Len Taylor

NDP says New SaskHospital still a priority

Len Taylor — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:49:40 +0000

NDP Recommits to replace SaskHospital in The Battlefords

With just six months to the next provincial budget and just fourteen months to the next provincial election, Saskatchewan New Democrats have again committed themselves to replacing the Saskatchewan Hospital in The Battlefords.

After a tour of the almost 100 year old facility on August 3^rd, provincial NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter said if elected to government in 2011 the party will follow through on its 2006 commitment to rebuild the Saskatchewan Hospital.

He also committed to working with the community to develop uses for the old hospital. Speaking to The Battlefords Daily News Editor Doug Collie, Lingenfelter said he was “very interested in the future of the existing building”.

The Saskatchewan Hospital is the province’s only facility that provides rehabilitation treatment for individuals with significant psychiatric disorders. It also offers provincial assessments and has a forensics unit that many have argued needs to be doubled in size.

Lingenfelter was accompanied on his tour by Battlefords MLA, Len Taylor the former Saskatchewan Minister of Health who originally announced the province’s commitment to replace the provincial hospital.

City did great job on flood response

Len Taylor — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:32:45 +0000

City did great job on flood response now it is up to the province to respond quickly, fairly, and adequately

Congratulations to the workers and administration in the City of North Battleford for the effort they put in to deal with the incredible storm that brought massive amounts of water and hail on July 22^nd.

It was hard to believe that that much water could fall on us in such a short period of time or that so much could accumulate and do the damage that it did. This happened earlier in the year in Maple Creek, in Yorkton, and in Saskatoon. So, it is certainly the year of the flood.

During the downpour and the hailstorm it was obvious that city workers knew they had trouble on their hands. In a very short period of time they had barricades up and were helping to get the water moving through the city’s storm sewers.

Shortly after the storm ended, the city administration knew they needed to put their emergency measures team in place and within hours they had workers from social services, the Red Cross, Victims Services, Prairie North Regional Health Authority, and others lined up to talk to people who were either displaced by the flooding of homes, or who found their homes seriously damaged by flood waters, sewer backup, or hail.

Mayor Ian Hamilton was actively involved in analyzing information and co-ordinating information. The media were briefed regularly. The application for emergency relief was quickly requested, approved, and application forms became available. From my vantage point, the public were very well served by those who were on hand to help.

Now, a week later, there are still matters that need attention to ensure the public continues to be well served. Obviously, an urgent and early financial response is needed from the insurance companies and from the provincial disaster relief program. Even though there are houses in Maple Creek, Yorkton, and Saskatoon that need to be assessed, these homes in North Battleford need to have that assessment work completed early too so that residents will know what funding they are entitled to. The provincial government needs to increase its financial resources if necessary to get this done.

There is another matter that appears not to have been contemplated when the original provincial program was designed and it needs to be looked at now. A number of the damaged homes in North Battleford were older homes, some with rented basement suites. The renters in these suites were paying low (but appropriate) rents because of the age of the homes. In many cases it was all the tenant could afford. North Battleford has a shortage of rental units to begin with, and rents have recently been increasing. Displaced renters are finding that they can’t go back to their damaged suites, and if they can find a new place to live it is going to be at substantially higher rents. Many of these people are older people, young people just starting new jobs, or immigrants recently arrived in our city. It has been suggested that the province develop a rent subsidy to help these people get resettled. The subsidy would take into account the emergency nature of the move and the fact that in most cases all the personal belongings to those affected were also damaged or destroyed.

There will also be the issue of value placed on damaged property. It would appear that values assessed will not be what the insurance companies call replacement costs, but rather will be actual costs. So, if a severely damaged home is assessed as being worth $30,000, the provincial relief will be 80% of that, and not the $100,000 or $150,000 that would be required to replace that home.

If the province is reviewing its ability to respond to emergencies such as those we have just faced, then it is important that they look beyond the usual things and take into account some of the special circumstances in which some of our residents might find themselves. We need to ensure that homeowners, and renters are properly and fairly treated as they struggle to get their lives back together. This storm had a major affect on the quality of life of our friends and neighbours. The City has been doing its part, the next steps are the responsibility of the province.

Taylor comments on Cabinet Shuffle

Len Taylor — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:53:51 +0000

New Cabinet offers little chance of change for The Battlefords

The Wall government’s new cabinet offers very little hope for positive change in The Battlefords according to MLA Len Taylor.

“The big issues here continue to be affordable housing, support for seniors, health care, and of course the replacement of Saskatchewan Hospital and I don’t see the new cabinet members giving us any change in policy on these or other matters important to the people of The Battlefords,” Taylor said.

“There has been virtually no support from the Wall government to support people trying to find affordable housing in the Battlefords. This means that seniors, young people coming here for education or for their first jobs, and immigrants seeking affordable rental accommodation have been frustrated and penalized during the past three years. The new minister responsible for housing, June Draude is unlikely to change that.

“The Wall government’s most important election promise to the people of the Battlefords was to maintain his commitment to building a new Saskatchewan hospital. The Health Minister, Don McMorris has kept his job and therefore development on the new hospital which has been non-existent to this date will continue to be slow. The new Finance Minister, Ken Krawetz says he will continue the work of former Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer so again I see virtually no quick action on Sask. Hospital,” Taylor said.

Another issue gaining in importance in the northwest is transportation and Taylor says the fact that there was no change in the Minister responsible, Jim Reiter, means that there may be no developments here either.

“As our economy, and the economy of the northwest, continues to grow, I see more and more truck traffic on the highways going north. A lot of that truck traffic is supporting the mills in Meadow Lake. Without a rail line serving the north west we are going to see more and more traffic on highway 4 north which also serves recreational traffic and work traffic for people who live near the lakes and work in The Battlefords. We need to see additional attention paid to the highways running north, and we need a provincial government working to restore rail traffic to the north so that truck traffic on the highways can be reduced,” he said.

“It was clear a cabinet shuffle was in order,” Taylor added. “Even though the Wall government is only three years old, they quickly became out of touch with the people of the province. This was evident with the lack of consultation that has occurred on numerous issues, not the least of which was the withdrawal of legislative protection for habitat lands.

“Ultimately, what Wall needs is fresh advice and a real vision for a growing Saskatchewan. He needs to be told to reduce the cheerleading, and concentrate on managing an economy that is benefiting some and penalizing others. It really is all about management, and this shuffle does not come close to restroing confidence in this government’s ability to manage our economy,” Taylor said.

Mosquitos, Doctors, and Crown Debt on our minds

Len Taylor — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:19:38 +0000

At this time, just a few simple thoughts for mulling over this summer.

First, if its summer there are going to be mosquitos and this summer they are out in larger numbers than usual. It was sure a good time for the Wall government to first cut back on their financial support for the provincial mosquito control program, and then put money back in after the darned things started hatching.

Even though the Wall government has increased spending by 32% in the last three years, in the March budget they thought it would be a good idea to take money out of their mosquito fighting program. The Minister of Health responsible for the cut said they didn’t need the money this year. Then the rains came and the mosquitos started coming out and municipalities started calling their Minister asking for help. So, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, not the Minister of Health, came up with one time funding to help out for this year only. The trouble is that the funding is coming too late. Municipal workers will work hard to control future hatches, including the West Nile carrying mosquito that is just about to come out, but thanks to the Wall government they are behind the eight ball. So, everytime you are bitten by a mosquito this summer thank Brad Wall for mishandling this important file.

Second, here in The Battlefords and around the province people are asking why is there a doctor shortage in our province. On June 23^rd there was a meeting in Spiritwood. Almost 500 people came out on a warm night to tell the Health Region and the provincial government that something must be done to stop the decline in health services and increase the number of doctors practicing in rural Saskatchewan. Spiritwood now has no doctor, no acute care in their hospital, and their lab services are about to be cut back. It was pointed out that the Wall government had made it priority in the 2007 election campaign to do something about the doctor shortage. It was also pointed out that the Wall government has made doctor recruitment the responsibility of the Health Regions, and more importantly, it was pointed out that the Health Regions get no funding (yes, there is no funding) for doctor recruitment. So, when a Health Region spends money on doctor recruitment it comes out of their global budget which also funds lab services, nurses, prescription drugs, etc. The Health Region serving Spiritwood says that they funding given them in this year’s provincial budget is $2.8 million less than they need to keep all the programs they had in place last year (its called status quo funding). So, there is a cutback in funding from the province, and therefore there will be a cutback in services to the communities. That can only mean that doctor recruitment, as important as it is, will not get the attention it needs because there is no new money to help. So, much for that promise, and commitment from the Wall government.

Third, we all know, or are coming to know, how valuable Saskatchewan’s Crown Corporations are to the people of Saskatchewan. We also know that this year, the Wall government is taking 100 percent of the Crown profits (except SaskPower) for use in the province’s General Revenue Fund (GRF). Sheldon Schwartz, a 25 year career civil servant who served as assistant deputy finance minister and chief financial officer of Crown Investments Corporation (CIC) says taking all the profits from the crowns this year is not sustainable and not a good business practice. In fact he is quoted as saying “If Saskatchewan were to continue the current year’s practice, it would represent a large step backwards from applying best practices to the governance of Saskatchewan’s commercial Crown Corporations.” He also said, “if you take 100 percent of the profits, you’re going to have to find the money for reinvestment or debt reduction somewhere else. And, since there’s no money for debt reduction, I guess their debt is going to go up,” adding that in the long run, “Saskatchewan businesses, ratepayers, and consumers will have to pay for this.” Long time political and business writer Bruce Johnstone shares this view, stating in a Regina Leader-Post column “the SaskParty government has interfered with the Crowns perhaps more than any government since the Devine era.” When economists and respected journalists become critical of government policy, the public’s interest needs to increase. Saskatchewan Crowns have long supported low rates, and turned funds over to the government to reduce tax dollar support for education and health programs. We need to remain protective of our Crowns and their independence in the work that they do.

Volunteer community organization support reduced

Len Taylor — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:52:06 +0000

Wall Government provides less and demands more from community volunteers

The Wall government’s most recent cut in services to organizations that provide support to seniors, children, physically and mentally challenged, women in distress, and other vulnerable people is almost too hard to believe.

On the surface this cut in services may seem like nothing important to the average person, but to the organizations providing those services this cut is of great significance.

As of July 1^st, the Wall government will no longer be providing government lease vehicles to Community Based Organizations (CBOs) throughout Saskatchewan.

In The Battlefords this means The Battlefords Early Childhood Intervention Program, The Battlefords Interval House, Battlefords Residential Services, Battlefords Victim Services, Battlefords Branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Portage Vocational Society and Lakeland Library Region, are just a few of the 115 agencies across the province who will no longer be able to lease used government vehicles.

These organizations use these vehicles to transport their clients, residents, and supplies. The vehicles help get kids to school every morning, take people to job interviews, and medical appointments, pick up supplies like groceries, and prescriptions, and help the most vulnerable keep appointments with the police, the courts, and job coaches.

To make matters worse, under questioning in the Legislature, the Minister of Government Services (the Hon. Christine Tell) responsible for leasing vehicles to the CBOs said the decision to take away the lease opportunity was purely ideological and not budgetary since leasing vehicles to CBOs is not making money for government or costing the government any money. In her words, providing an opportunity for community based organizations to lease a vehicle is “not a central or core service of government”, and therefore should not be done.

CBOs annually budget for these vehicles. It is a cost to them, but it is also a service that saves them money and stress in the long run. In rural Saskatchewan it is more difficult than ever to lease a vehicle, it is a challenge to keep that vehicle maintained, and it is a challenge to volunteer staff to keep gas in those vehicles. More importantly, all these organizations are managed by volunteer boards of directors. Any capital purchase, such as a vehicle lease, increases the individual liability of each and every board member and ultimately could mean fewer and fewer people willing to volunteer their time and effort to those boards.

There will be increased costs to the CBOs, every one of whom is already finding it difficult to raise money for their on-going programming and services to the vulnerable in our communities.

As one organization put it in a letter this month “With no consultation, or even a sufficient notice period, it is very unlikely we will be able to operate on a balanced budget without seriously impacting the future of our programming. This will mean reduced services and higher service needs directed to the health institutions. As we are often reminded, the cost of providing care in an acute centre (hospital) is much higher than the cost of preventative and health promotive services offered in the community.”

It has always been the desire of Saskatchewan people to help those who have difficulty helping themselves. We volunteer our time. We donate money regularly. And, we speak highly of our local organizations all of whom go out of their way to make life a little easier for those who find sometimes even the simplest of things challenging. For years the Saskatchewan government has found a way, without any additional cost to the taxpayers to help some of those organizations get things done with a little less stress. In addition to adding costs, this cut in services also undermines and under values the work of these organizations.

It makes no sense, especially since it didn’t cost anything, for the Wall government, without consultation and without notice, to take this support away from the volunteers in our community who just want to make a difference in the lives of neighbours in difficulty. There is nothing “ideological” about wanting to help your neighbours. This is just one more example of how out of touch with the people of Saskatchewan the Wall government has become.

Wall government has lost its way says Taylor

Len Taylor — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:14:16 +0000

Wall government ends Legislative session out of touch says Battlefords MLA

The spring session of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly clearly showed that the Wall government has lost its way, has become out of touch, can’t be trusted, and is in need of a serious tune-up, says Len Taylor, Battlefords MLA.

“It showed a government that was mismanaging taxpayers money, not consulting with Saskatchewan people, rewarding SaskParty friends, putting at risk Saskatchewan’s shared future and breaking trust with those who care about the province. Who knew the Wall government could have cost us all so much in so little time?” Taylor said as the spring session concluded its business May 20^th.

“Although the resource sector is continuing to build prosperity in the Saskatchewan economy, the Wall government has spent the rainy day fund, used up all the savings in the Crown Corporation’s accounts, and is running an operating deficit. At the same time, property taxes are up, utility rates are up, rents are up, and gas prices are up, making it harder for seniors, students, young workers, new immigrants, and farmers to make ends meet,” he said.

“During this session we saw the Wall government stall progress on the much needed replacement of the Saskatchewan Hospital, but we know they found $100 million since its election to spend on Enterprise Saskatchewan, an agency of government that has yet to produce a single useful recommendation. Where are the priorities of the Wall government, when they put their friends before vulnerable people in our province,” Taylor said.

“This is a government that would rather put valuable environmentally sensitive habitat land up for sale than preserve it for future generations, this is a government that would rather guarantee a construction loan and operating costs for its friends building long-term beds in Saskatoon, than provide funding for the replacement of 13 long-term care facilities throughout rural Saskatchewan, this is a government that shuts down the province’s only television network, takes away chiropractic care from pain sufferers throughout the province, and reduces mosquito control programs that could lead to a greater number of West Nile disease cases this summer. Who in Saskatchewan was telling the Wall government to do any of this?” he said.

“Saskatchewan people can rightly ask where did all the money go, given that the Wall government has increased spending by 32% since it came to office in late 2007, and how could Brad Wall have blown an historic opportunity to bring long-term prosperity to the province. We do have a strong economy in Saskatchewan, so why are we spending our savings account instead of increasing it, why aren’t we looking after seniors, young people, and the vulnerable, why are we giving away health care information to fundraisers instead of adequately funding health care, the professionals who work within health care, and the institutions that deliver health care,” Taylor said.

-30-

Crown dividends help reduce taxes for health and education

Len Taylor — Fri, 07 May 2010 17:02:49 +0000

Written for the Battlefords Regional Optimist

Crown Profits support Health and Education Projects

Saskatchewan’s Crown Corporations continue to be very healthy and as a result their profits are continuing to provide financial support for health and education projects throughout the province, however, recent policy changes and financial activity initiated by the Brad Wall government are putting all this in jeopardy.

In fact one of Saskatchewan’s leading political columnists, Murray Mandryk of the Regina Leader Post backs that up in his late April column where he states: “But if the good news in 2009 was our Crown corporations’ continued profitability in the face of competition and the need for infrastructure upgrades, the bad news is how the government now views the Crowns.”

He also states: “the government views the Crowns as little more than cash cows in its stable, there to solve whatever financial messes it creates. Combined with the government’s other policies that restrict potentially profitable out-of-province investments by SGI or SaskEnergy (whose now-sold Heritage Gas investment in Nova Scotia made $5 million last year) and we might be headed for serious problems down the road.”

In this year’s provincial budget, the Brad Wall government has projected revenues from the Crown Sector to exceed $1.2 billion when last year and the year before the Crowns provided revenues (through dividends) in the range of $750 million. At the same time the budget indicates that the Wall government will take 100% of the profits from all the Crowns except SaskPower, it also indicates that these Crowns will have to borrow additional money for their activities in 2010/11, and they will have to raise rates for the users of their products and services (ie natural gas, power, and water).

While the Crowns have recorded very good financial years, a couple of things should be noted about how they managed to generate the revenues they have. For example: In 2009 SaskTel saw earnings rise to $129 million, up $5.4 million from the year before, but will borrow $180 million to do a major system upgrade. SaskTel’s debt-to-equity ratio will increase as a result from about 24 percent to 36 percent. The 2009 profit at SaskTel was aided by the sale of one its subsidiaries – the Hospitality Network (which provides communications and entertainment systems to hospitals across Canada) – which turned a $3 million profit last year.

Another example worth noting is SaskEnergy’s $64 million profit in 2009 (up from $56 million in 2008) which was boosted by the sale of its Nova Scotia subsidiary (Heritage Gas – the sale brought in $73.3 million) meaning that there will no future revenue from the subsidiary and the asset is now gone.

In the Legislature, during Question Period, the Wall government has been asked a series of questions that get to the long-term vision, or lack thereof, of the government on future Crown direction, funding, and policies. For example, Moose Jaw MLA, Deb Higgins asked “in a desperate attempt to hide this government’s deficit and growing debt the Premier has not only drained $700 million from the rainy day fund, he’s also stripped over $1 billion from the Crown Corporations. Why does the Premier think it is okay to put our Crown corporations at risk in order to hide his own incompetence and fiscal mismanagement?”

She also asked: “all you have to do is look at the government’s own budget documents, and it shows that Crown debt will increase almost 98% by 2014. With skyrocketing debt and every last cent of profit being stripped to cover the Premier’s incompetence, our Crowns will be a lot weaker and Saskatchewan people will pay a lot more. Why should Saskatchewan people pay higher utility rates for years to come just because he can’t manage the budget?”

Think about it, if Brad Wall needs $1.7 billion from the Crowns to balance his budget in what is described as a good economic year, what is he going to be able to do if the Crowns don’t have the ability to provide a return on investment especially in a year which may not be as economically strong?

Taylor calls for withdrawal of Habitat Bill pending consultation

Len Taylor — Mon, 03 May 2010 16:05:11 +0000

Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly

April 29, 2010

ADJOURNED DEBATES

SECOND READINGS

Bill No. 132

[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Heppner that Bill No. 132 — The Wildlife Habitat Protection (Land Designation) Amendment Act, 2009 be now read a second time.]

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from The Battlefords.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 132. This is An Act to amend The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, this is an Act that was introduced recently by the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Speaker, it has been circulated throughout the province of Saskatchewan. It has been subject to a number of questions in the Chamber and, Mr. Speaker, it has also been subject of a number of conversations inside and outside the legislature, Mr. Speaker. And as a result, we in the opposition are finding that there are issues inherent in The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act that, Mr. Speaker, are either misunderstood by the public or if they are understood, Mr. Speaker, certainly the messages coming to government are not being heard by the Minister of the Environment and her officials.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that we have a number of organizations that the minister has said have been thoroughly consulted with, organizations who are now saying that meaningful consultation did not occur. Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, yesterday in question period the member from Regina Walsh Acres, who is the Environment critic for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, asked that the minister withdraw the Bill until such time as meaningful consultation can occur and, Mr. Speaker, agreements can be reached as to how to move forward.

I say there’s some confusion out there, Mr. Speaker, because the minister says this is about stewardship and about land protection and, Mr. Speaker, we have others who are indicating that there’s something more to this. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my own bias before I get into the heart of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact of stewardship. I do not believe this Act is about stewardship. This Act is about legacy and, Mr. Speaker, government is there to ensure and protect legacy, Mr. Speaker. And this Act seems to be interfering with legacy, Mr. Speaker.

So I don’t want to see this debate get lost in stewardship. We understand that there are individuals across this province, Mr. Speaker, who care deeply about habitat land and as a result, Mr. Speaker, they are going to be good stewards of the land. I’ll say more about this in a couple of minutes.

But, Mr. Speaker, there’s a role for government. There’s a role for government in ensuring that the collective good, the collective domain, Mr. Speaker, is protected. That’s what legacy is all about. That’s insurance, Mr. Speaker. That is certainty. And when we are talking about the things that are sharing the Earth with us, whether it’s plants or animals, Mr. Speaker, we have a role collectively, not just individually, to ensure that there are protections in place, Mr. Speaker, that everything we do, as they’ve said in the old tale, everything we do should be to ensure that we leave the Earth a better place than we found it, Mr. Speaker.

I support the argument that we have not been given the Earth to do as we want. It is our responsibility to ensure that our children inherit a better place than we inherited from our parents. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of, I think, what the arguments are with regards to this legislation.

[08:30]

Members of the public who have been watching this Act know that there have been a number of speeches made. The member from Moose Jaw Wakamow started debate on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, some time ago and indicated that there were some concerns but we needed to consult further.

The members from Saskatoon Eastview and Saskatoon Fairview both spoke on this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and have indicated that indeed as a province, Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that our government understands what it is that we, the people of Saskatchewan, want to see happen with regards to protecting wildlife habitat.

And, Mr. Speaker, the other day the member from Regina Coronation Park gave an impassioned speech that indicated some of the individuals who over their careers have contributed a great deal, Mr. Speaker, to the legislation, not just in Saskatchewan but in Canada and around the world, Mr. Speaker, that have provided protection for various species, floral and fauna.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. And while the Minister of the Environment would like us to believe it’s simply about stewardship, that it is possible to transfer protected lands to a sole party ownership, Mr. Speaker, away from the Crown because those who will own the land will manage it appropriately, Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to argue because I don’t want to debate what the Cattlemen’s Association or the Stock Growers Association that the minister quotes, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with them that in fact they can be and are good stewards of the land that they currently lease, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have an argument with those who wish to own the land that they use for their personal well-being, Mr. Speaker, their personal business.

The Crown or the province has in the past indicated they’ve been prepared to sell Crown land. In fact they started a program just a year and a half ago to sell Crown land in the province. In fact they were selling it at a discount, Mr. Speaker, a 10 per cent discount, they were so anxious to move some pasture land around the province into the hands of those who had leased that land for, in some cases, several generations.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is a different issue. These protected lands currently in legislation, these protected lands, Mr. Speaker, are identified in legislation. They are now Crown owned, Mr. Speaker, and what the government wants to do is be able to sell those Crown lands, but put a certification or a designation on those lands, Mr. Speaker, an easement — perhaps the legal word is better — an easement on those lands to provide what the government says is protection.

But what others are saying, Mr. Speaker — and I’ll provide some of that evidence in a few minutes — what others are saying, quite simply, Mr. Speaker, is that the Crown has an obligation to the public as a whole to ensure that for generations to come, not just the current generation or their children, but for generations to come that this land continues to have a legislative protection. And that within that protection, Mr. Speaker, there are ways in which certain obligations can be placed and, in fact, as we’ve known in the past, designated lands, when good arguments can be made for the removal of those lands from legislation, those good arguments are made, lands can be delisted after public debate, and, Mr. Speaker, additional lands can be identified and moved into the system.

We on this side of the House believe very strongly in no net loss. No net loss simply means, Mr. Speaker, if lands are delisted on one side, a certain number of acres, there’s another equal or greater — one would hope greater — number of acres that are added to the list, Mr. Speaker.

We’re not opposed to the recognition that at some point in time there may be some change, and with public consultation and public debate, Mr. Speaker, that in fact some land could be delisted. But it’s got to be done in a way in which the public fully understands what’s happening.

In many cases, Mr. Speaker, the public or the owner of a lease on a particular land doesn’t know how that land got designated in the first place. And in many cases, Mr. Speaker, you have families who have, over one or two generations have protected lands, and they have willed those lands to the province, Mr. Speaker, for habitat protection purposes. The Crown has accepted those, has listed those lands. And now, Mr. Speaker, it could be two generations later, somebody wants to see those lands delisted because they want to own rather than lease a particular piece of land.

I have no concerns, as I said, Mr. Speaker, about landownership in the province. And I have no issue to take with any person raising cattle in the province who wants to use designated lands, Mr. Speaker, but I do have a problem that the province wants to be able to make decisions that could in fact delist land or remove land from designation simply by the stroke of a pen behind closed doors in a cabinet office.

Mr. Speaker, let’s just talk about that for a second before I make some comments about the consultation process. Mr. Speaker, there’s two ways in which things happen in government. One is a legislative process, and the other is a regulatory process. And there are significant differences between these two things, Mr. Speaker. Legislation provides certainty and public accountability. Regulations allows things to be managed efficiently and quickly, Mr. Speaker, but there’s less accountability and less transparency, obviously, Mr. Speaker.

So when a government wants to be able to do things quickly, without the usual scrutiny, they will usually move something from a legislative agenda to a regulatory agenda. Legislation, for the public’s benefit, Mr. Speaker, is what we do in this Chamber when laws are passed. And those laws require, to go into effect, introduction of legislation, second reading, debate in principle, a sharing of information. It moves in to a committee where questions are asked, media is present — these are all open meetings — and then there’s a third reading in specifics, Mr. Speaker, after legislation might be amended. And then there’s also the process of Royal Assent and proclamation, Mr. Speaker, which also puts some public focus on government to see that things get done.

The regulatory process, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. Something gets brought up at a cabinet table, the minister gets the approval from cabinet, and they sign it off. It’s done, Mr. Speaker. A decision in cabinet, a regulation can be changed without anybody knowing it was on the table, without anybody knowing it was coming up, without anybody even knowing that it was done until it was done, Mr. Speaker. Very simple. Very efficient. So if you want to keep something from the public, you put it into regulations. If you want to make sure that the public knows what you’re doing, that there’s full transparency and accountability, and you want certainty on something as important as the designation of habitat lands, Mr. Speaker, you keep it in legislation.

And that seems to be part of the argument that we’re hearing from those who care about habitat protection, that in fact we built a legacy in this province — 3 million acres. I’m told that’s twice the size of the province of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know that, but I’m told. And if we have that amount of land designated by legislation and by legislative authority, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that that protection is there with some certainty, Mr. Speaker. Because for Saskatchewan it’s not a large amount of land. I think 5 per cent of our total land area, Mr. Speaker, not a large amount of land. But in terms of the size compared to other parts of the country, a land base that’s twice the size of Prince Edward Island is something to be proud of. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, we have organizations, groups and individuals who are proud of that factand we have members of this Legislative Chamber who are very proud of the fact that we have designated these lands.

So the idea is legacy, Mr. Speaker, and certainty. And to do that we need transparency, accountability, we need public consultation, and we need public input.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what’s happening on the public input side of things? Well the government started on a process of changing environmental legislation a while ago. And, Mr. Speaker, they began believing that we need to have results-based environmental regulatory framework processes in place, Mr. Speaker. So they began a consultation process.

I made reference to this the other day, Mr. Speaker, this consultation process to sort of move to a larger regulatory framework for all the environmental Bills, not just The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act. It almost seems that this was kind of added at the end to satisfy the interests of moving some Crown land out of Crown land status and into private ownership, Mr. Speaker. But when this process to move to a results-based environmental regulatory framework, there was a consultation process begun, Mr. Speaker.

We go back prior to November of 2008 when this began, Mr. Speaker, and there were some concerns being raised even at that time. So we’re back more than a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker.

I want to quote from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation’s magazine, The Outdoor Edge. This is the November-December 2008 issue. And one of the editorials is written by the executive director, Mr. Darrell Crabbe. And Mr. Darrell Crabbe puts this caution on the table, Mr. Speaker, and this is as the consultation process was beginning. Mr. Crabbe writes:

. . . the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation was recently invited by the Ministry of Environment to participate in a comprehensive review of the Province’s environmental legislation with a stated goal of “most effectively protecting the environment and managing resources.”

There were just over 20 groups that were consulted. Only two of those groups were conservation or environmental organizations, with the overwhelming majority being made up of industry. The presentation was designed to promote a results based system that would streamline the regulatory review requirements to accommodate resource development and, supposedly, enhance the protection of the environment.

Mr. Crabbe goes on:

I don’t think anyone is opposed to the responsible development of our province’s resources and the economic benefits that will be enjoyed by the residents of Saskatchewan. But one only has to consider the importance that the environment has had in the last Provincial and recent Federal election to understand that environmental protection is paramount in the long term, sustainable development of our resource rich province.

November-December 2008, Mr. Speaker, as this consultation process was beginning, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation sent up a flag that says, watch the protected side of this, Mr. Speaker, because the consultation process is dominated by sectors other than those who care about conservation and the environment.

So, Mr. Speaker, that process carries on. And further discussions are held on this regulatory, the change to a regulatory framework. Mr. Speaker, a number of things happen and The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act is drafted and is presented to this House. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, environmental organizations like the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited were starting to realize that this consultation that they had engaged in, Mr. Speaker, was not exactly, the results of that consultation were not exactly what they were contributing to.

And Mr. Speaker, this is noted by a number of media stories that have appeared, comments that have appeared in just the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker. And this provides some evidence that it appears that the minister does not fully understand why there are concerns being raised about the Bill that’s in front of us.

[08:45]

Just the other day, Mr. Crabbe, who I just quoted from a year and a half ago, just the other day, Mr. Speaker, on April the 28th, quoted by CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] News, Mr. Crabbe says, the properties in question, the wildlife lands “. . . are owned by the people of Saskatchewan, and I just don’t think most people would want to see them sold off. He goes on to say, quoted by CBC News, “It’s a very sad day when the dollar plays a bigger role than our future generations.”

In response to that, the member from Regina Walsh Acres says, in response to that, “Why are the years of hard work by people concerned about wildlife being put in jeopardy by this government’s financial mismanagement?”

Mr. Speaker, that argument comes down to the fact that this government appears to be more interested in selling some properties and receiving some other benefit, Mr. Speaker, because they need money. And while the government will argue this isn’t about money, the fact of the matter is this government has spent the financial legacy of the province, and now they’re interfering with the conservation and environmental legacy of this province to compensate for it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the media just the other day also, the Leader-Post, the Regina Leader-Post, April 28th, a number of people including Brent Kennedy from Ducks Unlimited, who was introduced in this Chamber a little earlier . . . Mr. Kennedy is the manager of provincial operations for Ducks Unlimited. He says the government should do more consultation before trying to pass the amendments this spring. His preference, Mr. Speaker, would be that all of the land remain protected under the Act, Mr. Speaker. He also is quoted, he also is quoted as saying, “We’re not convinced that they have the means [meaning the Saskatchewan Party government, that they have the means] to be able to accurately define which lands have greater or which lands have lesser ecological value.” Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact that Mr. Kennedy would say this to the Leader-Post indicates that the consultation process has in fact not been meaningful, meaningful in the sense that if full consultation had occurred, there would be an understanding about the science behind this definition of lands, this change in the way in which lands are evaluated. So obviously, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a good enough consultation process put in front of those who are most concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the future of the lands in question.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think this just goes to the heart of this question about what should happen to this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the member from Regina Walsh Acres yesterday in question period asked that the legislation be withdrawn until such time as clarity can be reached on this issue.

Last night in one of the committees, the Economy Committee of the legislature, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment was there answering questions on other legislation relating to changes in the regulatory format. There was some concerns raised about some of the language in the legislation. And, Mr. Speaker, members of the government became quite concerned that members of the opposition were asking questions to find clarity in the legal language there. And at one point, Mr. Speaker, the member from Thunder Creek, backed up by the member from Cannington, indicated that if the public wasn’t happy with the language or the Bill or the directions that this new process was taking, there’s an election coming and the public can simply express their unhappiness during the election.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show that the members opposite think more highly of themselves than they do about the consequences of the legislation that they’re bringing forward. They are simply indicating, we’re government; we have the majority. We’ll do whatever we want, and if you don’t like it, you vote against us in the next election.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. It’s about legacy. It’s about the long-term future not this generation or the next generation of stewards but, Mr. Speaker, the stewards who come later — the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, and the great-great-grandchildren, or the corporations that they own who might want to assume the leases on these pieces of land. This is long-term legacy legislation that we’re talking about, Mr. Speaker.

And there are concerns being raised by organizations representing a very large number of people across the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. And it’s not good enough to say we’re going to pass this legislation. We’re going to make this major change. And if you don’t like this, you just get rid of us in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, we think there are ways in which this government, through meaningful consultation with the organizations that have expressed some concern, Mr. Speaker, there are ways in which, with meaningful consultation, that we can work our way through this. Now it’s my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that organizations like Ducks Unlimited are in the city of Regina today, representatives of Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, representatives of the Nature Conservancy are in Regina today, Mr. Speaker, and there’s an opportunity for the Minister of the Environment and officials from the ministry to sit down and review the concerns that exist on this legislation, Mr. Speaker. There are ways in which we can ensure that the issues related previously by the Cattlemen’s Association and the Stock Growers Association can be thrown into this mix, Mr. Speaker, and try to understand what it is that the people of Saskatchewan want this government to be doing. This is not a simple matter. It can’t be done quickly and easily, Mr. Speaker. When you’re dealing with legacy issues, it’s not a simple matter.

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate the fact that there was a call put out that this Bill be withdrawn until meaningful consultation can occur. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I support that call. I don’t see that there is a critical need to move this Bill through as quickly as the minister would like it simply because it’s not a matter of just asking questions. It’s a matter of fully understanding the long-term implications that are put in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in this field. I do care very much about wildlife habitat protection. I have a huge respect for those who have gone before me who have created the system of protecting wildlife habitat in Saskatchewan, those who were stewards of the land in the past, who have dedicated this land for future generations for long-term sustainability in the province of Saskatchewan.

And I respect that government has a responsibility to ensure there is certainty in this long-term protection, Mr. Speaker. Legacy is not something to be taken lightly. And it’s not something that can be brushed off, saying somebody else will take care of it; we don’t need to, Mr. Speaker.

So I ask very simply, I ask very simply in my argument today that the Minister of the Environment withdraw this Bill, conduct meaningful consultations, come back to this House with a demonstration that indeed consultation occurred and that those who were consulted feel at the end of the day that they were listened to and that the government understands the argument. That’s all that we ask in a very simple way, Mr. Speaker — to ensure that with a stroke of a pen this government is not just giving away a legacy that has been hard fought for, created under many difficult circumstances, and that the majority of those who care about conservation and the environment are saying to us, think about it; make sure those protections exist, and don’t try to mislead us in any way by deflecting what the argument is.

This argument is not about stewardship. It’s about legacy. Let’s keep it there, and let’s do the right thing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Wildlife Habitat lands may lose protection

Len Taylor — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:48 +0000

Proposed Changes to Protected Habitat Lands under Fire by Wildlife Groups

Wildlife lands in Saskatchewan are currently protected in Legislation but that’s about to change and a lot of people who care about critical habitat are not happy with this.

The Saskatchewan Party government has introduced Bill 132 (An Act to Amend Wildlife Habitat Protection – Land Designation - Amendment Act 2009) and it is currently before the Legislature. It was introduced March 8 by Environment Minister Nancy Heppner.
Despite the fact that Heppner said “the government recognizes the need to ensure that areas of ecological value are protected” the amending legislation proposes to remove the designation of protected land from the Legislation itself, and instead to put this designation into the regulations.

Although that doesn’t sound so bad on the surface, groups like the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, and Ducks Unlimited, have rightly expressed significant concerns.

Currently, if protected lands are to be deregistered (for any reason) the Legislation has to be amended but if Bill 132 passes these lands can be deregistered simply by a change in the regulations.

For those who know the process, amending legislation is a highly visible, deliberate public process that requires public consultation, three readings in the Legislature, a committee hearing, and Royal Assent. It’s a process that was designed to allow for deregistration but only after proper, adequate, public scrutiny.

On the other hand, a change in regulations requires only a decision of the cabinet taken at meeting behind closed doors. There does not have to be public consultation, public debate, public scrutiny, or even public notice before a change takes place.

With lands designated through legislation (the current practice), any request to remove lands would require a public explanation of why the lands should be deregistered. The SaskParty’s change to regulations would require criteria for deregistration to be put in place, but so far there is no indication of what that criteria might entail, or even that there is any thought yet about what that criteria should be.

Protected lands are moving from a public commitment to a private action and that’s not acceptable in a society that respects and values the public designation of lands for the protection of wildlife and habitat.

To make matters worse, in her short speech to the Legislature Minister Heppner said the change “has been developed in consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders,” and she specifically mentions the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and Ducks Unlimited.

The problem is that none of these groups say there were properly consulted and in no way support the changes being proposed. In fact they are even more outspoken in that they say they oppose, unconditionally, the changes in the designation process proposed by the SaskParty in Bill 132.

In a petition currently circulating in wildlife circles, wildlife advocates are calling for the immediate withdrawal of these amendments saying they will endanger the protection and designation of habitat lands.

Bill 132 makes it easier to take protected status away from habitat lands. It makes the process less transparent. It leads to less consultation. And, it leaves greater room for less scrutiny.

When the SaskParty says they consulted and in fact they didn’t you wonder if you can trust them. Now the SaskParty is saying, pass this legislation and trust us to protect these lands, you wonder even more. Without a legislative oversight the future of protected lands in Saskatchewan is uncertain. Let’s take the advice of the experts in habitat preservation and leave the designation in the hands of the Legislature.

Aboriginal Employment Development contracts tossed

Len Taylor — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:50:06 +0000

Written for the Battlefords Regional Optimist

SaskParty tears up more contracts in wake of 2010 budget

The SaskParty’s 2010 provincial budget resulted in a lot of torn up contracts (and a loss of trust) throughout The Battlefords and across the province.

We already know that the contract with the Chiropractors was torn up. So was the deal with municipalities, and school boards.

Now you need to ask the following organizations if they had a contract with the Brad Wall government and was that contract torn up as a result of the March 24^th provincial budget: Living Sky School Division, Battlefords Chamber of Commerce, Light of Christ Catholic School Division, Prairie North Regional Health Authority, City of North Battleford, Battlefords Tribal Council, Sakewew First Nations High School, and NorthWest Regional College.

Each of these local organizations had highly publicized signing ceremonies in the recent past to make them partners in a very successful program known as the Aboriginal Employment Development Program (AEDP). Last week they all received a letter from the Brad Wall government saying: “Current AEDP agreements are no longer valid, anticipated agreements will not be entered into, and funding supports are not available … The Ministry will no longer be supporting Aboriginal employment directly.”

AEDP put almost a million dollars a year into helping young First Nations and Metis people enter the local work force through the co-operation and encouragement of the “partners”. The partnership agreements were never treated lightly and often took some time to negotiate. Local people put a lot of time and effort into developing the partnerships because they have been shown to make a difference in the lives of aboriginal young people and in the community.

In fact if one were to have visited the Government of Saskatchewan website the week before the budget one would have read the following statement: “The AED partnership approach is a proven cost-effective strategy to affect change in today’s modern workplaces and to increase the workplace retention of Aboriginal employees over the long-term.”

In total, as of March 31, 2009 there were 98 such partnerships in place around the province. There were 4.465 aboriginal hires by the partners, 36,676 individuals who received aboriginal awareness training, and 1,996 First Nations and Metis individuals who received work-based skills training.

Those deemed partners have already criticized the termination of the program as “short-sighted”, since it was designed to ultimately prepare both job seekers and employers for the increased role that Saskatchewan’s aboriginal population will play in the province’s future workforce.

The NDP’s First Nations and Metis Critic, Warren McCall (MLA, Regina) in the Legislature said “Scrapping this program is an admission on the part of the Wall government that it has no interest in preparing our young and growing Aboriginal population for employment here in Saskatchewan.”

Here in The Battlefords the partnership agreements were signed with the area’s largest employers, the health region and the school boards, and those who understand the nature of our future workforce, the Chamber of Commerce, the Regional College, and City Hall. They didn’t sign those agreements without some serious thought.

When you talk to major employers in The Battlefords the one common concern they all share is the lack of an available skilled workforce. If there is any real impediment to growth in northwest Saskatchewan, it is first a lack of a skilled workforce, and second a lack of housing to support a growing workforce.

We already know that the Wall government seems to have given up on providing housing support, and now we see they have little interest in furthering the interests of the large number of young First Nations and Metis people about to enter our local workforce.

Canceling programs and tearing up contracts is not a very good way to build trust or confidence. The Wall government needs to be held accountable for these actions.