Saturday #yqrvotes Links

Having previously posted on voters' options, I'll offer one more roundup of the latest on Regina's municipal elections (for those who haven't joined the crowds voting early). 

- The lead up to election day has seen the Regina Public School Board take some additional steps to protect students, including by making masking mandatory at all ages and reducing the capacity of high schools by 50%. (Of course, it would help if either of those steps involved meaningful support from the province.)

- Sask Dispatch's coverage features Richelle Dubois and Michelle Stewart discussing defunding the police; John Klein and Carla Harris each writing about what the election means for transit; Joey Reynolds and Florence Stratton writing about ending homelessness; Saba Dar weighing in on the environment; and Jim Gallagher discussing Wascana Park.

- Heidi Atter reports on the appropriate calls for Regina's mayoral candidates to disclose their donors before the election - and the unfortunate choice of the main contenders to show no interest in letting people know what they're voting for.

- And Atter also reports on the results of EnviroCollective's candidate survey on renewable energy.

- Finally, Heather Persson makes the case for residents to exercise their right to shape the future of Saskatchewan's municipalities.

On uninspired choices

Following up on this post about Regina's city council elections, the range of possible outcomes in the race for mayor looks far more limited.

Once again, Jim Elliott is on the ballot as the candidate with the strongest policies on paper. But it's hard to hold out much hope for a perennial candidate who's been unable to break 12% of the vote even as the primary challenger - which means that it would be nice to be able to cast a ballot with more chance of meaningfully affecting the result.

On that front, there are two lines of reasoning worth considering.

First, there's the theory that it may be worth casting an anybody-but-Flegel ballot. On name recognition and resources, Jerry Flegel may have a fighting chance of winning - and on policy, it's hard to imagine a worse outcome than endorsing a plan to throw new money at arenas, stadiums and police alongside an implicit expectation of austerity for everything else.

That said, we also need to consider who would stand to benefit from such a campaign. 

Incumbent Michael Fougere is making a few less preposterous promises, and has learned to speak a language that appeals to a relatively wide cross-section of voters. But when it comes time to make any decision, he's regularly shown both a willingness to accede to the wishes of the Saskatchewan Party, and a preference for symbolism over action.

That leaves one other plausible contender for a vote: Sandra Masters, who obviously has Fougere's attention as the main target of his campaign attacks.

On paper, she'd bring a strong resume to the table. In practice, she's been far too willing to resort to anti-tax and austerian language which seems to contradict an otherwise reasonable set of plans and priorities. 

As a result, the choice looks to come down to an evaluation of whether Masters will offer a meaningfully better option than the other candidates with a path to victory in listening if the best happens in the Council votes, and offering any resistance if the worst materializes. And while the difference looks to be incremental rather than polar on both fronts, it still looks to be worth voting for the prospect of something better.

On local decisions

I haven't paid a lot of attention yet to Saskatchewan's municipal elections, due primarily to the reality that anything which happens at that level can be undone by a provincial governments which considers itself entitled to override the will of municipalities. (And sadly, there's little indication that respect for other levels of government is going to find its way into the Sask Party's plans anytime soon.)

But I'll start now by pointing out Paul Dechene's summary of the state of the races in Regina, as well as an exceptionally strong set of candidates endorsed by the Regina & District Labour Council. Because while our local officials may not be able to override the provincial government, it would certainly be nice to avoid having a mayor and council desperate to defund transit and housing in order to build a downtown Quidditch stadium.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- John Harris discusses the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn's tendency toward genuine conversation rather than soundbites. And Gary Younge notes that the pundit class' dismissal of Corbyn has proven to say a lot more about their faulty assumptions than about the prospects of progressive politics:

The economic crash and the austerity that followed caused a tectonic shift in our political culture; what people wanted from a centre-left party changed. But the received wisdom about electability did not. Its high priests kept insisting elections are won in the centre, without any apparent understanding that the centre can move and, in times of extreme polarisation, disappear. The pragmatists turned dogmatic; the modernisers became conservative.

But the principal problem with the notion of electability is that it is promoted on the premise that what has not been tried cannot possibly succeed. It suggests the way people see the world at any given moment cannot be changed through argument and activism and instead erects borders for what is permissible discussion and polices them determinedly. Those who dream outside those borders are utopian; those who speak outside them are fools.

The trouble is that in times of crisis, like this, the cost of thinking outside those borders becomes lower for many than the price of living within them. While received wisdom comes with no receipt, it’s always the same people who pick up the tab. A candidate who has connected domestic terrorism and foreign wars and argued for the redistribution of wealth to shore up public services has been surging. This, we were told, was not possible. It’s why, for the first time in a long time, a significant number of people are excited about an election.

We don’t know if his party will win. We will find that out on Thursday. The only way to truly know if something is electable is to fight for it and vote for it.

- Meanwhile, Steve Thrasher argues that if we face any real threat to free speech, it's the violent reaction of reactionary elements against the prospect that women and people of colour could seek to exercise it. And CBC reports on how Regina Mayor Michael Fougere and two City Councillors are seeking to stifle civil disobedience. 

- Crawford Kilian makes the case to put terrorism in perspective as an extremely small factor compared to many other causes of avoidable harm. Which makes for a needed contrast against John Ivison, who seems outraged that anybody would look behind "but terrorism!" as an excuse for an expansive and unaccountable security state.

- Finally, Jordan Press reveals how the Libs' infrastructure bank plan is intended to include having the public bear the risk of projects even as private financiers take any profits.

New column day

Here, on Regina's upcoming municipal election - and the need for voters to break with expectations to elect a municipal government far more willing to stand up for its constituents than the one we've had in recent years.

For further reading...
- Elections Regina's main page is here. David Robert Loblaw is providing a handy central resource site here. And the QCIB has the tape from the one mayoral debate so far here.
- Geoff Leo reported on the City's suppression of a report on provincial downloading during the election campaign which would have offered the public a chance to do something about it. And the Leader-Post's editorial board weighs in on the problems with the City's actions.
- Finally, Tiffany Paulsen notes that Saskatoon faces much the opposite situation confronting Regina voters: it has a hotly contested mayoral race, but virtually no competition for the council seats which will have the voting power to set the city's direction.

New column day

Here, on how the City of Regina's actual treatment of key information runs contrary to its stated commitment to open government.

For further reading...
- Natascia Lypny's report on the City's delays and denials of access to information about Regina's new stadium and wastewater treatment plant is here. 
- I previously wrote about the City's initial open data policy announcement here, featuring this warning which seems particularly on point:

(E)ven the most cynical governments are often eager to use selective “open government” (in the form of limited operational data) as a distraction from opaque political decision-making – with a one-way flow of politically-convenient information substituted for any particular effort to interact with citizens or respond to their concerns. So while we should look forward to what can be done with the information that is included in the city’s data portal, we should keep an especially close eye on what’s left out and how information is handled going in the opposite direction.

- And the new policy discussed in the column is found here (PDF).

New column day

Here, on Shawn Fraser's attempt to move Regina toward a living wage - and the the sad delay tactics in response from Michael Fougere and the rest of City Council.

For further reading...
- Fraser posted about the motion here. And Natascia Lypny reported on the response.
- The CCPA study cited in the column is here (PDF), while anybody looking to adjust for inflation since 2014 can look to Saskatchewan's historical Consumer Price Index tables (PDF). And Living Wage Canada has details on the movement across the country, while Tom Cooper and Trish Hennessy again discussed its impact in Ontario.
- Finally, David Dayen looks to Seattle's minimum-wage increase as a prominent example of corporate spin about increased wages leading to higher costs bearing no resemblance to reality, while the Center for Economic and Policy Research likewise observed no effect on employment levels in other cities with their own minimum wages. And Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford similarly found (PDF) no adverse effect on employment from Canadian minimum wage increases.

New column day

Here, on the appalling failure of both the province of Saskatchewan and the city of Regina to contribute a nickel to a long-overdue Housing First pilot project.

For further reading...
- D.C. Fraser reported on the project here, with this serving as the money quote:

The one-year pilot project will get $400,000 from the federal government. Roberts is confident that money will lead to success, but is realistic about how far those funds can be stretched.

“It’s only $400,000. There’s only so much you can do with that, only so many people you can hire,” he said. “If we suddenly shoot for the stars and say we’re going to end homelessness in Regina tomorrow, that’s not a realistic expectation.”

It is unlikely the city or province will add money to what is being made available by the federal government, according to Roberts. Other jurisdictions using Housing First models have received money from other levels of government.

- Fraser's follow-up story shows Michael Fougere lapping up credit and attention notwithstanding the city's lack of any contribution, while the province simply stays on the sidelines. And CBC's report mentions how few people are expected to be helped in the first year. 
- As for the other past broken promises and failed plans mentioned in the story, the report (PDF) of the provincial government's much-ballyhooed advisory group on poverty was announced last August. And Fraser noted this week that a promised strategy has never been unveiled.
- Meanwhile, Regina points to its committee involvement and some off-hand mentions of homelessness in housing plans (PDF) without seeming to go any further. And Shawn Fraser has rightly highlighted the city's refusal to actually take steps of its own even while it endorses federal action.

New column day

Here, on how the City of Regina has learned a painful lesson about the Saskatchewan Party's habit of accepting credit but not responsibility on P3 projects.

For further reading...
- Emma Graney reports on how the province forced the City to foot the bill for immediate site development costs here.
- For background on how decisions about education have been taken out of the hands of elected school boards, Joseph Garcea and Dustin Monroe examine the history of education funding in Saskatchewan (and other provinces) here (PDF).
- And finally, I'll point back to my earlier columns as to how public interests can diverge from those of both P3 proponents and higher levels of government seeking to avoid the bill for new developments.

New column day

Here, on how the corporate sector is taking advantage of Brad Wall, Michael Fougere and their respective administrations at the expense of citizens who both fund and rely on public services.

For further reading...
- Murray Mandryk and the Leader-Post editorial board each weighed in recently on the latest developments from the smart meter debacle.
- CBC reported on the province's decision to let Deveraux Developments walk away from its commitment to build affordable housing, as well as Donna Harpauer's subsequent declaration that she's entirely sympathetic toward Deveraux (and by implication, not so much toward people who need homes), as well as the response by both the NDP and a procurement expert that it's foolish to let a business off the hook for a simple contractual commitment. And the Prince Albert Daily Herald rightly challenged Harpauer's spin that we can afford not to have any available housing because nobody is actually homeless, while Mandryk pointed out the respective treatment of people and businesses in the Deveraux case.
- Finally, the CBC's story on Emterra and the handling of glass food containers by the City of Regina's recycling program is here. And in keeping with the theme of the column, the City's late-breaking response couldn't have been much more carefully drafted to insulate Emterra from criticism.

New column day

Here, discussing what elements of Saskatchewan's referendum law look to have worked properly in Regina's wastewater treatment plant referendum process - and where there's some obvious room for improvement where future issues call for a vote among citizens.

For further reading...
- While I note in the column that the 10% signature threshold seems to serve its intended purpose nicely, that of course requires that a municipality apply it fairly. And I'll point back to Paul Dechene's timeline of questionable City steps which attempted to avoid a referendum even though the standard was met by any fair measurement.
- CBC reported on the City's approved funding for the referendum here, and on the money spent by all campaigns here.
- Finally, Shawn Fraser reflects on the referendum - pointing out what's wrong with the City's current decision-making processes (while leaving open the question of whether he'll stake some political capital on changing the culture if the establishment pushes back):

(T)his whole thing could have likely been avoided if there was better public engagement around this decision before council voted on it. I take as much responsibility for this as anyone. It also speaks to a culture at city hall of decisions being made, council voting on them, and then it being council’s job to tell people about a decision that is already going forward. There will no doubt be many other important and divisive issue to come before council in the coming years, and we need to work at changing this.

On sucker's bets

As the old saying goes, if you sit down at a poker table and can't spot the sucker, you're it.

And there shouldn't be much doubt that when the City of Regina sits down with an interconnected group of consultants and privatization advocates to decide who stands to be handed hundreds of millions of public dollars, the patsy won't be found in the group of corporate participants.

Of course, the original plan for a privatized wastewater treatment plant allowed for a slightly cleaner process. Instead allowing the public a seat at the table, the City originally planned to ante up to a high-stakes game with our money.

But fortunately, enough citizens insisted on having some say in the decision to force Council to allow us a referendum vote - a single chance to leave the table.

Which isn't to say the City has actually done anything to make the game any more fair.

The No side has insisted that we go all in without being allowed to see our own cards. It's tried to bribe us with a few complimentary chips which are dwarfed by what's actually at stake. It's tried to distract us by changing the rules without warning; it's hired outside goons to intimidate us into staying at the table.

And all the while the corporate sector has encouraged the City's diversions and deceptions - while gleefully awaiting its opportunity to divide up the spoils.

But the No side hasn't been able to avoid the most important reality about the wastewater treatment referendum.

Reginans remain the suckers in the game being played by the City and its corporate benefactors. And if we don't walk away while we have the chance, we'll be paying off the debts for decades to come.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

#wwtp Referendum Roundup

A few links and notes as Regina's wastewater referendum approaches tomorrow.

- Jason Hammond explains that his Yes vote will be based largely on concerns about the City's dishonesty and sense of entitlement in trying to push through a P3 model. And Paul Dechene provides the full list of City shenanigans throughout the referendum process.

- That is, until today - when Vanessa Brown revealed that the City is using a U.S. PR firm with a "passion (for) helping Republican candidates, elected officials, and conservative causes" - presumably to help it offer the level of accuracy and principle we've come to expect from that party. (h/t to Leftdog)

-But interestingly enough, at least some people on the No side also seem perfectly happy to have voters make their decision based on the question of whether they have complete and utter faith in the current City Council and administration.

- Finally, Erin Weir nicely exposes and shreds the City talking points being recycled by far too many local columnists.

New column day

Here, on how the real question in Regina's P3 referendum vote is that of how to operate the City's vital infrastructure - and why we should vote "yes" to maintain some control.

For further reading...
- CBC reports on last night debate between Jim Holmes and Michael Fougere.
- Brent Sjoberg's interview with Paul Dechene referenced in the column is here.
- Ryan Deschamps' commentary on rent-seeking in the context of the wastewater referendum is well worth a read (particularly given that the entire operational phase of the P3 model has been set up as a giant, 30-year pool of rent money to be paid to a contractor) - even if I don't agree with his disapproval of direct democracy.
- And finally, Deron Staffen has compiled a list of referendum resources here.

Juxtaposition

The Fouge sez: have no fear about corporate abuses or contract manipulation in a privatized wastewater system because...public procurement process!

Hamilton Wastewater System – A sewage operation and maintenance contract in Hamilton was cancelled. In Hamilton, the contractor was hired without a public procurement process. The City of Regina will procure our contractor through the public process regardless of the procurement model selected.

Reality sez: merely using another variation of "P3" doesn't do anything to curb corporate abuses, especially when one turns a blind eye to business collusion:

Marc-André Gélinas, who worked at a firm called Tecsult, on Tuesday described the alleged bid-rigging system in Gatineau at the Charbonneau inquiry into allegations of corruption in public construction contracts. He said that, in 2003, company officials in Laval – where a similar system long existed – told him his firm and three others had agreed to split up contracts worth between $25,000 to $500,000 in Gatineau. Under the deal, the contracts would go to Cima+ (40 per cent), Genivar (27 per cent), Tecsult (22 per cent) and Dessau (11 per cent), Mr. Gélinas said.
...
Another witness at the Charbonneau inquiry, engineer Patrice Mathieu, testified on Wednesday that a bid-rigging system also existed in the Quebec City region after 2004. He added that the federal government’s multibillion-dollar infrastructure program was “manna” in the second half of the 2000s, when major firms were colluding to split public projects among themselves.

New column day

Here, on the dangers of accepting advice from self-interested advisers - and the obvious conflict of interest of the consultants hired to push a wastewater P3 on Regina's citizens.

For further reading...
- The Museum of Hoaxes offers some background on the now-notorious movie reviews of Dave Manning. 
- Matt Taibbi documents the role of self-interested bond ratings agencies in precipitating the 2008 financial crisis. featuring these quotes from agency employees which seem all too relevant in light of the alchemy behind P3 promotion:

"As you know, I had difficulties explaining 'HOW' we got to those numbers since there is no science behind it," confesses a high-ranking S&P analyst. "If we are just going to make it up in order to rate deals, then quants [quantitative analysts] are of precious little value," complains another senior S&P man.

- The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnership's membership list is here. And both AECOM and Deloitte go well beyond that organization in promoting P3s (while seeking to generate business for themselves in the area).
- And Barb Pacholik reports on how Regina's referendum debate is only becoming more heated as voting day approaches.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Polly Toynbee discusses how the UK's attacks on social programs are based on gross ignorance about what social spending does (and who it helps):

The Citizens Advice Bureau reports a rise of 78% in the last six months in people needing food banks to keep going. Many have jobs, but their pay doesn't see them to the end of the week. The CAB chief executive says millions of families face a "perfect storm" with benefit cuts, low wages, short hours and the high cost of living. Even in apparently well-to-do areas, community halls and churches are opening food banks so all can see those queuing for tins of beans and packets of pasta: basic calories, no treats and nothing fresh.
...
YouGov's polling for the TUC found remarkable ignorance of the facts. People think 41% of the budget goes on unemployment – the real figure is 3%. They think fraud accounts for 27%: even Iain Duncan Smith's own figure is 0.7%. They think people have little incentive to work. In reality a parent working 30 hours on minimum pay gets £138 more than on the dole. Polling for the Institute for Public Policy Research similarly wildly mistakes who gets what. People think immigrants account for the biggest slice when pensioners take half. They say pensioners and the disabled are the most deserving, but if so, why is there no outcry about disability cuts and Atos tests where 1,300 people died last year after being found "fit for work"?
...
The trouble with advocacy for the plight of the hard done-by is that we must always find "perfect" cases, people utterly blameless in every aspect of their life, judged by criteria none of us apply to ourselves, our family or friends. Mistakes, errors of judgment, bad habits, all too human in everyone else are unforgivable in anyone receiving benefits from the taxpayer: weed out smokers or drinkers or anyone too stupid, too lazy, too fat, too angry, too lacking in get-up-and-go or just too depressed to put on a good show.

How do you reconcile people's sugar-coated sympathy for imaginary unfortunates with their strong impulse to blame and punish real-life poor people? That's the conundrum that myriad think-tank reports and charities giving the true facts still fail to crack.

- Meanwhile, the CCPA and the Wellesley Institute wasted no time in debunking the Fraser Institute's pathetic assault on the well-being of families with children.

- In a similar vein, Toby Sanger neatly debunks the Conference Board of Canada's latest paean to P3s. And Simon Enoch and David Weir have responded to a few of the more ludicrous defences of turning public services into privatized profit centres when it comes to Regina's water treatment referendum.

- Stephen LaRose points out the level of diligence Michael Fougere and company are putting into the City of Regina's operations.

- And finally, pogge responds to Robert Decary's report on federal government surveillance by writing that we should expect our watchdogs to have at least some bite. But it seems to me that the problem goes even further than that.

There's certainly room for debate whether a watchdog should be able to make binding orders - i.e. whether it should be able to bite into activity as it happens, or merely bark out a warning. But I don't see how anybody can reasonably defend the position that a watchdog should be forced to wear blinders rather than getting a full picture - and the lack of any information whatsoever in response to Decary's inquiries looks to me to be the most damning part of his findings.

New column day

Here, on the tendency of both political decision-makers and the general public to give too much credence to secret information - and the need for citizens to scrutinize leaders all the more closely if they rely on bare declarations that we'd agree with their actions if only we knew what they choose to hide.

For further reading...
- The White House's NSA review panel announcement is discussed here and clarified here.
- The study on public perceptions of classified information is discussed by Leaf Van Boven, Charles Judd and Mark Travers here.
- Joan McCarter's take on creeping secrecy in policymaking is well worth a read.
- Finally, Don Lenihan comments on how marketing and branding have replaced citizen and engagement and debate in Canada's political scene. And Saskboy documents Michael Fougere's latest contribution to that shift.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Michael Harris tears into the Cons for their latest set of Senate abuses:

It is time once more to throw up on your shoes over the Senate. We all did that when Liberal Senator Andrew Thompson went missing in action for a decade at public expense — our man in Mexico.
This stable of political studs put out to pasture at public expense for party loyalties costs Canada $92.5 million annually in salaries, senator allowances and administrative costs...

Each lottery winner in the Senate receives a base annual salary of $135,200. The Speaker of the Senate, currently Conservative Noel Kinsella, pulls down $187,500.
...
The Americans figured out that an unelected Senate had no part in a democracy in 1911.

But that didn’t stop this unelected body from killing by stealth Bill C-311 after the House of Commons had passed the climate change bill. And this under a prime minister who once promised that he would never allow an unelected Senate to go against the will of the majority of Members of Parliament.

- Marilyn Reid comments on the role of free trade agreements in facilitating corporate control over government policy. But Stuart Trew notes that the end result isn't inevitable, as several Latin American countries are discussing ways to make sure that trade agreements don't unduly interfere with democratic decision-making.

- The Guardian discusses how the UK Cons' privatization agenda is putting many essential social services at risk - including the availability of safe donated blood. And Jim Holmes nicely sums up the effect of corporatizing wastewater treatment in Regina.

- Vanessa Brown reports on the people's housing summit being held at 3 PM tomorrow to give mere renters some voice in Regina's development (in contrast to Michael Fougere's developer-heavy version which considers a $300K house to be an example of "affordable housing").

- Finally, Mia Rabson laments the Cons' choice to make Canada's census more expensive and less informative. And Daniel Wilson writes that First Nations will be hit particularly hard by the Cons' "don't want to know" attitude toward social realities.

On single issues

Apparently today is Stadium Cheerleading Day in the Leader-Post. But in correctly noting that this fall's election will be decisive in determining whether a stadium goes ahead, Bruce Johnstone seems to me to give away the real choice voters face:

Of course, this doesn't mean that the stadium is the only issue in the coming municipal election. But it's the biggest single issue to face this council and this city in a generation.

Who isn't in favour of building a new water treatment plant, or fixing the roads or broken watermains, or recycling, or keeping taxes down? The stadium project is the big wedge issue in this campaign that very quickly divides voters into one camp or the other.

Now, it's probably true that few candidates want to admit they couldn't care less about such obvious needs as infrastructure and city services. 

But it's also obvious that the council incumbents mouthing their interest in those subjects have done nothing during their time in office to address them. Which makes for a stark contrast against how the current council has closed ranks and agreed to a long-term tax increase - just as long as it's directed toward the circus rather than bread, water or housing. 

So the question facing voters isn't merely whether to approve of a stadium, but whether to endorse a council which sees no other priorities as worth anywhere near the same level of time and effort. And I'll argue that anybody who can't see more important problems facing the city which deserve more attention can be dismissed as a viable candidate on that basis alone.