Have your say

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/03/2014 (4420 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Deportation double standard

Roman Zakaluzny of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association makes a passionate case for the deportation of a former “KGB man,” asserting the UCCLA has said no veterans of the KGB should be in Canada, “with no exceptions” (Ex-KGB tale raises red flags, Letters, March 5).

In 2001, Lubomyr Luciuk, UCCLA’s director of research, took a different approach in respect to Wasyl Odynsky, a Ukrainian camp guard who served with the SS Battalion Streibel in the Second World War and was found by the Federal Court of Canada to have served in association with forces that committed brutal, inhuman acts. He was found to have obtained his Canadian citizenship by false representations or by knowingly concealing material circumstances — grounds for revocation of citizenship — yet was permitted to remain in Canada.

Luciuk argued there was no evidence Odynsky had been involved in a war crime, that he was an old man who had lived in Canada for a long time, that he had been a model citizen in Canada, that deporting him would sentence him to a slow death, and that his lie about his past should be of no moment.

Like Odynsky, the former “KGB man” is said to be “elderly,” has long-standing ties to Canada, denies previous acts of wrongdoing and has not been accused of illegal activity in Canada. Unlike Odynsky, he’s not accused of any misrepresentation or deception and may face harm in his former country.

In Odynsky’s case, Luciuk argued the Nazi association should be ignored; in the case of the “KGB man,” the UCCLA argues his association is the only issue of relevance. It would appear UCCLA advocates consequences based on whose ox is being gored.

LEIGH HALPRIN

Winnipeg

CoSA cut no cost-saver

The recent funding cuts by Correctional Service Canada to Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) never made any logical sense (Sex-offender program victim of funding cuts, March 4).

The $2.2 million of proposed savings, for example, would be quickly engulfed by the annual cost of lodging inmates after they reoffend — an 80 per cent chance among non-CoSA participants, significantly higher than those who participate in the program.

The decision had little to do with fiscal responsibility, the program’s effectiveness, or public interest, as demonstrated by the volume of CoSA volunteers. While the funding has since been restored, at least for the time being, the cuts reflected the federal government’s ideological agenda trumping basic common sense.

MATTHEW DUECK

Kleefeld

PST hike can’t be spun

Re: NDP messaging on PST hike finally on track, March 6.

The NDP hasn’t even come close to their infrastructure-spending commitments for several years, and then they tell us we need a PST increase to deal with infrastructure deficits.

Dan Lett’s article validates the actions of a poorly managed government whose only answer to any problem is to throw money at the stakeholders.

KEITH POULSON

Winnipeg

ñº

It seems the premier is attempting to use the Conference Board of Canada analysis to justify the ill-conceived and flawed increase in the PST. This is a bit of political chicanery, as the two issues are separate.

All this analysis shows is the value to the economy of expenditure on infrastructure, not the origin of funding. Funding from any source would have yielded the same result.

Selinger is quick to credit the PST increase for making the infrastructure program possible, but is silent on the contribution from the federal government. Without question, he has made defence of this tax increase a major preoccupation for purely political reasons.

Let’s not forget the province paid for this analysis. If Selinger had the courage of his conviction this tax was good for Manitoba, he would have taken his plan to the people a year ago, as required by law, instead of now wasting money on analysis after the fact.

It’s akin to burning down the house and attempting to buy insurance afterwards.

DON PALMER

Winnipeg

Sentence should fit crime

The article Suspected ‘gating’ frees pair (March 6) doesn’t explain the reason for the police’s behaviour, which is based on the Canadian justice system’s notion of concurrent sentences.

Prisoners can serve concurrent sentences, meaning time served can be applied to more than one conviction.

If the concept of concurrent sentences was removed, there would be no incentive to delay a charge. Each victim would then see justice, as the criminal would finish one sentence and then serve the next one.

DEREK PLAS

Winnipeg

ñº

It seems law enforcement has far more restrictions than do the offenders of major criminal activities. Parking and seatbelt violations, as well as similar minor offences against ordinarily law-abiding citizens, can’t be forgiven, but commit a major crime and you will be given every benefit available.

DAVID DOLMAN

Winnipeg