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. "