Re: Bigger Reports Savings - October 25, 2012

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published October 31, 2012

I was astounded to see Andre Rivest's comments with respect to the Auditor General's five year projection of savings relative to his audit program.  Councillor Rivest is quoted as saying "Just show us the savings up to this year, minus your office expenses. Why not go 10 years and show $4.5 million?" Indeed, why not? Is the councillor not aware that the cost of the audit is a one time expense while the savings that result are ongoing? If this is the level of business acumen sitting at the council table, the city is in real trouble.

Rather than accept Mr. Bigger's investigations as a guide to improving the efficiency of city operations, some of our elected politicians, as well as staff, seem to want to nit pick his reports. When the message makes them uncomfortable, they attack the messenger. The fact is that while Bigger nominally reports to council, his efforts are actually in the best interests of us, the taxpayers who must carry the burden of any waste and inefficiency.

So keep up the good work, Brian Bigger. Anyone who opposes the work you are doing should not get the support of any rational voter in the next municipal election.

Re: Rumours of Grits Demise Dead Wrong - October 22, 2012

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,

I read Warren Kinsella's column in which he predicts the resurgence of the federal Liberal Party with great interest. At the present time, the conservative end of the spectrum has been staked out by the Tories while the NDP has a lock on the far left. The Liberals exist somewhere in the middle, where he suggests the average Canadians "swing left and right, as the circumstances warrant".

The flaw I see in Mr. Kinsella's argument is that he portrays the political spectrum in one dimension featuring left, right and centre. While I agree that most Canadians are not all left or all right, I believe after talking to many that they lean one way or the other, not based on circumstance, but rather based on the particular issue at hand. There is a second axis to the political landscape, and one end of it is populated by those who describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This leads them to sometimes side with the Conservatives and other times to back NDP ideas. These people fit the label of classical liberal, aka libertarian, and they are not comfortable at either end of the one dimensional playing field. But they are definitely not moderate (although the popular left/right model forces them to describe themselves as such).

In my opinion, if the Liberals want to stake out grounds to rebuild the party, they should move onto this other dimension. On a fiscal basis, Paul Martin proved as Finance Minister that the Grits can be more fiscally conservative than anything the Harper government has done in the last six years. Meanwhile, on the social front, a party that steadfastly backs individual rights without the overtones of members rumbling about the government legislating private moral issues such as gay marriage, abortion and a draconian war on drugs that has been singularly unsuccessful would be welcome to many of us.

So let the redefined Liberal Party embrace the fiscal right and endorse the social left without trying to be moderate. This libertarian, who has supported the Conservatives for the last few elections as a compromise, would be happy to change his allegiance.

Re: Councillors refuse amphitheatre plan - February 22, 2012

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published February 29, 2012

So, in addition to the ill thought out vendor area, the new Grace Hartman Amphiteatre does not have enough fixed seating to attract major events? I looked back at a news article in a competing publication from April 1, 2010 and found that " Paul Loewenberg, artistic director for Northern Lights Festival Boreal, said for his festival, a larger amount of seating would be necessary to be able to attract higher quality performers." I also noted that councillor Ted Callaghan " fought for another 400 hard seats since that is what he said user groups wanted".

But architect Paul Castellan indicated that more seating "would compromise the look of the site" and Brian Amott, a senior partner with consultant Novita, said "most user groups, including the larger festivals, were supportive of what seating was proposed"

Where is Novita today, now that larger festivals don't want to rent the venue due to unsatisfactory seating? Why are we once again hung out to dry because the words of an out of town consultant meant more than those of local people who know the issues? What good is a nice looking site if no one wants to use it and we end up funding it out of tax dollars?

Re: 'It's a bad idea to cut beds' - February 14th, 2012

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published February 15, 2012

It is nice of Health Sciences North to put the statistics regarding Alternative Level Of Care patients in hospital on their website. In six weeks, the Memorial Site (aka Functional Assessment and Outcome Unit) will close half of its sixty beds. Checking the numbers today (February 15), I see that the Memorial Site is almost full with 56 ALC patients while the main hospital has 63. They claim no surgeries have been cancelled so far this week but thirteen patients in the ER are awaiting beds.

Despite all the claims about home care and solutions being put in place, it is obvious that the hospital remains overloaded at this time. And this says nothing about the people who need ALC services but remain on a waiting list. My impression is that our government health care bureaucrats and politicians have lots of talk but no plan. From the quotes I see, they seem to be hoping that these people will just go away. It will be interesting to see what the figures look like on April 1st.

Ontario citizens who supported health care through their taxes during their working lives deserve more than this now that they require an alternative level of care. Moreover, the rest of us should have the full benefit of the downsized hospital those short-sighted moguls of health foisted on us.

Re: Province ponies up - January 24, 2012

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published January 30, 2012 with minor editing

What kind of perverse game does the province play every year with funding for the municipalities? It seems every budget season that our city fathers and mothers go through the process with a big question mark hanging over their heads regarding what money will be forthcoming from Queen's Park. And the transitional funding might be withdrawn at any time? How do you strategize with something like that hanging over your head.

Sound financial planning requires as few unknowns as possible. In my opinion, the province owes the local governments some level of assurance as to the levels of their ongoing support. But the must like this little tease game because they also do it to the hospitals. It is a sad thing when politics meets bureaucracy.

Re: Hospital stuck with 100 long-term care patients - January 14, 2012

Read the article here

To the Editor of The Sudbury Star,
Published January 18, 2011 with minor editing

Normally, I find a Yogi Berra quote amusing but, in this context, it is just sad. Why is it that all the high paid help (as evidenced by the annual Sunshine List) in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care can't predict the needs of our community and act on those needs? Once again, Alternative Level of Care patients are impinging on the operations of our hospital. Then again, they downsized the number of beds in the new facility and couldn't even figure out how many parking spaces were required. I can't imagine where we would be if they had closed the Memorial Site as they wanted to last March.

The provincial government is, as the name of the ministry states, responsible for Health AND Long Term Care. It would be nice if they started acting like it instead of trying to pass the buck around to the alphabet agencies they have created (Local Health Integration Network, Community Care Access Network, etc.) to confuse where the it actually stops. It stops in Queen's Park on the Premier's desk.

What good is a single source government health care system if that very care is not available to the citizens who need it?

Re: Department Legal Battle Expensive - November 2, 2011

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published November 4, 2011 as Letter of the Day

I am dismayed to see the expense run up in this ludicrous legal battle. The auditor general was hired and, after much wrangling, it was decided his department would report directly to council. As such, he is an agent of council and attempts by staff, including the inane arguments by the city solicitor, to shield city documents from the AG amount to shielding those documents from council.

The Mayor and council were elected by us, the citizens of Greater Sudbury, to oversee the operation of our city. The auditor general's role is to review those operations to ensure that staff is managing our tax dollars responsibly. What I expect from my elected representatives is that they issue a simple directive that staff provide the auditor general with anything he requests to further this objective on behalf of council. Or perhaps council has been managed by staff for so long that councillors are afraid to exercise the authority that they legally hold as our representatives.

If the transit fiasco is anything to go by, there is a need to shine a bright light in many dark corners of city management. Let's get on with it.

Re: Auditor general's transit report: Money missing for years - October 1, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published October 5, 2011 with minor editing

All I can say is thank you for the Auditor General. Without his investigation, there is no way we would have known that this situation has been building since 2004. I can see why Mr. Sauve has been doing his best to avoid responding to the audit report but it appears the collusion at Civic Square goes beyond Sudbury Transit. I would have liked to hear the management response to the findings but those have not been forthcoming, which has prompted special meetings of the audit committee.

What does it take for a member of the high paid City management team to be dismissed for not responsibly managing taxpayer dollars? As one of those taxpayers, this history is totally unacceptable and I will be watching to see how my Councillor and my Mayor deal with what can only be described as a scandal. Staff has been the tail wagging the dog for way too long.

re: What's Good For The Goose - August 27, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published August 29, 2011 with minor editing)


Having been plagued by Canada geese on golf courses and at beaches for years, I read this article with great interest.  But I note that, while scaring the geese off City property is beneficial for both the budget and the users, care is being taken not to harm them.  Where are these geese going to go?  I would be concerned if I were a private property owner with lake frontage not adjacent to a City park.  The bottom line is that there are simply too many of these birds.

It did bring to mind the sacred cows in India during periods of famine.  I wonder how many poor and homeless people could be fed by a single Canada goose?

re: Provincial Initiative Targets ER - June 1, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published June 9, 2011)

I was pleased to read of the provincial initiative to streamline the emergency room procedures across the province. The comment by Dr. Lepage that the lack of beds at the Sudbury Regional Hospital may reduce the benefit was telling, though. If I recall correctly, the original plan for the new hospital, back in the late 1990's, was to have a facility with 600 beds. However, after the building fiasco, this was reduced to 429. Why then would anyone be surprised that we have a current bed shortage? But then they didn't even provide enough parking spaces for the smaller hospital.

This reality, coupled with the shortage of Long Term Care facilities, tells me that those civil servants responsible for planning medical facilities in the north aren't very good at their job. In my opinion, the north in general and Sudbury in particular have been poorly served by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (who are in total control of all aspects of this service) over the last decade. I sincerely hope that this shortcoming will become an issue in the upcoming election.

re: A rose by any other name - January 21, 2011

Read the article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,

Minister Bartolucci is quoted in the article as saying "he has received praise from Sudbury doctors for the strides his government has made in addressing the bed crisis". I am not a doctor, merely a voter, but I am not rushing to offer praise.

The Minister's comment implies that he is satisfied with the efforts his government has made with respect to the crisis around long term care beds. I will only be satisfied when the Ministry publicly identifies the total number of long term care patients in the area including those in all the hospital sites, nursing homes and on waiting lists; projects the growth of this segment of our population; and presents a concrete strategy on how all these individuals are to be accommodated in a timely manner in facilities outside our primary care hospital.

The citizens in need of long term care who have contributed to the province's well-being for many years, as well as the users of local hospital services who are now suffering delays in timely treatment, deserve no less in our government operated health care system.

Re: Doctors Rail Against Memorial Closure - January 17, 2010

Read the articles here and here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 20, 2011 as Letter of the Day)

For the second time in two days, you have run a story dealing with the impending closure of the SRH Memorial Site. Both articles highlight concerns from citizens and doctors about the negative ramifications of this move. I note that the new ALC beds available in the city can barely accommodate the Memorial residents, leaving a large number of individuals still in the main hospital and on waiting lists.

We have been classed as being in crisis with respect to ALC patients for many years. I would like to remind the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care that, by their very name, this ball is in their court. The government has assumed total responsibility for health care, going so far as to restrict doctors who work outside their system. Why then should they be able to pass the buck on long term care to their puppet LHIN's and the community?

Since we still don't have the capacity for all the ALC patients even with the new beds, the rational decision would be to keep the Memorial Site open until every person requiring long term care is accommodated outside the one-site hospital. While not perfect, opinions are that the Memorial Site it is substantially less costly and qualitatively preferable to the new hospital. In addition, it would be freed up to provide the services it was intended to with less waiting and crowding.

I hear optimistic words from government and hospital administrators. They have been saying the same thing for years. Will the situation actually improve by the time I cast my ballot in the fall provincial election? If the Memorial closes, I sincerely doubt it. I am as mad as hell now and will be doubly so by then. I ask the Ontario government to please stop nibbling at the problem and passing the buck. Step up and face it head on.

re: 'I was in extreme pain' - August 5, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published August 9, 2010)

In reading the article about the gentleman's complaint and Dr. Andrew Caruso's response, I noted that approximately 90 of the 429 beds in our new Sudbury Regional Hospital are presently being occupied by alternative-level-of-care patients. The ALC crisis has been swamping our hospital system in Sudbury for years, interfering with the ability of our medical community to provide timely health care to the remaining citizens.

We have waited for the Sisters of St Joseph facility in Chelmsford to be built and expansion at Pioneer Manor to be completed. In the interim, 136 beds were commissioned at the old Memorial Hospital Site to make up for the lower bed capacity at the new one site hospital, but I see that 36 of those beds were taken out of service last month without explanation and extended funding to keep the Memorial site open is not a sure thing.

Sudbury has an aging population and the capability to deal with older people who require and deserve ALC treatment has been lagging the curve for many years. When will the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care realize that providing Long Term Care is part of their title and mandate. Don't pass the buck by talking about community solutions, LHIN's or the Feds. Step up to the plate with concrete plans and funding to immediately start the process of developing facilities for each and every one of the ALC individuals we can reasonably expect to require the system today and in the foreseeable future. They owe it both to them and to the other patients whose care has been disrupted by the ALC impact on the hospital due to government inaction.

--
Jim 'Skid' Robinson
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Re: Cops take aim at "curb crawlers - June 1, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(This letter was not published)

I read this article with great interest. Setting aside any arguments on the actual prostitution laws, GSPS Sgt. Rumford seems quite pleased that they will be targeting individuals who have, in fact, not committed any unlawful activity. The mere act of driving slowly through a certain area will cause the police to send the person a "community safety letter" instructing them to stop this legal activity. The article goes on to say that police will keep an internal list of these people and, if they persist in this legal activity, "criminal charges may follow". I'd be interested in what charges could be laid against someone who has not violated any law.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees anyone present in Canada certain fundamental rights including freedom of association and freedom of movement. It appalls me that our law enforcement community would target and intimidate individuals, who have violated no law, merely because the activity does not meet with police approval. I didn't know that thinking of a criminal act, if this was actually what the individual was doing, would be a legitimate cause for enforcement action.

Shades of George Orwell, it appears Big Brother may be raising his thought controlling head right here in the Nickel Capital.

Re: Not Enough Parking - March 11, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published March 22, 2010)

So once the final patients are moved into the new hospital, it will be short 225 parking spaces?

I am astounded that now, when we are in the absolute final stages of the transition, this tidbit is made public. The hospital spokesperson says that the spaces were considered adequate thirteen years ago when the original designs were done, but I recall that same original scope had significantly more beds that we have today. I have trouble understanding how the beds have been downsized while the parking requirements have been increased. I would suggest that the original specifications weren't sufficient.

Further, they claim they have been aware of this problem for several years but this is the first we publicly hear about it, mere weeks from the time when those spaces will be required. And how much is this shuttle going to add to our already stretched health care costs?

I remember the justification for the high compensation paid to hospital administrators. They need to be on top of everything within their facility and manage it effectively and efficiently. This is just one more example of where the hospital administration has been woefully short sighted in the development of this whole project. As one who will rely on this new hospital for my ongoing health care, I can only wonder with trepidation what other oversights will turn up when all our eggs are in this one basket.

Re: Williams deserves a break - February 4, 2010

Read Article Here

To the Editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published February 12, 2010)

In his column today, Greg Weston wonders why there is such a fuss about Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams going to the U.S. for a heart procedure not available in his province. After all, Williams has loads of money and he is saving Canada health costs and relieving wait time space by not lining up with the rest of us.

The Health Act has tried to ensure a single tier government provided system where, regardless of means, all Canadians are treated equally. In fact, we have always had a two-tier system giving preference to those with suitable funds. That second tier is the United States.

One statement Weston made particularly caught my eye. "Reality is health care costs are already pushing provincial budgets to the breaking point, and some crucial treatments are only available in a timely way south of the border." This is the real issue highlighted by Williams flight to the land of private health care. And that, Mr. Weston, is a very good reason to 'flap our gums'.

I am a supporter of universal health care, but our model based on a government monopoly providing all the services is in trouble. Costs continue to rise while elective surgery wait times are often excessive and some services (PET scan, anyone?) are denied to certain areas in an arbitrary fashion. The global funding model for hospitals remains a ludicrous way to do business and the 3P hospitals raise a whole other bundle of problems.

I am not upset Danny Williams chose the best health care he could afford. I am, in fact, pleased that it will stimulate yet more discussion and anger about the current Canadian system under siege. Maybe when the politicians and bureaucrats are faced with enough outrage from the citizens, they will change the paradigm promoted by the Canada Health Act and look at some fundamental and meaningful ways to improve the model for health care delivery in this country.

--
Jim Robinson
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Re: Why I'm Leaving The World's Best Job - October 17, 2009

Read Article Here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,

I am pleased to see the Denis St. Pierre has found a position in Toronto that fits his family situation but the Steelworkers gain is certainly going to be Sudbury's loss.

For years now, I have been of the opinion that the only voice I could trust about what was going on down at Tom Davies square was that of Mr. St. Pierre.  He doggedly pursued the facts, shining lights into places many elected officials and city staff would have preferred remain dark.  As a taxpayer, I appreciated his work keeping me informed how my tax dollars were being used (and abused).  The fact that he was able to do this in an objective manner without resorting to sensationalism or rumour-mongering is even more remarkable.

Denis, enjoy your new career.  You will be missed and your successor here will have big shoes to fill.

Re: Vale saved city from being a 'Valley of Death' - July 18, 2009

Read article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,

(Published July 23, 2009)

I am an Inco retiree and subscribe to the libertarian philosophy. As such, my leanings are towards fiscal conservatism and I have done my best to support our government in Ottawa. This has become difficult for me when I read the blatantly self serving and revisionist statement by our federal Industry Minister, Tony Clement, that Inco would "not exist" if CVRD had not purchased it.

Inco was a world leader in mining, smelting and refining with established infrastructure, plentiful ore bodies and benchmark technology. It was enjoying the most profitable period in its history when the Brazilians swooped in to scoop it up for an unheard of amount of cash. I would much rather have seen the Inco/Falconbridge merger happen since it would have made much better strategic sense both for the companies and the Sudbury basin, but American and European regulatory bodies scuttled that while Ottawa stood by and watched.

In his attempt to twist recent history and mislead the public to serve his own ends, Minister Clement has caused me to lose the respect I once had for him and question what my options are come election day. Prior to this, my vote was a forgone conclusion but now I have to look at the alternatives.

Re: Hospital Budget Crisis

Read articles here and here and here.

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 23, 2009 as Letter of the Day)

The various articles over the last couple of days regarding the $12 million dollar hospital deficit have me doubting the future of government provided universal health care in Northern Ontario, if not the whole province.

We have the sole Sudbury hospital caring for significant ALC patients, a crisis that has dragged on for years. They are also now supporting a medical school as well as an aging population in an area suffering a major doctor shortage. The operation has been streamlined in prior years to meet provincial fiscal requirements, so the deficit indicates to me that they aren't able to keep up with the demand for services. The provincial government feels that the solution is to CUT SERVICES EVEN FURTHER!.. Then they side-step responsibility by suggesting the LHIN's are the ones in control.

So where will services be cut? I have seen first hand how stretched the nursing and support staff have been under the present regime. Maybe they can reduce custodial and cleaning staff since it isn't as patient centred, but I recall that was the reported cause of C. Difficile and MRSA outbreaks in other facilities. Wherever they cut, I expect there will be both quantitative and qualitative deterioration in the health care standards. As the lunacy continues, I see our ability to handle our hospital needs in the future going down the tubes.

I hoped the last election would see a discussion of health care needs but Tory's gaffe on school funding pre-empted any meaningful dialogue. Besides, whoever gets elected, the same bureaucrats in the ministry who think this is rational still run the show. The current model is, in my opinion, doomed to eventual failure and it will not be a pretty sight.

Re: Pothole problem comes down to money - March 18, 2009

Read article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 1, 2009 as Letter of the Day)

I read Greg Clausen's comments on the pothole problem with great interest. If I understand him correctly, we don't have the money to fix the roads properly. Further, when they are fixed, we don't have the money to seal them to enhance longevity. (The last part sounds penny wise and pound foolish.)

After due consideration, my questions to Clausen, City staff, Council and the Mayor (not in any particular order) are:

Given the continued deterioration of our road surfaces, coupled with the funding limitations, what is the strategy for dealing with this issue in both the short and long term?
Where do they see us being in five years?
Should I sell my car and buy an All Terrain Vehicle?

Seriously, throwing ones hands up and saying there isn't enough money accomplishes nothing. We need increased money, less roads, more efficient techniques or a combination of the three. Unless, of course, the plan is to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and let the infrastructure disintegrate.

It's time for staff at Civic Square to earn their considerable salaries and put forward a workable proposal to deal with this. And it's time our elected representatives pushed them to do it.