http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=scant%20voter%20fraud&st=cse&oref=slogin

By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Published: April 12, 2007
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.

“There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election,” Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said.

Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”

For some convicted people, the consequences have been significant. Kimberly Prude, 43, has been jailed in Milwaukee for more than a year after being convicted of voting while on probation, an offense that she attributes to confusion over eligibility.

In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver’s license.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, a Mexican who legally lives in the United States, may soon face a similar fate, because he voted even though he was not eligible.

The push to prosecute voter fraud figured in the removals last year of at least two United States attorneys whom Republican politicians or party officials had criticized for failing to pursue cases.

The campaign has roiled the Justice Department in other ways, as career lawyers clashed with a political appointee over protecting voters’ rights, and several specialists in election law were installed as top prosecutors.

Department officials defend their record. “The Department of Justice is not attempting to make a statement about the scale of the problem,” a spokesman, Bryan Sierra, said. “But we are obligated to investigate allegations when they come to our attention and prosecute when appropriate.”

Officials at the department say that the volume of complaints has not increased since 2002, but that it is pursuing them more aggressively.

Previously, charges were generally brought just against conspiracies to corrupt the election process, not against individual offenders, Craig Donsanto, head of the elections crimes branch, told a panel investigating voter fraud last year. For deterrence, Mr. Donsanto said, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales authorized prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals.

Some of those cases have baffled federal judges.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections.

Voter fraud is a highly polarized issue, with Republicans asserting frequent abuses and Democrats contending that the problem has been greatly exaggerated to promote voter identification laws that could inhibit the turnout by poor voters.

The New Priority

The fraud rallying cry became a clamor in the Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election. Conservative watchdog groups, already concerned that the so-called Motor Voter Law in 1993 had so eased voter registration that it threatened the integrity of the election system, said thousands of fraudulent votes had been cast.

Similar accusations of compromised elections were voiced by Republican lawmakers elsewhere.

The call to arms reverberated in the Justice Department, where John Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, was just starting as attorney general.

Combating voter fraud, Mr. Ashcroft announced, would be high on his agenda. But in taking up the fight, he promised that he would also be vigilant in attacking discriminatory practices that made it harder for minorities to vote.

“American voters should neither be disenfranchised nor defrauded,” he said at a news conference in March 2001.

Enlisted to help lead the effort was Hans A. von Spakovsky, a lawyer and Republican volunteer in the Florida recount. As a Republican election official in Atlanta, Mr. Spakovsky had pushed for stricter voter identification laws. Democrats say those laws disproportionately affect the poor because they often mandate government-issued photo IDs or driver’s licenses that require fees.

At the Justice Department, Mr. Spakovsky helped oversee the voting rights unit. In 2003, when the Texas Congressional redistricting spearheaded by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, was sent to the Justice Department for approval, the career staff members unanimously said it discriminated against African-American and Latino voters.

Mr. Spakovsky overruled the staff, said Joseph Rich, a former lawyer in the office. Mr. Spakovsky did the same thing when they recommended the rejection of a voter identification law in Georgia considered harmful to black voters. Mr. Rich said. Federal courts later struck down the Georgia law and ruled that the boundaries of one district in the Texas plan violated the Voting Rights Act.

Former lawyers in the office said Mr. Spakovsky’s decisions seemed to have a partisan flavor unlike those in previous Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Spakovsky declined to comment.

“I understand you can never sweep politics completely away,” said Mark A. Posner, who had worked in the civil and voting rights unit from 1980 until 2003. “But it was much more explicit, pronounced and consciously done in this administration.”

At the same time, the department encouraged United States attorneys to bring charges in voter fraud cases, not a priority in prior administrations. The prosecutors attended training seminars, were required to meet regularly with state or local officials to identify possible cases and were expected to follow up accusations aggressively.

The Republican National Committee and its state organizations supported the push, repeatedly calling for a crackdown. In what would become a pattern, Republican officials and lawmakers in a number of states, including Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington, made accusations of widespread abuse, often involving thousands of votes.

In swing states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, party leaders conducted inquiries to find people who may have voted improperly and prodded officials to act on their findings.

But the party officials and lawmakers were often disappointed. The accusations led to relatively few cases, and a significant number resulted in acquittals.

The Path to Jail

One of those officials was Rick Graber, former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

“It is a system that invites fraud,” Mr. Graber told reporters in August 2005 outside the house of a Milwaukeean he said had voted twice. “It’s a system that needs to be fixed.”

Along with an effort to identify so-called double voters, the party had also performed a computer crosscheck of voting records from 2004 with a list of felons, turning up several hundred possible violators. The assertions of fraud were turned over to the United States attorney’s office for investigation.

Ms. Prude’s path to jail began after she attended a Democratic rally in Milwaukee featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton in late 2004. Along with hundreds of others, she marched to City Hall and registered to vote. Soon after, she sent in an absentee ballot.

Four years earlier, though, Ms. Prude had been convicted of trying to cash a counterfeit county government check worth $1,254. She was placed on six years’ probation.

Ms. Prude said she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole, she testified in court. Told by her probation officer that she could not vote, she said she immediately called City Hall to rescind her vote, a step she was told was not necessary.

“I made a big mistake, like I said, and I truly apologize for it,” Ms. Prude said during her trial in 2005. That vote, though, resulted in a felony conviction and sent her to jail for violating probation.

Of the hundreds of people initially suspected of violations in Milwaukee, 14 — most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters — ever faced federal charges. United States Attorney Steven M. Biskupic would say only that there was insufficient evidence to bring other cases.

No residents of the house where Mr. Graber made his assertion were charged. Even the 14 proved frustrating for the Justice Department. It won five cases in court.

The evidence that some felons knew they that could not vote consisted simply of a form outlining 20 or more rules that they were given when put on probation and signs at local government offices, testimony shows.

The Wisconsin prosecutors lost every case on double voting. Cynthia C. Alicea, 25, was accused of multiple voting in 2004 because officials found two registration cards in her name. She and others were acquitted after explaining that they had filed a second card and voted just once after a clerk said they had filled out the first card incorrectly.

In other states, some of those charged blamed confusion for their actions. Registration forms almost always require a statement affirming citizenship.

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

“We’re foreigners here,” Mr. Ali said in a telephone interview from Lahore, Pakistan, where he lives with his daughter and wife, both United States citizens.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station, had received a voter registration form in the mail. Because he had applied for citizenship, he thought it was permissible to vote, his lawyer said. Now, he may be deported to Mexico after 16 years in the United States. “What I want is for them to leave me alone,” he said in an interview.

Federal prosecutors in Kansas and Missouri successfully prosecuted four people for multiple voting. Several claimed residency in each state and voted twice.

United States attorney’s offices in four other states did turn up instances of fraudulent voting in mostly rural areas. They were in the hard-to-extinguish tradition of vote buying, where local politicians offered $5 to $100 for individuals’ support.

Unease Over New Guidelines

Aside from those cases, nearly all the remaining 26 convictions from 2002 to and 2005 — the Justice Department will not release details about 2006 cases except to say they had 30 more convictions— were won against individuals acting independently, voter records and court documents show.

Previous guidelines had barred federal prosecutions of “isolated acts of individual wrongdoing” that were not part of schemes to corrupt elections. In most cases, prosecutors also had to prove an intent to commit fraud, not just an improper action.

That standard made some federal prosecutors uneasy about proceeding with charges, including David C. Iglesias, who was the United States attorney in New Mexico, and John McKay, the United States attorney in Seattle.

Although both found instances of improper registration or voting, they declined to bring charges, drawing criticism from prominent Republicans in their states. In Mr. Iglesias’s case, the complaints went to Mr. Bush. Both prosecutors were among those removed in December.

In the last year, the Justice Department has installed top prosecutors who may not be so reticent. In four states, the department has named interim or permanent prosecutors who have worked on election cases at Justice Department headquarters or for the Republican Party.

Bradley J. Schlozman has finished a year as interim United States attorney in Missouri, where he filed charges against four people accused of creating fake registration forms for nonexistent people. The forms could likely never be used in voting. The four worked for a left-leaning group, Acorn, and reportedly faked registration cards to justify their wages. The cases were similar to one that Mr. Iglesias had declined to prosecute, saying he saw no intent to influence the outcome of an election.

“The decision to file those indictments was reviewed by Washington,” a spokesman for Mr. Schlozman, Don Ledford, said. “They gave us the go-ahead.”

Work permits seen as way to ease Ontario shortage

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/526510
Oct 29, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (9)
Lesley Ciarula Taylor
Immigration Reporter

Frantic over looming Alberta-like labour shortages in Ontario, particularly at places such as Tim Hortons, the food industry has been lobbying Ottawa hard to let it bring in more immigrants on work permits.

It has been working, says Justin Taylor, vice-president for labour and taxation at the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

By 2015, the food service industry will need 181,000 more workers at the same time that demographics are taking away their prime labour pool – teenagers and young adults, who make up 44 per cent of their workforce.

Immigrants brought in on short-term work permits have plugged many of the gaps in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan already.

In Alberta alone, the number of temporary foreign workers, to fill such jobs as construction work, fast food counter help and hotel maids, has already zoomed past the number of immigrants brought in as permanent residents.

“We need to stop saying all we need is engineers and doctors” who’ve been through the points system screening, said Taylor. “We don’t need doctors working in quick-service restaurants.”

The crunch is just creeping into Ontario, said Taylor; 38 per cent of restaurants and fast-food places told the association this summer that they couldn’t fill one or two positions.

The only thing that he anticipates an economic slowdown doing is taking their minds off the shortage, briefly.

If unemployment rises, there is a public perception about importing labour. The industry isn’t just counting on imported labour, he said, and is looking to recruit retired people as well as workers from groups with traditionally high unemployment such as the disabled and aboriginal communities.

“The reality is these are low-skilled jobs,” said Taylor.

“Employers are looking for people to chop onions and take out the garbage.”

Immigration and the foreign worker policy are vital to rescuing the $50 billion food service industry, the CRFA first told the federal government two years ago.

A checklist of recommendations included more temporary foreign workers, ways to keep the trained temporary workers already here and an immigration policy focused on labour shortages.

Ottawa has acted on the recommendations, although CRFA executive vice-president Joyce Reynolds told a parliamentary committee last May that the Canadian Experience Class, the new category that lets temporary foreign workers apply to stay in Canada, is not much help because it only covers highly skilled workers.

“All industries will suffer from this labour shortage, but the outlook for the food service industry is particularly grim,” she said.

“More than 483,000 of our employees are 15 to 24 years of age. Projections suggest that by the year 2025 the population of 15- to 24-year-olds in Canada will actually decline by 345,500.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/526510

World heading for ecological credit crunch: WWF
Updated Wed. Oct. 29 2008 9:27 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Human demands on the world’s resources are nearly a third more than what the earth can sustain, setting the stage for an “ecological credit crunch,” says a new report.

The WWF’s Living Planet Report, which offers a summery of the planet’s health, says future generations will face a crunch if humans continue to amass an ecological deficit.

“The world is currently struggling with the consequences of over-valuing its financial assets but a more fundamental crisis looms ahead — an ecological credit crunch caused by under-valuing the environmental assets that are the basis of all life and prosperity,” WWF International Director-General James Leape said in a statement.

According to the report, Canadians were found to have the seventh largest ecological footprint — which is measured by comparing the human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems to the Earth’s ability to regenerate those resources.

About half of Canada’s ecological footprint was the result of carbon released from transportation, heating and electricity production, which all contribute to climate change.

The report also found Canada has the 12th largest water footprint, with the average Canadian consuming more than two million litres of water annually.

WWF says the “good news” is that there is the means to reverse the ecological credit crunch. However, it will take a transformation of the Canadian lifestyle and economy, says the report.

“We are borrowing from our children to live beyond our means, and our children will pay the price,” Gerald Butts, President and CEO of WWF-Canada, said in a press release.

“If everyone on Earth used the resources we use as Canadians, it would take three planets to meet our demand. We can change, but we have to start now.”

In order to reduce Canada’s ecological footprint, WWF-Canada is urging:

The Canadian government to work aggressively to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint by implementing measures that would predictably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as increasing energy efficiency standards, and sign a new global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Canadian industry to become global leaders in using resources more efficiently, especially carbon and water.
Individual Canadians to take responsibility for their own consumption and reduce their own ecological footprint through initiatives such as WWF’s The Good Life.
The report is published every two years and is widely accepted as a statement of the Earth’s ability to remain a “living planet,” says the WWF.

On a per-country basis, the United States and China registered the largest ecological footprints.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081029/WWF_report_081029/20081029?hub=TopStories

Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081025.wblairdiscussion1024/BNStory/specialComment/home

Toronto’s police chief takes your questions
Article Comments (15) Globe and Mail Update

October 28, 2008 at 2:26 PM EDT

After two Toronto officers were arrested this summer for their alleged roles in a huge marijuana-distribution network, the Chief of Police faced the media head on and answered tough questions.

But William Blair isn’t afraid to speak his mind.

In fact, as The Globe reported in a profile of Chief Blair in July, “his forthrightness and blend of ’soft’ and ‘hard’ policing seem to have morphed into a Teflon-like resilience that deflects most incoming shrapnel.”

In the article Chief Blair recalled the incident and his decision to call a noon-hour news conference.

“I had people phoning me saying, ‘Why don’t you slip that one out on a Friday afternoon and hope nobody notices?’ ” Chief Blair recounted, citing a damage-control tactic despised by journalists but long popular with politicians’ spin-doctors.

“Well, I don’t do that, I don’t do Friday afternoons. Something like [these criminal charges] undermines all the work we do to maintain the public trust, but you’ve got to put it out anyway, and there’s no textbook on how to do that.”

So instead, he called a lunch-hour news conference and answered a battery of awkward questions, ensuring that the ugly “betrayal,” as he termed it, would receive top billing on the 6 p.m. news.

We’re pleased that Chief Blair will bring some of his candour to globeandmail.com when he answers your questions in a live discussion today.

Do you have concerns about young offenders, guns, gangs? Does policing interest you as a career? What does Chief Blair envision for the department in the near and distant future? Send your questions now and return today from 1-2 p.m. ET to read Chief Blair’s answers, which we will post below.

William Blair was appointed Chief of the Toronto Police Service on April 26, 2005. The Toronto Police Service employs more than 5,500 police officers and 2,200 civilian employees, the largest municipal police service in Canada and one of the largest in North America.

Chief Blair started his 30-plus year policing career as a beat officer in downtown Toronto, and continued with assignments in drug enforcement, organized crime units, and major criminal investigations. Promoted to the senior ranks of the Service, his postings included Divisional Commander, Community Policing Programs, and Detective Operations, responsible for all specialized investigative units including the Homicide Squad, Hold-Up Squad, Sex Crimes Unit, Fraud Squad, Forensic Identifications Services, Intelligence Services, and Organized Crime Enforcement, including the Guns and Gangs Unit, and the Repeat Offender Program.

Chief Blair holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Toronto with dual disciplines of Economics and Criminology (1981), a Certificate in Law Enforcement Administration from the University of Toronto (1983) and a Certificate in Criminal Justice from the University of Virginia (1990). He is a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy (1990), the Police Leadership Program of the University of Toronto, Rotman School of Business Management (2002) and the National Executive Institute (2006).

Chief Blair lectures at the University of Toronto, ‘Police and Society’ course and at the Rotman School of Management Police Leadership course on ‘Community Policing and Developing Community Relations’. He has also taught courses at Seneca College on Drug Investigation Techniques, Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management.

Editor’s Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Timothy Appleby, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us today Chief Blair. In what seems like an increasingly familiar story, a 15-year-old Toronto high school student was stabbed and seriously wounded this morning, allegedly by a 17-year-old who was quickly arrested and is known to police. Is this incident a sign of the times? Or are crimes such as this simply getting wider coverage?

Chief William Blair: We are seeing an increase in violence among young people, which is worrisome. In response we have increased our uniform presence in neighbourhoods and in schools; we have been working to build a trusting and respectful relationship with youth in order to reduce victimization, improve reporting and to encourage cooperation from witnesses.

——– page 2 ———

We are seeing some very positive results from this effort as young people are taking greater responsibilities for their safety in our schools and neighbourhoods and as the case today demonstrates are coming forward as witnesses to assist us in solving crime.

I am disinclined to blame media coverage as I believe these tragic events should be reported in a balanced way. A well-informed public is better able to protect itself.

Jack L Chan from Toronto: Hello Chief Blair. What advice you would you give for potential candidates wanting to become a police officer. Also if I enter the recruitment stages, will I be guaranteed a position with the TPS?

Hans Ignatz from Wilmington, DE United States: Chief Blair, for someone interested in a police career, are there preferred academic, athletic, employment and volunteer paths that you would suggest following?

Chief William Blair: Stay in school and get the best education possible.

I would encourage any potential candidate interested in policing to first of all complete their education. There are many fields of academic study that are relevant but a decent liberal arts education provides potential police candidates with the tools required to do this job. I would also encourage candidates to get involved in their community, work in a variety of areas to expand their skills and experience, to maintain a good driving record and to stay fit.

There are many opportunities in policing requiring a very wide variety of skills. Anyone interested in this position should realize that we are only seeking the best and the brightest. Police service requires people dedicated to their communities.

David Guy from Canada: Chief, when you first came to office you said you were a big fan of community-based policing, or officers ‘walking the beat’ talking to local residents and merchants. Earlier this summer, however, Chinatown merchants had to hire security guards because they said Toronto Police were ‘too busy’ to respond to their complaints. What happened? And could security guards or special constables help at construction sites where officers are tied up?

Chief William Blair: Since 2005 the TPS has put nearly 500 additionally uniform officers on the street.

These officers are walking, riding bikes and patrolling all of our communities with particular attention to our priority neighbourhoods. Their primary mission is to prevent crime and victimization and to build respectful relationships with our community partners.

This strategy is working. Crime in all of its categories and in every neighbourhood in the city is down, overall 11 per cent this year and 20 per cent over the past three years. We have formed effective partnerships that help us to mobilize communities with the common purpose of keeping our city safe.

I have no problem with a business hiring a security guard and in fact private security firms play a significant role in maintaining safe and secure private spaces. We work in close co-operation with private security guards at shopping malls and office buildings. With respect to police officers being tied up at constructions sites, the public should know that these officers are hired and paid for by private companies to provide a service. The officers are on their own time. They are visible and available to protect the public at no cost to the taxpayer. There are numerous examples where officers on special paid duty made arrests, prevented crime and protected the public. The entire cost of administering this program is recovered from the private corporations hiring these officers.

Bert Russell Paradox, BC: Chief: I see you have resource management on your resume. Since the Drug addiction, Mental Illness, homeless and manifest petty crime take up a considerable amount of a trained policeman’s time and cost. Wouldn’t it be more costs effective to have another department, separate from Police who are trained in assessment and work in that community, deal with them?

Chief William Blair: People with mental illness represent a significant challenge to police and other emergency responders. Although at times they will become involved in disorderly behaviour and minor criminal activity, we do not believe that such behaviour should be criminalized. These people need treatment, not jail. In response the TPS has entered into a partnership with medical health professionals. We call these teams Mobile Crisis Intervention teams. The team involves a police officer working in partnership with a mental health nurse.

——– page 3 ——–

By bringing together the skills and authorities of both the police and the medical profession, we have been able to resolve many difficult situations and to achieve better outcomes for those with mental illness issues. This is a more efficient way of responding and demonstrates the power of effective partnerships.

Gilles Lalonde from Ottawa: Question for Chief Blair, I understand the need to protect a police officer that maybe accused of a crime while performing their duty or related to performing their duty. I support maintaining their salaries during such an investigation. When an officer is arrested and accused of a crime committed while not on duty, or that does not have anything to do with performing their duty, I strongly believe they should be treated like anyone else and not get their full salary for years while on trial. I would like to understand why such a thing can be permitted and also how do you personally feel about this issue.

Chief William Blair: The Police Services Act for the province of Ontario currently only allows for suspension with pay for a police officer charged with a criminal offence.

I brought forward a resolution before the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police which was subsequently unanimously adopted. It called upon the provincial government to amend the Police Services Act to allow for the suspension, without pay, of a police officer charged with a serious criminal offence not related to the performance of his duty.

Police officers have a difficult job; they are required to make split-second decisions regarding the use of force and to the restriction of people’s liberty. They are required to respond quickly to emergency situations and. by virtue of the duties they perform, may be subject to false allegations. The duties of a police officer require that they be protected in law when they are doing their job. That protection should not extend to anyone engaged in serious criminal conduct unrelated to the performance of their duty. This is not merely about saving money, it is about maintaining the public trust.

Timothy Appleby, globeandmail.com: Thanks for this Chief Blair, one last question that seems to be on a lot of minds: Are the courts being too lenient in the granting of bail for people accused of violent crimes?

Chief William Blair: The granting of bail is an important and appropriate part of our criminal justice system. Not everyone should be kept in jail pending their trial.

However, there are a small number of cases involving violent individuals who represent a significant threat to public safety. Bail is not about determining guilt or innocence. Bail should be about protecting the public. When an individual is apprehended for an extremely violent offence, or when they engage in criminal behaviour which clearly puts others at significant risk, then the protection of the public must be our first priority.

It is a source of great concern, for example, when we arrest a person with a violent criminal history, in possession of a loaded handgun, and that person is quickly released back into the community. The only reason for a criminal to carry a handgun in Toronto is to kill someone.

Getting another handgun is, unfortunately, not that difficult in our city. The courts have to recognize that such an individual is not going to be deterred by orders of house arrest, curfews and similar conditions.

We have arrested individuals in possession of a handgun who have already been prohibited several times from possessing firearms. Truly dangerous people are not deterred by such conditions and the only way to ensure the public’s safety is to keep such individuals in secure custody.

Christine Diemert, globeandmail.com: Thanks to Chief Blair and Mr. Appleby for the discussion today. We had a lot of good questions, too many to be answered in one session, so we hope the Chief will join us again.

Source: http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/523608

Copy Quebec daycare, PQ leader says
Marois given award for program that helped reduce child poverty rate by 50 per cent
October 24, 2008

Comments on this story (52)

Laurie Monsebraaten
SOCIAL JUSTICE REPORTER

If Ontario wants to cut child poverty and improve student achievement, it should copy Quebec’s $7-a-day child care system, says the architect of the popular program that began in 1998.

Since then, Quebec’s child poverty rates have dropped by 50 per cent, school test scores have gone from among the lowest to the highest in Canada and the percentage of mothers in the workforce in the province is now the highest, said Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois.

“If you think your small children and your young families are a priority … you pay the amount of money necessary,” she said of the program that costs $1.8 billion annually and serves 209,000 children or about 70 per cent of Quebec children under the age of five.

“It’s a choice you make,” she said in an interview yesterday, adding that both Quebec’s extended parental leave and child care policies are responsible for the impressive results.

Marois, who was in Toronto this week to receive an award from Ontario child care advocates for her decade of commitment to the issue, was minister of education and family in the PQ government in 1996 when then-premier Lucien Bouchard said he wanted to boost job growth and help Quebecers balance work and family.

“It was clear that we suddenly had an opening that had to be seized upon,” she told advocates at the award ceremony at Ryerson University. “I jumped at the opportunity.”

At the time, Quebec – not unlike Ontario today – was in debt and facing difficult political, financial and administrative challenges, Marois said. Even though she didn’t have all the details nailed down, Marois charged ahead in 1998 with full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds and after-school care for children up to the age of 12 for $5-a-day to be run by school boards.

Child care for younger children in community-based centres and regulated homes began the next year for four-year-olds, with $5-a-day programs for three-year-olds starting in 2000, two-year-olds in 2001, one-year-olds in 2002 and infants in 2003.

Initially, Quebec used funds from its universal family allowance program to pay for the new services.

But child care proved to be so popular with parents, that the government was forced to spend new money and eventually raise fees to $7 a day. Today, tax revenue from working mothers covers 40 per cent of the cost and Quebecers view child care as an essential service alongside health, education, road infrastructure and the environment, Marois said.

Ontario Children’s Minister Deb Matthews, chair of the province’s cabinet committee on poverty reduction, met with Marois yesterday but refused to say whether child care would play an expanded role in her government’s plan to cut poverty, expected in December.

Ontario is already planning to introduce full-day kindergarten beginning in 2010, she noted.

“Full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds is absolutely a poverty reduction initiative and it will reduce poverty,” she said.

“If we can get kids off to a good start, if we can free up parents to go to work, it makes a real difference for parents.”

Ontario has about 822,000 children under the age of six and about 1.9 million under the age of 13.

The province and municipalities spend about $1 billion annually on approximately 244,000 regulated child-care spaces, but only about one-third of those spots are subsidized.

Non-subsidized parents pay from $35 to $60 a day.

With talk of a fall election swirling in Quebec this week, Marois said she is keen to complete the work she began and ensure 100 per cent of the province’s children have access to $7-a-day child care.

“I say, one child, one space,” Marois said. “If we will form the government. I will finish the job – quickly.”

Toronto Star

————————————–
SYSTEM BENEFITS

Quebec’s $7-a-day child care system costs $1.8 billion annually and serves 209,000 children, or about 70 per cent of the province’s children under age five.

Child care, along with generous parental leave, has contributed to:

• A 50-per cent drop in child poverty in the last 10 years.

• School test scores that have gone from among the lowest to the highest in Canada.

• An increased birth rate.

• More than half of new fathers take parental leave compared with 11 per cent in the rest of the country.

• The highest post-secondary enrolment of women in Canada.

• Tax revenues from working mothers cover 40 per cent of the cost.

Ontario has 822,000 children under the age of six and about 1.9 million under the age of 13. The province and municipalities spend about $1 billion annually on 244,000 regulated child care spaces but just one-third of those are subsidized. Non-subsidized parents pay between $35 and $60 a day.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON — For years, a Congressional hearing with Alan Greenspan was a marquee event. Lawmakers doted on him as an economic sage. Markets jumped up or down depending on what he said. Politicians in both parties wanted the maestro on their side.

But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Now 82, Mr. Greenspan came in for one of the harshest grillings of his life, as Democratic lawmakers asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.

Critics, including many economists, now blame the former Fed chairman for the financial crisis that is tipping the economy into a potentially deep recession. Mr. Greenspan’s critics say that he encouraged the bubble in housing prices by keeping interest rates too low for too long and that he failed to rein in the explosive growth of risky and often fraudulent mortgage lending.

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

On a day that brought more bad news about rising home foreclosures and slumping employment, Mr. Greenspan refused to accept blame for the crisis but acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken.

He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.

But on Thursday, he agreed that the multitrillion-dollar market for credit default swaps, instruments originally created to insure bond investors against the risk of default, needed to be restrained.

“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades,” he said. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”

Mr. Waxman noted that the Fed chairman had been one of the nation’s leading voices for deregulation, displaying past statements in which Mr. Greenspan had argued that government regulators were no better than markets at imposing discipline.

“Were you wrong?” Mr. Waxman asked.

“Partially,” the former Fed chairman reluctantly answered, before trying to parse his concession as thinly as possible.

Mr. Greenspan, celebrated as the “Maestro” in a book about him by Bob Woodward, presided over the Fed for 18 years before he stepped down in January 2006. He steered the economy through one of the longest booms in history, while also presiding over a period of declining inflation.

But as the Fed slashed interest rates to nearly record lows from 2001 until mid-2004, housing prices climbed far faster than inflation or household income year after year. By 2004, a growing number of economists were warning that a speculative bubble in home prices and home construction was under way, which posed the risk of a housing bust.

Mr. Greenspan brushed aside worries about a potential bubble, arguing that housing prices had never endured a nationwide decline and that a bust was highly unlikely.

Mr. Greenspan, along with most other banking regulators in Washington, also resisted calls for tighter regulation of subprime mortgages and other high-risk exotic mortgages that allowed people to borrow far more than they could afford.

The Federal Reserve had broad authority to prohibit deceptive lending practices under a 1994 law called the Home Owner Equity Protection Act . But it took little action during the long housing boom, and fewer than 1 percent of all mortgages were subjected to restrictions under that law.

This year, the Fed greatly tightened its restrictions. But by that time, the subprime market as well as the market for other kinds of exotic mortgages had already been wiped out.

Mr. Greenspan said that he had publicly warned about the “underpricing of risk” in 2005 but that he had never expected the crisis that began to sweep the entire financial system in 2007.

“This crisis,” he told lawmakers, “has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined. It has morphed from one gripped by liquidity restraints to one in which fears of insolvency are now paramount.”

Many Republican lawmakers on the oversight committee tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on the unchecked growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were placed in a government conservatorship last month. Republicans have argued that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.

But Mr. Greenspan, who was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, placed far more blame on the Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage-backed securities. Global demand for the securities was so high, he said, that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more “paper.”

“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower,” he said.

Despite his chagrin over the mortgage mess, the former Fed chairman proposed only one specific regulation: that companies selling mortgage-backed securities be required to hold a significant number themselves.

“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”

5 Minute ban-bottled-water speech to Toronto City Council – Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting – Nov 12 2008
Toronto City Hall
Part of addressing a report on In-Store Packaging

– I am not a good public speaker but I will speak for the full 5 minutes because this issue is something I care about –

My name is Karen Cao, – I am a resident of Ward 39 – Scarborough-Agincourt – first off I would like to thank Councillor Mike Del Grande – (I’m not sure if he’s in the room) – for putting forward the motion that is currently on the table – to ban bottled water from city/publicly-funded functions – and to improve access to tap water.

I am a supporter of the mayor – and most of his current policies, – not all of them – but most, – and I know Councillor Del Grande – is not seen – as a traditional ally of the Mayor and his team – so I am thrilled to see some bipartisanship on this issue – and I hope Councillor Del Grande gets the recognition – and respect – that he deserves for his efforts – because it is rare – to see everyone come together – on ANY issue– and the urgency of this one – warrants that level of co-operation.

Pause…

I will now list some facts, figures and arguments – mostly from non-profit and government sources – on the case – against – using public funds – to purchase commercialized water:

First: PLACES THAT HAVE BANNED BOTTLED WATER INCLUDE:

• London City Council, Ont
New York City Council
San Francisco City Council
United Church of Canada
Waterloo School Board
Nelson City Council, B.C.
Saint Mary’s Good Samaritan Hospital
Orland City Council
Los Angeles City Council
Seattle City Council
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Pause….
– California just passed strict source labelling laws – Chicago passed legislation to tax bottled water (at 10 cents) – and Vancouver City Council is considering the same…

There are many more to name ……

None of these places are left or right wing…

• Aggressive marketing – now has 1 in 3 Canadians believing bottled water – is better than tap water
• Support of bottled water – is support of privatization of a dwindling resource
• Environment Canada recently notes – that Canada’s water supply – is not as abundant as everyone thinks
• There are water shortages – in every single developed country including Canada, – the case is more dire in less industrialized countries
• Bottled water corporations are directly linked to the global push for privatization of this “Blue Gold” with disastrous effects on the poor– as seen in areas like Argentina and Bolivia
• Bottled water companies directly undermine – public confidence in publicly funded tap water making it easier to accept future funding cuts to infrastructure etc. – and privatization or P3s (which in nature are less publicly accountable and more profit-driven)

• Tap water is tested at least 4 times /day
• Bottled water is tested only once in 1-3 years – it is one of the most unregulated industries
• Health Canada recommends – that you DON’T drink – bottled water purchased for more than 1 year
• The industry itself – doesn’t recommend re-using their own bottles
• Bottled water corporations pay a mere – $3.79 per 1 million litres of fresh ground water – which are then bottled and sold to us – at 2000X the mark-up – and at more than the cost of gas

• 40% of bottles are NOT recycled – they end up in landfills
• It takes 10 X the amount of water to create the bottle – than what’s in it
(not taking into account transportation – storage – retailing – recycling – and other costs)
• Bottled water creates 150X the amount of greenhouse gases – than tap water
• Dasani and Aquafina have now admitted – that their water is from a municipal source – of which taxpayers have already paid – to be purified

Pause…

Some will argue that bottled water is a consumer choice – I argue differently:
• Bottled water corporations pump MILLIONS – of litres – of water out of the ground – every – single – day
– disrupting local ecosystems and ground water supplies – of farms and rural communities
• Where is their choice – to have a safe and sustainable environment and water supply for their needs?

Pause…
• Just 1% of the world’s fresh water is accessible for humans, 1% for 6.6 billion people…

It’s critical to understand – that we are NOT – advocating a ban on anyone –to purchase bottled water – that is a right that you still have – but we are advocating – a ban on the use of PUBLIC MONEY to support commercialized water – – – when we already pay taxes – to have one of the safest, – most frequently tested, – cleanest – and most publicly accountable source of water in the world

By 2025, the UN predicts that 3 billion people will be without – a secure access to clean water – the life and death nature of it – means water must remain in public hands – and banning bottled water from city-funded functions – while improving access to tap water – is a start in the right direction,

If Toronto City Council leads, others will follow.

Pause… 1, 2, 3

Thank you again – Councillor Del Grande – and everyone for listening – and coming together on this critical issue – it means a great deal that citizens’ voices are heard – and not dismissed as special interest.

I would like to end with a quote:
“thousands have lived without love, but not one without water” – W. H. Auden (poet)

—————————————–

Councillor Mike Del Grande’s Ban-Bottled-Water Motion

M##.1
NOTICE OF MOTION
A motion to ban water bottle sales on City Property
Moved by: Councillor Del Grande
Seconded by: Councillor Di Giorgio

SUMMARY:

The City is trying to be a leader in the green movement.

Bottled water is seen as an unnecessary product that produces a significant amount of waste.

The City has already passed a motion that bottled water should not be used in Council and Committee meetings as well as other City meetings.

Toronto’s Municipal water system is constantly inspected and tested and the water is of high quality, which means there is no need to waste resources shipping bottles to consumers in Toronto.

London Ontario is moving in this direction as well as other Cities like, Kitchener, Charlottetown, St. John’s, Vancouver, Nelson B.C., as well as the Ottawa and Toronto Public School Boards.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the City of Toronto ban water bottle sales on City Property.

2. That the City undertake with Parks and Recreation, Facility Services and Waste/Water Division to provide improvements and availability of tap water.

3. That the ban occur where the City improves its tap water availability.

Date [Wednesday, September 24]
According to Chapter 27, Council Procedures:

Notice given (√)
Fiscal Impact Statement provided
Should have Fiscal Impact Statement prior to debate
Requires two-thirds to waive requirement if Council wishes to debate *
Should be referred to Committee/Community Council
Requires two thirds vote to consider at this meeting (√)
Motion Recommendations are Urgent – (e.g. Health and Safety)

* Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer to advise.

Canada’s income disparity & poverty exceeds other OECD countries
Rich-poor gap widens in Canada
MICHELLE MCQUIGGE

The Canadian Press

October 21, 2008 at 9:05 AM EDT

TORONTO — The gap between the rich and poor in Canada widened significantly in a recent 10-year period partly because Ottawa spent less on cash benefits than many other developed countries, the OECD says.

It was a reversal of the trend in the two previous decades when the gap was narrowing, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development said in a report.

The report said Canada’s poverty and income inequality rates both spiked between 1995 and 2005 until they each exceeded the 30-member organization’s average.

The organization said Canada experienced an especially rapid increase in both numbers; only Germany’s gap widened at a comparable rate.

The study, released Tuesday, found that Canada’s well-to-do enjoyed a more substantial income than their counterparts in other developed countries. The report said Canadians in the top 10-per-cent income bracket were earning an average equivalent to $71,000 (U.S.), more than 30 per cent higher than the OECD average of $54,000 (U.S).

While the average incomes for Canada’s middle and lower classes also exceeded the OECD average, the margin was less pronounced at 18 per cent.

The OECD attributed the widening gap in part to the Canadian government’s spending policies.

“Canada spends less on cash benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits than most OECD countries,” the report said. “Partly as a result, taxes and transfers do not reduce inequality by as much as in many other countries. Furthermore, their effect on inequality has been declining over time.”

The OECD said the rate of people living in poverty – earning less than half the organization’s average income – rose to 12 per cent during the study period, an increase of up to three percentage points. While the report found only 6 per cent of seniors were impoverished, it said 15 per cent of Canada’s children were living below the poverty line.

But the study noted opportunities for social mobility in Canada, saying children of poor families stood a better chance of improving their circumstances over time.

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria urged all governments to address the “divisive” issue of growing inequality, adding that efforts to educate the country’s entire work force rather than the elite were necessary to level the playing field for future generations.

“Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve,” he said in a statement.

“It polarizes societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor.”

The Paris-based OECD is a group of 30 mostly developed countries that aims to promote economic growth and help governments fight poverty.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081021.wrichpoor1021/BNStory/National/home

——————————————————————-
OFFICIAL REPORTS:

COUNTRY SPECIFIC DATA: CANADA
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/48/41525292.pdf

KEY FIGURES
http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html#DATA

KEY SUMMARIES
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/42/41527936.pdf

——————————————————————–

OECD PRESS RELEASE:

Income inequality and poverty rising in most OECD countries

21/10/2008 – The gap between rich and poor has grown in more than three-quarters of OECD countries over the past two decades, according to a new OECD report.

OECD’s Growing Unequal? finds that the economic growth of recent decades has benefitted the rich more than the poor. In some countries, such as Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway and the United States, the gap also increased between the rich and the middle-class.

Countries with a wide distribution of income tend to have more widespread income poverty. Also, social mobility is lower in countries with high inequality, such as Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, and higher in the Nordic countries where income is distributed more evenly.

Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría warned of the dangers posed by inequality and the need for governments to tackle it. “Growing inequality is divisive. It polarises societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor. Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Ignoring increasing inequality is not an option.”

A key driver of income inequality has been the number of low-skilled and poorly educated who are out of work. More people living alone or in single-parent households has also contributed.

Some groups in society have done better than others. Those around retirement age have seen the biggest increases in incomes over the past 20 years, and pensioner poverty has fallen in many countries. In contrast, child poverty has increased. (The OECD defines poor as someone living in a household with less than half the median income, adjusted for family size.)

Children and young adults are now 25% more likely to be poor than the population as a whole. Single-parent households are three times as likely to be poor than the population average. And yet OECD countries spend 3 times more on family policies than they did 20 years ago.

In developed countries, governments have been taxing more and spending more on social benefits to offset the trend towards more inequality. Without this spending, the report says, the rise in inequality would have been even more rapid.

But new ways of tackling this issue need to be found, Mr Gurría said. “Although the role of the tax and benefit system in redistributing incomes and in curbing poverty remains important in many OECD countries, our data confirms that its effectiveness has gone down in the past ten years. Trying to patch the gaps in income distribution solely through more social spending is like treating the symptoms instead of the disease.”

“The largest part of the increase in inequality comes from changes in the labour markets. This is where governments must act. Low-skilled workers are having ever-greater problems in finding jobs. Increasing employment is the best way of reducing poverty,” he said.

Better education is also a powerful way to achieve growth which benefits all, not just the elites, the report finds. In the short-term, countries have to do better at getting people into work and giving them in-work benefits to provide working families with a boost in income, rather than relying on unemployment, disability and early retirement benefits.

For key findings, please see below. For country-specific data, please visit www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality. Read Oxford Professor Sir Anthony Atkinson’s related article in the OECD Observer.

Journalists with a password can obtain the full report on Source OECD and the protected site for journalists. Those without a password are invited to email news.contact.com. For more information, journalists are invited to contact Mark Pearson, Head of OECD’s Social Policy Division, at +33 1 45 24 92 69 or Spencer Wilson of OECD’s Media Division at +33 1 45 24 97 00.

Key Findings of Growing Unequal

Why is the gap between rich and poor growing?
In most countries the gap is growing because rich households have done significantly better than middle-class and poor households. Changes in the structure of the population and in the labour market over the past 20 years have contributed greatly to this rise in inequality.

Wages have been improving for those people who were already well paid.
Employment rates have been dropping among less-educated people.
And, there are more single-adult and single-family households.

Who is most affected?
Statisticians and economists assess poverty in relation to average incomes. Typically, they take the poverty line to be equivalent to one-half of the median income in a given country.

Since 1980, poverty among the elderly has fallen in OECD countries.
By contrast, poverty among young adults and families with children has increased.
On average, one child out of every eight living in an OECD country in 2005 was living in poverty.

What does this mean for future generations?
Social mobility is generally higher in countries where income inequalities are relatively low. In countries with high income inequalities, by contrast, mobility tends to be lower.

Children living in countries where there is large gap between rich and poor are less likely to improve on the education and income attainments of their parents than children living in countries with low income inequality.
Countries like Denmark and Australia have higher social mobility, while the United States, United Kingdom and Italy have lower mobility.

What can be done?
In some cases, government policies of taxation and redistribution of income have helped to counteract widening inequalities, but this cannot be their only response. Governments must also improve their policies in other areas.

Education policies should aim to equip people with the skills they need in today’s labour market.
Active employment policies are needed to help unemployed people find work.
Access to paid employment is key to reducing the risk of poverty, but getting a job does not necessarily mean you are in the clear. Growing Unequal? found that over half of all households in poverty have at least some income from work.
Welfare-in-work policies can help hard-pressed working families to have a decent standard of living by supplementing their incomes.

Source:
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_2649_201185_41530009_1_1_1_1,00.htm

Edit

SOURCE:
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/october/13/lobbying/&c=2

Wal-Mart sets sights on Canadian banking licence, lobbying hard
Global credit tightening expected to bolster its arguments with the federal government in Ottawa.
By Simon Doyle

Wal-Mart Canada has been working on obtaining a Canadian banking licence for about two years, and global credit tightening is now expected to bolster its arguments with the federal government in Ottawa.

On Oct. 8, the Canada Gazette published a notice that Wal-Mart Canada intends to apply for a licence to establish banking services in Canada. The notice said that “the bank will carry on business in Canada under the name Wal-Mart Canada Bank in the English form and La Banque Wal-Mart du Canada in the French form,” and that its head office will be located in Mississauga, Ont.

Sources say Wal-Mart has been active on the file in Ottawa for about two years, primarily trying to gauge reaction to its business plan with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions—Canada’s bank regulator. Although the minister of Finance approves the licence, the bureaucratic work and recommendations are done by OSFI.

One banking lobbyist told Lobbying last week that the very fact the notice has been published in the Canada Gazette means Wal-Mart has already laid the groundwork for its licence with OFSI.

“You don’t do that unless you’ve had some warm feedback from OSFI,” the lobbyist said. “I’d say they’re fairly far along on their business plan.”

The lobbyist added that the credit climate now in Canada, which has tightened up in the face of the U.S. credit crisis, is likely to bolster Wal-Mart’s arguments for greater competition. “It’s another source of lending that has access to a very large pool of capital,” the lobbyist said.

Jean Paul Duval, a spokesman for OSFI, said the office does not comment on specific applications, but said the office takes a “holistic approach” to approving banking licences, which includes assessing applications “within the economic context in which it’s received.” Criteria for approving a new licence also ranges from access to capital to having the expertise and experience to run a bank, he said.

Wal-Mart has hired the services of the Prospectus Associates government relations firm in Ottawa. Robert Evershed, Sean Kirby, Martin-Pierre Pelletier, and William Pristanski, Prospectus consultants, are currently registered to lobby on behalf of Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart opened banking in Mexico last year, but efforts to do so in the U.S. have met stiff resistance from small banks and consumer groups. It’s expected that Wal-Mart’s banking services in Canada will include loans, savings accounts, credit cards, mortgages, and RRSPs, however Wal-Mart has said it would be premature to speculate on what services will be offered.

Observers say that if Wal-Mart succeeds in offering banking services in Canada, the move would put pressure on the U.S. to do the same. Retail chains in Canada such as Canadian Tire and Loblaws have expanded into banking.

Michael Janigan, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, acknowledged that that new entrants into Canada’s banking system are usually welcome, but said there is concern about potential “vertical dominance,” in which Wal-Mart could be involved in all aspects of consumer transactions, from financing to consumer spending to mortgages, inside and outside of Wal-Mart stores.

“Vertically integrated industries are always a concern. It’s whether the potential exists for market dominance,” he said.

The banking lobbyist said that Wal-Mart’s lobbying activities in Ottawa would mostly be “a process thing” and would not involve a lot of lobbying of the government. Some lobbying would take place with the office of the minister of finance, however, where the final approval will take place.

“You have to put together a really solid business plan and OSFI has to look at that and say, ‘It looks pretty good to us,’” the lobbyist said.

Wal-Mart officials did not return calls by deadline last week, and Mr. Pristanski, at Prospectus, was not available for an interview.

Lobbying commissioner to publish cooling off period exemptions

The two wannabe lobbyists who have applied for exemptions from the government’s five-year cooling off restriction better have left their government jobs before July 2, 2008.

The Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying has confirmed that two people have applied for exemptions, but the office won’t reveal their names for privacy reasons, and it’s not known when they left the government—before or after July 2, when the new Lobbying Act came into force.

The difference is of critical importance. If they left after July 2, they are subject to the Lobbying Act and can apply to the Lobbying Commissioner for an exemption under the act. But if either of them departed before July 2, the Lobbying Act and all of its provisions did not yet apply, and Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd would close their requests fairly quickly.

But you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Senior public office holders who left the public service before July 2 are also subject to another cooling off regime that the Tories implemented in February 2006. It falls under the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, enforced by Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson. That code says former ministers, senior public servants and ministerial staff “may not act as consultant lobbyists, or accept employment as in-house lobbyists, for a period of five years after leaving public office.”

There were a few departures of senior ministerial staff, as well as some from the PMO, just around the time that Guy Giorno, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, replaced Ian Brodie on July 2. Some left before and some left after that date.

Under the Lobbying Act, senior public office holders are restricted from registered lobbying for a period of five years after they’ve left the public service. However the law says that the commissioner of lobbying may exempt someone from the cooling off period if she feels that the decision would “not be contrary to the purposes” of the Lobbying Act.

The law says, for instance, that someone could be exempted if they were a public office holder “for a short period”; if they were a public office holder “on an acting basis”; were working under a student employment program; or worked only in an administrative position.

If Ms. Shepherd grants any exemptions to the cooling off period, they will be published, along with the reasons for the decision, on the commissioner’s website. If an exemption is not granted, however, the applicant’s name will not be disclosed.

sdoyle@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2007/09_15/4_editorial_15.html

Harper’s new Anti-Drug Strategy is not anti-HIV

Injection drug use continues to be a driving factor in the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.1 Harm reduction services, including needle exchange programs, have long been identified as essential components of an effective HIV prevention strategy. While scientific consensus has been reached regarding their efficacy in reducing HIV transmission,2,4 such interventions remain controversial. In contrast, ‘zero tolerance’ approaches to drug use have been shown ineffective,5 however, they remain popular among conservative policymakers over evidence-based public health approaches. These should be matters of grave concern as they have a potentially devastating impact on HIV prevention efforts.6-8

For instance, in the US, while close to one quarter of all new HIV infections have been attributed to injection drug use,9 there remains a federal ban on funding for needle exchange programs. In Russia, between 2002 and 2004 funding for needle exchange programs has reportedly fallen 29% while the prevalence of HIV among local injection drug users (IDU) populations is up to 60% in some areas.1 Unfortunately, the “new” Conservative federal government of Canada is similarly allowing ideology to undermine the adoption of evidence-based HIV prevention policies. This was clearly illustrated by the recent statements of the Minister of Health, Tony Clement reported separately in this issue (see “‘Doctors, get tough on drugs’: Tony Clement” on page 22). Despite evidence of continuing HIV transmission among IDUs nationally,10 this government recently announced that no federal funds would be directed to support the operation of needle exchange programs in Canada or the supervised injection facility in Vancouver.11-13

The government has also taken steps apparently aimed at eliminating harm reduction strategies. As part of this effort, the existing Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS) is being replaced with the new Anti-Drug Strategy which has been described as focusing on enforcement, prevention and treatment interventions.13 Harm reduction is no longer part of the strategy, a worrisome departure from the CDS’s traditional approach: “Because substance abuse is primarily a health issue rather than an enforcement issue, harm reduction is considered to be a realistic, pragmatic, and humane approach.” 16

The exclusion of harm reduction initiatives from the new Anti-Drug Strategy is a dangerous step backwards in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Its increased emphasis on law enforcement has potential to further increase HIV and other blood born infections among IDU. Through sexual transmission, the partners of infected IDU can then be expected to spread the virus among a wider population. The focus on law enforcement will also likely prompt a rise in the incarceration rates of IDUs, with marginalized populations, particularly Aboriginal peoples, being hardest hit.17 Imprisonment may further fuel the rate of disease transmission as incarceration has been independently associated with HIV infection among Canadian IDU.18

Canada’s new ‘Anti-Drug Strategy’ appears ill conceived. Furthermore, the new Anti-Drug Strategy is not anti-HIV. As such, this should not be accepted as a legitimate policy shift. In deviating from internationally established HIV prevention standards, which are based on the best available evidence, this strategy may in fact be better described as “anti-health” and “anti-science.” It has been over four years since former US president Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that he was wrong to withhold federal funds for needle exchange programs in the United States.20 How long will take before the Government of Canada expresses the same regret? More importantly, how much unnecessary suffering and new HIV infections will be needed before our political leadership finally embraces evidence -based public health principles in the fight against HIV/AIDS? — Kora DeBeck (BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS), Evan Wood Thomas Kerr, Julio Montaner (BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and Dept of Medicine, UBC), Vancouver, BC

1. UNAIDS. 2006 report on the global AIDS epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2006.
2. World Health Organization, UNAIDS, UN Drug Control Office. Policy brief: Provision of sterile injecting equipment to reduce HIV transmission. WHO; 2004.
3. UNAIDS. Progress report on the global response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic 2003: Follow-up to the 2001 United Nations General Assembly special session on HIV/AIDS. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2003.
4. Wodak A, Cooney A. Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: A comprehensive review of the international evidence. Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41:777-813.
5. The Lancet. Losing tolerance with zero tolerance. The Lancet. 2005;365:629-630.
6. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Jones J, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW. The impact of a police presence on access to needle exchange programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;34:116-8.
7. Dixon D, Coffin P. Zero tolerance policing of illegal drug markets. Drug and Alcohol Review. 1999;18:477-486.
8. Kerr T, Small W, Wood E. The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2005;16:210-220.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Drug-Associated HIV Transmission Continues in the United States. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/idu.htm (accessed 2007 April 10).
10. Health Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance report to June 30, 2006. Ottawa: Division of HIV/AIDS Epidemiology and Surveillance, Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control (CIDPC), Health Canada; 2006.
11. O’Neil P. B.C. blasts budget for favouring Quebec: Trade minister denies province is being ‘punished’. The Vancouver Sun. 03/20/2007:A1.
12. Wood E, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Kerr T. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. CMAJ. 2006;175:1399.
13. Department of Finance Canada. The Budget Plan 2007. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 03/19/2007.
14. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Report of the Auditor General of Canada -2001, chapter 11–illicit drugs: The federal government’s role. 2001.
15. DeBeck K, Wood E, Montaner J, Kerr T. Canada’s 2003 renewed drug strategy -an evidence-based review. HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review. 2006;11:1-5-12.
16. Government of Canada. Canada’s Drug Strategy. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1998.
17. Brzozowski J, Taylor-Butts A, Johnson S. Victimizing and offending among the aboriginal population in Canada. Jurisdat Statistics Canada; 2006. Available: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/ Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/ 85-002-XIE2006003.pdf (accessed 2007 April 15)
18. Hagan H. The relevance of attributable risk measures to HIV prevention planning. AIDS. 2003;17:911-3.
19. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Nations General Assembly, 993 UNTS 3, Article12. 1996.
20. Altman L. Clinton urges global planning to halt H.I.V. New York Times. 07/12/2002. Available: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? sec=health&res=9C04E7D61030F931A25754C0A9649C8B63&n=Top%2fReference %2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople %2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill (accessed 2007 April 10)