Sandra Finley

2007-03-22 One Nation Under Google: Citizenship in the Technological Republic, Webcast.

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category) No Responses »

Mar 222007

Thanks to Jim from Ontario:

“An interesting and provocative lecture, being webcast this evening at 7:30 pm EDT, 5:30 pm CST. Pre-broadcast video is streaming at the moment, so you can check the connection. You can also participate real time in question period after the lecture.”

Coincidentally I caught part of the interview with Darin Barney on CBC Radio and really wanted to hear more. Now I can – his whole lecture!

http://www.harthouselecture.ca/index.html

First, Jim’s input. Then a few words of my own:

“Shelagh Rogers interviewed the lecturer, Darin Barney of McGill U, this morning on CBC radio. My provisional reaction (and the lecture may change my mind) is that I didn’t agree with a lot of what he said about the need for citizen review, approval and regulation of emerging technologies. Where there are risks to health or nature I think oversight by government already exists or can be quickly brought into place, e.g. with recombinant DNA, nuclear power, GM foods. A huge amount of discussion and debate also takes place in an open democratic society like ours, which politicians ignore at their peril. I don’t see how his formalized approach would help. I also don’t think Canadians’ concerns are really any different than those of Brits, Danes, Aussies or Japanese folks. One country can go it alone setting standards for awhile, but ultimately has to influence then sign on to international standards. Imagine if a Canadian citizens’ panel had decided in 1980 that the Internet would be more a threat than a positive influence and our government had forbid its deployment! (North Korea did.)

Listen in tonight and share your thoughts!” (Jim)

=========================

My reaction was different from Jim’s, largely because of our work on GMO’s and what little I know about nanotechnology.

To me, Darin Barney is making the point that in a democracy there will be bona fide involvement by citizens in decisions about – if, and – how new technologies will be introduced. The process should ensure that the public interest is protected.

If you use the example of the introduction of a new technology, bio-technology, as example:

The Governments in Canada invested very heavily in biotechnology without any debate in Parliament, without the public having any clue that it was happening. The deed was done before the public became aware. The public interest was not even considered, only the interests of Monsanto.

The introduction of new technologies needs to be done by the decision of an informed citizenry. The role of Government is to regulate new technologies, to protect the environment and citizens, to be wise about what is good for the public and future public.

Democracy is messy. That the corporate-driven biotechnology agenda was imposed on Canadians, along with a refusal to label gene-altered food products, is based on the attitude “Big Government knows better than the citizens what is best for the citizens”. It is an unsound and dangerous-to-democracy perspective. You cannot claim to have a democracy if decisions are made this way.

2007-03-08 Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin address to the Empire Club, Toronto

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Peace or Violence No Responses »

Mar 082007

From the Supreme Court of Canada website: (link no longer valid)

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/spe-dis/bm07-03-08-eng.asp

The Challenges We Face

Mr. President, distinguished guests, thank you for that welcome. I am delighted to be here again to address the Empire Club.

More than a quarter century ago, a Canadian Justice Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, challenged Canadians to build “the just society”. In the ensuing years, thousands of Canadians have worked to establish their visions of a just society. The centrepiece of Prime Minister Trudeau’s vision of the just society was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, and whose 25^th anniversary we will celebrate on April 17, 2007. Whatever our political persuasion or our particular conception of justice, there can be no doubt that Canadians today expect a just society. They expect just laws and practices. And they expect justice in their courts.

Today, I would like to share with you my perspective on justice in our courts and the challenges we face in assuring Canadian men, women and children a just and efficacious justice process.

Let me begin by asserting that Canada has a strong and healthy justice system. Indeed, our courts and justice system are looked to by many countries as exemplary. We have well-appointed courtrooms, presided over by highly qualified judges. Our judges are independent and deliver impartial justice, free of fear and favour. The Canadian Judicial Council, which I head, recently issued an information note on the judicial appointments process in which it affirmed these long-standing principles on which our justice system is based. Canadians can have confidence that judges are committed to rendering judgment in accordance with the law and based on the evidence. Corruption and partisanship are non-issues. In all these things, we are fortunate indeed.

Yet, like every other human institutional endeavour, justice is an ongoing process. It is never done, never fully achieved. Each decade, each year, each month, indeed each day, brings new challenges. Canadian society is changing more rapidly than ever before. So is the technology by which we manage these changes. Thus it should not come as a surprise that Canada’s justice system, in 2007, faces challenges. Some represent familiar problems with which we have yet to come to grips. Others arise from new developments, and require new answers.

In my comments today I will touch on four such challenges:

the challenge of access to justice,
the challenge of long trials,
the challenge of delays in the justice system, and
the challenge of dealing with deeply rooted, endemic social problems.

The Challenge of Access to Justice

The most advanced justice system in the world is a failure if it does not provide justice to the people it is meant to serve. Access to justice is therefore critical. Unfortunately, many Canadian men and women find themselves unable, mainly for financial reasons, to access the Canadian justice system. Some of them decide to become their own lawyers. Our courtrooms today are filled with litigants who are not represented by counsel, trying to navigate the sometimes complex demands of law and procedure. Others simply give up. Recently, the Chief Justice of Ontario stated that access to justice is the most important issue facing the legal system¹.

The Canadian legal system is sometimes said to be open to two groups – the wealthy and corporations at one end of the spectrum, and those charged with serious crimes at the other. The first have access to the courts and justice because they have deep pockets and can afford them. The second have access because, by and large, and with some notable deficiencies, legal aid is available to the poor who face serious charges that may lead to imprisonment. To the second group should be added people involved in serious family problems, where the welfare of children is at stake; in such cases the Supreme Court has ruled that legal aid may be a constitutional requirement².

Top of Page

It is obvious that these two groups leave out many Canadians. Hard hit are average middle-class Canadians. They have some income. They may have a few assets, perhaps a modest home. This makes them ineligible for legal aid. But at the same time, they quite reasonably may be unwilling to put a second mortgage on the house or gamble with their child’s college education or their retirement savings to pursue justice in the courts. Their options are grim: use up the family assets in litigation; become their own lawyers; or give up.

The result may be injustice. A person injured by the wrongful act of another may decide not to pursue compensation. A parent seeking custody of or access to the children of a broken relationship may decide he or she cannot afford to carry on the struggle – sometimes to the detriment not only of the parent but the children. When couples split up, assets that should go to the care of the children are used up in litigation; the family’s financial resources are dissipated. Such outcomes can only with great difficulty be called “just”.

To add to this, unrepresented litigants – or self-represented litigants as they are sometimes called – impose a burden on courts and work their own special forms of injustice. Trials and motions in court are conducted on the adversary system, under which each party presents its case and the judge acts as impartial decider. An unrepresented litigant may not know how to present his or her case. Putting the facts and the law before the court may be an insurmountable hurdle. The trial judge may try to assist, but this raises the possibility that the judge may be seen as “helping”, or partial to, one of the parties. The proceedings adjourn or stretch out, adding to the public cost of running the court. In some courts, more than 44 per cent of cases involve a self-represented litigant³. Different, sometimes desperate, responses to the phenomenon of the self-represented litigant have emerged. Self-help clinics are set up. Legal services may be “unbundled”, allowing people to hire lawyers for some of the work and do the rest themselves. The Associate Chief Justice of the British Columbia Provincial Court is quoted as saying this is “absurd”, not unlike allowing a medical patient to administer their own anaesthetic⁴.

It is not only the unrepresented litigants who are prejudiced. Lawyers on the other side may find the difficulty of their task greatly increased, driving up the costs to their clients. Judges are stressed and burned out, putting further pressures on the justice system. And so it goes.

The bar and the bench are attempting to improve the situation. Some modest progress is being made. Lawyers are organizing themselves to give free, or pro bono, service to needy clients. Clinics have been set up by governments, NGOs and legal groups to help self-represented litigants. Rule changes to permit contingency fees – the lawyer is paid out of the proceeds of the litigation, if any – and class actions provide ways for people of modest means to litigate some tort and consumer actions. Thought is being given to coverage for legal services within specified limits as an endorsement to home insurance policies. Justice groups are working to simplify procedures and thus reduce costs or assist the unrepresented litigant.

All this is good. Yet much more needs to be done if access to justice is to become a reality for ordinary Canadians.

Top of Page

The Challenge of Long Trials

A second challenge is the challenge of long trials, an increasingly urgent problem both in civil and criminal litigation. Not too many years ago, it was not uncommon for murder trials to be over in five to seven days. Now, they last five to seven months. Some go on for years⁵. The length of civil trials is also increasing. For example, in 1996, the average length of a trial at the Vancouver Law Courts was 12.9 hours. Six years later, the average length of a trial had doubled, to 25.7 hours⁶. This trend is consistent with developments in other jurisdictions throughout Canada.

There are a number of reasons why trials seem to have taken on a life of their own. On the criminal side, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had a significant impact on the criminal trial process. Charter pre-trial motions regularly last two to three times longer than the trial itself⁷. Changes in the law of evidence have also increased litigation and lengthened trials⁸.

On the civil side, there are also a number of reasons why trials have become longer. Although Canadian rules of procedure impose limits on examinations for discovery, some argue that they are still too broad, allowing parties to canvass issues that are not relevant and material to the issues in the litigation. This results in longer, and more expensive discoveries, and a larger volume of evidence being placed before the trier of fact at trial. The expanded use of expert witnesses has also lengthened trials.

Efforts at reform are underway. On the criminal side, a recent report by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice makes a number of recommendations to improve the efficacy and effectiveness of judicial pre-trial conferences with a view to improving the efficiency of criminal trials⁹. The Ontario government recently launched a process to suggest reforms to the province’s civil justice system¹⁰. A similar review is underway in British Columbia¹¹.

The Challenge of Delays in the Justice System

A third and related challenge is the problem of delays in the processing of cases. Here again, the problem afflicts both criminal and civil cases. On the criminal side, delays in proceedings may result in serious cases being stayed, since the Charter guarantees a trial within a reasonable time. Delays may also result in lengthy periods of incarceration for the accused person prior to trial. Even where the accused is out on bail, the stress of the ongoing proceedings and the upcoming, ever-deferred trial may be considerable. Witnesses are less likely to be reliable when testifying to events that transpired many months, or even years, before trial. Not only is there an erosion of the witnesses’ memories with the passage of time, but there is an increased risk that a witness may not be available to testify through ordinary occurrences of sickness or death. As the delay increases, swift, predictable justice, which is the most powerful deterrent of crime, vanishes. The personal and social costs are incalculable.

On the civil side, different but similar problems arise. Whether the litigation has to do with a business dispute or a family matter, people need prompt resolution so they can get on with their lives. Often, they cannot wait for years for an answer. When delay becomes too great, the courts are no longer an option. People look for other alternatives. Or they simply give up on justice.

Courts have been promoting various forms of out-of-court mediation and arbitration as a more effective way of achieving settlement and dealing with many civil cases. This is good. But the fact is, some cases should go to court. They raise legal issues that should be considered by the courts for the good of the litigants and the development of the law.

I do not want to give the impression that all is bleak. Ten years ago, in Ontario, civil appeals were taking two to three years from the date of perfection to be heard. Criminal appeals were not much better. They were being heard one and a half to two years from the date of perfection¹². Today, the time required for bringing appeals on for hearing has been greatly reduced.

In a recent speech, Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Michael Moldaver noted that the solution to delays in the justice system was not to hire more judges, but for the court to take control of the process from the litigants and put it back in the hands of the judges. This is what happened in Ontario. Within a space of 18 months, the backlog was gone. Civil appeals in Ontario are now being heard within nine to 12 months of perfection. Criminal appeals are being heard within six to nine months.

Top of Page

The Challenge presented by Endemic Social Problems

The final justice challenge I wish to discuss is the challenge presented by intractable, endemic social problems, including drug addiction and mental illness.

A few years ago, I found myself at a dinner at government house. Next to me sat the chief of one of Toronto’s downtown precincts. I asked him what his biggest problem was. I thought he would say the Charter and “all those judges who pronounce on rights”. But he surprised me. “Mental illness”, was his reply. He then told me a sad story, one I have heard throughout the country in the years since. Every night, his jails would fill up with minor offenders or persons who had created a nuisance – not because they are criminals, but because they are mentally ill. They would be kept overnight or for a few days, only to be released – the cycle inevitably to repeat itself.

Such people are not true criminals, not real wrong-doers in the traditional sense of those words. They become involved with the law because they are mentally ill, addicted or both. Today, a growing awareness of the extent and nature of mental illness and addiction is helping sensitize the public and those involved in the justice system. This sensitization and knowledge is leading to new, more appropriate responses to the problem.

One response has been the development of specialized courts – such as mental health courts and drug courts. As Brian Lennox, Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, said recently at the opening of the Mental Health Court in Ottawa:

The Ottawa Mental Health Court is an example of a progressive movement within criminal justice systems in North America and elsewhere in the world to create “problem-solving courts”. These courts, with collaborative interdisciplinary teams of professionals and community agencies, attempt to identify and to deal with some of the underlying factors contributing to criminal activity, which have often not been very well-addressed by the conventional criminal justice process. The goal is to satisfy the traditional criminal law function of protection of the public by addressing in individual cases the real rather than the apparent causes that lead to conflict with the law.

Mental health courts have opened in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland¹³. Many other jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Manitoba, Nunavut and Yukon, are in various stages of developing these courts. These courts can do much to alleviate the problems.

Other problem-solving courts within the Ontario Court of Justice include drug treatment courts and Gladue courts, the latter dealing with aboriginal offenders. Such courts are also being used in other Canadian jurisdictions.

This is just the beginning. I could go on. The point is this. In a variety of ways, throughout Canada we are adapting our criminal law court procedures to better meet the realities of endemic social problems and better serve the public.

Conclusion

I have shared with you four challenges faced by Canada’s justice system in 2007 – challenges close to my heart, and that of justice workers, including judges, throughout Canada. I have also described the efforts which are being made to alleviate the problems and ultimately, with luck, perhaps solve them.

Let me close on this note. Nothing is more important than justice and the just society. It is essential to flourishing of men, women and children and to maintaining social stability and security. You need only open your newspaper to the international section to read about countries where the rule of law does not prevail, where the justice system is failing or non-existent.

In this country, we realize that without justice, we have no rights, no peace, no prosperity. We realize that, once lost, justice is difficult to reinstate. We in Canada are the inheritors of a good justice system, one that is the envy of the world. Let us face our challenges squarely and thus ensure that our justice system remains strong and effective.

Top of Page

Notes

Tracey Tyler, “The dark side of justice”, Toronto Star, March 3, 2007.
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46.
See André Gallant, “The Tax Court’s Informal Procedure and Self-Represented Litigants: Problems and Solutions” (2005) 53 Canadian Tax Journal 2. In Anne-Marie Langan, “Threatening the Balance of the Scales of Justice: Unrepresented Litigants in the Family Courts of Ontario” (2005) 30 Queen’s L.J. 825, the author cites data compiled by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, which show that in 2003, 43.2 percent of applicants in the Family Court Division of the Ontario Court of Justice were not represented by counsel when they first filed with the court. The average percentage of unrepresented litigants in Ontario family courts between 1998 and 2003 was 46 percent.
Tracey Tyler, “The dark side of justice”, Toronto Star, March 3, 2007.
Hon. Justice Michael Moldaver, “Long Criminal Trials: Masters of a System They are Meant to Serve” (2005), 32 C.R. (6th) 316.
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Annual Report 2005 (Vancouver, B.C.: Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2005).
Ibid.
The changes include the expanded scope of the principled exception to the hearsay rule, increased use of previous disreputable conduct evidence, third party record applications, and applications to determine the admissibility of previous sexual conduct of the complainant.
Superior Court of Justice, “New Approaches to Criminal Trials: Report of the Chief Justice’s Advisory Committee on Criminal Trials in the Superior Court of Justice” (May 2006), on-line: Superior Court of Justice.
Ministry of the Attorney General, News Release, “McGuinty Government Launches Civil Justice Reform” (June 28, 2006).

Download a PDF Viewer
B.C. Justice Review Task Force, “Effective and Affordable Civil Justice: Report of the Civil Justice Reform Working Group to the Justice Review Task Force” (November 2006), on-line: B.C. Justice Review Task Force (PDF format, 808 kb).
The Hon. Justice Michael Moldaver, “The State of the Criminal Justice System in 2006, An Appellate Judge’s Perspective” (Remarks to the Justice Summit 2006, November 15, 2006).
“Court for Mentally Ill to Open” Kitchener-Waterloo Record (June 15, 2005), on-line: Canadian Mental Health Association.

2007-02-28 Weyerhaeuser, Letter to major pension plans. CPPIB. Forests in climate change: Respectability is self-delusion?

Climate, Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Culture and Ethics No Responses »

Feb 282007

Hi!

A community is made up of the people who live and work in it. In times gone by, it was largely self-contained.

I recall in my community how deviant behavior was accommodated by people taking it upon themselves to find ways to neutralize the behavior of the deviant, in a caring way. It was a creative process that required a few people to work out a solution. It didn’t necessarily involve calling in the police.

Our network is a community – communities are no longer tied to location. As you know, our networked community includes people from Europe.

The disempowerment of people and communities has been a theme in our work. … we work to RE-empower ourselves! Empowerment (becoming healthy) comes from working together to solve the problems that hold us back.

Weyerhaeuser (forest products) is a part of our community. Its behavior has a substantial impact on the people in our community, our health.

As I see it, I am a responsible, mature adult. Deviant behavior that is detrimental to the interests of the community needs to be addressed. AT THE VERY LEAST I can let the person know that his/her conduct is doing harm – – we expect better.

It is particularly important that I act when the harm is obvious, and the Government isn’t doing anything about it. And no amount of lobbying causes the situation to be addressed.

Don Mazankowski is one of two Canadians on the Board of Directors of Weyerhaeuser. Some people will remember Don as a Member-of Parliament.

I telephoned Don to ensure that if I sent an email to the Company, addressed to the Board, that he would receive it.

CONTENTS

(1) COMMENTARY

(2) LETTER TO HENRIK SYSE, CENTRAL BANK OF NORWAY & TO CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD, COPIED TO GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & to FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

(3) LETTER SENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEYERHAEUSER

(4) PEOPLE WHO ARE BEHIND THE WORD “WEYERHAEUSER”

==============

I invite you to copy and paste from the material below, if you have investments in CPP, mutual and/or pension funds. If your mutual or pension money is invested in Weyerhaeuser, ask that it be disinvested. Or send an email to Weyerhaeuser, or forward this email to friends and relatives.

You’ll find some email addresses below.

————————–

(1) COMMENTARY

Many thanks to Cliff Wallace from the Alberta Wilderness Assoc (AWA) for standards by which forest companies become members of the Forest Stewardship Council. I phoned FSC, didn’t get a live person, and so included them by way of cc.

BACKGROUND FOR NEWCOMERS:

Norway has come to our attention a few times:

From our work on genetically-modified organisms – Norway has established a secure underground cold storage vault in the far north to safeguard a supply of seeds (non-gmo!).

The German documentary film-maker, Bertram Verhaag’s “Life Running Out of Control” regarding gmo’s, has segments from Norway (sound practices) and from Canada (not-so-sound!!). We worked with Bertram; his documentaries (“Life..” and “Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed”) have been shown on SCN.

We have followed Norway’s work on ethical investing (e.g. they sold off Wal-Mart stocks).

On Feb 22, 2007 we circulated “Norway withdraws support from controversial World Bank fund”, because it forces privatization of water on developing countries.

And I should confess to a family connection: my Mother is an Onarheim (Norwegian Canadian by way of the U.S.). As a student back in the early 1970’s, I worked at Akergruppen in Oslo (ship-building company, taken over by Fred Olsen Lines). I stayed with Onar Onarheim (now deceased) who was Director. I, of course, have fond memories of Norway. The Norwegians in Alberta hold a camp every summer not far from Red Deer. I have attended, a great experience. … In so many ways we are from a place that is larger than our countries of citizenship.

Picking up from there …

=====================

(2) LETTER TO HENRIK SYSE, NORGES BANK AND TO CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD, COPIED TO
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & to FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL

February 28, 2007

TO: Henrik Syse, Norges Bank (central bank of Norway)

CC: Babak Abbaszadeh, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

CC: Government of Ontario, Department of Natural Resources (list at bottom)

Dear Henrik,

The work you are doing in Norway is of great value to people around the globe. You are a leader. Corporations must meet ethical standards if public pension money is invested in them. We hold your actions up to our Governments as the standard we expect of (Canada, in my case). My heartfelt thanks to you, to your colleagues, and to Norges Bank.

I wish to draw attention to the actions of Weyerhaeuser (forestry). They do not meet ethical standards.

An assessment of the corporation should consider their ACTIONS versus the RHETORIC of Weyerhaeuser and the Government of Ontario.

Residents of Grassy Narrows (Ontario) put forward their story at a public meeting last evening. It included photographs of a devastated landscape, the results of clear-cut logging. Humans and animals in the area also suffer the effects of mercury poisoning. Weyerhaeuser is logging on lands that belong to other people, without permission.

It is clear: the fine talk of stewardship and responsible logging practices are simply not true. The web-site www.freegrassy.org has some of the visual images. The one that worked best for me is at :http://freegrassy.org/multi_media/video/ – scroll down to “As Long as the River Flows” and click on “Share the preview online at YouTube”.

If you have investments in Weyerhaeuser, I think you will want to consider the REAL EXPERIENCE of the people and the land at Grassy Narrows.

My Canada Pension Plan money is invested in Weyerhaeuser. I object very strongly and hereby request the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to disinvest from Weyerhaeuser. (as at march 31, 2006, $19 million dollars invested.)

http://www.cppib.ca/files/PDF/Non_Canadian_Equity_Holdings.pdf

The boreal forest in Canada is extensive and critical to putting the brakes on climate change. The actions of Weyerhaeuser and the Government of Ontario show no respect for current residents, let alone the future of our children. The situation has been brought to their attention continuously since 2002 and there has been no action.

There are two Canadians, Don Mazankowski and Richard Haskayne on the Board of Directors of the American Company, Weyerhaeuser. I have sent the letter below to them and to the entire Board of Directors. But as they say, “Money talks”. Citizen action since 2002 has so far met with no response.

(I am amazed by the dedication to peaceful protest by the residents of Grassy Narrows. I am not sure that I could hold my cool so well: the devastation of the land and its people, the failure of the people on the Board of Directors of Weyerhaeuser and the Government of Ontario, make my blood boil, if I may speak truthfully.)

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

(on the western prairies)

————–

cc: Babak Abbaszadeh is with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (Stakeholder Relations).

The CPPIB is familiar with Henrik Syse, the philosopher who guides ethical investing at the central bank in Norway (Norges Bank). babak AT cppib.ca

cc: Government of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, David Ramsay (appointed by Premier Dalton McGuinty in June 2005). david.ramsay AT ontario.ca

cc: Government of Ontario, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Gail Beggs. gail.beggs AT ontario.ca

cc: Government of Ontario, MINISTER’S COUNCIL ON FOREST SECTOR COMPETITIVENESS, Secretary/Executive Director Tim Millard, former Deputy Minister of Labour and of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, and past president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association (conflict-of-interest?).

(Link no longer valid: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/csb/news/2005/jun13bg_05.html ) tim.millard AT ontario.ca

cc: Forest Stewardship Council, Canada info AT fsccanada.org

=================

(3) LETTER SENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEYERHAEUSER

I INTRODUCE YOU TO – – no! not WEYERHAEUSER. That is an artificial construct. I introduce you to the PEOPLE (the Board of Directors):

February 28, 2007

Sent by email from web-page: (Link no longer valid) http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/aboutus/contactus/byemail2.asp?CategoryName=Archives

PLEASE SUBMIT THIS TO:

WEYERHAEUSER BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Steve Rogel, Richard Haskayne, Don Mazankowski, Nicole Piasecki, Martha Ingram, John Kieckhefer, Arnie Langbo, Chuck Williamson, Richard Sinkfield, Mike Steuert, Jim Sullivan, and Kim Williams (biographies below)

Hard copy sent to Canadians on Board:

Don Mazankoski, Sherwood Park, Alberta
Richard Haskayne, Calgary, AB

Dear All,

RE: forestry practices of Weyerhaeuser, ethical investing

I am prompted by the situation at Grassy Narrows, but my remarks apply generally.

I am hoping that the two Canadians on the Board of Directors, Don Mazankowski and Richard Haskayne, will clearly present the view of Canadians to you.

Canada Pension Plan money belongs to Canadians. Many of us challenge investment in unethical companies. The Norwegians have a large investment fund – royalties from off-shore oil and gas. I am asking both the CPPIB and Norges Bank to disinvest from Weyerhaeuser.

It is not “socially responsible” to

clear cut forests in Canada (or anywhere else)
use monoculture tree planting as a replacement for “forest”
cause the degradation of water supplies through your forestry practices
cut forests that belong to other people
contribute to mercury poisoning, when you would not do that to your own families, and especially when climate change and water issues must be addressed by all people, around the globe.

That “the Government allows it” is not an excuse for unethical behaviour.

That “we are responsible to the shareholders” is not an excuse, either.

And please don’t feed me untruths. Your practices are well documented in pictures.

http://freegrassy.org/multi_media/video/
– scroll down to “As Long as the River Flows” and click on “Share the preview online at YouTube”.

I invite you to consider the long-term consequences of your actions:

deforestation is a contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases.
you contribute to the break-down of law and order. Surely that is not difficult to understand. When citizens see that corporations (you) are not regulated when you should be, that you are above the law, respect for the rule of law is undermined. When the society is not ruled by law (good government), people take the law into their own hands. What other recourse is there? It becomes an eye-for-an-eye, a tree-for-a-tree. That is NOT where we want to go.

The need for me to address you directly is a consequence of your behavior in forestry, and of the failure of the Government to perform its regulatory job. More and more people will deal directly with you, unless there is change. At least, that seems to me to be the common sense of the situation.

Why should I sit upon my hands and do nothing when we are urgently in need of a change-in-direction in Canada? Clear-cutting, monoculture here … examples of what is sustainable in other jurisdictions (Switzerland for example). It is not only the tropical forests that play an essential role in climate change; the boreal forests of Canada are critical. And still this goes on. At some point, I say “enough”.)

A private citizen could not get away with what you do. The only reason that you, the Board of Directors, are not in jail is because you hide behind an artificial construct called Weyerhaeuser.

I will speak frankly: a huge number of Canadians see the Americans as war-mongers, bullies in the world. Through your actions (Steve, Richard, Don, Nicole, Martha, John, Arnie, Chuck, Richard, Mike, Jim, and Kim), and even though two of you are Canadians, you contribute to bad feelings between nations. Your actions reinforce the negative stereo-type of “Americans”.

Greed is associated.
I am not likely to notice that Steve does good work with the Boy Scouts. My sense is that you are seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution to climate change, water quality and justice. More precisely: that is how I view you.

Respectability is like religion. Going to church on Sunday doesn’t make you a spiritual being.

Money doesn’t make you respectable, or a person of influence. It’s all in your behavior.

I recommend that you take immediate action regarding Grassy Narrows.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(contact info)

===========================

(4) PEOPLE WHO ARE BEHIND THE WORD “WEYERHAEUSER”

Steve Rogel, Dick Haskayne, Don Mazankowski, Nicole Piasecki, Martha Ingram, John Kieckhefer, Arnie Langbo, Chuck Williamson, Dick Sinkfield, Mike Steuert, Jim Sullivan, and Kim Williams.

Weyerhaeuser in Canada (Link no longer valid) http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/aboutus/whereweoperate/wyincanada.asp

BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Link no longer valid) http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/aboutus/leadership/seniormanagement.asp#refreshTop

Steven R. Rogel, CEO

Steven R. Rogel was elected Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Weyerhaeuser Company on April 20, 1999. Prior to assuming the title of chairman, Rogel served as president and chief executive officer and a member of the board of directors since December 1, 1997.

In 1966, he began his career with St. Regis Paper Company, where he worked until 1970. From 1970 to 1972, he was assistant manager at St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp and Paper in Nackawic, N.B., Canada. He joined Willamette in 1972 as technical director at the company’s operations in Albany, Ore. He was named president and chief executive officer of Willamette in 1995, and served in that position until joining Weyerhaeuser Company in December 1997. Rogel received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering in 1965 from the University of Washington in Seattle. He completed the executive education programs at Dartmouth College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982 and 1989, respectively. He serves on various boards, including the American Forest & Paper Association and the World Forestry Center. He is a director of the Kroger Company, Union Pacific Corporation, Vice President of Administration for the Western Region Boy Scouts of America and co-chair of the Wood Promotion Network.

Directors—Terms to Expire in 2009

Richard F. Haskayne, 71, a director of the company since 2000, is chairman of TransCanada Corporation (gas transmission and power generation) and was chairman of Fording Inc. (coal and industrial minerals) from 2001 to 2003.

He was chairman of NOVA Corporation from 1991 to 1998 until the company merged with TransCanada Pipelines. He was chairman of the board of MacMillan Bloedel Limited from 1996 to 1999 and is also a director of Encana Corporation. He was chairman, president and chief executive officer of Interhome Energy Inc., the parent company of Interprovincial Pipe Line and Home Oil from 1986 to 1991. In 1997, he was appointed an officer of the Order of Canada. In addition, he is director emeritus of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and board of governors chair emeritus of the board of the University of Calgary (after serving as chair from 1990 to 1996).

Donald F. Mazankowski, 70, a director of the company since 1997, is a business consultant. He was a Member of Parliament, Government of Canada, from 1968 to 1993, served as Deputy Prime Minister from 1986 to 1993 and as Minister of Finance from 1991 to 1993. He also is a director of the Power Group of Companies; Shaw Communications, Inc.; Great West Life Assurance, Investors Group; Yellow Pages Group; Canadian Oilsands Trust and Atco Ltd.

He is a past member of the board of governors of the University of Alberta and is past chairman of the Institute of Health Economics and of the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network.

Nicole W. Piasecki, 43, a director of the company since June, 2003, is executive vice president of Business Strategy & Marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, The Boeing Company. She was vice president of Commercial Airplanes Sales, Leasing Companies from 2000 until January 2003; the Boeing Commercial Airplanes sales director for the Americas from 1997 to 2000; and served in various management positions in sales, marketing, and business strategy for the Commercial Aircraft Group from 1991 when she joined The Boeing Company as a customer engineer on the 777 airplane program until 1997. She is also a director of Coal Valley Company; YWCA; World Trade Center Seattle and is a fellow of the British American Project.

Directors—Terms to Expire in 2008

Martha R. Ingram, 70, a director of the company since 1995, has been chairman of Ingram Industries, Inc. (book distribution, inland barging and insurance), since 1995 and a member of its board since 1981. She was its director of public affairs from 1979 to 1995. She is also a director of Ingram Micro, Inc.; and AmSouth Bancorporation. In addition, she serves on the board of Vassar College, and is chairman of the board of trust of Vanderbilt University. She also serves as chairman of the board of the Nashville Symphony Association, is on the board of the Nashville Opera, the Nashville Ballet and the Tennessee Repertory Theatre and is former chairman of the board of the Tennessee Performing Arts Center. Mrs. Ingram was also chairman of the 1996 Tennessee Bicentennial Commission.

John I. Kieckhefer, 61, a director of the company since 1990, has been president of Kieckhefer Associates, Inc. (investment and trust management) since 1989, and was senior vice president prior to that time. He has been engaged in commercial cattle operations since 1967 and is a trustee of J.W. Kieckhefer Foundation, an Arizona charitable trust.

Arnold G. Langbo, 68, a director of the company since 1999, was chairman of Kellogg Company (cereal products) from 1992 until his retirement in 2000. He joined Kellogg Canada Inc. in 1956 and was elected president, chief operating officer, and a director of Kellogg Company in 1990. He served as chief executive officer of Kellogg Company from 1992 to 1999. He is also a director of Johnson & Johnson and Whirlpool Corporation and serves on the board of the International Youth Foundation.

Charles R. Williamson, 58, a director of the company since October 2004, was the executive vice president of Chevron Texaco Corporation (international oil company) from August, 2005 until his retirement on December 1, 2005. He was chairman and chief executive officer of Unocal Corporation (oil and natural gas) until its acquisition by Chevron Texaco Corporation in 2005. He served as Unocal Corporation’s executive vice president, International Energy Operations from 1999 to 2000; group vice president, Asia Operations from 1998 to 1999; group vice president, International Operations from 1996 to 1997; and held numerous management jobs including positions in the United Kingdom, Thailand and the Netherlands since joining Unocal in 1977. He was a director of Unocal Corporation and former Chairman of the US-ASEAN Business Council.

Directors—Terms to Expire in 2007

Steven R. Rogel, 63, a director of the company since 1997, has been chairman of the board since 1999. He has been the Company’s president and chief executive officer since 1997. Prior to joining the Company, he served as the president and chief executive officer of Willamette Industries, Inc. from 1995 to 1997 and as its president and chief operating officer from 1991 to 1995. He is a director of the Kroger Company and Union Pacific Corporation, and serves on the National Executive Board Boy Scouts of America. He is also former Chairman of the American Forest & Paper Association, and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

Richard H. Sinkfield, 63, a director of the company since 1993, is a senior partner in the law firm of Rogers & Hardin in Atlanta, Georgia, and has been a partner in the firm since 1976. He was a director of United Auto Group, Inc. (automobile retailer) from 1993 to 1999 and its executive vice president and chief administrative officer from 1997 to 1999. He also is a director of Central Parking Corporation. He is a former director of the Metropolitan Atlanta Community Foundation, Inc. and the Atlanta College of Art. He is a trustee of Vanderbilt University, a member of the executive board of the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America and was a member of the board of governors of the State Bar of Georgia from 1990 to 1998.

D. Michael Steuert, 57, is senior vice president and chief financial officer for Fluor Corporation where he is responsible for the company’s global financial processes. Prior to joining Fluor in 2001, Steuert served as senior vice president and chief financial officer at Litton Industries Inc. He also held financial management positions at Gencorp Inc. and TRW Inc. Steuert earned both bachelors and masters degrees from Carnegie Mellon University and has attended post graduate training at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business.

James N. Sullivan, 68, a director of the company since 1998, is the retired vice chairman of the board of Chevron Texaco Corporation (international oil company) where he was a director from 1988 to 2000. He joined Chevron Texaco in 1961, was elected a vice president in 1983 and served as its vice chairman from 1989 to 2000.

Kim Williams, 51, was appointed a director to fill a vacancy effective Oct. 1, 2006. She recently retired from Wellington Management where she had served as a senior vice president and partner since 1995. In her 26 years in the investment management business, Williams established strong credentials as a financial analyst with more than 20 years experience covering industries including paper and forest products, publishing, metal and mining, and home improvement. During her career, Institutional Investor Magazine repeatedly recognized Williams as a “Best of the Buy Side” analyst.

Williams began her career as an investment analyst with the Imperial Chemical Industries Pension Fund in London, England in 1979. She also worked at Loomis, Sayles and Co., Inc. in Boston before joining Wellington in 1986.

Williams holds a masters in economics from the University of London.

2007-02-22 Norway withdraws support from World Bank Fund, Water privatization (CPPIB)

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Culture and Ethics, Water No Responses »

Feb 222007

We’ve been following Norway’s “walk the talk”:

2006-01-01 Norway’s Central Bank hires Doctor of Philosophy (Henrik Syse) re Implementation of moral behavior (Der Spiegel).
2006-06-06 Norway dumps Walmart stock because of its unethical behaviour.

Norway’s withdrawl from the World Bank fund is another example of the international ethical leadership provided by this country of fewer than 5 million people.

Developing countries and water activists from around the world have fought the coercive nature of the World Bank’s policies. Developing countries receive aid for securing water supplies, but only if they agree to participation (privatization) by the international water corporations – e.g. Bechtel, Suez, Vivendi. Maud Barlow, the Council of Canadians, is among the international leaders who has fought shoulder-to-shoulder with people in, for example, Cochabamba Bolivia, where Bechtel was driven out.

To my knowledge, Norway is the first country to say, “The World Bank is wrong. We are withdrawing our financial support.” What an action of support and encouragement this is for “doing what is right”!

QUESTION: who of you knows, which Department of the Government of Canada decides Canadian contributions to this World Bank fund?

=============================

NORWAY WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM WORLD BANK FUND, WATER PRIVATIZATION

PRESS RELEASE 22. February 2007

Norway has decided to pull out of a controversial World Bank fund that actively promotes water privatisation in developing countries. Norway has contributed $2,85 million to the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) since 1999.

During a meeting with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday, representatives of the Norwegian NGO, the Association of International Water Studies (FIVAS) and the British advocacy group, World Development Movement (WDM), heard that Norway’s contributions to the fund would cease on the 30 June 2007.

WDM and FIVAS have published a new report entitled “Down the Drain: How aid for water sector reform could be better spent” that investigates the activities of PPIAF and shows how the fund actively promotes water privatisation by the use of consultants. This is despite the fact the strategy of water privatisation is widely acknowledged to have failed, particularly for the poor.

The report also criticises the fund’s consensus building activities which involve persuading sceptics and opponents in developing countries to accept the benefits of water privatisation. The authors consider this interference in recipient countries’ ability to conduct a free and democratic debate on the issues.

Torbjørn Urfjell, the political adviser for the Ministerof Development, Erik Solheim, said during the meeting that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs no longer viewed the fund as a means to solve the problem of access to water for the poor. The decision can also be seen as following the intentions of the Government’s Action Plan for Environment in Development Cooperation that wishes to see water as a common good, said Urfjell.

“This is good news,” said Andrew Preston, director of FIVAS. “We’re not talking about a large amount of money in development terms, but it’s nonetheless an important and correct decision. We hope this will send a signal to other donor countries, and not least the World Bank itself, that there are better ways of using aid funds.”

The report Down the Drain recommends alternative ways of increasing access to water for the poor. The report suggests financial support to strengthen the public sector through increased cooperation between public water operators.
For more information, contact:

Andrew Preston, FIVAS, Norway fivas@fivas.org +47 22 98 9325
Vicky Cann, WDM, London Vicky AT wdm.org.uk +44 020 7820 4900

2007-02-14 GMO’s: Judge rules U.S. Dept of Agriculture broke the law in its approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Genetically Modified No Responses »

Feb 142007

Wow! It’s time to party! Let’s sing and dance in cyber space!

Many people in our network and others across Canada and beyond joined in the effort to stop the registration of roundup-resistant (herbicide-tolerant) alfalfa in the U.S.

The American group, the Center for Food Safety, took on the court battle.

Many thanks to Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of CBAN (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice) and the ETC Group for their relentless work.

This is exciting!

================

From: CBAN Coordinator-Lucy Sharratt <coordinator AT cban.ca>

Subject: [gene-allies] US Alfalfa suit won!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14crop.html

U.S. Agency Violated Law in Seed Case, Judge Rules

By ANDREW POLLACK

February 14, 2007

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the Agriculture Department violated the law by failing to adequately assess possible environmental impacts before approving Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa.

Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San Francisco said the agency had been “cavalier” in deciding that a full environmental impact statement was not needed because the potential environmental and economic effects of the crop were not significant.

Plaintiffs in the case – some alfalfa seed companies and environmental and farm advocacy groups – said they would push to stop the sales and planting of the alfalfa, which is resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that organized the lawsuit, said the decision by itself could block commercial sales of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds but that the plaintiffs would ask for an injunction to make sure.

Judge Breyer asked the parties to meet and propose remedies to him by Feb. 26.

Christopher R. Horner, a spokesman for Monsanto, said the company had not seen the decision but thought it would not affect its business.

Monsanto was not named in the suit, which was filed against the Agriculture Department.

Calls to several spokesmen for the Agriculture Department were not returned. A recording in the department’s communications office said the government closed early yesterday because of expected bad weather in Washington.

A federal judge in Washington said last week that the Agriculture Department had not done adequate assessments before approving field trials of genetically engineered grass. And last August a federal judge in Hawaii, in a case involving field trials of crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, ruled that the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the possible impact on endangered species.

Mr. Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety said yesterday’s decision could set a precedent that would require the Agriculture Department to do full impact statements for other biotech crops before they are approved.

The Roundup Ready alfalfa was deregulated by the Agriculture Department in June 2005, meaning it could be grown outside of field trials. It was the first approval in years of a new genetically engineered crop.

Because alfalfa is the fourth most widely planted crop in the United States, the action presented a big opportunity for Monsanto.

The Agriculture Department had first done an environmental assessment, which concluded that a longer and more detailed environmental impact statement was not needed. This was in part, the agency said, because the implanted gene conferring herbicide resistance was harmless to people and livestock.

But Judge Breyer, in his 20-page opinion, said that the agency had not adequately considered the possibility that the gene could be transferred by pollen to organic or conventional alfalfa, hurting sales of organic farmers or exports to countries like Japan that did not want the genetically engineered variety.

“An action which potentially eliminates or at least greatly reduces the availability of a particular plant – here, nonengineered alfalfa – has a significant effect on the human environment,” he wrote.

The judge also said that the Agriculture Department had too easily dismissed the possibility that planting Roundup-resistant alfalfa would lead to wider use of Roundup, which in turn would contribute to the development of weeds resistant to the popular herbicide. That is particularly a risk, he said, because many other crops like soybeans and corn are also resistant to Roundup, which is known generically as glyphosate.

“One would expect that some federal agency is considering whether there is some risk to engineering all of America’s crops to include the gene that confers resistance to glyphosate,” he wrote.

– – – – – – – – –

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

2015 University of Sask, Questions in the Re-visioning exercise.

Take back the University No Responses »

Feb 132007

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Thinking about the University of Saskatchewan today, please identify three words or phrases that immediately come to mind to describe our university. (Please limit your response to three words per text box)

1.
2.
3.

Thinking about the University of Saskatchewan ten years from now, operating at its highest potential, please identify three words or phrases that immediately come to mind to describe our university. (Please limit your response to three words per text box)

1.
2.
3.

In one sentence, describe what distinguishes the University of Saskatchewan from other universities. (25 word limit)

What level of importance do you place on the University of Saskatchewan conducting research, scholarly and artistic work in the following areas?

	Not at all important	Not important	Neither important nor unimportant	Important	Very important
Locally oriented work with local impact	Not at all important	Not important	Neither important nor unimportant	Important	Very important
Locally oriented work with global impact	Not at all important	Not important	Neither important nor unimportant	Important	Very important
Globally oriented work with local impact	Not at all important	Not important	Neither important nor unimportant	Important	Very important
Globally oriented work with global impact

Identify one thing that makes you proud to be connected to the University of Saskatchewan. (10 word limit)

MISSION QUESTIONS (why we exist)

Our MISSION is the reason for the existence of the University of Saskatchewan, the purpose it serves in society and the boundaries within which it operates.

With this definition in mind, what are the top five words or phrases that you think best describe or fit our mission? (Please select up to 5 options, including responses provided as “other”)

Aboriginal engagement
Aboriginal reconciliation
Aboriginal research
Academic excellence
Advancing knowledge
Bold
Collaboration
Community engagement
Creativity
Cultural innovation
Cultural preservation
Discovery

Distinguished
Diversity
Engagement
Innovation
Interdisciplinarity
Knowledge application
Knowledge creation
Knowledge integration
Knowledge preservation
Knowledge sharing
Leadership
Research excellence

Responsive to society
Serving global challenges
Serving local challenges
Stimulate critical thinking
Teaching and learning
World-leading

Other:

VISION QUESTIONS (what we want to become)

Our VISION defines what the University of Saskatchewan wants to be or become. This often involves a time horizon into the future and, in this case, where we see ourselves being in 10 years.

With this definition in mind, what are the top five words or phrases you think best describe or fit our vision? (Please select up to 5 options, including responses provided as “other”)

Aboriginal engagement
Aboriginal reconciliation
Aboriginal research
Academic excellence
Advancing knowledge
Bold
Collaboration
Community engagement
Creativity
Cultural innovation
Cultural preservation
Discovery

Distinguished
Diversity
Engagement
Innovation
Interdisciplinarity
Knowledge application
Knowledge creation
Knowledge integration
Knowledge preservation
Knowledge sharing
Leadership
Research excellence

Responsive to society
Serving global challenges
Serving local challenges
Stimulate critical thinking
Teaching and learning
World-leading

Other:

VALUES QUESTIONS (the beliefs and attitudes that will guide our behaviour)

Our VALUES relate to the beliefs and attitudes that guide behavior of those who work and/or study at the University of Saskatchewan. They are in some respects the commitments the institution makes to its people, and the commitments its people make to the institution and to one another.

With this definition in mind, what are the top five words or phrases you think best describe or fit our values? (Please select up to 5 options, including responses provided as “other”)

Aboriginal engagement
Academic freedom
Access
Accountability
Affordability
Ambition
Caring
Collaboration
Collegiality
Community engagement
Courage

Creativity
Critical thinking
Diversity
Equality
Equity
Excellence
Inclusive
Inspiration
Integrity
Leadership
Perseverance

Resourceful
Respect
Rigor
Sharing
Sustainability

Other:

DEMOGRAPHICS

To help provide an idea of who responded to the survey, please take a moment to answer a few final questions.

Are you a University of Saskatchewan alumna/alumnus?

What is your current, primary role with the University of Saskatchewan? (Select one)

Faculty
Staff
Senior administrator
Student
Donor
University of Saskatchewan Senate or Board of Governors

Other, please specify

Alumna/alumnus

How long have you been employed with the University of Saskatchewan?

Less than 1 year
1 year to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
More than 20 years

What is your program level? (Select one)

Undergraduate
Graduate

Other, please specify

Is there anything else you’d like to share as the University of Saskatchewan embarks on renewing its mission, vision and values?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your feedback is greatly appreciated!

2007-02-12 UAV (Drone) Tested For US Border Security (Canadian border)

Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles / UAVs) No Responses »

Feb 122007

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UAV_Tested_For_US_Border_Security_999.html

The UAV being tested is a version of the MQ9 Predator B (pictured).

by Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Washington (UPI) Feb 12, 2007

The U.S. government is pushing ahead with developing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs, for land border security with Canada. Officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said last week they would work with the Federal Aviation Administration to impose flight restrictions around a North Dakota air base where the new UAV will be tested.

“We are working with the FAA to get restrictions on the airspace (above Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D.) during certain time windows when we fly, typically at night,” said Gen. Michael Kostelnik, head of air and marine operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency inside the Department of Homeland Security that flies the pilot-less aircraft, known by their military acronym UAV, for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

The UAV, a version of the military MQ9 Predator B equipped with special cameras and other sensors, and with the ability to stay in the air for up to 30 hours, will be able to monitor remote and inaccessible regions of the border with Canada, officials say.

The flight restrictions, which will apply to small planes operating below 18,000 feet, are necessary because of the danger of collisions, but they will draw protests from those who own or fly private planes.

The agency currently is flying one Predator B, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, over the south western border, where it uses the already-restricted airspace around Libby Army Air Field at Ft. Huachuca, Ariz.

“But there are no restricted or prohibited areas near Grand Forks,” points out Heidi Williams, the head of regulatory affairs for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and the group “would oppose any new restricted airspace created solely for UAV border patrols.”

Kostelnik, in an interview with United Press International last week said that within three years, Grand Forks would also become the home of a National Guard UAV air wing, flying the less sophisticated Predator A.

“We are working with the FAA to help them understand what the implications are of the growing use of UAVs,” he said.

The homeland security UAV at Grand Forks will also require special FAA certification to fly above 18,000 feet, in so-called Positive Control airspace, through which U.S. air traffic controllers guide commercial flights.

Customs and Border Protection will obtain “certificates of authorization to operate (the Predator B) in certain corridors in the national airspace” for the purpose of border patrols, Kostelnik said.

He added that the Predator B was “one of the most sophisticated aircraft on the face of the planet,” and that it would fly “mainly in the evenings and at night” in places with little existing air traffic.

“I’m not interested in flying this thing … in metropolitan areas,” he said.

Customs and Border Protection will have four UAVs by the end of the year, he added. The second will join the one already flying in the south west in April, the third will be delivered to Grand Forks by Oct. 1, and the last, delivered by the end of the year, will likely be deployed in a maritime role.

He said a prototype drone with sea-view radar would be tested in Florida to assess “its look-down capabilities, (and) its performance against targets we go after down there, and explore interface issues with other (air and marine) assets we have deployed.”

He said, if the tests were successful, a UAV with a maritime mission might be based on the Gulf coast, Puerto Rico, or San Diego.

One drone, a Predator B, was deployed on the south western border in October 2005, where the agency says it contributed to the seizure of four vehicles and over 8,000 pounds of marijuana, before crashing owing to pilot error on April 24, 2006.

“There are concerns regarding the high accident rate of UAVs, which is currently 100 times higher than that of manned aircraft,” says a Congressional Research Service report from November last year. “Because UAV technology is still evolving,” the report continues, “mishap rates are expected to remain high.”

It goes on to point out, however, that “UAV accidents do not risk the lives of pilots, as do the helicopters that currently patrol U.S. borders.”

According to the report, the cost of operating a UAV is more than double the cost of operating a manned aircraft, because of the logistical support and specialized pilot and maintenance training required.

But Kostelnik said the costs were “not a big issue for us. We are more concerned with the value we get from it.”

The Congressional Research Service report says the Predator B can fly for 30 hours at a stretch, 15 times as long as a helicopter, and that its cameras can identify an object the size of a milk carton from 60,000 feet.

Kostelnik said the UAVs’ value would be increased by new technology purchased last year, which will allow them to be flown on both borders via KU-band satellite from the agency’s Air and Marine Operations Center in Riverside, Calif.

“We will be able to configure the room (from which the drones are flown)… more like the military does” with the potential to sit analysts or experts alongside the operators flying the craft, he said.

But he added the ground station would not be delivered until March 2008. “We are in line with a lot of other national users,” he said, referring to the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies which are rapidly expanding their use of the Predator.

Kostelnik said rapidly rising demand is also creating a shortage of qualified pilots, complicating the agency’s pans to take over piloting the craft, which are currently flown by contract pilots from General Atomics.

Source: United Press International

2007-01-16 The Iraq War, Brought to You by Your Friends at Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) No Responses »

Jan 162007

Mother Jones

The Iraq War, Brought to You by Your Friends at Lockheed Martin

—By Daniel Schulman Jan. 16, 2007

Remember the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq? Much like Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a front group established by Hill & Knowlton before the first Gulf War, it was a made-to-order pressure group formed for the sole purpose of building support — and providing a rationale — for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. I’d long since forgotten about the organization — which was supported by such neocon luminaries as James Woolsey, Richard Perle, and William Kristol and quietly disbanded after the invasion — until I read the interesting investigative piece in the current issue of Playboy (yes, Playboy) that Liz references below. Titled “Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” the article boldly bills itself as “the story of how Lockheed’s interests — as opposed to those of the American Citizenry — set the course of U.S. Policy After 9/11.”

According to the article, in November 2002 Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security advisor, had a meeting with a Lockheed official named Bruce Jackson, telling him that the U.S. was “going to war” but “struggling with a rationale.” Reportedly, Hadley then asked Jackson to “set up something like the Committee on Nato” — referring to another group previously formed by Jackson — to fill this void. The result was the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

If the names and organizations connected to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq seem to blur together, it’s no coincidence. Many of the people involved had been in and out of that set of revolving doors connecting government, conservative think tanks, lobbying firms and the defense industry. And many shared another common bond, as well: a link to Lockheed Martin.

By the time the committee had assembled, they had a number of contacts in the Bush administration—many of whom also had Lockheed connections. Bush had appointed Powell A. Moore assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs serving directly under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. From 1983 until 1998, when he had become chief of staff to Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Moore was a consultant and vice president for legislative affairs for Lockheed.

Albert Smith, Lockheed’s executive vice president for integrated systems and solutions, was appointed to the Defense Science Board. Bush had appointed former Lockheed chief operating officer Peter B. Teets as undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, where he made decisions on the acquisition of reconnaissance satellites and space-based elements of missile defense. Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the only Democrat appointed by Bush to his cabinet, worked for Lockheed, as did Bush’s Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee before becoming the governor of Mississippi, worked for a Lockheed lobbying firm. Joe Allbaugh, national campaign manager of the Bush-Cheney ticket and director of FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration (he appointed his college friend Michael Brown as FEMA’s general counsel), was a Lockheed lobbyist for its rapidly growing intelligence division.

Dick Cheney’s son-in-law, Philip J. Perry, a registered Lockheed lobbyist who had, while working for a law firm, represented Lockheed with the Department of Homeland Security, had been nominated by Bush to serve as general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security. His wife, Elizabeth Cheney, serves as deputy assistant secretary of state for Middle Eastern affairs.

Vice President Cheney’s wife, Lynne, had, until her husband took office, served on the board of Lockheed, receiving deferred compensation in the form of half a million dollars in stock and fees. Even President Bush himself has a Lockheed Martin connection. As governor of Texas, he had attempted to give Lockheed a multimillion-dollar contract to reform the state’s welfare system.

Jackson, who while serving as vice president of strategy and planning for Lockheed was also “responsible for the foreign policy platform at the Republican National Convention,” told the author that “only ‘literary types’ would see a connection between Lockheed Martin and the Iraq war as ‘seamless,'” insisting “that his own activities were ‘not part of my day job.'” He then offered up this bizarre example: “There are lesbians who work for Lockheed Martin. One of them might be a belly dancer at night.”

2007-01-08 Cremation costs to rise as tooth fillings poison the living

Mercury poisoning, dental amalgams. See also Vaccinations. No Responses »

Jan 082007

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-427368/Cremation-costs-rise-tooth-fillings-poison-living.html

Cremation costs to rise as tooth fillings poison the living

By TOM KELLY

Last updated at 22:00 08 January 2007

Just one gram of mercury in a lake can cause toxicity, while many Britons have two to four grams in fillings inside their mouths

Cremation costs are set to rise by up to £100 – because the teeth of the dead are poisoning the living.

Bereaved families are to be hit with a charge to fund new filters that stop toxic fumes from vaporised mercury fillings polluting the atmosphere.

The levy could see the price of having a loved one cremated rise by up to a third.

But environmentalists say it is vital to cut the spiralling mercury emissions from dental fillings that contaminate the air, waterways, soil, wildlife and food.

Mercury pollution has been linked with birth defects, kidney disease and multiple sclerosis. Cremations already cause nearly one sixth of all UK emissions of the metal.

Left unchecked, this would likely rise by two thirds by 2020, making crematoria the biggest single cause of mercury pollution in the country.

In an attempt to stop it getting out of control, the government has ordered half of crematoria to fit the new filters by 2012.

Those who have already installed the new technology started charging an £35 for cremations this month.

And with the filters costing up to £300,000 to fit, there are fears the charge could rapidly rise to £100.

By 2013 all cremations will be subject to the new levy. Grieving relatives will be expected to pay, regardless of whether their loved one has any mercury fillings.

Duncan McCallum, secretary of the Federation of British Cremation Authorities, said: “The government’s decision was that the person at the end of the chain pays, and unfortunately that is the family of the deceased.

“We would have preferred some funding to assist the installation.”

He said the charge would be reviewed annually, and it was impossible to predict how high it could rise.

Cremations now account for around three out of four funerals in Britain. Most cost between £300 and £400, but the average cost of the full funeral is £1215.

The rise in mercury pollution from crematoria is caused by increasing deaths in what dentists describe as the “heavy metal generation” – those in their 40s and above.

These people are dying with more teeth because of better dental care.

But many of those teeth are loaded with potentially dangerous levels of mercury-laced fillings.

Millions of Britons have two to four grams of mercury in their mouths.

Just a single gramme in a 25-acre lake can raise toxic levels in fish to danger levels.

Adults who have absorbed mercury or inhaled mercury vapour lose their appetite, are emotionally unstable, have trouble sleeping and develop gastric problems, sore gums and dribble excessively.

Researchers have also found that higher levels of mercury can lead to an increased risk of heart disease in men.

High mercury levels in food are especially dangerous for pregnant women, affecting their baby’s central nervous system.

Other countries including Austria, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have already taken steps to regulate mercury emissions from crematoria.

The only alternative way of cutting mercury emissions from dental fillings would be to remove filled teeth from bodies before cremation, but experts say this would be too time consuming.

2007-01-05 Proposed Highgate Dam, North Saskatchewan River. Process, Letter to persons responsible. Water diversion to U.S.

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Water No Responses »

Jan 052007

Banksters: Index

2005-11-03 Letter to Federal and Provincial Auditors. Battle over water in Saskatchewan; Federal Liberal’s Old Boys Network and Federal Money . “Drought-proofing the economy”

You may wish to just scroll down to the CONTENT of my letter to the persons responsible for the proposed Highgate Dam, look for “THE QUESTIONS” (14) that I asked them to answer.
The REPLY from the Officials Responsible is beyond that, look for REPLY FROM GOVERNMENT, ANSWERS TO THE 14 QUESTIONS

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

THE PROPOSED HIGHGATE DAM WAS STOPPED, IN RELATIVELY SHORT ORDER

FOUR FACTORS

An energetic, happy group of local and regional people in the North Saskatchewan River corridor organized to inform themselves and others about the wisdom (?) of the proposed dam.
The earlier WIN against the boondoggle Meridian Dam on the South Saskatchewan River had developed a well-informed, empowered and connected group of citizens willing to share what they had learned.

They in turn had been assisted by the citizens who successfully demonstrated that the Oldman Dam in southern Alberta was not a good idea, only to have the Court decision completely disregarded by the Provincial Government. That dam was built, but strategically-important lessons were passed along to the “Meridian” people, and through that vector also informed the “Highgate” people.

3. Some Provincial and Federal Government officials and scientists activated conversations behind-the-scenes.

4. PROCESS: Water networks with knowledgeable people across Canada were alerted to help spread news of HOW things were evolving with the Highgate proposal for water.

If abuse-of-process is allowed in one area, it will be copied and used in another. The goal is corporate control of water supplies for the purpose of making a lot of money (as in oil and gas). A carrot held in front of potential investors in this “water supply expansion project”, a large dam built with public money, was “equity interests” in the water that would accumulate behind the proposed dam.

People who have worked in the area understand that CONTROL OF PROCESS can give parties CONTROL OF OUTCOME. Process can determine outcome.

Abuse-of-process has to be stopped wherever it happens. That is essentially what the 14 QUESTIONS in the letter below are about. The well-informed and active regional group was essential. But as the Oldman group discovered, superior information in and of itself will not necessarily win the day. Our Government and regulatory processes have to be more-or-less clean of corruption.

There are ways to help hold officials to account. I think the QUESTIONS helped create the WIN.

The battle to stop a dumb project that would have filled bank accounts of insiders, at a huge cost to the public purse (dams cost billions of dollars), was surprisingly short and easy (relative to other battles).

—–Original Message—–

From: Sandra Finley

Sent: January-05-07 7:51 AM

To: David* Forbes; John* Nilson; Stuart* Kramer; Wayne* Dybvig; Larry* Lenton; Bryan. Ireland

Subject: Water: North Saskatchewan River, proposed dam

January 5, 2007

Dear John, David, Stuart, Wayne, Larry and Bryan,

(I assume that Larry will respond to this.)

I looked quickly on the SaskWater web-site but did not find what I am looking for. Would you mind forwarding to me the Terms of Reference for the Preliminary Feasibility study on the proposed dam (or variations) for the North Sask River upstream of North Battleford?

I would also appreciate the name of the consultants who are under contract to do the study.

(This is addressed to David who is minster responsible for SaskWater, to John, minister responsible for Sask Watershed Authority, to Stuart in his capacity as head of SaskWater, to Wayne in relation to cross-border water agreements, and to Larry and Bryan in their co-ordinator roles related to the water project on the North Sask River. … I’m sending this email to each of you, to save you some time passing it along through the channels!)

May you all find 2007 to be an interesting and rewarding year, with many more to come.

Best wishes,

Sandra (Finley)

(contact info)

===============================================

PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE

EMAIL TO GOVERNMENT, 14 QUESTIONS RE FEASIBILITY STUDY, JUNE 20, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Decisions taken by one party in a River Basin affect parties along the length of the River. The proposal to build the High Gate Dam on the North Saskatchewan River is a matter for people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Federal Government is already helping with the proposed dam, so it is also a matter for them (Canadian tax-payers).

A major contributor to Canada’s Hudson Bay drainage area via Lake Winnipeg and the Nelson River, the North Saskatchewan originates in the Columbia Icefield, on the highway between Jasper and Banff. The river brings water across the prairies – from the Continental Divide to Lake Winnipeg, from there to Hudson Bay. The water is used in communities along the River; it is piped to more communities. The majority of people are species-centric, so I will stop there, no mention of other animals or species.

This letter and request for information is addressed to:

(1) The OPERATIONAL people in the Government of Saskatchewan responsible for water matters. (A Preliminary Feasibility Study of a proposed High Gate Dam on the North Sask River is currently under way.)

(2) It is addressed to the Federal Government:

Dept of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) which has jurisdiction where waterways cross provincial boundaries.
Dept of Agriculture because the Prairie Farms Rehabilitation Act (PFRA) is involved, in Saskatchewan, in the High Gate Dam proposal. Also because the (National) Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Programme is funding the Preliminary Feasibility Study.
Parks Canada because the North Saskatchewan River is in Banff National Park; they have programmes related to the River.
Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute in particular, but also to the Environmental Assessment Agency.
Minister of Agriculture, Chuck Strahl; Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty;
John Baird, President of the Treasury Board; Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

NOTE: This letter, as it goes to Sheila Fraser, is a request to audit the (National) Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Programme in the Federal Department of Agriculture. I believe the documentation below leads to the conclusion that this Programme is a vehicle through which tax-payers’ money is funneled off to serve business interests, at the expense of the public interest.

There are “rules and regulations” under which the money is dispensed, of course, but consider the example of the proposed High Gate Dam to see what is happening in the real world. These “programmes” are a way to circumvent proper democratic functioning. There is no tendering process, public scrutiny is thwarted, and true accountability withers. (The CARDS programme, also through the Dept of Agriculture, has been brought to the attention of the Government earlier for the same reason.)

Continuing with the list of parties to whom this letter is addressed:

(3) Each of the Provinces (Provincial Governments) in which the North Saskatchewan River flows.

(4) Some of the Cities, Towns, Reservations and Municipalities along the length of the River.

(5) Some of the organizations that will have valuable input regarding the impact of a Dam on the North Saskatchewan River.

(6) Some of the Citizens of Saskatchewan and Canada whose money would be used to pay for the proposed Dam.

(7) University of Saskatchewan Centre for Hydrology. http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwgeog/ColdRegions4/Quinton%20CRHMtrainingcourse.doc

(8) (National) Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Programme http://www.agr.gc.ca/env/index_e.php?section=h2o&page=sk

The specific people this letter is addressed to are at To Whom Was The Letter Addressed? I cannot know all the parties that have an interest, nor have I the time to contact them.

Please, will you see to it that this communication is passed along to people you know, who should see it? I am hoping that the list above will trigger you to think of others.

————————

Dear All,

Because many of us are interested in the same information, I think it is expedient if I pose questions that elicit answers. When the answers are received I will circulate them for the edification of everyone.

Bryan Ireland and Larry Lenton, as I understand, are co-chairs of the Preliminary Feasibility Study. And so I address the questions to them for answering.

THE QUESTIONS:

(1) WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY?

It is expected that the Terms of Reference will be at least as enlightened as those used by Golder and Associates (Calgary, engineering company) for the Preliminary Feasibility Study for the proposed Meridian Dam on the South Saskatchewan River a few years ago. (Those terms will be in SaskWater’s (Stuart Kramer’s) files, although it was Clare Kirkland who was head of SaskWater at the time).

Please provide a copy of the actual Terms of Reference that are being used for the current study related to the proposed High Gate Dam.

(2) SPECIFICALLY WHO IS DOING THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY? AND PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THEY ARE THE ONES DOING THE STUDY.

This is a democracy. It is assumed that “due process” prevails. It is recalled that the Government funding for the Preliminary Feasibility Study of the proposed Meridian Dam was secured by Golder and Associates Engineering Company through the tendering process.

Who is doing the Preliminary Feasibility Study for the proposed High Gate Dam? Please provide the public record of the due process by which this company has been awarded the work contract.

I assume that Bryan Ireland from the Sask Watershed Authority and Larry Lenton from the (Federal) PFRA (Government employees) are co-chairs to co-ordinate public meetings and communications between the public, the Government and the Company that is doing the Study. Please confirm.

(3) WHEN AND WHERE ARE THE PUBLIC MEETINGS?

I note on the Agrivision Corporation web-site: “Public consultations Spring 2004”, in relation to the High Gate Dam. Agrivision Corporation is a lobbyist for “water development” on behalf of business interests. I doubt that the Government of Saskatchewan would accept this as the “public consultation” that is a component of due process in democratic governance. It is assumed that the Government, on behalf of citizens, is in charge of the process. But I have not seen any information about the public consultation meetings. Hence the question: when and where are they?

It is established by the precedent of the Meridian Dam, and by due process, that public meetings will be held,

by the Government, and

working with the legitimate, selected by due process, company that is doing the Study,

in representative communities that will be affected by the decision. The communities up and down the River Basin are affected. But also the tax-payers who will pay for the dam.

The legitimate public consultations provide INPUT to the decision, and are part of the data collection process. They come PRIOR TO the writing of the Preliminary Feasibility Study. Once the study is written, there is another round of meetings in the same communities to present the OUTCOME, the actual Report. Citizens and organizations review how their input has been incorporated into the study. There may be changes required as a consequence of the second round of meetings. After that point, the final Report is submitted to the Government. And to a web-site so that all citizens have access to it.

Alberta and Manitoba, as well as Saskatchewan, will be very much impacted by a proposed dam on the North Saskatchewan River. The expectation is that there will be public meetings BEFORE the Study is written in (proposed):

Edmonton (upriver, Alberta)
Prince Albert (downriver, Saskatchewan)
Winnipeg (Manitoba – concerning the impact on Lake Winnipeg which is seriously threatened today by the water / lack of clean water flowing into it).
and obviously in North Battleford, the city closest to the construction site, and therefore the main beneficiary.

(4) WHAT IS THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION FROM WHICH THE PUBLIC CAN OBTAIN INFORMATION ON THE PROCESS PROPOSED FOR THE HIGH GATE DAM PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY? AND FOR UPDATES.

Is it the phone number and email address for each of Bryan Ireland and Larry Lenton? A web address would be insufficient.

(5) WHAT IS THE LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING KEPT INFORMED OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PROCESS? I ASSUME THE ANSWER TO QUESTION #4 IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INFORMATION FLOW? IS IT BRYAN IRELAND AND LARRY LENTON?

NOTE: In the Great Sand Hills process, the Government tried to keep the list of parties on the distribution list secret. I emphasize that this is a democracy. Full disclosure is a requirement. The Government never did officially supply the information. It was obtained, nonetheless.

(6) WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT TIME LINE, AND THE EVENTS ALONG IT?

(It seems to me that if the time line is the same as Agrivision’s, the public should be wary?)

(7) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED DAM? IS IT FOR IRRIGATION? IS IT FOR RECREATION? OR IS IT FOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT?

I see all three mentioned on the Agrivision web-site, http://www.droughtproofing.com/pdf/2005Conference/Corneil.pdf

If you look in the files collected for the study of the proposed Meridian dam, you will find that dams built to serve one purpose can be successful. Dams built with the claim that they will serve the three functions simultaneously, do not reflect reality. The “benefits” of all three are used to justify the construction of the dam. But in the end, if you study the history of dams, because the needs and impact of the body of water that is created are different, the three purposes aren’t actually compatible.

One example of the incompatibility of function (claimed benefit):

a justification for the dam will be “to provide cheap and clean electricity”.

another justification will be irrigation.

but if you create irrigation, you also create a large demand for electricity because water is heavy and irrigation pumps require large amounts of electricity.

Information is appended: if you drive south of Alberta and Saskatchewan across the artificial political boundary into the U.S., a continuation of the Great Plains, you find that individual states are finding ways to cut back on irrigation because of the volume of electricity that is required. They cannot simultaneously serve the irrigators need for water and electricity, and meet the needs of the non-agricultural sector for the generation of electrical power.

If the answer is that the Dam will be used for hydro-electricity, will you please provide the assurance that the Preliminary Feasibility Study, Terms of Reference include disclosure of the cost of the transmission lines that would take the electricity to its destination? If hydro-electricity is generated, the public will pay for the transmission lines. Transmission lines per mile are very expensive; the further from market, the more expensive. The study must obviously then identify the market for the electricity, in order to do the costing. Is it the irrigators? Is it the United States? Where would it fit into the power grid?

Transmission costs are often omitted from analysis, unjustifiably, or shall we say “Conveniently”? A professionally done and credible study will do full costing.

(7) HOW CURRENT IS THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE STUDY?

It is reasonable to expect that we will have world class, state-of-the-art knowledge brought to bear, right from the beginning of the decision process. The decision will be for our children, NOT FOR US.

The proposed dam would be a very large capital investment and for the long term. Investment in a dam will mean that there will not be money for other undertakings.

Agrivision Corporation is, to date, playing a large role in the dam project.

a. How current is Agrivision?

Look at page x (roman numeral 10) of the Executive Summary of the Report, “Water Wealth, a 50-year Water Development Plan for Saskatchewan, November 4, 2004. Prepared for Saskatchewan Agrivision Incorp, by Clifton Associates. (Wayne Clifton is a principal of Agrivision along with Red Williams and Al Scholz. His company, Clifton Associates does engineering work related to “water development” projects.). The Report is prepared through funding by Ag and Ag Food Canada. The map title: “Map B, Potential Dams and Diversions in Saskatchewan”.

This Map B in Agrivision’s 50-year Plan for Saskatchewan is dated 1972. …??

Further information regarding the quality of information from Agrivision is appended. It is deleted from here in order to focus on the questions.

(8) DO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, REQUIRE INCLUSION OF THE COSTS OF DE-COMMISSIONING THE DAM?

Costs are analyzed for the life span of the dam. Tax-payers will pay the eventual de-commissioning costs. Dams silt up and are no longer useful, at which point they become an extremely large expense for tax-payers, as the Americans and other nations that are struggling with de-commission have found out.

The life span of the dam is partially determined by the silt load carried by the River. I presume the silt load needs to be known in order to determine the life expectancy of the dam, also necessary to costing.

The question: do the Terms of Reference require that de-commissioning costs be addressed? is extremely important. I don’t like to knowingly create a large expense that I might not live long enough to have to deal with. Not in fairness to the “next generation”. And not if I am a responsible person.

(9) WHICH MINISTER AND DEPUTY MININSTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION USED IN THE DECISION PROCESS?

THIS IS A WATER ISSUE, WILL IT BE:

JOHN NILSON, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR SASKATCHEWAN WATERSHED AUTHORITY (SWA), and

ALAN PARKINSON, ACTING DEPUTY MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, and

STUART KRAMER, PRESIDENT OF SWA?

or, will it be:

DAVID FORBES, MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR SASK WATER, and

STUART KRAMER, in his role of PRESIDENT OF SASK WATER (he is also President of SWA)

WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE?

Why do I ask?

Information can be current/not current. It can be enlightening or it can be used to manipulate.

I don’t think you can deny that the Governments work with Agrivision Corporation. Much (most?) of its funding comes from Government. Brad Wall, leader of the Provincial Opposition has been quoted in the newspapers, as supportive of Agrivision. So both the governing NDP, AND the Opposition Sask Party are supportive.

The Federal Liberal Government has been very supportive. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin and Minister of Finance (before that Minister of Agriculture) Ralph Goodale, as recorded in earlier documentation, gave their personal endorsements of Agrivision’s efforts, projected on the big screen at the Agrivision Conference. When you get the former Prime Minister of Canada taking the time to videotape a personal promotion piece for Red’s work as President of Agrivision, along with simultaneously the Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale (Liberal, Saskatchewan), you know that Agrivision is well connected. Red Williams is a long time Liberal and friend of Ralph Goodale, has been President of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. In a google search you find him described as a “political insider”, and “Williams has lent his talents to the pursuit of pure politics, usually at the organizational and executive level provincially and nationally, but also as a candidate. While he may quietly rue three defeats at the polls …”).

I think the question of accountability for information has to be answered. To date, Agrivision has held the “public consultation” on the High Date Dam and has apparently usurped the role of Government?

This is of concern to some people, including myself, who have attended Agrivision’s Conferences on water development for Saskatchewan.

I am sorry to provide the following detail because it makes this letter too lengthy. But “the development” of our water is extremely important. So please bear with me. The documentation demonstrates through experience, what happens when functions that belong in the public sphere are handed off to commercial interests.

When Governments set up programmes to fund the work of outfits like Agrivision, through this documentation you will see how a resource like water, is effectively moved out from under democratic scrutiny and control. Government working with business – – the idea is sold as a benign, efficient and fruitful process. Very fruitful, except for the public.

From an email I sent in November, 2005. About the manipulation of information. This is JUST ONE example:

“Graham Parsons is part of the Agrivision team and will be giving a presentation in North Battleford, as he did in Regina.

HIGHLY SELECTIVE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION = PROPAGANDA

At the Agrivision “Drought-Proofing the Economy” Conference (Regina) Graham Parsons gave the main presentations about the water resource. Graham is an economist. The credibility of the information supplied by Dr. Parsons is dependent upon an ignorant audience.

Just one example (question I asked of him): “You have a graph which shows the fluctuation in the water levels of the South Saskatchewan River in the period 1912 to present. The graph shows declining fluctuation which you present as a positive consequence of the dam on the River. (Agrivision is promoting many dams.)

What is the change in VOLUME of water in the River over the same period?

Response from Presenter Graham Parsons: yes, the fluctuations have declined, .. etc.

Questioner interrupts: I did not ask about fluctuation, I clearly asked “What is the change in the VOLUME of water over that time period?

Response from presenter Graham Parsons: he never did answer the question.

The answer is that over the period 1910 to present, the volume of water has decreased by 80%. The flow level at Saskatoon is 20% of what it was in 1910. It seems to me that if the VOLUME of water has decreased by 80%, you will experience a decrease in fluctuation levels. Graham offered nothing to refute the point I was making. So I assume I am right. And the audience was being misled, through the presentation in wonderful power-point images, projected on a large screen, and all from a man presented as an expert.

There is no process to hold Agrivision accountable. Agrivision gets much of its funding from various Government sources.

The summer-time glacial water feed (irrigation happens in the summer months) will be gone when the last of the glaciers in the Rocky Mountains disappear, projected to be in another 15 to 20 years. The North Saskatchewan River starts at the Columbia Icefield which, due to melting, has receded by over a kilometre since I was there as a child in 1959 when it came right up to the Highway. In the beginning, before being challenged, this was not part of the information package presented by Agrivision to the public. Or, it was mentioned very peripherally.

If the information is withheld, there will not be solid public debate about the wisdom of creating greater demand for the water in the River, through expanded diversion projects. The glaciers, a significant component of the summer time feed will be gone. You will have put all your money into infrastructure that makes more and more communities dependent upon an “expanded” water supply. Exactly what is going to replace the LOWERED water supply, let alone make an EXPANDED supply available?

All indications are that the money should be invested in CONSERVATION infrastructure. A requirement of sustainability is the ability to look into the future and anticipate the changes that will come, to the extent possible. We fool ourselves if we think that the “drought-proofing” rhetoric of the 1930’s is appropriate, given today’s situation. It will be an extreme disservice to the next generation if they, through our decisions, are dependent upon a water supply that has been over-exploited. Especially if all the money has been invested in the wrong response and there is little time or money left for crisis intervention.

We should be working toward preparation for conditions in the future. In order to refute this statement, Agrivision must present solid evidence to show that the glaciers are not in a state of fairly rapid meltdown. A research paper out of the National Water Research Institute shows that, contrary to what the scientists believed a few short years ago, we are already past the peak flow off the glaciers, as they melt. We are already into the period of dwindling flow off the glaciers. The flow will continue to deteriorate until the body of ice is gone.

Several more questions from others and myself at the Agrivision conference drew attention to the selective nature of the information presented by Agrivision, all of which contributed to a very skewed understanding, provided by an “expert”, as newspaper reports referred to Graham Parsons. It amounts to propaganda. It’s okay for me: I’ve worked on water issues and know truth from fiction. But an intention to deceive is not okay. Manipulation of information to suit your purposes is not okay. Perhaps it is only ignorance. Neither is that okay.

If Agrivision is the presenter of the information, it is difficult to hold a Minister of the Crown responsible for the misrepresentations to the public (unless it’s through the Deputy Minister that sits on the Board of Agrivision?).

A Minister of the Crown has to be held responsible for what happens to the gift of water that is essential for our life here. Hence the question: please provide the name of the Minister who holds responsibility – for the information that is used and to see that due process is followed.

(10) A QUESTION CONCERNING THE (National) Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Programme, that is funding the PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED HIGH GATE DAM.

The preceding questions focus on the need for due process, which includes a tendering process. When a corporation can apply for Government money, for which there is no public process or competition, you have circumvented democratic process. People with “an agenda”, with vested interests, pursue their interests at public expense. In the case of “water development” they infringe on the PUBLIC INTEREST. And the Government is not held to account.

The Government of Canada, in its Accountability Agenda, needs to dismantle all the programmes like the (National) Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Programme. They serve to circumvent the tendering requirement of Government and make “accountability” impossible. This is not the only example that has been provided to the Government (there is the CARDS example and others).

Of course, this was not what was INTENDED when the programmes were set up. It is what IS happening.

(11) DO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE MAKE CLEAR THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PART OF THE PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY?

Stuart, you were not President of Sask Water & SWA during the Meridian Dam process of gathering information. So you may not be familiar with the precedents that have been established. The idea that environmental costs can be addressed at some stage “Later” has been clearly abandoned. It is unacceptable and there is no valid reason for the practice. Environmental costs have to be addressed from the very beginning, in the Preliminary Feasibility Study. The Terms of Reference have to require it. The Meridian Dam Preliminary Feasibility Study included the assessment of environmental impact, at the insistence of the public.

(12) RELATED TO STATE-OF-THE ART EXPECTATIONS: DO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE REQUIRE THE AUTHORS OF THE STUDY TO PERFORM FULL COST ACCOUNTING (also known as costing of externalities)? (some of them can be costed, others require verbal acknowledgement and elaboration)

If you require evidence that this is “State-of-the-art” accounting practice, I refer you to the current issue of the Globe & Mail’s magazine “Report on Business” (June 2006). Canadians would view the Report on Business as a conservative business publication, I believe. It certainly isn’t out there in radical land. There is a significant article on full cost accounting; it is mainstream thinking now.

Also, if you attended the FSIN’s water conference last year and heard the speech by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, you will be familiar with full cost accounting in the decision process.

(13) IS IT INCLUDED IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND IF THE DAM WILL SERVE IRRIGATION PURPOSES, A REQUIREMENT TO ASCERTAIN THE NUMBER and the PERSPECTIVE OF THE CURRENT LAND-OWNERS, “for whom” THE IRRIGATION CAPABILITY WOULD BE DEVELOPED?

The value of public consultations, for example in the proposed Meridian Dam exercise, was to shine a light on the purported beneficiaries. The small group of promoters of the dam sold it on the basis of the wonderful benefits to farmers who would now be able to irrigate their land. Someone asked questions. It turned out that the about one hundred land owners who would be able to irrigate were mainly ranchers. Ranchers notoriously do not like to be seen as “farmers” and had absolutely no intention of becoming farmers, let alone irrigation farmers.

Agrivision (as with the promoters of the Meridian Dam) envisions that progressive people who understand the benefits of irrigation will come and replace the existing land-owners. There was a study presented during the Meridian exercise. The money to be made is actually in land speculation. Yes, the land that becomes irrigated is more valuable. There is a one-time windfall profit to the person who owns the land before the dam construction. When they sell the land later, they make a large profit because the public has paid for the cost of the dam and the land is now irrigable. Anyone buying and selling the land thereafter will not make money because they will buy and sell at the price of irrigated land. So there is one round of people who become wealthy.

I think the public has to know the actual number of land-owners we are talking about with the proposed High Gate Dam, and the Preliminary Feasibility Study is where the information should be collected.

One should also know where the labour will come from, whether to build the dam or to do the irrigation farming, and at what price? The Tar Sands in Alberta have pretty well emptied Saskatchewan. The prices for labour would have to be competitive with Fort McMurray’s. The Preliminary Feasibility Study has to based in reality.

(14) IS IT INCLUDED, IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, A NECESSITY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE EXISTING IRRIGATION CAPACITY IN SASKATCHEWAN IS FULLY DEVELOPED? AND IF IT ISN’T, THEN EXACTLY WHY WOULD WE BUILD ANOTHER DAM?

The Gardiner Dam was built with the understanding that 300,000 acres would become irrigated. After 30 years, about 100,000 acres are irrigated (one third of the number used to justify construction). So there is lots of capacity for the expansion of irrigation around Lake Diefenbaker.

The Rafferty-Alameda Dam in Saskatchewan was built with irrigation in mind. To date there has been almost no development of irrigation there.

I think that the tax-payers of Saskatchewan and Canada who will be the “payors” should understand exactly why another dam would be constructed, especially given the under-development of current capacity.

Government finances are not different from household finances. If you invest in a big boat, you have less money for post-secondary education of your children. If you incur large debts, you have less flexibility. If you invest in an over-sized house, and the market falls off, you have little flexibility.

I believe these are 14 straight-forward questions. I look forward to an early reply from Bryan Ireland and Larry Lenton.

Thanks very much, on behalf of myself and other citizens, with whom the information will be shared.

Sandra Finley

(contact info)

TO WHOM WAS THE LETTER ADDRESSED?

I ADDRESS THIS LETTER TO THE FOLLOWING LIST: (But who else should be addressed? Will you please pass this along to them? Many thanks!)

Chuck Strahl, Federal Minister of Agriculture, Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca

Jim Flaherty, Federal Minister of Finance. DID NOT GET THIS DONE.

John Baird, President of the Treasury Board, (as with Jim Flaherty)

Sheila Fraser, Auditor General, communications@oag-bvg.gc.ca

Saskatchewan Provincial Auditor, Fred Wendel, info@auditor.sk.ca

David Forbes, Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for SaskWater, dforbes@lab.gov.sk.ca

Stuart Kramer, head of SaskWater, stuart.kramer@swa.ca

John Nilson, Minister of Environment, responsible for Sask Watershed Authority (SWA), minister@serm.gov.sk.ca

Acting Deputy Minister Dept of Environment, Alan Parkinson, alanparkinson@ serm.gov.sk.ca

Chair of the Board of SWA (Alan Parkinson)

President of Sask Watershed Authority (Stuart Kramer)

Policy & Communications, SWA, Gord Will, gord.will@swa.ca

Operations Division, SWA, Bryan Ireland, bryan.ireland@swa.ca

Corporate Secretary, SWA, Murray Bryck, murray.bryck@swc.ca

Bryan Ireland, co-chair of the Preliminary Feasibility Study of the HighGate Dam, bryan.ireland@swa.ca

Larry Lenton, co-chair of the Prelim Study, from the PFRA (Agriculture Canada, Prairie Farms Rehabilitation Act), Regina, 306-780-5153, lentonl@agr.gc.ca

Chuck Strahl, Minister responsible for the PFRA, Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca

Government of Alberta, (Alberta should be informed. I didn’t contact them.)

Government of Manitoba, (as with Alberta)

University of Saskatchewan Centre for Hydrology. http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwgeog/ColdRegions4/Quinton%20CRHMtrainingcourse.doc

John W. Pomeroy, pomeroy@usask.ca

Joni Onclin, joni.onclin@usask.ca; http://www.chrs.ca/Rivers/NorthSask/NorthSask-F_e.htm#1

Myrna Kotash, author of ” Reading the River: A Traveller’s Companion to the North Saskatchewan”, Coteau Books, 2005 (Did not contact.)

Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS): National Manager, c/o Parks Canada, Ottawa; Tel. (819) 994-2913; E-mail address: donald.gibson@pc.gc.ca

The North Saskatchewan River is located in Banff, Canada’s oldest national park, in the heart of the Canadian Rockies. Three nearby international-class resorts, Jasper, Banff and Lake Louise, each provide a full range of accommodation and commercial services for those planning a visit to the area or to canoe the river. Information on park services and facilities is available at Banff townsite, Lake Louise, the warden station at Saskatchewan River Crossing, and, by mail, from the Park Superintendent.

North Saskatchewan River and Banff National Park Services, Permits and Regulations: Superintendent, Banff National Park, P.O. Box 900, Banff, Alberta, T0L 0C0. (http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/index_e.asp)

Topographic Maps: The North Saskatchewan River is depicted at the 1:50,000 scale by maps 83C/1,2,3 and 82N/15,16 in the National Topographic Series. These maps are available from the Canada Map Office, 615 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E9, Tel: (613) 952-7000 (http://maps.NRCan.gc.ca) and from the visitor information centres in Banff and Jasper.

=================================

The Agrivision Corporation web-site, http://www.droughtproofing.com/pdf/2005Conference/Corneil.pdf reads (regarding the River):

“Alberta to consume 50% of the natural flow. Saskatchewan to consume 50% of the remainder and 50% of the added flow rising within its boundaries. Man(itoba) to be receiver of remainder. …

A growing economy needs expanding water supplies – municipalities, industry lakes”

God might be able to expand the water supply, I doubt that man can! but never mind. Agrivision does not point out that 50% of abundance is luxery, but 50% of scarcity is starvation. The glaciers that are the main summer-time feed of water for the River will be gone in 25 years.

The map supplied by Agrivision Corp, as detailed in QUESTION # (7) HOW CURRENT IS THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE STUDY? is more than 30 years old.

SINCE the “drought-proofing” reaction as a remedy to “the dirty thirties”, we have learned from the experience of the people who built the dams. In the United States hundreds of dams were built for the same reasons as Agrivision presents. “You gotta USE all that water! It’s WASTED if it just flows into Lake Winnipeg and then into Hudson’s Bay. Drought? We can be impervious to it.”

The attitude leads to the situation where, for example, the Colorado River delta is defunct. The thriving and diverse life on the delta is gone. The livelihoods of the people on the delta has been taken from them. And so too, the people are now gone.

The over-diversion mistake is recognized. And the usual, it is tax-payers who now foot the bill for EXTREMELY expensive attempts to re-establish the delta.

Another example of what happens when a lack of foresight (outdated thinking) runs the show:

– Agrivision Corporation (Red Williams, Al Scholz and Wayne Clifton) brought a lawyer from the United States to their conference a few years back. The lawyer told that there is litigation on every river in the United States over water rights, so much litigation that there is now a National Association of lawyers who do nothing but litigation over water rights.

I believe the purpose of the lawyer’s presentation was to illustrate just how valuable water is today: people are fighting over the rights to it.

Red, Al and Wayne are of course, right. The water is valuable and people can make money from it, especially if the Government does not exercise the sole reason for its existence: to protect “the commons” for the benefit of all, and for future generations. If we play our cards right, we can even lay the groundwork so that the lawyers will have a good business here in the future, same as in the U.S.!

In a drought year in Idaho (during the time we were disseminating information to understand whether the proposed Meridian Dam was a good idea) in that one summer alone, the State of Idaho paid out $73 million dollars to its irrigators. The payment was made if the farmers would turn off their irrigation pumps. Irrigation pumps consume a lot of energy (water is heavy). City people need electricity to run their air-conditioners in the heat of the drought. In Idaho they can’t generate enough electricity to serve both needs. So the farmers got a buy-out. In addition to the capital costs that went from the public purse into the construction of the dams, PLUS the on-going subsidization of the annual operating costs of the irrigation infrastructure. Talk to the people in southern Alberta, as we did during the information-gathering related to the proposed Meridian Dam: the on-going operating subsidies are large. Then, in Idaho, they are now paying out large sums to the farmers to turn off their pumps!

This is an example of the incompatibility between a dam built for irrigation purposes and one built for the production of hydro-electricity. If you claim the benefits of both, then you must factor in the cost of the increase in the demand for electricity created by the construction of the dam, that will accompany the development of the irrigation industry. And you must factor in the annual subsidies that are required for the irrigation infrastructure, after the dam becomes operational.

Nebraska faces the same problems as Idaho: Nebraska has now allocated well over a hundred million dollars to REDUCE the amount of land under irrigation.

It is reasonable for citizens to expect that the Preliminary Feasibility Study for the High Gate Dam will reconcile the current history from the United States to arrive at sound development decisions for the citizens of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, and for the North Saskatchewan River.

===========================

REPLY FROM GOVERNMENT, ANSWERS TO THE 14 QUESTIONS

Dear Ms. Finley:

Re: Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Program

We are responding to your June 20, 2006 electronic mail which includes fourteen questions regarding the role of the Canada-Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Program (CSWSEP) in a study to determine the feasibility of a dam on the North Saskatchewan River near North Battleford.

As you may know, we are the co-chairs of the Program Working Group (PWG) that is responsible to manage the CSWSEP. Larry is Technical Director, Prairie Central Region with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada – PFRA. Bryan is Acting Vice President of the Operations Division with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Other PWG members are from Western Economic Diversification Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food and SaskWater The PWG ensures CSWSEP objectives are met by reviewing and evaluating applications submitted for funding..

The PWG received an application for funding under the CSWSEP, Tier 3 – Strategic Initiatives component of the Program, from a proponent group called the “North Sask River Water Resource Committee (NSRWRC)”. Their proposal requested funds to conduct a preliminary feasibility study into multi-purpose water storage/usage options on the North Saskatchewan River in the North Battleford region. The PWG approved the proposal and the NSRWRC is now developing detailed study Terms of Reference and will initiate a tendering process for selecting a consultant to undertake the work.

The following are responses to the fourteen questions included in your June 20 electronic mail. These responses are based on information available at this time which includes information provided by the NSRWRC in their application to the CSWSEP.

(1) What are the terms of reference for the preliminary feasibility study?

The detailed terms of reference are currently under development by the NSRWRC at the time of this writing.

Both AAFC-PFRA and the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority have offered to provide advice to the NSRWRC to help develop the terms of reference for the study and to help oversee the work of the consultant selected to undertake the study. It is anticipated the consultant will use existing information, including previous studies, as much as possible as you have suggested.

The NSRWRC will be providing the terms of reference to the PWG when they become available.

(2) Specifically who is doing the preliminary feasibility study? and please provide details of the process through which they are the ones doing the study.

In accordance with federal and provincial contracting guidelines the NSRWRC is required to undertake a competitive process to select a consultant. Based on estimated cost of the feasibility study the NSRWRC is required to publicly advertise their intention to hire a consultant.

As co-chairs of PWG we are not managing the feasibility study nor are we responsible for implementing any aspects of any one of the many studies supported under the CSWSEP. The NSRWRC is responsible to coordinate all aspects of their study including public meetings and communications.

(3) When and where are the public meetings?

The application submitted to the PWG by the NSRWRC indicates there will be public meetings prior to the report being written as well as at a later stage. The NSRWRC will be determining the specific locations for the meetings.

(4) What is the name and contact information from which the public can obtain information on the process proposed for the high gate dam preliminary feasibility study? and for updates? Is it the phone number and email address for each of Bryan Ireland and Larry Lenton? A web address would be insufficient.

The NSRWRC is represented by a Board of Directors which is chaired by Mr. Steve McKechnie; a farmer/ratepayer in the RM of Britannia. Mr. Ryan Bayter, the Manager of the Battlefords, Big Gully, Border REDA Alliance, is a member and the acting secretary of the NSRWRC. Inquiries regarding the process for the study and updates concerning its progress can be directed to either:

Mr. Steve McKechnie, Chair at (306) 821-6669 or e-mail sjmckechnie@silvercrest.ca

and/or;

Mr. Ryan Bayter, Member and Acting Secretary, at (306) 446-7506 rbater@redaalliance.ca

As noted earlier, we are the co-chairs of the PWG responsible for implementing the CSWSEP. Questions regarding the CSWSEP can be directed to either of us. Larry can be reached at 306-780-5153 or e-mail at lentonl@agr.gc.ca. Bryan can be contacted at 306-694-3950 or e-mail at bryan.ireland@swa.ca .

(5) What is the list of organizations and individuals who are being kept informed of developments in the process? I assume the answer to question # 4 is responsible for the information flow? Is it Bryan Ireland and Larry Lenton?

The NSRWRC is responsible for providing updates of the study progress to interested parties including developing a list of interested organizations and individuals if that meets their needs. NSRWRC Chair, Mr. McKechnie, is responsible for the flow of information on the study as noted above.

Upon completion of the study the prepared report will be provided to the PWG. Arrangements can be made to read a copy of the report either by contacting us or by contacting the NSRWRC.

(6) What is the government time line, and the events along it?

The feasibility study timeline is being developed by the NSRWRC in conjunction with the detailed terms of reference; however, it is assumed that the study would be completed by the Fall of 2007.

The PWG is responsible to ensure that the CSWSEP completion date of March 31, 2008 is respected by all proponents that are undertaking activities under the program including this feasibility study.

(7a) What is the purpose of the proposed dam? Is it for irrigation? Is it for recreation? Or is it for hydro-electric development?

The application submitted by the NSRWRC states that the water supply study will examine multiple uses including irrigation and other agricultural needs, municipal, power generation, tourism, recreation and value added processing. The study will address the extent to which the various water use needs can be met.

(7b) How current is the knowledge base for the study?

One of the objectives of the CSWSEP is to provide support for studies and investigations that increase the knowledge base of water resources and water supply opportunities and limitations. The proposed study by NSRWRC fits well with this objective. CSWSEP support for this study will enable the current information to be brought together and for the public to have access to a more current knowledge base on this study topic.

In order to complete this preliminary feasibility study it is necessary to draw upon previous work and complement that with information regarding current technology and from consultations.

(8) Do the terms of reference, in the cost-benefit analysis, require inclusion of the costs of de-commissioning the dam?

It is anticipated the terms of reference will specify that current best practices, commensurate with preliminary level feasibility studies, to be used for the cost-benefit analysis.

(9) Which Minister and Deputy Minister of the Government of Saskatchewan will be held responsible for the nature of the information used in the decision process?

We have determined that your question covers two aspects – (1) financial support to develop project; and 2) regulatory approval of a project. In respect to the financial component of your question we the writers observe that organizations, agencies and individuals must decide the type and amount of information needed to support their decision to invest or not invest in a project. In specific regard to the project being studied we are not aware of any requests by the NSRWRC or others for funding to develop a project.

In respect to the second component of your question, if the NSRWRC or another organization decided to proceed towards development of a project they would be required to fulfill the regulatory requirements of a number of municipal, provincial and federal government agencies. A list of the regulatory agencies and their responsibilities could be assembled if requested, but in general terms these agencies would review the information submitted by the project proponent and subsequently determine if there is sufficient information to determine the merits of the proposal. If there are information gaps the project proponent would be required to obtain additional information to fill the gap(s). It is also anticipated the public would be consulted by the regulatory agencies as a component of the regulatory process.

(10) A question concerning the (National) Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Program that is funding the preliminary feasibility study for the proposed High Gate Dam.

The CSWSEP requires that a competitive tendering process be used for the selection of third parties to undertake studies such as this. Once the detailed Terms of Reference are completed, a Request for Proposals will be tendered by the NSRWRC.

(11) Do the terms of reference make clear that environmental considerations are part of the preliminary feasibility study?

The proposal makes it clear that the NSRWRC will have environmental considerations as a major component of their study.

(12) Related to state-of-the art expectations: Do the terms of reference require the authors of the study to perform full cost accounting (also known as costing of externalities)?

The application submitted to the PWG did not specify the accounting method to be used. However, it is anticipated the detail terms of reference will specify the current best practices, commensurate with preliminary level feasibility studies, to be used for accounting for both the costs as well as the benefits.

(13) Is it included in the terms of reference, and if the dam will serve irrigation purposes, a requirement to ascertain the number and the perspective of the current land-owners, “for whom” the irrigation capability would be developed?

The study is intended to review the irrigation potential from several perspectives including land suitability, producer interest and economic viability.

(14) Is it included, in the terms of reference, a necessity to answer the question of whether the existing irrigation capacity in Saskatchewan is fully developed? and if it isn’t, then exactly why would we build another dam?

Irrigation potential is one of the several water uses that are to be considered in the study to be conducted by the NSRWRC. The CSWSEP is also supporting several other studies that are examining the feasibility of full utilization of existing irrigation water supply infrastructure in the Lake Diefenbaker area.

These feasibility studies help to advance the knowledge of study proponents to determine whether or not to proceed with – further detailed studies; to secure financial support for additional studies and project development; and to initiate application for regulatory approval from all levels of government.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on the role of the CSWSEP within Saskatchewan. For further information on the Canada Saskatchewan Water Supply Expansion Program is available at the following website: http://www.agr.gc.ca/env/index_e.php?section=h2o&page=sk

Yours sincerely,

Larry Lenton Bryan Ireland

Federal Co-chair Provincial Co-chair

=====================================================

EMAIL TO GOVERNMENT, SEPT 27, RAISES ABUSE-OF-PROCESS

On June 20 I undertook “When the answers are received I will circulate them for the edification of everyone”:

– the officials and

– others.

This is the fulfillment of the June 20 commitment.

I will be acting upon the “answers to the questions” received from the Government.

NOTE to Larry and Bryan (Government co-chairs). On June 20th, I believed that abuse-of-process was a very worrisome issue. And so I provided extensive documentation. The question now is whether your response causes me to change that belief.

When I say “I will be acting upon” your input, it will involve a decision regarding the validity of the abuse-of-process belief. And I don’t really mean “I”! I invite people to pass this along to interested parties, to discuss it with others, and to provide their reactions. Is it legitimate process, or not. If not, why not?

If illegitimate process is a factor, then I believe it is the responsibility of the citizens in a democracy, working with Government officials, to find the ways to correct the process.

Cheers! and best wishes,

/Sandra Finley, Saskatoon

306-373-8078

==========================================

BILLION DOLLAR DAMS ARE NOT THE ANSWER, CRITICAL REVIEW OF AGRIVISION’S 50 YEAR PLAN FOR WATER “DEVELOPMENT”, SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENTAL

Visit the SES website to access the full (32-page) report http://www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/water/critique.html

News Release September 21 2006

BILLION DOLLAR DAMS ARE NOT THE ANSWER: CRITICAL REPORT RELEASED FOR WORLD RIVERS DAY

Saskatoon, SK-The Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES) today released a critique of Agrivision Corporation’s proposal to submerge the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers under a chain of dams and reservoirs. SES released its critique of Water Wealth: A Fifty Year Water Development Plan for Saskatchewan in preparation for World Rivers Day, September 24.

The Agrivision report advocates a very indirect development push: build dams to hold back water; hope this leads to increased irrigation and food production; hope increased food production attracts private-sector food processors and, thus, creates jobs.

Agrivision’s plan would cost tens-of-billions of dollars, with most of that money coming from taxpayers, notes the SES critique. SES Water Issues Coordinator Darrin Qualman called the Agrivision plan “expensive, 1970s mega-project thinking.” “With a total cost approaching $100,000 per Saskatchewan family, this is wildly unaffordable,” he said.

Not only are the proposed dams costly, they’re unnecessary. “We don’t need new dams in order to expand irrigation or food production. From the water in Lake Diefenbaker alone, we could look at irrigating hundreds-of-thousands of additional acres. The limiting factor for irrigation is not a lack of dams or water, it’s farmers’ reluctance to invest because of poor returns,” said Qualman.

Agrivision’s report advocates privatization of the province’s water infrastructure and, by extension, its water. It urges transfer of vital water supply infrastructure to private corporations, in effect transferring control and ownership of the water. Qualman said: “Most Saskatchewan citizens view access to water as a human right and our rivers as public trusts. The Agrivision report would have us recast our water and rivers as private property, commodities, and resources.”

The Agrivision report completely fails to deal with the environmental effects of its plan to re-plumb western Canada. “Though it asks us to support dams so numerous that our rivers could disappear under chains of reservoirs, the report does not examine the river ecology changes that dams bring,” said Qualman. SES’s critique goes beyond fault-finding: it presents alternatives that are affordable, sustainable, and that provide larger and more rapidly attainable benefits. Alternatives include direct, co-operative investment in food processing; expanded irrigation from existing water supplies; electricity production from wind and other renewable sources; safeguarding urban water supplies through conservation and, where appropriate, small dams or off-stream impoundments.

For more information on the SES’s critique, please see the attached Executive Summary, or visit the SES’s website to access the full (32-page) report www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/water/critique.html . World Rivers Day, celebrated each year on the last Sunday in September, is part of the United Nation’s “Water for Life” decade (2005-2015).-30-

For more information, please contact: Darrin Qualman, SES Water Issues Coordinator: (306) 492-4714 or 665-1915

Older Entries Newer Entries