Prison farms would be ideal for rehabilitation

TUESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2010  LETTER TO THE EDITOR
http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/letters-to-the-editor/prison-farms-would-be-ideal-for-rehabilitation-112310.html

Re " Prison climate needs changing "  (editorial, Nov. 10). Clearly, the Harper government places rehabilitation way down the list of priorities as stated by Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers. The majority of prisoners will return to society, so it's in our best interest that they return able to fit in.
Further, you might think that, with the majority of his caucus from rural Canada, Harper would be more receptive to the idea that working on a farm is good rehabilitation. Sadly, not. Last February, Harper announced the closure of all six of Canada's prison farms, one of which is in Alberta; others are across Canada. This decision and associated comments about farming should anger southern Albertans, particularly farmers.
Activists have been protesting the closure, arguing that the farms act as a necessary and successful method of rehabilitation for low-risk criminal offenders. According to NDP MP Alex Atamanenko, these farm programs "have received support from local police and municipalities as well as trade unions, farm groups and food security advocates." There's even a website devoted to opposing the closure: www.saveourfarms.ca/about.html .
The decision surprisingly resulted in a column in the National Post (Aug. 11, 2010), a paper that regularly supports the Conservatives. The Post said the government's main arguments in favour of closing the farms are lack of benefits and costs to taxpayers. However, the Post stated that neither justification holds up to scrutiny. They asked how much will it cost to replace the food they produce, what other rehabilitative programs will replace the program, and what will they cost?
"Minister Van Loan has made various claims in an attempt to support the farm closures," said John Edmunds, National President of the Union of Solicitor General Employees (USGE). "Claims that the farms lose approximately $4M per year is an unsubstantiated number. We've asked for a forensic audit to be performed, but have yet to receive a reply to our request."
Small farms, local businesses and charities all rely on their local prison farms to provide them with quality food at fair prices, as well as persons willing and wanting to be trained.
Canada's prison farms sit on some of the most desirable agricultural land in their regions. What's most upsetting is that the Conservatives plan to build more prisons on this prime agricultural land perhaps to house Stockwell Day's "perpetrators of crimes"?
Mark Sandilands
NDP candidate, Lethbridge Federal Riding

www.marksandilands.ca

Casson's statement just not true

Ombudsman’s term could have been renewed

Written by Mark Sandilands

Friday, September 10 2010, 10:02 PM

The Conservatives are at it again! I read with amazement Rick Casson’s monthly column (“[Pat] Strogan’s term was non-renewable,” Sept. 3). Casson’s statement, “when the position of  Veterans Ombudsman was created in 2007, a decision was made that the appointment would be made for a three-year, non-renewable term” is just not true. This same statement can be found in statements from other Tory MPs, too. Obviously this is the Conservative government’s spin on the issue. It all sounded fishy to me so I went looking for the documents creating the Veterans’ Ombudsman. I found the Order in Council establishing the Ombudsman’s office (http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/pdf/OVO_Charter_English_Feb19.pdf, or http://bit.ly/dbAOQV), but nowhere does the document say anything about “non-renewable.” In fact, the terms of reference are supposed to be in Annex A of the Order in Council but, interestingly, Annex A is missing from the website (Annex B is there) and the pages seem to have been renumbered. I did find a blog with a link to a report from the Ombudsman (http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/reports-rapports/publications/line-ligne-eng.cfm) which contains this statement: “The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the Governor in Council for a term of three years, which term may be renewed   . . .” Strangely, this report cannot easily be found on the Ombudsman’s page. Would the government actually remove parts of a webpage so their public statements cannot be contradicted? Perhaps they don’t want to reappoint Strogan because of his strong criticism of how veterans have been treated. Example: “[He] was told by a senior Treasury Board analyst . . . that it is in the government’s best interest to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term.” Another example is the Agent Orange issue from the 1960s. Stogran said he received a press briefing backgrounder and spotted what he considered to be “gross exaggeration, bordering on outright lies.” He wrote a complaining note to the minister — and was cut off from the mailing list. There’s a growing list of civil servants who have suffered by speaking out: Peter Tinsley, Military Police Complaints Commission; Paul Kennedy, RCMP Public Complaints Commission; Linda Keen, president of Nuclear Safety Commission; all are gone. Soon Pat Strogan, Veterans’ Ombudsman — gone. Is this what Stephen Harper meant by open, accountable, transparent government? Mark Sandilands Lethbridge Federal NDP Candidate

The real reason some people objected to the 2006 long form census

Letter to Editor, Lethbridge Herald, August 3, 2010
Editor:

I was pleased to read in The Herald of July 29, 2010 a discussion of objections people had to the long form census in 2006. The 166 complaints from among 13 million households, gives a miniscule complaint ratio of .001% or one in 100,000.  Many of the 166 complaints were about awarding the contract to arms-maker Lockheed-Martin in the data analysis hardware and software, as mentioned in your news article. There’s even a website devoted to this issue http://www.countmeout.ca/.  Of deep concern to these people is that the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act will allow, even require, that US companies release Canadian census data to US government agencies, an even more serious breach of personal privacy.  All of this has been totally omitted or obscured by Harper’s minions.

Are the Harper Conservatives using complaints about Lockheed-Martin’s involvement to justify the cancellation of the mandatory long-form?  If so,  a simple solution is to contract the software and hardware to Canadian firms, rather than canceling the long form altogether. It’s such an obvious example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. (Lockheed-Martin, remember, has just received an untendered contract for $9 billion for unnecessary jet fighter planes.)

The jail-time issue has a simple solution suggested by Jack Layton and others: cancel this part of the act.  Why can’t Harper work out simple solutions and easy compromises with the opposition parties?

A glance at the broader picture reveals that this is part of Harper’s “hidden agenda” for Canada: weakened government driven by ideology rather than facts and information. Harper is ignoring vastly diverse groups—provinces, municipalities, hospitals, businesses, NGOs, researchers—all who say they need valid and reliable information to make good decisions.  Instead Harper is saying in essence, Let’s further hamper government by denying it and its citizens good information.

Mark Sandilands

Here's the real deal about PM

This letter was published in the Lethbridge Herald on June 26th, 2010, although not published in their online edition.  It was submitted on June 3rd, but a mix-up delayed its publication.

Editor:

The unqualified praise contained in the editorial you reprinted from the Red Deer Advocate on Monday, May 31st ("Perhaps PM is the real deal") almost made me choke on my porridge. Here are some of the reasons:

To me one of the most disturbing aspects of Harper is that he does not accept even the principles of democracy. It starts with his contempt for Parliament.

1. Remember the handbook for disrupting the work of committees? (a 200 page manual the Harper Conservatives had issued committee chairpersons. It suggested debate-obstructing delays and, if necessary, it told chair persons to storm out of meetings to grind business to a halt).

2. There’s the silencing of watchdogs that Parliament put into place to serve the interests of all Canadians: (a) the head of the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Linda Keen. Fired. (b) Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Harper has tried to muzzle him by cutting his funding unless he keeps his mouth shut. (c) Paul Kennedy, head of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He was a bit too critical of the RCMP. Kennedy's four-year mandate was not renewed last November. (d) The Military Police Complaints Commission, one of two committees investigating allegations of torture of Afghanistan prisoners. Conflict between Peter Tinsley, the commission's chair, and the government came to a head in Oct. 2007, when Tinsley suspended the hearings in the face of three government motions seeking an adjournment. Tinsley’s position was not renewed.

3. Let's not forget the two prorogations to avoid a sticky situation in parliament.

Harper uses executive spending powers to eliminate things he does not like, with no reference to the House of Commons and no public debate:

1. A continuous assault on women's rights;

2. Diminishing the role of science in the economy;

3. Attacks on the cultural sector;

4. Eliminating the funding for advocacy organizations which criticize the government: e.g., Kairos and, this week, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation.

The Omnibus Budget Bill represents another order of abuse, one copied directly from the corrupted legislative system in the U.S. The Omnibus Budget Bill would allow Harper and his cabinet to change pension rules, waive environmental assessment of projects such as tar sands expansion and oil pipelines, and privatize parts of Canada Post.

Harper is "some kind of real deal" but not one most thinking Canadians want.

Mark Sandilands

Too many people buying into the corporate version

Too many people buying into the corporate version

Written by Mark Sandilands

Tuesday, 08 June 2010

Re: “Writer failed to recognize economic realities” (Herald, May 26). In my May 12 letter, I described two narratives to the royalty fiasco. One is the corporate narrative: the government jacked up the royalties too high and drove out the oil industry; the non-corporate narrative says even this feeble attempt to increase royalties angered the oil companies and they decided to teach the government a lesson. Clearly Mr. Wilson has bought the corporate, oil industry version. He shows thinking that is ages old, from at least the time of feudal lords and serfs through the beginnings of industrialization to now. It’s always the same message: we must trust big corporations (and now their right-wing political parties) to bring us economic prosperity. Any attempt to take away the lords’ or owners’ privileges will only result in economic ruin for the common folk. We’re now hearing the corporate narrative from the same industry that is telling us the “accident” in the Gulf of Mexico was not BP’s fault, when evidence appears daily of malfeasance by BP in this dangerous kind of drilling. This kind of thinking has led to right-wing governments in Alberta for almost its entire history. Mr. Wilson mentions the NDP government in B.C. in the ’90s, conveniently overlooking the Asian meltdown that happened during its term of office. If we want to consider governments in neighbouring provinces, how about Grant Devine’s Conservatives in Saskatchewan in the 1980s? That was definitely a “lost decade”! (At least six of Devine’s cabinet ministers were subsequently convicted of fraud, by the way.) It took the social democratic government of Roy Romanow to balance Saskatchewan’s books, a year ahead of Alberta. Manitobans also seem happy to elect NDP governments who’ve had a string of balanced budgets. Indeed, data from the federal finance department shows NDP governments consistently have the best track record for the past 25 years for balancing their books. Further evidence of Conservative collusion with corporations can be seen in the Harper Conservatives’ Bill C-27, which would require that only producers delivering at least 40 tonnes of grain can vote in Canadian Wheat Board elections. Also note Conservative tinkering with the percentage of Canadian sugar in goods, which will negatively affect local sugar beet growers. When common folk begin to understand that Conservative governments generally don’t have their interests in mind, perhaps we will elect different governments. Mark Sandilands Lethbridge

p.s. [not included in Herald letter due to lack of space].  I'm reminded of a couple of books I've read recently.  One is The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, discussed here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ragged_Trousered_Philanthropists  and available as a free e-book: (see  the bottom of the page of the Wikipedia article for URLs).  The other is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle and also available for a frree e-book (again see the bottom of the Wikipedia article for links).

Tax Freedom Day from the Fraser Institute. Bunkum!

On the weekend, news outlets reported Tax Freedom Day, based on a news release from the right-wing, anti-government Fraser Institute, e.g., http://www.live-pr.com/en/the-fraser-institute-june-5-marks-r1048484728.htm

Here's another take on the concept from tax expert, Neil Brooks:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2005/tax_freedom_day.pdf

A shorter version is here: http://www.policy.ca/directory/page.cgi?g=Detailed%2F1526.html;d=1'%20years%20of%20education

Here is a paragraph from the conclusion to Neil Brooks's essay:

Yet the Institute has presented us with infor-
mation that seriously distorts the picture of how
much tax Canadians pay. Far from promoting ra-
tional discussion, the Institute is clearly trying to
incite Canadians to anger, to encourage them to
join with members of the financial élite in a kind
of collective “tax rage.” The ultimate result of its
campaign will be even lower taxes, particularly
for high-income Canadians — and a continued
decline in the capacity of our governments to de-
liver programs that most Canadians value.

Gywn Morgan--now campaigning for salmon farming.

If, like me, you read the Globe and Mail, you may have come across a column in the May 31st paper written by Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of Encana, and the person Harper put forward as his choice for a new public appointments chief (rejected by the opposition).  The column's title was "Blaming salmon farms for decline makes for one fishy tale".  I thought the column was rather "fishy" and am pleased to note the comments have appeared.  Here is a link to the column and rebuttals http://www.salmonaresacred.org/blog/damage-globe-and-mail-credibility. The first rebuttal begins, "Heavily biased misinformed writing such as below damages the credibility of your paper.  Someone should have reviewed this piece with the scientists studying the collapse of wild salmon in BC. "  The second rebuttal begins, "Gwyn Morgan's article is very narrowed minded, ignoring mounting scientific evidence from around the world that concludes open net aquaculture are breeding grounds for sea lice and are lethal to wild salmon, shrimps and clams. "

Big oil running the show

Big oil running the show

Written by Mark Sandilands

Wednesday, 12 May 2010

According to a recent report from Associated Press about the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, BP somehow avoided submitting a plan in 2008 for handling a blowout. This illustrates how big oil companies can get governments to bend to their will. Here in Alberta, a recent example of this phenomenon is the oil royalties issue. Some highlights: • 2006: all PC leadership candidates call for a royalty review • February 2007: Premier Stelmach appoints a Royalty Review Panel; • September 2007: The Panel calls for increased royalties; • October 2007: Alberta’s Auditor-General Fred Dunn says in his annual report that the Alberta government knew as far back as 2004 that Albertans could collect at least another $1 billion a year from the oil industry; • October 2007: Stelmach increases royalty rates by 20 per cent (25 per cent less than the panel recommended); • February 2008: It comes out that the Royalty Review panel was not given all the data — data indicating royalties could be increased without harming the economy; • March 2008: Stelmach announces a five-year royalty break worth $237 million per year. And on it goes. There are two story lines to the oil and gas royalties issue: 1. Stelmach changed the oil royalties at the absolute worst time — when the prices were plummeting, causing the oil industry in Alberta to flee to other jurisdictions where royalties are lower, making the economic slump in the Alberta oilpatch worse than otherwise. 2. The oil companies were outraged that Stelmach and company and decided to punish him. First, they pulled out of Alberta — their huge profits allow them to lose a bit of money and the loss is worth it to teach Stelmach a lesson. Second, they pull donations from the PCs and funding an upstart further-to-the right party, the Alberta Wildrose Alliance, which promises to give the oil companies what they want. What’s the effect of all this on Albertans? Less money for health care, long-term care, etc. Cataract surgery is pulled out of Lethbridge and long-term care facilities are closed in favour of DAL where costs are carried by families. If you’d like to hear more about this topic, plan to attend one or both of the talks by Brian Mason, leader of the Alberta NDP: Thursday at 10 a.m. at the Lethbridge Senior Citizens Organization.  Title: Good Health Care and Royalty Fair Share. Thursday at 7 p.m. at Southminster United Church Thursday.  Title: Good Health Care, Long Term Care and Royalty Fair Share.

Setting the record straight about climate science

Editor:

The letter from Ben VanHees (April 21: Climate scientists have done nothing to earn respect) contains a number of misleading statements which need to be corrected.

To start, the IPCC scientists did not and do not work for pay from the UN. The IPCC website clearly states, “Experts contributing to the review will do so without any remuneration.” And they didn’t work for a solid year: a glance at the call for applications at the IPCC website mentions frequent week-end gatherings and rely on email the rest of the time.

Secondly, the hockey stick graph, based on an analysis of tree rings (used as temperature estimations) showed clearly how temperatures were fairly steady for hundreds of years and then spiked in the last part of the 20th Century.

The hockey stick graph has been the focus of attacks by certain right wing national newspapers, perhaps because it was prominent in the Third IPCC Report (we’ve received the Fourth and IPCC is working on the Fifth) and in Al Gore’s film. Yes, two Canadians found errors in the Mann “hockey stick” paper, not by visiting trees, but by obtaining the original data and re-analyzing it. However, independent assessments agree that, although there was one small error in the paper, the overall conclusions were reasonable. This website http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html has a nice summary of the controversy.

VanHees says that replication is the basis of the “scientific method” and charges that Michael Mann, one of the authors of the hockey stick graph, refuses to release all of his data. How then did the two Canadians re-analyze it? In fact, Mann’s data are available (see the website above for links). More importantly, the research findings shown in the hockey stick graph have been replicated again and again, using different temperature proxies and different methodologies. The findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals, such as SCIENCE (arguably one of the top science journals in the world) unlike attempts to discredit the research.

That the earth is warming is accepted by the national academies of the G8 countries (http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf) and even by most skeptics who now focus on the cause. There are local temperature changes such as receding glaciers and earlier spring break-ups. More importantly, global temperature averages show the warming (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/). Quick action is imperative.
________

Mark Sandilands

Published in the Lethbridge Herald 2010-4-29, page A8

Fraser Institute take on stimulus plan off target--Letter to the Lethbridge Herald April 14th

Fraser Institute take on stimulus plan off target

Readers must have been surprised to see the right-wing Fraser Institute attacking the federal government stimulus program (“Stimulus Plan Didn’t Help Economy,” Lethbridge Herald, March 31). After all, doesn’t the Fraser Institute usually cheer for the Harperites? Well, they do except when Harper and company are forced into doing something they don’t want to do by the majority of members of Parliament.

Memory takes us back to the fall of 2008 — the first time Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid a nasty situation: the confidence motion that might have toppled his government. The Tories went into overdrive, convincing a slight majority of Canadians that this was an illegitimate, undemocratic move by the opposition parties. Harper tossed away his credibility, particularly in Quebec, by accusing the Liberals and New Democrats of colluding with separatists. (All this is grippingly detailed in a recent book: “How we almost gave the boot to the Tories” by Brian Topp). The culmination of the drama was the budget of January 2009, brought in with enough stimulus to ensure that Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals would not vote it down.

So, did the stimulus plan help the economy? Fortunately other economists have analyzed the report done by the Fraser Institute and found it lacking. One (Erin Weir of the Progressive Economics Forum) analyzed Statistics Canada data and found that “government purchases and investment, which accounted for only one-quarter of the economy in the second quarter of 2009, have accounted for one-third of the economic growth since then.”

Weir then asked how the Fraser Institute got it so wrong. The answer is that the Fraser authors did not examine stimulus as a share of economic growth. Instead, according to Weir, they compared the rate of increase in stimulus between quarters. This would almost guarantee that no effect of the stimulus would appear. But then, that would suit the relentlessly anti-government-action Fraser Institute to a T, wouldn’t it?

Travers: PM fills political vacuum with rhetorical hokum

This is great commentary from James Travers of the Toronto Star. Copyright laws mean I have to include the ads.

Demand Dignity Campaign Launch - Premiere of "Poverty of Justice" Film

I just returned from Amnesty International (Lethbridge Chapter)'s launch of AI's Demand Dignity campaign.  The event at the Lethbridge Public Library, featured, first, the premier of "Poverty of Justice".  It's a film produced by Amnesty International.  It's about three communities who tell their own stories of the human rights abuses that keep them in poverty. The stories are from Kenya, Peru, and right here in Alberta: Little Buffalo, Alberta (Lubicon Lake Cree).  After the film the human dynamo behind AI Lethbridge, Mary Kosta, introduced agencies in Lethbridge that work to eliminate poverty:
Lethbridge Shelter Resource Centre, 
The Salvation Army
Interfaith Food Bank,
Lethbridge Food Bank
Lethbridge Family Services, 
Lethbridge Native Women's Transition Home Society, 
Streets Alive, 
Red Cross, Lethbridge
Lethbridge Public Interest Research Group, 
YWCA Lethbridge, 
Pathways to Housing, 
Opokaa'sin Early Intervention Society.

(If I've left any out, I hope someone will let me know.)

It was an eye-opening event, both for the depth of poverty that exists in many places in the world, the unfairness of the way the Lubicon Lake Cree have been treated, and the wonderful work that's being done right here in Lethbridge.  Thanks to everyone, especially to AI Lethbridge for bringing this together.

Update on the rally against prorogation Jan. 23 Lethbridge

An Update on the rally at Rick Casson's office on Saturday, Jan 23rd.
Thanks to Bev Mündel-Atherstone for this report and to Henning Mündel for photographs.

Thanks to the approximately 100 participants who came out in cold blustery weather to show their disgust and opposition to the Conservatives and the P.M.'s prorogation of Parliament. People marched in a circle chanting, "No prorogation--Listen to the Nation", while holding the coffins high. CTV and Global filmed the rally for their early evening news. Ric Swihart of the Lethbridge Herald interviewed many of the participants. His story is on the front page of Sunday's Herald. Staffers of the U of L Students newspaper, "The Meliorist" were also on hand, taping interviews.

Many people brought their own creative signs. We had two coffins symbolizing the "death of democracy". Someone brought a huge Canadian flag.
Tom Moffatt reminded the crowd that we must vote. Over 40,000 people in Lethbridge did not vote in the last election. Everyone must vote if we want change.

Mark Sandilands, our newly acclaimed Lethbridge Federal NDP candidate, pointed out that 36 bills were killed when Parliament was prorogues. Some of these were Mr. Harper's favorites on his getting tough on crime policies. Some were to protect consumers from the lead and cadmium in products, most especially toys produced in places like China. But, no matter, these bills were killed as Mr. Harper doesn't really care about Canadians.
The amount of effort, time, money and energy, never mind all the work that the various parties put in together to create these bills, was in naught. Four months of
work, lost! From January 25th, when Parliament was to resume, until March 3rd, another 5 weeks of work is lost. Then when Parliament begins, those same bills will have to start from scratch. How efficient is that to redo all that same work all over again? This is a waste of tax payers' money, our Parliamentarians time, and everyone's effort.

Thanks again to everyone for the terrific support.

Thanks to Bonnie at the Round Street cafe for the donation of the hot coffee and hot chocolate to the participants. Thanks to Sheila Rogers for organizing the bull horn and one coffin, which she and her partner James made. Thanks to Tom Moffatt for making the second coffin.

You can find a slide show of a power point by Henning Muendel of his photos of the event, here.

Thanks again,

Bev Muendel-Atherstone and Tom Moffatt, Organizers

Proroguing and the Afghan Detainees

Letter to the editor, Lethbridge Herald Saturday, January 23, 2010

Editor:

Stephen Harper's proroguing of parliament continues to cause criticism. We've heard the phrase "naked self-interest" from the UK's The Economist. His former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, said "[doesn't] have much credibility."

By proroguing parliament, Harper cancelled all committee work, killed 36 government bills, including bills dealing with consumer protection and white-collar crimes. Only 27 out of 63 bills have passed, or just 43 percent--which, if it were a grade, would be a failing one.

But what were the real reasons? Many point to Harper's wish to end debate on the Afghan detainee issue. This is serious: just before Christmas Parliament passed a motion demanding access to the Afghan detainee documents, in effect a subpoena. Prorogation stops this from happening.

Harper's spin doctors are saying Canadians are not very concerned about a few Taliban sympathizers, but the detainee issue has a keen relationship to the success or failure of the Canadian/NATO mission. First, to say there were only a few (or just one) incidents of torture is to obscure the evidence. The International Red Cross, which can't directly give details, is widely believed to have repeatedly warned the Canadian government that the torture was widespread.

Second, the detainee issue has a strong influence on the view that ordinary Afghanis have of our soldiers: Are Canadians bringing democracy to this troubled country or do they represent a repressive occupying force? We're trying to convince Afghanis that democratic ways are better for them, but if they find that they or their friends and neighbours can be picked up and passed over to prisons where they'll be tortured, their trust and acceptance of Canadian soldiers is compromised. This, in turn, means that every day Afghans are less likely to cooperate with Canadian troops such as by telling where IEDs are hidden. Canadian soldiers and civilians are dying as a result.

Thirdly, as stated by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian forces have legal obligations under international law to ensure that any person in their effective control is never transferred to torture. If reports of torture are made, Canada is legally obligated to intervene to stop the torture, or to request the return of the detainees being tortured.

Our elected representatives are there to hold the government accountable. Without them there, the very idea of Canadian democracy is weakened.

________

Mark Sandilands

On the campaign trail again!

Last evening (Saturday, January 16th) I was nominated again as the NDP Candidate for Lethbridge Federal Riding. The nomination meeting was well attended given it was a Saturday night. Also in competition was an arts event. The audience was pleased to hear what Judy Wasylycia-Leis had to say. My nomination speech was well received and, as a result of requests, I'm posting it here.

Notes for Nomination Meeting speech

Mark Sandilands

January 16, 2010

First, thanks to my nominator, Tom Moffatt. Your kind words make me want to work hard in the upcoming election, whenever it happens. I also thank all who worked in the 2006 campaign with Melanee Thomas and in the 2008 campaign with me, and since, to make us the clear alternative to the Conservatives in Lethbridge.

A few weeks ago I was having a conversation with a young woman, who, I think, is a supporter. She said that she’s disappointed with politicians (like me, I guess) who always seem to criticize each other and never say what they’d do if they were in power.

It seems, though, that from the point of view of those on the progressive side, there is so much wrong with the way Stephen Harper is governing Canada, that it’s easy to criticize. So I’d like to begin by discussing some of the most galling aspects of Conservative rule, and then talk about some of the ideas I’d like to see implemented in a new government.

Just a couple of examples: The issue that seized Parliament in the days before the prorogation was the reports of torture of the Afghan detainees, and that the government was aware of it. Harper and company even had the brass to call critics of his government’s approach disloyal to the troops. I say: by not putting in place a system for the safe handling of Afghan prisoners and showing such a cavalier attitude toward them, even the ones who may be innocent, Harper has sent a message to the Afghan people that he’s not really interested in bringing democracy to that unfortunate country. I believe that Harper is the one who’s been disloyal to the troops and the one who’s endangering them unnecessarily.

On the environment, Harper has spent the past four years blaming the lack of Canada’s action on climate change on the Liberals, but done nothing about it himself. When it came time to introduce stimulus spending to avoid a serious recession, he chose to spend Canadian money on nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage and, even including these questionable projects, he’s spending less on green energy in his stimulus package than just about any other developed nation. Obama is outspending him 14 to 1 per capita on green stimulus.

But enough of this. What would I do? Here are some of the choices we'd make:

1. Harper promised more accountability, but he's even less accountable than Chretien and Martin were. That's the first fix. I note that Democracy Watch gave the NDP the best overall grade in accountability in the last election.

2. Harper's climate record is abominable. As I said, Canada is spending less on green recovery than almost any other OECD country. This would be the second fix--moving Canada to a green economy.

3. Health care--rather than dismantling the health care system and turning a blind eye to privatization, we'd work to make it more efficient.

4. Dealing with crime: The NDP would do better than just locking people up working toward safe neighbourhoods, for example.

On broader issues, very recently I came across an author, Riane Eisler, who’s written several books, the most recent being The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics.

Eisler says, “The real wealth of nations -- and the world — consists of the contributions of people and nature.” Eisler suggests there are two approaches to categorizing societies, the partnership system and the domination system. Most societies we’re familiar with, be they capitalist or socialist, are domination oriented. Domination systems are top-down: “man over man, man over woman, race over race, religion over religion, nation over nation, man over nature.”

On the other hand, core elements of a partnership system “are a democratic and egalitarian structure in both the family and state or tribe; equal partnership between women and men; and a low degree of violence, because it's not needed to maintain rigid rankings of domination.” (For more, go to http://www.rianeeisler.com/ )

I believe the New Democratic Party espouses values that are best in synch with a partnership system, and I will work to make these links more evident.

I could say lots more, but I’m sure everyone wants to hear what Judy Wasylycia-Leis has to say. Before I go, though, a few thoughts: In the last election, only 53% of voters in the Lethbridge riding actually voted. We can work to get the other 42000 votes in our column.

As so eloquently said by Pierre Ducasse in the 2003 NDP Leadership race: “To achieve the results you have never achieved before, you must do what you have never done before!” And, of course there is the still very much relevant NDP slogan from 2007 and 2008: “Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done!” The work begins NOW!

Thank you.

Global warming is real and urgent (Letter to the Herald, Jan. 12, 2009

Editor:

Several letters recently published in The Herald have said current signs of global warming are part of a natural cycle. Further they say we should not take any precautionary steps to reduce our CO2 emissions because they might be too expensive. The warming we're seeing is NOT part of a natural cycle but is the result of an increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that humans have put in the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Glaciers are retreating, arctic ice is disappearing, methane is bubbling up from the permafrost, and islands are submerging.

How do we know the cause is CO2? First, CO2 concentration has increased from 284 ppm (parts per million) from the early 1800s to 387 ppm currently. Second, based on research done over 100 years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. The planet Venus, for example, has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. Its surface temperature is 467° C, not because it's closer to the Sun, but because of the CO2.

Two main factors in global temperature are the sun and CO2. If we only use fluctuations of solar radiation (the sun) over the past 50 years, we are just like someone who tries to predict a child's height based only on the height of one parent. However, if we use solar radiation and CO2 levels over the past 50 years, we get better results. The test of accuracy of our prediction is to compare the actual temperature record with the results of prediction models. Climate scientists have found that their set of predicted temperatures are most accurate if they include CO2 and solar radiation in their models. If they don't include CO2, their prediction runs are inaccurate.

Global warming is real and it's urgent to take steps immediately to reduce our use of fossil fuels. It's nothing short of insane to listen to those who say it's a natural cycle and we can continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

A final note: 1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers (42 to 7) predicting warming (http://tinyurl.com/2vdj8u). We've had the information for years. At this point, there should be no debate, only urgently needed action.
________
Mark Sandilands

Lethbridge