Downtown residents refuse to foot the bill for years of urban sprawl and living off of reserve funds by feeding our neighbourhood parking meters. We already pay a disproportionate tax burden, the broken assessment system is about to sharply increase our subsidy to the suburbs, and now suburban councillors want us to pay almost $4 an hour just to live in our neighbourhoods and shop our local businesses? Enough is enough!

The true legacy of municipal amalgamation has arrived: downtown vs. the suburbs. If suburban and rural councillors want to see the downtown rise up against their wards then they should pass these punitive parking measures. We will remember.

For years, city council has been living on borrowed time, approving urban sprawl with no way to pay for ongoing costs. Now that the city reserves have run dry, suburban and rural councillors propose we foot the bill by paying more at downtown parking meters.

This plan is unfair to downtown residents and businesses. We already pay a disproportionate share of the city’s costs through higher property taxes and the broken property assessment system is about to shift even more of the tax burden to us.

Now, suburban and rural councillors want downtown residents to pay up to $3.75 an hour just to live in our neighbourhoods and shop at our local businesses? Enough is enough!

The true legacy of municipal amalgamation seems to be a polarized city: downtown versus the suburbs. If suburban and rural councillors force the parking plan through over downtown objections, it will fuel this polarization. It’s time to shelve this cash grab and come up with a fair way to resolve our budget problem.

I believe that O’Brien — as a private citizen — is innocent until proven guilty. I also believe, however, that the power and responsibility of the Mayor’s office demands the highest level of integrity, and must be protected from even the suspicion of criminal acts and actors. The recent criminal charges filed against O’Brien raise significant questions of integrity that, until fully resolved, are incompatible with his continuing to hold the office of mayor.

O’Brien has spoken clearly about how the city has laboured under the possibility that he would be charged with a criminal offence. If he chooses to continue on as mayor I fear he will be continuing to hold the city hostage to this issue. In this period of financial challenge, when we are searching for a long-term direction, we look to the mayor to take responsibility and guide our planning. How can he act in a position of oversight when he himself is under suspicion? How can he guide us when he may be found guilty and be stripped of his powers? How can he focus his attention on the city when he must defend himself in court? I believe he cannot do any of these things.

For all of these reasons, I ask Mayor O’Brien to do the right thing. I ask him to take a leave of absence while his criminal proceedings are being dealt with. Step aside and let the city proceed.

The back room is looking pretty cosy these days, as “Decider Larry” cools on an international Lansdowne design competition. The park is not his personal property. His rush to construct a premature idea next fall leaves no time to get the rest of us involved.

The way to make money with Lansdowne is through tourism, not property taxes. A design competition would class up a city that badly needs a great public space. Our world heritage canal is one piece of the puzzle. Let’s not waste it by handing Lansdowne to O’Brien’s pals for small-minded development.

Let’s get excited about what we could build downtown. Let’s transform Lansdowne into a space that will be a beautiful draw for a hundred years. Mayor O’Brien: we want an international design competition.

I read with dismay this morning reports of a backroom deal that would see Minto developments get access to the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Nothing could make me more angry.

The canal has just been declared a world heritage site, and here we have a fantastic opportunity in what is a large vacant lot next to this world treasure. To contemplate filling it with housing is the worst possible plan. The Glebe and Ottawa South are full of housing already and there are other development opportunities and projects in the area that are adding to the available housing stock.

That a developer is salivating over this prime real estate is not surprising. That city council is salivating too is a shock and a disappointment.

Once housing is built here the opportunity will be lost forever. It’s time to think beyond the moment. Think about what kind of city we want for the next hundred years or more. Look into your heart and I know you will agree that a subdivision is not the best we can do.

A CFL team, never a draw in this government town, is not worth it if we lose Lansdowne to development. This plan should be shelved right away, and the public reassured that future planning will be done in the open.

The people of Ottawa call upon you to make the tough decisions. Make the right one: preserve Lansdowne as a public space. No to housing on Lansdowne park.

I have to turn left from Amberwood onto Prince of Wales every day, and this intersection has become more and more dangerous over the years. Recently I have had to wait up to 10 minutes at rush hour to safely turn, and I have seen numerous close calls as frustrated residents turn left when there is not enough space.

I am worried that there will be a serious accident here before long.

The intersection was fine before the developments in the greenbelt just south of here, and now that Manotick will also be getting a large new development the stop sign at this intersection is clearly insufficient. Many other intersections on prince of wales have recently had new traffic lights installed and those residents are safer for it.

Amberwood is the only major artery between Manotick and the downtown that is missing a traffic light. It is possible to snake through the neighbourhood and access Macfarlane, but Amberwood is the designated and natural artery through this neighbourhood and it will not work to ask people to snake through tiny residential crescents to access a traffic light, nor is it fair to the residents of those streets.

Moreover, the Ottawa Police has frequent speed traps at this intersection due to the high speed of traffic. Having a traffic light here could also moderate the speed of traffic on an automated basis by causing drivers to be more ready to stop.

I know that the city has many intersections waiting for stop lights, but this one must be addressed soon or I feel there will be severe consequences for some unfortunate soul.

When will the city get a traffic light at this dangerous intersection? Lives depend on it.

Citizens of Ottawa should be rising up today against a snowjob by city council.

We had until December 15. Mayor O’Brien campaigned on a promise that we would take six months. It is a mystery as to why council was in such a rush to vote on December 6. Especially since the real debate was done in secret.

This is the largest capital project in the city’s history. As the people footing the bill, citizens of Ottawa deserved an open and public debate on the rail question. We deserved time to absorb it, make up our minds, and write our councillors. And there was time — another week. Yet the ink was barely dry on yesterday’s headlines when councillors voted their essentially-secret plan into place.

Councillors apparently did not debate the plan that generated significant interest from mayoral candidates, media and citizens during the election, namely the Friends of the O-Train plan. Let’s compare the plans:

The friends of the O-Train plan: take hundreds of buses off the downtown streets, maintain current popular O-Train service with the possibility of southward expansion. Cost: $400 million, benefit: clean up downtown.

Council’s plan: Ignore downtown. Replace the O-Train with a new technology on the same run, extend line to Barrhaven where everyone is a car lover anyway. Cost: $700 million, benefit: yawn.

Regarding the subway, this idea has been raised and killed more times than a zombie in a cheap slasher movie. It will never be built. Regarding the $70 million to start on the east-west line… that’s like a toddler saving his nickel allowance toward a shiny new car.

In their mad rush to settle this question, the councillors have done that most Canadian of things: they have compromised. We’re left with the poorest part of the old plan and we’ve lost all the benefit. Twenty points for teamwork, but minus 700 million for spending money wisely. Looks like we’re building ourselves an expensive white elephant instead of a reliable and efficient solution to a real transit problem.

Dear Councillor,

I am writing to urge you not to support a two-phase light rail plan calling for a downtown tunnel, and instead propose the Friends of the O-Train plan to council.

Although I support a rail technology to reduce congestion downtown, the subway is an ill-conceived and poorly thought out suggestion. There are three key reasons why I feel this is a bad idea:

1. Spending huge amounts of money to essentially replace the existing O-Train with a different technology on the same run makes no sense. The need for rail transit southward from downtown is already being serviced by the current technology, and it is not at capacity. Extension is possible.
2. The future subway project will likely never go forward. The massive expense of this solution will never fly in the current political environment against debt. It is unwise to pin the solution to our transit woes upon a “just so” story about how the project could be expanded later.
3. The right solution has already been proposed. The cheap, efficient, frequent and reliable plan put forward during the election by the Friends of the O-Train would cost much less than a tunnel. It would bring the same benefits in terms of reduction of buses downtown and improved transit.

The subway plan has not been considered by council or citizens and so it is improper to throw it out there and vote on it in a kneejerk manner.

It is not clear why the Friends of the O-Train plan is not being given serious consideration. It isn’t clear what’s wrong with this plan except that it did not originate within the transportation department.

I urge you to table the friends’ plan as an option. It is better thought out and more complete than the vague subway proposal, which can never work.

December 14, 2005

Ms. Leona Dombrowsky,
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Public Archives Building
77 Grenville St., 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1B3

Dear Ms. Dombrowsky,

I am writing to you today because of concerns I have with the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001, which became law this year. Specifically, I am worried about the viability of our local butcher shop: the Glebe Meat Market.

I live in the Glebe, a neighbourhood in Ottawa with a long history of owner-operated small businesses and pedestrian shopping. One of our most important stores is the Glebe Meat Market, established in 1918 and under its current ownership for 30 years.

Ms. Dombrowsky, we live in an era of grocery franchises selling over-preserved, over-packaged, under-priced, un-appetizing products. The media is full of meat processing scandals (including a recent CBC Marketplace exposé on grocery store meat departments). Corner-cutting Americanised super-chains are more focussed on bottom-line results than on providing quality products, or on training and retaining knowledgeable staff. The values demonstrated by these organisations are in direct contradiction with those held by our safe, friendly and knowledgeable local butchers.

Against this background of mediocrity, picture, if you will, a local business that is renowned for its high quality meat and meat products. A retailer that provides the personal touch and advice that is only available from a small store, and consequently that has a large following from neighbouring residents and indeed from others all over town. This store is the Glebe Meat Market. Unlike large chain stores with regional meat packing facilities, the meat sold at the Glebe Meat Market is cut on the premises, and often to order. The Glebe Meat Market carries a full selection of meats that can be hard to find elsewhere, including a full line of organic meats and even Emu. The Glebe Meat Market is a business that deserves to survive.

I know that you see the value of local independently-owned business, and of helping these small businesses to survive in the pressures of our highly competitive marketplace. That is why I am sure that you will be surprised that the biggest threat to our local butcher is not competition from large national and multi-national outfits. No, Ms. Dombrowsky, the biggest threat to our local butcher is your department’s new Food Safety and Quality Act and its associated regulations.

Under the new meat restrictions, our local butcher will now be considered a freestanding meat processor. This is because our butcher sells frozen meat pies, soup stock, locally-produced sausages and haggis. Unfortunately, your requirements for freestanding meat processors will be too much for our local butcher. Faced with the choice between continuing without their prepared products and wholesale business or closing their doors the decision is clear: The products that would be left are not enough to support an independent business. Your act will have killed another locally owned small business.

It is not a deficiency on the part of the Glebe Meat Market that will be the cause of its demise. It is the misdeeds of the cost-cutting, safety-compromising large plants that have provoked your local-business-killing new rules. The irony of the situation is that the large chains that have failed to shut down independents like the Glebe Meat Market through years of price-chopping will finally succeed; they will not succeed through competition, but by reducing quality enough to provoke a punitive, heavy-handed, regulatory framework will make independent butchering all but impossible.

The Glebe Meat Market has been selling high quality, safe, wholesome and delicious products since corner butchers were the order of the day — long before the current trend toward unsafe food practises. They have a safe and functional facility that has satisfied inspectors for decades (up to and including this year). They know how to produce meat safely. Their facility has been in operation year after year, and it has always proven itself to be adequate to the task — by any measure. Suddenly, according to your new rules, their facility is wrong and must be redesigned, re-plumbed, re-lit… to the tune of $300 000 to $500 000. It is too much.

Ms. Dombrowsky, this scenario is playing out in small businesses across the province. It is time to admit that sometimes the old ways are the good ways, and that longstanding small businesses are being hit too hard by your new rules. A local butcher should be able to produce meat and meat products without becoming a full-scale meat packing plant.

Governments should be helping to protect our small local independent businesses. Governments should not be creating a playing field slanted towards large regional operations with money to burn as they add photofinishing, dry cleaning and children’s clothing to pre-packaged food empires. If anything the field should be slanted to help protect our small and independent butcher shops.

Ontarians trust our local businesses more than big chains when it comes to safety in the food supply. Ms. Dombrowsky, we are looking to you to protect our neighbourhood businesses. It is time to take a long look at this legislation and to provide for exemptions and adjustments for safe local businesses — like our Glebe Meat Market — who produce high quality products. Your constituents are watching with hope and faith in your government. Do not let us down; act now, before it is too late.

Sincerely,
Colin Henein

cc. Glebe Meat Market; Clive Doucet, Councillor, City of Ottawa Capital Ward; Richard Patten, MPP, Ottawa-Centre; Dalton McGuinty, Premier

Dear Mr. Holder,

This letter is to comment on the third open house regarding the Bank Street reconstruction project. I am sorry that this letter is a day late, and I hope you will be able to consider my comments anyway. My comments are focused on your southern region.

I am generally pleased with the plan, although I wish we had been able to maintain more space in the outside lanes to facilitate safe exit for patrons parking their cars when visiting local business.

Here are five specific concerns that I have after seeing your open house.

1. SIGNALLED CROSSWALK AT CENTRAL PARK

Your most recent drawings do not indicate a signalled crosswalk at Central Park. Currently, residents (especially children) cannot safely cross at the park, which makes the park more like two parks. Other parks in the city benefit from signalling for pedestrians including Major’s Hill (at the stairs to the market) and Confederation Park (at the crosswalk to city hall).

I believe that the signal that is currently at Strathcona should be moved to the park (near Powell) to unify the two sides of the park by providing for a safe crossover. Your preferred plan even has inviting semi-circular sidewalk layouts that would be perfect for the ends of this crosswalk. Even if the crosswalk must be at a slight angle it should be implemented. I see little purpose for the signals at Strathcona, and great potential for them at the park.

If the crosswalk is placed more towards the North side of the park, then the park entrance design should be modified to create inviting entrances at the crosswalks (just as Confederation park has an inviting entrance across Laurier from city hall).

2. PROJECT PHASING

I am concerned by your plan to involve the Glebe in two years of construction, regardless of whether they are consecutive years or not. We spoke about this at the downtown open house and you indicated that plans had already changed for the phasing that would see the Glebe under construction in 2006 and again in 2008.

I am of the opinion that the impact on local businesses will be felt regardless of where the construction is between the Canal and the Queensway. I value the Glebe-ish owner-operated small businesses, and I think these businesses will be extremely vulnerable if the city tears up their street twice.

I would like to see all work completed between the Canal and the Queensway in a single year. You indicated that other projects in the city, of comparable length, have been completed within a year, and that contracting issues were of concern but were not insurmountable. We discussed that construction traffic routings would not be greatly affected.

At the meeting you seemed to think this was a plausible suggestion. I strongly urge you to revise the schedule to do the area between the Queensway and the Canal in a single year.

3. HYDRO LINES

Although my first letter to you indicated that I did not object to hydro poles, your selection of independent poles for street-level lighting mean that there will be too many poles. You should remove the hydro lines and bury them. My focus, of course, is in burial from the Canal to the Queensway, but likely all the wires should go underground. If we do not do this now it seems infeasible that it will get done at all.

4. BANK STREET PARKING

Parking should be returned to a free state along bank street, with maximum parking length of 2-3 hours. See my previous letters for my arguments for this point.

5. LANSDOWNE PARK

If there is any way to squeeze more greenery and landscaping into the Landsdowne area that would be highly desirable. This area has the potential to look like a grey concrete jungle due to the design of the stadium and the large paved staging and parking area around it. Pack that green in there…

Also, I find the north pedestrian crossing at Landsdowne to be too long. Is it possible to extend the median on the north side further south into the intersection? This would route the pedestrian crossing over the median to provide a safety zone in the middle? People often seem to try to cross late in the cycle during busy events and providing a refuge in the middle would make sense in this case.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this open house. Please contact me if there is an additional opportunity to comment. I would be pleased to continue to be involved in the process.

Regards,
Colin Henein

Dear Ms. Frulla,

This letter is to request that you revoke the CRTC’s recent decision to approve licenses for satellite radio broadcasters in their current form. The reason for the request is that inadequate Canadian content requirements are a condition of these licenses.

Since their inception in 1933, Canadian content regulations have placed the onus on broadcasters (generally as a condition of license) to locate and play Canadian selections that meet the broadcaster’s format and quality objectives. This onus has two effects (one obvious, one not so obvious) as follows.

1. Airplay of Canadian music on radio creates demand by listeners for recordings and performances by local and domestic artists. This demand leads to the possibility of commercial success as — and thence to the viability of becoming — a Canadian performer.


2. Less obviously, the broadcaster’s requirement to obtain Canadian selections from somewhere, in concert with the demand just described, has generated an industry that identifies, recruits, produces, promotes and supports Canadian talent. This takes the form of Canadian labels, and Canadian divisions of foreign music companies, in short: Canadian jobs.

The onus on broadcasters to play Canadian selections has created the market for domestic culture. Without this onus to locate Canadian content, the content industry would not require customized Canadian labels and record companies (and by extension Canadian workers); economies of scale would dictate that the Canadian arms of media organizations should be shut down in favour of consolidation of the Canadian market into existing US-based multi-national culture companies. A simple consideration of the relative sizes of the Canadian and American markets would suggest that we would not be assured of seeing 30-40% Canadian content in such a consolidated market. Economically it seems likely that most commercial radio would essentially become affiliates of larger US chains.

Given the importance of the Canadian content requirements, Ms. Frulla, it would seem obvious that the CRTC should require them of the next big media shift: the shift from terrestrial to satellite radio. It has not done so. The licenses it issued require 1 Canadian channel for every 9 foreign channels (10% Canadian channels) with no Canadian requirements on any other channel. This is pitiably small, and means that many Canadians will never listen to any Canadian channel.

Moreover, under the CRTC’s misguided regulations, 50% of the selections played on Canadian channels will be new selections which is not sustainable in a standard commercial format. These Canadian channels will simply be viewed by foreign broadcasters as a throwaway tax, not promoted to Canadians and therefore not listened to by Canadians.

If satellite radio becomes the future of radio that many believe it to be, then this CRTC decision will represent the beginning of the end for the Canadian music industry. In time we will stop listening to AM and FM bands in favour of the higher quality noise-free digital signals. At that time — without Canadian content controls on satellite radio — Canadians will no longer hear Canadian music. It will be American culture for us.

The CRTC argues that Canadian-broadcast services are non-viable. Despite this, one of the three licensees is proposing to broadcast Canadian content at the current FM radio levels, so clearly the industry feels that Canadian-broadcast satellite radio is viable!

If broadcasters feel there is money in satellite broadcasting then they should program services in Canada that conform to Canadian broadcasting policy. Simply producing throwaway content to satisfy ill-conceived regulations is not going to protect Canada’s fragile cultural industry. When the CRTC rashly throws away a regulatory gem in favour of 400 channels of American content as the initial offering for a new technology we have to ask about their priorities and oversight.

Ms. Frulla, Canadians deserve better than to be deluged with American content in the name of “progress” after over 70 years of successful promotion of Canadian culture. Take action today to reverse this misguided decision on the part of the CRTC. Canadians will be watching you to see how effectively you can protect our national treasure: a vibrant culture supported by an industry full of jobs.

Sincerely,
Colin Henein

Dear Mssrs. Brousseau and Doucet,

It has recently come to my attention that a proposal has been made to erect a giant video screen on Bank St. at Lansdowne Park. This short note is to register my vehement opposition to such a project.

As a Glebe resident for over 7 years I know that this project is utterly incompatible with the character of the neighbourhood. Earlier this year the Bank Street reconstruction project noted that the Glebe is an important heritage district. This sign would be completely at odds with everything about the Glebe.

Glebe residents neither need nor want a giant animated display on Bank Street, and the current pixel sign at Lansdowne is more than adequate to announce events at the facilty.

This issue has come up with no advance notice, no public consultation and barely any circulation of information to neighbours. For a 22 foot by 14 foot monstrosity stretching 45 feet into the sky this is plain wrong.

I hope the city will quash this proposal rapidly. This sign would be an eyesore.

Greetings,

This short email is to express my support for the Bronson morning peak right-turn prohibitions put forward by the Glebe Community Association and the Ottawa South Community Association.

I realize that northbound traffic needs to access downtown, but there is no reason that huge quantities of commuter traffic need to cut through the Glebe.

The route from Bronson to Queen Elizabeth is not appropriate for heavy traffic and the people on those streets are suffering unfairly. If traffic must travel between Bronson northbound and Queen Elizabeth then an appropriate alternative should be found so that no one need live on a busy off ramp. In the meantime we should immediately implement the proposed turning restrictions.

Dear Mr. Doucet,

As I write this email I’m looking out my window onto the corner of First Avenue and Lyon. The snow removal crews have tried to barricade First Avenue with plows so that a grader can have exclusive access to the roadway between Lyon and Bronson. Cars are slipping and sliding to get around as a sidewalk plow tries to rock back and forth to block them.

It is 8:45 am. All traffic on First Avenue is trying to turn left and right. The traffic turning right is totally blocked with parents trying to let their children off at the Montessori school. Children of all ages are walking to the four schools in a three block radius and are clambering over and playing on the snowbanks that the crews are trying to remove. School buses are going every which way, and at the length of three cars they are gridlocking the area because Lyon cannot handle all the traffic from First that cannot now proceed to Bronson.

The grader operator is becoming more and more agitated and frustrated and operates his vehicle more and more agressively. A grader is not a vehicle that allows an operator a clear view all around the vehicle… not a truck that you want to operate while frustrated and surrounded by children.

Mr. Doucet, the snow should NEVER be removed from these streets during the day. I was surprised to see the yellow snow removal signs yesterday and sure enough, it was a very bad decision on someone’s part. The Glebe must be cleared at night. At night there is no OC transpo, no morning rush hour, and most importantly no children are playing in the snow that is being removed.

What is happening this morning is an accident waiting to happen. I understand that it may be difficult to handle the street parking issues during the evening hours, but the issues during the day are worse. At night operations may be slowed by parked cars, during the day they may well be slowed by a serious accident.

I urge you to contact the snow removal department and inform them that the Glebe must be cleared at night.

Sincerely, Colin Henein

Dear Kalle,

Since Adbusters has ceased to be a well-thought-out publication with balanced reasoned views…

And since the magazine has lost its playful critiques that were positive and funny rather than slit-my-wrist-downer type…

And since Adbusters has become one more source of political complaint — the same complaint my ears are so sick of — with nothing new or fresh compared with all the other whiny drivel…

And since you stand by your Jewish list…

And because Adbusters no longer documents the corporate mental environment but instead focuses on US politics and frankly I am bored by that…

… So I am returning your subscription request unfilled. I’ll find another mag thanks! Please take me off your list. No more mail from you please!!

Dear Mr. Watt,

This letter is to speak out against your position on the insurance problems faced by OPIRG-Carleton, and your proposed eviction of the group on October 29 should their insurance problems continue past that date.

Mr. Watt, I have been a student at Carleton since 1993, and I’m now a Ph. D. student nearing the end of my studies here. In that time I haven’t been directly involved with OPIRG, but have respected the work they do. OPIRG’s function of social activism and research on environmental issues is a vital one, and one that I see as essentially compatible with the university’s role in society. A university is a place to question the status quo, to look beyond conventional views and to develop the ideas and technologies to make the world a better place. OPIRG, for many years funded, supported and staffed by Carleton students, faculty and staff members, acts to research and promote social, community and environmental ideas and technologies to make the world a better place.

After 24 years on campus, OPIRG has earned the respect of faculty, staff and students as a valuable and venerable organization; like our long-standing campus radio station CKCU, OPIRG is one vehicle by which we at Carleton extend our campus community past our geographic boundaries. Indeed, OPIRG is part of Carleton University for me, and for the others who study, teach, live, work and play on campus.

The university has a responsibility to support this important group on campus through its period of difficulty. As we are all aware the insurance industry has been quick to enrich itself since the events of September 11, 2001 by creating an overly broad definition of terrorism (like “ideologically motivated acts to influence the public or government”) which includes virtually all lawful protest activities. OPIRG, as a lawful organization that has championed many worthy positions, would likely be cheerfully defined as a terrorist group by most insurers. We at the university, however, have a responsibility to stand up against such transparent commercial tactics. It is the role of the university to stand firm against commercial and political schemes to limit dissent, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Academic freedom is one of the basic principles of our society and the university must recognize and embrace each opportunity to defend this principle or risk becoming irrelevant; worse, we risk becoming a faceless commercial enterprise that values fiscal factors above academic ones.

When an essential part of the university has operating problems, the first question we ask is not usually “how fast can we eliminate that part of the university?” Although they may not always have agreed with the university administration, the OPIRG group is entirely consistent with the principles and functions of the university. We should be standing shoulder to shoulder with OPIRG against the forces in society which are threatened by plain, lawful and truthful speech and action by its citizens.

Mr. Watt, as an officer of the university you should be the one making these arguments: widely, publically and forcefully. Instead you have opted to act as the insurance company’s stick man by holding the sword on their behalf.

Based on this observation, a sinister scenario now presents itself. Perhaps the university administration sees this insurance problem as an opportunity to eliminate an organization that has not always been supportive of university cutbacks and administrative decisions? Perhaps under the guise of insurance concerns, the administration thinks to rid itself of a thorn without having to look like the bad guy? Mr. Watt, if this scenario is true (and the university has done little to dispel the open suspicions of it) then you are the bad guy. Taking advantage of this proud organization’s misfortune to place the coffin nail you’ve been hiding behind your back would be a cowardly way to achieve a nefarious goal.

Mr. Watt, you and the rest of the administration need to help the university community to understand that this sinister scenario is not at work in your recent threat to evict OPIRG with ten days notice if they cannot come up with five million dollars of insurance. Here is what you must do to reassure us:

1. You need to remove your threat by reassuring OPIRG that their tenancy is not in immediate jeopardy. That the university will support OPIRG as a valuable part of the Carleton community. That we will see OPIRG through these challenges.


2. The university needs to stand up for OPIRG in the media and in society to denounce the actions of the insurance companies and promote the vital role in society of organizations like OPIRG.


3. The university should devote its resources to helping OPIRG make the alternative financial and insurance arrangements that will make it possible for them to stay on campus. This may require exploration of options regarding exactly what specific kinds of insurance coverage Carleton actually requires OPIRG to carry with respect to on-campus meetings, offices and activities.

Mr. Watt, it is these kinds of situations that show what kind of man you really are. Help us to see you as a respectable academic administrator who fights for academic rights and values; help us to banish any vision of you as an author of a sinister scenario to eliminate social activism on campus. Change your stance on OPIRG now.

Sincerely,
Colin Henein
Cognitive Science

Dear Mr. Dion,

It is with great surprise, frustration and anger that I learned today of your decision to sacrifice the Sakinaw and Cultus lake salmon populations on the altar of the almighty loonie. This preposterous decision must be reversed immediately.

Your decision is troubling because you are denying an emergency plea from your own scientific advisory board — the board whose exclusive function is to advise you on this topic.

Most troubling, however, is that this is your first decision as minister of the environment. If the extinction of a species is the course of action you select on the occasion of your first decision, then I shudder to imagine the consequences to the environment of your reign.

Mr. Dion, you are the minister of the environment. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the purpose of the minister of the environment is to prevent extinctions of natural organisms in Canada. It is not your function to act as some sort of political judge to overrule your science board and rule in favour of extinguishing these fish populations.

Mr. Dion, Canadians demand that you reverse your decision and immediately list these fish.

Dear Mr. Doucet,

This short email is to encourage you to maintain our quality of life here in Ottawa as we move through this budgeting process. I, for one, would be willing to pay more in taxes to support our valuable festivals and cultural events, as well as many of the other services which the draft budget targets.

I am all for making cuts to improve efficiency. If we have reached our maximum levels of efficiency, however, then we must open our wallets to pay for those things which make Ottawa the place we love.

Colin Henein