‘in and out’ affair

25) Deceived Canadians about the spiraling purchase price of untendered F-35 stealth fighters

26) Fired Canadian Wheat Board president Adrian Measner for refusing to adopt the Conservative government’s position that the board’s monopoly power be repealed

27) Fired Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission president Linda Keen after her agency ordered the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor over public safety concerns

28) Sacked RCMP Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak, director general of the Canadian Firearms Program, for defending the gun registry

29) Publicly maligned Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin for blowing the whistle on the treatment of Afghan detainees

30) Dropped Paul Kennedy, head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, who had long called for more independent oversight powers

31) Fired outspoken Canadian Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran who repeatedly criticized the Conservative government’s treatment of injured soldiers

32) Created Parliamentary Budget Office then routinely attacked budget officer Kevin Page’s integrity or analysis

33) Muzzling Conservative MPs

34) Silencing scientists at Environment Canada, preventing them from speaking publicly about climate change without permission

35) Broke promise to Saskatchewan to remove non-renewable resource revenue from equalization formula then denied making it

36) Fired CFIA whistle-blower biologist, Luc Pomerleau, for leaking a government memo proposing to allow the meat industry to handle its own inspections

37) Political meddling in access to information requests

38) Boycotting the Afghanistan committee by refusing to show up

39) Broke promise to strengthen Access to Information Act

40) Cancelled the Co-ordination of Access to Information Requests System (CAIRS)

41) Ideologically driven funding cuts to numerous women’s groups

42) Dozens of Conservative MPs refusing to participate in all-candidate forums

43) Lack of transparency surrounding the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership, including meetings of the North American Competitiveness Council

44) Cancelled the popular Energuide program and replaced it with the inferior ecoEnergy home retrofit program

45) Broke promise not to tax income trusts

46) Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz joking about Listeriosis deaths

47) Appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate so he could be made an unelected cabinet minister

48) Environment Minister Rona Ambrose stops Environment Canada scientist Mark Tushingham from speaking publicly about his science fiction novel called Hotter than Hell

49) Dumped Peter Tinsley, the head of the Military Police Complaints Commission, before he could conclude his enquiry into torture allegations of Afghan detainees

50) Chief Statistician Munir Sheikh resigns because he could not remain head of an agency “whose reputation had suffered” under the Conservatives

51) Lying when it says that Canada is leading the global economic recovery when, in fact, it is expected to slip to 10th in 2010 and ninth in 2011, according to the Conference Board of Canada

Conservative MP Kelly Block a no-show at Saskatoon all-candidates forum, too busy eating pizza in Biggar; AWOL on Twitter since Apr. 20

2011-04-29T08:54:00.000-07:00

Over 130 people packed the St. George’s Senior Citizens’ Centre in Saskatoon on April 28, 2011, for a federal election all-candidates forum organized by the Riversdale Community Association.

Three of the four candidates for the riding of Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar were present: Nettie Wiebe (NDP), Lee Reaney (Liberal) and Vicki Strelioff (Green Party).

The Conservative candidate and incumbent MP Kelly Block was a no-show.

Josh Boyes, Block’s campaign manager, had previously told the StarPhoenix that Block would be in Biggar at a volunteer appreciation pizza party, followed by a door knocking blitz in the community.

Community association president Doug Ramage on April 20 said when he originally spoke with Boyes and Block, he told them the debate would be either the 27th or 28th, with the latter being a backup date.

“Boyes and Block knew the debate would be either the 27th or 28th as those are the dates I presented them with,” said Ramage in an email.

Block’s campaign team had lots of time to plan for the forum but it seems they went ahead and booked other events on those two days anyway.

Dodging debates with her opponents appears to be Block’s specialty. In the 2008 federal election she skipped forums in Saskatoon and Biggar.

Block won the seat in 2008 beating Wiebe by a slim 262 votes.

Block has also been AWOL on her Twitter account since April 20 when the story first broke about her decision not to attend the forum. It’s as if she’s dropped off the face of the earth.

The candidates at the forum were permitted to question each other. Wiebe’s first query was to the absent Block.

“I’d like her to take the time to defend (her) record,” Wiebe said.

The candidates faced questions from the forum moderator before the crowd had its chance to ask the three about their policies, the StarPhoenix reported. Questions ranged from Canada’s involvement in NATO to poverty reduction. One person asked about the candidates’ support for proportional representation.

“We have to move in the country . . . towards a system that more clearly reflects the wishes of the electorate,” Wiebe said.

Strelioff said the Green party has always supported introducing proportional representation to Canada. “Every vote should count,” she said.

Reaney was less clear about his support.

“Our system is not representative of a number of Canadians,” he said.

On affordable housing, Wiebe said Canada needs a national plan to ensure people find acceptable homes. [Incumbent absent from forum (StarPhoenix, April 29, 2011)]

Conservative candidates are in hiding in many ridings across the country.

In a blog posting for Rabble.ca, Alheli Picazo said she compiled a list of those who have, thus far, refused to take part in all-candidate forums, town hall events, and scheduled debates. As of April 22, 2011, there were 67 Conservative candidates on the list.

The repugnant behaviour displayed by Block and her fellow Conservatives appears to be merely an extension of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s deep contempt for Parliament, democracy and Canadians in general.

Incumbent MP Kelly Block a no-show at forum

Block AWOL on Twitter since April 20, 2011

Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar Conservative MP Kelly Block 'dodges public debates'; similar stunt pulled in 2008 federal election

2011-04-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

For the second straight federal election Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar Conservative candidate Kelly Block has been caught ducking debates with her opponents.

As first reported here, Block failed to meet a recent deadline to inform organizers if she will attend an all candidates forum hosted by the Riversdale Community Association on April 28 at the St. George’s Senior Citizens’ Centre.

The NDP, Liberal and Green Party candidates have confirmed their attendance.

According to a StarPhoenix article published on April 20, community association president Doug Ramage found out Block wasn’t attending from a TV reporter.

Ramage said all candidates were contacted on April 4 and given a range of four days to choose from. The community association heard back from everyone except Block.

Ramage went so far as to visit Block’s campaign office. “It started off as, ‘Absolutely not, as her schedule was predetermined weeks in advance,” he said. Then, they said they’d try squeezing her in. “We were left assuming she would do her best to make it.”

Josh Boyes, Block’s campaign manager, apparently told reporter Janet French that Block will be in Biggar at a volunteer appreciation pizza party, followed by a door knocking blitz in the community.

“We’re left wondering if this was planned in advance in order to avoid (the forum) or if this was simply just the only time they could run that,” Ramage said.

It was about a week ago when Block’s campaign set volunteer appreciation events in Rosetown and Biggar on April 27 and 28 respectively, Boyes said.

“We understood there was a possibility of a conflict, but it was just that we had a number of (possible forum) days and we weren’t sure which day he was going to come back to us with,” Boyes said.

Boyes said he didn’t propose an alternative forum date and time to the community association and that request likely got lost in the “craziness of the campaign.”

(Or, maybe they just didn’t want to attend so chose not to respond.)

Boyes said Block would be willing to participate in forums that fit into her schedule.

(But didn’t he just say he never offered the community association any alternative dates?)

Boyes insists Block is open to questioning and is happy to defend Conservative policies and platform on doorsteps, in the campaign office and on the phone. [Riversdale meeting minus Block (StarPhoenix, April 20, 2011)]

Just not at public forums, though, where her campaign team can’t control the message.

Saskatoonhomepage.ca reported Boyes saying the date of the debate was changed on April 13. [All Candidates Forum for Saskatoon Rosetown Biggar Riding (Saskatoonhomepage.ca, April 19, 2011)]

It appears Boyes is wrong.

On April 20, Ramage said in an email the date was changed on the 12th, and that all candidates are sent the same emails by way of blind carbon copy (BCC).

“What is missing from Boyes’ story,” said Ramage. “Is that when I originally spoke with Josh Boyes and Kelly Block, I told them the debate would be either the 27th or the 28th (the 28th was the backup date, that we ended up having to use).”

April 12 also coincides with around the same time Boyes states the volunteer pizza party and door-knocking blitz was organized for Rosetown (27th) & Biggar (28th) in the StarPhoenix article, said Ramage.

“Boyes and Block knew the debate would be either the 27th or 28th as those are the dates I presented them with,” said Ramage.

The community association is non-partisan and thereby not for or against any of the candidates and encourage all of them to attend, said Ramage.

The Riversdale Community Association clearly went above and beyond to accommodate all candidates. Everyone was treated the same. Unfortunately, they came up against a candidate that didn’t seem to want anything to do with the forum and made sure no solution could be found.

Boyes is a former president of the Saskatoon–Wanuskewin Conservative Party Association. He was also Block’s campaign manager in the 2008 federal election when the candidate avoided debates then, including one in Biggar, which led organizers to cancel it.

Block’s communication manager, Carol Reynolds, said at the time her door knocking schedule was busy.

“This is not a directive from the Conservative party,” Reynolds said. “She will be spending the bulk of her time getting to know residents.”

Reynolds defended the decision as “strategic,” arguing Block has to get out to see as many constituents as she can, the StarPhoenix reported. [Block passes on debates (StarPhoenix, October 3, 2008)]

The StarPhoenix editorial board blasted the decision saying “it defies credibility for Ms. Block’s campaign officials to suggest that she has a better chance of connecting with more residents in the far-flung constituency by knocking on one door at a time than she would at a centralized public forums attended by dozens of people at a time.”

The editorial board noted that Ms. Block in Saskatoon and Wascana candidate Michelle Hunter were among more than 17 Conservative candidates -- including cabinet ministers Diane Finley and Helena Guergis – who had so far ducked all-party debates across Canada.

The number of Conservative no-shows was simply too large to ignore.

The board suggested it was an attempt by the Tory national campaign to keep a tight rein on candidates -- especially rookies whose inexperience might lead to embarrassing pronouncements.

“For a party that got into trouble with Elections Canada for funnelling money to local candidates’ campaigns to purchase advertising deemed to be national ads for regulatory purposes, it’s damaging to send a message to voters that their candidate is but a mere pawn in a game far removed from local control or accountability,” said the board.

“It’s bad enough when a party’s candidate does no more than spew out packaged pablum prepared by the national office, that has little to do with local issues.

“But it undermines the entire democratic process when candidates refuse to participate during an election campaign in public events that give voters a chance to assess their ideas in the context of what’s being offered by other parties, especially when the party in question has not yet released a full platform that can be useful for comparison purposes.” [Tory candidates have obligation to share views (StarPhoenix, October 6, 2008)]

Like Saskatchewan’s other 12 Conservative MP’s, Block seems to be little more than an empty shell, a mouthpiece for the Prime Minister’s Office and the Conservative Party of Canada.

Block does excel in one area though: wasting taxpayers money on mail outs to constituents.

A Board of Internal Economy report on individual MP spending shows Block’s office spent $67,358.15 on taxpayer funded mail outs in 2009-10, the second highest total among Saskatchewan Conservative MP’s. Most of that money was blown on nasty, partisan flyers sent to constituents’ homes.

Since the summer of 2009, Block has sent out at least 37 of the controversial flyers as well as calendars, oversized mailings and booklets outlining the party’s tough on crime agenda and reckless tax cuts.

Block sends out so many flyers that sometimes constituents receive two different ones on the same day.

The black and white flyers usually say nothing about Block’s activities as an MP. Their purpose is twofold: To praise Prime Minister Stephen Harper and promote the Conservative brand and to create fear and demonize the opposition parties.

Saskatchewan’s 13 Conservative MP’s blew an astounding $607,608.94 on mail outs in 2009-10, an increase of 32.14 per cent over the previous year.

Since 2006-07, spending on mail outs by Saskatchewan Conservative MP’s has risen 125.75 per cent.

Records indicate that since the Harper Conservatives took office in January 2006, the cost of printing by all MP’s has increased a whopping 148.68 per cent going from $5.94-million in 2005-06 to $14.77-million last year.

Kelly Block taxpayer funded fearmongering flyer (Rec'd Nov. 25, 2010)

Campaign bubble continues as Harper takes no questions from audience or media at rally in Saskatoon; Kelly Block misses debate deadline

2011-04-17T13:18:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s campaign bubble tour was in Saskatoon on April 15, 2011, with a Conservative rally at Prairieland Park Trade and Convention Centre (Hall A).

As with every other election stop by the PM since the federal election campaign began on March 26, the event was tightly controlled and scripted.

Those attending were required to pre-register by April 14 and show photo ID at the door. Anyone without a media pass or a round blue Conservative Party sticker reading “Here for Harper Canada” was denied entry to the hall.

In the crowd were such familiar faces as city councillor Bev Dubois and Saskatchewan Party cabinet ministers Don Morgan and Ken Cheveldayoff.

The rally lacked any spontaneity. The supporters that filled the risers at the back of the stage were coached on how to wave their signs by Conservative handlers before the event started. Once under way, the audience clapped and cheered seemingly on cue.

The first to take the stage was Blackstrap MP Lynne Yelich, who introduced the province’s other 12 Conservative MPs, along with several senators. Dubbed the “Saskatchewan 13” the MPs have proven to be ineffective and useless.

The MPs were silent during last fall’s $38.6 billion takeover bid by

Australia

’s BHP Billiton of PotashCorp. And to this day they refuse to own up to Harper breaking his $800-million-a-year promise to Saskatchewan in the 2006 election to remove natural resources from the equalization formula. They live to serve Harper and little else.

Next up was Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar MP Kelly Block to introduce the Prime Minister.

Block’s claim to fame is her refusal to participate in any debates during the 2008 federal election. This campaign seems to be no different. Block failed to meet a recent deadline to inform organizers if she will attend an all candidates forum hosted by the Riversdale Community Association on April 28 at the St. George’s Senior Citizens’ Centre (1235 20th St. W.). The NDP, Liberal and Green Party candidates said they plan to be there.

In October 2010, Block introduced a private members bill seeking to disclose the salaries and expenses paid to First Nations chiefs and councillors. The StarPhoenix noted at the time that Block does not represent any First Nations communities in her riding and that she came up with the idea for the bill by speaking with fellow MPs. [Disclose band salaries: MP (StarPhoenix, October 2, 2010)]

Block’s riding includes Saskatoon’s poorest neighbourhoods. Given the challenges some of her constituents face with skyrocketing rent, poverty and poor health it’s mystifying why Block would devote so much time to a cause that has no impact in her riding.

StarPhoenix columnist Doug Cuthand hit the nail on the head last month when he called the bill “a shiny bauble aimed to keep the party’s right wing happy.”

“While it’s a private member’s bill,” said Cuthand. “Make no mistake that under the tight control of Stephen Harper, it had the blessing of the PMO.”

In Cuthand’s opinion, since taking power five years ago, “the Conservative government has done very little to improve conditions for First Nations.” [First Nations’ issues on Tories’ backburner (StarPhoenix, March 18, 2011)]

Harper was ushered into the hall through a side door and steered directly to the stage, shaking a few hands as he walked by his Saskatchewan caucus.

In his speech, Harper took every opportunity to paint the opposition parties as a coalition ready to seize power in the event of another minority Conservative government. He said such an arrangement would be “unstable” and only lead to another election.

“Canada needs a strong, stable national, majority Conservative government,” said Harper.

Harper reminded the crowd that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff once said he wouldn’t “take a GST hike off the table.” Naturally, he didn’t mention that most economists worth their salt have said his government’s decision to cut the GST by two percentage points was a mistake that cost the treasury billions of dollars in lost revenue. Even the StarPhoenix said the move was “unwise.”

And, of course, Harper took time to talk about tax cuts and being tough on crime.

Harper also repeated the Conservatives’ Big Lie about Canada leading the global economic recovery.

A Postmedia News article published in the StarPhoenix two weeks ago set the record straight stating: “Canada ranked sixth in 2008 and 2009 in economic performance out of the 17 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a report by the Conference Board of Canada. But Canada is expected to slip to 10th in 2010 and ninth in 2011, according to the report.

“Canada’s economy has been improving, but not at the same rate as the leading economies. Australia and Sweden are expected to lead in economic improvement in 2011, according to the report.” [Reality ‘cheque’: Tory claims about the economy (StarPhoenix, March 28, 2011)]

The same article also debunks Harper’s lies that the Liberals would raise taxes and increase spending should they form government.

Harper spoke from notes for nearly half an hour and then left without taking questions from the audience or the media.

NewsTalk radio 650 later reported that Conservative staffers said the Prime Minister was there strictly for rallying purposes, and that he was taking no questions from the media.

Harper arrived in Saskatoon the previous evening, but it remains unknown what he did between then and the rally. [Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Saskatchewan (NewsTalk 650, April 15, 2011)]

Blackstrap MP Lynne Yelich introducing colleagues

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar MP Kelly Block introducing Prime Minister

Email invitation from Kelly Block campaign office (Apr. 12, 2011)

Conservative sticker required for rally

Thanks to Wall government, PAIRS negotiations stalled for over 20 months; parity with Alberta resident physicians recommended

2011-04-14T06:10:00.000-07:00

Just over a year ago, the StarPhoenix carried an article about life as a medical intern inside an emergency room as part of National Resident Awareness Day.

Real-life trauma at Saskatoon’s Royal University Hospital is managed largely by residents, especially during overnight care when residents are often on the front line. When patients arrive at the teaching hospital, the first doctor they see is usually a resident. Medical students do not automatically become physicians upon graduation and must spend between two and six years as a resident before becoming an independent physician, the story said.

The following are some of the conditions Saskatchewan interns work under:

▪ A doctor in the third year of training as a resident has an annual salary of $57,207.

▪ A resident doctor in Saskatchewan is allowed to work more than 24 hours once every four days.

▪ Residents are paid $100 to work a 24-hour in-hospital call shift from 8 a.m. Saturday until 8 a.m. Sunday.

▪ Residents have no scheduled rest or meal breaks.

▪ The average resident works 80 hours per week.

▪ A resident walks more than 10 kilometres during an average shift.

The Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Saskatchewan (PAIRS) represent more than 340 physicians in training in the province.

Residents are both employees and students of the University of Saskatchewan. PAIRS negotiate terms of their contract with the university. The Ministry of Health, which funds the contract, has the final say on what the U of S can offer.

The members of PAIRS have been without a contract since December 31, 2008.

The Saskatchewan Party government says physician recruitment and retention is a high priority, and that it values the important role that post-graduate residents play in meeting the needs of Saskatchewan people. At least that’s the message health ministry officials are peddling in briefing notes on the matter.

In response to an access to information request submitted in February, the health ministry recently released six briefing notes totalling fifteen pages. Three of the records were heavily censored. Another eight briefing notes totalling twenty-four pages were withheld in their entirety. Obviously, there are things that the Wall government does not want the public to know.

Despite the extreme secrecy, some details have emerged.

The records show that the Wall government stalled negotiations for more than 20 months.

A briefing note dated September 27, 2010, states that PAIRS and the U of S had not met since March 2009, after PAIRS submitted their proposals to the U of S.

“The PAIRS and the U of S are anxious to resume negotiations. Negotiations have been postponed pending an approved bargaining mandate from Cabinet. The Ministry is in the process of finalizing a Cabinet Decision Item (CDI),” the document says.

Subsequent briefing notes show that the U of S and PAIRS finally resumed negotiations late last year after receiving the Wall government’s mandate.

The U of S and their contracted negotiator, Greg Trew of Claymore Consulting, met with PAIRS on December 15, 2010, where PAIRS provided a counter-offer.

The negotiating teams met again on February 3 and 14, 2011.

A briefing note dating back to April 28, 2010, indicates, “PAIRS has requested wage parity with the SUN agreement; however the University of Saskatchewan is instead recommending parity with Western Canada, specifically Alberta (PARA), which is 11.48% higher Saskatchewan’s 2008 rate.”

Ministry officials say physicians who relocate, tend to move to Alberta or B.C.; therefore, competitiveness is a strong consideration.

A December 20, 2010, briefing note includes a table showing a comparison of salaries for Ontario and Western provinces. Unfortunately, details of the government mandate immediately following are blacked out.

News reports suggest that what the U of S (i.e. provincial government) has been offering doesn’t come close to parity with Alberta.

At a meeting on January 13, 2011, PAIRS members voted overwhelmingly to reject the Wall government’s latest contract offer, which the organization said was no different than the initial offer and did nothing to address the low salaries of residents working in the province.

PAIRS president Dr. Marilyn Kinloch told reporters at a news conference that the government also refused to include retroactive pay in a new contract.

“It’s an absolute mandatory piece of the contract,” Kinloch said. “(Members) will not sign a contract without retroactive pay.”

Kinloch said the two sides have made progress on non-monetary issues, but the employer has refused to budge on salary issues, the StarPhoenix reported.

In the article, Barb Daigle, the U of S associate vice-president of human resources said the university’s strategy is to be competitive with all medical-doctoral schools, not just the one that offers the highest salary. That means the U of S is aiming to rank among the 75th percentile in salary, she added.

However, that’s not what the health ministry briefing notes seem to be saying. These documents clearly show that the U of S is recommending parity with Alberta. Since the cost of living has increased since 2008, the U of S will have to do better than 11.48 per cent in the short-term.

Last year, 26 out of 59 University of Saskatchewan medical graduates stayed in the province for residency programs, which is the lowest rate in Canada, according to PAIRS, the StarPhoenix said. At 34 per cent, Saskatchewan has the highest rate of unmatched residency spots in Canada, PAIRS says. The national average is 10 per cent. [Medical residents reject gov't contract offer (StarPhoenix, January 15, 2011)]

The StarPhoenix editorial board criticized the Wall government’s stance on retroactive pay: “The government’s objection that PAIRS is seeking retroactive pay for persons who no longer are residents or who have moved on to other institutions is an odd rationale, to say the least. Such a justification, if it stands, would reward the government for dragging on the talks for as long as possible, and any settlement would apply only to those specialists-in-training who might take longer to qualify.

“The fact that others put in the long 24-hour-a-day, weeklong shifts at pay rates that can be as low as $10 an hour for serving as front-line doctors in hospitals, seems not be a consideration. Surely, they deserve back-pay if a subsequent contract deems their work to be more valuable, especially since the deal could have been reached while they were on the job except for foot-dragging over issues such as their salaries.” [Fair PAIRS deal needed to beat doctor shortage (StarPhoenix, February 14, 2011)]

According to Daigle, the latest contract offer from the U of S was tabled February 14, 2011. Negotiations are “complex” because of the number of parties involved, she said.

“It’s a challenge when we’re not necessarily the ones making the financial decisions,” Daigle said. “The offer that we tabled on Monday was a best effort to offer to make some progress, in terms of competitive salaries.”

The Ministry of Health declined to comment, referring questions to the university. [Drawn-out talks on contract leave poor impression: medical residents (StarPhoenix, February 18, 2011)]

It’s plain to see that the real road block to a new agreement is the Wall government.

Health Minister Don McMorris told reporters on February 22, 2011, he’s confident negotiations between the U of S and PAIRS will conclude soon.

“Just from my experience in three years as minister of health, it seems like when we get very close is when it gets to be the most tense,” he said. “I would say it’s getting pretty tense right now.” [Pairs’ withdrawal of role ‘unfortunate’: recruitment agency (StarPhoenix, February 23, 2011)]

That was seven weeks ago.

PAIRS members are set to vote on the latest contract offer on April 14, 2011.

In an interview with the StarPhoenix, PAIRS president Dr. Marilyn Kinloch said the negotiating team isn’t making a recommendation to the residents on whether to accept or reject it.

“The negotiations team has decided to remain objective on this offer, present it as is and answer questions,” she said. [Medical residents set to vote on contract (StarPhoenix, April 6, 2011)]

It doesn’t sound promising.

Meewasin Valley Authority abandon interest in Mendel Art Gallery building for new home; concerns include cost, control and controversy

2011-04-10T08:02:00.000-07:00

In a surprising move, the Meewasin Valley Authority has for the time being withdrawn its interest in moving its operations to the Mendel Art Gallery after it is vacated in 2014.

The decision, made at a meeting of the Meewasin board on February 4, 2011, could be reviewed if the participating parties (City of Saskatoon, Province of Saskatchewan and University of Saskatchewan) decide at some point to increase both Meewasin’s statutory revenue and provide resources toward capital improvements.

The main reasons for the decision are cost, control and controversy.

According to a memorandum from CEO Susan Lamb and director of operations Gwen Charman to the Meewasin board dated February 4, 2011, the organization’s current operating budget is $122,000.

“This is extremely tight,” the document says. “It is impossible for us to continue at our current service levels unless we receive a significant increase in revenue tied to inflation.”

Lamb and Charman “anticipate” operating costs at the Mendel could be nearly $600,000 leaving an unfunded operating deficit of about $480,000.

“This does not include any increased marketing for an out-of-the-way location or increased staffing for special events needed to attract visitors.”

The potential loss of autonomy is a big concern.

Meewasin owns its current building and pays no rent or lease costs. This would not be the case at the Mendel site, where city council has decided the city will maintain ownership.

“[W]e have very specific needs that are most easily met when we own our own building. If we cannot meet our needs, there is no point in pursuing the project,” Lamb and Charman said.

There is also fear that any deal could become a political football, generating negative coverage.

“We lose control of the discussion as others hold the Open Houses etc. our fundraising analysis shows that controversy would be the death of any fundraising campaign,” Lamb and Charman said.

“We have completed a fundraising analysis with potential donors split virtually down the middle on the option of staying in the current site or moving to the Mendel. Our analysis showed that Meewasin could raise $4.5 million in a fundraising campaign. Donors told us the campaign would be successful only if there is a minimum of controversy about the decision.”

It’s also noted that competition for the Mendel building through the city’s expressions of interest process sets up “winners” and “losers” in the community.

“Anticipation of our interest has already meant we are excluded from the Kinsmen Park master planning steering committee. As this is a major addition to the Meewasin Valley, the fact that we cannot be part of the discussion is unfortunate to say the least.”

Preliminary discussions with representatives of the Government of Canada have revealed that “there is little likelihood of federal funding until at least 2015.” Meewasin’s plan, on any site, “would need to see additional capital from municipal, provincial, federal and private donors to complete the project.”

“Given the risks,” Lamb and Charman said they could not recommend that Meewasin participate in the EOI for the Mendel building “at this time.”

Actually, what the city issued was a call for ideas not an EOI. The deadline for submissions was February 23, 2011. The ideas received were scheduled to be reviewed by the executive committee at a closed-door meeting on March 14, 2011. The city will invite up to two candidates to submit detailed business plans.

What’s puzzling is that Meewasin waited so long to pull the plug. The organization’s expansion plans have been on hold since April 3, 2009, when the city and Mendel board announced plans to move the art gallery to River Landing. Lamb has known for more than a year that the move would result in a tight fit and higher operating costs.

In an interview with the StarPhoenix on Feburary 11, 2010, Lamb said a preliminary estimate showed that renovating the Mendel for the MVA’s purposes would cost $10 million, compared to an estimated $11 million to $12 million to build a new 28,000-square-foot interpretive centre at the current spot in the former Rothman’s building in Friendship Park.

The costs to operate year-to-year would also be increased substantially, she said.

The Mendel building, constructed in 1964, requires significant renovations to the heating and mechanical systems and space remains an issue, Lamb said.

“We would fit over there, but just barely,” Lamb said.

Lamb also said a fundraising drive wouldn’t begin until a decision was made on whether to stay in the south downtown or move downstream. [MVA in holding pattern on interpretive centre (StarPhoenix, February 12, 2010)]

Thanks to the city, Meewasin has lost at least 22 months.

Controversy will follow the Mendel no matter what Meewasin does.

The only reason the building is available is because the gallery’s board and city council stabbed the Mendel family in the back at two closed-door meetings in early 2009. On March 14 the Mendel board passed a resolution to pursue the construction of a new gallery at River Landing. The city’s executive committee approved the plan in principle on March 23. Both decisions were the culmination of secret discussions and back room dealing involving the provincial and federal governments. The public, Mendel family and gallery donors were never consulted.

The despicable decisions were made for two reasons: the availability of federal Building Canada funds and the city’s desperate need for a year-round attraction at the troubled, cost-plagued River Landing development.

The Meewasin board was briefed on the Mendel situation at an in-camera meeting on April 3, 2009, a few hours before the official announcement.

No sooner had the ink dried on the betrayal than Meewasin shamelessly stepped in to ‘stake claim’ to the building.

On April 7, 2009, the StarPhoenix reported that Meewasin administrators were already investigating a possible relocation; and, that all four city councillors on the Meewasin board (including Mayor Don Atchison) were in favour of moving to a vacated Mendel Art Gallery.

“If it had been orchestrated, it couldn’t have been done any better,” Coun. Darren Hill, a member of the Meewasin board said. “I’m 100 per cent behind moving into the Mendel location. . . . It’s got adequate parking, the interpretive area, a gift shop, the civic conservatory will get to stay. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

Moving into the Mendel site would save money and ensure the building doesn’t sit empty, Hill told reporter David Hutton.

The present building would likely be demolished if the MVA moves out, Hill said. [MVA eyes Mendel site (StarPhoenix, April 7, 2009)]

In deciding not to submit a proposal, the Meewasin board has likely avoided a major headache. Any process involving the organization relocating to the Mendel would be seen as a complete sham.

Often seen as a rubber-stamp body for city council’s schemes, the MVA already suffers from credibility problems.

Meewasin, a conservation agency, is mandated to protect the natural and heritage resources of the Meewasin Valley, which includes the south downtown. Sadly, it sat on the sidelines when the historic Gathercole and Legion buildings were torn down. It was silent when city council on December 6, 2010, voted in favour of demolishing and replacing the 103-year-old Traffic Bridge. And earlier this year when a stand of 80-year-old American elm trees on River Landing Parcel “Y” were cut down to make room for future development, it looked the other way.

The last thing Meewasin needs is the added burden of being associated with destroying the late Fred Mendel’s legacy.

MVA memorandum dated February 4, 2011
(Received April 6, 2011, as part of an access to information request)

Preliminary estimates prepared by MVA staff
(Received Nov. 2010 as part of an access to information request)

Wall government changed minimum age of employment to appease Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association

2011-03-26T07:08:00.000-07:00

Premier Brad Wall (centre) accepts personalized
chef jacket from lobby group and Sask. Party contributor
Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, Nov. 2010

When the Saskatchewan Party government announced it was lowering the minimum age of employment in hotels, restaurants, educational institutions, hospitals and nursing homes from 16 to 15 a few years ago, the primary reason was that it would give more young people the opportunity to gain valuable work experience.

“Lowering the minimum age of employment gives Saskatchewan young people valuable opportunities to obtain work experience, while filling gaps in our labour market,” then-Advanced Education, Employment and Labour Minister Rob Norris said in a news release on December 23, 2008.

The change would be reviewed in May 2009, following a consultation process starting in January, the news release said.

The decision was made without prior public consultation or legislative debate.

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour president Larry Hubich at the time suspected the changes were being rushed through in order to appease the business community.

“I have no doubt in my mind that the government is doing this because they’re getting pressure from certain business lobby groups to open up the door to allow younger workers,” Hubich told the Leader-Post, adding that some businesses are finding it hard to attract workers because they’re paying low wages and little or no benefits. [Age drops for teen workers (Leader-Post, December 24, 2008)]

Thanks to Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner we now know that Hubich was right. It wasn’t about doing something positive for young teens; it was about placating the business and industry lobby groups that had been pressuring the Wall government to make changes.

According to a briefing note dated October 8, 2008, by the policy and evaluation branch in the former Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour, a number of business organizations and business owners had been requesting a lowering of the age of employment in their industries.

“In particular, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association and some of their members have expressed dismay that retail stores and gas stations can hire individuals the age of 16 while they cannot,” the document says.

“Business stakeholders have suggested that a more realistic minimum age limit would be 15, with further allowances for younger adolescents under prescribed conditions.”

(The CRFA donated $732.19 to the Saskatchewan Party in 2008 and purchased two tickets for Premier Brad Wall’s dinner on April 29, 2010, in Saskatoon. The lobby group was also against raising the minimum wage in Saskatchewan and supported introducing a training wage for new employees for the first 500 hours of work, a regressive measure that the Province of British Columbia recently abandoned.)

The argument seemed to be that a lower limit would recognize the current situation across Canada, by which all adolescents have some rights to seek employment if they are under the jurisdiction’s general minimum age restrictions.

However, the briefing note gives no indication it was young teenagers or parents that were seeking changes to the legislation. On the contrary, it was the business community – looking for a new source of cheap, expendable labour to fill vacant positions – that was demanding the law be amended.

“The current employment shortage have put increased pressure on businesses when recruiting workers and there have been requests for this age limit to be reduced,” the briefing note says.

The document notes that some media linked the issue to the Wall government’s Ontario trip to recruit workers to Saskatchewan.

“The Province needs employees of all kinds and the Government is looking at all ways to ensure an adequate workforce,” it states. “That includes working within the Province, throughout Canada and throughout the world.”

Apparently, the solution includes young teens.

The business community was unhappy with section 8 of The Minimum Wage Regulations, which required an employee to be at least 16 years old to work in educational institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels or restaurants.

“Critics of this section point to other industries where there are a significant number of young workers and there is no similar age restriction, such as the retail or gas stations,” the briefing note said. In other words, these other industries wanted the opportunity to exploit cheap, young labour too.

In September 2008, the news media stirred up controversy when it reported that 20 15-year-old employees at two Dairy Queen stores in northwest Regina were laid off after an investigation by labour standards officers found they were underage. Premier Brad Wall shamelessly used the situation to promote his desire for changes to the legislation.

The briefing note confirms that the province was already reviewing the legislation at the time of the incident “as part of an overall review of labour legislation.” (Note: The Workers’ Compensation Act is currently under review and, according to the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety strategic plan for 2011-12, the “occupational health and safety regulatory regime” is the Wall government’s next target.)

What the public wasn’t told is that the story began on September 19, 2008, when the labour standards office in Regina “received an anonymous complaint from an upset father about his under-aged son working at the local Dairy Queen. The father was concerned about the risk of injury and, in particular, that his son would not be covered by the Workers’ Compensation Board (labour standards officials subsequently confirmed that Worker’s Compensation would cover a worker, even one that was under aged). The father said he would be going to the media with his concerns.”

A labour standards officer contacted the company to advise them of the requirement for employees to be 16 years of age. The employer contact was not aware of the provision, which had been in existence since 1971. The officer informed the employer that to be in compliance they would have to terminate the employment of those employees that were not 16 years old. The company representative understood and said that they would do what was necessary to comply.

“The father called back indicating he was very pleased with the outcome and thanked the labour standards officer for the quick response,” the briefing note states.

So it was simply a case of a parent looking out for their child. The media and Wall government withheld this information and instead turned the story into one about labour regulation run amok.

The briefing note clearly states: “The purpose of the regulation is to allow youth to focus on the successful completion of their education.” But for the Wall government and its friends in the business community it became about filling gaps in the labour market.

On July 22, 2009, the Wall government established age 16 as the general minimum age of employment in all sectors of the Saskatchewan economy. An ‘absolute’ minimum age of 14 was also established, provided those 14 and 15 year old workers fulfill certain requirements.

Unfortunately, the public was forced to endure another round of then-AEEL Minister Rob Norris trying to sucker anyone who would listen into believing the change was made so young people could gain some work experience. Yeah, right. It had nothing to do with the business community.

The briefing note was obtained through an access to information request submitted to AEEL under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in December 2008. Former AEEL deputy minister Wynne Young denied the request in its entirety claiming the responsive records contained confidences of cabinet and advice from government officials. Young’s decision was appealed to the information commissioner for review.

In a letter dated March 11, 2011, Mike Carr, deputy minister of labour relations and workplace safety, said that the information commissioner asked LRWS to review the file. As it turns out, only one record responsive to the original request was located. Carr noted that section 16(1)(a)(c) “should not have been applied as an exemption since the record does not relate to a Cabinet document.”

Carr added: “Upon review of the file, I agree to provide partial access to the record pursuant to section 8 of the Act.” This section is mandatory and requires government institutions to give access to as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information to which the applicant is refused access.

Carr did not explain why his predecessor falsely claimed the record was cabinet-related and failed to apply section 8 – an offence that has been committed in almost every ministry since the Wall government took power.

Labour Relations and Workplace Safety Minister
Don Morgan (centre) with CRFA officials, Nov. 2010

City of Saskatoon withheld concerns over the viability of a hotel at River Landing; consultant hired did not conduct market assessment

2011-03-19T07:47:00.000-07:00

For nearly seven years Saskatoon city council has been obsessed with forcing the private sector development of a luxury hotel at River Landing regardless of market demand.

Records recently released by the city in response to access to information requests submitted in February 2005 and May 2006 show that the city was advised of industry concerns about the viability of a hotel on the former Gathercole site, but failed to tell the public.

The documents also show that much of the city’s discussion on the matter was conducted behind closed doors and that the consultant hired to guide the concept planning process for the area did not conduct a market assessment of the hotel industry to see if additional rooms were necessary.

On July 21, 2004, city council’s executive committee met in private to discuss the marketing and disposition of Parcel “Y” (then known as Block E16) at River Landing. An excerpt from the minutes of the meeting indicates that the city solicitor circulated copies of a memo dated July 20, 2004, from Victoria-based consultant Gwyn Symmons.

The purpose of the memo was to provide an opinion on the disposition of Parcel “Y” for a hotel and other uses. Council had two choices for the land, either sale or lease.

Symmons noted that the private sector generally prefers sale over lease.

“It is less complex and leasing can sometimes cause problems with lenders,” he said. “The presence of the city on title may be a deterrent to some lenders. Lenders are generally conservative and will need to examine and accept the lease wording. This may be an added complication to obtaining a hotel.”

Symmons said developers sometimes also express concerns with regard to the marketability of projects built on leased land where residential development is a component.

“In competitive markets, individual home purchasers (with legal advice) may have concerns over leasing. In markets where leasing is uncommon, there may be buyer reluctance where the property is leased, which may affect a developer’s interest in the subject,” he said.

After considering council’s objectives for the site, Symmons concluded: “The subject site is an excellent site and we feel confident that it will attract the interest of developers. On balance, sale of the lands seems more appropriate in the Saskatoon market where leasing has been less common and where the development market place is smaller and perhaps less robust than larger metropolitan centres.”

However, it is important to note that Symmons did not study the Saskatoon market to see if the downtown could handle another major hotel. And yet, he appeared to support the idea nonetheless: “We have not undertaken a market analysis of the hotel industry but continue to believe that the location is an excellent one for this use. Only a competitive call to the private sector will determine the interest or viability and/or the type and size. There is no guarantee that a hotel will be forthcoming.”

Conducting a market assessment early on might have saved the city a lot of grief. Because it wasn’t long before the red flags started to appear.

The executive committee met behind closed doors again on August 6, 2004. It was at this meeting that councillors determined the hotel site “will be sold rather than leased.” There was never a resolution or vote on the matter at a public meeting of city council, only a short mention in a report by the committee for the August 16, 2004, council meeting. The public never had a say.

On November 15, 2004, council awarded a realtor services contract to Colliers McClocklin Real Estate Corp. to assist in the sale of the Parcel “Y” beating out JJ Barnicke, ICI Commercial Real Estate, and Royal LePage.

“Colliers McClocklin submitted one of the top overall proposals that highlighted their experience and in-depth knowledge of hotel marketing on a national basis,” the city manager said in a report to council.

The decision to hire Colliers McClocklin was made at a private meeting of the executive committee held October 15, 2004.

As part of their nine month term contract, Colliers McClocklin provided the city with regular verbal and written progress reports. The city recently released one of these reports, that being a letter from Colliers McClocklin president Tom McClocklin to the city’s then special projects manager, Chris Dekker, dated January 31, 2005.

In the letter, McClocklin indicated that his company had electronically distributed marketing information to 1,429 prospects, created a webpage, Flash TM presentation and a marketing brochure.

Two rounds of advertisements were placed in the Globe and Mail, National Post, StarPhoenix and Leader-Post.

“We did not receive any direct response,” McClocklin wrote.

The company also distributed 25 expressions of interest for Parcel “Y” and received 15 signed registration letters.

“We have not received any concerns relating to the format or procedure of the EOI,” said McClocklin. “We have made note of all comments and/or feedback that has been communicated to us through face-to-face meetings.

McClocklin went on to say that after meeting “with all of our top prospects” there were “three recurring comments.”

“Proponents are convinced that the site does not allow for adequate surface parking which will result in the public areas not being used,” he said.

“The second common concern relates to the overall viability of the project. Proponents are concerned about the need for additional hotel rooms in the Saskatoon market and the ability to achieve required room rates and occupancy levels. In addition, proponents are concerned about the ability to achieve the necessary price per square foot for luxury condominium sales.”

The third concern raised was “the question of site subdivision and the concept of bringing in partners.”

None of these concerns were included in the city manager’s report to council on March 7, 2005.

The city received a total of four EOI’s by the February 11, 2005, deadline.

At a closed door meeting of the executive committee on February 28, 2005, councillors informally decided to invite Remai Ventures Inc. and VPMI Hotel Group to proceed to the request for proposals stage.

The decision was made official at the March 7, 2005, city council meeting. The identities and proposal details of the two unsuccessful applications were not revealed.

However, on February 17, 2011, the identity of one of the proponents was disclosed: Airline Motor Hotels Ltd. of Saskatoon. This was made possible when the city agreed to release the company’s EOI following a review by Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner, who obtained permission from Airline Motor Hotels to disclose their 2005 submission.

Airline Motor Hotels proposed a two stage development. Phase I included a spa complex with restaurant and lounge. This phase would be designed to accommodate a minimum 200 room hotel, as a Phase II initiative in the future, when market demand in the downtown can support this.

“Over the past few years, there have been pro formas done for a mineral spa hotel. This research indicates to us that the downtown area of Saskatoon cannot support another full service property (i.e. one with a hotel) at this time,” the document says.

Future considerations for the site included “another retail operation” and “multifamily/residential development.”

The city has never officially said why the Airline Motor Hotels proposal was rejected.

Money or success can’t be the problem. The company has been around for nearly 40 years and operates the Saskatoon Travelodge, Hilton Garden Inn (Saskatoon) and Four Points by Sheraton Edmonton South.

At the deadline for RFP’s on May 25, 2005, only Remai Ventures had submitted a detailed proposal. VPMI Hotel Group pulled out because major lenders weren’t convinced of the viability of building another major hotel downtown with so many already operating, the StarPhoenix reported.

“It’s a matter of evaluating the risk and lenders aren’t willing to sign the (financing) document this time,” said Shaun Ng, VPMI vice-president of development. “There’s enough hotels downtown, that’s our main problem.”

Charles Misouri, a commercial lender with Saskatoon Credit Union, told the newspaper that downtown is close enough to being overbuilt with hotels that any lender may require a third-party feasibility study to prove another one is viable.

“I know a lot of the banks don’t like to do financing on them,” he said. “For something down on the riverbank, you’d probably need a few banks (to come up with financing).” [One spa bid remains: Bankers sink competing proposal for mineral spa (StarPhoenix, May 26, 2005)]

The fatal blow to the city’s plans came on February 26, 2007, when Remai Ventures wrote to then special projects manager Chris Dekker to advise that they would not be proceeding with their proposed development of Parcel “Y”. The company said the project was “no longer economically viable” due to rising construction costs, the difficulty in obtaining skilled labour, and the considerable costs and risks associated with developing a mineral spa.

StarPhoenix business columnist Murray Lyons said at the time he was surprised that most people didn’t see Remai’s decision coming.

“Let’s face it, a hotel-spa was always more a city hall pipe dream than a business case study. Remember, the Remai proposal was really the only serious reply the city got to its flawed request for proposal process,” he said.

“If city leadership had been less entranced by the idea of a spa, it might have attracted real interest from across Canada in a more open-ended development call.”

Lyons spoke with major players in the downtown hotel industry who said they didn’t believe a full-service hotel and spa would ever generate much of a return.

Andrew Turnbull, general manager of the Delta Bessborough and past president of the Saskatoon Hotel Association said city council was made aware of the hotel association’s skepticism.

“We were quite pointed in our advice that what they (city council) thought was right for the site was unlikely to happen,” Turnbull said in the article.

Sheraton Cavalier’s then general manager, John Bevis, said that while downtown hotels were doing better as of late, adding 200-plus rooms “would saturate the market.” Bevis noted a recent study done by the owners of the Sheraton and the adjoining Cavalier apartment complex found that “the market is not there for a new build.” [Back to reality downtown (StarPhoenix, March 9, 2007)]

Even Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce executive director Kent Smith-Windsor said at the time that the Saskatoon market could not support another hotel complex as hotels struggle to get room rental rates near the national or even Prairie region average.

“If it’s going to cost in excess of $100,000 to build one hotel suite and you’re getting less than $100 (a night) in the marketplace, that won’t work,” said Smith-Windsor. [Remai backs out: Investor pulls plug on hotel, spa project (StarPhoenix, March 8, 2007)]

Still, Mayor Don Atchison stubbornly insisted that a hotel on Parcel “Y” was viable.

“There’s still a strong viability, I believe, for a hotel here. We’ll find out what the market actually says,” Atchison told reporters at a press conference on March 8, 2007. [River Landing hotel viable: mayor (StarPhoenix, March 9, 2007)]

In an interview the previous day, Atchison said the city would “go out to the private sector once again and, hopefully, we’ll be able to have someone build us a wonderful facility there.” [Remai backs out: Investor pulls plug on hotel, spa project (StarPhoenix, March 8, 2007)]

Sure enough, on May 1, 2007, the city issued another EOI for Parcel “Y”. This time only two submissions were received by the June 15, 2007, deadline:

1) Lake Placid Investments Inc.
2) WAM Development Group/Concorde Group Corp.

Concorde president David Dube said at the time that the project would have to be cost-efficient in order for his group to proceed.

“It’s got to be an economically viable development for us,” he said. “We’re not going into it as a charity. We’re going into it as a business.” [Developers line up (StarPhoenix, June 22, 2007)]

On June 25, 2007, city council approved the selection of both companies to proceed to the RFP round.

At close of deadline September 4, 2007, WAM Development Group/Concorde Group Corp. declined to submit a formal proposal, while Lake Placid Investments Inc. submitted a complete proposal.

According to the StarPhoenix, the city received a letter from WAM Development Group/Concorde Group Corp. saying they were no longer interested. No reason was given. The smart money says the project wasn’t viable.

The StarPhoenix said Atchison expressed no concern over the fact that only one developer came through with a serious bid for the property. [River Landing site attracts one proposal (StarPhoenix, September 5, 2007)]

On September 17, 2007, council instructed administration to proceed to negotiate the necessary agreements with Lake Placid Investments Inc. for the development of River Landing Parcel “Y”.

Council approved the sale agreement on January 14, 2008. And for the next 2 years and 9 months there was nothing but excuses, missed deadlines, special treatment, secrecy, hypocrisy and poor decisions by council. By November 1, 2010, Lake Placid had sold its interest in the project to its partner, Victory Majors Investments Corporation, because it apparently couldn’t get financing.

As of March 19, 2011, Parcel “Y” is still empty. The city only has itself to blame.

If there was a need for additional rooms, that time has probably come and gone. Within the last year four new hotels totaling 438 rooms were being readied for the Saskatoon market: A 179 room Holiday Inn at Pacific Avenue and 22nd Street (under construction), a 119 room Four Points by Sheraton in Stonebridge, a 100 room Best Western in Blairmore, and the 40 room Bridgewater West at 1414 22nd Street West.

Appalling lack of transparency in decision by Saskatoon police service and board to pursue larger, more expensive new headquarters

2011-03-08T07:29:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from Police Chief Clive Weighill’s
Nov. 1, 2010, report to police board

Here we go again, another big ticket capital project with massive cost increases on the horizon.

Saskatoon police Chief Clive Weighill dropped a bombshell recently when he revealed that the long-planned new police headquarters would be bigger and more expensive than originally thought.

According to the StarPhoenix, Weighill told the board of police commissioners on February 24, 2011, that the police service is less than two months away from unveiling the construction company and architect for the project as the three bidding firms continue to prepare detailed drawings and cost estimates.

The previous estimate for the 5.74 acre site located north of 25th Street and west of Ontario Avenue was $91 million, but police and the city have reassessed the facility’s size due to the accelerated population growth in Saskatoon, Weighill said in an interview with the StarPhoenix after the meeting.

The facility’s total size has grown a whopping 64 percent to 328,000 square feet from 200,000 square feet. Underground parking is responsible for most of the extra space.

“The last thing (the board) wanted was to put out a large expenditure and move in and it’s already too small for our needs,” Weighill said in the article.

The final cost of the project won’t be known until the bids are submitted, Weighill said, but he admitted the $91-million figure is outdated.

“We won’t get that new price until April, but the price we were working with, it will probably be higher than that,” he said.

The three remaining firms in contention for the project are all joint partnerships between construction companies and architecture firms. PCL Construction is bidding with Stantec, Graham Construction with AECOM and EllisDon Corp. with Toronto-based CS&P Architects.

Weighill said separate meetings have been held with the bidders while more meetings are planned in March. [Police HQ supersized (StarPhoenix, Feb. 25, 2011)]

So in a nutshell, the city, police service and board, and project bidders have been working on this latest development without the public’s knowledge.

It should be noted as well that CS&P Architects Inc. (formerly Carruthers Shaw and Partners Limited, Architects) are the firm that prepared a comprehensive 10-year facilities plan for the police service in 2002. The final report was presented to the police board on December 13, 2002.

The $91 million figure first appeared in a November 12, 2007, report from Weighill to the police board that was subsequently tabled with the city’s budget committee on December 10, 2007. In the report, Weighill notes that consultants Carruthers Shaw and Partners estimated the cost of a replacement facility was $42 million in 2002.

“This cost has increased by more than two times to an estimated cost of $91 million dollars today,” Weighill said at the time.

Weighill recommended “that the construction of a new Police Headquarters building, to be completed by 2013, be approved.” The board did just that. Interestingly, no dollar figure was attached to the recommendation.

If the cost of the new headquarters rose 116 percent between 2002 and 2007, you can imagine how much it has escalated since then. Add to that a 64 percent increase to the facility’s size. The price tag for this monster could easily top $120 million.

The lack of transparency on the subject is appalling.

Weighill’s report to the police board was verbal. The agenda for the February 24 meeting posted on the city’s website contains no information whatsoever on the topic. If it weren’t for the StarPhoenix the public would likely still be in the dark.

Just as outrageous is the fact that Weighill appears to have presented the idea as a done deal. The new police headquarters will be bigger and it will cost more, end of discussion.

The police board consists of five members: Mayor Don Atchison as chair, councillors Bev Dubois and Myles Heidt (absent), and the public, represented by Dr. Vera Pezer and Gordon Martell.

If there was any discussion or debate at the meeting about Weighill’s update the StarPhoenix failed to report it. If any board members were interviewed that wasn’t reported either. In fact, the StarPhoenix hasn’t bothered to publish a follow-up article or editorial. Why is that?

The whole thing reeks of a controlled leak to prepare the public for what comes next.

On November 18, 2010, Weighill presented the police service’s preliminary 2011 capital budget and 2012-2015 capital plan to the police board. The chief’s report, dated November 1, states that the estimated “total project cost” of the new headquarters is $91 million.

The “projected needs for the next 20-30 years” were taken into consideration as was “adequate parking… to accommodate the public, a large operational vehicle fleet and staff parking.” Construction is to begin in 2011 and project completion for 2013, the report states.

The board adopted the chief’s recommendation to approve the budget, which was then forwarded to city council’s budget committee for consideration.

The minutes for the December 14, 2010, budget committee meeting show that Weighill “reviewed his budget submission and answered questions of the Committee.”

Presumably, there was no discussion about the police service wanting to super-size the new headquarters; otherwise it would have been reported.

According to the minutes, all the committee did was pass the following resolution: “that the Board of Police Commissioners be requested to consider reducing Saskatoon Police Service operating budget estimates by $150,000.”

On December 20, 2010, city council approved the 2011 operating and capital budgets, subject to a report from the police board regarding reducing the police service operating budget.

That matter was put to rest on February 7, 2011, when city council received a letter (dated Jan. 20, 2011) from the secretary of the police board advising that the board approved the $150,000 reduction.

The city’s 2011 budget document even states on page 79 that the new police headquarters “will cost approximately $91 million, and will be entirely funded through a combination of cash and borrowing.”

Through all of this there was no hint that the city or police service and board were considering drastic changes to the new headquarters. This leaves plenty of unanswered questions.

▪ Why did Weighill wait until the 11th hour to bring forward the new information?

▪ Why did Weighill not submit a written report?

▪ If Weighill knew the current estimate was outdated why wasn’t it updated?

▪ When did the city and police service first discuss changing the plans?

▪ Who initiated the idea – the board, the police service or the city?

▪ When did the police board first become aware of the new plans?

▪ Did the police board direct the chief to pursue the new plan?

▪ When did the city’s executive committee first become aware of the new plans?

▪ When were the three bidders informed about the changes?

▪ Why was the public not consulted?

Excerpt from city’s 2011 Business Plan & Preliminary Budgets (Dec. 2010)

Excerpt from Police Chief Clive Weighill’s Nov. 12, 2007, report to police board

After months of stalling, Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services finally release Blair-Bartolucci G20 Summit correspondence

2011-03-03T08:23:00.000-08:00

Eight months later and still no one has been made to walk the plank over last summer’s G20 Summit nightmare.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who lied to the public about a five-metre rule on the security fence around the site, seems to think he’s untouchable and refuses to resign. Former Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Rick Bartolucci, who applauded police for showing “remarkable professionalism” and commended Blair and former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino for their “remarkable leadership,” has no intention of stepping down either and continues to collect a cabinet minister’s salary in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government.

McGuinty admits mistakes were made but won’t apologize and says he still has confidence in Blair.

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott defended police actions at the summit saying they “exercised restraint” and “acted professionally,” while Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, whose department the RCMP reports to, denies knowing anything about the Ontario government’s decision to give police in Toronto heightened powers during the summit.

Other G20 players like Chief Supt. Alphonse MacNeil, head of the Integrated Security Unit for the RCMP, the aforementioned Fantino, and PCO Special Advisor Ward Elcock, who was coordinator for G8/G20 security and reported to Prime Minister Stephen Harper through former National Security Advisor Marie-Lucie Morin, seem to have flown under the radar.

Most of the attention of late has been focused on Blair and Bartolucci, thanks largely to the damning report by Ontario Ombudsman André Marin, released Dec. 7, on his investigation into the origin and subsequent communication of the controversial security regulation passed by the province prior to the June 26-27 G20 summit.

Marin found that Regulation 233/10, made under the 71-year-old Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) to apply to parts of downtown Toronto near the summit meeting site, was “probably illegal,” “likely unconstitutional” and “never should have been enacted.”

“The decision of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to sponsor the regulation was unreasonable,” Marin wrote. “It was also almost certainly beyond the authority of the government to enact.”

In the days leading up to and over the course of the G20 summit weekend, some 1,105 people were arrested; the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, Marin said. Many people were beaten, punched, detained, strip searched, humiliated and shot at with rubber bullets, tear gas or pepper spray.

It all leads back to May 12, 2010, when Chief Blair wrote to Minister Bartolucci requesting a designation under the PWPA. The Marin report examines the letter as well as Bartolucci’s reply on June 15, 2010. But up until now, it appears that copies of the correspondence have not been made public.

On July 9, 2010, a request was made under Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Community Safety and Correctional Services for copies of any formal letters, memorandums or briefing notes between the ministry and Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair since January 1, 2010, regarding or relating to the PWPA and the G20 Summit.

Despite promising to respond by November 2, 2010, to advise whether or not the information would be released, the ministry dragged out the process until February 14, 2011, before deciding to grant full access to the two letters, the only records ministry officials identified as being responsive to the request.

Marin’s team faced at least two significant obstacles during the probe: The Toronto Police Service refused to cooperate; and, a number of the documents supplied by the ministry for review were protected by solicitor-client privilege, so were therefore “heavily redacted.” This prevented Marin from “exploring the legal advice the Minister received about the lawfulness of Regulation 233/10,” and so was “left in the dark about what actually occurred.” [p. 39, 89-90]

Fortunately, Marin was still able to make some interesting observations about the decision making process:

▪ Based on OPP documentation, it appears that by late March 2010 the provincial PWPA was seriously being discussed as an alternative to the federal Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, which Public Safety Canada seemed reluctant to enter into a security agreement under with the province. [p. 51]

▪ Internal OPP email communications, dated March 28, 2010, relating to “G8/G20 - Public Works Protection Act,” indicate that the OPP was not particularly interested in exercising authority under this arcane legislation in connection with the G8 summit. [p. 52]

▪ Ministry records indicate that it was known well before the Toronto Police Chief’s letter was received on May 12, 2010, that the Toronto Police Service was looking for a designation under the PWPA. Internal Ministry documents suggest that the approval process relating to this designation was already being planned for by April 9. [p. 52]

▪ On May 20, several Ministry officials met to brief the Minister concerning the Chief’s request. Two senior OPP officials also participated by way of teleconference. [p. 54]

▪ Ministry officials told Bartolucci that to deny Blair’s request outright “would be perceived as not supporting TPS [Toronto Police Service].” [p. 55]

▪ An OPP superintendent who also represented the OPP on the ISU took part in the Minister’s briefing. [p. 56]

(The job of ensuring security for the G20 summit was assigned to the Integrated Security Unit, a joint security team led by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in partnership with the Toronto Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Canadian Forces and the Peel Regional Police.)

▪ The regulation went to Cabinet’s Legislation and Regulation Committee on May 31 as initially planned. In the confidential briefing note prepared for the committee, in a section entitled “Stakeholder Consultations,” it was noted that the OPP, RCMP and Public Safety Canada were aware of the Toronto Police Service request for the regulation. [p. 57]

▪ On June 2, the regulation was discussed and voted on at a special five-member meeting of Cabinet. The following day, the Lieutenant Governor formally signed off on it. [p. 58]

▪ The Minister did not officially inform the Toronto Police Chief that the regulation had been issued until he wrote to him on June 15. [p. 58]

▪ While individual OPP, RCMP and Public Safety Canada members may have had some involvement during the Ministry’s review of the Chief’s request, the time period between the request and the issuance of the regulation was very short, and there is no record of there having been any formal consultation process engaging the ISU or other parties. [p. 61]

▪ There was some suggestion following the summit that the ISU had been the driving force behind the request for the public works designation. However, the evidence obtained during Marin’s investigation indicates that it was indeed the Toronto Police Service that led this initiative. While some officials involved with the ISU were aware of the Toronto Police Chief’s request, it does not appear that the designation request nor the regulation were general knowledge within the Unit. ISU spokespeople did not mention the Public Works Protection Act when specifically asked about their authority for the G20 security measures by the media in advance of the summit, and there was no reference to the Act or the regulation on the ISU’s website. Marin found no Ministry records confirming that the ISU had been provided with official notification that the regulation had passed, and email exchanges amongst the ISU Public Affairs Communications Team (PACT) dating from June 24 suggest that they were completely unaware of the Act or the regulation until that day. [p. 61-62]

▪ Although Regulation 233/10 affected a large segment of downtown Toronto, the Ministry made no attempt to consult city officials about the impact of the public works designation. Ministry records indicate that the Commissioner of Community Safety had asked the Chief whether he had briefed City Hall. However, a May 25 Ministry email confirms that the Chief said he had not consulted Toronto council “due to time limits.” During Marin’s investigation, city officials maintained that they too only learned of the regulation after it was reported in the news. [p. 62]

▪ Aside from Ministry and Toronto Police Service officials, it appears that only isolated staff – predominantly lawyers from other organizations involved with G20 planning – knew about the regulation, and that this information had not filtered up to the senior operational level of either the city or the ISU. The Ministry appears to have taken a “hands-off” approach with respect to G20 security organizers, leaving it to the discretion of the Toronto Police Service to notify its ISU partners and others about the regulation. [p. 63]

▪ The ISU steering committee lead had no idea that the regulation had been proposed, let alone enacted, until he learned about it along with the general public. [p. 96]

McGuinty, Bartolucci and Blair have acknowledged that a better job could have been done in communicating the intent of the regulation, however, no one involved has come right out and said it should never have been enacted.

Marin’s investigation found that some OPP, RCMP and Public Safety Canada members were involved with the McGuinty government’s review of Chief Blair’s request. It’s clear that only a comprehensive provincial-federal, public inquiry can address any outstanding concerns about the summit.

City of Saskatoon withholding over 500 pages of River Landing Parcel Y documents; $131,090 blown on Lake Placid due diligence

2011-02-23T05:40:00.000-08:00

Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner recently issued a report slamming the city’s handling of two access requests, dating back to 2005 and 2006, for information relating to River Landing Parcel Y. The report was critical of the city’s decision to withhold over 500 pages of responsive records without providing an adequate argument or explanation to justify or support its position.

In its defense, the city claimed to be “very transparent” and “among the top cities for releasing information, for giving it without people having to go through the FOI process.”

This, of course, depends on the subject matter and the type of information being sought. Anything River Landing related seems to be sensitive. Since 2004, the city has denied access to records about the concept planning process for the area; the executive committee’s closed door decision to move the Mendel Art Gallery; the bogus Traffic Bridge public consultation process; and, the long running Parcel Y soap opera.

There’s more to transparency than releasing documents. How many people are aware that the city’s executive committee can hold as many as two dozen in camera meetings a year? Not to mention the police board or all the private administrative or steering committee meetings that occurs as well.

Concerns have been raised in other provinces that, to avoid unwanted scrutiny, many public servants communicate more with phone calls, avoid making notes, fail to keep minutes of meetings, and use email which they delete. Saskatoon is no different.

The south downtown concept plan steering committee established in 2004 did not keep minutes of its meetings, and neither did the city administrative committee that evaluated Lake Placid Developments expressions of interest and request for proposals for Parcel Y, or the concept planning committee that was set up to oversee the Pleasant Hill redevelopment project.

In late 2008 and early 2009, the city was involved in discussions with the provincial and federal governments about the Building Canada Fund and relocating the Mendel. Despite numerous access requests to all three levels of government, there appears to be little in the way of a paper trail. In fact, the city has admitted to not retaining copies of emails it exchanged with provincial officials.

Last April, the city hired auditors Deloitte & Touche to review the financial viability of the business plan to be submitted by Lake Placid pertaining to the River Landing Village project.

The public was led to believe that city manager Murray Totland would report on the outcome of the review at city council’s June 14 meeting. However, the plan was preempted when the executive committee, at a private meeting held May 25, decided to recommend that the city enter into a memorandum of sale for Parcel Y with Lake Placid. Totland’s report was shelved without explanation.

Deloitte was required to present its findings in a written report, but according to administration, the firm provided mostly verbal reports, and any written materials were not left with the city.

Deloitte submitted four invoices totaling $131,090.26, but the city severed portions providing details relating to specific actions undertaken by Deloitte in carrying out their duties.

Mayor Don Atchison declared it was the most due diligence the city has done on any land sale. And yet, Lake Placid ended up selling out to its partner, Victory Majors Investments Corporation, because it was unable to secure financing. The media failed to hold the city to account for the expensive disaster.

The secrecy doesn’t end there.

The city is also refusing to disclose three records that Victory Majors submitted on Nov. 1 indicating it has sufficient financing in place to complete construction of the development of Parcel Y to grade level, as well as six emails Deloitte sent to the city solicitor’s office regarding its work reviewing the developer’s documentation.

Deloitte’s assessment of Victory Majors’ paperwork was lukewarm at best, stating there is “plausible support of the existence of conditional financing commitments and conditional intentions to consider financing totaling $62.5 million.”

Deloitte warned the city it would “provide no assurance that the conditions of the conditional financing commitments or conditional intentions to consider financing contained in the documents will be met.”

Nobody seems concerned that the cost of the project has doubled from $125 million in Sept. 2007 to an estimated $250 million today, or that construction was delayed again and won’t start until this spring.

Saskatoon has a long way to go before achieving a meaningful level of transparency.

Exhibition Place was Harper government’s first choice for G20 Summit in Toronto; Privy Council Office denying access to key records

2011-01-10T07:03:00.000-08:00

Besides the excessive force, mass arrests, and severe violations of civil rights of protesters, bystanders and journalists by the police — and for being a colossal waste of time and money — last summer’s G20 Summit will be remembered for the Harper government’s breathtaking stupidity in deciding to hold the event in downtown Toronto.

The original site for the high-powered gabfest was in Huntsville, Ont., two hours north of Toronto, back to back with the smaller G8 meeting on June 25-27. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made that announcement on September 29, 2009, during the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

However, within weeks of the announcement, the Harper government was making plans to relocate the summit over concerns that the northern resort region was too small to handle such a large undertaking.

On November 18, 2009, the Globe and Mail cited anonymous federal and provincial government sources as saying the G20 Summit was headed for Toronto.

Huntsville Mayor Claude Doughty said in the article he was warned weeks earlier that organizers were thinking of moving the G20. [Tories plan to move G20 summit to Toronto (Globe and Mail, November 18, 2009)]

The following day, the National Post confirmed that the Prime Minister’s Office was considering whether to move the G20 to Toronto or the surrounding area.

“We haven’t made a decision with respect to location,” said Sara MacIntyre, associate press secretary for the Prime Minister.

Toronto’s then deputy mayor and chair of Exhibition Place, Joe Pantalone, would “neither confirm nor deny” discussions have taken place about a move. But he touted Exhibition Place as the “obvious” location for the G20 meetings should they be moved to Toronto, with banquet facilities for 3,000 at the brand-new [160,000-square-foot] Allstream Centre, the city’s 40,000 hotel rooms a short shuttle ride away and the easily “cordoned off” grounds and diverse population acting as a home “constituency” for the 20 heads of state and their entourages.

“Exhibition Place and the Allstream Centre is also very close to transportation, like the Gardiner, the Lake Shore, even the Island Airport is literally a few blocks away,” said Pantalone. “In terms of a premier location, well, it could happen should the Prime Minister so choose. It’s an obvious place.” [PMO may move the G20 summit out of Huntsville (National Post, November 19, 2009)]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally put the rumours to rest on December 7, 2009, when he announced that Toronto would host the G20 Summit on June 26 and 27, 2010. The Prime Minister made the announcement with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak during their meeting in Seoul. However, Harper didn’t say where in Toronto the meeting would be held. That was left for the media to take care of.

On December 8, 2009, the National Post and Toronto Star both reported that the downtown Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC) would host the event.

While federal officials would not confirm the summit’s location, Pantalone said in an interview with the Post he was told it would be held at the convention centre on Front Street – though, as chair of the board of governors for Exhibition Place, he was pushing for the Ex. [Convention centre tipped to host G20 (National Post, December 8, 2009)]

The Toronto Star apparently learned the same news through Tourism Toronto.

The Star also reported that when the federal government first began musing whether Huntsville could handle both summits, “rumours swirled the G20 would get moved to the new Allstream Centre at Exhibition Place, a location that would enable a security perimeter without shutting downtown thoroughfares.” [G20 to play here with all that jazz (Toronto Star, December 8, 2009)]

This is a key point worth remembering.

Nine days later, the Star reported that city staff was told the MTCC would host the G20. And still there was no formal announcement from the Harper government.

Pantalone said in an interview he was surprised when G20 organizers told him the summit would be held at the convention centre, home to the 1988 G7 conference.

“The realities of the size have changed,” he said. “If you hold it at Front and University, basically you are going to seriously affect the life and the city around there.”

City staff had recommended the summit be held at the Allstream Centre allowing security personnel to set up a perimeter without shutting the downtown.

According to the article, others said the accessibility of the MTCC gives it the edge. Only one bus and two streetcars reach the Allstream Centre.

Although Exhibition Place is easy to secure, the MTCC is more secure for motorcade arrivals because of its underground entrance, said security expert and former RCMP officer Chris Mathers. [Can city core handle the G20 - and Halladay’s return? (Toronto Star, December 17, 2009)]

The two reasons for favouring the MTCC seem pretty weak.

How many world leaders, delegates and media attending the G20 would use public transit to get to the meetings? The answer is likely none.

As for secure entrances, the Allstream Centre has an underground walkway linking the Centre to underground parking and Direct Energy Centre, the country’s largest exhibition and convention centre, across the street.

Furthermore, whether it’s the MTTC downtown or the Allstream Centre at Exhibition Place, both locations require using surface routes, which would no doubt be heavily patrolled, to get there.

The weeks went by as the Harper government remained silent.

On February 10, 2010, the Canadian Press, citing sources, reported that the MTTC had been selected to hold the G20 summit over locations outside downtown.

Canada has already hosted a G8 summit and other international meetings in the building. Plus, it gives the government a chance to put the spotlight on its stable financial district -- safe and quiet within a security perimeter -- at a time when G20 leaders are looking for role models, the news agency said.

“The whole point is to showcase Canada as an attractive place to do business and the way we regulate our banking sector,” said Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for the prime minister.

“We have a good story and we want it told well,” he said, without confirming the location. [T.O.’s convention centre to host G20 conference (The Canadian Press, February 10, 2010)]

So it really had nothing to do with buses, streetcars, security perimeters or underground entrances. It was to attract potential investors.

The Canadian Press followed-up two days later with a story about how the Harper government went “over the heads of the City of Toronto in placing the G20 economic summit in the heart of the downtown core.”

Toronto had been urging Ottawa to locate the meetings at Exhibition Place. That’s because the city believed holding the event in the core could cause major disruptions for business and traffic, and numerous security challenges, the news agency said.

“We made no secret that we thought Exhibition Place would be a great venue,” said Stuart Green, spokesman for Mayor David Miller. “Those decisions were made by the federal government.”

The city councillor whose ward contains the summit site was already upset.

The federal government selected the downtown location without public consultation, ignoring local concerns about cost and disruption, Coun. Adam Vaughan said in a letter he sent to local residents.

“We need them to start working with us, and that means listening to us, and quite clearly, the folks up in Ottawa are much better at talking than listening,” Vaughan said. [Toronto doesn’t want G20 meeting downtown (CBC News, February 12, 2010)]

Green also had this to say in the Globe: “The mayor has made it clear on a number of occasions that his preference was for Exhibition Place: It’s modern, it’s environmentally friendly, it’s an area that’s easily cordoned off. There are a number of reasons he thought it would be better. But ultimately it’s up to Ottawa.”

Vaughan added: “The site’s been chosen ‘cause it’s a great photo-op. I’m not sure that’s the best way to choose the location for something as complex as this, and something as intricately woven,” he said, adding that he’s also concerned about security issues at the high-traffic convention centre, which is close to the subway, PATH system and abuts numerous condominiums and office buildings.

“The impact on my ward is significant, and my constituents have a right to know what’s going on.”

Andrew MacDougall, spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office, said the government is consulting with the city and will officially announce the venue “in due course.” [G20 venue puts Toronto, Ottawa at loggerheads (Globe and Mail, February 12, 2010)]

After more than two months of foot-dragging, the Harper government finally announced the event’s worst kept secret on February 19, 2010. A federal government news release lists a number of unconvincing factors that contributed to the selection of the MTCC as the G20 venue, including:

▪ Accessible location: within walking distance of more than 12,000 hotel rooms;
▪ Facility size: two million square feet of flexible space to accommodate the meeting, work areas, and dining needs of 10,000 delegates;
▪ Security experience: long-standing working relationships with high-security teams, including the RCMP, Toronto Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police and the United States Secret Service;
▪ Proximity to the airport: the MTCC is a 20-minute drive from Pearson International Airport; and
▪ Technology: state-of-the-art technology and telecommunications infrastructure with a skilled team of technology specialists.

Oddly, the MTTC website states that the venue “has over 600,000 square feet of exhibit and meeting space” so it’s unclear where the Harper government got its two million square feet figure from.

The Allstream Centre and Direct Energy Centre at Exhibition Place would enable a security perimeter without shutting downtown thoroughfares. The buildings boast more than 1.16 million square feet of combined flexible convention space and are within minutes of downtown. Both are just a 20-minute drive from Pearson International Airport and 3 minutes from Toronto City Centre Airport. And the two facilities offer state-of-the-art technology and telecommunications infrastructure.

Following the federal government’s announcement, the mayor’s spokesman, Stuart Green, said the city conceded defeat on the matter and was prepared to work co-operatively with summit organizers.

“We accept their reasons, we understand their reasons and we’re absolutely committed to working with them to make sure (the event) is safe, secure and successful,” Green said in an interview.

According to the Canadian Press, the final decision was ultimately made by Ottawa. RCMP Chief Supt. Alphonse MacNeil said it came down to security.

“By having it here in close proximity to major hotels and things of that nature, our overall (security) footprint will be minimized,” he said.

“That’s important for security and that’s also very important for the citizens of Toronto who want to see the least amount of disruption.” [Ottawa to pick up security tab for G20 summit (CTV News, February 19, 2010)]

MacNeil could not have been more wrong. Because of the summit other major events were disrupted; there was chaos, violence and vandalism; a ridiculous 9.7 kilometer security fence around the G20 perimeter and Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair’s big lie about a five-metre rule that had people fearing arrest if they wandered too close; police harassment and misconduct; the largest mass arrests in Canadian history; nearly $1 billion spent on security; Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s illegal and unconstitutional regulation, which enabled police to detain people during the summit; and, the Toronto Police’s subsequent refusal to cooperate with Ontario Ombudsman André Marin’s probe into the debacle.

And when the summit was over, Toronto Mayor David Miller laid the blame on the Harper government’s doorstep.

In an interview with the Toronto Star on June 28, 2010, Miller said the vandalism and mass arrests were the result of Ottawa’s bad planning, not the actions of police.

Miller also said some of what transpired could have been avoided had Ottawa listened to his pleas to hold the meeting at Exhibition Place, instead of at the MTTC, in the heart of downtown.

“From the beginning, the City of Toronto said it should be held at Exhibition Place, which is self contained and already has a perimeter,” rather than downtown, he said, adding Torontonians felt “uncomfortable” with the fencing of a security zone around the convention centre.

“Clearly, violent criminals would have come here wherever it was held, but I think the impact would have been quite different if it was held at Exhibition Place. I think the decision (to hold the G20 downtown) was unfortunate and some what happened can be traced back to that decision.” [Miller pushes for compensation, blames Ottawa for G20 chaos (Toronto Star, June 28, 2010)]

In a second interview with the Star on June 29, 2010, Miller said that the Harper government routinely ignored or discounted advice from Toronto in the run-up to the G20 summit - including Miller’s own, repeated pleas to hold the event at the grounds of Exhibition Place.

According to the Star, Miller said that when he originally endorsed the choice of Toronto for the G20 event last December, he had been told it was being held on the CNE grounds, far away from the downtown core.

But, as with the decision to announce Toronto as the summit site, Miller says that Toronto officials were also not consulted when the event was moved to the convention centre.

In fact, the mayor said he’d argued strenuously against the convention-centre venue at a briefing he received on Ottawa’s summit plans. Miller recounts events this way:

“The federal government had been speaking through the RCMP to Toronto police because they were working with them on the G8-G20 in Huntsville,” he said. At some point [in fall 2009], Miller said, Toronto police officials gave him a heads-up that the G20 could be held in Toronto.

“Subsequent to that, the federal government began negotiating with Exhibition Place and, from my perspective, had reached an agreement with Exhibition Place - certainly an agreement in principle.”

It was after this, Miller said, that he received a perfunctory call from the Prime Minister’s Office, asking whether he had any objections to the G20 being held in Toronto.

“We indicated no, on the understanding at the time that an agreement had been reached to host it at Exhibition Place.”

The federal government announced Toronto as the G20 site in early December, without specifying formally where the event would be held. But Miller said he soon started hearing - again, indirectly - that there was talk of moving the event to the Metro Convention Centre.

“We pushed very strongly to change that decision because I was very worried that you couldn’t have an event like this in the middle of downtown Toronto,” said Miller. He said he made this argument in a private briefing with federal officials preparing the summit, but his advice was ignored. [Toronto’s advice ignored on G20, Miller says (Toronto Star, June 29, 2010)]

Records recently obtained under the federal Access to Information Act seem to confirm Miller’s story.

On July 12, 2010, an access request was submitted to the Privy Council Office (PCO) in Ottawa for “copies of any briefing notes, including attachments, since January 1, 2010, by the Office of the Coordinator for 2010 Olympics and G8 Security regarding or relating to security for the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto; and, also copies of any formal letters, including attachments, since January 1, 2010, from the Office of the Coordinator for 2010 Olympics and G8 Security to Ontario Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Rick Bartolucci regarding or relating to security for the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.”

In a letter dated November 9, 2010, the PCO informed that 119 pages responsive to the request had been located, 92 of which were being withheld in their entirety. Of the remaining 27 pages only 9 were fully disclosed. This truly is a government with something to hide.

A memorandum for the Prime Minister dated February 25, 2010, by the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Wayne G. Wouters, shows that on February 17, 2010, Ward Elcock, Coordinator for 2010 Olympic and G8 Security; Peter McGovern, Assistant Deputy Minister, Summits Management Office, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada; and Chief Superintendent Alphonse MacNeil from the RCMP met with Mayor Miller.

“The purpose of the meeting was to brief the Mayor on the G20 Summit security plan and to provide an explanation for moving the G20 Summit from the Allstream Centre to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC). The Mayor has publicly stated his preference that the G20 take place at the Allstream Centre,” the document states. PCO officials blacked out the next two and a half pages leaving the story unfinished.

Attached to the memorandum was a proposed letter to Mayor Miller that Wouters recommend the Prime Minister sign. The letter offers little new information except to confirm that “collaboration” between federal officials and the city manager had taken place “in recent months.” Collaboration and consultation are two different things.

Another interesting tidbit is that the “major cost drivers” of the G8/G20 Summits were salary and overtime for security personnel, accommodations, and infrastructure and telecommunications upgrades. So it would appear that the police, the hotel and restaurant industry, and telecommunications firms were among the lucky ones to benefit from the summit.

The purpose of the security fence around the hotels and the meeting site was to “allow for the free and unrestricted movement of International Protected Persons’ motorcades to and from the meeting site.” To hell with the surrounding businesses and other events planned for that weekend. As long as the VIP’s were happy and comfortable that’s what mattered most.

In an undated memorandum to the Prime Minister, Wouters cites “concern over the number of extra-curricular activities and meetings being planned on top of the G8/G20.”

The document reveals that the Summits Management Office had “received numerous requests from delegations for extra-curricular activities and bilateral meetings outside the G8-G20 Controlled and Restricted Access Zones (CAZ/RAZ).” The document goes on to say, “These types of extra-curricular programs would require significant incremental resources that security partners cannot afford to divert from the primary task of securing Internationally Protected Persons (IPPs) during the summits.” Unfortunately, most of the three-page report was censored so there is no telling how the issue was resolved.

The documents also show a contradiction in the number of security personnel that were required for the G8/G20 Summits. One suggests the number was 17,500 while another said 23,000 was needed.

The lower number included: 5,033 RCMP (Regular Members only), 4,800 Toronto Police Service (police only), 3,000 Ontario Provincial Police, 650 Peel Regional Police, 2,825 Canadian Forces and 1,164 Private Security.

“Currently, the RCMP has filled 80% of the positions necessary to ensure security for both events,” the undated memorandum states. A breakdown of the 23,000 figure was not provided.

The RCMP was the overall lead for the security of the two summits. The RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit (ISU) was responsible for G8 and G20 security planning and delivery. The costs and personnel required to stage the events are generally known. However, the one thing that the Harper government is refusing to disclose is the threat level that the plans were based upon. Apparently, letting this information out into the public domain could be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities.

It should be noted that the violence and vandalism associated with the G20 was confined to a roughly 90-minute span in the downtown core on the afternoon of June 26, 2010. In the end, the peaceful protesters and innocent passerby had more to fear from the police than the other way around. Whatever the threat level the response was excessive and over-the-top.

Domed stadium price tag stale-dated; Crown Investments Corporation blacks out key financial information in P3 Canada Fund application

2010-12-28T07:08:00.000-08:00

The Saskatchewan Party government’s quest for a $431 million domed stadium in Regina hit a brick wall recently when federal Crown corporation PPP Canada Inc. informed the province that its proposal under the second round of funding of the P3 Canada Fund would not be moving beyond the preliminary assessment phase — at least for now.

According to the StarPhoenix, Ron Styles, president & CEO of SaskTel and the government’s lead official on the project, said on November 25, 2010, that the stadium project has not been moved into the comprehensive assessment phase.

But, he said, it also hasn’t been turned down.

“Our application has not been rejected but it has not been moved into the second round yet pending a decision by the federal government whether they will change the criteria across all their programs -- not just P3 Canada’s -- but whether they would change the criteria regarding professional sports team involvement in these kind of projects,” said Styles. [Stadium proposal in limbo (StarPhoenix, November 26, 2010)]

The P3 Canada Fund totals $1.2 billion over five years, and is earmarked for non-federal public infrastructure public-private partnerships. The amount of the funding support, in combination with any other direct federal assistance, may not exceed 25 percent of the project’s direct construction costs.

The Wall government’s predicament is of its own making.

The first blunder was to engage in a process where it knew going in that the federal government had little interest in helping fund a project that involved a professional sports franchise.

According to a background paper prepared by Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan (CIC), PPP Canada officials told the Wall government that the P3 Canada Fund investment criteria does not ordinarily provide for funding of facilities used primarily by professional sports teams.

“Saskatchewan understands from discussions with P3 Canada Fund officials that under Fund investment criteria, facilities used primarily by professional sports teams are ineligible for investment,” the undated document states. “Saskatchewan further understands that these investment criteria originated from Industry Canada when the Build Canada program was undertaken in the 1980’s. Saskatchewan further understands that these were established at that time in negotiation with the provinces.”

The report goes on the say that the underlying rationale for excluding professional sports teams primarily relates to public concerns raised when the Corel Centre in Ottawa was developed in support of the establishment of the Ottawa Senators NHL hockey team.

“Saskatchewan, therefore, understands that the issue of concern is that P3 Canada funds not be used to subsidize the operations and potentially increase profits of a privately owned enterprise,” the report notes.

The Wall government’s argument is that the Saskatchewan Roughriders football club would not be the primary tenant and account for no more than ten percent of anticipated days of usage. Furthermore, the football club is registered under the Non-Profit Corporations Act of Saskatchewan and, as such, is neither privately owned nor profit seeking.

It was back on October 20, 1993 — just five days before the federal election that year — when then Tory Government Services Minister Paul Dick publicly confirmed the federal government was giving $6-million towards construction of the Palladium, the future home of the Ottawa Senators.

The Ottawa Citizen reported at the time that the funding was conditional on Terrace Corporation, the hockey club’s principal owner, finalizing the rest of its $200-million financing package for the arena’s construction.

The grant was originally approved by cabinet in August, but never announced. The announcement was postponed until the Ontario cabinet decided whether it would provide a loan or guarantee to build the project’s $35 million worth of infrastructure, which includes a highway interchange, said the newspaper.

Dick’s political opponents were apparently furious, attacking the grant as a desperate pre-election ploy to save his Lanark-Carleton seat. [Government confirms Palladium grant (Ottawa Citizen, October 21, 1993)]

Brian Mulroney’s Tory government was subsequently annihilated in the federal election, with Dick losing his seat to Liberal newcomer Ian Murray.

On November 12, 1993, the new Liberal Industry Minister, John Manley, confirmed the grant’s conditional approval. [$6M Palladium grant confirmed (Ottawa Citizen, November 13, 1993)]

The Ontario government was officially on board April 13, 1994, when the provincial cabinet approved a $26.8 million loan to build infrastructure such as roads and an overpass. By that time the Palladium’s financing package had grown to $250 million. [Province clears way for start of Palladium (Ottawa Citizen, April 14, 1994)]

In February 1996, the Palladium was renamed the Corel Centre.

The Ottawa Senators, struggling for years with huge debt and low attendance, filed for bankruptcy on January 9, 2003.

CTV’s Mike Eppel told Newsnet at the time that the team was not in financial straits because of high player salaries, which are among the lowest in the league. He said the club just amassed too much debt, mainly from the building of the Corel Centre, whose events, such as concerts, helped subsidize the team. [Ottawa Senators file for bankruptcy protection (CTV News, January 9, 2003)]

The Senators were eventually saved when pharmaceutical billionaire Eugene Melnyk purchased the team in August 2003. He still owns the club and arena, now known as Scotiabank Place.

The CIC backgrounder states that the Canadian Football League “is essentially a breakeven proposition.” A new domed stadium in Regina could mean higher rent and ticket prices for the Roughrider football team. A few crappy seasons with lower than expected fan turnout is not unheard of in Saskatchewan. The risk is enormous. Sooner or later the novelty of a new stadium will wear off. The debt ridden SkyDome in Toronto is a fine example of that.

Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco knew from the start that federal involvement was unlikely.

In November 2008, as the issue was gaining steam, Fiacco told the Leader-Post that federal funding was not really an option.

“Look at the history of what’s happened -- Halifax, Ottawa and Winnipeg, all three requested funding for a stadium and it’s been refused. The federal government has made it very clear it will not be funding stadiums,” he said, adding that any funding possibilities would still be pursued with Ottawa. [Kicking around stadium ideas (Leader-Post, November 6, 2008)]

Fiacco has since changed his tune.

In a June 8, 2010, interview with CTV Saskatchewan, Fiacco criticized the Harper government, saying if it did not participate in the domed stadium project it be turning its back on Saskatchewan because it participates in these projects in other communities.

“I’d be very disappointed if the federal government does not participate,” he said in the television interview. “They are going to receive a significant amount of tax revenue from this facility when it’s up and running.” [Fiacco hints at stadium go-ahead (StarPhoenix, June 9, 2010)]

Despite the warnings, the Wall government pursued the idea and made federal participation a deal breaker. Without it, there would be no domed stadium.

The realty is the only reason the domed stadium plan exists at all is because Mosaic Stadium in Regina, where the Roughriders are the primary tenant, needs considerable upgrades. The province is hoping to get a new stadium under the guise of a multi-purpose entertainment facility.

The Wall government’s second blunder was to table a feasibility study with a ridiculously short shelf life.

On July 20, 2009, the federal and provincial governments, the City of Regina and the Saskatchewan Roughriders announced a joint investment of up to $1 million for a feasibility study into an all-season, multipurpose entertainment facility in downtown Regina. The feasibility study would be completed in January 2010 and submitted to the partners for review and a decision.

This followed the initial concept review outlining options to address the state of Mosaic Stadium, which the Wall government released that day, a news release said.

The feasibility study was cost shared with 40 per cent through the Canada-Saskatchewan Western Economic Partnership Agreement (WEPA) via Western Economic Diversification Canada; an equal 40 per cent share from the Province of Saskatchewan; as well as 10 per cent each from the City of Regina and Saskatchewan Roughriders Football Club.

Two consultants were hired to complete the majority of work on the study. Stadium Consultants International (SCI) handled the on site planning, preliminary design options and costing. Global Spectrum assisted with the operational and facility business plan aspects of the project, including the scope of opportunities for the facility as a multi-purpose venue.

PCL Construction Management Inc. (PCL) worked with SCI on the issues of construction and costing.

The results of the feasibility study were released March 1, 2010. The proposed design includes a fully retractable roof option, capacity for 33,000 spectators, expandable to up to 45,000 for major events and up to 53,000 for major concerts. The estimated cost: $431.2 million. This includes $386.2 million for the facility plus $45 million for the retractable roof.

The media seemed to focus on the Wall government’s news release and the accompanying 56-page feasibility study summary document for information. What got lost in the shuffle were the 12 appendices, or technical reports, attached to the report. Arguably the most important of these was Appendix 11, the capital cost report prepared by PCL.

PCL’s preliminary construction cost estimate is dated February 9, 2010. It assumes a project start date of October 1, 2010, and construction of the project to be continuous. The expected construction duration is 34 to 36 months, with completion by September 30, 2013. The report notes: “Cost escalation beyond this time frame is not included in this basis of budget.”

The final estimate does not include the cost of underground parking for 215 cars, which is $9 million.

PCL states that the estimate “should not, at this time, be relied upon as a commitment that the contemplated project can or will be constructed for the estimated cost.”

Furthermore, PCL’s numbers assume that both it and SCI are retained to continue with the project. Accordingly, “A five per cent reduction in cost has been incorporated in the final construction cost estimate. (PCL’s cost estimate was $336.4 million, less the five per cent is $319.6 million. The appendix contains a summary of the capital cost report.)”

“To take a different approach to this project would mean starting all over again with the entire project development process at a significant, additional cost,” PCL seems to warn.

So if anyone other than PCL and SCI are chosen to build the new stadium it will cost an additional $16.8 million. This may call into question the fairness of any future public tendering process.

(PCL, by the way, are big contributors to the Saskatchewan Party. For the seven year period from 2003 to 2009 the company donated $54,965.75 to the political party.)

Much of this information, especially the Oct. 1 construction start date, is not mentioned in the Wall government’s news release or the feasibility study summary document.

The project is already three months past the assumed start date with more delays on the way.

Before Christmas, the StarPhoenix reported Ken Cheveldayoff, the provincial cabinet minister overseeing the proposed project, as saying the province needs to decide by the end of February 2011 whether to proceed, even if the federal government hasn’t yet made clear its position on funding such facilities. [Decision due on stadium before March (StarPhoenix, December 22, 2010)]

The shelf life of the feasibility study has most likely expired. The question is why was it so short in the first place? The Wall government was well aware of the timelines for the PPP Canada decision making process.

The P3 Canada Fund program review and submission guide for the second round of funding provides “anticipated timelines for consideration of submissions.”

The preliminary assessment phase was tentatively scheduled to conclude by the end of September 2010. The comprehensive assessment phase could stretch into June 2011.

Page six of the guide book states: “A recommendation to the P3 Canada Board of Directors related to the level, form and conditions of any funding support will follow the Comprehensive Assessment.”

This means it could be the summer of 2011 or later before final federal approval is given.

Another big problem for the Wall government is the lack of transparency on sources of funding and approval dates for the project.

For months the province has been vague on how much money is being requested from the federal government suggesting it’s somewhere between $86 million and $108 million.

However, according to the initial application submitted by CIC to PPP Canada on June 29, 2010, the Wall government is asking for $100 million in support from the P3 Canada Fund, or 23 per cent of the total project cost of $432 million.

The redacted document, which was obtained from CIC through an access to information request, also indicates that the province anticipates the private sector will pony up $71 million towards the project, or just 16 per cent. This means taxpayers would be on the hook for the remaining 84 per cent. This is some partnership.

Ketchum Canada Inc. was retained by CIC in April 2010 to provide an initial assessment of the potential for private support to assist in the funding of the planned domed stadium.

The Wall government sat on the results of the $30,000 study until October 7, 2010, when it released a scant three-page executive summary of the firm’s findings. The media treated it as a “new report,” which it wasn’t. [Private portion $70M (StarPhoenix, October 8, 2010)]

CIC is refusing to disclose a significant amount of key information on the province’s P3 Canada Fund submission.

The province isn’t revealing how much it expects private sector proponents to secure in “cost effective long term financing” to design and build the facility. It is also withholding information on any future service agreement with the “private sector owner.” [Sec. 12]

CIC is refusing to release the proposed procurement schedule and the dates on which the provincial cabinet and Regina city council are expected to approve the project. [Sec. 14 and 15]

And the Wall government is also hiding details on the amount of funding that has already been secured, along with how much the City of Regina and provincial government will be contributing. [Sec. 17]

This is not good.

Issues around delivery and financing appear to be sticking points with the federal government.

In a letter to PPP Canada CEO John McBride dated June 28, 2010, then Enterprise Minister, Ken Cheveldayoff, expressed his “strong support” and thanked McBride for taking the time to meet with then CIC president & CEO, Ron Styles, the previous week to discuss the province’s multi-purpose entertainment facility project and the application for federal funding from the P3 Canada Fund.

Cheveldayoff said that, from the start of the feasibility study, the province has been actively exploring ways to partner with the private sector for innovative design, development and financing options.

“While we believe we have made considerable progress in this area, Mr. Styles informs me that, as a result of his discussions with you last week, there may be several additional approaches to be considered to develop an innovative public-private partnership for design, development and financing of this project,” Cheveldayoff said.

“Should the application be approved, we will be committed to working with you on delivery and financing models that meet the requirements of your program, and that will deliver excellent value for money for Saskatchewan residents.”

It certainly seems the province’s application was on shaky ground right from the start. To date, the public has not been told in detail what these other “innovative” delivery and financing models are.

Cheveldayoff’s letter was followed on August 12, 2010, by a letter of “strong support” from Highways and Infrastructure Minister Jim Reiter, who is tasked within overseeing P3 opportunities within Saskatchewan.

“I would like to confirm that our Government has designated this project as the highest priority among P3 project proposals for Saskatchewan,” Reiter said.

It should be noted that the domed stadium is not the only project that the Wall government is seeking PPP Canada funds. According to a July 22, 2010, letter from PPP Canada CEO John McBride to Saskatchewan’s deputy minister of highways and infrastructure, Rob Penny, the province is also requesting money for something called the Athabasca Road Basins.

The Harper government is not without blame in this fiasco. The big question is why did it bother to participate in the feasibility study when it was clear going in that there would be no funding for a project involving a professional sports team?

In early 2009, CIC contracted two consultants, Rob Giberson, an associate professor (marketing) in the faculty of business administration at the University of Regina, and Bill Shupe, president of W. Shupe & Company Investment Advisory Services Inc. in Regina, to conduct a review of Mosaic Stadium and the possible options for its future.

In June 2009, the $70,000 Giberson-Shupe report, Stadium Concept Review: A Summary Report, identified building a new, all weather multi-use stadium in Regina’s city-centre as the preferred option.

The authors concluded that for the “for the domed stadium project to proceed with Government of Saskatchewan funding support, there will need to be significant funding support from the federal government, City of Regina and the private sector.”

The Giberson-Shupe report was released on July 20, 2009, in conjunction with the announcement that a follow-up feasibility study would be done paid for in part by the federal government.

A committee was established to guide the process, consisting of Saskatchewan Conservative MPs Gerry Ritz (Battlefords-Lloydminster) and Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle), Enterprise Minister Ken Cheveldayoff as committee chair, Sask. Party MLA and cabinet minister Bill Hutchinson, Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco and Roughriders board chair Rob Pletch.

The Harper government knew early on what it was getting into and most certainly was aware of the expected outcome: a domed stadium requiring federal support. And yet, for the last nine months it has strung the province along.

The most recent cryptic message from the federal government came on December 17, 2010, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview with French-TV network TVA hosts Paul Larocque and Jean Lapierre that there is “no federal program” to help build an arena so that Quebec City could win an NHL franchise.

“Not now, not in previous decades. Pro sports are first and foremost the responsibility of the private sector, and I am encouraging the private sector to come up with a solution,” said Harper.

“If Ottawa did something like that, we’d have to do it across the country and the list is long. Hamilton, Regina, Edmonton, even my hometown of Calgary, everyone wants a new facility.”

Harper suggested that traditionally Ottawa would only get into funding an arena if it were part of Olympic bid. [No ‘federal program’ to build arena for Quebec City: Harper (StarPhoenix, December 21, 2010)]

This follows comments made by Harper in Saskatoon on September 9, 2010, when he told reporters after an event at the University of Saskatchewan’s Diefenbaker Canada Centre that Ottawa has never subsidized professional sports teams, but if that precedent changes, every project in every city has to be treated equally, the StarPhoenix reported.

“These are professional business operations and government does not and has never directly financed professional sports clubs,” Harper said when asked about the possibility of funding new stadiums in Regina and Quebec City.

“Whatever we do in these two cities, we have to be prepared to do everywhere. Ultimately, professional sports teams themselves have to be sound business propositions.”

Harper suggested that the no-funding precedent for stadiums could change, but he didn’t identify the government program that would fund the large-scale programs, the StarPhoenix said.

“In terms of financing major sports facilities -- there are demands here, there are demands in Quebec City and I’m aware of demands elsewhere -- in terms of any of these things going forward, we have to respect the precedents we had in the past and be prepared that any treatment we give to one major city we’re prepared to give to all,” Harper said.

“We’ll be looking at our options in that context.” [Harper cautious on stadium cash (StarPhoenix, September 10, 2010)]

The Harper government could have nipped this controversy in the bud a long time ago and saved everyone a lot of time, trouble and expense. By engaging in the feasibility study it led people to believe there was hope.

What we’re now seeing appears to be a shameless stall tactic by the Harper government, hoping the Wall government gets tired of waiting and pulls the plug on the bid.

Wall gov’t hiding potash task force records; Executive Council and Energy and Resources collude to deny access to over 100 pages of information

2010-12-17T04:39:00.000-08:00

When you think about it, the Wall government has never tabled any potash reports, interim or final, detailing its activities and findings leading up to federal Industry Minister Tony Clement’s announcement on November 3, 2010, to reject BHP Billiton’s $38.6 billion takeover bid of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.

The Wall government issued six potash related news releases between September 2, 2010, and October 28, 2010 – including the so-called independent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada – and posted online the text of two speeches given by Premier Brad Wall to the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce in Regina on Oct. 21, 2010, and the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto on October 29, 2010.

That’s the extent of the Wall government’s transparency on the file.

In his Oct. 21 address, the premier alluded to a “task force” that had been established to review the potash issue.

“Immediately upon learning the news, the Government of Saskatchewan struck an internal task force made up of representatives, senior officials in Finance, Energy and Resources, in Justice and in Enterprise Saskatchewan,” Wall told his friends in the business community. “We retained the services of the Conference Board of Canada to help us provide some qualitative analysis as to the impact of this takeover on the provincial economy and on the revenues for the province of Saskatchewan. We also retained what we think is among the best legal counsel you’ll find in Canada when it comes to these kind of takeovers, when it comes to learning more about and piloting through the Investment Canada review process.”

References to the task force are few and far between.

The earliest mention of the secretive group was on August 26, 2010, when the Canadian Press reported Wall saying a ‘government task force’ and an independent analysis were looking at all of the province’s options, which could include legislation.

“We need to explore, and we are, what’s possible when we issue a license to a mine, what conditions are possible to companies who are granted a license. When they’re granted that license by the province of Saskatchewan, they’re being granted it by the people of Saskatchewan and the people of Saskatchewan may want certain undertakings and expectations,” said Wall on August 25, 2010.

“We don’t know the scope to which we can go there yet.”

According to the article, Wall also said that finance, justice and energy and resources officials from the province were set to meet with federal officials in mid-September to discuss the situation. [Premier says Saskatchewan must have a say in any potential sale of PotashCorp (The Canadian Press, August 26, 2010)]

StarPhoenix reporter James Wood added a little more information in a story the next day noting it was Wall that “appointed an inter-ministerial task force to look at the issue.” Apparently the premier made the comments to reporters at a charity event he was attending in Regina on August 26, 2010, to raise money for the Multiple Sclerosis Society. [Province pushes Canpotex (StarPhoenix, August 27, 2010)]

The next mention of the task force was in the StarPhoenix on September 14, 2010, when Wall said the group had been meeting with Canpotex – the international marketing arm for Saskatchewan potash – in addition to “identifying every possible angle to the proposed takeover.” [Sask. eyes ‘angles’ in potential potash takeover (StarPhoenix, September 14, 2010)]

The last time the shadowy group was mentioned appears to be in an interview that Wall gave with Diane Francis, Financial Post editor at large, a couple of days later when he said the task force was investigating mining licences as a way of addressing concerns about foreigners buying Canada’s biggest resource companies, the loss of head offices, jobs, control and future growth. [Sale will run up against Wall (Financial Post, September 16, 2010)]

From that point on the work of the task force seemed to disappear into a black hole. The public has no idea how many times the task force met or who else it consulted.

On October 25, 2010, access to information requests were sent to Executive Council, Energy and Resources, and Enterprise Saskatchewan asking for copies of any briefing notes relating to the task force, any reports or analysis it prepared, and the minutes to any of the group’s meetings.

The three government institutions responded by refusing access to 123 pages of information:

▪ Enterprise Saskatchewan – access denied to 2 records, totaling 5 pages.
▪ Energy and Resources – access denied to 13 records, totaling 56 pages.
▪ Executive Council – access denied to 13 records, totaling 62 pages.

What’s more is that the letters from Executive Council and Energy and Resources are nearly identical suggesting that the two ministries are colluding to deny access to a significant amount of information.

The ministries claim that releasing the records would disclose a cabinet confidence; that the records contain information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; and, if access was provided it could violate section 36 of The Investment Canada Act pertaining to privileged information.

The Wall government released just one document, a lousy two-page briefing note entitled “Blocked Takeover Bids.” The report provides a short overview of unsuccessful takeover attempts from around the world, including Canada, United States, Spain, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, and New Zealand.

Premier Brad Wall has repeatedly stated that the potash belongs to the people of Saskatchewan. However, his government is keeping secrets from the public on how the issue is being handled.

City of Saskatoon denies access to second infrastructure services department Traffic Bridge report

2010-12-16T17:08:00.000-08:00

The City of Saskatoon is refusing to release a second administrative report concerning the historic Traffic Bridge under an access to information request made last month.

In a letter dated December 14, 2010, city administration informed that an infrastructure services department report dated November 3, 2010, which was considered at an in-camera meeting of the executive committee, was being withheld in its entirety.

Access to the record is being denied pursuant to sections 15 and 16 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The sections relate to documents of a local authority and advice from officials. However, they are discretionary, which means there is nothing stopping the city from disclosing the record if it wanted to.

The city confirmed by email on December 16, 2010, that the closed-door meeting in question was held November 15, 2010.

This follows an earlier decision by the city to refuse access to an administrative report on the Traffic Bridge, dated September 1, 2010, which was tabled at a private meeting of the executive committee on September 7, 2010, for similar reasons.

The city argues that under section 94(2) of The Cities Act, councils and council committees may close all or part of their meetings to the public if the matter to be discussed is within one of the exemptions in Part III of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The report in question contains advice, recommendations and analyses of the Administration, which is exempt from release in accordance with section 16(1) of the Act.

That may be so, but no one forces Saskatoon city council to operate behind closed doors. It could choose to conduct its affairs in a more open and transparent fashion. But it elects not to, especially on River Landing related items such as this.

By the time the Traffic Bridge debate got to a public meeting of city council for a final decision, the outcome was a formality. What’s at stake is the public trust. Sadly, we’re dealing with a council that doesn’t seem to give a damn about that.

On December 6, 2010, city council voted 8 to 3 in favour of destroying the 103-year-old bridge and replacing it with an insulting replica.

The Traffic Bridge now joins the former Gathercole building (demolished in 2004), the former Legion building (demolished in 2007), and Mendel Art Gallery (moving in 2014), as victims of River Landing.

Saskatoon city council votes to demolish 103-year-old Traffic Bridge; Fix was in since 2005 to replace iconic structure with insulting replica

2010-12-10T18:06:00.000-08:00

Heritage destroyers: Mayor Atchison, Councillors Donauer,
Dubois, Heidt, Neault, Paulsen, Penner, and Pringle

The city’s Saskatoon Speaks, Shape Our Future community visioning initiative currently underway is overlooking the importance of openness, honesty and transparency. As long as city council and administration insist on using secrecy, deception and backroom dealing to get things done, exercises like this will lack the necessary public buy-in to succeed.

The most recent example of this is the fate of the historic Traffic Bridge where city administration went into the public consultation process with its mind already made up.

In a report to council on Mar. 22 the infrastructure services department said the bridge “is reaching the end of its service life, and any action to significantly extend the life of the bridge would not be in the city’s best interest. The best course of action, at this time, is to continue to monitor the condition of the superstructure and make repairs as necessary while exploring options for the eventual replacement of the bridge.”

Administration’s opinion carries a lot of weight. Administrators and councillors do talk to one another. It’s rare for city officials to bring forward a recommendation that is completely opposite of what it believes councillors are leaning towards.

On Mar. 24 a request for proposals was sent to 10 engineering firms. The title of the document says it all: Needs Assessment, Functional Planning Study and Structural Assessment – Traffic Bridge Replacement.

The opening paragraph states, “Unfortunately, the superstructure of the existing bridge will need to be replaced in the future. The primary purpose of this study is a needs assessment for that future bridge.”

This was five months before the bridge was closed on Aug. 24 for safety reasons following an inspection done by the firm that was awarded the contract, Stantec Consulting – the same company that conducted a detailed inspection of the bridge when it was closed in Nov. 2005.

The city is refusing to release an administrative report dated Sept. 1 that was tabled at a private meeting of the executive committee on Sept. 7. The document apparently contains administrative advice, analyses and policy options developed for city council. Obviously something happened at the meeting because on Sept. 10 the StarPhoenix reported that Mayor Don Atchison and several councillors said they expected the list of ten options would be narrowed at the next council meeting. Three days later, on the eve of the Sept. 15 open house, council sabotaged its own public consultation process by removing several options from consideration that included pedestrian/cyclist use only, the public’s preferred choice.

Atchison insists that the Traffic Bridge must continue to carry motor vehicles, saying it’s “an integral release valve for motorists.” However, the minutes of the Aug. 11 project steering committee meeting – which Stantec and Fast Consulting attended – states, “with or without the Traffic Bridge the delays are not much different – removal not significant.” And, “long-term, the bridge is not critical as a vehicle access for downtown.” These are experienced engineers talking, not people off the street.

In an op-ed to the StarPhoenix on Oct. 15, Ryan Walker, a University of Saskatchewan professor of regional and urban planning, noted that, “a rehabilitated Traffic Bridge functioning as a dedicated place for pedestrians and cyclists is a realistic and perhaps even an ambitious place-making option.

“This idea attracted a lot of support during public consultations on the future of the bridge. Vehicle traffic at peak times modelled by Stantec Engineering for scenarios in 2012 and 2029 with the South Bridge operating and the Traffic Bridge hypothetically removed showed negligible substantive change in level of congestion for vehicles crossing the river.”

According to the city’s contract with Stantec, a pedestrian/cyclist only structure was one of the options to be evaluated and presented to the public at an open house. Stantec intended to do just that but it appears council stepped in and scuttled the plan.

If council had no intention of considering a pedestrian/cyclist only bridge, then why did it vote in favour of accepting Stantec’s proposal on May 25?

(In a report to council that evening, administration stated that the study would discuss “how the bridge might be configured as a transit-only or pedestrian/cyclist-only facility” and that each transportation option “will have a corresponding structural evaluation to determine detailed cost estimates and a feasibility analysis.”)

The steering committee also noted that the public consultation surveys are not “statistically valid.” And yet, the city is basing part of its decision on the fact that during the third round of public consultation, approximately 59 per cent of the feedback supported the construction of a new bridge.

It’s important to understand that when the Traffic Bridge was closed in Nov. 2005, the StarPhoenix reported that Atchison, city managers and other councillors supported replacing the bridge with a modern replica. [City mulls over bridge options (StarPhoenix, November 4, 2005)]

In Dec. 2005, the city submitted a proposal to Western Economic Diversification Canada with a financial request of $7.5 million for the replacement of the bridge. The city provided the federal government with three options: a basic concrete structure with wider traffic lanes; a steel truss replica; and a signature bridge – the same options that made the final four in this year’s process.

Council’s decision on Dec. 6 to demolish and replace the bridge with an insulting replica is simply the continuation of that earlier, unsuccessful effort. Six of the eight votes in favour came from councillors who were there in 2005. Rehabilitation was never seriously considered. It’s always been about a new structure to compliment and service River Landing.

Councillors’ concerns about fire and ambulance access and fiscal prudence are red herrings.

The Traffic Bridge has been around for 103 years. There are fire halls and ambulance facilities on both sides of the river. If homes were burning to the ground and people were dying in traffic accidents because emergency vehicles couldn’t use the bridge it would have been major news by now.

For years the Traffic Bridge has undergone routine maintenance and annual cleaning that require its closure. When that happens there are no public outcries from the fire chief or MD Ambulance.

When the bridge was closed from Nov. 2005 to Sept. 2006 for repairs there were no news stories of fire and ambulance crews not being able to answer a call because of it.

As for finances, since Atchison first became mayor in 2003, the city’s operating and capital spending has increased 62.74 per cent and 375.53 per cent respectively. On projects like the new south bridge, new Shaw Centre, new police headquarters, new art gallery, new 25th Street extension, and the River Landing money pit council spares no expense. But when it comes to the Traffic Bridge – the city’s most important piece of built heritage – the answer is no. It suddenly becomes an issue of pinching pennies.

Keep in mind this is the same council that is hiding details from the public on the city’s due diligence of the Lake Placid Developments/Victory Majors Investments Corporation River Landing Parcel “Y” project and who, in March 2009, decided in secret to move the nationally recognized Mendel Art Gallery to River Landing. This bunch bankrupted itself of any trust and integrity a long time ago.

City’s letter denying access to Sept. 1, 2010, report

Excerpt from report to city council on Mar. 22, 2010

Excerpt from RFP, Mar. 2010

Excerpt from Stantec RFP, Apr. 2010

Excerpt from report to city council on May 25, 2010

Excerpt from Aug. 11, 2010, steering committee minutes

Letter from city manager Phil Richards, Nov. 30, 2005

Excerpt from city’s proposal to federal government, Dec. 2005

Wall government refusing to disclose ‘witch hunt’ report and Zorn-Mitchell emails; whistleblower protection law deeply flawed

2010-11-30T07:14:00.000-08:00

Government Services briefing note

Eight months after firing a provincial corrections employee for not following proper procedures, the Wall government is still under an information lockdown on the details.

At issue is the case of former Regina Correctional Centre inmate Brock Wiebe, who was serving time for sexual assault and assault with a weapon when he was mistakenly released 71 days early.

The matter first surfaced during question period at the legislature on October 29, 2009, when NDP Corrections, Public Safety, and Policing critic Kevin Yates asked Corrections Minister Yogi Huyghebaert if he would confirm that a dangerous sex offender was unlawfully at large from the correctional system in Saskatchewan. Huyghebaert denied knowing anything.

“I have no knowledge of that at this point in time. If the member would like to pass some information over to me, I will definitely look into it,” he said.

But when Yates presented details about Wiebe’s case the minister suddenly changed his story:

Mr. Yates: — “Mr. Speaker, if the minister was doing his job, he would know that Brock Wiebe, a dangerous sexual offender, has been unlawfully at large from the Regina Correctional Centre since July 30 at 5:23 p.m. — three months ago. He was serving time for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and obstruct of a police officer among other charges. Why has the news media not been informed? Why have the people of Saskatchewan not been informed that this dangerous offender from Swift Current, Saskatchewan is at large?”

The Speaker: — “I recognize the Minister Responsible for Corrections and Public Safety.”

Hon. Mr. Huyghebaert: — “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that the member opposite has given me some information that I can work with, I can tell him that I am aware of the particular case, that the member was accidentally released on probation. He was released 71 days early. Mr. Wiebe followed all of the conditions of his probation. He is now living in Calgary. We have an address of Mr. Wiebe. We have contacted the police services in Calgary to apprehend.

“One of the reasons that the decision was made not to put it public is — there’s a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker — one of the reasons that we decided and I decided not to make a public announcement of this is because we were under the impression, with the police services, that it might drive Mr. Wiebe underground.”

Huyghebaert’s claim was considered “specious” because Wiebe turned himself in shortly after the news was made public. [Live by promise of civil conduct (StarPhoenix, January 29, 2010)]

On November 2, 2009, Huyghebaert informed the legislature that one government corrections employee had been placed on “administrative leave” and that “a full investigation” would be conducted.

However, according to a one-page Government Services briefing note, dated January 29, 2010, it was three weeks before Corrections, Public Safety, and Policing formally requested outside help.

“On November 23, 2009, Carol Fiedelleck, Executive Director of Adult Corrections requested Risk Management Services at the Ministry of Government Services to investigate the unauthorized release of confidential information to determine who was responsible for the breach,” the document states.

The case had stopped being about Wiebe’s inadvertent release and became about the Wall government launching a vicious witch hunt to find the whistleblower and punish them severely. It didn’t seem to matter if the right person was found just as long as someone paid the price to send a message to civil servants.

On January 28, 2010, the StarPhoenix reported that Yates was grilled by government officials on January 26. Yates said in an interview with reporter James Wood that “hard-core interrogation tactics” were used.

He said he only agreed to speak to Glynn Mitchell and Hal Zorn (a former Regina police officer) of the protective services branch of the Ministry of Government Services to tell them the person they had suspended was not the source of the leak.

“It was like an intense criminal interrogation. They were twisting things around, putting things in your mouth,” Yates said.

“The type of tactics they used, and I know they used this with a number of civil servants as well, I believe are inappropriate. They’re draconian.”

Yates said the investigators insisted they had “ironclad evidence” against the employee, who has now been off the job for 90 days. But he said the government is punishing the wrong person in a “witch hunt” while trying to send a message to civil servants and MLAs.

“During the interrogations they’re saying, if the individual gets fired it’s my fault and I’m responsible for bringing an issue to the public that shouldn’t be brought forward. Now, is that not intended to make me think about how I would deal with these issues in the future? Not raise a safety issue that was brought to me?

“As a member of the legislature my job is to raise concerns and hold the government accountable for what their policies are. If people are afraid to bring us information that they believe needs to be made public . . . or I’m afraid to bring it forward, then yes, it’s an infringement on that responsibility.”

In the article, Wood also noted that ‘Zorn unsuccessfully approached journalists in the legislature press gallery to ask them for a corrections document provided by the NDP, although the government already had its own copy.’ [Yates says questioning over leak ‘inappropriate, draconian’ (StarPhoenix, January 28, 2010)]

On March 25, 2010, Al Hilton, the deputy minister of corrections, public safety, and policing, told the media that, after a months-long investigation, a provincial corrections employee had been fired for violating several policies of government and legislative responsibilities.

Hilton declined to elaborate on the evidence against the employee because it’s a personnel issue and could affect future arbitration hearings if the employee chooses to fight the dismissal, said the StarPhoenix.

The employee, whose name has not been made public, had been on administrative leave since November. The employee is a “long-serving public servant,” said Hilton.

Yates maintained the Wall government targeted the wrong person.

In an interview with reporter Jeremy Warren, Yates said that the information came from an anonymous source – a person that is not the man who was fired by the government.

“This is very much a political hit,” said Yates.

“This is a political attempt to intimidate the civil service. What’s lost in all this is that the government didn’t follow its own policies when they stood in the house and said they’d let the public know when an offender was at large. This is a real travesty and astounding the government would act in this manner . . . the whole, entire situation.”

Yates learned during the investigation the fired employee first accessed the inmate release information on Oct. 29, but Yates received the information on Oct. 26.

“This is clearly a witch hunt,” said Yates, adding he can’t explain how the government fired the wrong guy.

“I don't know if it makes a difference,” he said. “They were going to get somebody.”

Hilton could not confirm Yates’ dates, citing privacy laws, but said the government did a thorough investigation and did not make the termination decision without solid evidence. [Corrections worker fired over prisoner release leak (StarPhoenix, March 26, 2010)]

Since March 2010, the Wall government has denied five requests made under the province’s freedom of information legislation for records related to the case.

The Ministry of Government Services turned down three access requests for copies of emails and memorandums since January 1, 2010, between risk management director Glynn Mitchell and protective services manager Hal Zorn. The requests were denied on March 4, April 26, and October 28, 2010.

The Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety and Policing denied two requests for copies of the report prepared by Government Services. Those requests were refused on April 26 and October 30, 2010.

In each instance, both ministries violated the Act by not applying section 8, which is mandatory and requires government institutions to give access to as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information to which the applicant is refused access.

The ministries cite section 15 pertaining to law enforcement and investigations as the main reason for refusing access. But only Government Services referred to section 15(1)(c), a discretionary exemption that permits a government institution to refuse access which could “interfere with a lawful investigation or disclose information with respect to a lawful investigation.”

The Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner has addressed this particular exemption in several reports.

The office defines “lawful investigation” as an investigation that is authorized or required and permitted by law. However, a government institution cannot invoke section 15(1)(c) of the Act unless there is an active and ongoing investigation. [Gary Dickson, Access to Information - Statutory Alternatives (Canadian Bar Association (Saskatchewan) Mid-Winter Meeting, February 2, 2007)]

The access officers at both ministries recently confirmed by email that the investigation is no longer ongoing. Government Services added, “that there is an associated ongoing legal proceeding.” However, they are not able to provide further detail.

This could mean that the person fired by the Wall government earlier this year has filed an arbitration hearing to fight the dismissal.

On November 9, 2010, the Wall government introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers in the public service.

The new Public Interest Disclosure Act sets the framework for reporting wrongdoing. It also establishes a Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner as an independent Officer of the Legislature, said a provincial government news release.

The Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, June Draude, said the Act will protect employees from reprisal if they report wrongdoing by government institutions.

The legislation will cover:

▪ Acts or omissions that are contrary to law, public health, safety, welfare and/or protection of the environment;

▪ Gross mismanagement of public funds or assets; and

▪ Knowingly counseling someone to commit a wrongdoing.

“It will apply to employees in all ministries and include the Crown Investment Corporation and Treasury Board Crowns,” Draude said.

This is in line with the definition of government institutions as found in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which includes ministries and Crown corporations. Details of which Crowns and other entities will be covered will be prescribed by Regulation, after the Bill is enacted, the release said.

According to the StarPhoenix, Draude said there would also be a designated person within each ministry to whom whistleblowers could take complaints without fear of reprisal.

The public interest disclosure commissioner will look into allegations and make a recommendation to the appropriate minister, Draude said.

“Every year we will report the number of incidents, and from which ministry they came from, and it’s just an open and accountable process.”

There won’t be a large budget requirement, she said, noting there are three other provinces with similar offices and they sometimes field just a few complaints a year.

The government is considering having the commissioner role as part of the existing office of the ombudsman, she added. [Independent whistleblower officer proposed (StarPhoenix, November 10, 2010)]

Unfortunately, the proposed law has a number of serious flaws.

The commissioner will not have the power to compel the province to do anything. The best that he or she can do is conduct an investigation, prepare a report offering an opinion and reasons for that opinion; and any recommendations they consider appropriate respecting the disclosure and the wrongdoing. [Sec. 21(1)]

Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner is saddled with the same problem.

On September 22, 2010, information commissioner Gary Dickson issued a lengthy report dealing with a case between a private citizen and the City of Saskatoon involving records from 2004 concerning the city’s south downtown redevelopment project (now known as River Landing).

The commissioner’s report recommended the city release several emails to the applicant, but the city refused and walked away. [Complaints backlog prompts criticism of privacy watchdog (StarPhoenix, October 8, 2010)]

Because the recommendations are non-binding there was nothing the commissioner could do. This could easily happen to the new public interest disclosure commissioner.

We already know how the Wall government feels about some non-binding recommendations.

In March 2010, the United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO) issued a ruling in favour of complaints filed by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), on behalf of the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees’ Union (SGEU/NUPGE), and the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, on behalf of more than a dozen other unions in the province, alleging that the Public Service Essential Services Act and changes to the Trade Union Act impede workers from exercising their fundamental right to freedom of association by making it more difficult for workers to join unions, engage in free collective bargaining and exercise their right to strike.

The ILO made six non-binding recommendations for appropriate action by the provincial government. However, former Advanced Education, Employment and Labour (AEEL) Minister Rob Norris brought shame to Saskatchewan by insulting the ILO and dismissing the report.

The Wall government recently submitted its formal response to the ILO’s Committee of Experts respecting the Committee on the Freedom of Association recommendations arguing it has done nothing wrong.

The new whistleblower law is deeply flawed because it also borrows the freedom of information legislation’s definition of ‘government institution.’ This means it will not cover the Legislative Assembly Service or offices of members of the Assembly or members of the Executive Council. [FOIPP, Sec. 2(2)]

So if a whistleblower was to come forward with evidence of wrongdoing by the premier, a cabinet minister or MLA they’re out of luck because they’re exempt.

While the law does cover acts or omissions that are contrary to law, public health, safety, welfare and/or protection of the environment, they must pose “a substantial and specific danger” in order to be considered. In cases that allege mismanagement of funds, it must be “gross” in nature. The proposed Act fails to define these terms.

Another serious problem is that the proposed law adopts section 16(1) of the province’s freedom of information legislation protecting cabinet documents from being disclosed. [Sec. 13(1)]

So if a public servant had knowledge of a wrongdoing that involved the premier or a minister but the only proof was within a cabinet document there’s nothing the whistleblower could do. In such a case, the new law may also provide protection to the government official that prepared the cabinet document in question because its disclosure is not permitted.

Section 7(1) of the new law seems to give government institutions the power to refuse to receive and deal with disclosures by public servants if the permanent head (usually the deputy minister, president or other official in charge of the government institution who is directly responsible to a member of the Executive Council) determines that it is not practical to do so given the size of the government institution for which the permanent head is responsible. However, before making such a determination the permanent head must consult with the commissioner.

Unfortunately, the section does not say whether the commissioner has the authority to reject or overturn such a determination.

Section 16(1) establishes the parameters where, in the commissioner’s opinion, an investigation is not required. Two reasons that can be used are: “(d) the disclosure relates to a matter that results from a balanced and informed decision-making process on a public policy or operational issue,” and “(g) the circumstances of the case do not warrant investigation.”

The new commissioner may or may not ever invoke these clauses, but you can be damn sure that a government institution fighting off a charge of wrongdoing will. Any or every case could result in a war of interpretations.

In the end, a government institution could simply turn around and use any of the reasons listed in section 16 against the commissioner if it doesn’t agree with his or her findings or recommendations.

The Wall government’s whistleblower protection legislation needs to go back to the drawing board for an overhaul.