Mission Afghanistan

Church and school co-operate on parcel project for troops

by Alicia McCutcheon

MANITOULIN-Parishoners from the Gateway to Life church in Little Current and members of its youth group have been busy making care packages to send overseas to Canadian forces in Afghanistan.

Pastor Dan Kuchta first made the call for donations from the community in December of last year and anyone wishing to help was asked to drop off items such as toiletries,pre-packaged candies and snacks, juice crystals and flavoured tea, newspaper clippings, and magazines.

When The Expositor followed up with Pastor Kuchta in January, he was disappointed with the lack of response the church received-only enough goods for 13 boxes were collected.

Mark Olacke, a teacher at Little Current Public School, had read the latest article on the church's less-than-satisfactory response and in conversation with workmate and congregation member Cathy Collins, decided to have the school join the cause.

'The cause' is not something new to Mr. Olacke: his 20-year-old son-Private Tommy Olacke-is stationed in Petawawa and has been in the armed forces for three years.

"Part of his troop just left (for Afghanistan) and, it's just a matter of time before he goes," he says. "For a father, this is a very scary time."

This project was special to others at LCPS too, like Leahanne Martin, whose brother, Seaman Steve Martin, is stationed in Victoria, BC; and Allie Cosby, a grade three student at LCPS, whose brother Seaman Jeremy Cosby is also stationed in BC, aboard the HMS Winnipeg. Another brother, Corporal Peter Cosby, left Saturday for a tour of duty in Afghanistan, a fact that leaves Allie proud but worried for his safety.

Corporal Cosby is an electrician with the armed forces and will be helping to rebuild houses and schools in the war-torn country.

In the fall of last year, both Corporal Cosby and Private Olacke made visits to the school and spoke with the students about what it is they do.

"It showed the students that soldiers are just regular people in uniforms," Mr. Olacke said.

"They're not aliens that wear masks," Allie was quick to add.

Since the beginning of the school year, students at LCPS had been showing support for the troops by wearing red on Fridays and on February 8 had a 'hat day for troops' where the children were allowed to wear hats in school if they collected treats for the troops for two weeks-treats that went to the 'parcels from home' project.

One item the troops especially appreciate in their parcels is pre-moistened towelettes. Mr. Olacke explains that soldiers are often forced to use them for bathing as they can go many days at a time without showers or running water.

"I wouldn't mind that part," Allie asserts, noting her dislike for bathtime.

Thanks to overwhelming support from the students, enough "treats for troops" were collected to make 70 more care packages.

After Corporal Cosby's visit to the school, Allie's class and teacher Mrs. Land decided to 'adopt' him. The class had already begun drawing patriotic flags and soldiers and collecting stuffed moose and teddy bears to send their adopted corporal. The children do not take this responsibility lightly and are eager to begin exchanging pictures and letters with the young soldier.

"The things we send Peter will remind him of all the people that care for him," one student says. "Canada's going to try and make their country a better place for them (the people of Afghanistan)," another adds.

"I think our country has to get behind them," he says. "Children need to be aware of what is going on around the world. In other parts of the world, they (children) don't know day-to-day if they're going to be safe...our troops provide that safety."

Bell bids to control Amtelecom

ONTARIO-In a proposed deal worth $119 million, Bell Aliant has announced its intention to make a takeover bid of the outstanding trust units of Amtelecom Income Fund. If the deal goes through, it could mean some major changes to the way current Island Amtelecom customers receive services from the telecommunications company.

The Amtelecom Income Fund is a telecommunications trust, with shares listed as AMT.UN on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Bell is proposing to purchase the shares at $13 cash per unit, which represents a 16.7 percent increase over the average trading price of Amtelecom units for the 20 days previous to the announcement.  Bell Aliant president and CEO Stephen Wetmore made the announcement in a press release issued on February 16, suggesting that the takeover would mean a benefit to Amtelecom customers.

"Our bid for Amtelecom is consistent with the strategy communicated to our unit holders at the time of Bell Aliant's formation last year," he said. "We believe Amtelecom provides a natural fit with Bell Aliant due to its focus on regional wireline customers and the proximity of operating footprints. Our scale, focus on customer service and access to leading products and services will benefit Amtelecom customers and other stakeholders. We have made an excellent offer which we believe reflects the full value of Amtelecom."

Bell was to start the takeover process by February 26.

In response, Amtelecom issued a press release indicating it had hired CIBC World Markets Inc. as its financial advisor and had formed a special committee comprised of independent trustees which would "evaluate Bell Aliant's proposal, consider other alternatives and make a recommendation to the board of trustees."

"Once formal offer documents are received, the board and special committee will be in a position to give Bell Aliant's proposal further consideration and, in due course, communicate the fund's views to unit holders," noted board and special committee chair Stanley Stewart. "In the interim, we would encourage our unit holders not to take any action with respect to the proposed offer."

Amtelecom services close to 27,000 residential and business customers throughout Ontario, with about 8,800 of those being cable subscribers and 13,000 being Internet subscribers. Last year, Amtelecom announced its intention to acquire Gore Bay Cable TV, which provided cable and Internet service to about 250 Gore Bay customers. The deal was to be completed on January 1, 2007.

Funds for Wiky road link coming

by Alicia McCutcheon

TORONTO-Assiginack clerk Alton Hobbs, along with councillor Bud Rohn and roads superintendent Ron Cooper, left Monday's annual Ontario Good Roads Association and Rural Ontario Municipal Association joint conference in Toronto feeling pleased with the outcome.

"We had a productive meeting with the Minister of Transportation, Donna Cansfield this morning," Mr. Hobbs said from his Little Current home Monday night, noting attendance from Algoma-Manitoulin MPP Mike Brown and members of his office as well.

"We believe we will soon have the money to begin work on Cardwell Street-not enough to finish, but enough to begin the process," he said.

The minister has promised Assiginack upwards of $300,000 by the end of their fiscal year, March 31.

Cardwell Street, the roadway which connects Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve to Meredith Street and on to Highway 6, has been a serious issue between the two communities and became even more so when the hole-filled road was voted the worst in Ontario by the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) in October of last year.

Mr. Hobbs further pointed out that the minister was also looking to call a meeting of the partners-Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, FedNor, the Ministry of Transportation, Assiginack Township and Wikwemikong-to find more funding to finish the road.

During the 15-minute meeting, Minister Cansfield "took initiative," Mr. Hobbs said. The minister had toured the infamous road last year and since then, he added, had been looking for ways the ministry could be proactive in getting the road finished properly.

The Ministry of Transportation and Assiginack are hoping that once the commitment of money is made public, more funding from the 'partners' will fall into place quickly.

The Assiginack contingent also met with the Minster of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs , Leona Dombrowsky, to discuss the lack of funding for the Ontario Small Town and Rural Development Initiative  (OSTAR). Assiginack is currently short $760,000 to fund their water treatment facilities. Municipalities building new water treatment plants are asked to pay 1/3 of the costs, Mr. Hobbs explained, with OSTAR funding  50 percent of that third.

Assiginack was originally approved based on engineer's estimates but the actual contract costs turned out to be 25 percent higher than anticipated, and when the municipality reapplied to OSTAR to recognize the new costs, "the secretariat said the well was dry by the time they came to us," said Mr. Hobbs.

"We have a sword hanging above our head," he said.

The minister told the group that although she was not responsible for handing out funds, she would bring their situation to the federal government and make sure it was dealt with fairly, he said.

Electoral reform for Ontarians?

Final part of a series

Politicians and pundits offer their opinions

EDITOR'S NOTE: In this final installment of our series examining electoral reform options in Ontario, the Expositor speaks with local politicians, Citizens' Assembly reps, and long-time political observers for their views on the potential shakeup of our traditional voting system.

by Alicia McCutcheon

ONTARIO-Two weekends ago, members of the Citizens' Assembly for Electoral Reform met at Osgoode Hall in Toronto to vote for the electoral system they would most like to explore and possibly recommend for referendum in the coming months. Seventy-eight of the 103 members of the assembly voted in favour of mixed member proportional (MMP), as explored in last week's edition of The Expositor.

Assembly representative for Algoma-Manitoulin, Don Brickett of McKerrow, explained that the members first broke into five groups where they were asked to choose four principles, out of eight, that they found were most important in a government. The four chosen principles were: each member of provincial parliament must be a representative of one geographical area; the number of votes should closely equal the number of seats; voters should be able to choose both a party and candidate ;and coalition governments make more accountable governments.

"With a coalition government, the government will work for the people," Mr. Brickett said of the latter choice.

This then led to the vote, overwhelmingly in favour of MMP, with single transferable vote (STV) a distant second, although, he says, assembly members will be keeping STV in the back of their minds in case they find MMP isn't the best choice for Ontario after all.

When Mr. Brickett was first selected from a random list, he had never once thought about our current electoral system let alone alternative ones, he says.

It first occurred to him that Ontario was in need of a change in the way we vote when he realized how small the numbers were of people actually casting their ballot during elections. "Why aren't they exercising their rights?" he wondered.

As The Expositor has discussed throughout the five-part series, one side-effect of change could be larger electoral districts. Mr. Brickett doesn't see this as an issue.

"If our areas went larger, what's the big deal?" he asks. "Our (the North) needs are basically the same."

Tiffany Doucet of Sandfield, member of the Students' Assembly for Electoral Reform, would also like to see a change and believes MMP is the way to go.

"Our current system is not allowing Ontarians the fairness of representation that we need and deserve," she says. "The percentage of people voting are the ones that have faith in the system and that percentage is not high, only about 30 percent."

Ms. Doucet says she believes one reason people are not voting is because they feel their votes don't count, but a system like MMP will "make a difference."

Shelley Martel, Nickel Belt's New Democratic Party MPP, is also in favour of change, saying a system of proportional representation would help to engage people.

"First-past-the-post gives a very skewed view of people's preferences," she says from her Toronto office.

Ms. Martel says she hears people saying that their vote doesn't count while campaigning door-to-door. "They want to go with a winner," she says.

"I'll often hear, 'I'd like to vote NDP because that's where my heart is, but I want the conservatives out,'" the MPP says. "If they feel their vote is worth more, they'll go and vote."

Perry Anglin, a former civil servant and political reporter with the Toronto Star, says he has reservations about the subject of electoral reform, noting the "unpredictability of change."

"Systems should be simple and easy to understand," he says from his Mindemoya-area home. "Systems that aren't can lend themselves to manipulation."

"What's really wrong with the current system?" he asks.

He does regret the lack of Green Party representation but says he is worried about parties getting voted into legislature without a plurality of votes in ridings.

"If a party does not get elected, perhaps its cause is too narrow," he suggests, stressing the importance of having parties that are national in scope.

"It's important to have a spectrum of parties, ranging from left to right," he says. "If we didn't already have a spectrum, it might make a stronger case for proportional representation."

Sarah Hutchinson, on the other hand, believes proportional representation is "absolutely necessary."

Ms. Hutchinson, chief executive officer of the Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing Green Party, says "we don't actually live in a democracy."

"Most Canadians feel so proud but we're really behind," she says, noting that other countries already use a system of proportional representation.

When asked which of the systems she prefers within the family of proportional representation, Ms. Hutchinson says, "whatever is easiest and cheapest" as the cost of change could potentially run high.

"Other parties are quite happy to govern with 30 percent," she says. "It's so obviously undemocratic that it makes me sick."

She would like to see people not have to vote "strategically" and instead vote for what they actually believe in. "It's only with proportional representation that people can vote with their heart."

Terry McCutcheon of Providence Bay ran in the last provincial election as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative party and he too sees a need for change.

Mr. McCutcheon's preference is for the single transferable vote. In this system, once a number of threshold votes is reached, the candidate is automatically elected and excess ballots are transferred to the next-in-line according to their rank on the ballot; the system was almost chosen by the people of British Columbia in a referendum in May of 2005.

Mr. McCutcheon doesn't like the idea of MPP, however, saying the person and the party need to be separate (an MPP ballot would allow the voter to choose both the local candidate and the party). Like Mr. Brickett, Mr. McCutcheon doesn't worry about the size of the ridings growing larger.

"What difference would it make?" he asks, saying the size of our ridings now are currently unmanageable.

He would like to see at least 11 representatives from the legislature coming from the North under a new system, and can even envision two big ridings, one for the northwest and one from the northeast.

Mike Brown, Algoma-Manitoulin MPP, thinks the Citizens' Assembly has been a "useful exercise," allowing people to discuss these issues in a non-partisan way, but he says, we need to look at this in a very serious way.

"This is not representative government, this is responsible government," he says from his Queen's Park office. "With a government that is responsible, it is quite clear who is in charge."

"If we did choose a new system, people would want to know, clearly, which government is responsible. It is clear with first-past-the-post."

The MPP says he is "vehemently" opposed to any system that makes political parties stronger than they already are and says constituents should take this seriously.

Mr. Brown says he would be cautious before "tearing forward" and would like to see a threshold that's high, 60 percent of the electorate, not just votes.

"When we say let's have a look at the system, there's a predisposition to change," he says. "We blame the system, not the people we elect...very Canadian."

He says he isn't sure that changing the system will necessarily mean an increase in participation, pointing out that there are other underlying factors that can be attributed to low turnout.

He admits that "political parties have not done a good job of capturing the imagination of voters," but contends that "there are a lot of parties who don't deserve to be in parliament."

EDITORIAL

Decision on how to police terrorism should not be partisan

Canada's Supreme Court has determined that, even for non-Canadian citizens residing in this country, the human rights provisions of the 25-year-old Constitution must weigh heavily on any dealings police may have with individuals suspected of any crime or criminal association.

And this includes those suspected of having terrorist connections, or known to have had connections at sometime in the past.

While the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in this matter may seem to some that individual rights and freedoms trump collective issues of national security, this is not the case, and the Supreme Court's decision to disagree unanimously with the way in which the "security certificate" program has been administered in the past specifically does not rule out cases in which those responsible for Canada's national security may have to act quickly and without normal due diligence.

The security-certificate procedure for dealing with non-citizens residing in Canada who may pose a risk to national security is not a new thing: it has been in place for nearly 30 years, almost the same lifespan of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights and Freedoms which celebrates its quarter-century anniversary this year, and against whose tenets and provisions the security-certificate system was measured by the Supreme Court justices.

Since September 11, 2001, every nation in the western world has used whatever procedures it had in place to deal with residents of their particular country who were non-citizens, and who were suspected of having, or of having had, terrorist links.

It was a natural reaction. In our case, the procedure we happened to have in place was the security-certificate system that allowed the government to arrest, detain and send the individual back to his or her country of origin. What the current security-certificate system does not do, the Supreme Court decided, is allow sufficient input on the part of accused persons where they would have been able to plead their innocence.

By way of a comparison, consider the War Measures Act. It was enacted when Canada was in a formally declared war with Germany and her allies over 60 years ago. In 1970, when Quebec labour minister Pierre Laporte and James Cross, a British diplomat, were kidnapped and ransomed by Quebec separatist terrorists, the government of Pierre Trudeau again invoked the War Measures Act, a decision that was made days before the murder of Mr. Laporte.

The War Measures Act, which was repealed a few years after the 1970 crisis in Quebec, gives the state extraordinary powers in dealing with anyone it suspects of having anything at all to do with the situation at hand.

Habeas corpus, the basic underpinning of the British, Canadian and American systems of individual rights and freedoms, is suspended as long as the War Measures Act is in place.

With the security-certificate program being used to detain and deport non-citizens with minimal evidence and without public scrutiny, it is as if a War Measures Act had been invoked against certain individuals, and it is with this premise that the Supreme Court disagrees.

The issue arose because, since 2001, a number of individuals who are non-citizen residents of Canada have been arrested and detained. Many of these people claim that, should they be returned to their country of origin, they will face torture and/or death there because of previous associations.

It is a quandary, and the Supreme Court has given the government of Canada a year to come up with a system of monitoring, deporting or detaining individuals in a way consistent with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has also left the door open for the government to act quickly and without all the ordinary due diligence in place when it feels an individual, or a group, may be bent on threatening the nation's security.

The decision reads, in part, "Confronted by a terrorist threat, state officials may need to act immediately in the absence of a fully documented case."

"It may take some time to verify and document the threat," the decision continues. "Where state officials act expeditiously, the failure to meet an arbitrary target of a fixed number of hours should not mean the automatic release of the person, who may well be dangerous."

Really, it is Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act that is up for debate in its entirety, for the security-certificate program, already in place for some time when the Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in the wake of the 9/11 bombings in the United States, was merely wound into it.

The Supreme Court has decided that the procedure is flawed, asking the government to mend it.

Since the government has been told by the Supreme Court that it must work from first principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Freedoms, such a mending exercise should rightly concern all Canadians, in particular those elected to represent us-and to make laws-in Ottawa.

It should not be partisan, even in what may well be an election year.

Sadly, it seems as if this is too much to ask of our lawmakers on the various sides of the house, if last week is any example.

Just a few days before the Supreme Court's announcement, Prime Minister Harper tried to bait (successfully, by all accounts) Liberal leader Stephane Dion and his caucus, which had given notice that they were resisting Mr. Harper's and the Conservatives' request for an expansion of a provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow for investigative hearings and also for detentions.

Mr. Harper famously accused Mr. Dion of wanting to protect the father-in-law of one of his caucus members. This individual may be called to testify in the Air India Inquiry, when it is finally up and running.

How Canada deals with terrorism, with threats of terrorism and with individual rights of resident visitors, is critical, and the debate about these topics, together with the eventual new law that will be the outcome of this debate, will serve to define Canada internationally.

We can all agree that we must be watchful for terrorist activities in this country, but not in the "red under the bed" way that may well serve to alienate not only first-generation, but also second- (and even third-generation) immigrants to Canada from regions under scrutiny for fomenting terrorist activities. We must be wary of "guilt by matter of country of origin."

The Supreme Court has set the standard and this is far too large an issue to be used for partisan, short-term political gains.

We look forward to it not being an election issue.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Crime and substance abuse ruining lives of youth

Seniors are afraid of home invasions!

To the Expositor:

I read the letter from Cat Mishibinijima ("Mother concerned about youth," January 24) and I thought, how true. Some of our young people today receive too much money from the government to spend on education and, instead, spend it on drugs, beer and cigarettes. So much fighting and breaking into homes to get money to buy more of the above. Our hospitals and homes will not be able to handle all these people. What then? It needs to be stopped before it ruins their lives.

The government needs to change the laws, and parents should be able to control their children. Teachers need to be in control too. Do parents realize what their children are doing? Some are out until all hours of the night. I hope and pray something will be done, not only in Wikwemikong but on the whole Island.

Many seniors are frightened in their homes with all these break-ins.

Bill Huot

Little Current

Businessman laments loss of the liquor/beer outlet

What's happening to our town?

To the Expositor:

RE: the Mindemoya LCBO agency changing venues after 40 years.

A POEM FOR OUR TIMES

A sad day for our Island

an even sadder day for our town

believe me as I write this

on my face a long frown

Common sense and logic

unfortunately have failed

I guess Manitoulin's no different

big business and politics have prevailed

It's not about money

it's about what's right and wrong

if I was musical at all

I could put this to a song

Thanks for your huge support!

too bad it fell on deaf ears

I guess from now on

you'll have to go elsewhere for beers

I've been called an idiot

and probably even worse

but fighting for what you believe in

is not such a curse

This is a huge mistake

very few agree with this decision

only time will tell I guess

but in my heart a big incision

I love this Island

my father passed on here and so will I

what's going on here

really makes me want to cry

It's like the LCBO agency never existed

these forty-plus years

amazing how bureaucracy and greed

can make history disappear

now Farquhar's creamery is on the block

someone will probably buy it and tear it down

tick, tock, tick, tock

gosh, what's happening to our old town?

Jake Mackan

Mindemoya