Saskatchewan is projecting a $1.3 billion drop in potash revenues this fiscal year but still hopes to post an overall budget surplus.To deal with the shortfall the government says it will take a $185 million dividend from the Crown Investments Corporation and delay funding the Children’s Hospital in Saskatoon and some schools.

Compare and contrast that to the LeaderPost’s coverage of the potash shortfall…

Then there’s unexpectedly higher revenue of $668 million from oil, taxes and federal transfers, which covers half the potash revenue shortfall. Gantefoer will make up the rest through accounting measures like taking a $185 million dividend from the Crown corporations and by deferring $132 million in capital projects still in the planning stages. That doesn’t mean the Saskatoon Children’s Hospital has been cancelled, as some critics suggest; the money will be there once construction begins.

Two media sources, two dramatically different stories.  The Canadian Press take on the potash shortfall calls to mind images of sick kids standing on the streets saying, “We don’t have a children’s hospital in Saskatchewan.”  The Leader-Post version spares us that rage-inducing image.    Why is there a disparity here?

The first idea that springs to mind is the fact that the Canadian Press is a pretty bad source for a story of this complexity.  The Saskatchewan Party is making up the lost revenue through a creative use of accounting.  Essentially, they are going to report expenditures in different places and at different times.  For example, they are going to ‘take a dividend’ from the Crown Investments Corporation.  Rather than let the Crown Investments Corporation report those assets, the province is going to report them in its own financial statements.  And, they are going to ‘defer capital expenditures’ (like the Children’s Hospital).  Defer does not mean ‘cancel’, it means ‘enter it later.’

This brings up an interesting question.  Politicians have been using accounting measures to improve their financial results for several years.  Creative accounting cuts all across party lines.  Is this really acceptable?

Personally, I fall into the camp that suggests that government should use the most transparent accounting methods possible.  Deferring expenses and using journal entries to maintain projections seems a little bit questionable when applied to the public records.

What do you think?

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?

So far, the election seems like it will be another interesting one.  Victor Becker Lau has already come out swinging, pointing out four major issues that affect the constituency.  In Becker Lau’s mind, nuclear power, poverty, affordable education and electoral reform are going to be key issues in this by-election.  Larissa Shasko (Leader of the Saskatchewan Green Party) fired a well-timed salvo at the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, stating that “A two-party system between the NDP and the SaskParty is failing the environmental and social aspirations of the people of Saskatchewan.”

To his credit, Dwain Lingenfelter has done his best to come across as a statesman, a role which Lorne Calvert never seemed quite comfortable accepting.  On the Provincial N.D.P’s web site, Lingenfelter diplomatically noted that, “many people, such as farmers, students, working men and women, Seniors and the economically-challenged are not seeing that prosperity.  We will be the voice of fair and equal treatment.” Decidedly N.D.P., that statement has a certain ‘third wave’ voice that seriously reminds me of something Roy Romanow would have said.

It will be very interesting to see who will get the Sask Party nomination and what will happen during the run-up to the election.  While Regina Douglas Park is considered prime N.D.P. territory, the Saskatchewan Party will certainly try to send Lingenfelter packing.  A Saskatchewan Party win would be a major blow to the New Democrats and to Dwain Lingenfelter.  Be sure to watch this space (or subscribe to our RSS feed) to keep track of this race – it is going to be a good one!

 For instance, let’s say that you’re sitting at your computer when you hear a knock at your door. You get up, open the door and see a politician running in a local election. Now let’s say you’re sitting at your computer and you see that the same politician is following your twitter account, or has added you as a friend on Facebook; or maybe they made a comment on your blog. To which are you more receptive?

 Consider how great the influence of social media on the global political scale. There are several countries around the world that have placed grave restrictions on freedom of speech, the freedom of dissent, and on independent media and engaged citizens. Places that are currently in a state of social upheaval, but where people face restrictions in speaking out, are using social media as a way to get their voices heard. This is happening in China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Palestine, Russia … even in Mongolia to a certain extent.

 In locations where government seeks to commit repugnant acts against its residents without impunity, social media is facilitating the circumvention of restrictions, once again giving rise to the voice of the populace – whose views are neither valued not wanted by oppressive regimes that seek to silence them.

 However, is this access to the world (through the internet) changing the ways in which governments act and create policy? To be continued…

 I think that partisanship is both detrimental and ridiculous, in politics and in life. Take this magazine. Do I have to be on the left to talk about the causes and effects of poverty? Do I have to be on the right to have a strong corporate business model and believe in microdevelopment? Absolutely not.

The Regina Streets Magazine has always been staunchly non-partisan because we value the opinions of more than one ‘perceived’ side of a coin. To create better dialogue, debate, and most importantly, change – we must set aside the words and attitudes that partisanship embodies, and work together. I can only give purposeful effort, and hope that one day I’ll get the opportunity to work for this change together with you…

The Saskatchewan Party and the Provincial N.D.P. are looking at the same basic numbers and coming to two dramatically different conclusions.  The Saskatchewan Party says, “Regina and Saskatoon have the two lowest unemployment rates in the country.  Our future is bright.”  And the Provincial N.D.P. says, “But wait a minute, unemployment may be low, but more people are seeking unemployment benefits now than one year ago.  Things are not as bright as they seem, in fact, the sky is falling.”It has been my experience that, in politics, the truth always lies somewhere in between the two popular points of view.  And, in economics, you should never focus upon one particularly statistic – you have to analyze a system as a whole.  So, here is some more information on the whole system.  I think that if we look at all of this information together, we can get closer to the truth.

Let’s start off with the Saskatchewan Party’s point of view.  The Saskatchewan Party says, “We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country.  This is great news.”  They are correct in saying both of those things – we do have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and it is great news.  However, just because we are the best in the country now does not mean that we have actually been moving in the right direction.  Consider this quote from the Government of Saskatchewan’s Labour Force Statistics from June 2009:

On a seasonally adjusted basis there were 524,800 persons employed in Saskatchewan in June 2009, up 1,600 from the May 2009 level of 523,200 and is up 14,800 from the June 2008 employment level of 510,000 persons.

The Saskatchewan seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for June 2009 was 4.6 percent.  This is a decrease of 0.3 percentage points from the May 2009 rate of 4.9 percent and 0.6 percentage points higher than the June 2008 rate of 4.0 percent.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment?  Does it sound like I’m playing a game with terminology?  I used seasonally adjusted unemployment because I think that applying a seasonal adjustment is the best way to understand underlying economic  trends.  Certain things happen every year at every time – why not account for the cylical nature of employment?

Semantics aside, this trend continues even if you look at the actual unemployment rate.

The Saskatchewan unemployment rate for June 2009 was 3.9 percent. This is a decrease of 1.0 percentage points from the May 2009 rate of 4.9 percent but 0.5 percentage points higher than the June 2008 level of 3.4 percent.

In June 2009, Saskatchewan’s unemployment rate was the lowest in the country, but it was still either 0.5 or 0.6 percentage points higher than it was in June 2008.  Now, is that really such good news?

Let’s take a look at some more raw numbers to see if we can learn anymore about the unemployment rate.  In June 2009, there were 535,600 people employed in Saskatchewan.  This is 14,500 more than were employed in June 2008.  Having more people employed is a good thing, right?  In fact, shouldn’t more jobs equate to a lower unemployment rate?

More jobs will equate to a lower unemployment rate unless there are more people looking for work.  And unfortunately, that was the case in Saskatchewan.  There were 18,000 more people in Saskathchewan’s Labour Force in June 2009 than there were in June 2008.  14,500 more workers versus 18,000 more people looking for work.  This means that there are 3,500 more unemployed people in Saskatchewan.

Those numbers in mind, is it any wonder that the N.D.P. is trying to raise awareness about the fact that there are more people receiving Employment Insurance now than in 2008?  In Regina, there are 760 more people collecting EI now than in 2008.  And, in Saskatoon, there are 1,620 more.  These raw numbers represent increases of 95% and 148.6% respectively.

So, we may have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, but we still have a higher employment rate than we had last year.  Sounds damning, but it is not.  You see, we have more people working in Saskatchewan now than in 2008.  And our labour force is also greater.  This means that people are either moving here in search of opportunities, or they are returning to the labour force.  Workers in Saskatchewan seem to feel hope.  And I think that is a good thing.

And to conclude, this story started with two disparate points of view and ended with a truth somewhere between the two.

 Will the Supreme Court actually re-examine portions of Canada’s same-sex marriage law at the bequest of Brad Wall and the governing party? My question to you is how religion and equality should be reconciled in this case. Should religious figures be bound by law to perform same-sex marriage, or should it be their right to respectfully decline the request?

 I think that this is a reasonable debate to engage in. I think this discussion has merit in a free democracy that values the law, and respects the right of all residents of Canada to hold their own point of view… and I invite you to participate…

Additionally, I do think what Saskatchewan’s ruling party is doing presents a good opportunity to have broader conversations and debates. Such as a newly invigorated examination of how to reconcile Canada’s Freedom of Religion with our equally important right to be free from discrimination, as legally outlined in Section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before we go and spout off about how right or wrong same-sex marriage is, let us remember that it is a legal right both to marry the person of one’s consensual choosing, but also to be free from hateful commentary about an indemonstrable part of their identity. This has been clearly stated by the highest law of Canada, and I would humbly submit that our government has bigger fish to fry.