A Little Less Expensive: Hotel Owners in Regina Offer Up Some Stadium Funds

In a rather bizarre bit of public theatre, some hotel owners have offered to contribute about $10 million dollars to the construction of domed stadium in Regina over the next 15 years.

Its nice to see the business community make some attempt at civic responsibility in a community where the hotel owners tend to spend most of their energy in the public sphere attempting to increase their revenues through looser liquor and gambling laws.

The story got a lot of mainstream press and blog coverage especially by the most hardcore pro-stadium sources, but its my opinion that the business community is going to have to pony up a lot more money.

I hate to be the buzz-killer here, because I want to see the new stadium but if this is the best the business community can come up with, there is no way this new stadium can break ground.

First, the hotel owners are coming up with the money to put towards the stadium by increasing the fees they collect for lodging travellers -- something that sounds an awful lot like a tax increase, even if it doesn't sound like its government-driven.

Second, 15 million dollars represents about 1/20th of the lowest-quoted cost for the stadium -- a number that doesn't account for cost over-runs. So if this stadium is going to be built without public funds, its time for Viterra, Mosaic, the Hill Companies and other business interests to step up with a much more substantial and less-backhanded show of financial support. The grain companies, miners, and landlords have grown rich off of this city and region, and its time they showed that they contribute to public life in Saskatchewan in a way that touches people beyond their employees and owners.

Under normal conditions, I wouldn't mind seeing the government contribute to building a stadium - but our provincial finances seem to be getting more and more out of hand. I don't support a stadium if our government is going to be printing money to pay for it.

Related to that, the crown corporations are publicly owned - so if SaskTel, SaskPower, or the Saskatchewan gaming corporation is ponying up the dough for a new stadium, the fair and democratic thing to do, would be to hold a referendum (a vote among shareholders) to see if citizens really want their crown corporations funding a stadium.

I believe the construction of a new stadium would be a great step in the development of Regina and Saskatchewan, but we still don't have the proof that the money is available.

Saskatchewan Government Strikes Another Blow Against Liberty and Democracy

Today's news brought word that the Saskatchewan Party government has announced plans for legislation that makes it possible for municipalities to ask for criminal record checks from its election candidates.

On the surface this is a sound idea - most people wouldn't want a murderer, rapist or notorious thief running their government. Crimes like domestic violence often don't appear on the public radar, and it might be nice to know if your local candidate assaults his spouse. I can see the appeal of wanting to know a political candidates' criminal past.

Trouble is, that same criminal record check that would reveal thieves and wife-beaters would also reveal the pasts of a lot of people who made reasonably innocent missteps like smoking dope at a concert, participating in a bar fight, or getting caught up in a spot check after a few Christmas party drinks. A lot of people have these kind of incidents in their past, and I'd be concerned about discouraging quality candidates from public office based on relatively minor incidents.

If my years as a political junkie have shown me anything, its that our politicians - with a few exceptions - are average, everyday people. Problem is, those everyday people have allowed our governments to make all kinds of mistakes - our current crop of politicians can't seem to handle complicated materials like analysts forecasts on resource revenues, so why would I want to make the pool of qualified politicians even smaller by publicizing minor crimes they may have committed 20-30 years ago?

I'm concerned that smart people avoid politics. I've seen visionary, smart, and motivated candidates decide its worthwhile to run but lose an electoral race to a candidate who offered very little besides name recognition, and I think those kind of results projected over time mean we as a society get problems that we don't seem to know how to solve, and we lower our expectations about what a government or politician can or should do for us.

Our criteria for leadership should be brains, talent, and vision not a past free of minor criminal transgressions. If we are going to moralize about the behaviour of politicians we should recognize that some of our greatest human leaders were flawed individuals -- Abraham Lincoln suffered terrible mental illness from time-to-time, and Winston Churchill was an alcoholic, to name a couple.

Our society doesn't need to increase surveillance, and background checks on citizens who try to become elected officials , there are already enough reasons that smart people chose not to seek public life and we need all the help we can get.

Anniversary of Louis Riel's Execution

Today is the anniversary of Louis Riel's execution. Given that Riel is generally considered a father of confederation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, its an important date in Canadian history.

Louis Riel more than most figures, resisted tyranny and colonization. Riel insured that Saskatchewan entered the Canadian confederation on more equitable terms.

Given Riel's status as a patriot for the rights of citizens in Saskatchewan and Manitoba against Canadian hegemony, its a great irony that one of the ceremonies which marked his death was held at the RCMP depot in Regina rather than the public parks that exist on the sites of his trial (near Victoria Park) and execution (the North West Territories Administration Building).

Remembrance Day: Preventing Future Wars

On a day for mourning the casualties of prior wars and the need for greater peace and peace activism, I'm reminded of an idea I heard on a Dan Carlin's podcast some time ago.

I don't remember the title of the episode, but all of Dan's podcasts are worth a listen.

Anyway, most people agree that there are good and bad wars - the members countries of the allies in World War 2 are generally proud of their roles in that conflict while campaigns such as the Vietnam War are seen in a different light. The allies of World War 2 felt they fought for greater liberty, democracy, and equality while many people think that the Vietnam War was fought on questionable understanding of geo-politics against a very motivated enemy where things probably escalated too far.

There usually isn't a lot of controversy about good wars. Few mainstream pundits think allied in involvement in World War 2 was negative; in spite of the misery it caused. So then the question becomes how do countries stay out of bad wars?

I suspect most of my readers won't like it, but its obvious if you think about it. The biggest anti-war protests in modern history were staged by citizens (especially young students) who thought that they could be conscripted to fight in the Vietnam War. The 1960's anti-war movement gathered so many numbers... in protests, sit-ins, teach-ins etc that it made the decision to wage/escalate the Vietnam War very difficult for the US government. Draft Dodgers in the US were so against the Vietnam War, they left the country. Once laws against conscription were removed, and the Vietnam War was fought by professional instead of citizen soldiers, the anti-war movement started to decline.

During the Vietnam War, you or your co-worker could be at his workstation one day, and in a battlefield a few months later - this made people take a hard look and the conflict and many of them decided it wasn't worth it and took to the streets or even out of the country.

Fast forward a few years, and the NATO countries are at war with Afghanistan. Most (if not all) armies are like Canada's - consisting of volunteer, professional soldiers. While the majority of Canadians are against Canada's involvement in Afghanistan (or in a similar situation US troops in Iraq) there is no huge anti-war movement, no protests that snarl traffic or direct action groups trying to stir up trouble.

I think the reason that the average citizen is opposed to Afghan War but treats it lightly can be attributed to the fact that its being fought by professional soldiers who joined the military and went to the conflict on the understanding that they were putting themselves in harms' way. If the government decided to go to war, and those of us sitting at home in regular jobs and lives could be sent to the front in the next few weeks we would look at the overseas adventures of our military as a part of our civic responsibility and maybe decide that some of them are not worth it.

So the key to getting people to take war seriously, is to revive the role of the citizen soldier in wars and combat. Let's restart conscription, so that regular citizens examine overseas wars based on the assumption that they are putting their children, friends, colleagues and self on the front lines. I say this as a man of fighting age.

This may mean we don't step into places like Rwanada, Sudan or Somolia but I suspect the citizen who could be conscripted would be a lot more active and aware of conflicts around the world and work hard to keep us out of many of them.

The Lastest on the New Domed Stadium in Regina

The news and rumors regarding a new stadium in downtown Regina picked up some steam this week when the Saskatchewan Party government released architectural drawings and some framework of a plan for a new stadium.

Chatter in the blogosphere has been pretty excited about the possibilities for a new stadium, and this kind of public investment isn't terribly inappropriate when it looks like a recession is about to hit Saskatchewan.

The Saskatchewan Party government seems pretty enthusiastic about the project and they have all the votes necessary to pass any laws they need to make it happen. Some bloggers slept through social studies class and seem to think that the NDP can kill the domed stadium idea - the fact is the NDP are the opposition, so its their job to challenge the government - but they don't have enough votes in the legislature to prevent stadium construction.

So if you want a stadium and it doesn't get built, Brad Wall is the guy you need to look at. Hamilton and Winnipeg are getting new stadiums, Vancouver is getting a major upgrade - other governments have found the money.

Further to that, it would be interesting to know what events the people who are building the stadium are trying to book - big conventions, and some other touring entertainment book years in advance. The Pan-Am games are going to Toronto in the near future - so they probably missed that boat, but maybe Regina needs to look at bids for the Commonwealth games or other similar events. The Vancouver WhiteCaps and Montreal Impact just formed a new soccer league so that should be looked at, and announcing a Grey Cup game might make the new stadium easier to sell to skeptics.

HST Legalized Bribery

I've mentioned before that the HST is a handout for business and a system of open and legalized bribery.

Check out this article in the Victoria Times-Colonist, which explains how a harmonized sales tax takes 24 million dollars out of the pockets of the school system.

The Aftermath of the Four By-Elections

Last week we saw a few things come out of by-elections held in four ridings across Canada.

Leftdog posted some interesting stats on the by-elections:

• nearly 10,000 more people (i.e. 9195) voted NDP than voted Liberal
• the Bloc Quebecois received more votes in two ridings than Liberals did in all four
• 36.4% of voters rejected the Harper Conservatives
• The NDP got more votes than the Liberals
• The Liberals were not a factor in any of the by-election races
  

So let's take these numbers a bit further and conclude a few more things.

First, the NDP is starting to look more and more like the biggest and most credible progressive/left-of-centre party in Canada since the Liberals have failed to deliver any new message or sell Michael Ignatieff. If progressive elements in the Liberals, Bloc, and Greens start to look for a place to park "progressive unity" votes in may be with the NDP.

Second, Canadian democracy is still very problematic - somewhere between 36-40% of Canadians have voted Conservative recently, and the Cons pick 100% of senators, cabinet ministers, diplomats, certain judges and other important posts. Just another example of a broken federal system.

LRT Recommends: The Dan Carlin Show

I think the readers of the Louis Riel Trail will enjoy Dan Carlin's podcast called Common Sense.

I've been a fan of Dan Carlin for quite some time, and his shows just keep getting better. In his latest podcast "Blocking the Playmakers", Dan discusses the fact that many of our best minds don't go into politics and how this has led to culture of mediocrity in our national capitals and has deprived us of vision and effective problem solving.

Dan is of course talking about the United States, and his podcast tends to take the stance that the Democratic-Republican view of politics has led to group think and a lack of moderation in political discussions - you never for example hear Sean Hannity say things like "You know I am normally really conservative, but on this one issue I am totally liberal" - a fact that makes most mainstream political discussion cartoonish and predictable. Something I hope Louis Riel Trail never is.

The Canadian listener of course doesn't have to deal with a two-party system - for better or worse - but we face many of the same issues with the lack of effective discourse and good leadership. This has contributed to lowered expectations among citizens and voters since we don't even seem to find answers to problems that seem solvable.

Dan Carlin explains his positions much better than I do, and I an happy to recommend that all Louis Riel Trail's readers check out Dan Carlin's common sense.

Sick Industry: The Auto Companies

One of the big surprises in today's news was the unexpected announcement that the Ford Motor Company beat the expectations of analysts and turned a profit.

I'd suggest that this good news aside, we should probably not trust these results - the North American auto industry is still in a lot of trouble.

Ford made money, in part because the US government's cash for clunkers program - injected a cool 3 billion dollars into the US auto industry and I don't think US taxpayers - or taxpayers anywhere - will want to give the auto companies another handout.

There are number of reasons why the car companies don't look good. A greening economy is one reason the car companies are in trouble, a recent history of problematic labour relations is another, but on the most basic level I cannot imagine another business or industry that treats its customers as badly as the auto industry does.

I was looking at cars today and trying to compare features and crunch numbers by looking at the various web sites for the North American and overseas auto-makers - today I looked at Ford, General Motors, Kia, Hyundai, and a few other web sites - each site gave me a way to look at the specs of their vehicles, compare option packages, and contact dealers. I could do some research but I couldn't really do an effective analysis or make an informed decision because "prices may vary" and "dealer may sell for less" - any cost information I receive is a rough figure.

I've seen the unnegotiated "asking price" vary from dealer-to-dealer by more than a thousand dollars for the exact same car. Consider that the average Canadian household makes about $42, 000 per year - a thousand dollars represents more than a weeks pay before deductions. Now you're free to defend this part of the car business but I'd suggest if you were going to give away a few days pay, you wouldn't just hand it to a car dealer.

I understand that regional markets dictate some price fluctuations, and the tax laws are different from place-to-place and this means that goods are cheaper in some places than others. So how come when I went to the physical dealerships to check prices, they weren't posted on the cars? Maybe the manufacturer don't know local market conditions (I would suggest their business intelligence units know pretty much exactly what the market conditions look like however) or exact shipping costs, but the dealer certainly should. It should be posted on the cars. Can you imagine variable prices on lunches?

We both know why I can't look at the price on the lot. The dealer wants me to talk to a salesman, take a test drive, feel pressured and buy a car without knowing, or thinking too much. Problem is, I don't make decisions like that - I'm an analytical thinker - I research, categorize, prioritize, and rank all big decisions like this; I hate make quick decisions. I would never, under any circumstances make a huge investment of dollars without a lot of information.

I suspect with the research powers the Internet supplies, a lot of us don't mind looking into our purchases, and with the culture of information sharing that comes with facebook, myspace, instant messaging, twitter, and text messaging it stands to reason that we probably like knowing a lot about our purchases.

So why are they hiding this from us? I'm inclined to say they think we are a bunch of suckers who will step onto a car lot, fall in love with some shiny paint and chrome, and just give away our hard-earned dollars. Factor in things like "planned obsolesce" and its not hard to imagine why people think the auto industry is full of corrupt old men.

I suspect the days of government bailouts and corporate welfare will be impossible to sell to taxpayers unless the auto industry moves its retail practices into the 21st century.

The Continuity of Errors: The Latest on Wind Power in Saskatchewan

Scientists have been telling us about global warming and climate change for quite a number of years now, and in spite of some well-intentioned agreements such as Kyoto, its been very hard to make much impact on the carbon emissions which seem to be at the very core and root of climate change.

Now some of you reading this probably can think of scientists who disagree with idea of climate change and can put forward the names of scientists, and politicians who think the global climate is just fine. You could say that "the Earth is actually getting cooler. We're Coming out of an Ice Age!". Thing is, if you show me a climate change denier in the scientific community, I will unfailing show you a shill, who has been bought and paid for by industry and isn't conducting real science. I have no time for that opinion and I won't spend any more time discussing it. Follow the money trail on studies that deny climate change, and you'll find big industrial polluters.

Given that the earth is such a delicate place and most of us in Saskatchewan drink either directly or indirectly from the glacier-fed Saskatchewan river, it is amazing to me how little attention we pay to climate change and how suspicious we are of plans to reduce or tax carbon emissions. Maybe we just look the other way - after we all need the jobs that oil, gas, and mining bring in: the additional tax money comes in handy, and the problems caused by giving off more carbon than some European nations are usually hard to measure - once in a while we see things like ducks dying in tailings ponds, and we understand in general that areas with a lot of heavy industry tend to have higher rates of things like cancer and respiratory illness, but most of us are removed from that reality and don't face these kinds of problems on daily basis. So we can brush it aside and ignore it. Usually we do.

But imagine you didn't need to make even those obscure trade offs and I offered a no lose solution to carbon emissions for you? Imagine I had an everyone wins proposal for helping to fix climate change. Your air would be cleaner, and it wouldn't cost you a thing. Would you do it? Jobs will be created, good paying jobs that require guys with engineering degrees, electricians and all kinds of welders and labourers,and it will provide clean energy and family farmers in a vulnerable position with a new way of making money. The solution is cutting-edge and getting cheaper and more reliable every year.

I think you know the answer. Only some ideologue, blinded by some irrational belief would think it was a bad idea to allow private individuals, spending their own money - like farmers - to build the facilities to generate their own wind and solar electricity while selling the extra capacity to Sask Power as is being discussed in Saskatchewan.

Can I as a progressive, justify a scheme by private producers that will make my environment cleaner, reduce my provinces' dependency on coal, and help fix our international reputation? I'd agree to that scheme in a heartbeat based just on the environmental benefits. As long as we don't wind up with some Enron-type enterprise in Saskatchewan that could cut off our power supply in the dead of winter, I'm happy to allow some private individuals and groups to generate green power.

We don't need to stop at that. My post-secondary studies were in history, so I think of the world and different topics in terms of history. One of my political heroes was Thomas Jefferson, the Third President of the United States of America. Jefferson left behind a huge body of work and thought, and was a polymath - a talented man in a number of areas. One of the things Jefferson believed was that the very foundation of a democratic society was the yeoman farmer - someone we would understand today as the family farmer. The family farmer is connected to the land, and is the first person impacted by changes in the climate, the transportation system, or resource prices. If there is turmoil in the air, the family farmer is usually the first person to suffer and Jefferson believed that the Yeoman farmer should be propped up at all costs, because the farmer was the person who best understands the human relationship to the earth and had the best sense of community. I think allowing farmers to build wind mills and solar arrays is a great way for them to generate money, and helps make their operations more viable which in turn helps all of us with food security, supplies us with good land stewardship and improves our democracy.

While we're at it why stop with farmers? If you sit in a office tower in Regina and look out the windows to the Northeast you see two things: the oil refinery, and the garbage dump. I wouldn't mind looking to the Northeast and seeing a methane capture power plant at the garbage dump, and I know firms in Western Canada with similar operations. Why not allow other micro-producers - maybe even householders - to hook into the grid?

We'd all benefit from decreasing the demand for dirty electricity and we need to look at the issue from that perspective and ignore ideology.