Sarah Mills: Public entities need to be more transparent
Sarah Mills says a single coroner choosing not to release the toxicology report in the case of Saskatchewan Roughrider J...
Personal details. Name, age, hometown
Isaac Hayes, 48, Saskatoon.
Tell us about yourself
Born in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Immigrated to Canada from California at the age of nine years old. Grew up in Saskatoon, attending elementary, secondary and post-secondary schooling in the city. Lived in Winnipeg while going to the University of Manitoba to pursue architecture degrees. Returned to Saskatoon for work and lived in various areas of Saskatoon, with a fair bit of time spent in the Saskatoon West riding boundary. Have been married, have children, and work to apply my profession, help my family, and live a good and reasonable life.
What’s a little-known fact about you?
Designed the colour scheme that was accepted by vote for Marion M. Graham High School and was one of the first full four-year graduates. I participated in three, and designed for two, Designing Spaces charity fundraising events for Saskatoon which included TV interview and publication in local design magazine.
Why should voters hire you?
I am a problem identifier and solver. I believe every citizen should contribute to the good of their country during their lifetime, be it political, military, or general service, and this is a time politically that I will look to do so. As a concern that consecutive governments have caused more problems than helped, there is a natural desire to step up, stand for, and secure the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of every Canadian for the better, by having the laws that govern all of us be reflected fairly through reason, respect, and dignity.
Who should we call for a reference?
Over that of family and friends, there are many people I have worked with, been teammates of in sports, have dealt with professionally, and participated in events with, that could provide some level of reference. As one should ask prior to listing a reference and the potential responsibility it may carry for them I will defer answering directly pending those discussions with them out of respect.
What is your greatest strength? What is your greatest weakness?
The answer to what my greatest strength is may well be something I do not see myself, but what I would think I am reasonably good at is seeing situations, opportunities, problems, and solutions, that are not obvious. This is in part based on general curiosity, but more so on trained problem identification, where solution creation requires one to look at all sides of an issue to reach outside-the-box for solutions if not obvious.
The answer to my greatest weakness is simple, distraction and missing opportunities. We are all good at seeing a possibility and its benefit, however, in retrospect the amount of missed opportunities places myself squarely in the group that are not so great on capitalizing on that discovered knowledge. Fortunately experience often offers up the lesson that we should be wise enough to learn from.
Where do you stand on:
Gun laws? I do not own guns, so it is not a condition of daily concern for me from an owner’s standpoint. I do perceive it would be an unjust thing to be so easily robbed of life by some ill intended individual on their flight of criminal behaviour, given the ease of simply pulling a trigger. On that basis I believe we would all feel that removing all guns would negate an unfair advantage to the ill-inclined towards us. However, we have a culture based on responsibility and rights. I believe people have rights, and those rights include the option to own guns. I do not believe gun owners should be ‘punished’ for ownership, but we all recognize the need for responsible ownership and management of such an item. The laws need to be fair to reflect the concerns of those that fear their ill use and those that own them. A simple comparison is that of a vehicle, which can be used as a weapon deliberately or inadvertently, yet we have set reasonable laws for and around their use. If one individual uses a vehicle recklessly of horrifically, we do not take everyone’s car away. Legal gun owners believe their guns serve a useful purpose despite being perceived differently by anyone not owning a gun, as the inequity they present in the hands of those that would use them for ill purpose is beyond apparent. By black and white reasoning laws should simply deny the opportunity for ownership by reason that all guns in society are dangerous and could be used poorly, and with no opportunity for ownership there will be no possibility of ill intent of their use. I do not feel the we, as a society, can live that way. Gun acceptance, purpose in society, use, and means of ownership can be debated for years, but the bottom line is that we do live in a democracy, we do permit the ownership of guns and we should have laws that do not make criminals out of legal gun owners. Owners should be afforded the rights and responsibilities to govern the use, attend to secure access, and manage the care of such weapons that is reasonable and practicable by law.
The need for more pipelines? Opposing pipelines is not rational, not for the economic considerations, and not for moving forward with technological innovation. We challenge these notions because people fear the worst-case scenario of their failure. It is common with all fuels and systems we have. Removing fossil fuels puts emphasis on other power generation technologies, such as nuclear, dams, and other potential. When the worst case is looked at, relative to each technology to power and run our built environment, the ramifications are varied and directly or indirectly area as problematic. A failed reactor, the flooding of land to store water or breaking of damn both contribute to displacement of man and animal, the killing of birds by giant windmills, inhibiting sunlight for ground vegetation by solar reflector fields, can all contribute to a negative change in the environment.
If we hide from these changes, we lessen the risk, but also fail to achieve better standards and technology, all the while inhibiting economic potential. Imagine pipeline technology that could be used to transport grain in lieu of train cars? Where is the potential for growth in technology, related opportunities, and economic benefit if we do not shift from staunch denial to that of engagement? At present technology needs funding and pipelines create opportunity for that.
Western alienation? The western provinces strongly identify with a Canadian identity. However, what is clear is that given the nature of representation of influence and governance by Ontario and Quebec, which collectively are able to essentially out-vote all other provinces combined, the voice of the west feels that it is not being heard, and when heard ignored. The western provinces consideration of alienation is rooted in a strong sense of unfair benefit, economic exploitation, and curtailed resource practices. Perception of a focus on solving the issues of the East before those of the West is a nature of geography and historical practice. The supporting of Quebec economically on the back of a western province is also of great concern. As a federation of provinces, reform should be engaged to meet a better balance between geographical regions, yet population still dictates the governance of the provinces through federal system. Simple math would suggest that removing the eastern provinces, especially Quebec, from the mix would play better for western business and focus.
However, the answer should start with looking at the apparent lack of fairness involved with equalization and the lion share of resources being given from the west to the east, especially to an apparent ‘have not’ province that has more political standing than those supporting it. To remove equalization would require the resource rich province of Quebec to step up and become the economic juggernaut they could be. Imagine the wealth that Canada could levy on all manner of social programs and grants alike if Quebec contributed? Billions of dollars would remain in the West. So, alienation does not ring as true as general annoyance and irritation. Reform equalization, reform the political balance of representation, remove interprovincial trade barriers and the country will remain Canada, not a loose grouping of three or four separate nations.
China? What should our approach be with some of our markets blocked? When a friend mistreats you, to the point that it puts elements of your life in jeopardy, do you accept the behaviour, or do you find new friends? China has abused their position with Canada and initiated economic bullying tactics and as such Canada should find others to stand and work with to send the message that this is not acceptable behaviour. The world, including Canada needs to take a stand to show that China’s international behaviour is not acceptable. So, what does Canada do? Do we loose markets, yes in the short term. Do we take losses? Yes, in the short term. But Canada needs to look at the long-term position and where we want to draw the line in the sand. So far, we have not drawn a line and that is not a good position. So, Canada should look seriously at issues of immigration and technology sanctions as well as look for assistance from the country whose law we looked to support that has cost Canada, the prairies specifically, a lot of economic turmoil, with little to show for it. If it is not given, then we need to look at our sovereignty and interests first in all future dealings and considerations.
Are we facing a climate change crisis? Is carbon tax the answer? If one understands natural and geographical science, they know that the planet climate changes, period. It is always getting hotter or cooler. It is always subject to disturbances and flux, from the sun, the moon, the core, and other events. Because science and technology over the last few decades have provided better instruments to measure these changes there should not be an assumption for a heightened fear of climate change. The focus should be on pollution, as it is our waste products that have become a significant problem that have detrimental impact on the environment. The products being developed and created use resources that contribute to the impacts from resource extraction through to final disposable product.
Our efforts should be directed at these criteria. As policy, seriously restrict products into, or produced within, the country that do not meet greener initiatives. Our focus needs to be on increased technology, better products, better management systems to keep our environment green, our waters fresh, and our landfills at minimums. There are many choices that can help with climate both home and abroad. Products that do not meet objectives do not get sold and in response inhibit the factories and systems that impact the environment through exploitation by industry. We must remember that the ozone crisis is well on the way to repair (projected for 2075) due to technology mandates with removal, improvement, and substitutions to ozone depleting chemicals. This did not require taxes, it required policy changes.
Of course, carbon tax is not the answer. The loss of our tax dollars to programs that have little founding, little control, no cap, and no accountability are never the answer. To give hard earned tax dollars to a biased initiative of an organisation that is not under our sovereignty of this country is simply a failure in governmental leadership and management. Without a specific program with defined achievable goals, defined limits, and defined markers of success, not a single dollar should be lifted form people’s wallets for any tax.
It’s a day off and you can do anything you want. What would it be?
So many simple and easy choices, but if I could be a little selfish and assume travel costs were not a factor, it would be to see the great archeological sites of the world, admittedly better with family and friends.
Who inspires you?
The list here would be both long and short. Short in that my children motivate me, and my parents have provided a great moral compass, work ethic, and love of natural mysteries of life. The long answer would be in the many authors from ancient to modern, from spiritual to fantastical that have provided one or more unique moments of clarity, wisdom, or wonder. An impossible to task really answer without area context.
What is your hidden talent?
Well, that will just have to remain a secret!
What do you wish you could do but can’t?
The list is long, but being an astronaut exploring Mars was always a fantastical dream.
Who are the three people, dead or alive, that you’d love to have dinner with?
The logical answer would be to have dinner with Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad, but I think it would be interesting to hear the unique perspectives and stories from accomplished men such as Genghis Khan, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Tesla, all the while sharing the moment with my brother.
How do you take your coffee?
Two cream, two sugar.
What’s the one album you’d take with you on a desert island? What embarrassing song do you admit to on your playlist?
First album by Enigma. I am not sure, I do not find the music I listen to embarrassing … others may disagree!
What is your guilty pleasure?
Guilty pleasure … hmm, food could be obvious, but probably the time indulgence of watching the occasional professional Overwatch league games. Go Vancouver Titans!
What is the last book you read?
If you do not count political material, then “The Last Crusade: The Epic Voyages of Vasco Da Gama” by Nigel Cliff.
What is your favourite TV show? What are you binge watching?
If I had to rank them, Game of Thrones would have probably topped the chart. When time available the series I am following now is Carnival Row.
What is your all-time favourite movie?
Of the generation that looked to Star Wars (series) or Indiana Jones as staples, but my favourite is a toss up of Bogart movies (Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Casablanca).
