Regina mayoral candidates speak on issues facing city

The Regina municipal election is on Nov. 9. Nominations for mayor and city councillors take place from Sept. 22 to Oct. 7, but candidates for mayor are making themselves known. 

As of Sept. 14, there were six candidates for mayor: incumbent Michael Fougere, Tony Fiacco, Jerry Flegel, Jim Elliott, George Wooldridge and Mitchell Howse. As of Sept. 15, there are seven candidates total as Darren Bradley announced he intends to run for mayor as well.

On Sept. 16, Sandra Masters announced her intention to run, bringing the race up to eight people. 

Here is where the six candidates as of Sept. 14 stand on some of the top of mind issues for Regina city council. 

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

1. Should masks be mandatory in Regina as the colder weather comes closer? 

Fougere: First of all, I think we're in a good place in terms of what council landed on, to not make it mandatory at the moment. We asked that the administration speak with the public health authorities about the manner in which mandatory measures would be made.

So if there was a bylaw to come forward, it would be in alignment with the chief medical officer. So I think we're in a good place now.

We have low numbers right now, relatively speaking.

Fiacco: Well I believe that we need to be more proactive than reactive. As mayor, I would sit with the medical experts — including our health officers — sit down with the regional business leaders and doctors to ensure the safety of our public.

I believe that our citizens' safety is of the utmost importance and we have to make sure that we make the best decisions for the economic future. The pandemic must be treated seriously with great caution.

I believe Saskatchewan as a whole and Regina have had low infection rates and we must take advantage of that while we can by following and encouraging all residents to follow public health orders coming from our professionals.

Flegel: I would rather see the Saskatchewan Health Authority bring us something. Because I'm not a doctor. I'm not a medical professional.

Do I want to wear one personally? I will wear one where I feel it's necessary. A lot of people want to say, 'Let me make that decision myself. It's my family, it's my health.' But in the same vein, I mean, we talked about encouraging you to wear a mask in all different public places.

For us to put it mandatory, I don't think it's the right time. I think the province is doing their job. So at this point, I would leave it as is.

Elliott: Yes, I do. I guess I'm coming at it in two rationales. The first one being that we've been getting a larger number of positive cases in Regina over the last a while. And I think it would be prudent to try to attempt to tamp down that increase.

The second reason I'm looking at it right now is principally is a second barrier for our children going to school in September. They're all being encouraged to go to school and to be participating in their education and a way to limit the potential for them to be just carriers into the schools is to have adults protecting themselves as much as they can.

I would encourage requirements for masks inside buildings be increased in the short term, three to six months. And then we'll kind of assess it at that point and see whether it's necessary to carry on.

Wooldridge: They should be. When it comes to public health and the environment as well, I don't think there's any point in playing Russian roulette. We're talking about something that has killed over 100,000 people in the United States and I think it's better that we approach this with caution.

I know people come up with the usual reasons why they don't like masks and I even have my own, but I still wear it because I don't take the chance. It's better that we don't take the chance and we listen to the vast majority of health care professionals who are recommending that we take precautions.

Howse: The simple answer is no. I think the mask decision should be up to the individual or the particular individual's discretion with some minor provisions. If it's an essential service, then that business should not turn away customers as they cannot go to other places. And some customers may not be able to mask up for multiple reasons, and they shouldn't have to explain why.

I don't really think the city should decide for the people. I just don't feel the government mandate is necessary.

2. What is your opinion on the current calls for police reform and the defund police movement? 

Fougere: I am not in favour of defunding police as the subject has been going around North America and in fact, around the world. I think the issue here is public safety, first and foremost, and defunding police to fund matters that are primarily funded by the provincial government I think misses the point and creates a concern.

There's no question that we need more funding for social services and those that are facing discrimination, those people who are homeless, those people who have drug addictions, who have mental health issues. These are things that should be funded properly, there's no question about that.

But not on the back of the police service. They have a role to play to keep our community safe.

Mental health professionals were saying they don't always want to go into a situation where they don't know what's happening. They want the police with them to make sure that they're safe. So it's a complicated issue, but I believe the point of discussion is not defunding police, it should be, "let's fund these other agencies more appropriately."

Fiacco: I believe that Chief Bray, the RPS, have been doing a good job ensuring that our officers are properly trained. However, I want to give praise to the organizations and communities within the city that continue to talk about this matter. I'd also like to mention how this movement has opened the eyes of all demographics in the city.

Chief Bray has been a leader in handling race relations with sensitivity in our city, and ongoing review should be conducted to ensure his lead is followed throughout the Regina Police Service. We need to acknowledge that our city is a multicultural one and ensure that our differences don't result in different treatment by our police service.

Defunding is not an option. We need to increase our funding so that we have a proper amount of officers on the street on patrol. Currently, 90 per cent plus of their calls are addictions and mental health issues. So what needs to be done is find increased resources from agencies that are dealing with mental health and addictions. Then we free up our police so that they can actually deal with true crime.

Flegel: I'm in full support of where [Black Lives Matter is] moving to. As far as the policing and the funding, I would say — and hearing from other areas — that that's probably not the right way to go.

I was also for a motion to increase the amount of boots on the street as it was, because in Regina, we're down roughly 40 officers on the street, and that's on an average crime rate. We're wanting to increase police presence in the downtown area and we need to do that.

But the reallocation thing is absolutely important. Chief Bray and I, we've had some discussions about different things that are going on and how can we change things once the police apprehend somebody. Now, they don't know what issues this person has.

Instead of putting them into jails or wherever, we can have them talk to caseworkers, we can have them talk to psychologists, we can have them talk to drug addiction counselling. The job of the police is to apprehend. And then what do we do now? How do we help this person get better so that it possibly doesn't happen again or they can change their quality of life?

Elliott: I think we clearly have to reassess how we utilize the police in our community right now. Some of those situations where the police are being asked to go in for health or mental health checks and that type of thing, I think that there clearly could be a way to do that differently rather than having the police do it. 

One area that I think would be of value would be to change Regina to have some aspect of our civilian oversight committee that would both work with the police, but could also be in the position of making recommendations on how the financing of our protection services would be would be used in the future.

Wooldridge: I think that we need to open up the discussion. Currently the discussion seems to be somewhat nebulous. I'm campaigning on having a plebiscite on the future of Regina policing. Perhaps we can ask more than just one question.

On the question of having police do the work of what's really social work, such as welfare checks, I think we should come up with a mechanism where we have health care workers performing that task rather than the RPS, because it's quite intimidating having a fully armed officer come and do a welfare check because you don't know the state of mind of the person that you're coming to see. And if they have a health issue, a mental health issue, that's something that's better approached with a mental health professional rather than armed officers.

Howse: I think that Chief Evan Bray and the Regina Police Service are doing a phenomenal job from what I have personally seen within my own community of North Central. This is just my opinion, based on what I've seen objectively within my own community and from others — my neighbours, friends — who have never said anything to me. They don't seem targeted, harassed, discriminated against by the Regina Police Service.

I think the BLM is a certain metropolitan movement, it's a non-issue here. However, if racism were systemic in an emergency service, then of course it needs to be addressed. I believe in individual liberty and all being equal regardless of race. But 99 per cent of the time I stand with the police.

3. What do you think of the currently approved regulations for body rub parlours in Regina? 

Fougere: I actually voted against allowing them, obviously, in the first place. I maintain that view that I just don't think that they have a place to play here.

But councillors decided that they wanted firstly to zone them in industrial areas and then now they also decide to license them. So once we decide to zone them, it is important to license them, because that way we have a mechanism to protect the workers that are there.

That's the centrepiece of this whole issue. How do we protect the workers that are there? Do you ban them or do you license them, regulate them and give them an opportunity to be educated and to get out of the whole system?

They came down on licensing of them, providing supports as required for them. So we have the criminal record checks that will take place for the owner, education programs, proof of identity and working eligibility for the workers that are there. So this is a way for both the police and for the city to have a window of opportunity to look in and see what's happening in those organizations.

Fiacco: Current licensing bylaws the council recently passed may seem reasonable, but I already got concerned citizens reaching out to me about this. We need to involve our citizens and we need to gather more feedback on this matter. Then we can put in place guidelines that the public is comfortable with.

What exactly is going on in those establishments? Those are concerns and so we need to address that. We need to be able to have regulations in place that will allow the regular inspections of the facilities as well as ensuring the safety of those workers, because no one really knows what takes place in there.

Flegel: Everybody had talked about, "It's illegal, get them out of here and ban them." But when you look at banning, basically everything goes underground. We have no teeth for the police this way.

We've given them the tools and the bylaws and the licensing and restrictions. And from there, then the police can have better control. When you license something and you give the police the identity to go in there and do their thing, I think it changes and it makes me think maybe people a little bit nervous about going in there.

So at some point, I think we've licensed them enough that they may look at a different career, but they still could go underground. But at this point, we can identify who they are, where they are. We just need to get things going.

Elliott: I'm still of the opinion that I don't think we should be licensing or regulating the services in Regina, even if it is a matter of being done in industrial zoning. I think it does put limits on what may be an appropriate action in the future.

I think there needs to be more effort put on the front end, as well as the back end of the office of the services in the sense of trying to limit the numbers of individuals that are hired and similarly to limit the demand for services.

Wooldridge: I have a lot of concerns. They were going to license areas in the industrial area of Regina. And to me, that's dangerous.

It's a difficult subject. I understand. I'm pretty sure council would rather the issue just disappear.

I think we have to normalize body rub parlours. The fact is, it's like legalizing drugs. People are going to get the drugs illegally, people will get these services illegally if they have to. But we need to protect people and the best way of protecting people is to have them in areas that are high traffic density where they are close to police if need be.

I think we need to normalize the profession. We can't just keep saying, "Oh, we're going to lock up this person and that person because we think what they're doing is morally questionable." I have a problem with that. I think morals are personal and it's something that shouldn't be governed by administrations or government.

Howse: I disagree with the regulations. You cannot regulate people into morality and if you make it harder for these businesses to exist, they are going to go into the black market making the vulnerable even more vulnerable.

There are existing laws in place for human trafficking and for the protection of minors and there is no reason why the Regina police did not go undercover and take an inside look at such operations.

I think the decision to regulate [body rub establishments] was very emotionally driven. It's better to have things out in the open and transparent if you agree with them or not.

4. Would you support the former Capital Pointe site being a temporary parking lot? How hopeful are you for future development on the site? 

Fougere: The good news is that we have an owner that wants to develop the property. That hasn't happened for many years and think people should be pleased with that.

The owner is looking for a one year opportunity to use it as a parking lot to generate revenue while they're developing the proposal. I think that's fair. The alternative is that we leave the site as it is for quite a while and I think it's a bit of an eyesore, certainly as it is a gateway to downtown.

We'd like to have a development. So it's a parking lot that's landscape property for one year, I think that's fine. What we want to make sure, though, is this is not a permanent parking lot.

Fiacco: It's unfortunate that previous owners weren't able to complete the redevelopment of the site. It's the gateway to our downtown, which is critical for rejuvenation of the downtown. We need to consult with the Downtown Business Association, as well as with the development community, about ideas for that site and then address the market and find suitable development.

As far as a parking lot, I know they say a year and I know that they're expensive. I believe currently that site still hasn't been sold to anyone. So, before that sale is approved, we need to make sure that the plan is suitable for that site.

Flegel: This should have been built six, seven years ago. And this is just an indicator of the slowness of the mayor's office, and the development that people are coming to this city and they want to develop. And we're getting pulled away from it. And it's not good.

I've always been against reports. And if I go back to some of the other issues we've dealt with for over two years and it's been back and forth, back and forth, and eventually they just go away. That's the culture that's been created.

I need to change that culture. I want to be open for business. I want people to want to come to Regina.

Elliott: I know there are other locations in the city where it was said to be a temporary thing and a temporary thing started one or two years, and then they end up being five and 10 years in a number of cases. We've still got no further development on the property.

I think clearly the city has to be much more involved in the recruiting of a potential developer in that location rather than simply to leave it to someone wanting to move into our city. I think we have to be in a position of trying to both identify the appropriate type of building on that site, but also to try to communicate that out to the development community that would be in the position of having that building in our city. I think that would go a long way to hopefully speed up that process.

If a one-year parking lot is a deal-breaker, then I'm a little concerned that we're going to end up with still no development on that property for a number of years.

Wooldridge: The irony in downtown is we have enough parking. The biggest issue with downtown is that it's everywhere you go. I don't think we're going to be served too well with another parking lot.

That being said, I think the whole Capital Pointe, it's a bit like asking an Irishman for directions and the answer is "Well, I wouldn't have started from here." It's embarrassing.

We need to have mechanisms for development in this city where we don't have large segments of land that are in a sort of developmental no man's land. There has to be more strict measures brought in so that if a developer is going to develop something that they have a defined framework to do it.

We have to do better. And we never should have gone into that whole embarrassing saga to begin with.

Howse: I would have done things differently and I think going forward, the city should always ask for a security deposit, two to four per cent of the estimated building costs, which could be returned upon the completion of the development. The security deposit would cushion the blow to the taxpayer, to government subsidies.

I disagree with the city council not passing the approval for a temporary private parking lot, which now makes that a complete loss.