Bring out the boogeyman

In Saskatchewan, we are so entrenched with universality and collectivity, that any ideas of doing business in a new or economical way are easily put aside with one word - privatization - our bogeyman.

In today's SP, in the Letters to the Editor section, Gordon Campbell, president of the health-care council of the Canadian Union of Public Employees states that the provincial government's decision to use private clinics to provide services to patients, many of whom have been wait-listed or six months to a year, is simply a way for the Wall government to privatize health care. He also states that "CUPE members who work in public health care are telling us operating rooms and CT scanners could be much better used" but he doesn't state how that could happen.

This of course flies in the face of earlier comments from the Canadian Medical Association that health care is in peril if we don't find new ways of delivering service. It further contradicts the fact that other provinces have used private clinics to support the publicly funded health systems, which is still surviving in those jurisdictions.

As I understand it, private clinics will receive the same fee for service as does a public clinic. Right now doctors are taking Saskatoon patients to hospitals in places such as Humboldt because they have better access to surgery time. The problem is only those patients who can get themselves to Humboldt get the service. And should there be a problem and the patient has to be returned to Saskatoon, the patient bears a very expensive ambulance bill.

I recall recently a news report that the unions were going to court to challenge a Health Authority's decision to use private clinics. Since when did the unions take over delivery of the medicare system in this province?

Saskatchewan has waved the banner of pride in being the home of publicly funded health care. The system has problems and we should be applauding those who are trying to find ways to fix it.

Put the bogeyman back in the box and start to think outside of it.

The price is right

As the debate unfolds on the future of the Traffic Bridge two considerations are noticeably absent in the discussions. The first being the condition and lifespans of both the Broadway and the University Bridges. Secondly, the roadway infrastructure changes necessary, and cost thereof, should the Traffic Bridge not exist for vehicle traffic.

As it stands the proposals for the future of the bridge seem to be: gonzo, rehab, redo or revise.

Gonzo appears to be on face value the cheapest, at least from a financial perspective, although it may have some political fallout for some elected officials. Outside of current users of the bridge and heritage diehards I suspect the rest of Saskatoonians don't care about anything other than costs. Many of the current users will be diverted after construction of the South Bridge is completed leaving area residents as the prime consideration. And if the gonzo option is exercised the heritage folks will always lament the loss and the bridge will join the Capital Theatre in the archives of bad council decisions.

Rehab weighs in the middle at $27 million. I think the cost of changing the roadway infrastructure to serve the core area residents should be factored in when considering this option. It may be that, when deducting those extra costs, that this option is viable.

A redo replica is in the running at $25 million and a new signature bridge is coming in last place at $60 million.

The revise options range between $17 and $34 million and include bike/pedestrian only and the non-vehicle bridge/park themes. These options do not include the cost of new roadway infrastructure to serve the core residents needs should vehicle traffic be eliminated.

I guess the only other option not being considered is ferry service.

It is at times like this, when necessary spending is on the horizon regardless of the option, that council should sit back and reconsider the debt it has created for nice but not necessarily necessary capital projects.

The only certainty we have is that politics will rule the decision. It is the right price we pay for our lackadaisical interest in civic government elections.

Laughter is good for the soul . .

Pat Lorje's political longevity can do doubt be attributed to her sense of humour and bombastic comments. In today's SP (Sept. 8/10) her comment in defence of the City's maintenance of the Traffic Bridge she says: "Nobody would ever buy a car and assume that nothing would ever go wrong with the car and call for a public inquiry because their brakes failed." The Toyota corporation needs this woman. On the other hand most intelligent people have a mechanic check a used car prior to purchase and rely on the mechanic's report to flag any deficiencies before investing money in the vehicle. Hmmm. I question the car/bridge analogy, but it did give me chuckle to start my day.

As to the traffic under the Traffic Bridge I was pleased to learn that buoys will be placed to direct boat traffic through the safest path under the bridge and redirecting pedestrian traffic on the east side of the bridge. Does that mean that the roadway under the Traffic Bridge is safe to use?

Confession is also good for the soul. Since the formation of the Saskatchewan Party the NDP have always referred to that entity as the Sask-a-Tories and attempted to tie it to the Devine Progressive Conservatives. I guess the cartoon featured in today's SP is a way of confessing that in fact the Sask Party is not what they claimed it to be when they state: "Wall is accused to making off with $3 million that belongs to another political party - the Progressive Conservatives." Its good to have the record corrected.

So I confess I laughed and my soul is in tact.

Polled out

I finally caught up on my SP reading over the weekend. I was stunned by the poll on the proposed PCS takeover (SP Aug. 27/10). Do the good folks of Saskatchewan live in a vacuum? 23% still think PCS is a Crown?

I was pleased to hear that the provincial government was looking for outside advice via the Conference Board of Canada on the impact to the province on any takeover of PCS (Sept. 3/10). Then I read Lingenfelter's comment (SP Spt. 3/10) that seeking outside advice was "wrong-headed" and that Wall's government should be speaking to the local people about the issue. Would he mean the 23% who still think PCS is a Crown corporation? Or those who still think PCS is Saskatchewan or Canadian owned and want to keep it that way and don't know that 70% of the shares are not Canadian owned? I'll take the outside advice from people who know what they are talking about.

What I am curious about is how many Saskatchewan residents have an interest in PCS via their group pension plan holdings and don't realize it. Would they want to see the pension trustees selling PCS stock while at a high value which would benefit them or risk having the stock fall in price to their detriment?

I'm going to deviate from my usual "buy high and sell low" activities and dump my paltry shares while the dumping is good. Needless to say, I am my own pension trustee.

The ROAD WARRIOR: Tired of getting those Nasty Speeding Tickets in a...

The ROAD WARRIOR: Tired of getting those Nasty Speeding Tickets in a...: "It was just yesterday that the Star Phoenix reported on the number of tickets handed out on the very first day of the 'School Zones' taking ..."


Check it out.

Sue the bastards

Emotionally, I vacillate between sadness and anger when reading about the Traffic Bridge and what appears to be its eminent demise. Although I confess to leaning towards preserving heritage buildings and sites, I am not of the ilk that everything ever built should be saved at any cost. But the Traffic Bridge is, or was, an icon in Saskatoon. It represents the birth of our city. So how did we get to this juncture?

The first flags on the bridge came in spring of 2006. At that time the engineering report offered options on what would need to be done to save the old girl, or alternatively, tear it down. As 2006 was an election year and many of today's councillors were still promoting themselves as being fiscally responsible (a trait long since lost - sorry for the digression) the decision was made to do what was necessary to extend the lifespan by 20 years. For many this decision came as a result of this option being cheaper than the tear down costs.

Since that time this bridge has been inspected, studied and discussed to death. As early as this Spring the news reports appeared to imply that a paint job would be the fix, although most reasonable people did not buy into that scenario.

Now Mayor Atch states that the bridge is closed to pedi, bike and vehicle traffic due to its unstable condition, and that it could collapse under its own weight. Interestingly enough you can still paddle under the bridge and become part of the debris if you're passing under at down time.

I am not angry at council for the condition of the bridge. Its lack of maintenance and decay started decades ago. And council has the right to depend on professional reports when making decisions. I will be angry at councillors if they do not call into question the validity of the engineering reports, many done by outside consultants for considerable sums of money, and by professional city employees who are paid decent salaries for their advice. Huge tax dollars have been invested in the Traffic Bridge as a result of those reports, the least of which was the bordello style lights at more than twice the budgeted cost.

Aside from the heritage and financial costs, it concerns me that thousands of people, using various modes of transportation, crossed that bridge daily over the months preceding the closure announcement.

So, if costly decisions were made by council without them knowing the true condition of the bridge, sue the bastards that wrote the reports and recover the costs of the reports together with the dollars invested in a lost cause.

And now my emotional pendulum is swinging back to the sad zone.

Enjoy the last summer long weekend!

Back in the saddle

I'm back from an emergency Flo Nightingale gig in Kelowna. Good news is that the patient will live and the Saskatchewan weather that trailed me to BC assisted in their forest fire problems. However the Kelowna golfers were ready to pool money to send me and the weather back home.

I'm just starting to catch up on my backlog of the SP papers and already have so much to comment on. I'll be working backwards from today.

I see Mr. LeClerc has finally stepped down and according to Murray Mandryk the Sask Party's candidate, Gord Wyant, is touted as a step up to a more credible slate. The lawyers in the province should be happy to know that political pundits are looking more favourably on their profession in that they are an upgrade from a criminal element that they are generally required to defend. I'm sad to say that it appears that men like LeClerc cannot leave their past behind. I will be anxious to hear the results of the investigation and whether or not LeClerc is simply political fallout.

On the upside, if the city is required to hold a by-election it can at the same time field some referendum questions to city residents on some very pricey projects. ie Whitewater, Recycling, the Traffic Bridge, . . . .debt in general.

Ah, its good to be home!