Len Taylor

From Hansard (Sask. Legislative Assembly) Monday, April 27, 2009

Battlefords Community Players

Mr. Taylor: — I would like today to draw members’ attention to the great work of the Battlefords Community Players, who have once again presented themselves very well at the provincial community theatre awards festival, TheatreFest, held recently in Prince Albert.

Battlefords Community Players’ exceptional male lead Jim Walls for the second year in a row won the award for best actor at the festival. The Players’ production of the play Trying won the award for best visual and was named runner-up in the best play and best director categories. It’s also interesting to note that this year’s director Donna Challis, last year at TheatreFest, won the best director award.

Mr. Speaker, the people of The Battlefords are very proud of this incredible, non-profit, community-based theatre company that continually provides great local entertainment throughout the year, but also performs at a level that produces awards and recognition at competition events throughout the province.

To quote executive producer Donna Challis in a recent news story: “People always know that our standard is going to be among the best and I’m very proud of that and I think all the Community Players’ members are proud.”

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say that all residents of The Battlefords are proud of the work done by and the accomplishments achieved by The Battlefords Community Players. And I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me today in offering our congratulations and best wishes for continued success in their future endeavours.

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

Funding for affordable housing coming to the Battlefords says Taylor

The provincial government will soon announce more than $2 million for affordable housing projects for the Battlefords says local MLA, Len Taylor.

“The money will flow from the $3 million committed to the Battlefords prior to the 2007 provincial election and should be announced in the near future, Taylor said, adding he hopes the announcement will come in time for spring and summer construction work.

The notice of a pending announcement was given by provincial housing Minister Donna Harpauer in answer to Taylor’s questions asked during a Legislative Committee meeting, Monday (April 6^th).

During the last year, Taylor has been asking questions and presenting petitions calling on the provincial government to release the housing money previously committed to the Battlefords so Taylor says he welcomes the pending announcement.

“There is a great need for more affordable rental accommodation in The Battlefords. There are seniors, students, new immigrants, and First Nation’s youth seeking affordable accommodation, and it just isn’t here,” Taylor said.

“How can we legitimately expect our community to reach its growth potential if people can’t find a place to live,” he said.

Taylor adds that the pending announcement represents two thirds of the previous financial commitment, but does not represent any new money, any new program, or any new initiative of the new government. “We still have a ways to go to adequately address all our housing needs, but this is certainly a step in the right direction,” he said.

Questions asked in the Legislative Committee on Human Services

Monday, April 6^th

By Len Taylor, MLA (The Battlefords)

To Social Services Minister Hon. Donna Harpauer, Minister responsible for the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation

Transcript by Committees’ Hansard

The Chair: — Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And, Minister, thank you as well for your comments, and your officials for your attendance.

Last year at this time, well almost this time — it was April 28 when we did estimates last year — and I asked some questions specific to housing in North Battleford, and I’d like to revisit those questions and ask for an update. Last year I was raising some questions about a $3 million commitment that had been made prior to the 2007 election for affordable housing in The Battlefords under the neighbourhood revitalization initiative.

Mr. Jones last year indicated that an expression of interest had been posted and the department was in the process of reviewing at least four submissions from The Battlefords for funding under this program. A year later I’ve had no announcements with regards to additional affordable housing expenditures in The Battlefords, and so I ask you today what has happened to that program. What has happened to those applications made under that program?

Hon. Ms. Harpauer: — Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Of the process, which as you said, money was sort of earmarked prior to the election, my understanding is 2.136 million has been prioritized through the expression of interest submission, which includes 24 units.

I’m just going to turn to my officials to see what can be officially announced because we’re working with the groups right now. There’s three groups that I see before me, but I’m not sure what can be made public at this point. This is Mr. Chaykowski with the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Chaykowski: — Thank you very much. So a year ago Mr. Jones was in this chair at that time and talked about the expression of interest. We’ve been working with proponents that had put forward proposals through that. As the minister mentioned, there are three that had been prioritized for funding. We’re working with those to get those to the point of ready for announcement. They haven’t been publicly announced at this time but there is, within that package for rental development, there is about, when you add up the three pieces, or those three projects, that’s $2.1 million.

Beyond that there has been other investments in terms of home ownership program. There’s about another $140,000 in terms of commitments that have been made to home ownership. Some of those have gone the full distance, and others, another family is working through trying to find the accommodation.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that update. As you can imagine, folks in The Battlefords are most anxious for a formal announcement. I just want to say for the record, sooner rather than later, but at the same time indicate that Battlefords, being in the west side of the province, benefiting from growth in the oil and gas sector, we’ve also got a very large number of new immigrants, we have a large number of students moving in from First Nations communities surrounding The Battlefords, and a lot of seniors who are leaving their homes and looking for rental accommodation.

The rental rate for affordable housing anyway in The Battlefords is virtually zero. So having additional units of affordable housing for students, immigrants, First Nations people, and seniors is a high priority for the people of The Battlefords. I don’t have a week go by without somebody phoning my office. And so I appreciate the fact that there could be as many as, did you say 24 units announced in the near future? That would be wonderful. I know the next question will be, and when are there going to be more announced? Because simply the demand in The Battlefords is very high.

Hon. Ms. Harpauer: — I don’t foresee making major announcements beyond those that we just recently made until we have the new board in place. As you know, the legislation is before the committee. So once the board is in place, there’ll be a number of tasks I’d like them to look. And that will be the stresses in the different communities, where the need will be the greatest, the existing programs and why some are obviously not working, and to take a look at the programs along with a number of other tasks that we would like them to look at.

But yes, I’m sure you are looking forward to the 24 units and the three groups that we’re working with coming to fruition in The Battlefords. And I’m hearing from many, many communities just those very concerns expressed, with immigrants especially. That’s really happening in my area where I live as well.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay. That would be all my questions, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Minister, and your officials, for those answers.

From Hansard

April 6, 2009

Question Period – Public consultations on Uranium Development

The Speaker: — I recognize the member for The Battlefords.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When the Saskatchewan Party announced the creation of the Uranium Development Partnership, they did not tell anyone that the majority of the work would be done by an outside consulting firm. The public only became aware of this fact after the release of the minister’s order creating the UDP from a freedom of information request. The order reveals that the decision to hire an outside consulting firm was “experience in the nuclear industry,” was made by the Saskatchewan Party government, not by the UDP. To the minister: why did he make the decision to hire an outside consulting firm, and why didn’t he leave such operational decisions to the supposedly arm’s-length UDP?

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister Responsible for Enterprise and Innovation. Hon. Mr. Stewart: — Well thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government, through Crown Investments Corporation, paid for the UDP, and accordingly we chose the best possible facilitators that we could. McKinsey & Company do business, Mr. Speaker, in 50 countries in the world, with two major offices in this one. We’re not dealing in the minor leagues here as that member is so accustomed to doing, Mr. Speaker. McKinsey & Company were the absolute best people we could get for the job and we got them.

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from The Battlefords.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The UDP spent most of the Sask Party’s $3 million budget to hire this firm, McKinsey & Company, or about $25,000 per day, Mr. Speaker, is what that works out to. We know that the company’s services didn’t come cheap. We know that the company worked on this project full time. What we don’t know is exactly what taxpayers got for their money. To the minister: what did taxpayers get for their money from McKinsey & Company? What role did McKinsey play in preparing the final report? More specifically, Mr. Speaker, did McKinsey write the final report?

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister Responsible for Enterprise and Innovation. Hon. Mr. Stewart: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. McKinsey & Company performed the duties that facilitators normally perform when they’re working for boards of this type — boards who meet from time to time to set direction, and to finally in the final analysis, make decisions. They provided information. They distilled information. Mr. Speaker, they assisted. The member asked me if they wrote the report. Of course they assisted in writing the report. They assisted the board in writing the report. That would be their job, Mr. Speaker. They did it, and they did it very well. They condensed volumes of documents to a manner in which the board could deal with, and I congratulate them on a job well done.

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from The Battlefords.

Mr. Taylor: — Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s obvious the debate over the future of nuclear power in Saskatchewan has been tightly scripted for months, and the upcoming public consultations may be the only real opportunity for input that anyone who isn’t the cheerleader for the nuclear power will have. Mr. Speaker, it’s critical that these consultations are conducted in a fair, open, and transparent manner and that they provide members of the public, including critics of nuclear power, with the opportunity to be heard. To the minister: what role, if any, will McKinsey & Company play in organizing or managing these public consultations? And if they are involved, how much more will they be paid for their work?

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

The Speaker: — I recognize the Minister Responsible for Enterprise and Innovation. Hon. Mr. Stewart: — Mr. Speaker, a full and comprehensive public consultation process has been set up with nine meetings spread around the province where people can attend in person. Also a website at www.saskuranium.ca where people can obtain information about the UDP report and/or voice their opinions. There’s a phone number that people can phone to have an executive summary of the report forwarded to them. There’s a mailing address, Mr. Speaker, for people like myself who would rather do it that way than use electronic communications. And, Mr. Speaker, those opportunities are open, those opportunities are available to people right now and will continue to be until 15 June. The nine meetings will be held, plus three days of consultations for stakeholders besides that. Mr. Speaker, this is the most fair process. And no, McKinsey & Company will not be involved in it.

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

TAYLOR MOVES MOTION: CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY OPTIONS

From Hansard

April 2, 2009

What follows is an excerpt from the debates of the Legislative Assembly on April 2^nd. The full debate can be viewed at legassembly.sk.ca (click on Hansard, click on date). The NDP motion reads as follows: That the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan supports the consideration of the further value-added development of Saskatchewan’s energy industry including energy conservation, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other alternative power generation, and as part of that consideration, which would obviously involve extensive public consultation, recognize not only the potential benefits to the growth and prosperity of the people of our province, but also the social and environmental impact of all of the options.

By way of contrast, The Sask Party motion on which a vote was taken later that day reads as follows:

That the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan supports the consideration of further value-added development of Saskatchewan’s uranium industry including nuclear power generation and recognizes the potential benefits to the growth and prosperity of the people of our province.

SEVENTY-FIVE MINUTE DEBATE

The Speaker: — I recognize the member from The Battlefords.

Saskatchewan Energy Industry

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure today to rise and move a motion on this private members’ day in a segment that is 75 minutes in length, in which members of both sides of the House can make comments on a motion — in this case a motion that I’m bringing forward, Mr. Speaker — and then allow some questions between private members before the end of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, members of this Assembly have seen this motion on the order paper now for a couple of days, Mr. Speaker. And I think members opposite will recognize that this motion is very similar to a motion that the government members have had on the order paper and that has been subject to some discussion since this session began, Mr. Speaker.

So for the record, Mr. Speaker, I will put the motion that I am raising today into the record, Mr. Speaker. And I will be moving this motion before I conclude my remarks in a few minutes. Mr. Speaker, the motion that I am supporting today reads as follows:

That the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan supports the consideration of the further value-added development of Saskatchewan’s energy industry including energy conservation, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other alternative power generation, and as part of that consideration, which would obviously involve extensive public consultation, recognize not only the potential benefits to the growth and prosperity of the people of our province, but also the social and environmental impact of all of the options.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this motion has been drafted like this, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a demonstration, not only to the people of Saskatchewan, but almost more importantly, Mr. Speaker, a demonstration to the members opposite of the way in which a government should address issues of importance to the Saskatchewan people. We will notice, Mr. Speaker, that a government motion that comes forward later in the day and perhaps for a vote today, Mr. Speaker, a motion that the government has brought forward expresses an interest in discussing a value-added development, Mr. Speaker, of the nuclear industry or of the uranium sector, Mr. Speaker.

But the government has forgotten in this process, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to deal with options and the entire mix that Saskatchewan people have available to them. So, Mr. Speaker, as I open my remarks today and before I outline the arguments for this motion, I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite that because their motion calls for the consideration of certain matters relating to the uranium development cycle, Mr. Speaker. And we believe that any government, any reasonable body, Mr. Speaker, should consider all of its options, as we’re demonstrating in this motion, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes time for that motion to be concluded, Mr. Speaker, this caucus will support the motion brought forward by the government.

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: — Our motion, Mr. Speaker, our motion makes it very clear what we consider to be consideration, what we consider to be the energy sector, and what we consider, Mr. Speaker, to be broad-based, adequate public consultations.

So, Mr. Speaker, what’s in the motion that I’m raising today? Well, Mr. Speaker, it quite simply outlines what we consider to be the proper way to address the future energy needs of the people of this province. It acknowledges, Mr. Speaker, that before consideration can occur, Mr. Speaker, and before debate can occur, that of course you have to establish need.

Mr. Speaker, you also have to determine what your inventory is — in other words, what exists, what you need, and what options you have, Mr. Speaker, in order to meet those needs based on the inventory of power being able to provide power is . And of course, Mr. Speaker, there has to be recognition and understanding of what the assumptions for growth really are.

Mr. Speaker, this motion acknowledges that Saskatchewan has the most diversified mix of electrical generation options of any province in Canada. Mr. Speaker, some provinces have no options whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and they look for ways to generate power. But this province, Mr. Speaker, has the most diversified mix already. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have opportunities here that exist nowhere else in Canada and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that exist nowhere else in North America.

Mr. Speaker, this motion also acknowledges that, once need has been established, that options are properly identified and studied. Mr. Speaker, no government, certainly no cabinet, would consider a recommendation without alternatives being provided to that recommendation, Mr. Speaker. Every cabinet decision item that I’ve ever seen in my career, Mr. Speaker, has included a recommendation and alternatives or options.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that the government puts forward differs from the motion that I put forward, Mr. Speaker, because it ensures that the study of and the recommendations relating to other options are part of the major consideration of government, Mr. Speaker. So we need to ensure that we’ve got all of the options on the table and prepared in a manner in which they are understood to be thoroughly presented to the public of the province.

And, Mr. Speaker, this motion also acknowledges that risks must be examined and costs identified — either as direct or indirect consequences for Saskatchewan taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, only the result of a freedom of information request did we today recognize that the government is being asked to commit to extensive resources, public resources for the transmission of power, should the value-added opportunities for nuclear power generation be brought forward by a private sector proponent, Mr. Speaker. Only today did we find that out because this government does not believe in open and transparent disclosure of information, Mr. Speaker.

This motion recognizes that we have to know what our risks are. We have to know what our costs are, not only of one means of generating electrical capacity in the province, Mr. Speaker, but all methods of generating electrical capacity in this province. And, Mr. Speaker, this motion acknowledges that those risks or benefits can be social and environmental, Mr. Speaker. They are not just benefits to the people of Saskatchewan, but the benefit and the risk is social and environmental as well as the single source of value-added development.

So, Mr. Speaker, this motion acknowledges we need to examine need; we need to examine options; we need to examine risks; we need to examine costs. And yes, Mr. Speaker, we must all examine benefits. Because, Mr. Speaker, if any decision, not only by government or by the cabinet ministers who make the decision on behalf of government, but the people of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker — all need to understand the ability to make a decision with side-by-side comparisons.

Mr. Speaker, you can’t make a decision that you support one means of energy generation in this province with its diversified mix, Mr. Speaker, without knowing how the decisions on that particular sector, Mr. Speaker, compares to the costs and benefits and risks of all the other sectors, Mr. Speaker. Very important. And don’t forget energy conservation as part of the mix because the best means, Mr. Speaker, of increasing capacity is to reduce the demand through a variety of means.

So, Mr. Speaker, the motion also recognizes as we work to creating an energy plan for the future in this province — and that’s the goal of government; that’s a stated goal of government, creating an energy plan for the future of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker — we also have to ensure that we have a proper understanding and interpretation of what public consultation means.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government motion that we’ll consider later uses the word, that we consider. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do believe seriously that the government members? interpretation of the word consider is different than the New Democratic Party’s interpretation of consider — or in fact, as the public are finding out, the public’s interpretation of what consider means.

So bottom line, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that the public understands what we believe real public consideration is all about, Mr. Speaker. There has to be real consultation, and that means including in the preparation of information, in the distribution of that information, in the providing of opportunity to create feedback, and of course, Mr. Speaker, providing people, after information has been put out there, providing people who would be available to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, the test of a successful consultation is in the results. Do those who participated in this consultation feel that they were heard and that their opinion was valued and considered? This doesn’t happen, Mr. Speaker, in a six-week information campaign that the government has indicated that they’re going to put out there with regards to the Uranium Development Partnership report, Mr. Speaker. This doesn’t happen in six weeks, that in fact you can collect information by a biased panel.

Let’s recall, Mr. Speaker, that we also find out from freedom of information that this panel that’s recommending information to the government was asked to read one book on the benefits of nuclear power, Mr. Speaker. Well I just want to indicate to all those who are watching that it is not the New Democratic Party’s belief, it is not our interpretation of consideration that the future of energy policy in Saskatchewan should be made in a style similar to that of an Oprah book club debate, Mr. Speaker.

This is a series of information sessions, Mr. Speaker, that we believe have to be held across Saskatchewan in a town hall type manner in which people are able to gather information, share information, question information, and provide opinions, Mr. Speaker.

The public wants an informed debate. They want their government to provide them with a real forum in which that debate can take place in a very real way. They want their government to provide them with unbiased, honest information. They want to know that the process is transparent and objective, so that when facts are presented and opinions are expressed that they will have confidence in the information and the process.

And obviously, Mr. Speaker, they want then to be able to express their opinions to government without feeling that their efforts were a waste of time — that the government is not just going through the motions because the government’s collective mind has been made up.

And again in question period today, Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for this refused, Mr. Speaker, refused to acknowledge his own words that he said to his own party convention, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the advice from UDP is not to advise government, but rather to help the government how best to advance their proposal and their perspective, Mr. Speaker.

Saskatchewan people are saying let’s consider all of the options. Let’s have the debate, but let’s do it fairly. Let’s do it with transparency, the transparency of a newly squeegeed window, Mr. Speaker. And let’s make sure that we have a government that is willing to coordinate this process in a very fair way.

There must be an independent and objective research project. The business plans — considering all the options; comparing data; keeping in mind needs, costs, risks — are prepared, Mr. Speaker, financed and prepared and made public. And that public consultation does include town hall type meetings where questions are asked, opinions justified. And let’s make sure we have a government that is willing to really, Mr. Speaker, really and adequately respond to what Saskatchewan people has to say. We need a process that respects Saskatchewan people. There needs to be a reasoned discussion with all the facts on the table, Mr. Speaker.

We believe in considering all of the options. Our fear, of course, is that the Sask Party’s interpretation of consideration and public consultation is very much different from our own. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, as my time is running out, I wish to move the following motion:

That the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan supports the consideration of the further value-added development of Saskatchewan’s energy industry including energy conservation, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other alternative power generation, and as part of that consideration, which would obviously involve extensive public consultation, recognize not only the potential benefits to the growth and prosperity of the people of our province, but also the social and environmental impacts of all of the options.

Mr. Speaker, I so move.

Some Hon. Members: — Hear, hear!