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.

Re: Sask's Justice System Under Microscope - February 23, 2009

Read article here

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published February 25, 2008 as Letter of the Day)

Certainly Warren David Rattray should have been declared a Dangerous Offender based on his prior crimes. As mentioned, the prosecutor needs to make the request and then pursue that through the courts. We have seen several cases in Sudbury where the Crown put forth the effort and the courts declined to make the designation. With the current workloads and plea bargains, it isn't surprising that they don't often pursue this option.

But this need not be the case. Back in 2006, Prime Minister Harper, as part of his Tackling Violent Crime Act, suggested that anyone convicted of three violent or sexual crimes should be automatically deemed to be a Dangerous Offender unless they can show a valid reason why they should not. It seemed perfectly logical to me and, had it been in place previously, Rattray would likely not have been walking the streets.

The crime bill was passed in February 2008 despite passive opposition from the abstaining Liberals and active opposition from the rest. Then it went to the unelected Liberal controlled Senate and was never heard from again.

I am tired of politicians who look out for the interests of violent criminals. It's time to change the rules.