Weapons-grade uranium that for years has been transported north into Canada from the United States is now being quietly returned over the same roads in a more radioactive and potentially dangerous form.
The two biggest threats posed by the transport of the material are the catastrophe that could result from an accident or spill, and the interest that terrorist organizations may have in stealing it for use in weapons of mass destruction.
A confidential federal memo obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act says at least one payload of spent, U.S.-origin, highly enriched uranium fuel has already been moved stateside under an agreement signed last year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama.
The deal was part of a broader international project by the Obama administration to consolidate highly enriched uranium at fewer, more secure sites around the world. The U.S. government says it wants to convert the uranium into a form that cannot be used to build nuclear weapons.
For the past two decades, the United States has been sending Canada highly enriched uranium to run the National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River, Ont., which remains one of the world’s top suppliers of nuclear isotopes.
On its trip north from the United States, it is in the form that is most desired by terrorists, said Norm Rubin, the director of nuclear research at Energy Probe, a public policy research institute. “It is totally stealable and bomb-useable on its way up.”
When it has served its purpose, the new agreement requires it to be returned to the United States.
“In the reactor it turns nasty. But nasty is better that nice, in a way because you don’t have to worry as much about thieves stealing the nasty stuff that will kill them immediately as you do about the stuff that you can carry in your hands,” Mr. Rubin said.
On the other hand, he said, there are likely to be terrorist groups that would still want it to make it into “dirty bombs” where the radioactivity, and not the explosion, would do the damage.
And any mishap on the highway with such highly radioactive material could have disastrous results, Mr. Rubin said.
The government says there has never been a significant transport accident involving nuclear materials anywhere in the world, and that such shipments occur regularly in Canada. But Mr. Rubin said that is not true. While Canada has been unscathed, he said, around the world “there have been lost and busted bombs, truck crashes, fires, etc.”
Canada maintains a large inventory of the highly enriched material and the continued shipments back to the United States are scheduled to take place until 2018. They are protected by intense security protocol, which means specifics such as routes, transportation method, quantities and schedules remain top-secret.
Claude Gravelle, the Natural Resources critic for the federal New Democrats, said it’s wrong to leave Canadians in the dark about the hazardous materials that are being transported in and around their communities.
“I can understand that it’s security,” Mr. Gravelle said, “but still they should have some public consultation.”
Requests for comment from the federal government went unanswered Tuesday.
A ministerial memorandum, classified as “Secret” that was obtained by The Canadian Press says the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission considers it unnecessary to hold public sessions that would allow citizens to ask questions and comment on the shipments.
That same memorandum, dated Feb. 25, 2011, points out that recent hearings for another nuclear-shipment case generated intense public and media interest. The controversy has stalled the project to ship 16 generators from a Bruce Power nuclear plant through the Great Lakes, up the St. Lawrence River and on to Europe.
Picture
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Popular Posts
-
The God Business: Church -Tax Exemption
-
Many world cities could face financial collapse in 2011
-
Design with No Designer?
-
How has information control evolved under Harper?
-
USA Oregon -doctors legally prescribe a life-ending drug
-
10 Best IT Practices for Smartphone Security
-
Nova Scotia Labour Standards
-
Canada is the world’s most expensive country ..
-
A case study on first nations poverty
-
Alberta miffed that some U.S. retailers are boycotting or avoiding oilsands oil
Canada - health care system?
Canada - health care system?
The number of doctors – there are nearly 70,000 – and their salaries are both at all-time highs. More Canadians have a family doctor than in years past, proof that progress has been made. But access to them is among the worst in the world. How can that be?
Only half (its worse in the Maritime region) of Canadians are able to see their doctors the same day they become sick. Queues for specialists are especially worrisome, with 41 per cent of patients waiting two months or more, according to The Commonwealth Fund’s study of 11 countries.
Canadians shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking poor access is the inevitable consequence of a publicly-funded health care system. Patients in the Netherlands and Germany have rapid access to specialists, much like Americans where private care prevails. Our system is simply not efficient.
New research shows that the average family physician in Canada billed the public purse $239,000, while the average specialist billed $341,000. Alberta leads the way with the most generous compensation in Canada, according to 2010 figures.
The Ontario government has already signaled it wants doctors to accept a two-year pay freeze when their contract comes up in March, something that is likely to have strong public support.
The next question is about the service patients are receiving for the almost $19-billion a year they spend on physicians.
The privilege of being doctors who have a monopoly on providing medical care carries with it an ethical, social responsibility. That should include making patients the centre of care; there are many ways to achieve that.
More physicians should have advance access scheduling, where slots are kept open for sick patients. Demand for doctor services could be reduced by eliminating unnecessary follow-up visits or handling minor issues by e-mail or telephone. Physicians could blitz backlogs by working extra hours or hiring help.
Triage systems – especially for surgery – could save patients and surgeons unnecessary visits and whittle down backlogs. Patients wait months to see a surgeon only to learn they are not eligible for an operation. Having other health professionals triage patients early on would get them the right care at the quickest time, an initiative in which governments could assist.
Canadians have paid top dollar to buy change in the health-care system. They have bought more doctors, but they haven’t yet got a more efficient system.
Canadian apathy will always end up with this result?
The number of doctors – there are nearly 70,000 – and their salaries are both at all-time highs. More Canadians have a family doctor than in years past, proof that progress has been made. But access to them is among the worst in the world. How can that be?
Only half (its worse in the Maritime region) of Canadians are able to see their doctors the same day they become sick. Queues for specialists are especially worrisome, with 41 per cent of patients waiting two months or more, according to The Commonwealth Fund’s study of 11 countries.
Canadians shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking poor access is the inevitable consequence of a publicly-funded health care system. Patients in the Netherlands and Germany have rapid access to specialists, much like Americans where private care prevails. Our system is simply not efficient.
New research shows that the average family physician in Canada billed the public purse $239,000, while the average specialist billed $341,000. Alberta leads the way with the most generous compensation in Canada, according to 2010 figures.
The Ontario government has already signaled it wants doctors to accept a two-year pay freeze when their contract comes up in March, something that is likely to have strong public support.
The next question is about the service patients are receiving for the almost $19-billion a year they spend on physicians.
The privilege of being doctors who have a monopoly on providing medical care carries with it an ethical, social responsibility. That should include making patients the centre of care; there are many ways to achieve that.
More physicians should have advance access scheduling, where slots are kept open for sick patients. Demand for doctor services could be reduced by eliminating unnecessary follow-up visits or handling minor issues by e-mail or telephone. Physicians could blitz backlogs by working extra hours or hiring help.
Triage systems – especially for surgery – could save patients and surgeons unnecessary visits and whittle down backlogs. Patients wait months to see a surgeon only to learn they are not eligible for an operation. Having other health professionals triage patients early on would get them the right care at the quickest time, an initiative in which governments could assist.
Canadians have paid top dollar to buy change in the health-care system. They have bought more doctors, but they haven’t yet got a more efficient system.
Canadian apathy will always end up with this result?
Noblesse oblige is out
Those who thought the Harper government would ease up a bit after winning a majority were wrong. Noblesse oblige is out, or, rather, was never in. If anything, the Harper government is more bullying, scornful of dissent, intent on controlling every utterance, contemptuous of the media and determined to carry on political war at all times and by all means.
More related to this story
The Conservative war machine engaged in what House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer called this week “reprehensible” conduct in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal. There, the Conservatives hired a firm to phone voters and tell them that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was thinking of resigning.
This rumour was completely false, but it spread doubts. It was undoubtedly designed for the ears of Jewish voters, who are plentiful in that riding and who’ve been moving en masse to the Conservatives, who’ve lined up what passes for a Canadian Middle East policy with every desire of the Israeli government.
The notion that Mr. Cotler has been anything but a devoted supporter of Israel throughout his life is insulting. But so far has the Jewish community swung behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Middle East that Mr. Cotler stands accused by Conservatives, unbelievably, of not being supportive enough of a state he loves.
This kind of ethnic politics is omnipresent in the Conservatives’ calculations. The finger-wagging of Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself before the Commonwealth conference against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government played wonderfully among Toronto’s Tamils. Obviously, the Conservatives have targeted yet another ethnic group for harvesting, and are bending Canada’s traditional policy of trying to bring groups together for domestic political gain.
In the Commons, the government is using closure repeatedly. Faced with an adverse decision from the Federal Court against its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the government waved the ruling aside and said it would proceed.
Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.
Still with the courts, the Quebec government asked for the records of the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry. The government so dislikes the registry that it wants to expunge every trace that it ever existed, the way certain authoritarian governments airbrushed from old photographs people whose views they didn’t like. As a result, the Quebec government is taking the Harper government to court so it doesn’t destroy the records.
Information is as tightly controlled as ever. Everything runs through the central information machine in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Hill Times recently documented how the number of information officers had exploded under the Harper government. Its job is to conceal as much information as possible and to make public only bits of spin. Civil servants are still under strict orders not to provide information to people outside the government without the written consent of the central authorities.
At the United Nations climate conference in Durban, by way of telling illustration, The Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York reported that the Canadian room was closed, in contrast to the rooms of other delegations. Opposition critics on the environment weren’t invited. If they wanted to attend, even as parliamentarians, they had to pay their own way. They would undoubtedly have chastised the government, for that is what opposition MPs do, and that’s why the government didn’t extend invitations.
Speaking of dissent, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued another report on the state of the deficit. His report did not jibe with government assertions. The Finance Minister just said the PBO is “wrong” and carried on.
We might have thought that, with the prospect of four more years in office, the government might be somewhat less paranoid, controlling, doctrinaire and relentlessly partisan. Forget that naiveté.
More related to this story
The Conservative war machine engaged in what House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer called this week “reprehensible” conduct in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal. There, the Conservatives hired a firm to phone voters and tell them that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was thinking of resigning.
This rumour was completely false, but it spread doubts. It was undoubtedly designed for the ears of Jewish voters, who are plentiful in that riding and who’ve been moving en masse to the Conservatives, who’ve lined up what passes for a Canadian Middle East policy with every desire of the Israeli government.
The notion that Mr. Cotler has been anything but a devoted supporter of Israel throughout his life is insulting. But so far has the Jewish community swung behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Middle East that Mr. Cotler stands accused by Conservatives, unbelievably, of not being supportive enough of a state he loves.
This kind of ethnic politics is omnipresent in the Conservatives’ calculations. The finger-wagging of Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself before the Commonwealth conference against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government played wonderfully among Toronto’s Tamils. Obviously, the Conservatives have targeted yet another ethnic group for harvesting, and are bending Canada’s traditional policy of trying to bring groups together for domestic political gain.
In the Commons, the government is using closure repeatedly. Faced with an adverse decision from the Federal Court against its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the government waved the ruling aside and said it would proceed.
Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.
Still with the courts, the Quebec government asked for the records of the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry. The government so dislikes the registry that it wants to expunge every trace that it ever existed, the way certain authoritarian governments airbrushed from old photographs people whose views they didn’t like. As a result, the Quebec government is taking the Harper government to court so it doesn’t destroy the records.
Information is as tightly controlled as ever. Everything runs through the central information machine in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Hill Times recently documented how the number of information officers had exploded under the Harper government. Its job is to conceal as much information as possible and to make public only bits of spin. Civil servants are still under strict orders not to provide information to people outside the government without the written consent of the central authorities.
At the United Nations climate conference in Durban, by way of telling illustration, The Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York reported that the Canadian room was closed, in contrast to the rooms of other delegations. Opposition critics on the environment weren’t invited. If they wanted to attend, even as parliamentarians, they had to pay their own way. They would undoubtedly have chastised the government, for that is what opposition MPs do, and that’s why the government didn’t extend invitations.
Speaking of dissent, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued another report on the state of the deficit. His report did not jibe with government assertions. The Finance Minister just said the PBO is “wrong” and carried on.
We might have thought that, with the prospect of four more years in office, the government might be somewhat less paranoid, controlling, doctrinaire and relentlessly partisan. Forget that naiveté.
Noblesse oblige is out
Those who thought the Harper government would ease up a bit after winning a majority were wrong. Noblesse oblige is out, or, rather, was never in. If anything, the Harper government is more bullying, scornful of dissent, intent on controlling every utterance, contemptuous of the media and determined to carry on political war at all times and by all means.
More related to this story
It hurts dancing to supply management’s tune
Remember the Reformers? They’re still here
At last, a cure for government procurement
Photos
His master's voice
The Conservative war machine engaged in what House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer called this week “reprehensible” conduct in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal. There, the Conservatives hired a firm to phone voters and tell them that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was thinking of resigning.
This rumour was completely false, but it spread doubts. It was undoubtedly designed for the ears of Jewish voters, who are plentiful in that riding and who’ve been moving en masse to the Conservatives, who’ve lined up what passes for a Canadian Middle East policy with every desire of the Israeli government.
The notion that Mr. Cotler has been anything but a devoted supporter of Israel throughout his life is insulting. But so far has the Jewish community swung behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Middle East that Mr. Cotler stands accused by Conservatives, unbelievably, of not being supportive enough of a state he loves.
This kind of ethnic politics is omnipresent in the Conservatives’ calculations. The finger-wagging of Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself before the Commonwealth conference against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government played wonderfully among Toronto’s Tamils. Obviously, the Conservatives have targeted yet another ethnic group for harvesting, and are bending Canada’s traditional policy of trying to bring groups together for domestic political gain.
In the Commons, the government is using closure repeatedly. Faced with an adverse decision from the Federal Court against its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the government waved the ruling aside and said it would proceed.
Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.
Still with the courts, the Quebec government asked for the records of the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry. The government so dislikes the registry that it wants to expunge every trace that it ever existed, the way certain authoritarian governments airbrushed from old photographs people whose views they didn’t like. As a result, the Quebec government is taking the Harper government to court so it doesn’t destroy the records.
Information is as tightly controlled as ever. Everything runs through the central information machine in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Hill Times recently documented how the number of information officers had exploded under the Harper government. Its job is to conceal as much information as possible and to make public only bits of spin. Civil servants are still under strict orders not to provide information to people outside the government without the written consent of the central authorities.
At the United Nations climate conference in Durban, by way of telling illustration, The Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York reported that the Canadian room was closed, in contrast to the rooms of other delegations. Opposition critics on the environment weren’t invited. If they wanted to attend, even as parliamentarians, they had to pay their own way. They would undoubtedly have chastised the government, for that is what opposition MPs do, and that’s why the government didn’t extend invitations.
Speaking of dissent, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued another report on the state of the deficit. His report did not jibe with government assertions. The Finance Minister just said the PBO is “wrong” and carried on.
We might have thought that, with the prospect of four more years in office, the government might be somewhat less paranoid, controlling, doctrinaire and relentlessly partisan. Forget that naiveté.
More related to this story
It hurts dancing to supply management’s tune
Remember the Reformers? They’re still here
At last, a cure for government procurement
Photos
His master's voice
The Conservative war machine engaged in what House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer called this week “reprehensible” conduct in the Montreal riding of Mount Royal. There, the Conservatives hired a firm to phone voters and tell them that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler was thinking of resigning.
This rumour was completely false, but it spread doubts. It was undoubtedly designed for the ears of Jewish voters, who are plentiful in that riding and who’ve been moving en masse to the Conservatives, who’ve lined up what passes for a Canadian Middle East policy with every desire of the Israeli government.
The notion that Mr. Cotler has been anything but a devoted supporter of Israel throughout his life is insulting. But so far has the Jewish community swung behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Middle East that Mr. Cotler stands accused by Conservatives, unbelievably, of not being supportive enough of a state he loves.
This kind of ethnic politics is omnipresent in the Conservatives’ calculations. The finger-wagging of Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself before the Commonwealth conference against Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government played wonderfully among Toronto’s Tamils. Obviously, the Conservatives have targeted yet another ethnic group for harvesting, and are bending Canada’s traditional policy of trying to bring groups together for domestic political gain.
In the Commons, the government is using closure repeatedly. Faced with an adverse decision from the Federal Court against its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, the government waved the ruling aside and said it would proceed.
Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.
Still with the courts, the Quebec government asked for the records of the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry. The government so dislikes the registry that it wants to expunge every trace that it ever existed, the way certain authoritarian governments airbrushed from old photographs people whose views they didn’t like. As a result, the Quebec government is taking the Harper government to court so it doesn’t destroy the records.
Information is as tightly controlled as ever. Everything runs through the central information machine in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Hill Times recently documented how the number of information officers had exploded under the Harper government. Its job is to conceal as much information as possible and to make public only bits of spin. Civil servants are still under strict orders not to provide information to people outside the government without the written consent of the central authorities.
At the United Nations climate conference in Durban, by way of telling illustration, The Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York reported that the Canadian room was closed, in contrast to the rooms of other delegations. Opposition critics on the environment weren’t invited. If they wanted to attend, even as parliamentarians, they had to pay their own way. They would undoubtedly have chastised the government, for that is what opposition MPs do, and that’s why the government didn’t extend invitations.
Speaking of dissent, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued another report on the state of the deficit. His report did not jibe with government assertions. The Finance Minister just said the PBO is “wrong” and carried on.
We might have thought that, with the prospect of four more years in office, the government might be somewhat less paranoid, controlling, doctrinaire and relentlessly partisan. Forget that naiveté.
The God Business: Church -Tax Exemption
The God Business:
Questioning Tax Exemptions – The Church - update
All over Canada, in every small community, huge sums of money are being denied to residents through the tax exemptions given to major businesses. This is money which could be used to build playgrounds and parks, provide nursing homes for the elderly, youth recreation programs for teenagers, community centers for the use of all, libraries, health clinics, hospitals, animal shelters, fire halls, water treatment plants, road repairs, schools - all things that are vital to the fabric of civilization. Unfortunately, all these things are expensive and difficult for the average tax payer to support. In this time of fiscal restraint, when all our social and medical programs are being threatened, we must seriously look at why some segments of our communities are exempt from contributing their fair share.
I was trying ( and I am still trying )to find information on the total or individual tax exemptions of the Churches of Nova Scotia..any churches would do, but in particular the Roman Catholic Church.I found some old figures on the net of old data relating to the city of Vancouver. I use this information for demonstration purposes only.
The majority of people who live here are hard-working, middle-income citizens, who struggle to keep some earnings for recreation after all necessities are paid. Is it really fair to ask these people to subsidize major land holders in their community, particularly when these land holders represent big business firms which are considerably more wealthy than the taxpayers who now support them.
This research via Google searching on of Church property assessment figures came up with information for the Greater Vancouver, B.C. which includes the city and 11 surrounding municipalities with a population of then about 1.3 million, the loss of revenue to the communities becomes apparent. The tax exempt assessed value of churches in the 12 areas totals $854,738,500! The average residential mill rate for the group is 7.309. This represents foregone tax revenue of $6,247,280. If we do rough calculations to include the whole country we conclude that the religious loopholes are getting away without paying taxes of about $160,000,000 in Canada. These figure may be slightly inaccurate but I wonder why cash- starved local governments don't jump at the chance to ask the churches to participate in the community instead of riding free.
SOME break down numbers.
**********************************
RICHMOND
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $118,833,800
1994 population 139,435
DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $19,773,500
1994 population 81,980
CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $4,279,000
1994 population 40,717
WEST VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $10,536,800
1994 population 41,461
NEW WESTMINSTER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $19,039,000
1994 population 47,736
VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $420,105,800
1994 population 508,814
And where does the money from donations to these businesses go? Because these organizations are not required to post accurate financial statements, few contributors realize that their money often goes to purchase stocks, bonds and other property which all become tax exempt as well. Taxpayers are constantly complaining that we should be taxing the big corporations to give relief to the average Joe. Perhaps they just don't realize that churches ARE the big corporations.
We live in a 'democracy' and people are free to adhere to any belief system they fancy. In all fairness to the various citizens who inhabit this country, they should not be forced to surreptitiously support a religion they do not believe in or may even find abhorrent. If you are a Christian, do you really want your money going to support a Christ-killing synagogue? Or perhaps a pedophile priests defense. If you are Jewish, do you want to contribute to the mosques of terrorist infidels? If you are a rational person, do you want good money wasted on promulgating superstitious nonsense?
Canadian citizens can no longer afford to carry free-loaders. For those people who find the idea of taxing religions repugnant, then perhaps they would concede if churches were required to put back into their community an amount equal to their tax assessment. As things stand, it is very doubtful that any church is putting as much into the community as it receives in benefit from being part of that community. As an alternative to taxation, churches could receive recognition for the things they give for use of the general public, providing it is presented without the accompanying propaganda. For example, if a playground was built with the tax assessment money from the local Catholic church, then a little plaque could be erected saying "Donated by St. Mary's Church in lieu of taxes for the year 1996".
This is not an indictment against religion in particular. Religion is a personal and private matter. It should also be one of free choice. This is an indictment of desperately needed money being withheld from communities. It is an indictment against money being given to businesses and organizations without knowledge or consent of donors. More than ever, citizens need honesty, integrity and accountability from organizations within their communities.
Reasons Why Churches Should No Longer Be Tax Exempt?
1. In a true democracy, children would receive a liberal education in the wide variety of religious doctrines available. Then, when they reach the age of consent, these young adults would be able to make an informed choice whether to accept the ideology of any religion in particular. Currently, children are indoctrinated with no opportunity to question the validity of the tenets they are required to embrace.
I ask would the majority of parents be willing to accept a curriculum which included the study of the major religions, leaving other parents with the right to educate their children, after school hours, in the privately supported church of their choice? Is there any reason why various religions would find it unacceptable for their children to obtain a liberal and complete education?
2. Religions often tend to promote hatred against minorities. The most common example is the persecution of homosexuals on religious grounds. Scientists have now uncovered the genetic link to homosexuality. People are born with a specific eye color. Likewise, people are born with a specific sexual orientation. Who has control over the way they are born? God only knows! It is cruel to continue perpetrate hatred against a fragment of the population who have no control over the desires they were born with. Do you know if your donations are being used to perpetuate hatred?
3. Some religious organizations receive taxpayers' money to use terrorist tactics to enforce their will on democratic citizens. An example was the Right To Life Society which openly condones the shootings at abortionist clinics. If you find that harassment and victimization of Canadian citizens is repulsive, then you should be outraged that such organizations receive government and charitable funding. In the United States, families of shooting victims, as well as victims of harassment and stalking, are now proceeding with major lawsuits against organizations which promote hatred and crimes of hate. Would you like to see millions of your dollars being lost because you unknowingly contributed to the terrorist activities of these religious groups?
4. Do you know where the money you donate is being spent? Are you getting the most value for your dollar? Is it spent on things that you believe in? Perhaps you feel that your money should go to help the hungry at a soup kitchen, or go towards a shelter for the homeless. How do you know for sure that it isn't being spent to invest in luxury condos and holiday resorts for the wealthy? Perhaps it is going to purchase weapons to support a holy war, or subversive terrorist activities. Unless you can see a proper financial statement from your church, you have no idea where your money is going.
5. Common law has clearly established that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose. Ask the native Indians just how charitable the purpose of the missionaries was. Natives lived on this land for thousands of years without cutting down a rainforest, or causing the pollution of a stream. Perhaps their pagan gods were much more benevolent than the Christian one they were forced to adopt? It is time to take a serious look at the value of these old accepted laws. Who do they really benefit?
6. It is correct to assume that most parents love their daughters and want the best for them. Why would they choose to support institutions in which women are excluded from positions of importance, where the female body is considered shameful, where the pains of childbirth are punishment for original sin and where women are depicted as wanton temptresses who incite men's desires? Isn't this an assault to the self-esteem of any young girl.?
Some religions are still debating if women have souls. Genital mutilations are done today as a faith ritual. A Muslim man may not pray if he has touched a woman and not washed first. St. Augustine was quoted as saying; "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men." Would everyone in your community want to support a philosophy where men get all the excuses for immoral behavior and women get all the blame? Except for Homosexual behavior now that's another issue
7. Mankind's history on earth has always been violent>. Many parents consider violence to be pornographic. And yet, every holy book is filled with cruel atrocities, hatred, genocide, murder of whole civilizations, women, children and families. Little mercy or understanding is demonstrated for non-believers of a particular doctrine. The books reinforce the primitive "Might is Right" philosophy, with relatively little compassion for women, children or animals. Those who are physically weaker and unable to communicate their needs are in the most need of protection; however the written word ignores these pleas. Furthermore, holy books are filled with pornography, rape, sodomy, incest, adultery and many things that make for unsavory reading for young members of the community.
The two African countries of Rwanda and Burundi are the most Christianized of all the African nations. Unfortunately, birthrates are the highest in Africa because family planning and birth control are outlawed. Schools and hospitals are run by nuns. This has resulted in overcrowding, misery, tribal hatreds and environmental degradation, as well as the most horrendous slaughter and massacre of human beings. The birth control issue is highly hypocritical because the Catholic Church has owned shares in the major birth control producing company, Instituto Farmecologico Sereno, (as exposed in David Yallop's book, In God's Name. )
Almost every religion has a vengeful and cruel god who destroys entire nations on a whim. The holy books have been used as excuses to perform hideous acts against other human beings in the name of heresy and blasphemy. Psychotherapist, Dr. Albert Ellis, has suggested that a cruel and bloody god produces cruel and bloody followers. There seems to be much evidence to support this idea just by reading today's newspapers.
Conversely, hardened criminals can find immediate forgiveness (and possibly early release from prison) by proclaiming their new-found belief. Con men and religious hucksters, who have bilked people out of millions of dollars, can then go forth and confess their sins. Of course, their victims are supposed to be religious enough to forgive the sinner who fleeced them, and so the shell game continues.
Out of respect for non-believers who find many holy books totally offensive, bloody, racist, sexist and pornographic, wouldn't it make more sense to expose their children to these books, when they are old enough to study these concepts objectively?
8. Religious thinking is opposed to free inquiry and scientific investigation. It suppresses a child's natural curiosity and fills them with nightmares of hell and punishment if they dare question things that defy logic or make no sense. The dark ages set the progress of science and medicine back hundreds of years. As late as October, 1992, the Pope forgave Galileo, a seventeenth century scientist, for saying that the earth revolved around the sun.
Religious teachers condemn such ancient books as Homer's Iliad as being false and unproven, but they ignore the fact that Henry and Sophia Schliemann discovered the actual city of Troy in the late 1800's, using only Homer's exact words. Anyone can read the historic account of this discovery by Schliemann himself in Troja: Results Of The Latest Research, 1884, or the biographical account by Irving Stone called The Greek Treasure, 1975. To date, any discovery of Noah's Ark, using the Bible, has proven to be a hoax. This doesn't confirm one way or the other about the existence of Noah's Ark. It just confirms that some ancient manuscripts have proven to be far more accurate than the Bible.
Unfortunately, many religious teachers prey on the gullibility of their followers. A prime example was the television documentary on the discovery of Noah's Ark, which later was proven to be a hoax. In fact, Richard A. Fox won an award for his magazine article that analyzed the program and questioned the authenticity of the story. The article was entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark': An Archaeological Quest?" It appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of Free Inquiry. Any librarian should be able to get a copy. His article was also given national attention in Time magazine. This point is raised only because so many people think that Noah's Ark has actually been discovered and therefore this proves that there really was a Noah who put a gazillion animals into a small boat and managed to survive, in spite of the logical impossibility of this myth.
Religious advocates encourage fantastic thinking and discourage logical investigation. A most recent example is the celebration of holy statues drinking milk. This "miracle" occurs because the statues are made of a porous material. They would just as easily absorb chicken blood etc.. However, real scientists are never invited to closely scrutinize modern miracles. Unfortunately, Creation scientists, who are often called in to examine these phenomena, are not recognized as real scientists by the academic community because their methods fall short of scientific standards.
Whether you believe that the Universe has a purpose or not, do you feel comfortable with your money supporting some Middle Age ideas?
9. Many religions promote cruel and barbaric punishments against outside observers of the faith and even their own followers. These people ask only for some change to bring their religion's doctrines into the modern world. Of course, the western world is well aware of poor Salman Rushdie, who is under sentence of death for "blaspheming the Prophet."
Sheik Ahmed Deehat, a Muslim scholar from South Africa, when visiting Canada proclaimed, "According to the rules of the Holy Koran, the Holy Bible tells us anyone who blasphemes must be stoned to death. Those are the laws as given by God to the Christians and the Jews". (Ottawa Citizen, July 16, 1994) As late as 1994, Reverend Anthony Kennedy was quoted; "I would burn the bloody bitches....Let these bloody women go off and form their own politically correct church and religion. I would shoot the bastards if I was allowed, because a woman can't represent Christ."
No matter what religion you choose to follow, do you want money allocated to these extremist views? For those of you who hold these views, then you are entitled to contribute to your religion accordingly. Others should be free not to.
10. Sadly, religion cannot keep its promises to its followers. Who really knows if you will get to heaven faster if you send your pension to the televangelist? These assurances would constitute fraud or false advertising in the modern world. Religions tend to prey on fears of the sick and elderly, society's most vulnerable. In all fairness to these people, they deserve to see how their hard-earned pennies are spent.
A full accounting would not be unreasonable.
Nothing will stop people from believing what they want to believe; and they have every right to their beliefs. They should not have the right to inflict their expenses on others. This report does not deny the comfort that some people receive by participating in the faith of their choice. I am sure that religion is seen as valuable to its many adherents. However, it is time to examine the old tradition of tax exemption for an ideology that isn't applicable to everyone in a community. As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
We are facing severe fiscal restraint.
Social, health and education programs are in crisis. Tax payers are bled dry. Would it be unreasonable to expect religious corporations to present auditor's reports to their parishioners? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing what decisions the directors and officers of your church are making with your money? Is there any reason why we shouldn't consider a referendum so taxpayers can decide if they wish to continue to support tax exemptions to churches? Isn't it time for honesty and accountability from all members of the community?
Christianity- a definition base
Christianity can be said to be or is based on a book that depicts racism, brutality, massacre and homophobia. In fact, Christians worship a God who promotes these activities. Do you know how many times their God has commanded his "chosen ones" to exterminate entire tribes and nations? Inquisitions, persecutions and witch hunts were all done in the name of godly devotion.
Religions were created to empower special groups of people. Most of the world's current strife can be traced to religious origins. Furthermore, most religions promulgate the myth of male superiority, with the brunt of problems and blame falling on female shoulders. Isn't it time that we freed ourselves of the shackles of primitive barbarity and stepped into the twenty-first century?
When has the bombing of a public or private building ever been traced to a humanistic or atheistic organization? When has the assassination of an abortion doctor ever been traced to a religious skeptic? If Canada is truly free, then all citizens should remain free to reject or accept religion.
To be forced to accept a God as part of their Human Rights Charter denies the very freedom our society is based on. I believe in God by choice
I am searching for info relating to Nova Scotia Halifax..wont be long before I get it.
Questioning Tax Exemptions – The Church - update
All over Canada, in every small community, huge sums of money are being denied to residents through the tax exemptions given to major businesses. This is money which could be used to build playgrounds and parks, provide nursing homes for the elderly, youth recreation programs for teenagers, community centers for the use of all, libraries, health clinics, hospitals, animal shelters, fire halls, water treatment plants, road repairs, schools - all things that are vital to the fabric of civilization. Unfortunately, all these things are expensive and difficult for the average tax payer to support. In this time of fiscal restraint, when all our social and medical programs are being threatened, we must seriously look at why some segments of our communities are exempt from contributing their fair share.
I was trying ( and I am still trying )to find information on the total or individual tax exemptions of the Churches of Nova Scotia..any churches would do, but in particular the Roman Catholic Church.I found some old figures on the net of old data relating to the city of Vancouver. I use this information for demonstration purposes only.
The majority of people who live here are hard-working, middle-income citizens, who struggle to keep some earnings for recreation after all necessities are paid. Is it really fair to ask these people to subsidize major land holders in their community, particularly when these land holders represent big business firms which are considerably more wealthy than the taxpayers who now support them.
This research via Google searching on of Church property assessment figures came up with information for the Greater Vancouver, B.C. which includes the city and 11 surrounding municipalities with a population of then about 1.3 million, the loss of revenue to the communities becomes apparent. The tax exempt assessed value of churches in the 12 areas totals $854,738,500! The average residential mill rate for the group is 7.309. This represents foregone tax revenue of $6,247,280. If we do rough calculations to include the whole country we conclude that the religious loopholes are getting away without paying taxes of about $160,000,000 in Canada. These figure may be slightly inaccurate but I wonder why cash- starved local governments don't jump at the chance to ask the churches to participate in the community instead of riding free.
SOME break down numbers.
**********************************
RICHMOND
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $118,833,800
1994 population 139,435
DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $19,773,500
1994 population 81,980
CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $4,279,000
1994 population 40,717
WEST VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $10,536,800
1994 population 41,461
NEW WESTMINSTER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $19,039,000
1994 population 47,736
VANCOUVER
Exempted Municipal Taxable Value for Churches $420,105,800
1994 population 508,814
And where does the money from donations to these businesses go? Because these organizations are not required to post accurate financial statements, few contributors realize that their money often goes to purchase stocks, bonds and other property which all become tax exempt as well. Taxpayers are constantly complaining that we should be taxing the big corporations to give relief to the average Joe. Perhaps they just don't realize that churches ARE the big corporations.
We live in a 'democracy' and people are free to adhere to any belief system they fancy. In all fairness to the various citizens who inhabit this country, they should not be forced to surreptitiously support a religion they do not believe in or may even find abhorrent. If you are a Christian, do you really want your money going to support a Christ-killing synagogue? Or perhaps a pedophile priests defense. If you are Jewish, do you want to contribute to the mosques of terrorist infidels? If you are a rational person, do you want good money wasted on promulgating superstitious nonsense?
Canadian citizens can no longer afford to carry free-loaders. For those people who find the idea of taxing religions repugnant, then perhaps they would concede if churches were required to put back into their community an amount equal to their tax assessment. As things stand, it is very doubtful that any church is putting as much into the community as it receives in benefit from being part of that community. As an alternative to taxation, churches could receive recognition for the things they give for use of the general public, providing it is presented without the accompanying propaganda. For example, if a playground was built with the tax assessment money from the local Catholic church, then a little plaque could be erected saying "Donated by St. Mary's Church in lieu of taxes for the year 1996".
This is not an indictment against religion in particular. Religion is a personal and private matter. It should also be one of free choice. This is an indictment of desperately needed money being withheld from communities. It is an indictment against money being given to businesses and organizations without knowledge or consent of donors. More than ever, citizens need honesty, integrity and accountability from organizations within their communities.
Reasons Why Churches Should No Longer Be Tax Exempt?
1. In a true democracy, children would receive a liberal education in the wide variety of religious doctrines available. Then, when they reach the age of consent, these young adults would be able to make an informed choice whether to accept the ideology of any religion in particular. Currently, children are indoctrinated with no opportunity to question the validity of the tenets they are required to embrace.
I ask would the majority of parents be willing to accept a curriculum which included the study of the major religions, leaving other parents with the right to educate their children, after school hours, in the privately supported church of their choice? Is there any reason why various religions would find it unacceptable for their children to obtain a liberal and complete education?
2. Religions often tend to promote hatred against minorities. The most common example is the persecution of homosexuals on religious grounds. Scientists have now uncovered the genetic link to homosexuality. People are born with a specific eye color. Likewise, people are born with a specific sexual orientation. Who has control over the way they are born? God only knows! It is cruel to continue perpetrate hatred against a fragment of the population who have no control over the desires they were born with. Do you know if your donations are being used to perpetuate hatred?
3. Some religious organizations receive taxpayers' money to use terrorist tactics to enforce their will on democratic citizens. An example was the Right To Life Society which openly condones the shootings at abortionist clinics. If you find that harassment and victimization of Canadian citizens is repulsive, then you should be outraged that such organizations receive government and charitable funding. In the United States, families of shooting victims, as well as victims of harassment and stalking, are now proceeding with major lawsuits against organizations which promote hatred and crimes of hate. Would you like to see millions of your dollars being lost because you unknowingly contributed to the terrorist activities of these religious groups?
4. Do you know where the money you donate is being spent? Are you getting the most value for your dollar? Is it spent on things that you believe in? Perhaps you feel that your money should go to help the hungry at a soup kitchen, or go towards a shelter for the homeless. How do you know for sure that it isn't being spent to invest in luxury condos and holiday resorts for the wealthy? Perhaps it is going to purchase weapons to support a holy war, or subversive terrorist activities. Unless you can see a proper financial statement from your church, you have no idea where your money is going.
5. Common law has clearly established that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose. Ask the native Indians just how charitable the purpose of the missionaries was. Natives lived on this land for thousands of years without cutting down a rainforest, or causing the pollution of a stream. Perhaps their pagan gods were much more benevolent than the Christian one they were forced to adopt? It is time to take a serious look at the value of these old accepted laws. Who do they really benefit?
6. It is correct to assume that most parents love their daughters and want the best for them. Why would they choose to support institutions in which women are excluded from positions of importance, where the female body is considered shameful, where the pains of childbirth are punishment for original sin and where women are depicted as wanton temptresses who incite men's desires? Isn't this an assault to the self-esteem of any young girl.?
Some religions are still debating if women have souls. Genital mutilations are done today as a faith ritual. A Muslim man may not pray if he has touched a woman and not washed first. St. Augustine was quoted as saying; "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men." Would everyone in your community want to support a philosophy where men get all the excuses for immoral behavior and women get all the blame? Except for Homosexual behavior now that's another issue
7. Mankind's history on earth has always been violent>. Many parents consider violence to be pornographic. And yet, every holy book is filled with cruel atrocities, hatred, genocide, murder of whole civilizations, women, children and families. Little mercy or understanding is demonstrated for non-believers of a particular doctrine. The books reinforce the primitive "Might is Right" philosophy, with relatively little compassion for women, children or animals. Those who are physically weaker and unable to communicate their needs are in the most need of protection; however the written word ignores these pleas. Furthermore, holy books are filled with pornography, rape, sodomy, incest, adultery and many things that make for unsavory reading for young members of the community.
The two African countries of Rwanda and Burundi are the most Christianized of all the African nations. Unfortunately, birthrates are the highest in Africa because family planning and birth control are outlawed. Schools and hospitals are run by nuns. This has resulted in overcrowding, misery, tribal hatreds and environmental degradation, as well as the most horrendous slaughter and massacre of human beings. The birth control issue is highly hypocritical because the Catholic Church has owned shares in the major birth control producing company, Instituto Farmecologico Sereno, (as exposed in David Yallop's book, In God's Name. )
Almost every religion has a vengeful and cruel god who destroys entire nations on a whim. The holy books have been used as excuses to perform hideous acts against other human beings in the name of heresy and blasphemy. Psychotherapist, Dr. Albert Ellis, has suggested that a cruel and bloody god produces cruel and bloody followers. There seems to be much evidence to support this idea just by reading today's newspapers.
Conversely, hardened criminals can find immediate forgiveness (and possibly early release from prison) by proclaiming their new-found belief. Con men and religious hucksters, who have bilked people out of millions of dollars, can then go forth and confess their sins. Of course, their victims are supposed to be religious enough to forgive the sinner who fleeced them, and so the shell game continues.
Out of respect for non-believers who find many holy books totally offensive, bloody, racist, sexist and pornographic, wouldn't it make more sense to expose their children to these books, when they are old enough to study these concepts objectively?
8. Religious thinking is opposed to free inquiry and scientific investigation. It suppresses a child's natural curiosity and fills them with nightmares of hell and punishment if they dare question things that defy logic or make no sense. The dark ages set the progress of science and medicine back hundreds of years. As late as October, 1992, the Pope forgave Galileo, a seventeenth century scientist, for saying that the earth revolved around the sun.
Religious teachers condemn such ancient books as Homer's Iliad as being false and unproven, but they ignore the fact that Henry and Sophia Schliemann discovered the actual city of Troy in the late 1800's, using only Homer's exact words. Anyone can read the historic account of this discovery by Schliemann himself in Troja: Results Of The Latest Research, 1884, or the biographical account by Irving Stone called The Greek Treasure, 1975. To date, any discovery of Noah's Ark, using the Bible, has proven to be a hoax. This doesn't confirm one way or the other about the existence of Noah's Ark. It just confirms that some ancient manuscripts have proven to be far more accurate than the Bible.
Unfortunately, many religious teachers prey on the gullibility of their followers. A prime example was the television documentary on the discovery of Noah's Ark, which later was proven to be a hoax. In fact, Richard A. Fox won an award for his magazine article that analyzed the program and questioned the authenticity of the story. The article was entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark': An Archaeological Quest?" It appeared in the Summer 1993 issue of Free Inquiry. Any librarian should be able to get a copy. His article was also given national attention in Time magazine. This point is raised only because so many people think that Noah's Ark has actually been discovered and therefore this proves that there really was a Noah who put a gazillion animals into a small boat and managed to survive, in spite of the logical impossibility of this myth.
Religious advocates encourage fantastic thinking and discourage logical investigation. A most recent example is the celebration of holy statues drinking milk. This "miracle" occurs because the statues are made of a porous material. They would just as easily absorb chicken blood etc.. However, real scientists are never invited to closely scrutinize modern miracles. Unfortunately, Creation scientists, who are often called in to examine these phenomena, are not recognized as real scientists by the academic community because their methods fall short of scientific standards.
Whether you believe that the Universe has a purpose or not, do you feel comfortable with your money supporting some Middle Age ideas?
9. Many religions promote cruel and barbaric punishments against outside observers of the faith and even their own followers. These people ask only for some change to bring their religion's doctrines into the modern world. Of course, the western world is well aware of poor Salman Rushdie, who is under sentence of death for "blaspheming the Prophet."
Sheik Ahmed Deehat, a Muslim scholar from South Africa, when visiting Canada proclaimed, "According to the rules of the Holy Koran, the Holy Bible tells us anyone who blasphemes must be stoned to death. Those are the laws as given by God to the Christians and the Jews". (Ottawa Citizen, July 16, 1994) As late as 1994, Reverend Anthony Kennedy was quoted; "I would burn the bloody bitches....Let these bloody women go off and form their own politically correct church and religion. I would shoot the bastards if I was allowed, because a woman can't represent Christ."
No matter what religion you choose to follow, do you want money allocated to these extremist views? For those of you who hold these views, then you are entitled to contribute to your religion accordingly. Others should be free not to.
10. Sadly, religion cannot keep its promises to its followers. Who really knows if you will get to heaven faster if you send your pension to the televangelist? These assurances would constitute fraud or false advertising in the modern world. Religions tend to prey on fears of the sick and elderly, society's most vulnerable. In all fairness to these people, they deserve to see how their hard-earned pennies are spent.
A full accounting would not be unreasonable.
Nothing will stop people from believing what they want to believe; and they have every right to their beliefs. They should not have the right to inflict their expenses on others. This report does not deny the comfort that some people receive by participating in the faith of their choice. I am sure that religion is seen as valuable to its many adherents. However, it is time to examine the old tradition of tax exemption for an ideology that isn't applicable to everyone in a community. As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
We are facing severe fiscal restraint.
Social, health and education programs are in crisis. Tax payers are bled dry. Would it be unreasonable to expect religious corporations to present auditor's reports to their parishioners? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing what decisions the directors and officers of your church are making with your money? Is there any reason why we shouldn't consider a referendum so taxpayers can decide if they wish to continue to support tax exemptions to churches? Isn't it time for honesty and accountability from all members of the community?
Christianity- a definition base
Christianity can be said to be or is based on a book that depicts racism, brutality, massacre and homophobia. In fact, Christians worship a God who promotes these activities. Do you know how many times their God has commanded his "chosen ones" to exterminate entire tribes and nations? Inquisitions, persecutions and witch hunts were all done in the name of godly devotion.
Religions were created to empower special groups of people. Most of the world's current strife can be traced to religious origins. Furthermore, most religions promulgate the myth of male superiority, with the brunt of problems and blame falling on female shoulders. Isn't it time that we freed ourselves of the shackles of primitive barbarity and stepped into the twenty-first century?
When has the bombing of a public or private building ever been traced to a humanistic or atheistic organization? When has the assassination of an abortion doctor ever been traced to a religious skeptic? If Canada is truly free, then all citizens should remain free to reject or accept religion.
To be forced to accept a God as part of their Human Rights Charter denies the very freedom our society is based on. I believe in God by choice
I am searching for info relating to Nova Scotia Halifax..wont be long before I get it.
Air Canada and 'Harper's Bully Boys'
One strike, two arbitration rulings, four rejected tentative contracts and unprecedented government intervention added up to extreme frustration for both Air Canada and its unionized employees in 2011.
It's a theme that is likely to continue for the airline in the new year Until Harper's bully boys batter them down to obey. Workers entered negotiations with high hopes of recovering some of the sacrifices they made since the airline filed for bankruptcy protection in 2003. The country's largest carrier was seeking to further reduce its cost structure by potentially launching a discount carrier and tackling its long-term pension obligations.
But neither side can claim victory, conceded the heads of the two Air Canada unions who were on the front lines in disputes this year. "We've been to hell and back," said Ken Lewenza, head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, which represented the only Air Canada employees who were allowed to strike this year. "It wasn't a total victory but bargaining today isn't a total victory for our members, it's about finding compromises that our members can accept."
Under the threat of back-to-work legislation, the union's 3,800 customer service agents approved a new collective agreement after striking for three days in June. They also agreed to send the pension dispute to binding arbitration. The ruling, which Air Canada originally planned to fight in court, sets the stage to resolve the contentious matter for other employees. New hires will receive lower starting pay and have a hybrid pension system of both defined benefit and defined contributions.
The Montreal-based company (TSX:AC-B.TO - News) wanted all new workers shifted to defined contribution plans, where retirement payments aren't fixed. Lewenza said the airline was headed for confrontation with its workers because its demands reflected a non-union workplace and a desire to "get us to the lowest point of operational cost." The head of the union representing Air Canada's 6,800 flight attendants said workers are demoralized after an imposed contract failed to rectify past financial losses. "I think they took their frustrations out on everybody — on the government, on the company and to some degree on the union," Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said from Toronto.
Coalesced by their use of social media, workers twice rejected tentative agreements recommended by union negotiators. Moist's reputation itself was tarnished after he couldn't deliver on a promise to Labour Minister Lisa Raitt that the second deal would be ratified. he should not have promised on something that was not in his control. The minister responded to an October strike deadline by referring the flight attendants' dispute to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, allegedly over health and safety concerns during a work stoppage.
The lead arbitrator subsequently imposed the last deal rejected by flight attendants. Raitt said she acted to protect the "fragile Canadian economy" from the disruption of a strike. Does Mr Harper know its s fragile Canadian Economy' according to him and his finance Guru who had never balanced a budget yet..we are doing so well..??
The move not only grounded a planned strike, but likely ended the chance of any potential work stoppages by other Air Canada unions. Even if the threat of strikes appears to have diminished, Air Canada faces months of difficult contract talks before it can realize labour peace. Pilots are in the midst of conciliation and machinists are proceeding with direct talks. The head of the pilots association said he hopes a deal can be wrapped up early in the new year and avoid a mid-February potential strike deadline.
Capt. Paul Strachan said the key will be for the airline to allow pilots to be full participants in its strategic vision. "In so far as that's lacking, I think the corporation will find it very difficult to deal with us because we're not going to sign a blank cheque." Anger over the first tentative deal prompted the recall of some top union leaders. "I think there were some showstoppers in the first one that really sunk it," he said, adding that he expects the latest effort to be more focused. Federal intervention in the affairs of the airline ignited a firestorm of opposition from those who accused the government of trampling on free collective bargaining. The minister's action may have averted disruption for the public, but it also prevented the airline from pressing workers to accept the fundamental changes it sought, said George Smith, a fellow at Queen's University.
With no risk of losing a day's pay to strike, workers could comfortably reject tentative agreements knowing that arbitrators are loathe to award either side any groundbreaking gains. "You just punt it to an arbitrator... so it's just like a snowball going downhill, it becomes an avalanche," he said. No matter how challenging 2011 was, it wasn't the most difficult period in Air Canada's storied history of labour relations. A protracted battle over privatization in the late 1980s prompted strikes by three of its four unions. Those disruptions were damaging but workers eventually got on board and allowed the wounds of battle to heal, said Smith, who is a former director of employee relations at Air Canada. "At least privatization was a focused end-game... right now it's not clear what the end game is." CUPE wasn't alone in failing to have tentative agreements ratified by members. Pilots and flight dispatchers also had their deals rejected. That spawned some sympathy towards Air Canada. "While there's always been a history of labour management conflict, I think what's been unprecedented this year has been the seeming disconnect between union leadership and the membership," said Chris Murray of PI Financial Corp.
He's among the industry observers who said the carrier had little choice but to seek substantive cost savings. Its unfunded pension liability exceeds $2.1 billion and it faces a precarious financial position. Intense competition, higher fuel costs, the high Canadian dollar and the challenges of an economic slowdown continue to pressure the airline. It has already cut $530 million in costs and is working on additional savings as it trims its $4.6 billion debt before the 2014 arrival of its first Boeing 787 aircraft. "It's not a simple business to run but I think they've done a good job on working on their cost profile and making the company a little bit more resilient," said Murray. He expects 2012 will continue to be challenging, especially if the economy remains shaky. One of the airline's most controversial proposals this round is the creation of a low-cost carrier. It's an idea that's gaining interest from other legacy carriers looking to reduce costs. Air Canada declined requests for an interview, but CEO Calin Rovinescu has said that reducing costs on leisure routes is needed to take on rivals such as WestJet (TSX:WJA.TO - News), Transat (TSX:TRZ-B.TO - News) and Sunwing and help the carrier deliver sustainable profits. In a letter to employees, Rovinescu called the decision by American Airlines to seek bankruptcy protection "sobering" news for the industry. "It underscores both how broken the legacy airline model is and the necessity of changing with the times, recognizing today's new realities," he said in the note obtained by The Canadian Press. Without specifically mentioning the low-cost carrier, he said Air Canada cannot relent on tackling its legacy structural inefficiencies and developing greater flexibility. "We must be open to new ways of doing business, we must control our costs and we must work together if we are to succeed." Talks with pilots could determine whether the idea will ever get off the ground. Many workers fear low wages will infiltrate the mainline airline. Flight attendants ducked the issue entirely but Moist said it could resurface in 2012 even if it's "not on the front burner right now." Ian Lee, a professor of strategic management at Carleton University said adopting a low-cost strategy must be part of Air Canada's long-term solution. "This industry is going through a wrenching structural change and some of the airlines will survive and some of them will not and whether Air Canada is one of those survivors we don't know yet," he said.
It's a theme that is likely to continue for the airline in the new year Until Harper's bully boys batter them down to obey. Workers entered negotiations with high hopes of recovering some of the sacrifices they made since the airline filed for bankruptcy protection in 2003. The country's largest carrier was seeking to further reduce its cost structure by potentially launching a discount carrier and tackling its long-term pension obligations.
But neither side can claim victory, conceded the heads of the two Air Canada unions who were on the front lines in disputes this year. "We've been to hell and back," said Ken Lewenza, head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, which represented the only Air Canada employees who were allowed to strike this year. "It wasn't a total victory but bargaining today isn't a total victory for our members, it's about finding compromises that our members can accept."
Under the threat of back-to-work legislation, the union's 3,800 customer service agents approved a new collective agreement after striking for three days in June. They also agreed to send the pension dispute to binding arbitration. The ruling, which Air Canada originally planned to fight in court, sets the stage to resolve the contentious matter for other employees. New hires will receive lower starting pay and have a hybrid pension system of both defined benefit and defined contributions.
The Montreal-based company (TSX:AC-B.TO - News) wanted all new workers shifted to defined contribution plans, where retirement payments aren't fixed. Lewenza said the airline was headed for confrontation with its workers because its demands reflected a non-union workplace and a desire to "get us to the lowest point of operational cost." The head of the union representing Air Canada's 6,800 flight attendants said workers are demoralized after an imposed contract failed to rectify past financial losses. "I think they took their frustrations out on everybody — on the government, on the company and to some degree on the union," Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said from Toronto.
Coalesced by their use of social media, workers twice rejected tentative agreements recommended by union negotiators. Moist's reputation itself was tarnished after he couldn't deliver on a promise to Labour Minister Lisa Raitt that the second deal would be ratified. he should not have promised on something that was not in his control. The minister responded to an October strike deadline by referring the flight attendants' dispute to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, allegedly over health and safety concerns during a work stoppage.
The lead arbitrator subsequently imposed the last deal rejected by flight attendants. Raitt said she acted to protect the "fragile Canadian economy" from the disruption of a strike. Does Mr Harper know its s fragile Canadian Economy' according to him and his finance Guru who had never balanced a budget yet..we are doing so well..??
The move not only grounded a planned strike, but likely ended the chance of any potential work stoppages by other Air Canada unions. Even if the threat of strikes appears to have diminished, Air Canada faces months of difficult contract talks before it can realize labour peace. Pilots are in the midst of conciliation and machinists are proceeding with direct talks. The head of the pilots association said he hopes a deal can be wrapped up early in the new year and avoid a mid-February potential strike deadline.
Capt. Paul Strachan said the key will be for the airline to allow pilots to be full participants in its strategic vision. "In so far as that's lacking, I think the corporation will find it very difficult to deal with us because we're not going to sign a blank cheque." Anger over the first tentative deal prompted the recall of some top union leaders. "I think there were some showstoppers in the first one that really sunk it," he said, adding that he expects the latest effort to be more focused. Federal intervention in the affairs of the airline ignited a firestorm of opposition from those who accused the government of trampling on free collective bargaining. The minister's action may have averted disruption for the public, but it also prevented the airline from pressing workers to accept the fundamental changes it sought, said George Smith, a fellow at Queen's University.
With no risk of losing a day's pay to strike, workers could comfortably reject tentative agreements knowing that arbitrators are loathe to award either side any groundbreaking gains. "You just punt it to an arbitrator... so it's just like a snowball going downhill, it becomes an avalanche," he said. No matter how challenging 2011 was, it wasn't the most difficult period in Air Canada's storied history of labour relations. A protracted battle over privatization in the late 1980s prompted strikes by three of its four unions. Those disruptions were damaging but workers eventually got on board and allowed the wounds of battle to heal, said Smith, who is a former director of employee relations at Air Canada. "At least privatization was a focused end-game... right now it's not clear what the end game is." CUPE wasn't alone in failing to have tentative agreements ratified by members. Pilots and flight dispatchers also had their deals rejected. That spawned some sympathy towards Air Canada. "While there's always been a history of labour management conflict, I think what's been unprecedented this year has been the seeming disconnect between union leadership and the membership," said Chris Murray of PI Financial Corp.
He's among the industry observers who said the carrier had little choice but to seek substantive cost savings. Its unfunded pension liability exceeds $2.1 billion and it faces a precarious financial position. Intense competition, higher fuel costs, the high Canadian dollar and the challenges of an economic slowdown continue to pressure the airline. It has already cut $530 million in costs and is working on additional savings as it trims its $4.6 billion debt before the 2014 arrival of its first Boeing 787 aircraft. "It's not a simple business to run but I think they've done a good job on working on their cost profile and making the company a little bit more resilient," said Murray. He expects 2012 will continue to be challenging, especially if the economy remains shaky. One of the airline's most controversial proposals this round is the creation of a low-cost carrier. It's an idea that's gaining interest from other legacy carriers looking to reduce costs. Air Canada declined requests for an interview, but CEO Calin Rovinescu has said that reducing costs on leisure routes is needed to take on rivals such as WestJet (TSX:WJA.TO - News), Transat (TSX:TRZ-B.TO - News) and Sunwing and help the carrier deliver sustainable profits. In a letter to employees, Rovinescu called the decision by American Airlines to seek bankruptcy protection "sobering" news for the industry. "It underscores both how broken the legacy airline model is and the necessity of changing with the times, recognizing today's new realities," he said in the note obtained by The Canadian Press. Without specifically mentioning the low-cost carrier, he said Air Canada cannot relent on tackling its legacy structural inefficiencies and developing greater flexibility. "We must be open to new ways of doing business, we must control our costs and we must work together if we are to succeed." Talks with pilots could determine whether the idea will ever get off the ground. Many workers fear low wages will infiltrate the mainline airline. Flight attendants ducked the issue entirely but Moist said it could resurface in 2012 even if it's "not on the front burner right now." Ian Lee, a professor of strategic management at Carleton University said adopting a low-cost strategy must be part of Air Canada's long-term solution. "This industry is going through a wrenching structural change and some of the airlines will survive and some of them will not and whether Air Canada is one of those survivors we don't know yet," he said.
Canada and its place in the world?
This index is a monthly listing of numbers, written by the CCPA's Trish Hennessy, about Canada and its place in the world. Scroll down for a PDF version. For other months, visit: http://policyalternatives.ca/index
1.57 Trillion
Canadians’ household debt in the second quarter of 2011, reaching an all-time high this year. (Source 1, 2)
34.6%
Canadians’ housing equity at the end of 2010. That represents a 20-year low. (Source)
150.8%
Canadians’ household debt ratio to personal disposable income in the second quarter of 2011, higher than our U.S. neighbours. (Source 1, 2 )
148.7%
Canadian households’ credit market debt ratio to personal disposable income, second quarter 2011. (Source)
7.6%
Percentage of Canadian disposable income that goes toward interest payments.(Source)
1 in 10
Number of Canadians who say even with a credit card or line of credit they would have trouble paying an unforeseen $500 expense. (Source)
27%
Percentage of non-retired Canadians who don’t commit to any type of savings, not even for retirement. (Source)
35%
Percentage of Canadians who say their debt is increasing. (Source)
46%
Number of low-income households who report their debt is increasing. (Source)
57%
Percentage of Canadians who say day-to-day living expenses are the main reason for their rising debt. (Source)
1/3
Proportion of retired Canadian households carrying an average debt load of $60,000 into retirement. (Source)
4 in 10
Number of Canadians who don’t feel confident they’ll have enough money in retirement. (Source)
Ask me for sources..all are available
1.57 Trillion
Canadians’ household debt in the second quarter of 2011, reaching an all-time high this year. (Source 1, 2)
34.6%
Canadians’ housing equity at the end of 2010. That represents a 20-year low. (Source)
150.8%
Canadians’ household debt ratio to personal disposable income in the second quarter of 2011, higher than our U.S. neighbours. (Source 1, 2 )
148.7%
Canadian households’ credit market debt ratio to personal disposable income, second quarter 2011. (Source)
7.6%
Percentage of Canadian disposable income that goes toward interest payments.(Source)
1 in 10
Number of Canadians who say even with a credit card or line of credit they would have trouble paying an unforeseen $500 expense. (Source)
27%
Percentage of non-retired Canadians who don’t commit to any type of savings, not even for retirement. (Source)
35%
Percentage of Canadians who say their debt is increasing. (Source)
46%
Number of low-income households who report their debt is increasing. (Source)
57%
Percentage of Canadians who say day-to-day living expenses are the main reason for their rising debt. (Source)
1/3
Proportion of retired Canadian households carrying an average debt load of $60,000 into retirement. (Source)
4 in 10
Number of Canadians who don’t feel confident they’ll have enough money in retirement. (Source)
Ask me for sources..all are available
The Cost of Aging in Canada
OTTAWA - The fiscal conundrum that experts have long warned of has arrived: rising government costs linked to aging and to a growing public debt are truncating Ottawa's ability to cut overall spending.
A new report from the parliamentary budget officer which Harper will not agree with of course, shows while government spending has fallen slightly since last year, it is still 15 per cent higher than before it launched its massive stimulus program in 2009.
The federal government has imposed several cost-cutting exercises that seem to be picking up some steam. But the biggest cost drivers are persistently beyond its control, according to tables in the PBO's analysis of the latest tranche of supplementary estimates.
"This is the beginning of the tough decisions that need to get made," said Chris Ragan, an economist at McGill University who has long warned about the pending fiscal squeeze.
"I think they're starting to realize how tough cutting is."
In figures for government budgeting for the fiscal year to date, the PBO shows health care allocations up by $1.6 billion. That transfer will continue to increase at a six-per-cent clip every year for at least the next four years if the government sticks to its election promises.
Servicing charges on the public debt have also jumped $1.4 billion from the same period a year earlier because higher deficits are more than offsetting the benefits of low interest rates. Those costs, too, will continue to grow as long as the government keeps adding to its debt.
And old-age security payments rose $1.1 billion from last year — partly because of a growing number of beneficiaries and partly because the benefit has been enriched.
The baby boomers have only begun to reach the age to qualify for OAS and their numbers are set to soar, Ragan points out.
"It's really going to kick in starting now."
And despite a hiring freeze in the public service, personnel costs jumped 5.5 per cent this year as the aging workforce places more demands on benefits and requires compensation for experience. Those, too, are trends that are poised to persist, Ragan says.
On the other side of the ledger, the largest cost-reducers are mainly one-time events tied to the end of the government's Economic Action Plan to deal with the last recession.
The single biggest reduction comes from one-time transfers related to the Harmonized Sales Tax.
Only the Department of National Defence showed any sign of finding major savings that would endure, the PBO report said.
As the Afghanistan mission winds up, the department's capital budget is down $700 million and its operating budget is down $600 million compared to the same period the previous year.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said last week he is trying to eliminate the $31-billion deficit by 2015-2016 — a year later than previous commitments. A key component of his deficit reduction plan is to cut government spending by $4 billion a year.
But the details of spending released so far suggest cuts to operations won't be enough, said Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page in an email.
"I think 2011-12 was supposed to be a pivot or watershed year in the government's fiscal strategy," he said.
"The elimination of fiscal stimulus and the onset of spending control on operations with economic recovery was deemed to be sufficient in Budget 2010 and 2011 to turn the corner and restore balance over the medium term."
But with spending still 15 per cent above pre-recession levels and with no way to manage age-related spending, "this plan may not suffice," Page says.
The report also shows that even as the government is struggling to cut costs in many areas, it is not able to get budgeted money out the door in other areas.
The Green Infrastructure Fund in particular has only dished out 10 per cent of its budgeted $1 billion, despite being three years into its five-year plan, the PBO notes.
But insiders note that infrastructure programs are notoriously slow at booking federal money, mainly because the government does not pay until receipts for projects start coming in.
Also, the Green Infrastructure Fund has had to compete for attention with all the other more short-term infrastructure funds that the government used to deliver stimulus over the past two years.
The fund's website states that the majority of the funding has now been allocated, and it has more than enough project proposals on its desk to use up all the money productively.
A new report from the parliamentary budget officer which Harper will not agree with of course, shows while government spending has fallen slightly since last year, it is still 15 per cent higher than before it launched its massive stimulus program in 2009.
The federal government has imposed several cost-cutting exercises that seem to be picking up some steam. But the biggest cost drivers are persistently beyond its control, according to tables in the PBO's analysis of the latest tranche of supplementary estimates.
"This is the beginning of the tough decisions that need to get made," said Chris Ragan, an economist at McGill University who has long warned about the pending fiscal squeeze.
"I think they're starting to realize how tough cutting is."
In figures for government budgeting for the fiscal year to date, the PBO shows health care allocations up by $1.6 billion. That transfer will continue to increase at a six-per-cent clip every year for at least the next four years if the government sticks to its election promises.
Servicing charges on the public debt have also jumped $1.4 billion from the same period a year earlier because higher deficits are more than offsetting the benefits of low interest rates. Those costs, too, will continue to grow as long as the government keeps adding to its debt.
And old-age security payments rose $1.1 billion from last year — partly because of a growing number of beneficiaries and partly because the benefit has been enriched.
The baby boomers have only begun to reach the age to qualify for OAS and their numbers are set to soar, Ragan points out.
"It's really going to kick in starting now."
And despite a hiring freeze in the public service, personnel costs jumped 5.5 per cent this year as the aging workforce places more demands on benefits and requires compensation for experience. Those, too, are trends that are poised to persist, Ragan says.
On the other side of the ledger, the largest cost-reducers are mainly one-time events tied to the end of the government's Economic Action Plan to deal with the last recession.
The single biggest reduction comes from one-time transfers related to the Harmonized Sales Tax.
Only the Department of National Defence showed any sign of finding major savings that would endure, the PBO report said.
As the Afghanistan mission winds up, the department's capital budget is down $700 million and its operating budget is down $600 million compared to the same period the previous year.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said last week he is trying to eliminate the $31-billion deficit by 2015-2016 — a year later than previous commitments. A key component of his deficit reduction plan is to cut government spending by $4 billion a year.
But the details of spending released so far suggest cuts to operations won't be enough, said Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page in an email.
"I think 2011-12 was supposed to be a pivot or watershed year in the government's fiscal strategy," he said.
"The elimination of fiscal stimulus and the onset of spending control on operations with economic recovery was deemed to be sufficient in Budget 2010 and 2011 to turn the corner and restore balance over the medium term."
But with spending still 15 per cent above pre-recession levels and with no way to manage age-related spending, "this plan may not suffice," Page says.
The report also shows that even as the government is struggling to cut costs in many areas, it is not able to get budgeted money out the door in other areas.
The Green Infrastructure Fund in particular has only dished out 10 per cent of its budgeted $1 billion, despite being three years into its five-year plan, the PBO notes.
But insiders note that infrastructure programs are notoriously slow at booking federal money, mainly because the government does not pay until receipts for projects start coming in.
Also, the Green Infrastructure Fund has had to compete for attention with all the other more short-term infrastructure funds that the government used to deliver stimulus over the past two years.
The fund's website states that the majority of the funding has now been allocated, and it has more than enough project proposals on its desk to use up all the money productively.
What are we doing to our Kids
So many Canadian children are taking the drugs known as atypical antipsychotics that doctors are being asked to watch for major complications — including dramatic weight gain, tremors, and abnormal face and jaw movements.
Once reserved for schizophrenia and mania in adults, one antipsychotic alone, risperidone, was recommended by Canadian-office-based doctors for children 17 years old and younger a total of 340,670 times in 2010 — a near-doubling since 2006 — according to data provided to Postmedia News from prescription-drug tracking firm IMS Brogan.
Another antipsychotic — quetiapine — was recommended to Canadian children 160,700 times.
The increase in prescriptions for children as young as six is raising concerns that the drugs are being overused. Some experts say too little is known about the effects on a child's cognitive, social and physical development, and that the side effects may set children up for serious health problems later in life.
Overall, from 2005 to 2009, antipsychotic drug recommendations for children and youth in Canada increased 114 per cent, according to new guidelines published in this month's issue of the journal Paediatrics & Child Health on the use of second-generation atypical antipsychotics in children and youth.
The drugs — which have not been approved in Canada for use in children under 18 — are being used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorders, irritability related to autism, mood disorders, physical or verbal aggression and other behavioural problems.
Doctors say that for many desperate families, the drugs are often the only option because of a dismal lack of access to non-drug therapy for children in crisis.
But the drugs also come with some "common and unfortunate" consequences, Canadian researchers say — including a substantial increase in fat mass and waist circumference. Doctors say the drugs can make children so ravenous that some parents have had to lock the fridge.
Researchers have shown that after a median of 10 1/2 weeks of treatment with olanzapine, children gain an average of 8.5 kilograms; their waist circumference increases an average of 8.5 centimetres. The pills can also cause increases in blood pressure, high cholesterol, triglycerides (a type of blood fat) and glucose abnormalities, with some drugs being bigger offenders than others.
"Antipsychotics cause enormous weight gains in children" with all the attendant risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and, possibly, a shortened life expectancy, said Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina. Frances is chair of the task force that developed the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, a massive catalogue of mental illness now undergoing its first major revision in 16 years.
Frances said the drugs are often prescribed "off-label" (meaning they are not Health Canada approved) by primary-care doctors "who have little time and training, without clear indications and with no proven efficacy." He said he worries that proposed changes to the DSM that would expand the diagnosis for some disorders in children while adding new ones — including temper dysregulation disorder — could lead to wider prescribing of antipsychotics to children.
The drugs have been used since the 1990s in the treatment of mental-health disorders in adults. Antipsychotics as a whole were ranked second in Canada, behind cardiovascular medications, as the most prescribed drug class in the country, with 64,853,000 prescriptions filled in 2010, according to IMS Brogan.
Experts say that as doctors have grown more comfortable using the drugs for adults, prescription has spilled over to young people.
As well, public attitudes are changing.
"People's awareness of mental-health disorders overall has improved over the last decade — there's more awareness about it," said Calgary neurologist Dr. Tamara Pringsheim, a member of the Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children guideline group.
"When you consider that one in three people will suffer from a mental-health disorder in their lifetime, this is something that happens in every family. People are looking for more help."
The alliance said that multiple randomized controlled clinical trials have looked at the efficacy of many atypical antipsychotics in pediatric mental-health disorders. For many children, though not all children, they're helpful, said Pringsheim, a clinical assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences and pediatrics at the University of Calgary.
"I'm not saying they're a panacea . . . I'm just saying that for children with mental health disorders and for families who are really struggling, they can offer some help."
"By no means are these medications a cure for problems," she added. However, "If you can diminish a patient's symptoms by 50 per cent, we consider that helpful."
In many places, Pringsheim said, "the only help that a family can get is medical help. They're not able to access behavioural programs to try and help with aggressive behaviour in a child. It means both the child and the clinician are stuck saying, 'Either this child is going to be in danger daily of hurting themselves and other people, or we can try a medication that may help.' "
Even then putting a child on an antipsychotic is a hard decision for parents to make. "They just hear the name 'antipsychotic' and they're afraid. But some situations become quite desperate."
In addition to weight gain, many of the drugs can cause neurological side effects that can include restlessness and a constant need to move; a decrease in facial expression or a "mask-like" face; abnormal movements of the face, mouth, lips, jaw or tongue; drug-induced tremors and abnormal muscle movements, including neck stretching and writhing.
These extra movements can be "scary and horrible," said Dr. Wendy Roberts, a developmental pediatrician at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children and professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. "They're usually reversible, but we don't have a lot of evidence to say how many might not be reversible. It certainly behooves us to warn parents so they're not taken totally by surprise this is happening."
Pringsheim and her co-authors said doctors need to exercise a "high degree of vigilance" when prescribing the drugs to children and youth.
"I think it is your duty as a clinician," she said. "If we're vigilant, if we are watching carefully, we can avoid a number of these situations just by being proactive.
"If we catch a neurological side effect, if we catch a metabolic side effect early, it's much easier to treat them. Things haven't gone so far that it takes months to get things back to where they were."
She said she believes most doctors are being cautious in using the drugs on children.
"A psychiatrist once said to me, 'Your hand should tremble every time you write a prescription for an antipsychotic medication.'
"And I think most clinicians take that to heart. They're not writing it carelessly or flippantly. They're writing a prescription in an effort to help a child and a family that is clearly suffering."
Others say more needs to be done to ensure doctors understand the limits of the benefits.
"In older children and adolescents with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — which thankfully are rare — there is good evidence that antipsychotic medications are appropriate and can meaningfully improve the lives of the young who receive them," said Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.
But the drugs are more commonly given to children with ADHD and other disruptive behaviours, he said. Whether that's appropriate is less clear, according to Olfson.
Before agreeing to put their child on an antipsychotic, experts say parents should ask the doctor what specific symptoms the drug is targeting, and whether there are other options, including parent management training or parent-child interaction therapy for younger children.
I wonder if cowardly parenting has something to do with this growth?
Once reserved for schizophrenia and mania in adults, one antipsychotic alone, risperidone, was recommended by Canadian-office-based doctors for children 17 years old and younger a total of 340,670 times in 2010 — a near-doubling since 2006 — according to data provided to Postmedia News from prescription-drug tracking firm IMS Brogan.
Another antipsychotic — quetiapine — was recommended to Canadian children 160,700 times.
The increase in prescriptions for children as young as six is raising concerns that the drugs are being overused. Some experts say too little is known about the effects on a child's cognitive, social and physical development, and that the side effects may set children up for serious health problems later in life.
Overall, from 2005 to 2009, antipsychotic drug recommendations for children and youth in Canada increased 114 per cent, according to new guidelines published in this month's issue of the journal Paediatrics & Child Health on the use of second-generation atypical antipsychotics in children and youth.
The drugs — which have not been approved in Canada for use in children under 18 — are being used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorders, irritability related to autism, mood disorders, physical or verbal aggression and other behavioural problems.
Doctors say that for many desperate families, the drugs are often the only option because of a dismal lack of access to non-drug therapy for children in crisis.
But the drugs also come with some "common and unfortunate" consequences, Canadian researchers say — including a substantial increase in fat mass and waist circumference. Doctors say the drugs can make children so ravenous that some parents have had to lock the fridge.
Researchers have shown that after a median of 10 1/2 weeks of treatment with olanzapine, children gain an average of 8.5 kilograms; their waist circumference increases an average of 8.5 centimetres. The pills can also cause increases in blood pressure, high cholesterol, triglycerides (a type of blood fat) and glucose abnormalities, with some drugs being bigger offenders than others.
"Antipsychotics cause enormous weight gains in children" with all the attendant risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and, possibly, a shortened life expectancy, said Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina. Frances is chair of the task force that developed the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, a massive catalogue of mental illness now undergoing its first major revision in 16 years.
Frances said the drugs are often prescribed "off-label" (meaning they are not Health Canada approved) by primary-care doctors "who have little time and training, without clear indications and with no proven efficacy." He said he worries that proposed changes to the DSM that would expand the diagnosis for some disorders in children while adding new ones — including temper dysregulation disorder — could lead to wider prescribing of antipsychotics to children.
The drugs have been used since the 1990s in the treatment of mental-health disorders in adults. Antipsychotics as a whole were ranked second in Canada, behind cardiovascular medications, as the most prescribed drug class in the country, with 64,853,000 prescriptions filled in 2010, according to IMS Brogan.
Experts say that as doctors have grown more comfortable using the drugs for adults, prescription has spilled over to young people.
As well, public attitudes are changing.
"People's awareness of mental-health disorders overall has improved over the last decade — there's more awareness about it," said Calgary neurologist Dr. Tamara Pringsheim, a member of the Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children guideline group.
"When you consider that one in three people will suffer from a mental-health disorder in their lifetime, this is something that happens in every family. People are looking for more help."
The alliance said that multiple randomized controlled clinical trials have looked at the efficacy of many atypical antipsychotics in pediatric mental-health disorders. For many children, though not all children, they're helpful, said Pringsheim, a clinical assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences and pediatrics at the University of Calgary.
"I'm not saying they're a panacea . . . I'm just saying that for children with mental health disorders and for families who are really struggling, they can offer some help."
"By no means are these medications a cure for problems," she added. However, "If you can diminish a patient's symptoms by 50 per cent, we consider that helpful."
In many places, Pringsheim said, "the only help that a family can get is medical help. They're not able to access behavioural programs to try and help with aggressive behaviour in a child. It means both the child and the clinician are stuck saying, 'Either this child is going to be in danger daily of hurting themselves and other people, or we can try a medication that may help.' "
Even then putting a child on an antipsychotic is a hard decision for parents to make. "They just hear the name 'antipsychotic' and they're afraid. But some situations become quite desperate."
In addition to weight gain, many of the drugs can cause neurological side effects that can include restlessness and a constant need to move; a decrease in facial expression or a "mask-like" face; abnormal movements of the face, mouth, lips, jaw or tongue; drug-induced tremors and abnormal muscle movements, including neck stretching and writhing.
These extra movements can be "scary and horrible," said Dr. Wendy Roberts, a developmental pediatrician at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children and professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. "They're usually reversible, but we don't have a lot of evidence to say how many might not be reversible. It certainly behooves us to warn parents so they're not taken totally by surprise this is happening."
Pringsheim and her co-authors said doctors need to exercise a "high degree of vigilance" when prescribing the drugs to children and youth.
"I think it is your duty as a clinician," she said. "If we're vigilant, if we are watching carefully, we can avoid a number of these situations just by being proactive.
"If we catch a neurological side effect, if we catch a metabolic side effect early, it's much easier to treat them. Things haven't gone so far that it takes months to get things back to where they were."
She said she believes most doctors are being cautious in using the drugs on children.
"A psychiatrist once said to me, 'Your hand should tremble every time you write a prescription for an antipsychotic medication.'
"And I think most clinicians take that to heart. They're not writing it carelessly or flippantly. They're writing a prescription in an effort to help a child and a family that is clearly suffering."
Others say more needs to be done to ensure doctors understand the limits of the benefits.
"In older children and adolescents with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — which thankfully are rare — there is good evidence that antipsychotic medications are appropriate and can meaningfully improve the lives of the young who receive them," said Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.
But the drugs are more commonly given to children with ADHD and other disruptive behaviours, he said. Whether that's appropriate is less clear, according to Olfson.
Before agreeing to put their child on an antipsychotic, experts say parents should ask the doctor what specific symptoms the drug is targeting, and whether there are other options, including parent management training or parent-child interaction therapy for younger children.
I wonder if cowardly parenting has something to do with this growth?
Leading causes of death- Canada
Cancer and heart disease, the two leading causes of death in Canada, were responsible for just over one-half (51%) of the 238,617 deaths in 2008. I wonder why it takes so long to get these figures when they are automatically recorded by assigned authorities. Perhaps if they were issued earlier then public concern and even outrage might happen..? Yes in Canada.
For the first time, cancer was the leading cause of death in every province and territory. In 2007, it was the leading cause everywhere except Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.
Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in every province and territory in 2008, except Nunavut where suicide ranked second.
Cancer accounted for 30% of all deaths in 2008, followed by heart disease (21%) and stroke (6%).
Ranked in order, the other seven leading causes of death were chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents (unintentional injuries), diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease and suicide.
These 10 leading causes accounted for 77% of all deaths in 2008, compared with 80% in 2000.
By age group, there were differences in the leading causes of death. Congenital abnormalities was the leading cause of death for infants under one year of age, accidents (unintentional injuries) for people aged 1 to 34, cancer for those aged 35 to 84 and heart disease for those aged 85 and over.
For young adults aged 15 to 24, the top three causes of death in order were accidents, suicide and homicide. Perhaps this is why the figures are 3 years behind.?
To control for the impact of population aging on death rates, comparisons over time are made using the "age-standardized mortality rate." This removes the impact of differences in the age structure of populations among areas and over time.
Between 2000 and 2008, age-standardized mortality rates were on a downward trend in general for all 10 leading causes of death. However, in 2008, age-standardized mortality rates for Alzheimer's disease increased 8% from 2007, as did the standardized rate for suicide, up 2%.
In 2008, 3,705 people committed suicide, up almost 3% from 2007. Of these, 2,777 were men, three times the total for women (928). Suicide was the second leading cause of death for men aged 15 to 44 and for women aged 15 to 24 and the third leading cause of death for women aged 25 to 44.
In 2008, 6,573 people died of Alzheimer's disease, up 11% from 2007. A total of 4,606 women died of Alzheimer's disease, more than twice the total for men (1,967).
For the first time, cancer was the leading cause of death in every province and territory. In 2007, it was the leading cause everywhere except Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.
Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in every province and territory in 2008, except Nunavut where suicide ranked second.
Cancer accounted for 30% of all deaths in 2008, followed by heart disease (21%) and stroke (6%).
Ranked in order, the other seven leading causes of death were chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents (unintentional injuries), diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease and suicide.
These 10 leading causes accounted for 77% of all deaths in 2008, compared with 80% in 2000.
By age group, there were differences in the leading causes of death. Congenital abnormalities was the leading cause of death for infants under one year of age, accidents (unintentional injuries) for people aged 1 to 34, cancer for those aged 35 to 84 and heart disease for those aged 85 and over.
For young adults aged 15 to 24, the top three causes of death in order were accidents, suicide and homicide. Perhaps this is why the figures are 3 years behind.?
To control for the impact of population aging on death rates, comparisons over time are made using the "age-standardized mortality rate." This removes the impact of differences in the age structure of populations among areas and over time.
Between 2000 and 2008, age-standardized mortality rates were on a downward trend in general for all 10 leading causes of death. However, in 2008, age-standardized mortality rates for Alzheimer's disease increased 8% from 2007, as did the standardized rate for suicide, up 2%.
In 2008, 3,705 people committed suicide, up almost 3% from 2007. Of these, 2,777 were men, three times the total for women (928). Suicide was the second leading cause of death for men aged 15 to 44 and for women aged 15 to 24 and the third leading cause of death for women aged 25 to 44.
In 2008, 6,573 people died of Alzheimer's disease, up 11% from 2007. A total of 4,606 women died of Alzheimer's disease, more than twice the total for men (1,967).
Stephen Harper is inventing a new Canada
Be very afraid
Stephen Harper first became Prime Minister in 2006 and has already dramatically transformed the old Canada. But with no election due for four more years, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
It’s in the nature of true believers and ideologues to believe that any means to their sacred ends are justified. This makes them extremely dangerous people. It’s also typical of such people that they’re often motivated by unfathomable resentment and anger, a compulsion not just to better but to destroy their adversaries.
There was never a Trudeauland or Mulroneyland or Chrétienland, but as The Globe’s Lawrence Martin has made us understand, there is already a Harperland whose nature is quite apparent. Like the American conservatives whom the Harperites so envy, our government has concocted a new reality of its own that it is systematically imposing on the Canadian people. The values and moral code of Mr. Harper’s new Canada are clear.
A central tenet of the new reality is the repudiation of the need for anything as irrelevant as evidence, facts or rationality whenever they are inconvenient. As in cancelling the long-form census, without a shred of reason. As when Injustice Minister Nicholson defends his back-to-the-jungle crime bills by reminding us of a Harperland article of faith: “We don’t govern on the basis of statistics.” Or, as we now know, on the basis of the findings of serious experts both in and out of the government.
Jason Kenney can stand as a past master at inventing evidence to serve his unfailingly partisan needs. This is a man, after all, who has shamelessly claimed a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism in Canada contrary to all the facts. Just days ago, Mr. Kenney employed gratuitously inflammatory language when he created a crisis over a handful of women who wear a veil, and who are of course Muslim.
But lying is the very mother’s milk of Harperland morality. When you invent your own reality, you can also invent your defence. Just follow the distinguished careers of ministers Peter MacKay, Peter Kent and Tony Clement. Old joke: How do you know when certain politicians are lying? Their lips are moving.
In Harperland, hitting below the belt is standard equipment, as the dirty tricks used against Montreal Liberal MP Irwin Cotler nicely demonstrate. Straightforward dishonesty as in the Cotler caper is just the Conservative version of free expression, as Government House Leader Van Loan earnestly explained. When the Speaker of the House brands the tactic as “reprehensible,” you know we’re no longer in Kansas, kids.
On the complex aboriginal file, Harperland blames the victims for their own wretched circumstances and blames local NDP MP Charlie Angus for not cluing in the clueless Aboriginal Affairs Minister. The minister’s assertion that the chief of Attawapiskat had accepted the government’s imposition of a ludicrously expensive third-party manager was, of course, immediately contradicted.
Harperland values demand fundamental changes in our governance processes – the outright attacks on trade unions, the unprecedented measures taken to silence critical NGOs, the muzzling of ostensibly independent federal watchdogs.
But the new values also reverse decades of cherished Canadian policies. Look at the contempt the Prime Minister shows for the United Nations, as described in a new paper for the McLeod Group by former Canadian diplomat and senior UN official Carolyn McAskie, “Canada and Multilateralism: Missing In Action”:
The Prime Minister says he has little use for the UN. ... After losing a bid for membership of the Security Council, many government members made disparaging comments about that “corrupt organization” and right wing press commentators referred to it as an organization run by “dictators.” Is this the Canada that played such a front-line role in previous decades? How can we behave in this childish manner, spurning a whole system of organizations critical to world peace, security and development?
Stephen Harper first became Prime Minister in 2006 and has already dramatically transformed the old Canada. But with no election due for four more years, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
It’s in the nature of true believers and ideologues to believe that any means to their sacred ends are justified. This makes them extremely dangerous people. It’s also typical of such people that they’re often motivated by unfathomable resentment and anger, a compulsion not just to better but to destroy their adversaries.
There was never a Trudeauland or Mulroneyland or Chrétienland, but as The Globe’s Lawrence Martin has made us understand, there is already a Harperland whose nature is quite apparent. Like the American conservatives whom the Harperites so envy, our government has concocted a new reality of its own that it is systematically imposing on the Canadian people. The values and moral code of Mr. Harper’s new Canada are clear.
A central tenet of the new reality is the repudiation of the need for anything as irrelevant as evidence, facts or rationality whenever they are inconvenient. As in cancelling the long-form census, without a shred of reason. As when Injustice Minister Nicholson defends his back-to-the-jungle crime bills by reminding us of a Harperland article of faith: “We don’t govern on the basis of statistics.” Or, as we now know, on the basis of the findings of serious experts both in and out of the government.
Jason Kenney can stand as a past master at inventing evidence to serve his unfailingly partisan needs. This is a man, after all, who has shamelessly claimed a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism in Canada contrary to all the facts. Just days ago, Mr. Kenney employed gratuitously inflammatory language when he created a crisis over a handful of women who wear a veil, and who are of course Muslim.
But lying is the very mother’s milk of Harperland morality. When you invent your own reality, you can also invent your defence. Just follow the distinguished careers of ministers Peter MacKay, Peter Kent and Tony Clement. Old joke: How do you know when certain politicians are lying? Their lips are moving.
In Harperland, hitting below the belt is standard equipment, as the dirty tricks used against Montreal Liberal MP Irwin Cotler nicely demonstrate. Straightforward dishonesty as in the Cotler caper is just the Conservative version of free expression, as Government House Leader Van Loan earnestly explained. When the Speaker of the House brands the tactic as “reprehensible,” you know we’re no longer in Kansas, kids.
On the complex aboriginal file, Harperland blames the victims for their own wretched circumstances and blames local NDP MP Charlie Angus for not cluing in the clueless Aboriginal Affairs Minister. The minister’s assertion that the chief of Attawapiskat had accepted the government’s imposition of a ludicrously expensive third-party manager was, of course, immediately contradicted.
Harperland values demand fundamental changes in our governance processes – the outright attacks on trade unions, the unprecedented measures taken to silence critical NGOs, the muzzling of ostensibly independent federal watchdogs.
But the new values also reverse decades of cherished Canadian policies. Look at the contempt the Prime Minister shows for the United Nations, as described in a new paper for the McLeod Group by former Canadian diplomat and senior UN official Carolyn McAskie, “Canada and Multilateralism: Missing In Action”:
The Prime Minister says he has little use for the UN. ... After losing a bid for membership of the Security Council, many government members made disparaging comments about that “corrupt organization” and right wing press commentators referred to it as an organization run by “dictators.” Is this the Canada that played such a front-line role in previous decades? How can we behave in this childish manner, spurning a whole system of organizations critical to world peace, security and development?
Plans for greater scrutiny of elderly care ?
Plans to "radically drive up" standards of social care in Canada to protect the elderly must be drawn up and unveiled by the government.
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment and family abuse". As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
It should allow scrutiny teams to visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
It is well known that Canadian many of the provincial funding system are widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed, in my view, is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future.. will you do this Canada?
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment and family abuse". As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
It should allow scrutiny teams to visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
It is well known that Canadian many of the provincial funding system are widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed, in my view, is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future.. will you do this Canada?
Plans for greater scrutiny of elderly care ?
Plans to "radically drive up" standards of social care in Canada to protect the elderly must be drawn up and unveiled by the government.
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment and family abuse".
As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
It should allow scrutiny teams to visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
It is well known that Canadian many of the provincial funding system are widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed in my view,is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future.. will you do this Canada?
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment and family abuse".
As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
It should allow scrutiny teams to visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
It is well known that Canadian many of the provincial funding system are widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed in my view,is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future.. will you do this Canada?
Plans for greater scrutiny of elderly care ?
Plans to "radically drive up" standards of social care in Canada to protect the elderly must be drawn up and unveiled by the government.
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment and family abuse".
As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
It should allow scrutiny teams to visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
Age UK said it did not want to see the proposals detracting from work already being done
Dr Sentamu said: "The current adult care funding system is widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"Age UK broadly welcomes the care home rating suggestion as a potentially useful addition to the existing system of care quality commission inspections and we have been calling for elements of the proposals for a while," a spokesman said.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future, which is why we are calling for a white paper in the spring which embraces the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission."
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment and family abuse".
As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
It should allow scrutiny teams to visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
Age UK said it did not want to see the proposals detracting from work already being done
Dr Sentamu said: "The current adult care funding system is widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"Age UK broadly welcomes the care home rating suggestion as a potentially useful addition to the existing system of care quality commission inspections and we have been calling for elements of the proposals for a while," a spokesman said.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future, which is why we are calling for a white paper in the spring which embraces the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission."
Plans for greater scrutiny of elderly care ?
Plans to "radically drive up" standards of social care in Canada to protect the elderly must be unveiled by the government.
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment".
As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
Under the proposals, local Healthwatch scrutiny teams would visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
Age UK said it did not want to see the proposals detracting from work already being done
Dr Sentamu said: "The current adult care funding system is widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"Age UK broadly welcomes the care home rating suggestion as a potentially useful addition to the existing system of care quality commission inspections and we have been calling for elements of the proposals for a while," a spokesman said.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future, which is why we are calling for a white paper in the spring which embraces the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission."
They should include an online "good care guide" to allow family members to rate and review care homes and providers.I suggest more funding to improve the independent regulator.
Purposeful new plans would help to tackle "quality and mistreatment".
As part of the plans, ratings for care and dignity standards for residential homes and home care providers would be published online, similar to the way websites used for booking holidays do.
It would include the latest information from inspections, plus any record of mistreatment or abuse by staff, as well as feedback from care users and relatives.
Under the proposals, local Healthwatch scrutiny teams would visit and speak to residents about their experiences. Committees featuring relatives of care users will also be formed to scrutinise services that do not meet standards.
However any formal inspection would still rest with the province
A system such as the one being looked at in the UK, hope it will provide a "more qualitative assessment" from the point of view of residents and their loved-ones of local care standards and would "empower people as never before" to choose the right care.
A provincial law could be used, be able to oversee duties placed on care homes which contain state-funded residents and to let representatives into their premises for visits. This could apply also to the minority of care homes with private-only residents.
Age UK said it did not want to see the proposals detracting from work already being done
Dr Sentamu said: "The current adult care funding system is widely acknowledged to be unfit for purpose and to need urgent and lasting reform.
"What is needed is a system for funding care which enables the risk to any one individual to be pooled, through taxation or insurance or, preferably, a mix of them both," he added.
"Age UK broadly welcomes the care home rating suggestion as a potentially useful addition to the existing system of care quality commission inspections and we have been calling for elements of the proposals for a while," a spokesman said.
"But most important is radical and urgent reform to ensure a fair and sustainable care system for the future, which is why we are calling for a white paper in the spring which embraces the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission."
Bullying is it really so..?
The lessons of bullying
As Facebook and other "social media" have reminded us, there are many ways to bully, and technology is improving them every day. Plain, direct, physical bullying is just a point of departure, the most elementary form. And even that is contextual. There are such things as necessary evils, and I take it few readers would deny the police the right to "bully" a freshlyarrested felon into a squad car. The law itself requires bullying; which is what makes unnecessary laws such an evil.
One mentions the self-evident because we have come to a time when it is fading from view. On the subject of bullying alone, I have read recently many statements in the media, "pushing the envelope" for a very political cause, that would not bear up to the slightest scrutiny.
Suddenly bullying in schools, which has been with us for as long as there have been schools, has been elevated to a "crisis." When this happens, people who were not born yesterday look for the agenda. And we find it written in large capital letters, in a scheme to impose "gay-straight alliances" on unwilling Catholic and private Christian schools, and otherwise extend the reach of "LGBT" propaganda into places where it is especially unwelcome. ("lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender")
This political method is in my humble opinion itself a ripe example of bullying. Victim-hood status is declared on behalf of a favoured group, emotionally-loaded examples of apparent victimizing are publicized, and the "crisis" is declared. Powers are sought by activists on behalf of such victims.
Those who resist their power grab are demonized. This is the way every "progressive" cause is advanced. It works, because no one could want to be publicly tarred.
It takes some courage to stand up to bullying, and there is not much available today, in places like the (now nominally) Catholic separate school system. Indeed,My limited research shows very few people who work in there themselves uphold Christian teaching on sexual morality.
And it is perhaps worth reminding that plain teaching on chastity - specifically, no sex outside marriage - was common to all Protestant denominations, to the Orthodox, the Eastern churches, to all Jewish congregations, to all streams of Islam, and throughout Hindu, Buddhist, and other religious traditions.
What these faithful so long considered to be moral aberrations - to be confidently discouraged among the young, unformed, and potentially confused - is now upheld in law as an identity issue. A "right to choose" one's sexual identity, and the presumptive sexual practices that go with it, is now codified. Which means, the jackboot of coercion is on the other foot: for those who uphold received religious teaching may now be convicted under left wing "hate laws."
The moral universe was thus turned upside down, within the space of my own lifetime. It is religious freedom that is now under attack.
And note, the issue here is hardly restricted to propensities encompassed by the "LGBT" coalitions. For traditional moral instruction was intended for everyone. The very idea that children should have sex lives - homosexual, heterosexual, onanist, bestial, or any other - was abhorrent.
That humans have sexual desires was universally understood. That these may run in wild and unpredictable directions, was also generally understood. But the taming and restriction of these desires to their right end was a universally accepted requirement of civilization. Children must be taught "what is right," and confusion over this was itself a source of moral horror.
Whether certain forms of "moral aberration" should be legally tolerated, even sometimes winked at, is another question. "Toleration" does not mean approval. It means putting up with things one does not approve, where intolerance would lead to worse evils. Unfortunately the word has been appropriated in "Newspeak," and is now used in the opposite of its original sense.
"Tolerance" here means, compelling people to publicly approve and support what they believe in good conscience to be moral aberrations.
But behind that overt bullying is a more fundamental subversion, of the ability of a society to establish moral norms, which in turn are ultimately necessary to survival. For those without moral norms die out.
I was not born yesterday, myself, and have the richest memories of schoolyard bullying, in schools I attended through my childhood, in quite diverse places. Though I would love to bore my reader with emotive anecdotes - I was myself a natural target of schoolyard bullies throughout my childhood - it should not be necessary to make my clinching point.
It is that the character of a child nay an adult, is forged in his own responses to bullying. He will encounter it throughout his life; he must be taught how to stand up to it.
Bullying is as universal to human nature as sexual desire. (Sometimes they overlap.) The containment and redirection of bullying impulses - turning something bad into something good - is at the root of all education. The impulses can never be "eradicated," for they are part of the raw material upon which educators must work.
Parents and teachers might, individually, succeed or fail, but to intervene in their task with ham-handed central government directives, dictated by political activists and social engineers, is to make their task impossible.
As Facebook and other "social media" have reminded us, there are many ways to bully, and technology is improving them every day. Plain, direct, physical bullying is just a point of departure, the most elementary form. And even that is contextual. There are such things as necessary evils, and I take it few readers would deny the police the right to "bully" a freshlyarrested felon into a squad car. The law itself requires bullying; which is what makes unnecessary laws such an evil.
One mentions the self-evident because we have come to a time when it is fading from view. On the subject of bullying alone, I have read recently many statements in the media, "pushing the envelope" for a very political cause, that would not bear up to the slightest scrutiny.
Suddenly bullying in schools, which has been with us for as long as there have been schools, has been elevated to a "crisis." When this happens, people who were not born yesterday look for the agenda. And we find it written in large capital letters, in a scheme to impose "gay-straight alliances" on unwilling Catholic and private Christian schools, and otherwise extend the reach of "LGBT" propaganda into places where it is especially unwelcome. ("lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender")
This political method is in my humble opinion itself a ripe example of bullying. Victim-hood status is declared on behalf of a favoured group, emotionally-loaded examples of apparent victimizing are publicized, and the "crisis" is declared. Powers are sought by activists on behalf of such victims.
Those who resist their power grab are demonized. This is the way every "progressive" cause is advanced. It works, because no one could want to be publicly tarred.
It takes some courage to stand up to bullying, and there is not much available today, in places like the (now nominally) Catholic separate school system. Indeed,My limited research shows very few people who work in there themselves uphold Christian teaching on sexual morality.
And it is perhaps worth reminding that plain teaching on chastity - specifically, no sex outside marriage - was common to all Protestant denominations, to the Orthodox, the Eastern churches, to all Jewish congregations, to all streams of Islam, and throughout Hindu, Buddhist, and other religious traditions.
What these faithful so long considered to be moral aberrations - to be confidently discouraged among the young, unformed, and potentially confused - is now upheld in law as an identity issue. A "right to choose" one's sexual identity, and the presumptive sexual practices that go with it, is now codified. Which means, the jackboot of coercion is on the other foot: for those who uphold received religious teaching may now be convicted under left wing "hate laws."
The moral universe was thus turned upside down, within the space of my own lifetime. It is religious freedom that is now under attack.
And note, the issue here is hardly restricted to propensities encompassed by the "LGBT" coalitions. For traditional moral instruction was intended for everyone. The very idea that children should have sex lives - homosexual, heterosexual, onanist, bestial, or any other - was abhorrent.
That humans have sexual desires was universally understood. That these may run in wild and unpredictable directions, was also generally understood. But the taming and restriction of these desires to their right end was a universally accepted requirement of civilization. Children must be taught "what is right," and confusion over this was itself a source of moral horror.
Whether certain forms of "moral aberration" should be legally tolerated, even sometimes winked at, is another question. "Toleration" does not mean approval. It means putting up with things one does not approve, where intolerance would lead to worse evils. Unfortunately the word has been appropriated in "Newspeak," and is now used in the opposite of its original sense.
"Tolerance" here means, compelling people to publicly approve and support what they believe in good conscience to be moral aberrations.
But behind that overt bullying is a more fundamental subversion, of the ability of a society to establish moral norms, which in turn are ultimately necessary to survival. For those without moral norms die out.
I was not born yesterday, myself, and have the richest memories of schoolyard bullying, in schools I attended through my childhood, in quite diverse places. Though I would love to bore my reader with emotive anecdotes - I was myself a natural target of schoolyard bullies throughout my childhood - it should not be necessary to make my clinching point.
It is that the character of a child nay an adult, is forged in his own responses to bullying. He will encounter it throughout his life; he must be taught how to stand up to it.
Bullying is as universal to human nature as sexual desire. (Sometimes they overlap.) The containment and redirection of bullying impulses - turning something bad into something good - is at the root of all education. The impulses can never be "eradicated," for they are part of the raw material upon which educators must work.
Parents and teachers might, individually, succeed or fail, but to intervene in their task with ham-handed central government directives, dictated by political activists and social engineers, is to make their task impossible.
Pressure on Canada over oilsands management
Conservationists on both sides of the border are using an obscure American trade law normally used against whalers to pressure Canada over its management of the entire industry. I am positive Canadian arrogance will prevail.
The push comes as protesters continue to fight a pipeline that would bring more oilsands crude from Alberta into the United States.
A coalition of American and Canadian environmental groups has filed an application under what's known as the Pelly amendment, which empowers the U.S. president to impose trade sanctions against any country weakening international efforts to conserve endangered species — in this case woodland caribou, whooping cranes and dozens of other species of migratory birds.
"(A) weak regulatory environment, lack of enforcement of existing laws, and the overwhelming influence of the oil and gas industry in Canada have allowed the tarsands industry to expand at breakneck pace without regard for the devastating impacts on migratory birds, woodland caribou and the ecosystems on which they rely," the petition reads.
"Canada has been unwilling to put mechanisms in place that would prevent or mitigate such harms and thus contributes to the lessening of the effectiveness of domestic and international efforts to protect these species."
The petition is intended to force a dialogue between the two countries, said Sarah Burt of Earthjustice, the California-based environmental law agency that filed the papers.
"There's a very rational conversation that can go on between the U.S. and Canada that goes something along the lines of, 'Hey, Canada, we really want to import this stuff, but we're getting a lot of push back from our constituents who are concerned about the environmental impacts. It would make it a lot easier on us if you could improve some of the environmental management.'
"This petition is designed to open up some of those conversations."
Last week, a Pelly amendment finding against Iceland caused President Barack Obama to suggest that co-operation with that country on Arctic issues should be linked to changes in Iceland's whaling policy.
Rudy Husny, spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast, said Canada will fight the amendment.
"We will continue to oppose measures that unfairly target Canadian oil. Our government will continue to promote Canada, and the oilsands, as a stable, secure, and ethical source of energy for the world."
The environmental coalition has presented its case to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who must determine whether Canada's actions are harming conservation efforts. Salazar will then make a recommendation to Obama, who is authorized to impose a variety of actions, including trade sanctions.
In its brief, the coalition points to studies from both the Canadian and Alberta governments that acknowledge woodland caribou are disappearing in the province, largely due to habitat loss from industrial development. It points out that the species is listed under the Western Hemisphere Convention, signed by the United States and Canada in 1942.
The brief also highlights the whooping crane, one of North America's most endangered birds and a species covered under the Migratory Bird Convention, which dates from 1916.
Reduced to a mere 22 individuals in 1941, careful conservation efforts have restored whooper populations to about 300. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to spend about US$6.5 million every year on those efforts.
But the birds migrate twice a year through the oilsands region. U.S. and Canadian studies have found some cranes pause there.
In 2006, an American biologist spotted several cranes with what appeared to be oil stains. The brief quotes him saying "although there is no proof, it seems possible to me that the oiling may have occurred in the tarsand operations in Canada."
The brief also lists dozens of other bird species, all covered under the same treaty, that migrate over the oilsands.
The Alberta government has proposed several conservation areas for the oilsands region. But an analysis released Thursday by Global Forest Watch found that only 18 per cent of the whooping crane migration zone and nine per cent of caribou population hot-spots would be within those areas. As well, it found oilsands leases cover two-thirds of the whooping crane and caribou habitat.
It's the second oilsands decision placed in front of the Obama administration.
The State Department is currently considering whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would increase the amount of oilsands product that flows south. Environmentalists fear leaks from the line could damage land and groundwater, as well as tie the U.S. to a high-carbon fuel source for years to come.
Hundreds of pipeline protesters have been arrested in front of the White House . Personalities as varied as the Dalai Lama and Canadian Dave Thomas, one-time TV hoser on the SCTV comedy show, have spoken out against it.
Studies have shown Pelly to be a successful pressure tactic at least some of the time.
One academic found the measure resulted in changes in the target country's approach 58 per cent of the time between 1971 and 1994. In 1986, Norway suspended its commercial whaling season one month after being certified under the amendment.
However, a finding against Canada in 1996 over the harvest of two bowhead whales by Inuit hunters didn't result in sanctions or changes to Canadian regulations.
Japan is currently under three different Pelly certifications.
The push comes as protesters continue to fight a pipeline that would bring more oilsands crude from Alberta into the United States.
A coalition of American and Canadian environmental groups has filed an application under what's known as the Pelly amendment, which empowers the U.S. president to impose trade sanctions against any country weakening international efforts to conserve endangered species — in this case woodland caribou, whooping cranes and dozens of other species of migratory birds.
"(A) weak regulatory environment, lack of enforcement of existing laws, and the overwhelming influence of the oil and gas industry in Canada have allowed the tarsands industry to expand at breakneck pace without regard for the devastating impacts on migratory birds, woodland caribou and the ecosystems on which they rely," the petition reads.
"Canada has been unwilling to put mechanisms in place that would prevent or mitigate such harms and thus contributes to the lessening of the effectiveness of domestic and international efforts to protect these species."
The petition is intended to force a dialogue between the two countries, said Sarah Burt of Earthjustice, the California-based environmental law agency that filed the papers.
"There's a very rational conversation that can go on between the U.S. and Canada that goes something along the lines of, 'Hey, Canada, we really want to import this stuff, but we're getting a lot of push back from our constituents who are concerned about the environmental impacts. It would make it a lot easier on us if you could improve some of the environmental management.'
"This petition is designed to open up some of those conversations."
Last week, a Pelly amendment finding against Iceland caused President Barack Obama to suggest that co-operation with that country on Arctic issues should be linked to changes in Iceland's whaling policy.
Rudy Husny, spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast, said Canada will fight the amendment.
"We will continue to oppose measures that unfairly target Canadian oil. Our government will continue to promote Canada, and the oilsands, as a stable, secure, and ethical source of energy for the world."
The environmental coalition has presented its case to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who must determine whether Canada's actions are harming conservation efforts. Salazar will then make a recommendation to Obama, who is authorized to impose a variety of actions, including trade sanctions.
In its brief, the coalition points to studies from both the Canadian and Alberta governments that acknowledge woodland caribou are disappearing in the province, largely due to habitat loss from industrial development. It points out that the species is listed under the Western Hemisphere Convention, signed by the United States and Canada in 1942.
The brief also highlights the whooping crane, one of North America's most endangered birds and a species covered under the Migratory Bird Convention, which dates from 1916.
Reduced to a mere 22 individuals in 1941, careful conservation efforts have restored whooper populations to about 300. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to spend about US$6.5 million every year on those efforts.
But the birds migrate twice a year through the oilsands region. U.S. and Canadian studies have found some cranes pause there.
In 2006, an American biologist spotted several cranes with what appeared to be oil stains. The brief quotes him saying "although there is no proof, it seems possible to me that the oiling may have occurred in the tarsand operations in Canada."
The brief also lists dozens of other bird species, all covered under the same treaty, that migrate over the oilsands.
The Alberta government has proposed several conservation areas for the oilsands region. But an analysis released Thursday by Global Forest Watch found that only 18 per cent of the whooping crane migration zone and nine per cent of caribou population hot-spots would be within those areas. As well, it found oilsands leases cover two-thirds of the whooping crane and caribou habitat.
It's the second oilsands decision placed in front of the Obama administration.
The State Department is currently considering whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would increase the amount of oilsands product that flows south. Environmentalists fear leaks from the line could damage land and groundwater, as well as tie the U.S. to a high-carbon fuel source for years to come.
Hundreds of pipeline protesters have been arrested in front of the White House . Personalities as varied as the Dalai Lama and Canadian Dave Thomas, one-time TV hoser on the SCTV comedy show, have spoken out against it.
Studies have shown Pelly to be a successful pressure tactic at least some of the time.
One academic found the measure resulted in changes in the target country's approach 58 per cent of the time between 1971 and 1994. In 1986, Norway suspended its commercial whaling season one month after being certified under the amendment.
However, a finding against Canada in 1996 over the harvest of two bowhead whales by Inuit hunters didn't result in sanctions or changes to Canadian regulations.
Japan is currently under three different Pelly certifications.
Canada the 'Cry Baby'
OTTAWA - Canada plans to fight the Buy American provisions in the new U.S. stimulus package proposed by President Barack Obama , federal Trade Minister Ed Fast said Wednesday.
Obama has proposed a $447-billion bill to help revive the stalled U.S. economy, but the details unveiled Tuesday contain protectionist measures similar to Washington's original stimulus package in 2009.
Fast says in a release that the provisions are not acceptable to Canada.
He has instructed officials to initiate the consultation process that was established as part of the 2010 Canada-U.S. deal on government procurement.
He said Ottawa will also express its concerns to the White House and to Congress.
The offending passage is Section 4, headed "Buy American — Use of American Iron, Steel and Manufactured Goods."
The section contains a directive that none of the funds made available under the American Jobs Act may be used for "the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States."
The bill calls for more than US$100 billion towards the renovation of schools, the construction of roads and bridges and improving transit.
Fast said history shows protectionist measures stall growth and kill jobs.
Obama has proposed a $447-billion bill to help revive the stalled U.S. economy, but the details unveiled Tuesday contain protectionist measures similar to Washington's original stimulus package in 2009.
Fast says in a release that the provisions are not acceptable to Canada.
He has instructed officials to initiate the consultation process that was established as part of the 2010 Canada-U.S. deal on government procurement.
He said Ottawa will also express its concerns to the White House and to Congress.
The offending passage is Section 4, headed "Buy American — Use of American Iron, Steel and Manufactured Goods."
The section contains a directive that none of the funds made available under the American Jobs Act may be used for "the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States."
The bill calls for more than US$100 billion towards the renovation of schools, the construction of roads and bridges and improving transit.
Fast said history shows protectionist measures stall growth and kill jobs.
The 'haves and have-nots'
OTTAWA - Canada is rapidly catching up to the United States as a country divided between haves and have-nots, according to a study issued Tuesday by the Conference Board.
The Conference Board says income inequality has been rising more in Canada than in the United States since the mid-1990s, and faster than in many peer countries.
In fact, the think-tank says Canada had the fourth-largest increase in income disparity among a sample group of 17 advanced economies in the period between the mid-1990s and the late 2000s.
"Even though the U.S. currently has the largest rich-poor income gap among these countries, the gap in Canada has been rising at a faster rate," said Anne Golden, the board's chief executive.
"High inequality raises a moral question about fairness and can contribute to social tensions," she added.
Overall, income inequality rose in 10 of the countries sampled, rising fastest in Sweden, Finland and Denmark.
Canada was next. Its Gini index, a complicated formula which measures income deviations from a perfectly equal distribution, rose 9.2 per cent to 0.320.
By contrast, the U.S. had the highest income inequality of the group with a Gini reading of 0.378.
The Conference Board notes that Canada's index number put it in group of countries considered to have a medium range of income inequality.
A reading above 0.4 would designate high levels of income inequality, and under 0.3 indicates a low income gap.
Overall, the Conference Board says income inequality has increased in countries representing 71 per cent of the world's population. Twenty-two per cent live in countries where inequality is declining.
The Conference Board says income inequality has been rising more in Canada than in the United States since the mid-1990s, and faster than in many peer countries.
In fact, the think-tank says Canada had the fourth-largest increase in income disparity among a sample group of 17 advanced economies in the period between the mid-1990s and the late 2000s.
"Even though the U.S. currently has the largest rich-poor income gap among these countries, the gap in Canada has been rising at a faster rate," said Anne Golden, the board's chief executive.
"High inequality raises a moral question about fairness and can contribute to social tensions," she added.
Overall, income inequality rose in 10 of the countries sampled, rising fastest in Sweden, Finland and Denmark.
Canada was next. Its Gini index, a complicated formula which measures income deviations from a perfectly equal distribution, rose 9.2 per cent to 0.320.
By contrast, the U.S. had the highest income inequality of the group with a Gini reading of 0.378.
The Conference Board notes that Canada's index number put it in group of countries considered to have a medium range of income inequality.
A reading above 0.4 would designate high levels of income inequality, and under 0.3 indicates a low income gap.
Overall, the Conference Board says income inequality has increased in countries representing 71 per cent of the world's population. Twenty-two per cent live in countries where inequality is declining.
Is interest you pay .. the interest you expected to pay?
Most people think interest is interest. In fact, you could have two loans that charge the same interest rate , and yet charge two different amounts of interest. Two factors affect the cost of borrowing:
1. The annual percentage rate ( APR )
* Includes all loan service costs and interest.
* May therefore be higher than the interest rate you see in the loan contract.
A lender must tell you the APR before you sign a loan agreement. Sometimes the lender for a car or other type of loan will advertise a low APR to win your business. It's a way of saying you can really trust the deal they are offering, and that you don't have to worry about hidden costs.
To understand the APR of a loan, make sure you ask:
* How much total interest will I pay?
* Are there any fees or extra charges?
* Are there any other costs, including loan insurance ?
2. How the lender calculates the interest
The method they use can really change the cost of borrowing. For example, interest on a mortgage is calculated in a different way than interest on a credit card .
How does interest work on mortgages and other loans?
* Most mortgages and some loans use the remaining balance method.
* The lender just multiplies the interest rate by the principal balance at the start of each term .
* You don't pay interest on any principal you have repaid.
How does interest work on credit cards?
* In some cases, you have to pay off all of your charges each month. If you don't, you'll pay interest on the full balance that you owe.
* Most cards ask only for a minimum payment each month - often 5% of the current balance or $10, whichever is more. You pay interest on the unpaid balance.
* Some cards give you a grace period when you borrow. If you pay back everything within that time, you won't have to pay any interest that month.
* Other cards charge interest from the day you made each purchase, until you pay in full.
* In some cases, you pay interest on your daily balance, or your average daily balance.
* With other cards, you pay interest on your highest monthly balance.
Remember: The interest rate you see in the ads doesn't tell the full story.
To understand the total cost of borrowing, you need to know the APR and any extra charges. You also need to understand how interest is being charged.
1. The annual percentage rate ( APR )
* Includes all loan service costs and interest.
* May therefore be higher than the interest rate you see in the loan contract.
A lender must tell you the APR before you sign a loan agreement. Sometimes the lender for a car or other type of loan will advertise a low APR to win your business. It's a way of saying you can really trust the deal they are offering, and that you don't have to worry about hidden costs.
To understand the APR of a loan, make sure you ask:
* How much total interest will I pay?
* Are there any fees or extra charges?
* Are there any other costs, including loan insurance ?
2. How the lender calculates the interest
The method they use can really change the cost of borrowing. For example, interest on a mortgage is calculated in a different way than interest on a credit card .
How does interest work on mortgages and other loans?
* Most mortgages and some loans use the remaining balance method.
* The lender just multiplies the interest rate by the principal balance at the start of each term .
* You don't pay interest on any principal you have repaid.
How does interest work on credit cards?
* In some cases, you have to pay off all of your charges each month. If you don't, you'll pay interest on the full balance that you owe.
* Most cards ask only for a minimum payment each month - often 5% of the current balance or $10, whichever is more. You pay interest on the unpaid balance.
* Some cards give you a grace period when you borrow. If you pay back everything within that time, you won't have to pay any interest that month.
* Other cards charge interest from the day you made each purchase, until you pay in full.
* In some cases, you pay interest on your daily balance, or your average daily balance.
* With other cards, you pay interest on your highest monthly balance.
Remember: The interest rate you see in the ads doesn't tell the full story.
To understand the total cost of borrowing, you need to know the APR and any extra charges. You also need to understand how interest is being charged.
The real reason Google bought Motorola - an aside
Patents are nice, but lovely tax losses are worth more a personal view
Analysis I think we all know that Google's pretty good at, um, obeying tax laws to the letter. For example, they've paid an entire £8m in UK corporation tax on revenues of some £6bn from 2004 to 2010.
Here the game is wrapped up in things like the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich", entirely legal moves which put the revenues actually into Irish or other companies which happen to be in countries with low tax rates, even as those revenues and or the people who work to collect them are in higher tax countries. The next stage is that US corporation (or as they call it, the corporate income tax) is only payable on profits that are actually taken into that country. So if the profits made are sitting in Ireland or Bermuda or wherever, as long as they sit there they are not taxed again.
However, this deal to purchase Motorola Mobility might be a coup to beat that hands down. The headline price to purchase the handset-maker and their bundle of patents is $12.5bn but that's not what the net cost to Google might turn out to be. How about $3.8bn for that? For, along with the company and the patents, Google has also bought a series of tax losses.
The estimate of the net cost does depend upon this US accountant having got his sums right, this is true:
"The tax benefits of the deal make what was a good deal into a great deal," said Robert Willens, a New York accounting and tax expert. He estimated that through the acquisition, Google can expect to reap $700m a year in tax deductions from future profits each year through 2019. Google also will be able to immediately reduce its taxes by $1bn due to Motorola Mobility's US net operating loss, and by a further $700m due to its foreign operating loss, he said.
The way this works might be a bit of a mystery to some, but there's good and honest logic at the root of it. We don't actually want to tax a company on the profits it makes in any one year: we want to tax (assuming we want any profits taxes at all) the cumulative profit that a company makes. It might take you a few years to start making profits: so we say that those losses you made during start-up can be offset against the profits you make in the future.
In fact, any new line of business is going to be like that and we certainly want the losses on building a new factory, new product, to be offset against the profits from old ones. There are also companies that have wild swings in profits. (Oil companies are notorious for this, for as oil prices fall the value of the stuff that's in the system – from wellhead to pump – falls, creating shocking losses. The reverse occurs when prices are rising.) There are others that have nice predictable levels. If we don't allow loss offsets against profits in other years then the more variable the profit/loss, the more the company will be paying in tax – against one with regular profits for the same level of cumulative profits.
So, past losses being offset against future profits before we calculate tax bills is just fine.
But, and here's the fun part, Motorola Mobility has been losing a shed-load of cash in recent years. It has lots of those lovely tax losses: which can now be offset against Google's future profits. You're not allowed to buy a company (at least, under US rules you're not) solely to get your hands on their tax losses. But Google is buying the pile of patents, isn't it? I mean, look, they took part in the Nortel patent auction, everyone knows they're trying to buy patents.
You would really have to be very cynical indeed to think that Google didn't take the Nortel auction seriously. Did I mention that because Nortel was in Chapter 7 liquidation (or the Canadian equivalent) there were no tax losses that could be transferred? I didn't
Analysis I think we all know that Google's pretty good at, um, obeying tax laws to the letter. For example, they've paid an entire £8m in UK corporation tax on revenues of some £6bn from 2004 to 2010.
Here the game is wrapped up in things like the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich", entirely legal moves which put the revenues actually into Irish or other companies which happen to be in countries with low tax rates, even as those revenues and or the people who work to collect them are in higher tax countries. The next stage is that US corporation (or as they call it, the corporate income tax) is only payable on profits that are actually taken into that country. So if the profits made are sitting in Ireland or Bermuda or wherever, as long as they sit there they are not taxed again.
However, this deal to purchase Motorola Mobility might be a coup to beat that hands down. The headline price to purchase the handset-maker and their bundle of patents is $12.5bn but that's not what the net cost to Google might turn out to be. How about $3.8bn for that? For, along with the company and the patents, Google has also bought a series of tax losses.
The estimate of the net cost does depend upon this US accountant having got his sums right, this is true:
"The tax benefits of the deal make what was a good deal into a great deal," said Robert Willens, a New York accounting and tax expert. He estimated that through the acquisition, Google can expect to reap $700m a year in tax deductions from future profits each year through 2019. Google also will be able to immediately reduce its taxes by $1bn due to Motorola Mobility's US net operating loss, and by a further $700m due to its foreign operating loss, he said.
The way this works might be a bit of a mystery to some, but there's good and honest logic at the root of it. We don't actually want to tax a company on the profits it makes in any one year: we want to tax (assuming we want any profits taxes at all) the cumulative profit that a company makes. It might take you a few years to start making profits: so we say that those losses you made during start-up can be offset against the profits you make in the future.
In fact, any new line of business is going to be like that and we certainly want the losses on building a new factory, new product, to be offset against the profits from old ones. There are also companies that have wild swings in profits. (Oil companies are notorious for this, for as oil prices fall the value of the stuff that's in the system – from wellhead to pump – falls, creating shocking losses. The reverse occurs when prices are rising.) There are others that have nice predictable levels. If we don't allow loss offsets against profits in other years then the more variable the profit/loss, the more the company will be paying in tax – against one with regular profits for the same level of cumulative profits.
So, past losses being offset against future profits before we calculate tax bills is just fine.
But, and here's the fun part, Motorola Mobility has been losing a shed-load of cash in recent years. It has lots of those lovely tax losses: which can now be offset against Google's future profits. You're not allowed to buy a company (at least, under US rules you're not) solely to get your hands on their tax losses. But Google is buying the pile of patents, isn't it? I mean, look, they took part in the Nortel patent auction, everyone knows they're trying to buy patents.
You would really have to be very cynical indeed to think that Google didn't take the Nortel auction seriously. Did I mention that because Nortel was in Chapter 7 liquidation (or the Canadian equivalent) there were no tax losses that could be transferred? I didn't
Ottawa's plan to cut trans fats : talk only?
Four years after Health Canada said it would impose strict limits on trans fats in food products if companies didn't reduce the fat content on their own, the department has failed to move on the promise, hinting challenges facing the industry could stymie their plans.
Tony Clement declared in 2007 while serving as health minister that food companies had two years to either meet specific targets for reducing trans fats in their products or face regulations in the absence of significant progress.
The government's trans fat monitoring program ended in December 2009 showing the majority of products in key categories - such as prepackaged baked goods - had failed to meet the targets.
After declaring last year that regulations were still on the table because further reductions were needed to fully meet the program's public-health objectives and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, Health Canada is now edging away from its threats of action.
When asked by Postmedia News if the government has opted against regulations, Health Canada said the department is working with industry to "clarify potential technical challenges that still remain in order to meet the reduction targets."
In a statement, Health Canada also said staff "will continue to analyze" the results of the final data set from December 2009 to understand why certain companies can't meet the targets, but the department is "very encouraged that in every food category analyzed, we have been successful examples of trans fats being reduced."
In Calgary, a ban on trans fat in restaurants was brought in as a bylaw under the Calgary Health Region in early 2008 and was enforced by health inspectors for a year.
It was dropped when the health regions were amalgamated into Alberta Health Services. A planned second phase would have limited trans fats in all foods sold in Calgary, including items in grocery stores.
At the time, many local eateries switched to trans fat free products and many continue to use them due to consumer demand for healthier choices.
"We like the product we're using right now," said Myrna Derowin, manager of Chicken on the Way in Kensington.
"You can still purchase the trans fat stuff, and it is a little cheaper, but we like what we're using and if someone asks, we can say it's trans fat free."
Alberta Health Services has banned trans fat from all food areas in its own facilities including hospitals and long-term-care facilities, but there are no plans to bring in an external policy said a spokesman.
Alberta Health and Wellness is also not considering any policies or legislation to limit trans fat in the province.
Kim Wagner Jones, a registered dietitian at the University of Calgary, said stronger government regulations either locally or federally would be a welcome help in reducing trans fat consumption.
'Time will tell' as it always does in Canada ..will it happen or not?
Tony Clement declared in 2007 while serving as health minister that food companies had two years to either meet specific targets for reducing trans fats in their products or face regulations in the absence of significant progress.
The government's trans fat monitoring program ended in December 2009 showing the majority of products in key categories - such as prepackaged baked goods - had failed to meet the targets.
After declaring last year that regulations were still on the table because further reductions were needed to fully meet the program's public-health objectives and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, Health Canada is now edging away from its threats of action.
When asked by Postmedia News if the government has opted against regulations, Health Canada said the department is working with industry to "clarify potential technical challenges that still remain in order to meet the reduction targets."
In a statement, Health Canada also said staff "will continue to analyze" the results of the final data set from December 2009 to understand why certain companies can't meet the targets, but the department is "very encouraged that in every food category analyzed, we have been successful examples of trans fats being reduced."
In Calgary, a ban on trans fat in restaurants was brought in as a bylaw under the Calgary Health Region in early 2008 and was enforced by health inspectors for a year.
It was dropped when the health regions were amalgamated into Alberta Health Services. A planned second phase would have limited trans fats in all foods sold in Calgary, including items in grocery stores.
At the time, many local eateries switched to trans fat free products and many continue to use them due to consumer demand for healthier choices.
"We like the product we're using right now," said Myrna Derowin, manager of Chicken on the Way in Kensington.
"You can still purchase the trans fat stuff, and it is a little cheaper, but we like what we're using and if someone asks, we can say it's trans fat free."
Alberta Health Services has banned trans fat from all food areas in its own facilities including hospitals and long-term-care facilities, but there are no plans to bring in an external policy said a spokesman.
Alberta Health and Wellness is also not considering any policies or legislation to limit trans fat in the province.
Kim Wagner Jones, a registered dietitian at the University of Calgary, said stronger government regulations either locally or federally would be a welcome help in reducing trans fat consumption.
'Time will tell' as it always does in Canada ..will it happen or not?