Cnib-brandt project worries Opposition critic
As it stands now, the Cnib-brandt project could be the start of a slippery slope, the NDP’S Provincial Capital Commission critic said Thursday.
Nicole Sarauer told reporters comments made Wednesday by Ken Cheveldayoff, minister in charge of the PCC, raised concerns for her — and should raise similar concerns for the public.
“The more we’re learning about this project, the more it’s clear that this project cannot go forward as it is,” she said. “There are more questions than we have answers. There’s a growing amount of concern.”
The project, which will see the CNIB move into a new building courtesy of Brandt Developments, has drawn criticism on more than one count, including its location in Wascana Centre.
Some critics worry allowing certain tenants into a new multitenant building will lead to commercial businesses seeking their own piece of the park — a sentiment Sarauer echoed after having a look at a previously redacted document released on Wednesday.
That document sets out who can seek tenancy in what Cheveldayoff termed a “wellness centre.” Sarauer narrowed in on one section in particular, which allows for tenants whose purpose “is not inconsistent” with approved tenants.
“That’s very concerning because it leaves the door open to essentially anything,” she said.
Sarauer suggested that effectively opens the door to businesses, groups or agencies that don’t fall within the parameters of the park’s master plan — pillars such as education, culture, recreation or environmental conservation.
“This schedule shows — it actually clearly states — that the pillars can now be superseded by this lease agreement,” she said. “And that’s extremely concerning. It sets a terrible precedent for this park. It’s completely different from what we’ve seen over the past decades of use of the park, and it sets a bad precedent for what could happen in the future.”
She added she isn’t convinced what is being proposed is even legal, given the pre-existence of a master plan. She said those concerns should be looked into, and that the public should have a voice in the process.
She argued the government has instead set itself up as the loudest voice, with 60 per cent control of the PCC, giving it the largest say in what happens within the park.
“This park is too precious to be left to the whims and desires of any political party ...,” she said. “Essentially, we’re seeing more and more of that control being taken away from where it should be and being made more centralized.”
Sarauer questioned why the government opted to speak to this issue on a day when many were occupied with the carbon tax case at the Court of Appeal, and why information on the Brandt-cnib project has been hard to come by. She said the only information her office received came through source leaks or freedom of information requests.
She also commented on Cheveldayoff ’s statement that he “hopes” the tenants coming into the wellness centre will be “complementary” to the purpose. Sarauer said that’s not good enough.
“There is so much concern right now about decisions being made behind closed doors, not knowing how these conversations are going,” she said, arguing decisions “should not be left simply up to Brandt.”
Sarauer acknowledged the CNIB does good work, and that the master plan contemplated the agency’s stay in the park. What the plan hadn’t considered, she said, was “a large office building” housing a preponderance of commercial space.
“We’re not necessarily saying that CNIB cannot be in that park,” she said. “What we’re saying is the building as it is ... should not be allowed in the park.”