Regina council motions will attempt to make province more transparent about what is happening in Wascana Park
Councillors using different approaches to address growing concern about Brandt's Wascana Park building
Two pairs of Regina city councillors are asking their colleagues to address growing concern with Brandt's proposed four-storey commercial office building in two strikingly different ways.
One motion calls for greater transparency while the other attempts to force full disclosure by means of an independent public inquiry with sweeping powers. They will both be introduced for the first time on Monday Feb. 25.
Barbara Young, one of the councillors making a motion, says all council can do is try to influence the government, which has the final say as to what happens in the park. Young is teaming up with Coun. Mike O'Donnell in putting her motion forward.
Coun. Bob Hawkins, who's making the other motion with Andrew Stevens, says a key point is the provincial government responds to political pressure.
"This is a government facing an election in a fairly short period of time. I believe in democracy. I don't think this is a done deal," he said.
Brandt is planning to build a 77,000-square-foot building where the CNIB's old facility used to sit in Wascana Park.
In exchange for the right to build there, Brandt has agreed to provide CNIB with 4,000 square feet of office space for free. That's about 5 per cent of the total office space Brandt will have available. It will lease out the rest at market rates.
Brandt hasn't yet said what other tenants will be moving in. That's where much of the controversy lies.
Legislation rules out commercial development in the park, but the government of Saskatchewan secretly signed an agreement with CNIB granting it and Brandt the ability to lease to a wide range of potential tenants.
Both motions calling for transparency
A motion from councillors Hawkins and Andrew Stevens will ask that council request the Mayor to call on the provincial government to hold an independent public inquiry into the Brandt project.
"The said inquiry to have the full authority to gather oral and written evidence including correspondence, reports and meeting minutes, and all other relevant evidence, for the purpose of making that information part of the public record," the motion says.
They also want construction delayed until that inquiry is complete.
Hawkins first called for a public inquiry last month, arguing "there are too many unanswered questions, too much secrecy, too many regulations that have been skirted not to be concerned."
In addition to transparency, Hawkins says there has to be some accounting for how the Brandt building was allowed to proceed.
"Many of the protections of the park that the process insured have been eliminated," he said.
"The best examples are the abolition of the Wascana Centre Authority but also the resignations from the architectural committee, the advertisement for office space for uses that don't fit within the legal uses of the park. All of those things tell me that the process isn't working."
Councillors Barbara Young and Mike O'Donnell are scheduled to put forth a motion calling on the provincial government to be more transparent about how it runs the Provincial Capital Commission (PCC), which oversees development in the Wascana park.
Young and O'Donnell want the province to more clearly spell out to the public what it has done so far with the Brandt project and what it plans for the future. In addition, they want more transparency about plans for the overall future of the park.
"This motion, if it's passed by Council, encourages them to be as transparent as possible not just about this issue that's before us now but about the future of the park and what's happening in the park and any changes or developments or infrastructure issues that the park is dealing with," said Young in an interview with CBC.
She is the city of Regina's representative on the PCC. O'Donnell is Regina council's alternate member on the commission.
The two motions will be debated at a subsequent council meeting in March.
Confrontation vs. conciliation
Young acknowledges that while the motions share a similar goal, they attempt to reach it in significantly different ways.
She says her approach is to work within the system.
"I have found in my 50-year career in government that I'm always open to information from them. And if I'm going to get solutions to problems or if I'm going to be heard when I want to be heard, I don't do that by being angry and assuming the worst," she said.
She said Hawkins and Stevens approach is more confrontational.
"I think when you when you confront the government with a public inquiry there may or may not be anger behind it. It might be just what you think is the is the best solution to the problem," Young said.
"I respect my colleagues bringing forward whatever motions they bring forward."
Hawkins argues that a more aggressive approach is required because the province has been systematically removing historical protections for the park.
"There's no indication to this point that the government is prepared to work within a system that will protect the park," he said.
Young said it's unclear which of the two approaches would most likely result in transparency from the government.
She pointed out that ultimately the power rests with the provincial government which has a majority on the PCC.
Park gets political
She said that with a provincial election coming, this issue is likely to get politicized.
She would like to see Saskatchewan people who care about what's happening in the park to make that clear to the province.
"I'm sure the government quite knows quite well that this is a hot issue. And so we're saying let's do some problem solving here. Let's see if there's some things that we could do that would make some of these things more transparent," Young said.
"It might not satisfy everybody. It certainly won't satisfy people that might want extreme solutions to the problem but it will at least begin the process of having more transparency."
When asked if she has a position on whether the Brandt project should be halted or go ahead she said "I think it's gone forward to the point now where something will be happening on that site and I don't know what it is yet. I don't know whether it will be approved."
The PCC's architectural advisory committee is currently reviewing Brandt's detailed plans. If it recommends approval, the project will be able to move forward.
Complete text of the Hawkins/Stevens motion
(PDF KB)
(Text KB)CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content
Complete text of the Young/O'Donnell motion.
(PDF KB)
(Text KB)CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
