|
Post by REALITY on Jan 15, 2007 15:26:59 GMT -5
Federal minister not welcome at provincial meeting on women's issues Canadian Press
OTTAWA (CP) - The Harper government has shown so little interest in women's issues that provinces have decided to meet on their own to plot a national strategy without bothering to invite federal Status of Women Minister Bev Oda.
The snub follows two recent federal-provincial meetings on women's issues at which Oda put in only brief appearances and displayed "a complete lack of interest," according to Sandra Pupatello, Ontario's minister responsible for women's issues.
At a meeting of federal and provincial ministers in Saint John, N.B., in October, Pupatello said Oda showed up for only an hour.
"Because we have ministers who travel literally from coast to coast to coast, a couple of them that take two days just to get there, they were really quite offended that she would come for an hour," Pupatello said in an interview Wednesday.
Their frustration deepened on Dec. 15, when a federally organized teleconference, supposedly aimed at finishing up the agenda from the October meeting, was similarly cut short.
Pupatello said Oda "attended for 20 minutes and then had to excuse herself and insisted that the meeting be over when she left the call."
"It's hard to have an FPT (federal-provincial-territorial meeting) with no F. That sort of sums it up . . . It's just very frustrating because you feel like you're at the altar and the bride didn't show."
After the teleconference call, Pupatello concluded that provincial and territorial ministers need to get together on their own to devise a national action plan "because I'm not going through this charade of FPTs as if we're actually doing something dramatic here because we're not."
She said "every minister across the board" concurred with her assessment of the situation.
Indeed, another minister from a province not usually considered adversarial with the Harper government, privately expressed virtually identical criticisms.
Consequently, Pupatello will host a meeting of women's issues ministers - minus Oda - on Feb. 1 in Toronto.
"It clearly takes leadership at the federal level to bring us together. It is completely absent in my view and we are taking it upon ourselves to say, you know, this is either a priority or it isn't and regardless of federal involvement . . . what are we going to do about it?"
However, a spokesman for Oda disputed Pupatello's account of the federal minister's participation in the last two meetings and suggested the Ontario Liberal minister is simply indulging in a "partisan attack" on the federal Conservative government.
Chisholm Pothier said Oda attended an evening get-together prior to the meeting in Saint John and was in attendance the next day for about two hours.
He said the December conference call was scheduled to last for 90 minutes and went almost an hour longer, with Oda on the line the entire time.
"It seems to me to be a partisan fight," Pothier said of Pupatello's criticisms.
"I think it's sort of beside the point of working together to make concrete progress on issues of importance to women in Canada. I don't think this is a particularly helpful contribution to that and it's certainly not dialogue when you're trying to exclude people from the dialogue."
Pupatello said provincial ministers were frustrated with what little Oda did say to them at the past two meetings.
She did not, for instance, give them any details about the federal government's decision to slice $5 million over two years from the $23-million annual budget for Status of Women Canada, a federal agency that promotes gender equality and funds women's groups across the country.
Oda told them the money would be "redirected" into other programs for women but Pupatello said she couldn't explain how or when that would occur or whether the money saved by closing some of the agency's regional offices would remain in those regions.
Pupatello said Oda also claimed the Harper government has already done a "tremendous amount" on justice issues for women, pointing to stiffer sentences for gun crimes.
"The women who are being murdered here, they're being strangled and beaten and burned," said Pupatello.
"So please don't pretend to me that gun bill somehow was introduced and tabled in the House with a mind to assisting violence against women. You know, please."
However, Pothier contended that Oda has a strong record of advancing women's issues and will continue with her "agenda of action" whether or not she's excluded from meetings with her provincial counterparts.
Among other things, he said Oda has presided over changes to matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women, increased funding for on-reserve family violence shelters, eliminating conditional sentencing for sexual offences, and granting temporary visas to victims of human trafficking so that they can recover from their ordeal.
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Jan 15, 2007 15:42:02 GMT -5
Smith renews call for more judges Written by Helen Burnett Monday, 15 January 2007 The Ontario Superior Court has reached a “critical point,” as the judiciary is facing a high number of vacancies and retirements as well as an increasing workload, according to the court’s Chief Justice Heather Smith.
This is the last time Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, centre with chief justices Heather Smith and Brian Lennox, will preside over the Opening of the Courts ceremonies, as he’s set to retire in May. Lennox’s tenure as chief justice also ends this year. Speaking at the Opening of the Courts on Jan. 10, Smith noted that Ontario’s population has increased by 3.8 million in the last 16 years, which has significantly increased the judicial workload.
“It’s very hard to think in terms of that kind of impact of an exploding population on a courts system. But that population increase alone represents a greater group of people than the entire population of Alberta currently,” she said.
Similar to the situation at the start of 2006, judicial vacancies continue to be an ongoing concern, although Smith noted that from September to December 2006, 15 judges were appointed to the Ontario Superior Court.
“At the Opening of the Courts last year, the judicial vacancy rate in the courts was five. Even though these 15 judges have been appointed since September 2006, this cannot keep pace with our ever increasing number of vacancies because now, in fact, as of the same date a year later, there are 11 vacancies in the court,” she said.
Smith added that the regional senior justice’s position in the central-east region of the province also remains open, and 12 judges are expected to elect to be supernumerary judges this year. An additional 10 supernumerary judges will also reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 in 2007. This amounts to 24 judicial appointments that need to be made to achieve a full complement, according to Smith.
“Accordingly, I propose to urge the minister of justice, on an urgent basis, to get the Superior Court of Justice up to full complement,” she said.
“At the CBA meeting [in August 2006], the former federal minister of justice also indicated that he wasn’t convinced that simply creating new judicial positions would address the increasing pressure on a court’s longer and more complex trials. However, he did indicate an openness and a willingness to consider additional positions if there was clear and objective evidence that they were needed.
“In point of fact, such a proposal had gone forward. In 2004, the Superior Court and the attorney general of Ontario forwarded to the federal government a joint proposal to increase by 12 our family courts complement. These judicial resources are still desperately needed if children in need and families in crisis are to be provided with timely access to justice in the Superior Court,” noted Smith.
She added that before the Superior Court considered increasing its judicial complement, it developed “best practices” with the support of the bar “to ensure that we were maximizing, to the most efficient level possible, our existing judicial resources.”
Smith said: “I think in terms of in-house, we have done everything we can to bring efficiency to the judicial time-management system to ensure that there’s timely, early intervention where we can provide it. But the timeliness is dependent on having a sufficient complement to be able to put judges into a role where they can do the work in a proper manner.”
Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry noted that the Court of Appeal remains concerned with the number of unrepresented litigants in criminal appeals.
He also added that the number of unrepresented litigants before the courts remains on the rise, particularly in the family courts.
“Certainly in the reviews of the civil justice system in Canada, which are going on both nationally and in Ontario, the needs of self-represented litigants are certainly being given a high priority and various techniques and strategies are being developed in order to assist unrepresented litigants find their way though the court process.
“Probably the most important challenge facing the administration of justice in Ontario is, firstly, the access to the civil justice system by citizens of Ontario on a timely and affordable fashion,” he noted.
Chief Justice Brian Lennox of the Ontario Court of Justice also commented that it would be “of benefit to begin now a fundamental review of family justice within the province,” noting that the time frames involved in Family Court expansion have been too long, with the latest expansion of the Unified Family Court project taking place over seven years ago.
“I firmly believe that we need with some urgency to develop a clear vision and policy framework and a firm timetable for the purpose of making consistent and coherent decisions on the future of family courts and Family Court services in Ontario,” he noted.
Also speaking at the Opening of the Courts, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced a pilot project to put cameras in the courtrooms of the Ontario Court of Appeal will be implemented this year.
The project is the result of a recommendation from the Ontario Panel on Justice and the Media last year. “Through this initiative, we will be bringing the public directly into our courtrooms via cameras in the court,” said Bryant. “In doing so, we will be opening a new window to provide Ontarians with an unprecedented view of our justice system.”
Ontario Bar Association president James Morton supports the pilot, saying the group hopes the project will help shed light on the need for more resources in the justice system.
“The Ontario Bar Association supports efforts to promote openness in our courtrooms by installing cameras in Ontario’s Court of Appeal, as it will help connect the public with our justice system. For some time now the public has had the chance to get an inside look at the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada through CPAC, so this seems to be a logical extension,” said Morton.
He added he’s sure the government will take into account privacy issues that may arise.
This year’s ceremonies marked the last time that McMurtry would be presiding at the Opening of the Courts as chief justice of Ontario, as he is retiring in May. Lennox is also set to complete his eight-year term in May.
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Jan 18, 2007 22:01:09 GMT -5
DiNovo rallies to make Living Wage Act a reality
CYNTHIA REASON
01/18/07 11:41:00
;DWhen Parkdale-High Park MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced her Living Wage Bill last fall, she said she was determined the province's minimum wage earners should, and could, live above the poverty line.
So, on Jan. 3 when the McGuinty government announced Ontario's minimum wage would increase to just $8 from $7.75 as of Feb. 1, DiNovo said she was disappointed - especially given the Liberal government had just awarded Ontario MPPs a hefty Christmas pay increase.
"The government seems to find it easy to give itself a 25 per cent raise, yet hard to give minimum wagers more than a 25 cent increase," she said this week.
DiNovo's private member's bill, which has passed its second reading but has since stalled at committee, introduced legislation that would immediately raise Ontario's minimum wage to $10 an hour.
"A lot of people ask me 'why that amount?'" she said, "but the bottom line is that $10 an hour will allow the single mothers working for minimum wage to not have to rely on food banks. It will allow them to almost squeak by the poverty line."
The Living Wage Bill is one that has garnered the support of a wide variety of groups, DiNovo said, including the Toronto and York Region Labour Council, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Community Social Planning Council, the Ontario Social Development Council, children's aid societies and the Canadian Federation of Students.
DiNovo is banking on that grassroots support to bolster her cause and is looking to rally even more community approval with a GTA-wide campaign to win the $10 minimum wage starting next week.
The campaign will be launched on Wednesday, Jan. 24 when DiNovo and her sponsoring organizations will hold a special Queen's Park press conference, followed by the first in a series of public meetings held in conjunction with her federal counterpart, Parkdale-High Park MP Peggy Nash, and John Cartwright of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council.
Wednesday's meeting will take place at the Parkdale Library, 1303 Queen St. W., at 7 p.m. Those wishing to attend are requested to RSVP by calling 416-441-3663 ext. 224.
Childcare will be made available and parents are asked to please confirm child care attendance when registering for the event.
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Jan 20, 2007 12:36:15 GMT -5
Court makes Canadian man pay for life-saving surgery
Adolfo Flora, 57, was told he had liver cancer in 1999 from a tainted blood transfusion that gave him Hep.C. He was told he would die within 6 months so he had to fly to England to have the transplant done after Ontario would not give him the surgery needed. He went to court to try and get them to reimburse the $450,000 that it cost him but was denied it. The courts denied this because two Ontario specialists told him he was not a suitable candidate for the life saving surgery liver transplant because his chances of survival were slim given the advanced stages of the cancer. Flora was told he had just six months to live.
The judges said that limiting the funding of out-of-country medical treatments to those that are generally accepted in Ontario ensures public funds are not spent on treatments that are "inconsistent with the ethics and values of the Ontario medical profession and the Ontario public. This safeguards the integrity of the health care system."
He flew to England and they told him he had a better than 50% chance of survival with receiving a liver donation from his brother. He flew back to Canada to tell them what he was told and Canada doctors told him he wasn't a candidate for a full transplant from a deceased donor or partial transplant from a living person – a procedure that had never been performed in adults at that hospital.
They filed in 2000 with OHIP to be reimbursed for the treatment in England and was denied because one of the procedures that would be done on him, chemoembolization, was considered to be experimental in Ontario and also that liver transplants are available but in a "timely fashion"
He had the transplant done in England and it is now almost 7 years later and he is alive. Had he not flown to England to have it done and listened to the doctors here in Ontario he would have died.
This is becoming more of a problem here in Canada, people having to travel to the U.S. or overseas to have life saving surgery because the hospital and surgery waiting times are so long. Medical and hospital care is paid for by OHIP here. Had they done the surgery here, he would not have had to pay for anything.'
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Jan 21, 2007 21:01:43 GMT -5
Political Humor By Will Durst
Spanking The Diaper
I don’t know if you’ve heard about this, but its exactly the kind of news that compels perfectly sane people to throw their arms up in the air, bang their foreheads against brick walls, and devote the rest of their lives to eating raw cookie dough out of plastic tubs in the basement while watching Jessica Fletcher overturn police incompetence on the Biography Channel. And what the hell is “Murder, She Wrote” doing on the Biography Channel in the first place? But that diatribe is best left for another day.
Today’s harangue concerns Democratic California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber and her plan to introduce a bill to the legislature (“hello bill,” “hello legislature”) that will make parental spanking a crime if the child is three years or younger, labeling it misdemeanor child abuse. That’s right, “spank your offspring, go to jail,” is about to become law. “Neglect to stroke a pony, pay a fine” is on the docket for next year. And the “Polyester Banky Ban?” Still stuck in conference.
Now don’t get me wrong, I understand Ms. Lieber’s motivation. As a card carrying member of the Mommy Party, she is unable to control her insatiable urge to protect us from ourselves. And she’s seriously anti-child abuse. But then again, aren’t we all? And that’s a good thing. But come on. Do we really need a law here? Aren’t most slaps to the bottom more of a Pavolovian response training exercise anyway? Throw a tantrum, get a smack. Repeat until salivation occurs. Besides, unless its full, spanking a diaper is like dropping a dime on a pillow. And when full, its an exercise neither the spanker or spankee is likely to forget. Or more importantly, anxious to duplicate.
I’m curious as to exactly how the honorable Assemblywoman proposes parents discipline their darling nippers in the event they toss the toaster into the tropical fish tank. Perhaps a squirt gun to the back of the head like you use to keep cats off of furniture? Or temporary exile to a terrarium upholstered in a fetching array of bubble wrap? Or replacing “Teletubbies” with tapes of the last season’s “The Apprentice?” If Donald Trump doesn’t constitute cruel and unusual, I don’t know what does.
Mostly though, what worries me is misdemeanor rug rat abuse creep. How soon before the legislature is asked to outlaw stern looks, unseemly scents and substandard nose nuzzling? All very traumatizing to our miniature progeny. Isn’t the simple act of an adult walking past a crawling moppet sheer intimidation through sizism? Passing a toddler? Get down on all fours mister. And put that beer in a sippy cup. “A pacifier for all my friends.” Not to mention the booming adult voice has to be a terrifying thing, so infractions of the decibel meter will be financially penalized via a complex geometric formula involving frequency and frequency.
Once you cross the cherub protection threshold, a gibberish translator to protect the little angel’s fragile sense of self esteem, easily compromised by formalized language seems to be a logical leap. And picking up a wee bairn and thrusting them up towards the ceiling with extended arms or riding them on one’s shoulders? Flagrant reinforcement of an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. All I’m saying here is, its a slippery slope, Ms Lieber. One that involves hunching way over and whispering and squirt guns and rampant sheep shearing and grown men sucking on nipples. And who wants that?
|
|
|
Post by mary on Feb 4, 2007 12:28:47 GMT -5
Hillary and the Politics of Children by Stephen Baskerville (more by this author) Posted: 01/24/2007 Hillary Clinton chose to kick off her presidential campaign by invoking images of -- what else? -- children. Her healthcare policy would target "millions of children whose families today cannot afford care." Not the families of the children. Hillary prefers to work directly with the children themselves rather than their parents. "We are talking about health care for children in need, which is about as safe an issue as there is," said Ken Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College. Safe for a candidate perhaps, but safe for the children and our nation it is not. In casting her questionable health care ideas as a measure “for the children,” Hillary is returning us to the darkest days of her husband’s administration, when a broad range of intrusive government measures were cynically couched as concern for children. This is more than just another politician kissing babies. It represents one of the most destructive (and successful) strategies of the feminist Left in recent years: the exploitation of children as political weapons. Hillary is not alone. "Democrats across the board are putting children at the center of their imagery and message," according to the Washington Post. "Earlier this month, Rep. Nancy Pelosi made a vivid impression by assuming the House speakership surrounded by a squadron of young grandchildren. Sen. Barbara Boxer recently questioned whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not having family of her own, could understand the stakes in Iraq." And, of course, a Democratic California assemblywoman wants to criminalize spanking. The trend may be traced to Hillary’s mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, who admitted she founded the Children’s Defense Fund in the early 1970s upon realizing that the country was weary of the broader New Left agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” Edelman’s achievement was “to put children squarely in the front of almost every domestic policy debate,” according to the late Barbara Olson. In her book on the former First Lady, Olson writes, “For Hillary, children are the levers by which one forces social change.” Largely through Hillary, this motif dominated Bill Clinton’s presidency. “Children,” wrote liberal columnist Richard Cohen, “have been an obsession for this administration.” His point is borne out by the words of its officials. “Government has got to ensure that parents are old enough, wise enough, and able to care for their children,” Attorney General Janet Reno insisted. Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala was especially zealous for government child-rearing, envisioning a future kindergartener who “will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States.” One does not have to be a Clinton-basher to see this eerily close to Aldous Huxley’s prophecy of a totalitarian dystopia. Praising Hillary's book, "It Takes a Village," for its message that "each of us -- society as a whole -- bears responsibility for all children, even other people's children," professors Stewart Friedman and Jeffrey Greenhaus insist that we "must be prepared to make the most of the brave new world lying in the future." "Success in the brave new world." they add, "requires skills found more among women than men." This is far from harmless, either for public policy or for children themselves. Political scientist Jean Bethke Elshtain writes that “The replacements for parents and families would not be a happy, consensual world of children coequal with adults but one in which children became clients of institutionally powerful social bureaucrats and engineers of all sorts for whom they would serve as so much grist for the mill of extra-familial schemes and ambitions.” This is precisely what is suggested in Hillary’s aphorism: “There is no such thing as other people’s children.” Hillary rejects the notion that “families are private, nonpolitical units whose interests subsume those of children” and believes instead in “the status of children as political beings.” Feminist-influenced legal practitioners now openly advocate that traditional parental authority be replaced by bureaucrats: “For those who would like to have the State use its power and resources to improve the lives of children, parental rights constitute the greatest legal obstacle to government intervention to protect children from harmful parenting practices and to state efforts to assume greater authority over the care and education of children.” These words are published in the California Law Review, a mainstream journal that asks “why parents should have any child-rearing rights at all.” “Parental child-rearing rights are illegitimate,” declared attorney James Dwyer. “No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.” A popular joke holds that within the family mom makes the minor decisions, such as how to raise the children, while dad concerns himself with important questions, like how to achieve world peace. This joke is now grimly writ large in public policy. Conservatives who allow their attention to be monopolized by foreign policy and government finance and leave family policy to liberals from the “Mommy Party” will discover only once it is too late the power of “the hand that rocks the cradle.” Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19096
|
|
|
Post by mary on Feb 4, 2007 12:31:20 GMT -5
How the Government Creates Child Abuse by Stephen Baskerville (more by this author) Posted: 04/13/2006 Just in time for "Child Abuse Prevention Month," the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes its annual contribution to obfuscating the causes of child abuse. Operatives of the child abuse industry often wax righteous about the "scandal" of child abuse. "We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child," says an HHS press release. But the real scandal is the armies of officials who have been allowed to acquire -- using taxpayers' dollars -- a vested interest in abused children. Devising child abuse programs makes us all feel good, but there is no evidence they make the slightest difference. In fact, they probably make the problem worse. Child abuse is largely a product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work industries. It is a textbook example of the government creating a problem for itself to solve. Child abuse is entirely preventable. A few decades ago, there was no child abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the divorce revolution. It continues because of entrenched interests who are employed pretending to combat it. A few undisputed facts will establish this -- facts that are passed over and even distorted year after year by HHS and others whose budgets depend on abused children. Almost all child abuse takes places in single parent homes. A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present than in an intact family. HHS has its own figures demonstrating that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in two-parent homes. Yet this basic fact is consistently omitted from its annual report. Shorn of euphemism, what this means is that the principal impediment to child abuse is a father. "The presence of the father … placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," conclude scholars in the journal Adolescent and Family Health. "The protective effect from the father's presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators." In fact, the risk of "paternal perpetrators" is miniscule. Contrary to the innuendo of child abuse "advocates," it is not married fathers but single mothers who are by far the most likely to injure and kill their children. "Contrary to public perception," write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, "research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child's mother, not a male in the household." Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders, according to a Justice Department report (1,100 out of 2,000, with fathers committing 130). Here again, HHS itself has figures that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: "almost two-thirds were females." Given that "male" perpetrators are not usually fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers. While men are thought more likely to commit sexual as opposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse is much less common than severe physical abuse and much more likely to be perpetrated by boyfriends and stepfathers. "Children are seven times more likely to be badly beaten by their parents than they are to be sexually abused by them," according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The NSPCC found that father-daughter incest is "rare, occurring in less than 4 in 1,000 children," and that three-fourths of incest perpetrators are brothers and stepbrothers rather than fathers. HHS's own figures show that reported sexual abuse is a tiny minority of reported child abuse, and of this little is committed by real fathers. The Journal of Ethnology and Sociobiology reports that a preschooler not living with both biological parents is forty times more likely to be sexually abused. Yet feminists would have us believe that father-daughter incest is rampant, and conservatives credulously swallow their propaganda. A recent PBS documentary, "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," asserts without evidence and contrary to known scientific data that "Children are most often in danger from the father." Feminist child protection agents implement this propaganda as policy. "One scholarly study concluded that "An anti-male attitude is often found in documents, statements, and in the writings of those claiming to be experts in cases of child sexual abuse." Social service agencies systematically teach children to hate their fathers and inculcate in the children a message that the father has sexually molested them. "The professionals use techniques that teach children a negative and critical view of men in general and fathers in particular," the authors write. "The child is repeatedly reinforced for fantasizing throwing Daddy in jail and is trained to hate and fear him." A San Diego grand jury investigative report found that false accusations during divorce were positively encouraged by government officials. "The system appears to reward a parent who initiates such a complaint," it states. "Some of these involve allegations which are so incredible that authorities should have been deeply concerned for the protection of the child." Such behavior by officials is driven by federal financial incentives. "The social workers and therapists played pivotal roles in condoning this," charged the grand jury. "They were helped by judges and referees." Seldom does public policy stand in such direct defiance of undisputed truths, to the point where the cause of the problem -- separating children from their fathers -- is presented as the solution, and the solution -- allowing children to grow up with their fathers -- is depicted as the problem. If you want to encourage child abuse, remove the fathers. That is precisely what officials do -- not only social workers but also family court judges. It is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children. On the contrary, if they do not they may be punished by the bar associations, feminist groups, and social work bureaucracies whose earnings and funding depend on a constant supply of abused children. It is a commonplace of political science that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the problem they exist to address. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a huge army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Related Articles The Predator Next Door by Linda Chavez Working Like a Horse by Jay D. Homnick A conservative tribute to Barbaro Southern Culture Under Siege by Ivy J. Sellers Liberals attempt to make South politically correct A Draconian Double Standard on Drugs by Steve Chapman Libertarians on Drugs by Mac Johnson Biochemistry trumps free will every time The Larger Tragedy in the Duke 'Rape' Case by Thomas Sowell More by This Author Hillary and the Politics of Children by Stephen Baskerville Conservatives need to step in before it's too late How HHS Bullies North Dakota Citizens by Stephen Baskerville and Mitchell S. Sanderson Department: No broken families, no federal money Which Party Will Win the Parents' Vote? by Stephen Baskerville Why Republicans have failed to court parents Phyllis Schlafly and New Politics of Family by Stephen Baskerville Conservative stalwart foresaw threats to society A Primer Against Gay Marriage by Stephen Baskerville If most people oppose it, why has the majority been muted? www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13996
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Feb 19, 2007 23:19:47 GMT -5
Politicians once had the respect of citizens but that is changing
By Eileen Sylvester The Hamilton Spectator (Feb 16, 2007)
Greed begets poverty.
Never have there been so many eager to grasp onto the almighty dollar, legitimately or otherwise. Never have there been so many struggling to grasp onto whatever remains after paying for the basic necessities of life -- food, shelter and clothing. For proof of this, simply visit our local food banks.
What was once referred to as "the middle class" is rapidly disappearing. We are becoming richer or we are becoming poorer.
While our Queen's Park politicians feel the need for a whopping 25 per cent increase to salaries between $100,000 and $200,000, funds required to keep libraries and music in our schools are diminishing.
Life-sustaining drugs are gradually (and surreptitiously) being deleted from Ontario's Health Plan.
Patients lined up outside operating rooms are advised at zero-hour that their surgeries have been cancelled but will be re-booked -- a decision that affects not just the patients but their families, financially and emotionally.
While the "little guy" faces a court of law for the smallest infraction, millions of dollars are offered as severance payments to morally challenged public-sector executives. However such actions are glossed over with fancy phrases, the average person cannot help but look on this as a reward for deceit and incompetence.
Carolyn Buck, the executive director of the Toronto Children's Aid Society, states that her job is very stressful. Of course it is. That's why she is paid an annual salary of more than $150,000 plus a rather extensive expense account. And now she feels additional perks are justified?
Everyone experiences stress in the workplace in one form or another, right down to the lowliest basic wage earner.
Speaking of basic wages, Premier Dalton McGuinty has agreed to a 25-cent-an-hour increase in Ontario's minimum wage. A private member's bill to raise that minimum wage by $2.25 to $10 an hour made it only to a second reading. McGuinty is quoted as saying, "the large jump was impractical."
Well, let me tell you, Premier McGuinty, the people of Ontario, those citizens you promised to serve so honestly and diligently, feel strongly the 25 per cent increase in your own pay is "impractical."
I could go on but further examples of wealth versus poverty would serve no purpose. While the poor are reaching out with empty bowls, begging "More, sir?' the politicians are turning a blind eye as they scurry by on their way to the bank.
There was a time many years ago when the people of Ontario had respect and confidence in their government. No more. We no longer have trust in our leaders.
We are intelligent people -- intelligent enough to realize that those who make the laws are the first to break them.
Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Feb 20, 2007 21:56:51 GMT -5
Willcocks column: Disturbing signs of government drift British Columbians wanted government action — but they got a tax cut Column by Paul Willcocks, Times Colonist Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Where the heck did this budget come from? The government spent a whack of money trying to find out what you wanted in the financial plan, sending a promotional flyer to every home in the province and a committee of MLAs around B.C. to hold hearings
Tax cuts weren’t high on anyone’s list — not even the business community’s.
Individuals and organizations told the government they were worried about health care, education and issues like addictions and homelessness. From Cranbrook to Campbell River, the public said government should make delivering services the priority.
And they were even willing to pay for them.
But Finance Minister Carole Taylor confirmed yesterday that the government has a different ideological bent. “We as a government have always run on the policy of lowering income taxes when we can,” she said.
So, out of nowhere, an across-the-board 10-per-cent tax cut on the first $100,000 in income, phased in this year and next.
For someone making $30,000, the cut will be worth $67 this year and $134 in 2008. For someone at $120,000, the gain will be $430 and $864.
The government claimed the tax cuts are part of a housing policy, the theme for this year’s budget being “building a housing legacy.” (Last year, Taylor said the budget was “about the little ones.” This year, government cut $40 million from the children and families budget. Staying power is an issue for these people.)
In fact, the tax cut is by far the largest and most ineffectual part of the housing commitment. The government claims it’s allocating $2 billion over four years to help British Columbians “address their housing needs and the challenge of home affordability.”
But about $1.5 billion of that tally is based on the value of the tax cuts.
And while it’s nice to pay less tax, can anyone argue with a straight face that a tax cut worth $25 a month to a typical family is really the centrepiece of an effective housing strategy?
Or that the $515 million a year in foregone revenue could not have made a great difference in improving health care or addressing drug-related crime — or providing targeted housing programs?
The other housing measures might be useful; it’s too early to say based on the limited information.
The other striking thing about this budget is how much is left up in the air, in way that might make sense for a government in its first year or two but is worrying after six years in power.
There’s no real health-care plan after this year. Instead the government has built its budget by simply allocating enough money for wage increases in the following two fiscal years. Any additional funding, for population increases or cost pressures or needed services, will have to be found within a limited contingency fund.
If the conversation on health results in a commitment to invest in care, or preventive efforts, that money will have to be found in the same contingency funds.
The big restructuring of the children and families ministry, which was originally supposed to be complete long ago now, has been put off until 2009 or 2010.
If there’s an interim strategy, it remains hidden.
Even on climate change, the issue that dominated the throne speech, the government has no real plan behind the urgent words. Taylor’s budget speech talked about a $103-million environmental commitment over four years. Almost half of that goes to buy 20 hydrogen buses; the rest covers small programs.
The only funding directly linked to all those greenhouse gas targets Premier Gordon Campbell talked about is $4 million this year to fund a climate change office.
It will try and figure out short-term greenhouse gas reduction goals and the actions needed to reach them after broad consultations. If those actions cost money, that too will have to come out of the contingency funds for future years.
It’s not a terrible budget. The province is projecting strong economic growth for the next five years and big surpluses through the next three. There’s no wild spending or cutting.
But it shows a baffling disconnect between the realities of life in B.C., as experienced by ordinary citizens, and the government’s choices.
The public was clear. We wanted better education, health care and social services, and were willing to pay for them.
The government’s biggest single priority — ahead of health care, climate change, housing and the rest — was a tax cut.
Maybe the Liberals just aren’t sure what needs to be done on the big issues. Maybe they simply don’t see a role for government in dealing with them, preferring tax cuts.
But British Columbians said that they’re worried about the state of basic services, from emergency rooms to schools, and wanted the government to do more.
It’s risky for any government to choose ideology and ignore the public’s wishes.
pwillcocks@tc.canwest.com
|
|
bluebird3
Full Member
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Posts: 39
|
Post by bluebird3 on Feb 22, 2007 13:33:46 GMT -5
Yes I agree Dean. We need to get rid of thous Liberals once and for all. I vote NDP
|
|
|
Post by td on Feb 22, 2007 17:39:44 GMT -5
WELL DEAN AS YOU KNOW NOT ALL THE FILES ARE UP! ESPECIAL THOSE FROM THIS FALL!, BUT IF THEY (NDP) WANT MATERIAL TO GO AFTER BOTH BILL 88, FOR THE OMBUDSMAN, AS WELL AS THE THREE LIBERALS, MARTELL(THOUGH FEDERAL) BARTILUCHI AND BONNIN, FOR ONCE YOU READ THE FILE, JUDGE SARRE`S COVER UP OF C.A.S.`S CRIMES(OCT.31.2006), YOU WILL READ HOW THEY ALL KNEW AND DID NOTHING!, dean,rob, if the file dont go up!, get aholed of bizzi he can get it to you!
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Feb 28, 2007 20:00:59 GMT -5
Ont. crime compensation board 'colossal failure': ombudsman Last Updated: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 | 1:55 PM ET CBC News
Ontario's board responsible for compensating victims of crime is in "deplorable shape," suffers from a "document fetish" and forces people through a gruelling bureaucratic process, the province's ombudsman said.
"The board has become so dysfunctional that it often causes more frustration and hurt to crime victims than it relieves," Andre Marin said in his report "Adding Insult to Injury," released Tuesday.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is an arm of the provincial attorney general's office charged with assisting crime victims.
"With its rule-obsessed, paper-shuffling culture, its pace is glacial," Marin said. "Far from serving as the comfort to victims it was intended to be, it denies them closure through cruel delays."
It takes three years for a person to get compensation, Marin said, and victims must go through a "gruelling process" that "greets victims of crime with bureaucratic indifference and suspicion.
"It is one of those organizations that craves officialdom and relishes red tape," he said.
"As a result, instead of providing relief, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board too often adds insult to injury."
Marin blames the "colossal failure" of the board on successive Ontario governments, which, he claims, have broken the law by not providing proper funding.
Marin accused the governments of "posing as victims rights advocates, [and] watching the process harm the very people it was meant to help."
He said governments have known about the problems for years but have consistently refused to act. Marin lists 'appalling stories'
As for the board itself, they have no special training in how to deal with traumatized people and are instead obsessed with the proper procedures for filling out forms, Marin said.
"The board appears to suffer from an official document fetish."
He lists the "appalling stories" of victims who have had to deal with the board, which include:
* A man whose five-year-old daughter was raped and murdered who was treated as though he was trying to scam the board of money to pay for her funeral. * A mother of a murder victim "berated" for forgetting her file number. * A blind retiree who had to chose between buying food and burying her murdered daughter.
Marin launched an investigation after an increasing number of complaints to the ombudsman's office by people who felt they were revictimized by the board's actions.
He called on the Ministry of the Attorney General to immediately provide more resources to the board.
The board must "replace a culture of survival with one of support and caring, lest it continue to do more harm than good," Marin said.
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Feb 28, 2007 20:55:24 GMT -5
I think this is something we should be following.
Lets see what direct effect or impact an ombudsman will have on this problem.
I see CAS as an agency as equally responsible to the public as the Victims of Crime board. Whatever the ombudsman's reaction or "action" is, on this particular catastrophe, will no doubt, be the same for complaints against the CAS.
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Mar 2, 2007 19:00:45 GMT -5
McGuinty shifts focus to children, climate April Lindgren The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, March 02, 2007
TORONTO - Cleaning up the environment and helping children, particularly poor children, will be the focus of government policies in this month's provincial budget and in the fall election, Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday.
"In the short term, you'll see us move more on children and climate change," Mr. McGuinty told a crowd gathered for the Liberal party's $800-a-plate heritage dinner, despite a major winter storm in Toronto.
"Nearly one million children in Ontario are growing up poor. I'm encouraged that they attend school in smaller classes. But I'm worried that far too many aren't coming to school ready to learn."
On climate change, Mr. McGuinty insisted that Ontario will play its "part in the fight against climate change and we will do so in a way that is good for our economy. You can grow and be green at the same time."
The Liberals were badly shaken last month after their fourth byelection loss to the NDP since 2004.
In the most recent race, the Liberals, who had won York South-Weston with nearly 62 per cent of the vote in the 2003 election, saw that advantage collapse after New Democrats campaigned on demands for a $10 minimum wage in one of the poorest ridings in the province.
Mr. McGuinty insisted last night that in addition to "not putting our tools down ... we're not for turning right or left either."
But following their last byelection loss, Finance Minister Greg Sorbara said he will work on a "basket of tools," including changes to the income-tax act, "so that we can say that without doubt, we've changed the circumstances of the poor in Ontario."
He said yesterday that the fourth and final budget of the McGuinty government will be delivered March 22.
Conservative Tim Hudak described the budget's timing as "suspicious," coming as it does just a few days after the federal budget.
Any new federal money coming to the province "won't be counted in the Ontario budget, so it will be bonus money for more reckless Liberal spending," Mr. Hudak said, noting provincial spending is forecast to be $90.6 billion in 2007-08, up from $68.7 billion in 2002-03, the last full year of the Conservative government.
|
|
|
Post by REALITY on Mar 3, 2007 8:18:44 GMT -5
Ontario injuries board gets $20-million
KEITH LESLIE
Canadian Press
Toronto — Ontario's Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will receive $20-million to clear a backlog of cases and provide new services to victims, the province announced Friday on the heels of a blistering report from the ombudsman.
The Canadian Press has learned the government has also asked Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry to come up with a new framework for victim support and compensation after holding public consultations.
“I can't think of a more suitable leader to help us overhaul the compensation system to improve victims services,” Attorney General Michael Bryant said in a release, a draft copy of which was obtained by CP.
Ombudsman Andre Marin's report on Tuesday said the agency entrusted to compensate crime victims was a “colossal failure” that hurts those it's supposed to help by treating them “like rats in a maze.”
Over half of the new money, $12.75-million, will go to directly compensate victims of violent crime, while another $2-million will be used to hire more staff at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to speed up the compensation process.
Mr. Bryant's release said $6-million would be used to create new programs to help victims in the immediate aftermath of violent crime, including money to cover funeral expenses for families of homicide victims.
There will also be new money available to help with child care, install new locks or windows and to provide counselling to victims of the most serious crimes.
“These new initiatives address the ombudsman's recommendations and will help ensure quick improvements to the way victims are compensated and supported,” said Mr. Bryant.
In his scathing report, entitled “Adding Insult to Injury,” Mr. Marin called the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board “government's dirty little secret,” and blasted successive governments for under funding it.
The board embraced “lethargy and delay as a survival tactic” while treating victims as if they were con artists trying to scam the system for money, said Mr. Marin.
It takes an average of three years to process a crime victim's compensation claim in Ontario, compared with two months in Quebec and up to six months in British Columbia — both of which process many more claims than Ontario.
|
|