Open consultation or sell job?

So, a firm by the name of Biggar Ideas has landed a $250,000 contract from the city to "engage the public, provide information and conduct consultations" about Winnipeg’s proposed new water utility. This follows City Council's plan to "explore" the idea of creating a new city water utlity, one rationale for which is that the city can then sell its water to neighbouring municipalities.

Sounds okay, right? The city has apparently not made any decision and is only "exploring," so we can be confident that it's legitimately seeking to hear all opinions on the matter, right?

Wrong.

The hired firm's marketing identifies its hallmark as "its ability to shift and shape public and stakeholder opinion." Sounds a little like someone in the mayor's office has already made a decision and is hiring someone to manipulate public opinion in the favoured direction, no?

If we're truly in the exploratory stage, then why hire a firm to sell the idea? And if the mayor truly believes this move would be best for the city, why doesn't he just say so and champion the idea publicly himself? Let's have a debate! Glen Murray, for all his faults, was never afraid of promoting his ideas openly.

The burden of proof will now be on the city and their chosen consultant to respectfully facilitate the gathering of public opinion. If anything less happens, those with tough questions will be right to see it as nothing less than a sell job.

It will also be incumbent on those pushing the idea to explain to Winnipeg citizens how the move won't amount to just fueling more urban sprawl at the city's own expense, as Christopher Leo and others suggest could be the case.

Jenny Gerbasi is absolutely right to be suspicious of this one.

Photo: Building the Winnipeg Aqueduct, which draws water to Winnipeg from Shoal Lake, Ontario (published in the Manitoba Pageant, Winter 1979).

Manitoba Hydro and McFadyen's Tories

In the last week, we've heard a lot of debate about whether Hugh would privatize Manitoba Hydro once elected Premier.

The NDP was the first to raise the issue by warning voters that, regardless of what the Tories promise, they will privatize Hydro. The Tories countered by saying simply that they'd never, ever do such a thing. The Filmon Tories said exactly the same thing in the 1995 election about MTS, promptly before selling that, the NDP point out. It sure doesn't help the Tories' case that Hugh was one of the architects of the Filmon government's privatization of MTS and an alleged advisor to the Ontario government on their experiment with privatizing Hydro.

In a bid to reassure us all, the Tories actually held a big press conference, handed out bottles of water, and spent what amounts to one campaign day to announce they'd pass a "Legacy Act" that would essentially prevent Hydro from ever being sold. It's a risky move, but it's one that will probably pay off, I think.

In an otherwise funny take on the issue, Curtis Brown describes it as being "as defensive a posture as you'll ever see in a political campaign," which is never the place a campaign wants to be. Of course, bending over backwards to address the issue loudly and clearly while the campaign is still in its early days almost certainly blunts the "they'll sell Hydro" attacks in the coming weeks.

So will the Tories sell Manitoba Hydro?

It seems to me the debate thus far has missed the boat a little. Reviewing track records, resumes and personal blog posts are all fine, but when I reflect on whether a party will keep a particular promise if elected, I turn to what I know about their ideals and what the party stalwarts believe and preach daily. Tories of the modern variety believe in privatization. It's a fundamental tenet for them that the market is the best allocator of labour, investment capital, wheat and other commodities and -- yes -- hydro-electric power.

Elect the Tories and they may not sell Hydro in their first term, and maybe not even in their second term, but given enough political capital, they will sell it. You can bet the bank (or public utility) on that.