Showing posts with label tina beaudry-mellor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tina beaudry-mellor. Show all posts

Thursday, August 31, 2017

New column day

Here, on how simultaneous leadership campaigns in both of Saskatchewan's main parties seem unlikely to spark much new interest or discussion due to the familiar players and strategies involved.

For further reading...
- CBC has reported on each of the candidate announcements: Ryan Meili and Trent Wotherspoon in the NDP campaign, and Tina Beaudry-Mellor, Jeremy Harrison, Gord Wyant, Ken Cheveldayoff and Alanna Koch in the Sask Party's race (with Scott Moe expected to join shortly).
- The most memorable moments so far in either campaign have come from Harrison's thoroughly laughable attempt to position himself as a crusader against the GTH corruption which he personally tried to cover up. And Geoff Leo continues to break news about the Bill Boyd/Brad Wall scandals which seem to have precipitated Wall's hasty departure.
- Finally, I'll link back to my posts on the Saskatchewan NDP's previous leadership campaign as a useful starting point to assess the new race.

Friday, April 07, 2017

On bodily integrity

It was bad enough when the Saskatchewan Party declared its intention to put as many barriers as possible in the way of access to social services, particularly by making excuses about whether people are "able-bodied".

But it's even worse that the responsibility for applying that standard lies with a minister who apparently doesn't know the difference between a budget surplus and a capital asset - resulting in her impliedly suggesting that libraries sell, say, their books in response to the Sask Party's budget cuts.

Which raises the question: under Tina Beaudry-Mellor's philosophy, will Saskatchewan people be required to auction off their organs before being able to count on any public assistance?

Thursday, August 08, 2013

New column day

Here, on how the City of Regina's wastewater treatment referendum campaign is based on either a major omission as to the costs of privatizing services, or a dangerous assumption that the City doesn't need to have any idea how its own treatment plant works.

For further reading...
- I take my math and assumptions from the report (PDF) endorsed by City Council - which includes the following privatized payment model (emphasis added):
h. In principle, a commitment to providing a performance-based payment for operations, maintenance and availability of the facility, compensating for a range of DBFOM service over the 30 year term, with an estimated cost of:
i. $378.0 million (assuming 3.5 % inflation) in the operation and maintenance portion of the payment to P3 Contractor (“Project Co.”) for the WWTP. These costs are currently an ongoing part of the utility program;
ii. $117.2 million in the major maintenance portion of the payment to Project Co., to ensure that the WWTP’s assets are maintained and upgraded appropriately through the WWTP’s lifecycle; and
iii. $265.0 million towards the capital payment portion of the payment to Project Co. 
I'm not sure how that can be read to suggest anything other than that the money which would otherwise be used to fund the City's wastewater system is intended to be diverted entirely to the private contractor - leaving a gaping hole when it comes to the City's continuing expenses in monitoring the contract and maintaining reserve capacity.

- Meanwhile, Tina Beaudry-Mellor echoes my question as to why it's the City's publicly-funded staff - rather than elected councillors - who are being used to sell the privatized system.

- And Simon Enoch questions some more of the math behind the privatization push.