Government and private sector working together.

This is the start of bring a neighbour back to it once greatest this time Government got it right.
So why is the provicial fighting so hard against the idea of putting a food story near by ?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#6 - 315 N AVENUE S Saskatoon, SK S7M 2N2
0.8 km0.8 km© 2010 Microsoft Corporation © 2010 NAVTEQ © AND © 2010 Microsoft Corporation © 2010 NAVTEQ © AND
RoadAerialBird's eyeLabelsSee this location in bird's eye view Bing Maps 3D has finished updating


General Description
Pleasant Hill Revitalization program offers a fabulous new development by Cenith Developments. Eco-friendly, Energy Star Home, Solar panelled for optimum energy efficiency! One of kind, first to hit Saskatoon! Be excited to join the green movement and own a 2-3 bedroom townhome directly across from the new St. Mary's School in Pleasant Hill. This Brand new home features 810 square feet plus a finished basement. Units either face or back the park. Open floor plan. 2 of the 12 units are Wheel Chair accessible.
Location Description
Saskatoon


Property
Features : Treed, Corner Site, Rectangular Maintenance Fees : $0 Monthly




Building
Building Type : Unknown Built in : 2010
Floor Space : 810.0000 sqft


Rooms
Type Level Dimensions

Master bedroom Second level 12 ft ,5 in x 9 ft ,4 in

4pc Bathroom Second level 5 ft ,8 in x 7 ft ,8 in

Bedroom 2 Second level 12 ft ,2 in x 9 ft ,4 in



Family room Basement 13 ft ,10 in x 13 ft ,11 in

2pc Bathroom Basement 3 ft x 7 ft ,5 in

Laundry room Basement 8 ft ,3 in x 7 ft ,4 in

Storage Basement n/a



Dining room Main level 11 ft ,3 in x 7 ft ,6 in

Living room Main level 14 ft x 9 ft ,7 in

Kitchen Main level 6 ft ,11 in x 9 ft

Not sure What to make of the This?

As riding president I am not really sure of what to make of this news Story is true or bull shit? I gues I am Have to go the membership and Ask them?

NDP coalition talk highlights clash between Ignatieff and Rae

Chris Wattie/Reuters
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill on June 1. The Liberal leader is suffering in the polls.


By John Ivison June 1, 2010 – 9:22 pm

It’s no wonder some supporters of Michael Ignatieff are wary of Bob Rae. Mr. Rae may not always have the Liberal leader’s best interests at heart, say Ignatieff supporters, such as the advice he is said to have given last fall, to bring down the government because “you can’t be half pregnant.”

Now, trouble is brewing once more, as Liberal support continues to slide and some of Mr. Rae’s advocates openly agitate for a debate about a coalition with the NDP. One influential supporter said that if the Liberals don’t take the idea seriously, they have no chance of governing the country in the foreseeable future.


However, supporters loyal to Mr. Ignatieff are hitting back, arguing that a deal with the NDP would sacrifice the Liberal party’s history and identity.

Last week, Mr. Rae reminisced on his website about the NDP-Liberal deal he helped broker in Ontario 25 years ago. He is on the record as saying that the Conservatives are only in power because “the forces of the centre-left allowed themselves to be divided and we can’t allow that to happen again.”

Jean Chrétien added to the momentum for collaboration when he said of a coalition with the NDP: “If it’s doable, let’s do it.” Yesterday, it was the turn of the president of the Young Liberals of Canada, Samuel Lavoie, who called for federalist progressives to unite under a new banner.

On the other side of the debate is Mr. Ignatieff, who last fall dismissed any prospective resurrection of the 2008 coalition deal signed by the entire Liberal caucus. “We do not support a coalition today or tomorrow,” he said.

On Tuesday, a senior Liberal in Mr. Ignatieff’s office said the party plans on running a campaign to form a Liberal government with candidates in every riding.

Divisions have been hardened further by the addition to the Ignatieff ranks of old Paul Martin aides, like former director of communications Scott Reid. He was forthright in his opinion that it should be the Liberal party’s ambition to beat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, “not surrender to Jack Layton’s NDP.”

“This is a merger by any other name… A slippery slope to sacrificing our political identity. It would amount to a total betrayal of the Liberal party’s history, identity and success,” he said.

Mr. Reid rightly raised some prickly questions for those hankering after some vague accommodation among the “progressive majority.”

“Would we run 100 fewer candidates? Would we abandon Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the NDP and ask Ralph [Goodale] to step down? I think the notion is absurd. The only person who advocated it was Jean Chrétien on CBC but I have a hard time believing Jean Chrétien thinks the Liberal party shouldn’t run 308 candidates at the next election.”

The battle lines are not entirely set. While many supporters of Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Rae have coalesced around the banner of uniting the left, and most of Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Martin’s boosters oppose such a move, the narrative is not quite that neat. For example, Peter Donolo was Mr. Chrétien’s director of communications but is now heavily invested in the Ignatieff camp as chief of staff.

What’s more, it is unlikely that many of those who would favour a progressive accommodation are in favour of a pre-election pact. One of Mr. Rae’s supporters said he would rather not rule out a post-election governing arrangement, as Mr. Ignatieff seems to have done. Both Liberals and New Democrats say discussions about a coalition remain hypothetical at this point.

But as Mr. Ignatieff’s support continues to slip, nervous caucus members add the support of the two left of centre parties together and dream of government. That may be wishful thinking – not all Liberals would join a united left. As one Toronto Grit said: “Rae is fundamentally a lefty who paid $10 to become a Liberal. But he hasn’t changed his substance, only his perfume. My opinion is that it is a bad idea for the Liberals but a good opportunity for the NDP.”

Meanwhile, the NDP are happy to fuel the fires within the Liberal party. Nothing bad can come from internal Grit strife and, at the same time, the party remains in the news. “We’re front and centre. If the political discourse of this week is that Jack Layton is the only one who can unseat Stephen Harper and the separatists, then why in the world would any New Democrat want it to stop,” said a cheerful Brad Lavigne, the party’s national director.

We Need a new Zoo keeper.

In my opinion we need a Thrid to Ref this Zoo. You wonder why everyone thinks all political party are the Same.


Spending by Sask. government and Opposition caucuses lacks transparency
By James Wood, The StarPhoenix May 26, 2010 Be the first to post a comment
•Story•Photos ( 1 )
Every year the provincial government and the Opposition caucuses recieve $2 million but it's an area of spending that remains opaque to the public.Photograph by: Bryan Schlosser, Leader-Post filesREGINA — While a major controversy brews in Ottawa over oversight of MP expenses, provincial politicians in Saskatchewan have been under a system to publicly account for their individual spending of taxpayers' dollars for years.

However, one major area of spending remains opaque to the public — the nearly $2 million allocated to the government and Opposition caucuses annually.

New rules for individual members were introduced in the mid-1990s following the misuse of MLA communications allowances that ended in the conviction of 16 Progressive Conservative MLAs and caucus workers and one NDP MLA.

Members are allowed to charge for expenses in four areas: telephone and related expenses; MLA travel and living; constituency service and constituency assistants.

They must file a report annually with the legislative assembly outlining their expenditures. That report is available for perusal by the public at the legislature clerk's office and at the offices of MLAs.

"At the time these would have been the state of the art rules in the country and still are. When other jurisdictions are looking to change their rules, they come here," said NDP MLA Kevin Yates, the Opposition's ranking member on the legislature's board of internal economy.

Yates said MLAs are restricted in their discretionary spending compared to politicians in other jurisdictions and the legislative assembly staff assigned to vet expenditures are not reluctant to flag questionable costs and withhold reimbursement.

MLAs have a limit of $42,366 annually for constituency service expenditures, which include communications, advertising, offices and furniture. Constituency assistant expenditures are topped out at $52,054. Travel allowances vary based on the location of a member's constituency, with northern members allowed the most - $83,000. The average amount is $39,300.

Saskatchewan Party board member Don Morgan said the current system allowed members to check ahead of time whether an expense is allowable and ensured disclosure took place.

"There was a strong desire for the rules to be quite strict and that people should be able to look at them at the end of the year and say 'we got good value for our tax dollars,'" said Morgan.

But while the individual MLAs must provide listings of such things as individual purchases and suppliers and all other aspects of government expenditure such as salaries and payments to suppliers over $50,000 are released in public accounts, the use of funding provided to the caucuses remains obscured.

An annual report breaks overall down areas of expenditure such as salaries and research but not details of how the money is spent.

Morgan, the government's justice minister, struggled to explain why that data has remained hidden over the years even while transparency has increased on other aspects of provincial spending.

He suggested details of caucus spending would provide information to political opponents and raise questions about "motives."

"I think by its nature, caucus is . . . very reluctant to release information that they feel could effect their ability to deal with issues in the house when they want to bring things up," said Morgan.

But Yates said he could not think of any aspect of caucus spending that would be problematic to release publicly.

He said it was probably time for the board of internal economy to review all rules around expenditure and disclosure.

Caucus funding is allocated based on the number of MLAs not in cabinet. In 2008-2009, the Opposition NDP received $1,115,835 and the Sask. Party government received $838,245.

jwood@sp.canwest.com

Union Run a Muck

This a story of how unions can go to far. Also why is this person not fired? That is the million dollar question ? Who


Privacy breach feared
Private information released by SGI, FedEx worker says
By David Hutton, The StarPhoenix May 23, 2010
•
A Saskatoon FedEx worker is concerned about a privacy breach where the addresses of around 25 local employees were leaked from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to the union trying to organize the global courier servicePhotograph by: ,, ,A Saskatoon FedEx worker is concerned about a privacy breach where the addresses of around 25 local employees were leaked from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) to the union trying to organize the global courier service.

"It's concerning," said Tracy Gibson, a FedEx employee for 12 years. "If it's that easy to get the information, it makes you wonder who else can access it."

Last year, the Teamsters Union, a labour group that represents blue-collar and professional workers, launched a full-scale campaign to organize Canadian FedEx employees.

Local FedEx employees were soon being approached by union representatives about joining, but many weren't interested, Gibson said.

Soon after, employees noticed union representatives writing down employee licence plate numbers in the parking lot, Gibson said. They then began receiving mail at home from the union addressed to the owner of the vehicle, which in many cases wasn't the FedEx employee, Gibson said.

Gibson, 37, and five other employees asked SGI to investigate what they suspected was a privacy breach. They were contacted last month by SGI's chief privacy officer with a letter confirming suspicions their personal information was given out inappropriately.

SGI spokesperson Kim Hambleton said the privacy breach was traced to the Ministry of Justice, where it was discovered an employee had given the information to the union.

Privacy breaches are "very infrequent," Hambleton said.

Third-party agencies such as other government ministries or law enforcement have limited access to information in SGI's database, she said. SGI's extensive database includes customer contact information, driver and vehicle information, and driving history. The majority of agencies only have access to customer names and addresses, Hambleton said.

"We're very clear on what that information should only be used for and can only be used for," she said. "Obviously, if someone chooses to abuse it that is, you know, (unfortunate), but we make it extremely clear on what it is to be used for."

Ken Acton, assistant deputy minister with the ministry of Justice, said Friday the employee, who worked in a clerical data-entry position, was suspended without pay and upon return was reassigned to a job with no access to the SGI database.

The information was provided inappropriately to a friend at the union, he said.

"We take this very, very seriously," he said. "It's really unfortunate."

"In this case there was a mistake made," Acton said. "Do I think our system is flawed? No."

The privacy breach "opens up a can of worms," Gibson said, and suggests personal information may not be as secure as people believe. The mechanisms in place in government for keeping information private need to be examined, she said.

"People have to know about this," she said.

While Gibson said her problem was not with the union but the ease of which the information was given out, she does not support efforts to unionize.

"I don't want to be part of a group that is so aggressive," Gibson said. "That just goes beyond pushy."

A local Teamsters representative declined comment and a national spokesperson did not return a Friday interview request.

dhutton@sp.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Question on My Mind. Do you have any answers for me.

1. Why is the Sask Party opening up this kettle of fish now. Hey dudes keeping working with 1st nations do not just do things and just act like you do not care. Read this tell me what you think.

Protest Day At The Legislature
Those angry at government speaking out

Story Tools
ShareThisReported By Sarah Mills
Posted May 18, 2010 - 1:56pm
It is a day of protest at the Legislative has the spring session begins to wrap up. In the final few days those angry at government are intent on making their voices heard.

Front and centre on the grounds here at the Legislature is the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. They are angered at the potential sale of protected environmental lands.

"Talk to us first, show us a map, where are these lands, maybe our Chiefs are interested in these lands", vice-Chief Lyle Whitefish maintains the government isn't doing enough to consult on issues he says are vitally important to them, "start talking to us, strt a dialogue and of course, the duty to consult."

Alongside them are hundreds of people fighting contruction union changes in bill 80 and healthcare workers without a contract.

2. The second question I have is this ? Read this and tell what you think ? What are you pushing now Stephen Yikes!

PET Trudeau said it best !“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”


May 15, 2010
Stephen Harper and religion
There's been a lot of talk this week about the influence of the Christian right on Stephen Harper's government. Primarily, this is the result of Marci McDonald's newly released book, The Armageddon Factor. Exquisitely timed, as Antonia Zerbisias pointed out in the Star this week, this comes on the heels of Harper's decision to ban support for abortion in overseas aids projects and at the same time as the National Prayer Breakfast and the huge March for Life Rally on Parliament Hill.

Paul Wells, in Macleans, has weighed in with some skepticism about McDonald's arguments, saying more or less that she's overstating the whole thing.

Here's what I know. Back before he became prime minister, Harper and I used to talk quite a bit. No surprise. We're contemporaries on the Hill; the same age and (believe it or not) we were of similar views on things like Meech Lake, democratic reform and political cynicism in general. He helped me a lot with my book on the Charlottetown accord and gave me a lot of good advice/insights through the years. I think he's changed, but that's a topic for another day.

In all my conversations with Harper, the subject of religion never came up. Except once. I asked him why he was inserting the God-bless stuff into his speeches when he became the leader of the Canadian Alliance. He said, cryptically: "You'd understand if you had children." Fair enough. We left it at that.

The only other insight I had into Harper and his religion was shortly after he won the 2006 election and a then-new book, the Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, by Lloyd Mackey, implied that Harper and his wife, Laureen, were deeply religious. She was keen to correct that record and got in touch with me to help do that among the media. She wanted folks to know that Harper was only an occasional church-goer (maybe a half-dozen times a year?) and that she and her alleged Christian-temperance family celebrated the election win with cases of beer. I duly passed the word around.

Does this mean that all this talk of Christian influence is wrong-headed? As mentioned above, I don't claim to have any special understanding of the Harper I see as prime minister and have a hard time connecting the dots from the guy I used to know with the one I see in power. That's not unusual, though. Many folks change when they come to office; some for the worse, some for the better.

What is clear is that he now sees no downside in giving some air time to the Christian right among his supporters. As I noted in the story of the pro-life rally this week, no one is telling these folks to shut the f--- up. They're not being punished, as Diane Ablonczy was last year, for being overly visible with controversial folks. Is that a tactical or theological development? I'd lean toward this being a political calculation by Harper and his advisers; political calculating being the the closest thing I've seen to a religious crusade in this regime. McDonald, as far as I've seen in interviews, seems to be making the same point: whether or not Stephen Harper agrees with the organized Christian right, he's sending some important signals to them in recent weeks. They seem to be happy about that, and so they should be.




Is me or this wrong

Go bye West

OK These comments are not needed. The best thing to do with gun Control is to blow it up and start from begining a simple plan. Which is you buy a gun from this date it gets on a list. Will it stop the crazy gun guys no. But it will make people happier and then charge people a fees of one time for each gun 10.00 bucks or so. Quick and Simple Will it work No because the polticians are to busy doing shit like this.

By Joan Bryden, THE CANADIAN PRESS,

Updated: April 20, 2010 10:38 PM

Tory MP apologizes for suggesting Ignatieff should be beaten 'black and blue' over gun registry

OTTAWA - A Conservative MP is apologizing for issuing a news release that compared Canadian police chiefs to a cult and urged Liberals to beat their leader, Michael Ignatieff, "black and blue."

Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz said late Tuesday that he did not write the release, issued under his name earlier in the day. "I want to apologize for the language in the news release. It was over the top," he said in a phone interview from his office.

"I don't know how that got out of here."

The release angrily denounced Ignatieff's decision to require all Liberal MPs to vote against a private member's bill that would scrap the controversial long-gun registry.

The Tories have launched an orchestrated campaign to ridicule Ignatieff's decision and to pressure eight Liberal MPs, who supported the bill at second reading, to stick to their guns when it comes up for a final vote next month.

But the missive from Breitkreuz's office went well beyond the official party line. Indeed, P.E.I. MP Wayne Easter, one of the eight Liberals the Tories are trying to court, called it "a tirade that's unbecoming of a member of Parliament."

In the release, Breitkreuz, a passionate, longtime gun registry foe, is quoted as saying Ignatieff is "a bully who may well be committing political suicide."

"With tactics like this, I doubt he'll be missed on either side of the House," the release said.

Breitkreuz was quoted calling Ignatieff's attempt to head off elimination of the registry "an act of desperation that insults the intellect of Canadians."

"His true colours are showing and, if his caucus has any integrity, those colours should be black and blue."

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also wound up in the news release's cross-hairs as it mocked opposition MPs' claims that the registry helps save lives.

"It's like a cult that is led by organizations of police chiefs who pretend the registry helps them do their jobs. They should be ashamed."

The police chiefs association supports retention of the gun registry. But Breitkreuz was quoted as calling both the chiefs and the Coalition for Gun Control "politically motivated lobby groups that derive financial support from pro-registry sources."

"Their positions are tainted and suspect in my view because their endorsement can be bought."

In the later interview, Breitkreuz said he would never use words like cult to describe police chiefs or call on Liberals to beat their leader.

"This language is not me. I have kept this (gun registry) debate civil for 15 years and I want to keep it civil."

Before Breitkreuz's apology, Easter, who voted last November to scrap the registry, said the missive is "off the wall" and called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to disassociate himself from his backbencher's views.

Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said the news release was "in poor taste and inappropriate."

"Mr. Breitkreuz has apologized. What Mr. Breitkreuz should have said is that Michael Ignatieff once again turned his back on rural Canadians by clearly stating he still supports the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry," Soudas said.

Easter questioned whether Breitkreuz might have inhaled too much air on the Hill on Tuesday, which was redolent with the smell of pot during a protest against marijuana laws.

"Was he out there talking to the wacky tobacco groups or something? I think he must've got too much of that smoke up his nose and it affected his brain."

Grits move to modify gun registry
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News ServiceApril 20, 2010 StoryPhotos ( 1 )
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during question period in the House of Commons on Monday.
Photograph by: Chris Wattie, Reuters, Canwest News ServiceLiberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made a pitch on Monday to save the federal gun registry by proposing changes aimed to unify the party's fractured stand and satisfy opponents on the Liberal benches who voted to scrap the contentious databank.

Ignatieff said he would like to make it easier for firearms owners to register their long guns by streamlining the paperwork, removing renewal fees, and making it a ticketing offence, rather than a criminal one, for first-timers who fail to participate.

"It would be wrong to ignore the frustration and legitimate criticisms we have heard about the gun registry in rural Canada, in northern Canada, in remote Canada," Ignatieff told a gathering of the Canadian Police Association.

The Liberal party created the registry as a key element of an expansive gun-control package and the Harper Conservatives have repeatedly promised to scrap it.

Conservative backbencher Candice Hoeppner introduced a private member's bill last year to eliminate the registry and it passed by a 164-137 margin, with the help of Liberals and New Democrats, in a preliminary vote in the House of Commons in November.

The proposed bill now moves to the all-party public safety committee for hearings before returning to the Commons for a final vote. The committee holds its first meeting on the registry on Tuesday.

Ignatieff, who permitted a free vote among his MPs the last time around, said he will whip the vote next time so that his caucus is unanimous in its opposition.

It is unclear whether the forced unified stance would defeat the bill since only eight Liberals sided with Hoeppner last time, joined by 12 New Democrats and one independent.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party will also propose amendments to Hoeppner's bill, but he would not comment on whether he will whip his MPs to vote against the bill otherwise.

Hoeppner appealed to Liberals who supported the bill last year -- mainly from rural areas -- to vote with their constituents in mind, not their leader.

"I think if they personally oppose the long-gun registry and their constituents oppose the long-gun registry, they certainly should vote against it," she said. "I would think it only makes sense that they should follow through."

The bill would eliminate the need to register rifles and shotguns. The requirement to register handguns would remain in place. The registry is separate from gun licensing, which permits owners to have firearms, but does not require them to list their possessions.

The registry was introduced more than 14 years ago as part of a wider gun-control package, largely after lobbying efforts by the families of victims of the 1989 Montreal massacre, when Marc Lepine used a semi-automatic rifle to kill 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique.

© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star

Saskatchewan budget

Budget 2010: Promises Deferred, Future Ignored
March 24, 2010
REGINA - Saskatchewan Liberal Leader Ryan Bater called the 2010 Saskatchewan Party budget damage control at its worst. “The Saskatchewan Party is clearly floundering in this budget,” said Bater, “and while in crisis mode this government has mortgaged our future and targeted First Peoples as the victims of their repeated fiscal mismanagement.”

“For starters, the budget is not balanced and debt is on the rise. There is an operating deficit of $175 million and they are using the Financial Growth and Security Fund to hide it. Even worse, public debt is forecast to rise over the next three years. Debt elimination should be a priority for any government that truly believes in our economic freedom in the future, but this government is content to rest on their laurels from the token debt payments they’ve made in recent years.”

“Second, there is very little belt tightening. They have only reduced spending by 1% from last year- which means this government has still increased spending by a whopping 20% since taking office. This is still unsustainable and after last year’s fiscal disaster they have made last minute desperate cuts to the civil service. These cuts were made haphazardly without the Sask Party government having done a value-for-money audit first. The use of attrition as the means to make these cuts has robbed Saskatchewan of the next generation of talent in our professional civil service.”

“Saskatchewan has no greater priority than to ensure the full participation of First Nations and Métis people in our economy. We urgently need a real push for aboriginal economic development with the start up and expansion of small businesses and entrepreneurship. Instead, the Sask Party eliminated the critical Aboriginal Employment Development Program and has allowed the First Nations and Metis Business Development Program to fade away.”

“Worst of all, their targeting of tobacco on reserve land is a further depletion of Treaty Rights that the government has no jurisdiction over. This is nothing more than a tax grab by a government that is desperately trying to hide its own fiscal mismanagement and incompetence.”