 |
Leader-Star News Service December 1996 Archive |
|
Leader-Star News Service December 1996 Archive |
Grant Devine's true legacy may not be the plethora of new Crowns and megaprojects he actually did create, but the two bogeymen that were created in his wake.
The first bogeyman was the debt and deficit budgets in the general revenue fund -- that 60-per-cent of all government activity that funds our highways and hospitals and schools.
Devine's 10 straight deficit budgets followed by two more from Premier Roy Romanow's NDP government has already left an indelible mark on this province.
Debt in Saskatchewan is now more than just the evil that once had to be destroyed at all costs or an evil that we will always have to battle. The deficit fight has now reshaped the province's mindset from the so-much-more-we-can-be 1980s to the get-use-to-getting-by-with-less 1990s.
So a billion dollars more in annual tax charges, more than 50 less hospitals, roads that are plowed less often in the winter, higher municipality taxes, consolidation of our universities ... issues that would have caused street riots in the 1980s are now the numbing reality of the 1990s.
Devine's second great bogeyman was a far more nebulous one -- the great privatization demon that sold off our pulp mills and potash and uranium mines and would have sold off even more had Romanow's forces not beat it back.
To this day, there are those who will argue that Romanow's scourge of the sell-off was anything but evil -- a blackguard conjured up in the minds of New Democrats as a vehicle to obtain power.
But what can't be denied is a lot of Saskatchewan people did buy into the NDP's belief of a Devine privatization fiend -- a monster that would swallowed our children's inheritance.
This bogeyman also altered our view of the remaining 40 per cent of all government activity that is the Crowns and the remaining Crown corporation assets.
Which brings us Monday's release of the Saskatchewan Crown corporation review.
Among the ideas the government-appointed experts put forward in their 93-page synopsis: Crowns must move away from its monopoly "corporate culture" and be more aggressive about keeping clientele; the "one size fits all" approach to collective bargaining may no longer work and Crown contracts and wage settlements should be more reflective of what is going on the private sector; SaskTel may have increase local telephone rates to compensate for reduced long-distance revenue; SaskPower may have to charge residential customers so corporate industrial users can enjoy even greater rate reductions; STC -- which will likely lose $30 million in the next five years, anyway -- may have to charge more for both parcel and passenger services, and; all Crowns may have to look at "cost reductions and efficiency measures" (read: lay-offs) if they are to competitive and retain their present value.
To the surprise of many, the experts' analysis was actually quite broad-minded, nearly always citing the privatization of a Crown or the sell-off of an asset as one of the concluding options.
In fact, the 93-page report was such a thorough examination of all the options, one has to wonder why it wasn't released in advance of this spring's TASC (Talking about Saskatchewan Crowns) town hall meetings so Saskatchewan people really did have something to talk about.
But then one would have to assume the government really wanted a completely frank and open public discussions on the Crowns.
No government is ever that altruistic.
The NDP government had a pretty good idea of what was going to come out of the public meetings.
Could any Saskatchewan public meetings in the post-Devine era possibly conclude privatizing the Crowns is a better option?
Then along comes our broad-minded experts' analysis that says either we think about privatization (again, an idea the public has already rejected) or we start think about running the Crowns a lot differently (lower wage settlements, more rate increases, lay-offs) to allow them to survive in the new competitive environment.
A rethinking of the "social policy objectives" associated with the Crown corporations, Crowns Minister Berny Wiens called it.
Suddenly, changes to the Crowns that would have been completely intolerable 10 years ago aren't so bad -- at least not compared with Devine's alternative.
And one of Devine's bogeyman is again beaten back into the shadows. Beaten back, but not killed.
Devine's bogeymen will be around for years to come.
It's better for Romanow and the New Democrats if they do not to kill them off.
What sets Economic Development Minister Dwain Lingenfelter apart from the other pretenders to Premier Roy Romanow's throne is, pure and simple, Lingenfelter's political skills.
Two things, in particular, come to mind:
First, while Lingenfelter is never completely forthright and open about anything, there is always enough of a grain of truth to make most everything he says plausible.
Second, on the rare occasions when our premier-to-be is caught in the middle of some falsehood, he can argue that black is white like no other. (A typical Lingenfelter explanation: "As you are no doubt aware, black is really just a darkened form of gray. And gray, as anyone who's examined the situation would come to realize, is just whitened black. It should, therefore, be obvious to everyone that whitened black or blackened white are the same thing. Given that, how can anyone say there is any difference between black and white -- let alone to suggest that the government had any involvement in this so-called difference?)
As frustrating as it is dealing with a seasoned politician of Lingenfelter's calibre, there are days when you can't help but stand back and marvel at his abilities.
Tuesday was one of those days to be both baffled and bedazzled.
This episode actually begins in May1995 when -- just 11 days before Premier Roy Romanow called the election -- Lingenfelter announces 400 jobs coming to the province via $5 million in forgivable loans to Intercon's operations in Moose Jaw and Saskatoon.
There was smoke at the time, but a year passed before an intrepid reporter for CBC radio reporter found the fire.
Last April, CBC's Michael Tymchuk first revealed internal cabinet documents showing the Saskatchewan government knew full well in 1994 that closure of Vancouver was the key component to Intercon's expansion into Saskatchewan.
In a few days, the rest of the pack was able to get their hands on what was a clearly damning leak.
The third condition for approving the $5-million loan to Intercon, according to minutes from a Sept. 8, 1994 cabinet treasury board meeting, were: "The communication strategy should deflect any negative publicity surrounding the impending closure of the Vancouver operations and address any interprovincial trade issues."
"It (Intercontinental Packers) proposes to close its Vancouver plant and consolidate its operations in Saskatchewan," page one of the 1994 minutes states -- one of at least 40 references to Vancouver's closure. "It is anticipated that these changes will create at least 250 new direct jobs in Saskatoon and 150 jobs (over and above pre-strike levels of 130) in Moose Jaw."
Yes, the Saskatchewan government did know of Vancouver's fate right down to $5.2 million that would have to paid out in employees severance when the company closed in January 1996.
The documents even acknowledge: "This expenditure may reflect negatively on Saskatchewan's commitment to the Internal Barriers to Trade Agreement signed by the province."
A lesser politician might have crumbled under such incriminating evidence. Not Lingenfelter.
Confronted last April by reporters with the leaked documentation, Lingenfelter calmly explained no jobs have left Vancouver, so it was impossible for the trade agreement to have been broken. (As mentioned earlier, there is a grain of truth and/or logic in everything he says.)
At least, that was the case until last Friday when Vancouver's Intercon did close, putting 300 B.C. workers out of work.
At the same time, Intercon vice-chair announced there would be at least 100 more jobs in Saskatoon.
Reporters again cornered Lingenfelter Tuesday. They thought they had him this time.
Instead, what they got was more vintage Lingenfelter.
It would require a "wild imagination" for someone to believe the government played a role in Vancouver's closure he said. (Was the 28 pages of leaked documentation the product of some wild imagination? Is black really white?)
Besides, Lingenfelter went on, any challenge under the trade agreement would prove ''we're well within our rights to do what we've done here."
The thing is, he's likely right.
One step ahead as usual, Lingenfelter already knew full well no province has every won a complaint under the toothless 1994 trade agreement that can't even force an accused government to turn documents over. Not even when New Brunswick gave United Parcel $6 million to move 900 B.C. jobs to the Maritimes, could a job-poaching case be made.
We poor dumb reporters didn't stand a chance.
But against the likes of Lingenfelter, who really does?
My, how far they've come.
My, how far they still have to go.
The above may have been a far more appropriate slogan for yesterday's conference on the future of Saskatchewan's Crown corporations than the "Public Enterprise in an Era of Change" chosen by our ever-evolving NDP government.
There is no question how far New Democrats and like-thinkers on the privatization issue have come in the last six years.
Those that were the outsiders looking in then, were insiders looking out.
There was former MLA Louise Simard yesterday, moderating a session on: "Government Control: Ownership, Regulation or Market Pressure?"
Six years ago then NDP health critic Simard was just trying to get in ... or at least, get in to the Institute for Saskatchewan Enterprise's conference without forking over the outrageous $1,150 registration fee. (Simard posed as a humble reporter for the NDP's Commonwealth magazine so she could attend a session on privatizing health care. To the surprise of no one but Simard, her credentials were rejected.)
Also yesterday, Saskatchewan Federation of Labor President Barb Byers was one of the speakers on another panel: "The Social and Economic Roles of Crown corporations."
Six years ago, Byers was describing the PC-government backed privatization conference as "a corporate love-in" -- about the kindest thing Byers or many unionists had to say about that conference or Grant Devine's privatization agenda.
A few months early, Byers equated the 1989 lobby to stop the sale of SaskEnergy with the 1960s U.S. civil rights marches. Other unionists were even more petulant than Byers, greeting delegates to that May, 1990 Saskatoon conference with jeers of: "To the Trough, Pigs."
But yesterday, no one was calling anyone a pig, nor were they predicting the end of humanity as we know it.
Civility had broken out, somehow.
Certainly, this NDP-government-run affair did lean to the left. The first panel: "Public Enterprise: In Whose Interest?" featured Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians and Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute from the extremes. Cast as the moderate voice of reason was Allan Blakeney -- the man who nationalized the potash mines.
Nevertheless, look how far they have come.
Roy Romanow was talking about "the necessity for new partnernships and relationships" rather than lines in the sand.
And Michael Walker and host of right-wing luminaries were in the same building with Barb Byers and barely a single call to 9-1-1.
Unfortunately, how far we still have to go was also evident this week.
While there may be some detente at the top, the old fight goes on at the ground level if SaskTel is any indication.
Even without competition from the private telcos, SaskTel already had its hands full.
It's still paying two presidents' salaries (current president Don Ching and on-contract former president Fred Van Parys) yet doesn't have a vice-president of finance.
Its executive suites are crammed with NDP political appointees (besides Ching, Garry Simons and Diana Milenkovic) with no telecommunications experience. Even many of the non-patronage executives have no telecommunications experience outside of SaskTel.
It has a union that has resisted job-sharing and part-time work and -- judging by their wage demands during last spring's strike -- seems oblivious to the downsizing that's gone on in the rest of their industry.
Now, it also looks like a company frightened and confused when faced with its first real threat of competition.
First came the complains from SaskTel's PR department that Sprint and AT & T were just too aggressive. "We expected some big push up front," said spokesman Sean Caragata. "We didn't expect it to be this intense ... and with this much pressure on the customers."
Even worse, said the corporate spokesman, Sprint and AT & T are using comparisons on their advertisements that put their rates in the most favorable light.
The remarks -- a fine reflection of the corporations old Crown monopoly mentality -- left industry analysts shaking their heads.
But it got worse.
Faced with "intense" competition, the natural reaction of most corporations would be to beef up their product, cut rates (which SaskTel has somewhat done) to their customers and generally become more efficient, thus more competitive.
Instead, SaskTel's first course of action was threaten to sue, then use its PR department to orchestrate a consumer complaint campaign against its competitors. (Completely justifiable, says SaskTel. AT & T and Sprint sales people are "refusing to take 'no' for an answer."
As far as they have come in re-thinking how the Crowns must be run, it appears they still have a long ways to go.
In his first real test in his new job as Liberal leader, Jim Melenchuk drew from his old line of work.
While assigning critic responsibilities to his Liberal caucus, Melenchuk addressed its major ailment. He also may have lanced a couple of festering sores.
But Melenchuk may also be guilty of over-prescribing in a couple cases and under-prescribing in others.
And both could create another ailment in the Liberal caucus, as big as the one that Dr. Jim was trying to cure.
Who gets to criticize what in Opposition would hold absolutely no importance to the public, were it not for one reality:
Critic assignments often become on-the-job training for ministerial portfolios when Oppositions become governments. Thus, who gets what is a huge internal issue in a caucus and, often, a source of dissension.
Melenchuk correctly diagnosed internal dissension as the biggest problem and immediately treated it by appointing Ken Krawetz as Opposition leader in the assembly.
Rewarding Krawetz for delivering his support to Melenchuk on the final leadership ballot was a factor, but it was also the best decision. This is a caucus still in need of unity -- particularly with an outsider in charge. The easy-going Krawetz -- who had the most support from caucus in the leadership race -- is the man around which the caucus can unite.
Following the unity theme, appointing Rod Gantefoer -- a Melenchuk supporter -- as House leader was also a wise move. Besides being ill-prepared, Liberals were out- maneuvered last session. Gantefoer has shown organizational and negotiating skills.
Melenchuk also deftly handled some sore spots from last session by re-assigning Glen McPherson to agriculture and highways and Gerard Aldridge to labor and the provincial auditor.
McPherson would have surely loved to keep the high-profile health assignment, but re-assigning the job to whip Harvey McLane (the former Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations president and another Melenchuk supporter) made sense.
One of the reasons the Liberals didn't do better last session was their handling of health issues and their running of House business -- both were McPherson's responsibilities.
Taking away responsibilities is punitive, but not if they're replaced with similarly important responsibilities. McPherson -- still the most experienced politician the Liberals have -- will be a good match for Eric Upshall.
Similarly, removing the finance critic's responsibilities from Aldridge was necessary after his handling of Crown Life and SaskTel's LCL Cable deal. But the tenacious Aldridge has been given a couple of areas -- including chair of the public accounts committee -- where he can dig.
But then came Melenchuk's little problem of over-prescribing.
Adding finance, the Crown Investment Corp. and economic development to Gantefoer's plate is about two assignments too many. Gantefoer had his own trouble on his feet in the assembly and will now be up against Janice MacKinnon and Dwain Lingenfelter -- two of the best.
Similarly, untried Jack Hilson seems as loaded down. As the only lawyer in the caucus, getting justice made some sense. But adding the Legal Aid Commission, urban municipal government (where amalgamation and re-assessment are on the verge of exploding) and northern affairs seems excessive.
In doing so, he also took away northern affairs from Buckley Belanger (although Belanger remains critic for Indian and Metis Affairs, Sask. Housing and environment) who showed surprisingly well in the House last year.
But perhaps the most baffling was Melenchuk's under-utilization of Krawetz's supporters -- specifically June Draude.
While Krawetz supporters like Belanger, Osika and Bob Bjornerud (rural municipal government, SaskTel) also didn't get much more, Draude took the hardest hit.
She lost her economic development assignment and has no line departments or major Crowns. After Melenchuk's announcement last Friday, Draude was on the verge of tears.
Immediately, there was grumbling of sexism or Melenchuk punishing those who didn't support him -- neither of which make all that much sense if you consider Arlene Jule (a Tom Hengen supporter) maintained her social services critical assignment.
Whatever the reason, under-utilizing Draude and a few others is a bad move for the new leader.
For a guy who keeps saying he doesn't want to go out on a limb on the Quebec issue, it's funny how often we've seen Premier Roy Romanow shinnying further and further out on the limb.
Good for him.
Maybe we should start listening to the premiers who speak as nationalists rather than those who sound like local mayors.
Romanow was back out on that limb Tuesday, responding to the following remarks from fellow NDP premier and national visionary Glen Clark on the Constitutional debate.
"We've had this debate many times and I hesitate to plunge the province back into this kind of navel-gazing around the Constitution," the B.C. premier said.
"I'm not interested at this point in looking at the Constitutional file or distinct separate status for Quebec."
The irony was hard to miss, because it pretty much summed up what's been wrong with our country since the Charlottetown Accord in 1992.
In B.C., we have one NDP premier who says he sees no importance in the national unity debate at this time.
In Saskatchewan, we have another NDP premier who, just weeks before, announced his province would join in the Supreme Court case that will determine under what rules Quebec could separate from Canada.
"This is probably one of the most important legal cases, if not the most important legal case, speaking to the future of Canada," Romanow told reporters two weeks ago.
''We are part of this union, Saskatchewan is. We are Canadian and we think we have something to say on this issue and want to preserve our right to say it."
So much for Romanow's hesitation to go out on the limb.
Sadly, going out on the limb is not in vogue these days -- particularly among politicians who think tapping into the local, parochial, anti-Quebec sentiment spells votes in the future.
Clark was quickly joined by Ontario's Conservative leader Mike Harris -- another national visionary -- who insightfully reminded us jobs and the deficit are today's issues. (Apparently, Harris thinks, we can't address three issues in the same millennium.)
It's been this way since the 1992 Charlottetown Accord referendum where 10 provinces (including Quebec), two territories, a federal government and its Opposition parties miraculously found unity on the Quebec issue, including distinct society for the province.
Eager to take out their frustrations on anything that had then prime minister Brian Mulroney's name attached to it, the public rejected the Accord.
Since then, Constitutional negotiations and distinct society for Quebec have become taboo topics.
Even last year's Quebec referendum -- that moved the province to within a hair's breadth of seceding from the nation -- has, evidently, done little to change the approach of some provincial premiers who still see votes in pandering to every yahoo from Williams Lake to Wawa.
So Romanow did Tuesday what he has had to do since Charlottetown -- approach the Quebec question with caution.
He carefully explained that Quebec would not become a full partner in Confederation until provinces like Ontario and B.C. recognize that it is a distinct society within North America.
Romanow then said he supports a recent proposal by the Quebec Liberal party calling for a Constitutional amendment that recognizes Quebec's distinctiveness prior to the province's next election: "I think that has some merit, some considerable merit."
Besides the frustration of watching his counterparts appeal to the selfish regionalism in so many Canadians, the Clark-Harris approach has to be galling to Romanow for one other reason.
For all the criticism that he's out of touch with Quebec and one of the architects of today's mess because of his role in the 1981 Constitutional negotiations, Romanow is among the few provincial leaders who grasps that doing nothing now means having nothing to offer Quebec the next time the Parti Quebecois holds a referendum.
What are Clark and Harris offering as alternatives? Another panic-stricken "No" campaign?
On one hand you have Romanow sounding like a statesman. On the other hand, you have premiers of two power provinces taking the safe parochial course.
Let's hear it for a premier who at least has enough guts to shinny out on that limb a bit.
There is little in politics more irritating than a government that does something for purely self-serving, political reasons.
Unless, of course, it's a government that does something for purely philosophical reasons without the courage of its convictions to admit it.
When it comes to its union-preference Crown Construction Tendering Agreement (CCTA), the Saskatchewan NDP are guilty of one or the other, or both.
Labor Minister Bob Mitchell took meditator Stephen Kelleher's report on the CCTA to cabinet Tuesday morning, telling reporters it will likely be released in a day or so. He then emerged from the meeting saying the report would not be released later because cabinet needed more background information.
The political translation: It's bad news and the government intends to bury it a day or so before the Christmas holidays start.
Manley McLachlan, spokesman for the Saskatchewan Construction Association -- whose group walked about from the never-ending CCTA negotiations a month ago -- is convinced it means the government is about to announce it will retroactively ban any kind of "double-breasting" where companies have both unionized and non-unionized spin-off companies. (Double-breasting was banned by the NDP government union in 1992, but companies that already had both union and non-union subsidiaries were "grand-fathered" the right to continue.)
Some would view McLachlan's fears as unnecessarily paranoid.
But given how the NDP government has handled the CCTA, why would McLachlan or anyone now trust anything they do in this area?
First introduced in April 1995 -- a month before the NDP received a wad of money from the unions for the election campaign Premier Roy Romanow called in May -- the CCTA called for any contractor bidding on a major Crown contractor to employ 75-per-cent unionized workers.
Many unionists privately described the CCTA as payback for the former PC government allowing double-breasting in the 1980s. In fact, one of the forces behind the CCTA was former Crown Investments Corp. (CIC) president Don Ching -- Romanow's former law partner who lost his share of battles on double-breasting before the labor relations board of the 1980s.
Immediately, the alarm bells sounded that this was a pre-election payoff to the unions that it would drive up tenders 25 to 30 per cent. The NDP government vehemently denied both charges.
A year later, we would find out through a leaked memo obtained by Leader-Star News that the government was lying.
"A 'fair wage policy' will be seen as a union preference policy by the business community," Pat Youzwa, the former economic development deputy minister, wrote in Nov. 19, 1994 memo recommending the CCTA be scrapped. "In fact, it is a union-preference policy."
Unionized contractors will receive 15 to 20 per cent, Youzwa wrote -- the implication being the CCTA would significantly drive up Crown tendering costs.
But none of this -- as a series of other memos in early 1995 outlining CIC's communication strategy shows -- kept the government from feeding us false information. Phony letters to the editor supporting the CCTA were to be prepared. Private-sector companies with union-preference policies would be told to contact specific business reporters for "pre-announcement positive stories."
All this takes us today to where the government is preparing another "media strategy" for what it hopes will be the final chapter on the CCTA.
But let's examine for a moment what might have happened if the NDP government had been forthright from the beginning.
Suppose the government simply said in April 1995: "This is a union preference policy. Yes, unions will benefit. Yes, taxpayers may pay more for some projects, but we believe it is better to pay higher wages to unionized workers from Saskatchewan. We also believe the CCTA makes for a safer working environment."
Imagine what would have happened if the government had held a public forum on the CCTA so both the unions and contractors could have aired these arguments.
Would we be as bothered that the CCTA was nothing more than a payoff to the unions, knowing this was the government's intent all along? Would we have a better idea of what the CCTA will cost us? Would it be as disconcerting that the government went against the better advice of its economic development officials? Would we be as appalled that we had been lied to and manipulated pretty much every step of the way?
Would it have cost the NDP government as much in credibility if it did show the courage of its convictions?
First, the good news.
Saskatchewan is taking a more responsible approach to gambling addiction than almost any other province, a study conducted by the National Council of Welfare indicates.
The bad news?
Saskatchewan's problem gamblers could already be costing us anywhere between $345 million and $1.1 billion, if studies on the costs of treating their psychological and physical ailments, absenteeism and crime-related costs are accurate.
And the gambling problem here may be far less severe.
Among the seven provinces who reported a rate of problem gamblers, Saskatchewan's was lowest at 2.7 per cent of the population. (Alberta's was the highest at 5.4 per cent.)
Better yet, Saskatchewan is already doing more about its addiction problems than other provinces, the council's work shows. The $1.5 million the Saskatchewan government directs to treating gambling is the highest in the nation (although, it's nowhere near the $16 million that would be dedicated to problem gambling if Saskatchewan followed the council's advice and directed 10 per cent of all gaming revenues to gambling addiction.)
There are some who quite rightfully argue that individuals -- not governments -- have to take responsibility for their own actions. Gambling is now part of our society no different than other vices like alcohol and drug abuse or cigarette smoking, they will say. This may be true.
But also like alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes, the reality is the addiction costs are inevitably spread through society.
The National Council of Welfare is demanding the provinces -- those who have benefited from gambling revenue -- start to tally those social costs.
Judging by the preliminary information the council has already gathered, those social costs may be astronomical -- even in Saskatchewan where gambling addiction is supposedly not as bad.
By the Saskatchewan government's own admission, about 2.7 per cent of the adult population (that would be 19,831 out of 734,483 Saskatchewan adults) are defined as problem or pathological gamblers.
The costs of treating direct and indirect gambling problems -- absenteeism, depression, stress-related physical ailments, crime, time in courts -- is difficult, the Council of Welfare admits. But one U.S. study estimates it to be $17,700 (Cdn) per addict while another by the University of Manitoba pegs the cost at $56,000 per problem gambler.
Translation: Saskatchewan's nearly 20,000 problem gamblers could be costing us anywhere between $345.4 million and $1.1 billion, if the studies are accurate.
Many will immediately write off such numbers as unrealistic and outrageously high and it's doubtful anyone would accept a billion-dollar cost at face value.
But what each study in the 75-page Council of Welfare report consistently shows is problem gamblers do cost society a bundle.
And if some of the study results are transferable from province to province, Saskatchewan is heading for a frightening problem.
For example, a Quebec study obtained by the council estimates pathological gamblers cost their employers five hours a month in late time. Let's presume addicted gamblers in Saskatchewan -- earning, say, on average, $25,000 a year -- are no different. If only half Saskatchewan's addicted gamblers miss five hours a week, that would translate into $7.1 million a year in lost wages. Add that up, year after year.
The same Quebec study contends that 37 per cent of addicted gamblers steal as much as $5,000 from their employees. (Unbelievable? Have you been following some of the Saskatchewan court cases in the past two years?)
Let's say 37 per cent of Saskatchewan's addicted steal a mere $500 from their employers. It's a $3.6-million loss for Saskatchewan businesses.
The Quebec study also showed 83 per cent of pathological gamblers surveyed borrowed from friends, relatives or banks to cover losses, Twenty-eight per cent declared bankruptcy with another 35 per cent about to declare bankruptcy. And another 26.8 per cent say they attempted suicide (although a U.S. survey reported a similar number to be around 13 per cent.)
Are there 16,600 addicted Saskatchewan gamblers borrowing from friends, family and banks to cover gambling debts? Are 5,500 going broke? Are another 7,000 about to go broke? Could anywhere between 2,600 and 5,300 be thinking of ending their lives over their gambling debts?
We simply don't know.
But no one is denying that gambling addiction is growing.
So shouldn't Saskatchewan's and other provincial governments now raking in hundreds of millions from gambling, be obligated to find out how extensive the problem is?
It was one of those glorious June evenings in Regina when Wascana Park was filled of joggers, couples walking their dogs and teenagers plopped on the hoods of their cars just hanging out.
This particular evening in 1991, however, there were also 800 civil servants -- none of whom had come to soak up the serenity of this scene.
They were protesting the decentralization of 1,400 workers from Regina -- arguably the stupidest policy of the entire Devine government era.
Self-interest may have brought the protesters to the steps of the Legislative Building that warm evening, but it was the folly of vacating government-owed buildings in Regina and scattering the workers from St. Walburg to Oxbow in a cynical, last-ditch attempt to sway rural voters that fueled their anger.
They stormed their way into the marble building past the futile efforts of legislative security. They joyfully marched around the rotunda shouting: ''Hell no, we won't go."
It was truly symbolic.
When the Saskatchewan Government Employees Union (SGEU) forced open the legislature's oak doors that day, they thought they had beaten back their oppressors and regained control of their destiny.
It's 51Ž2 years later. Darkness and bitter cold shroud the legislative grounds in the evenings. Kids aren't hanging around and only the truly committed -- or those who ought to be committed -- jog in -30 weather.
Nor are there SGEU members out front protesting the Romanow government, even though the union may be more under siege today than it was in the Devine years.
As the Crown Construction Tendering Agreement shows, some unions have been big winners under this NDP government. Relentless lobbying and big-time donations to the NDP are enabling the trade unions to reverse hated PC policies.
But the SGEU has not been among these winners.
It's partly due to NDP government policy, partly due to circumstances and partly of the union's own creation.
Among the first to buy into the NDP's debt-crisis agenda, SGEU set the trend of one-per-cent-a-year raises -- the first example of how poorly SGEU has fared.
How much SGEU has bought into the NDP government's agenda was evident late last winter when Public Service Commission Minister Lorne Calvert and union negotiator Kevin Yates -- now busy running Lorne Nystrom's campaign to re-enter federal politics -- jointly announced the pre-budget plan for early retirement packages.
This co-operative approach has worked, to some extent.
While 544 civil servants were "laid-off" budget day, only 65 non-union managers unwillingly lost their jobs. Those early retirement packages (302), elimination of vacant positions (125) and union bumping meant most of the 361 in-scope workers affected found other government work.
This, however, added to the tensions between middle managers and SGEU -- the second area where the union is now under siege.
In the wake of the last SGEU contract, the NDP government agreed to conduct a "scope review" that could bring anywhere between 600 and 1,200 out-of-scope frontline managers under union membership.
But angry because they felt they were the target of the last round of cuts and because SGEU wanted them to pay dues for the years they weren't in the union, the managers made it clear last summer they wanted no part of SGEU.
First, they explored setting up their own union. More recently, the Professional Institute has asked 1,400 to 1,500 frontline managers in government -- those who don't want to join SGEU plus a few others -- to join their union.
And now SGEU may or may not be under siege on a third front.
The NDP government passed legislation to simplify collective bargaining in the health sector. Government-appointed commissioner Jim Dorsey has presented a draft proposal that, if adopted, would reduce the 541 bargaining units and 32 contract agreements in Saskatchewan's health-care sector to 36 bargaining units and five basic contracts.
SGEU would be the big losers -- as many as 4,000 of its health workers absorbed by other unions -- under Dorsey's initial proposal. (However, there has been mad scrambling the past few days so SGEU could retain its health-sector workers.)
But between relatively low wage settlements, budget day lay-offs and now the threat of massive membership loss because of reorganization and defections to other unions, it is clear SGEU has not done well lately.
In fact, those turbulent Devine years now almost seem as if they were carefree.
Roy Romanow,
Premier of Saskatchewan
Legislative Building
Dear Sir:
Khrystos Narodyvisa. Slaviete Yeoho.
As you no doubt have observed by the legions of confused, Gregorian-calendar-following, English people madly rushing about, Christmas is but 17 days away.
Nevertheless, sir, I have already been swept up in the spirit of the season and feel the need to give your embattled Saskatchewan government the gift of unique insight from my private consulting company, Consensus Mandryk Inc.
ConMan, for short.
(Allow me to offer a preview. Your government should pass a law forcing all Saskatchewan residents to follow the Julian Calendar and celebrate Christmas on its proper date of Jan. 7. Not only would you forever secure Yorkton plus all those other ridings you lost to the Liberals in the last election, like Canora-Pelly, Saltcoats and Kelvington-Wadena. But just think of the savings every purchasing department in government would rake in if they bought their supplies for the coming year during those Boxing Day Sales!
Besides, is this idea any more ludicrous than the province's continual refusal to move to daylight savings time in the summer?)
To refresh your memory, sir, Consensus Mandryk -- ConMan, because I am short -- was incorporated in the late 1980s to advise former premier Grant Devine's troubled PC administration.
Of course, sir, I realize that my consulting firm would be a vast departure from the ones your government usually hires.
First, I am, technically, not a New Democrat nor is my name former economic development deputy minister Frank Hart -- both, significant disadvantages when it comes to securing any government contract work these days.
Second, this solicitation has not yet been vetted by your chief of staff, so I'm far removed from the normal channels of doing business with government.
Third, you have no idea in advance what my recommendations will be, which automatically disqualifies me from recommending changes to the Crown Construction Tendering Agreement.
Fourth, there is a distinct possibility I may actually render an opinion beyond: "More consulting work is needed." This would preclude me from advising Pat Atkinson on our education system.
Also, I am the first to admit my past advice has not always been perfect.
Last year, for example, I was ever so close to capitalizing on this Christmas's toy phenomenon when I suggested the Saskatchewan Opportunities Corp. (SOCO) invest heavily in the "Tickle me, Eldon" doll -- that lovable Lautermilch creature that rolls on its back, vibrates and giggles uproariously every time SaskPower President Jack Messer walks into the legislature demanding 12- to 14-per-cent electrical rate increases.
And, finally, I'm offering my advice for free instead of charging taxpayers outrageous sums of money, which makes me: (a) stupid, and; (b) wondering why I didn't get in a far more lucrative Saskatchewan profession like baby-sitting for single mothers.
But I'm hoping, sir, you can set aside most of the above and consider my advise in the spirit of the season.
After all, how does that Christmas carol go? "Tis the season to hang holly." (Whoops. My mistake. Sadly, that's actually what they've been singing around the CBC building this month.)
The primary concern, sir, is your government is starting to show signs that it's lost touch with the voters. Maybe it's just intuition.
Call it a hunch. Maybe one clue was your former agriculture minister and your current agriculture minister, respectively, calling farmers assholes and whiners.
Whatever the case, you are now running a second-term government that does not show it understands the hopes, fears and concerns of regular people:
* The single mothers barely earning more than minimum wage who now face a law forcing them to shell out minimum wage to their baby-sitters;
* The mortgage-challenged hit with your reassessment after you've spent five years off-loading on the municipalities;
* The working stiffs now wondering: Where are all those great jobs your government says its creating?
The above observation, sir, is not designed to put a damper on your festive mood.
Rather, I hope to offer this constructive little holiday reminder:
Christmas should be about doing all you can for people.
Governing, is basically about the same thing.
Good luck and have a merry one,
Murray A. Mandryk,
Consensus Mandryk Inc.
| Back to Archive Index |
 |
Go to Leader-Star January 1997 Archive |
| Regina City Beat | Features & Columns | Sports | Connections | Customer Service |
| Prairie Mall |
Wellness | Business Link |
Classifieds | 'Rider News |
LP OnLine Index |