While the entire report is a must-read for anyone interested in poverty in Regina, one particular statistic jumps out at me. Check out this quote:

In 2001, the estimated child poverty rate in Canada was 15.6 per cent while that of Saskatchewan was 17.6 per cent. Yet, the poverty rate among First Nations children ages 0-14 living off-reserve in Saskatchewan in 2000 was 55.9 per cent, while the corresponding number for Regina was 61.3 per cent. The incidence of poverty
among Métis children ages 0-14 living off-reserve in Saskatchewan in 2000 was 36 per cent, while the corresponding number for Regina was 45.7 per cent.

Shocking numbers, but I am wondering, has anyone seen more current numbers? If you have, please contact us, or leave a comment below!

I hope that election season 2009 is not marred by negative campaigning.

As a longtime resident of downtown Regina, let me tell you what this means – it signifies the closure of the last book store in the downtown area. That’s right, you didn’t hallucinate that last sentence, and it’s not a typo. If you want to BUY A BOOK you must leave the downtown area.

Of course, we still have the main branch of the public library downtown, and it remains a magical place. But what if you don’t have access to the library? Or better yet, what if you wish to support the author by actually purchasing their book? What if you simply desire a copy of a book that you don’t have to return? What if the book is a new release? Point is, there are a dozen or more reasons to go to a book store as opposed to a library, and if you live in downtown Regina it just became very difficult to buy a damn book!

What does this mean? Am I to take this as a reflection of how downtown and its residents are viewed? Now, to be fair, I’ll confess a bias. I love to read and I love living downtown. I also don’t have a car. One of the perks of living downtown is that I can walk just about everywhere and am close to major bus routes. If I want to go to a book store, it’s now a major excursion; it takes me two hours just in travel time between waiting for and riding the bus. Is this a conspiracy? Has some secret society decided that downtown residents should work a little harder to buy books?

Okay, now I’m being specious. I want someone to blame for this! The illuminati seemed like a good choice. All joking aside, this is a real setback for rejuvenating downtown Regina. We have wonderful local businesses that receive little support from the city; we have a beautiful downtown area that would be vibrant if the majority didn’t shut down by 7pm; and now we have no bookstores. Downtown revitalization does not just mean more condos and parking lots; it stands for the need to facilitate positive changes for residents and business owners alike. More affordable housing; increased rental space; building successful and sustainable local businesses; and making downtown Regina a more vibrant and positive place for everyone.

While I am looking forward to watching this race unfold, I’m feeling a little bit let down by the preliminaries.  The Saskatchewan Party’s site contains a particularly troubling quote that may signal the tone for this election.  Peterson was quoted as saying, “The NDP vision is focused on the past, with leadership that represents a time in Saskatchewan’s history when both the economy and population were shrinking.”  I don’t think that the Saskatchewan electoral system needs negative campaigning, especially when there are so many constructive things to say about our constituency.

I live in Regina Douglas Park and am especially interested in hearing about some troubling trends in our constituency.  Our area has been particularly hard hit by the condo-ification of Regina and when I vote, I will vote with housing in mind.  We are a young constituency, so I am also quite interested in hearing how our candidates feel about higher education in our province.

The most interesting part of the whole statement is that almost exactly two years ago, a poster named Kathleen Peterson wrote the following on a CBC web page:

This sort of message does not resonate with me. I do not like it when politicians try to “frighten” me instead of talking about their own policies. To me, this says that “the Sask Party is even worse than us, so you better vote for the lesser of two evils” — hardly a good reason to vote for any party. I am insulted by the implication that I am so uninformed and so simple in the head that I need to be “scared” into voting for the incumbent party. The NDP need to change the record — this one is getting boring.

While there is no way to know if they are, in fact, the same person, I would be inclined to cast my vote for the Kathleen Peterson who posted on the CBC’s site.  She made some brilliant points that resonate strongly with me.  While they make for great sound bytes, negative politics are incredibly boring and are likely part of why so few Canadians choose to vote.

Please candidates, run for office on your policies, not on  your personal attacks.  Once you are elected, you will have plenty of time to insult your colleagues during question period.

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?