Some of the Most Complex Needs of My Patients Stem from Poverty and not Disease Alone

October 8, 2015 9:59 am
hospital-840135_1280

Why Canadian children need a champion.

A young girl is referred to a pediatrician’s office for inability to pay attention in the classroom. The child’s teacher is concerned she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and possibly, a learning disability.

I am a second year medical student working in the clinic at the time of her visit. I am beginning to establish my approach to patient problems and complex medical illness.

As I make my way through the medical history, the child’s parents tell me they are struggling to make ends meet. Despite their best efforts combined with collections from a nearby food bank, the little girl often goes to school hungry.

The problem seems clear: how could any child concentrate in the face of hunger? When your groceries consist of the non-perishable offerings of others, how do you nourish a developing brain?

How does a physician properly evaluate a learning problem when a child’s basic needs are unmet? 

I am now a pediatric resident, pursuing specialist training in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood illness. Years later, I still can’t help but feel that some of the most complex needs of many of my patients stem from the constraints of poverty and not disease alone.

Unfortunately, as physicians, my colleagues and I do not have the therapeutic tools necessary to “cure” the social conditions that so often impact the health of our patients.

Beyond anecdotal confirmation, there is strong evidence linking poverty to poor health outcomes for children: higher levels of mental illness, accidental injury, obesity, asthma, poor brain development and more. These problems have a cost that we all bear. When children are exposed to the toxic effects of poverty, the detrimental impacts can be felt for generations – and they impact entire communities.  

In 1989, the year I was born, Canada’s House of Commons vowed to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Twenty-six years later, Canada’s children are still suffering. Current data suggest that over half a million Canadian children live in low in-come households.

Provincially and territorially, efforts to curb levels of child poverty have had variable success. Provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador have significantly reduced levels of child poverty after introducing poverty reduction strategies that include enhanced early childhood education and child care. Conversely, in Manitoba where a poverty reduction strategy has been in place since 2009, levels of child poverty continue to be some of the highest in the country. The same rate holds true for British Columbia, the only province without a committed poverty reduction strategy.  

Without a coordinated effort and strong national leadership, we risk leaving too many children behind.

The time has come for Canada to adopt a child poverty reduction strategy and to appoint a Commissioner for Children and Young Persons who will guarantee its success.  If we succeed in making a federal commitment to our children, we stand to make real change.

Let’s hear what our political parties have to say about a cohesive, national child poverty reduction strategy in this election season. A number of evidence-based policy and program solutions, including, but not limited to, guaranteed minimum income and universal childcare, are at our disposal and could inform this effort.

But here’s a plea: A strategy without true accountability will put us no further ahead. Canada’s children need a non-partisan, independent, “advocate” or “champion” to represent their best interests.

A Commissioner for Children and Young Persons could report on the status of children. They would ensure all sectors consider children in decision-making. A Commissioner for Children and Young Persons could also provide a framework of accountability for a federal commitment to eliminate child poverty.

This is not a new concept to wealthy nations like Canada. Countries including Australia, Sweden and France have all established a point person or office representing the interests of the child. This concept is also well known to the Canadian government. After Canada ratified the UN convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, more than a decade’s effort to establish a Commissioner for Canadian Children and Young Persons was set afoot. Previous governmental reports have also produced recommendations for the appointment of a federal Commissioner

Twice, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has called on Canada to establish an ombudsman’s office. In 2009 and again in 2012, Parliamentarians’ introduced bills proposing the appointment of a Commissioner.  Despite this, we have yet to muster the political will to establish formal representation for Canadian children.

The need for a national champion for children is clear.  Will our future leaders heed the call?

IMG_1655Laura StymiestLaura Stymiest is a paediatrics resident at Dalhousie University. She previously completed training at the Coady International Institute and has been involved in research in the area of Social Paediatrics.

 

 

 

 

Ford Jones_LeeElizabeth Lee-Ford Jones is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca, and Professor of Paediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto.

Do Canadians Spend Too Much on Taxes?

October 7, 2015 10:05 am
Taxes

Here’s why that’s the wrong question

“There are lies, damned lies and statistics” is the well-worn phrase, but nothing better sums up the recent Fraser Institute scare mongering about taxes being the single largest budget item of Canadian households.  “Your family’s largest expense may surprise you,” the ideological-driven think tank wrote, with taxes as the punchline.  This perspective was picked up in headlines across the country with few media outlets taking the time to look critically at how the finding was reached.  

The truth is, as catchy as the headlines may be, it is alarmist spin.  

Of course, if you divide all household expenditures into a number of different categories like food and transportation, but leave all the different levels and types of taxation lumped together in a single category, the Fraser Institute finding is neither false nor surprising. If, instead, we also lumped all of Canadians’ (non-tax) spending together, the resulting discretionary amount is a larger portion of household budgets than the taxes the Fraser Institute claims we pay.  

But there is more obfuscating magic in their figures.  On the one hand, the Fraser Institute assigns the taxes paid by corporations to individuals and families, but they don’t assign the corresponding corporate profits to anyone.  This inconsistency inflates their tax rate numbers.  

Let’s tackle the issue another way.  If we examine Canada’s entire economy, the OECD pegs total taxes, including CPP and EI contributions, at about 31 percent of GDP.  This simply does not square with the Fraser Institute’s figure of 44 percent.  

And let’s not forget that governments in Canada actually account for about 20 percent of GDP if we focus on their direct purchases – from teachers’ salaries to hospitals to roads and public libraries.  Providing these kinds of public goods is why we have governments in the first place.  Presumably the Fraser Institute would rather have Canadians, at least those rich enough to afford it, pay for private schools, private health insurance and toll roads instead.  But where would this leave lower and middle income Canadians?   

Most of the rest of the economy’s taxes flow back to individuals and families as cash – ranging from child tax benefits to public pensions.  These forms of redistribution and social insurance are fundamental to Canada’s social fabric.     

But there may be a silver lining.  Such biased economic exercises raise a fundamental question: Just what indicators should we be using to keep score on Canada’s economic performance?

In the 1990s,  a cover story for the Atlantic Monthly was titled, “If the economy is up, why is everyone down?”, reflecting a widespread feeling that the most commonly used scorecard for the economy, gross domestic product (GDP), was  misleading.  The recent theological debate on whether or not Canada has been in a recession is also based on GDP trends.  

In 2009, then French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, frustrated with the focus on GDP, funded a group of Nobel laureates and internationally prominent economists to see whether there was a better economic scorecard. Their answer, in the area of incomes, was to focus on median family income – the income level that separates families into two equal sized groups when arrayed by income.  

For Canada, the trends in this measure of economic performance do not jibe with GDP per capita, nor with the family income figure used by the Fraser Institute.  In 1997, median Canadian family after-tax income (in constant 2014 dollars) for a four-person family was about $64,000, just a few hundred dollars higher than it was in 1976.  Nothing to celebrate, in other words. Over this same period, GDP per capita had grown by about 20 percent.  

Figure for op-ed bWOLFSON

 

After this period of stagnation, there was a clear turning point in 1997, with median family income (again using a four person family as the point of reference) then growing quite steadily, reaching just over $85,000 in 2013.  This figure reflects real growth of 33 percent, faster than the roughly 26 percent growth in real GDP per capita over the same period.  

We have, then, three very different impressions of Canada’s economic performance:  The Fraser Institute has generated implausibly high average tax rates, using opaque methods, with the implication that Canadians are losing close to half their income to some ne’er do well — their governments.  The mainstream financial press focuses on short term wiggles in the GDP stats, and politicians try to score points on who is to blame or reward for particular wiggles in GDP.

But far less effort is devoted to producing and trying to understand data on how actual Canadian families are doing.  

We need to make more use of modern kinds of “big data” to estimate median family income and related indicators like the prevalence of low income, the size of the middle class, the share of the top one  percent and income inequality.  Such information would help paint a truer portrait of Canadian household prosperity — both improvements and declines – across the country.    

It’s time we stopped buying biased and second-rate economic indicators and took a thoughtful look at how Canadians are really doing.  
Wolfson_MichaelMichael Wolfson is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca and holds a Canada Research Chair in population health modeling/populomics at the University of Ottawa. He is a former assistant chief statistician at Statistics Canada, and has a PhD in economics from Cambridge.

Blue Rodeo Slams Harper In New Protest Song

September 30, 2015 2:58 pm
o-BLUE-RODEO-STEPHEN-HARPER-facebook

It’s been merely a month, but yet another anti-conservative diddy has gone viral.

Following the controversial suspension of federal government scientist Tony Turner, Superstar country-rock group Blue Rodeo are the newest band of Canadians protesting the Conservative party with their new hit, “Stealin’ All My Dreams.

In a recent trend, choruses of politically active Canadians have turned to YouTube to voice their opinions by creating snappy and opinionated tunes that are sure to be stuck in your head all day.

In Blue Rodeo’s newest contribution, the band features lines and lyrics attacking the Harper government, with jabs such as “Little King Stevie and his monarchy” and “(You’re) the biggest threat to my security.” Thus leaving little to the imagination on the band’s political standpoint.

If not for the Toronto band’s personal interpretation of Stephen Harper, the video is worth a watch for the many statistics projected throughout the video.

Blue Rodeo, along with dozens of other prominent Canadian artists, such as poet Shane Koyczan, will be performing their self made political anthems over the next 20 days leading up to the ballot box, asking voters to #ImagineOct20th, and create a change of leadership in Canada.

You can find the band’s ‘Stealin’ All My Dreams’ protest song on their YouTube channel.

Why Affordable Housing Should be a Federal Election Issue

September 29, 2015 9:54 am
Housing

It’s time to make affordable housing an issue in the federal election campaign.

Four million people are struggling to find affordable housing in Canada today.  By affordable, I’m using the Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) standard rule of thumb of about 30 percent of income going to housing that is adequate and in suitable condition. In fact, many Canadians are paying much more than this for housing, which leaves little in the household budget for other necessities such as food and clothing.

According to Food Banks Canada, the cost of housing is a key reason for the rise in food bank usage. Did you know that a third of those who depend on food banks are children?  Despite this, one in seven children go to school hungry every day according to the Breakfast Club of Canada.

There are 235,000 Canadians who experience homelessness in the course of a year.  And 1.6 million more Canadians are at risk of losing their homes according to CMHC.  All this misery while study after study shows that it is cheaper for the public purse to house someone than leave them on the street, moving in and out of shelters, emergency hospital rooms and even jails in some cases.

I think we all understand intuitively the importance of having decent shelter.  A home anchors a person, anchors a family.  It provides a foundation for people to move forward toward greater stability in the work place or higher educational attainment.  Health experts also tell us that adequate housing is a key determinant of health and long-term health outcomes.

In Toronto, I chair a Mayor’s Task Force on Toronto Community Housing (TCHC) which has a waiting list of 90,000 households looking for decent, affordable accommodation.  That represents more people than are currently housed by TCHC now, which is already the largest social housing provider in Canada – and second only to the New York Housing Authority on the continent.

Toronto isn’t the only city struggling with this issue. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that “As a country, we are not keeping up with demand for housing options and Canadians from coast to coast to coast feel the housing crunch.”

To make matters worse, current federal investments in social housing are being phased out. These investments come in the way of federally subsidized “operating agreements” with social housing providers and co-ops who deliver affordable housing to those in need. This year that means a $1.6 billion reduced investment. Without renewal the subsidies will, one by one, end by 2040 – a slow bleed.  When these agreements end, over 300,000 households will be at risk of eviction or possible homelessness according to a report by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association.

Affordable housing is an enormous challenge — but it’s solvable if there is political will to do so.   So why isn’t more being done to keep existing housing affordable or provide new affordable housing?  The different levels of government along with community organizations are doing something, but it is insufficient to meet the need.  Also, the different players are not working together on a comprehensive plan.

What we need now is a ‘national housing strategy’ with all hands on board. Canada needs federal leadership on affordable housing.

In this federal election campaign, the effort to achieve political will needs to be focused on the federal candidates. In each federal riding there are social housing and co-op providers.   If residents got together, visited each candidate, told them about the housing crunch, and sought their support, it would go a long way in bringing this need into the election campaign limelight.

So let’s make our federal political candidates aware that affordable housing is not just something that Canadian cities and towns have to struggle with on their own, but requires federal leadership and investment.

Art EaglsonArt Eggleton is a Canadian Senator and former Mayor of Toronto and Member of Parliament. 

Response to Refugee Crisis Must Include Expanding Refugee Healthcare

September 24, 2015 2:50 pm
hallway-867226_640

The haunting image of Alan Kurdi’s lifeless body lying face down on a Turkish beach, and the subsequent revelation of the Kurdi family’s intention to seek asylum in Canada, have prompted many Canadians to ask what we can do as a country to help Syrian refugees. So far, our search for an answer has rarely moved past the issue of refugee resettlement as we continue to debate how many Syrian refugees we should admit, how soon and by which means.

This is unfortunate. While there is no question that refugee resettlement should be an important component of our collective action, our humanitarian response to the Syrian refugee crisis must go beyond this.

What is largely missing in the public discussion is an appreciation that refugees face extraordinary challenges throughout their migration process, including before and after their resettlement, and this equally demands our attention. One challenge in particular – access to proper healthcare – is critical, both for Syrian refugees remaining in the region and many of those who have arrived in Canada.

Lack of healthcare has dire consequences for the well-being of refugees and can also stand in the way of their integration into new environments.

For the four-million Syrian refugees living in the neighbouring countries, their access to healthcare has been severely hampered by the funding shortage facing aid agencies. Take this year as an example; as of June, the UN High Commission for Refugees and its partners have secured only 17 percent of the 369 million U.S. dollars needed for the health-related humanitarian initiatives in the region. As a result, UN-operated clinics in 10 of the 18 Iraqi districts have been forced to close. In Jordan, only half of the war-wounded have been able to access necessary nursing care. Refugees in Lebanon in need of certain life-saving treatments, including kidney dialysis, chemotherapy and care for extremely pre-term infants, have lost UN subsidies and must now find ways to pay for their medical costs privately.

Syrian refugees that arrive in Canada, those sponsored by private groups as well as those awaiting refugee status determination, also encounter barriers accessing medically necessary services owing to cuts to the federal refugee healthcare program since June 2012. Although the Federal Court ruled in July last year that these changes to refugee healthcare were cruel and unusual — and therefore unconstitutional — the government is now appealing the decision. Meanwhile, gaps in refugee healthcare coverage persist.

According to the current federal policy, most privately sponsored refugees and refugee claimants are entitled to neither supplemental benefits nor prescription drugs unless they are required to treat conditions that pose a threat to public health or public safety. As such, Syrian refugees injured in the war and in need of prostheses or mobility aids must pay for them out of pocket. Those seeking support for mental illness, which is common among refugees, receive no financial assistance when consulting a clinical psychologist or when requiring psychotropic drugs. Refugees living with chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension must also shoulder the cost of their medications on their own. This latter point is especially salient in the context of Syrian refugees. In 2011, before the onset of the civil war, over three-quarter of all deaths in Syria were reportedly attributable to non-communicable diseases.

There are, however, immediate steps that the Canadian government can take to facilitate Syrian refugees’ access to healthcare — both abroad and here at home. As a country, we must boost our humanitarian aid to frontline organizations that work tirelessly to meet the needs of refugees in Syria and adjacent countries. The government’s recent announcement to match private donations made between now and the end of the year is a crucial first step, but with the refugee situation becoming protracted, we must commit to longer-term funding support.

Critically, at home, the federal government should discontinue its appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling and fully reverse the cuts to the refugee healthcare program in Canada.

These measures will not only attend to the basic needs of refugees, but also contribute to the success of Canada’s resettlement program. Restoring healthcare access will reduce the out-of-pocket healthcare costs of refugees and ease the financial burden of private refugee sponsors. Access to healthcare will also help maintain or even improve refugees’ well-being and sense of hope which can only help to encourage their active participation in the host community.

The protection of healthcare access for refugees must be a key element of Canada’s humanitarian response to the Syrian refugee crisis. We can’t start too soon.

YYChen_headshotY.Y. Brandon Chen is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. He is a member of University of Ottawa’s Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics.

Bringing Order to Chaos in the Debate on Marijuana?

September 23, 2015 10:01 am
marijuana

In the midst of Presidential Primary races in the USA, a federal election in Canada and myriad internationally supported and jurisdictional laws in place on the issue elsewhere on earth, marijuana has quietly dominated the media, political and business landscapes. Yet little, it appears, seems to be understood by the general public as this particular industry continues to grow and political agendas seem to be firming up

This essay purports to clear the air or shed some light on the matter.

Whether through the creation of new laws to protect its cultivation from illicit organizations, arresting criminal elements who distribute it, helping to create a framework for compassion clubs for patients who need it, or assisting governments in Canada, the United States, Uruguay, Mexico and Caribbean nations draft new laws or manage through the complexities of creating a new licensed producer regime, marijuana has been part of my life for over thirty years. Yet after all my media rants about its decriminalization, only now has this heretofore socially vilified plant become mainstream politically.

800px-DEA_Raid_protest

Medical marijuana users protest crackdowns in California. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

As context, in the early part of the new millennium, many states in the USA – starting with Colorado – passed legislation to make the cultivation and distribution of marijuana legal for either its recreational or medicinal use.  These laws, initiated specifically in state legislatures, have provided great commercial benefit to growers and distributors in States like Colorado, Oregon and Washington, but there seems to remain no national and coordinated legislation for cultivation and distribution despite repeated claims from the White House.

As a result, I travel more and more to states that have adopted marijuana laws to advise those State governments or regional law enforcement agencies and even state regulated marijuana producers on issues of financial administration, security and best practices in marijuana growing and distribution.  More and more, however, I am convinced that politics seem to be getting in the way of practicality and this may inhibit or hamper future benefit for licensed producers and ultimately those who need it throughout the USA.

To be specific, the lack of a national law for either recreational or medicinal use of marijuana has hampered opportunity for some patients who require it for medicinal purposes to even access it in states where there are no such laws in place. More startling is the fact that current licensed producers and distributors remain unable to actually deposit funds into FDIC banks – creating a virtual sit and wait opportunity for criminal elements.

In New York State Governor Cuomo reluctantly created regulations for the growing and distribution of medicinal marijuana.  In his vainglorious attempt to appease every single side of the issue, he created a system where a literal handful of licensed producers would grow and cultivate cannabis for medicinal use – only as oils and edibles. The initial plan was heralded as innovative and was a boon for my consulting business, but when reality sunk in for potential license applicants, it became apparent that the benefit Governor Cuomo had wanted to create was seemingly as fleeting as his popularity.

Until the US comes up with a national law, the situation for cannabis will remain fluid in the United States.

In contrast, Canada’s new national marijuana regulation, the first in the world – MMPR, passed by the House of Commons in 2013, has been a success.  The new Regulations were designed to limit the number of growers licensed to grow and distribute marijuana for medical purposes regulations (MMPR) to the general public. The essence of the new Regulations curtailed the opportunity for those who heretofore had dominated the marketplace with smaller and possibly illegal grow operations. Legitimate operations functioned under a set of regulations called the medical marijuana access regulations (MMAR) and were originally passed by the House of Commons in 2003 and designed to regulate the growing and cultivation of marijuana for a qualified patient – with a prescription – for access to the plant for his or her own personal use. The marketplace for marijuana in Canada, under the original MMAR was like the Wild West – illicit organizations controlled the small growers – making my job in law enforcement tougher.

Of course I was particularly pleased when the MMPR came into being and immodestly helped to push its passage. But, despite this good work and vision from Ottawa, the marketplace and the entire Canadian medicinal marijuana industry continues to be rife with issues as it transitions to the new Regulations.

In a very stark example, in the early goings of the process of the new MMPR, someone forgot to tell the courts that former MMAR growers (some 40,000 across Canada) would fight to keep their status quo and, as such, would band together to form a class action against the government.  The subsequent court proceedings in BC Federal Court rendered a decision by Mr. Justice Michael Manson in favour of the class and cast the entire MMPR program into chaos all the while embarrassing the federal government. Had the government of Canada’s Health Canada simply stolen a page out of the myriad provincial governments’ prescription drug reform efforts, it would have created a more effective transition program to the new order.

More startling is that most newly minted licensed producers grow and sell as if they were still MMAR growers. Simply put, many newly licensed producers are seemingly too small in scale for a national program. Scale or lack thereof, has, in fact, created the unintended consequence of limiting supply to qualified patients – projected to be about 400,000 in Canada according to Health Canada – because newly licensed producers do not and cannot produce the scale of marijuana for such a large patient base. Little wonder the illicit marketplace and its organized cohorts remain entrenched in the Canadian market and continue to make it a considerable challenge for law enforcement.

Perhaps the most dramatic issue facing the new market, however, remains the failure of some municipalities to curtail the illegal distribution of marijuana at illegal dispensaries.  My very public fights with Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver are over the very public disregard he seems to have for controlling or curtailing this illegal activity, claiming that doing otherwise would drive the industry underground. If Canada is prepared to embrace new regulations for marijuana it must maintain the highest of standards for its distribution. The illegal sale of marijuana on Hastings Street in Vancouver is likely an even bigger embarrassment for the mayor of one of Canada’s greatest cities rather than the federal government.

Some Caribbean and South America countries like Jamaica, Chile and Uruguay have recently passed national laws to allow private companies to bid on licenses to grow, process and distribute marijuana. Seemingly the intent is to stave off efforts from the illicit cartels that have taken over the distribution of marijuana throughout those countries. It seems, too that the ancillary attempt with the creation of these new laws is to attract a spate of bidders from all over the world hoping to garner a license and reap the benefit of growing and selling legally in those jurisdictions.

Caribbean nations like Jamaica and St. Vincent, for example, have attracted investment from Europe, US and Canada seeking to take advantage of the export opportunity there. Stark reality may creep in when these investors begin to realize that these countries may not qualify to export into the lucrative US and Canadian marketplaces due to growing practices and scale issues.

Possibly the most startling example of good intentions and failed outcomes is Uruguay. Its quirky former President thought correctly that a national plan to legalize marijuana would stave off efforts by other South American to infiltrate its borders with illegal marijuana. It passed its legislation to totally legalize marijuana nationally and launched a global licitation, all the while electing a new President – a physician – who signaled a change in direction to medical marijuana while continuing down a path for bids for recreational marijuana. Full disclosure, I am involved in a bid in the country with a Canadian organization with experience in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis.  To suggest that the process managed by Uruguay’s Institute of Regulation for Recreational Cannabis or IRCCA is both confused and opaque is understatement, which may render the unintended consequence of derailing the program altogether.

There are many moving parts to the entire regulating global marijuana market, including a shift in process and regulation in Canada as a result of the federal election, in the United States as pressure mounts for a federal law there and greater scrutiny on rogue international governments. Throughout one thing is clear – the growth of the market will continue as benefit of the plant continues to be ascribed in science and medicine and as money can be made. From my perspective, though, the best way to manage these issues without allowing the proliferation of nefarious elements and chaos is to ensure that law-makers have courage and that remedies for violators –including those in foreign jurisdictions – are established.  Demonstrated courage by law-makers comes in the ability to create Regulation that demands good probity for all those who participate in the industry, to ensure that there is adherence to good quality in people and processes, that there is extraordinary oversight in place and above all, that the most effective security measures around are in place to keep the system and communities safe.

Remedies should include prison sentences for violators and for those who grow without a license and who seek to distribute without a license and sanctions for governments who are not transparent. Similarly, those who are licensed and violate any of Regulations or laws stand to lose their license and face the prospect of never being allowed a license again.

As for other jurisdictions, like South America, until those governments can demonstrate that they, above all, are not implicit or complicit in illicit activity or non-transparent behaviours, we will continue to have a lack of confidence in their programs or laws no matter how well intended they may appear.

Kash Heed is a former Solicitor General for the province of BC, retired Chief of Police in the West Vancouver Police Department and the former head of Drug Section and Gang Task Force with the Vancouver Police Department.

Should Eye Exams be Mandatory for School-Age Kids?

September 21, 2015 11:06 am
Eye exam

Most Canadian children never have their eyes examined, yet one in six may have a vision problem.

Currently only 14 per cent of Canadian children under the age of six receive professional eye care. Since the measles outbreak in North America a few months ago, more school districts and provinces are considering mandatory immunization in order to attend school.

Should eye examination be added to the list of school entry requirements?

It’s been done elsewhere.  Since 2004, all children in Massachusetts entering kindergarten must provide proof that they have undergone a vision screening within the last year. The government explains that school entry is the perfect “safety net” that ensures a proper start to academic life.

Canada only has a partial safety net for eye care for kids at best.

According to the Canadian Association of Optometrists (CAO), one in every six children may have a vision problem that makes it difficult to learn and read. For this reason, the CAO strongly recommends a comprehensive eye examination for every child before entering school. The medical journal, The Lancet, recently published a paper on whole population vision screening in children to detect amblyopia (lazy eye). The authors recommend that there should be screening of all children age four to five years at school entry since this “confers most benefit and addresses inequity in access to timely treatment.”

So if professionals are so clear on the need, why aren’t kids getting eye exams in Canada?

The CAO believes the costs associated with eyeglasses can be a barrier for many families – and many parents are simply unaware that eye examination for children is both recommended and free in most provinces (covered by the publicly funded health system).

Some steps are underway to improve the situation. For example, Ontario has recently joined six other provinces in offering a program that is financed by both public and private purses. The Eye See…Eye Learn program provides no cost, comprehensive eye exams for kindergarten students, and importantly, offers a free pair of eye glasses if the child requires them — something that would normally cost parents around $250.

Initiatives like the Eye See…Eye Learn program are a great step in the right direction, but it’s a half measure. Provinces are already partially funding this program, so why not take it a step further? Why not put in place a comprehensive eye health system so that children of all ages are systematically benefiting from vision care?

We need health ministries to make sure that children who need glasses get them, and have access to professional eye care throughout their education trajectory. And maybe it is time to consider the requirement of documentation that a free eye exam has taken place before school entry.

Children’s education at stake

Vision problems have serious consequences for a child’s development; reading, writing, motor skills and behaviour can all be affected. Bottom line: early detection and timely treatment of eye conditions are effective and cost effective.

Many parents and teachers have mistaken vision problems for behavioural issues or learning disabilities. But a child will not tell a parent if they cannot see properly (if they don’t know themselves). Systematically detecting vision issues in children will not only help them avoid unnecessary academic struggles, but it will also reduce the burden on schools, who must spend huge resources to help students who are falling behind.

The Quebec Order of Optometrists says that 61% of Canadian parents are wrong when they believe they can detect their child’s visual problems without a professional.  It may be highly instructive to know that high-IQ society Mensa’s youngest U.S. member is a two year old girl who was originally misdiagnosed with “unspecified learning delays.”  All she needed were glasses to correct her far-sightedness and amblyopia.

Seeing through the costs

Learning that your child needs glasses can be challenging for a parent with low-income.

Philanthropic initiatives exist across the country to pay for the exorbitant cost of glasses; the Bonhomme à lunettes in Quebec, the Toronto Foundation for Student Success, the Vision Institute of Canada, for example, all provide a helping hand for vision care. But their capacity is often limited and families should not have to rely solely on the good will of such organizations in order to see.

In the coming months, the CAO will meet with Members of Parliament and Senators in Ottawa in the hopes that early detection and treatment of eye and vision problems will become a public health priority. If Canada is serious about education – and serious about the health of Canadian children – it should move to make complete eye care part of the health care system.

Hear an audio podcast on this issue with the authors here.

rsz_ford_jones_leeElizabeth Lee-Ford Jones is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca, and Professor of Paediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto.

 

 

 

 

 

melanie_holubowskiMélanie Meloche-Holubowski is a journalist intern at EvidenceNetwork.ca and journalist with Radio-Canada.

Opinion: Something is Rotten in the State of Ottawa

September 16, 2015 1:47 pm

It has been said that the reason nothing changes in the criminal justice system is due to the ‘four horsemen’ of political inaction: inertia, ignorance, apathy and cost. When it comes to the Ottawa Police Services Board and their lackadaisical attitude to the issue of carding, it appears all four of these elements apply. How else can you explain the fact that the Ottawa Police Services Board has done next to nothing to address this city’s carding problems?

The role of a police services board should not be to rubber stamp decisions made by the chief of police.  The issue of street checks or carding was first brought to the attention of the Ottawa Police Services Board back in 2012 when university student Andrew Tysowski was stopped by an Ottawa police officer and given a ticket because six years previously he had the temerity to exercise his charter rights under Canadian law.

In 2006 Mr. Tysowski had been asked by officers to get off an OC Transpo bus and answer some of their questions. Someone thought he resembled a robbery suspect and had called police. After answering their questions and producing valid identification, Mr. Tysowski inquired as to why the officers asked him to get off the bus. When one of the officers reacted negatively to his request Mr. Tysowski indicated he had studied police foundations at Algonquin College and that he was legally entitled to receive an answer to his question.

In 2012 when Mr. Tysowski was stopped by an Ottawa police officer for an alleged infraction under the Highway Traffic Act, he was asked to provide the registration certificate for his vehicle, which he did.  The officer checked with dispatch and discovered a report about his interaction with police on the OC Transpo bus six years earlier. As a consequence, he informed Mr. Tysowski that because of his attitude towards police back in 2006 he was giving him a ticket for failing to provide registration for his vehicle even though the officer was actually holding the certificate in his hands.

Following this incident Mr. Tysowski filed a complaint against the officer with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). When the OIPRD finally released their report into the complaint, Mr. Tysowski was shocked to learn that back in 2006 the officers had produced a report on the incident where they stated that they were making a note of his negative attitude in the event he should ever apply to join the Ottawa Police Service in the future.

This case raises a number of issues. First, it illustrates the extent of police ignorance when it comes to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every day in courtrooms in the City of Ottawa and across the province criminal lawyers make charter applications claiming that officers have violated their clients’ rights. The costs involved in processing these applications are in the millions, and the applications invariably lead to charges being dropped or dismissed in court. So why is it that police officers do not seem to have the foggiest notion of Canadian law and the charter rights of citizens?

Second, upon what basis in law are police in this country allowed to surreptitiously record prejudicial information on individuals and keep it secreted away in their police files without any due process or avenues of accountability for the affected person? What are the consequences when police engage in this behaviour?

Third, why are oversight bodies like the Office of the Independent Police Review Directorate not imposing severe penalties on officers who engage in this kind of conduct?

In the case involving Andrew Tysowski the OIPRD ruled that the officer’s actions were only minor in nature and therefore did not warrant a more stringent penalty than being talked to by a senior officer.  There is something wrong with this picture. Tell that to the hundreds of people who have had their lives negatively impacted by the racial and discriminatory practice of carding or street checks that was documented in a series of articles published in the Toronto Star. Many people told the Star that they were unable to travel to the US, obtain volunteer positions and in some cases even secure employment because they had been subject to carding by the Toronto Police Service.  The fact that all of this was done by the police without the knowledge of the individual affected should be a concern to all people who value their freedoms and civil liberties.

In 2012, I wrote to the Ottawa Police Services Board and made them aware of Andrew Tysowski’s case. In typical fashion they did nothing.

In Ottawa we have a police services board appointed under the Police Services Act of Ontario. This board is supposed to provide the Ottawa Police Service with direction when it comes to issues of policy and other matters affecting policing in the city. Mayor Jim Watson sits on this Board, as does former Mayor Jim Durrell. What is the purpose of these boards if the people who sit on them are going to collect their per diems and say nothing about issues that negatively impact the freedoms of people they are supposed to represent and protect?

Preserving the status quo is not an option. The Police Services Act needs to be amended so it sets out very strict rules and guidelines governing carding or street checks in the province of Ontario. The OIPRD needs to be abolished and replaced with a genuine oversight body that holds police accountable for their actions. Last but not least, the role of police service boards needs to be clarified so that the people who sit on these boards are actually required to do something to earn their per diems even if that means protecting citizens from policing practices that undermine the rule of law in a democracy.

Darryl T Davies is a criminologist with the department of sociology and anthropology at Carleton University. The views expressed herein are those of the author in his personal capacity.

Arrested for Sleeping?

September 11, 2015 10:55 am
Sleeping

The struggle to occupy public space.

As humans, we need to sleep. It is biologically unavoidable. Yet, on both sides of the border, sleeping can be considered a criminal act, especially if you are homeless and have no place to rest your head other than in public spaces such as parks.

How have cities and states been able to impose and enforce by-laws and ordinances that clearly violate one’s right to occupy public space for this very purpose? This summer several cases are putting this longstanding question to the legal test. The outcome might just change the way we view homelessness.

In the City of Abbotsford, British Columbia, a civil court case is pitting a group known as the “Drug War Survivors” against the state in a fight over what is being viewed as further evidence of the criminalization of homelessness. The group’s lawyer has argued that his clients (and all persons homeless) have the right to occupy park space for the purpose of temporary dwelling and sleeping. The case argues that a set of by-laws prohibiting such uses of public spaces is unjust given there is no alternative.

Perhaps the real fight is also about who is responsible for the provision of adequate shelter in Canada, especially for those most in need.

Across the border, the United States Department of Justice has intervened in a case in the District Court of Boise, Idaho by filing a Statement of Interest. The filing clearly articulates that the act of sleeping, when there is no shelter available, should not be considered a criminal act, yet they cite that among the nearly half a million annually homeless, 42 percent slept in unsheltered public locations.  The Boise filing may become a landmark case in finally ending the debate on whether it is constitutionally just for any citizen without shelter to seek a public space for the right to sleep – without fear of being arrested.

Interestingly, neither the Abbotsford case nor the Boise filing are new as cities have always struggled with the inability to shelter all those in need since the dawn of modern urbanization. However, what is new is the criminalization of homelessness.

In the North American context, it was not until the late 1970s when the United States saw a spike in the numbers of citizens without homes, largely attributed to the economy, the deinstitutionalization of persons from mental health facilities and increasing veterans on the streets that actions began to take place.  For most jurisdictions, the fight was not about affordable housing but how to deal with the “vagrants” who shuffled about the streets, causing well-minded citizens to demand steps be taken to end public intoxication, curb panhandling and the visibility of poverty, mental health and severe addiction.

In a case that took place in the winter of 1979, Supreme Court Judge Andrew Tyler delivered a landmark decision in the case of Callahan vs. Carey. Robert Callahan was homeless and resided in the notorious Bowery neighbourhood of New York City. Justice Tyler’s brave decision was clear: the State was obligated to provide shelter to those most in need and his decision also included the clear articulation of necessary shelter standards and intake and monitoring provisions.

The decision resulted in the state of New York being required to shelter those in need. The case would also impact other jurisdictions to consider whose responsibility it was to provide temporary shelter. While the decision did not end homelessness, it did place the burden on the State to provide shelter spaces while also setting a strong precedent.

In the late 1990s, Toronto’s “Tent City” plight became ground zero for a Canadian resistance movement that drew in many including the late Jack Layton, a City Councillor at the time, who grappled over the same question: Who is responsible for the provision of adequate shelter in Canada during a time of crisis? The Toronto story ended with a mass eviction on the occupied private lands while a media storm brewed among social housings activists, governments and citizens all fighting over how shelter should be provided and what rights Canadians have to occupy land.

The Tent City movement did not result in the legal outcomes of Callahan vs. Carey but it did see the federal government acknowledge the homeless crisis with an investment of nearly a billion dollars in funding to overhaul Canada’s inadequate shelter system.

As the North American summer simmers with high temperatures evoking heat warnings, several legal proceedings are quietly brewing. Perhaps the boiling point has been hit — with governments on both sides of the border on the verge of acknowledging the right of people to sleep in public spaces when no other option exists.  Let’s hope these legal cases also determine that this fundamental right cannot be deemed a criminal act. And let’s hope what follows is further government investment in the range of supports needed to end homelessness.

Distasio_JinoJino Distasio is an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca and Director of the Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg.

Three Things Everyone Should Know About Autism in Canada

September 1, 2015 11:33 am
Autism 2

Canadian governments have done little to address the crisis faced by autism families across the country. This sentiment was true in 2007 when it was put forward in the cross-party Senate report on the state of funding for the treatment of autism in Canada, aptly titled, Pay Now or Pay Later. And until recently, this sentiment could be used to sum up the role of the federal government which has largely left the crisis up to provincial ministries to manage.

But they are slowly coming on side. Last month the federal government appointed a new “Autism Spectrum Disorder Working Group” with a $2 million budget to develop a plan for a “Canadian Autism Partnership” that will address autism research, information sharing, early detection, diagnosis and treatment, among other issues.

It’s a good step forward but much more is needed, particularly on the health and educational services side of the issue so that real families get real help, now.  According to the first comprehensive autism needs assessment survey of caretakers and professionals across the country, Canadian autism families are struggling to get the health services they need but can’t afford.

As governments across the country try to tackle the gap between need and resources, here are a few things about autism everyone should know:

1. Autism is not a mental illness, a mental health condition or a learning disability

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is characterized by impaired verbal and social communication, rigid, restrictive and repetitive behaviours, uneven intellectual development, sensitivity to sensory input, challenges with fine and gross motor skills and gastrointestinal difficulties, among other characteristics.

Autism is more accurately referred to as ‘autism spectrum disorder’ (ASD) because each person on the spectrum can exhibit a differing array of these characteristics and with wide ranging severity.  There’s a favourite saying in the autism community: “If you’ve seen one person with autism, you’ve seen one person with autism.”

There is no cure for autism, though there are several evidence-based interventions that can help address the challenges those with autism face.

2. The rate of autism in Canada is not yet fully known, but we have recent estimates

Canadian media reports often cite autism rates from the United States.  Research from the U.S. Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network at the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 1 in 68 children in America has ASD.  Since autism is five times more prevalent in boys than girls, they estimate 1 in 42 boys and 1 in 189 girls has ASD in the U.S.

So what are the rates in Canada?  And are they on the rise?

“Our best estimate at this time is that ASD affects 1 in 94 children six to nine years of age,” according to Dr. Hélène Ouellette-Kuntz, Professor in the Department of Health Sciences at Queen’s University and Director of The National Epidemiologic Database for the Study of Autism in Canada (NEDSAC).  This estimate is based on diagnostic and services data from Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and Southeastern Ontario from 2003-2010.

What we know so far from NEDSAC is that published materials suggest that autism rates are on the rise in Canada, though they vary widely across the studied regions.  Even when you factor in increases due to the identification of previously undetected cases or diagnostic substitution (conditions that used to be labelled something else now being called autism), “we cannot rule out the possibility of a true increase in incidence,” says Dr. Ouellete-Kuntz.

3. Families can often wait several years to access autism services covered by the public healthcare system.  Government support for such services are widely uneven across the country.

It is not uncommon for families to wait several years to receive a diagnosis of autism for their child from publicly funded health services in most provinces.  And once a child is diagnosed, interventions with a strong evidence base, such as behavioural therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy, have wait times of several months up to several years in most places across the country.  Once services are received, families have access to these therapies for only limited time periods and often beyond the window of time that most experts believe optimal.

The wide range in disparity of publicly funded services for autism across the country has  even generated a kind of ‘medical migration’ with several published accounts of families leaving their home provinces to move to Alberta or British Columbia where autism services are more readily available and/or more flexible.  It is also no longer uncommon to find Canadian families using crowd sourcing campaigns to fund their children’s autism and related therapies.  Many organizations and affected families across the country have been calling for a National Autism Strategy to address the critical lapses in health coverage.

AutismKathleen O’Grady is a Research Associate at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University and Managing Editor of EvidenceNetwork.ca.  She has two young sons, one with autism.  You can follow her on Twitter at @kathleenogrady.

Four Things We Can Do to Improve Healthcare in Canada

August 20, 2015 12:00 pm
Healthcare

What’s next for primary care?

Healthcare is the purview of the provinces in Canada, but health leadership–setting big picture goals, helping achieve best practices across the country and providing long-term, sustainable funding models–is the role of the federal government. As the federal election campaign wages, Canadians should be pressing federal political parties to take a leadership position on the healthcare file. Primary care, in particular, could benefit from increased national dialogue. If we want to improve healthcare in Canada, primary care is a good place to start.

Evidence shows that the best healthcare systems in the world are founded on a strong primary care system–practices of family doctors, nurse practitioners and others who serve as the first (and ongoing) point of contact for patients. Canada has been a world leader in many aspects of primary care for a long time, and the last 10 or 15 years have seen some important changes, mostly for the better. There are more primary care providers than ever before, they are increasingly working in multi-disciplinary teams and more of them use electronic medical records, all factors which are linked to better outcomes for patients.

Not long ago, millions of Canadians said they didn’t have a family doctor. Now in places like Ontario, as many as 94 per cent of residents report having a primary care provider. While there is still more progress to be made on even this basic measure of access, there are several other ways we can and should improve primary care in Canada.

1. Timely access

It is not enough to have a family doctor, you need to be able to see this individual promptly when you are sick. In Canada, only 38 per cent of people report being able to see their primary care provider the same day or next day they call. France, Australia and the United Kingdom all report 50 per cent or higher rates, and countries such as Germany, New Zealand and Switzerland hover around 70 per cent.

Improving prompt access is critical to achieving continuity of care while reducing the number of people relying on walk-in clinics and emergency departments.

2. Doctors need to serve communities

We need to move primary care to a population based model, which means a fundamental rethinking of how primary care is organized. Perhaps the easiest analogy is public primary and secondary education. When you move to a new community, registering your children in the local public school is as easy as knowing your address and catchment area. The schools don’t have the choice of picking their students or saying they are ‘too full.’

Moving to a population based model of primary care will require a new level of planning and coordination–but it’s doable. We already have examples in several rural communities in Canada, and Community Health Centres in some regions also provide a good model. Entire countries, like the United Kingdom, have already achieved this. It should be as easy to find a primary care provider as it is the local public school.

3. A commitment to equity and improving the quality of care

We need to adopt a relentless commitment to improving quality in primary care. Canadian hospitals already have a couple decades of experience in building the skills, structures and programs to improve care, primary care can build on some of this success.

There are six widely accepted domains of quality, all of them relevant to primary care: safety, timeliness (access), efficiency, patient centeredness, effectiveness, and, importantly, equity.

In Canada, one of our great strengths is the richness of diversity represented across our people and geography. It is critical that primary care, the gatekeeper and cornerstone of our health system, treat people equitably. It should not matter where you live, what language you speak, nor your age, sex, sexual identity or cultural background.

4. Integrate primary care into the rest of the health system

Canada often ranks near the bottom of a dozen Commonwealth countries in patients’ experiences of an integrated healthcare system, including the timely availability of information across provider teams. It is about more than just getting hospital, lab and primary care computer systems connected (although this is a critical part), we need a fundamental redesign from sectors to systems while continuing to strengthen the foundational role of primary care.

Patients don’t experience their healthcare as discrete parts, so it shouldn’t function that way. The responsibility for this change is spread across all parts of the healthcare system and a wide range of healthcare providers.

While acknowledging that primary care looks different across Canada–varying payment models and structures according to the province or territory you live in–these four goals can be a unifying vision for the next, necessary evolution in healthcare.

Joshua TepperJoshua Tepper is an advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca, a family physician at St. Michael’s Hospital and Associate Professor at the University of Toronto.

 

Canada’s Euthanasia Legislation: From the Perspective of Canadians with Disabilities

August 18, 2015 2:00 pm
Peter McGrath

By Peter McGrath.

On Feb. 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s assisted suicide law, opening the door to physician-assisted suicide. This is an incredibly complex topic, one fraught with moral and ethical issues. Peter McGrath, a Counsel in the Department of Justice, gives his opinion from the perspective of a Canadian with a disability:

There are valid points to both sides of the debate on Canada’s euthanasia legislation. Steven Fletcher — a Member of Parliament from Winnipeg with a disability — is the most visible proponent of physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Some would argue his position has merit. Many people with disabilities live in fear of not being able to control the end of their lives. Poorly funded palliative care combined with the possible inability to make one’s wishes clear has led to many people living painful lives.

The occasional media horror story has magnified those fears tenfold. But isn’t the answer to fix the system, rather to provide people with a lethal end? Isn’t the answer to think beyond causing death and provide all of us — including people with disabilities — with dignified lives?

People with disabilities live far from inclusive lives in Canadian society. With low levels of education and employment, inadequate housing and transportation services, and even a medical system that is not designed to handle our needs, people with disabilities have a long way to go to be considered equal members of our society.

The new euthanasia legislation is intended to provide some level of control over ending our lives, yet it’s sad that we’ve achieved equality in death before we’ve achieved equality in life. In Canada, like much of the world, people with disabilities do not have sufficient access to education, transportation, housing, medical care, employment, or recreation and leisure activities.

First and foremost, what Canadians with disabilities seek is an end to inequality and an end to the lack of access to the basic quality of life enjoyed by average Canadians.

The positioning of people with disabilities in euthanasia legislation is somewhat off-putting. It is as if to say we define people with disabilities as suffering, and now they can have the option to end their life. People with disabilities are as much or more interested in their rights to life, because being disabled means living with a disability; it doesn’t necessarily mean dying with a disease.

All too frequently, people with disabilities can recount a time when a well-intended medical professional said to their parents that the disabled life of this baby or injured child would be one of suffering and perhaps not worth living. In effect, we have provided those children with disabilities the means to die before they have the means to live.

Physically and/or developmentally disabled Canadians with disabilities remain a marginalized segment of Canadian society. Our interests lie far more in rights to leading productive lives of equality, rather than achievement in ending of life options.

For more information on this topic visit www.epcc.ca.

Kazakhstan: A Land of Opportunity

August 17, 2015 12:03 pm
Image 1

Photo credit: ninara on flickr

What Canadians Can’t Miss

It’s raining reforms in Kazakhstan.

The Kazakh government’s recent economic reforms are preparing the soil for better business conditions. More Canadians should be there, among other nations, seeding their business ideas on Kazakh lands.

Since the beginning of this year, foreign companies no longer have to pay corporate income, land or property tax in Kazakhstan. The exemption from income and land tax will last for 10 years, the property tax for eight. The law also applies a stable tax rate and allows investors to hire labour without a foreign labour quota. And more incentives are soon to be announced.

The most developed country in Central Asia, Kazakhstan is little-known to many small and medium Canadian businesses. Yet, some big Canadian corporations have moved into Kazakhstan in the beginning of the ‘90s, when the new independent country revealed its rich natural resources.

Today, around 40 large Canadian businesses operate in oil, mining, aviation and other sectors. Among them, the uranium producer Cameco and livestock genetic export company Xports international.

A family-owned business, CanAgro, discovered Kazakhstan’s market by chance. In 2000, the dealer from Manitoba started exporting agricultural equipment to Russia. The company found that just across the Russian border, there was another country hungry for tractors, swathers and grain carts.

Image 2

The sixth largest wheat producer, Kazakhstan imports 99 per cent of its farming equipment. Photo credit: Kay Ledbetter on flickr.com

In fact, the Central Asian country is the sixth largest wheat producer. The country, however, lacks agricultural machinery, importing 99 per cent of its farming equipment. Melissa Vencatasamy, CanAgro’s representative, says North American agricultural equipment is ideal for Kazakhstan because of similar growing conditions.

Even though Canada is one of Kazakhstan’s top 10 investors, it falls behind European countries, the United States, China and Russia. To put this fact into perspective: In 2012, Canada’s share in foreign direct investments into Kazakhstan concluded only four per cent, while Netherlands—37 per cent, according to the National Bank of Kazakhstan.

The world’s economists marked Kazakhstan along with other 32 countries as the new frontiers—rivals to the BRIC economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. While the Canadian government is trying hard to push for Canada-EU free trade agreement, the European leaders are already turning their eyes away to the East.

Little-known market

Sébastien Dakin works for the Canada Eurasia Russia Business Association (CERBA). The association facilitates Canadian companies in the Eurasian market, by providing information and organizing networking events. Dakin says Canadian businesses may be late to enter Kazakhstan’s market simply because of a lack of awareness.

“Kazakhstan is far away from Canada, it’s not the first market that Canadian companies are thinking about, when they think about exporting and doing business,” he says.

At this moment, Dakin says, Canadian investments are “minimal.” CERBA wants to change that. This June, the association held the first official Canada-Kazakhstan business forum in Calgary. The forum brought together governments, industries and enterprises of the two countries.

The conference turned out to be so successful that both sides have decided to make it an annual occasion. CERBA is also creating a special bilateral business council to discuss trade and investments between the two countries. It is expected to start functioning within a year.

Benefits of Eurasian market

In a world that represents one global economy, Kazakhstan and Canada are destined for economic cooperation. The two small economies mainly depend on trade to sustain their economic growth and development, says Stephen Wilhelm, a representative of Export Development Canada (EDC).

The trade between the two countries has recently decreased due to the global economic downturn, says Wilhelm. Yet, it doesn’t mean Canada is less active. Wilhelm says: “We are spending more time in Kazakhstan, exploring more potential people and companies.”

Image 3

Manitoba’s agricultural dealer CanAgro received five million dollars from EDC to export more agricultural machinery to the country. Photo credit: CanAgro Exports Inc.

One of the important benefits of working in Kazakhstan is its location, Wilhelm says. Chinese and Eastern European markets are within the hand’s reach. This allows Canadian businesses to expand their trade beyond one country.

Kazakhstan is a part of the Common Wealth Independent States—a union of eight post-Soviet countries. The newly created Eurasian Economic Union permits free movement of goods, services and capital between Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.

Since its separation from the former Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan has been undergoing changes to establish liberal economy, and opened the country for foreign investors. Investment process, however, stayed complicated. Many investors lamented the heavy bureaucracy, long waiting times and confusing rules.

The new legislatures should help with removing these barriers. In addition to new laws, the Kazakh government has introduced the so called “100 steps” program to increase the country’s economic competiveness. The program foresees institutional reforms that will enhance the rule of law, install efficient bureaucracy and make the government accountable.

***

It has been 12 years since CanAgro began operating in Kazakhstan. This June, the company has received additional funding of $5 million from EDC to export more agricultural machinery to the country. The company is now in the position to advice Canadians who plan to conduct business in Kazakhstan.

It gives a birth to a new business idea: How about staring exporting and importing rich cultures of the two countries? No risks, no competition, 100 per cent satisfaction.

Could This be the Best Campaign Ad Ever?

August 13, 2015 3:06 pm
wyatt scott

In what may be the greatest campaign ad of our time, Wyatt Scott announced his MP candidacy for the new Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon riding by flying on a giant Canada goose and then stabbing a dragon in the head.

“My name’s Wyatt Scott, and I’m running for parliament!” he roared just a few seconds after growing a beard in front of our eyes.

Click here to find his epically over-the-top campaign ad.

wyatt scott 4

Running for Parliament, and our hearts.

The video only hints at Scott’s platform, aside from the part about killing a giant robot with the Conservative Party of Canada’s logo on its chest. Between saving a falling person’s life and fist-bumping an alien, Scott hints that he finds “university too expensive,” and dislikes how Canada’s “indigenous people aren’t even protected by their own government.”

Scott is running to represent Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon, one of six new federal ridings in BC. He’s an independent candidate, and despite the bold claims in his video, his platform seems focused more on his community than dealing with larger issues like tuition fees.

If you live in the Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon riding, or you’re just concerned about Canada’s rising dragon problem, you might want to look Wyatt Scott up. You can find his FundRazr site here.

If you want to see a picture of Scott fist-bumping an alien, see below:

wyatt scott 3

 

Is it Finally Time for a Guaranteed Annual Income?

August 7, 2015 10:01 am
coins-698728_1280

Could the Guaranteed Annual Income–once considered radical notion–now be an idea whose time has come? The Dutch city of Utrecht recently announced it is starting an experiment to determine whether introducing a basic income produces a more effective society. Closer to home, Joseph Ceci, Alberta’s new Finance Minister proposed a guaranteed income program last year on the election campaign trail, and both Calgary Mayor, Naheed Nenshi and Edmonton Mayor, Don Iveson, have also promoted such a program. Now, medical officers of health and boards of health members across Ontario are officially calling for provincial and federal governments to bring in a basic income guarantee.

So what exactly is a Guaranteed Annual Income?

Well it turns out, GAI has been supported by generations of economists and welfare theorists, from the left and the right. One version works like a refundable tax credit. If an individual has no income from any source at all, they receive a basic entitlement. As earned income increases, the benefit declines but less than proportionately. As a result, low income earners receive partial benefits so that they are not worse off than they would be if they quit their jobs and relied solely on income assistance.

This means that there is always an incentive to work, and people who work are always better off than they would be if they didn’t work.

So why are such a broad group of peoplee–finance ministers, mayors and medical officers of health—pushing such a program? Poverty, substantial evidence now tells us, is one of the best predictors of poor health. And poor health costs everyone.

Research on the city of Hamilton, Ontario demonstrated that residents of the city’s wealthy west Mountain neighborhood lived, on average, to 86.3 years of age, while average age at death for residents of one of the poorest Hamilton neighborhoods was only 65.5 years – a shocking gap.

Way back in the 1970s, Manitoba tried implementing a Guaranteed Annual Income in Winnipeg and in the small town of Dauphin. In Dauphin, everyone was eligible to participate. A family with no income from other sources would receive 60 percent of the Statistics Canada low-income cutoff (LICO) which varied by family size. Every dollar received from other sources would reduce benefits by 50 cents. Important for an agriculturally dependent town with a lot of self-employment, the GAI offered stability and predictability. Sudden illness, disability or unpredictable economic events would no longer be financially devastating. The project ran for four years, ending in 1979.

So did the GAI produce anything to report? Remarkably, even this four year program had strong positive results. Dauphin high school students were more likely to remain in school than had been true in the years before the GAI started (or in the years after the GAI stopped). The health of Dauphin residents also improved, with fewer hospitalizations (8.5% reduction), specifically for mental illness, accidents and injuries.

So how much would introducing a Guaranteed Annual Income across Canada cost?

According to several Queens University professors, the cost of replacing social assistance (which includes welfare and disability support) and old age security (which includes a top-up for low-income seniors) and providing every adult with an annual income of $20,000, and children with an income guarantee of $6000, would be $40 billion. The Fraser Institute calculates the total cost of Canada’s current income support system (the payout plus administrative costs) at $185 billion.

Our own estimates, which build on existing social programs, range from a gross annual cost of $17 billion for a program that (in today’s dollars) is slightly more generous than was offered in Dauphin, to a “Cadillac” version costing $58 billion that would guarantee everyone a minimum income equal to the LICO, and pay at least some benefits to people earning well above the LICO. The cost of a Guaranteed Annual Income depends on how generous it is, how quickly benefits are phased out with additional income and how existing social programs are affected.

Some of these costs, of course, would be partially recovered from the additional taxes paid by recipients, as well as the lower costs faced by so many other social programs that are driven by poverty. Hospital care alone, for example, cost Canada $63.5 billion in 2014.

Bottom line, whether it’s our calculations or those done by other organizations, a GAI is definitely do-able. And it is clear: the potential benefits of a GAI are substantial.

Maybe it is time for the rest of Canada to at least look to what Alberta is saying and focus on the health, educational and financial benefits that the Guaranteed Annual Income might offer.

Noralou RoosNoralou Roos is the Director of Evidence Network and professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba. Follow her on Twitter at @nlroos.

 

 

 

 

 

Evelyn ForgetProfessor Evelyn Forget is a health economist at the University of Manitoba. Her re-examination of Mincome and ongoing work on Guaranteed Annual Income is supported by CIHR and SSHRC.

 

What You Need to Know About the Election

August 6, 2015 9:19 am
ottawa-815375_1280

On your marks, get set, go! The race is on.

The federal election to determine Canada’s 42nd parliament and leader has begun.

Set to end with the October 19 election, this campaign will be the longest in over a century (since 1872), running for a full 78 days.

In Canada, federal election dates are fixed for the third Monday in October every four years. However, the prime minister can dissolve the House of Commons any time before that date. On August 2, Prime Minister Stephen Harper did just that.

Harper’s Conservatives won the May 2011 federal election with a majority government. If Harper wins again, he will be the first prime minister since 1908 to win four federal elections in a row.

The major players in this race are, of course, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP and opposition leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

Screen Shot 2015-08-05 at 4.44.56 PM
As they head out on the campaign trail, the Conservatives will likely focus on the economy and national security. The NDP will highlight its differences with the Conservatives by noting their approach to child care and health care. The Liberals will chant that it is time for change after nine years of Conservative government. There are some buzzwords voters are likely to hear a lot over the next several weeks: economy, security, family, change, experience—to name just a few. It will be a rare three-way race.

For up-to-date polling information, take a look at EKOS or IPSOS.

Election day is Oct. 19, 2015, but you can vote in advance from Oct. 9-12. And don’t forget to bring I.D.! Due to changes to the Fair Elections Act after the last election, you must present valid photo I.D. when you go to vote—not just a voter identification card. (Your best bet is to bring your driver’s license along.)

Not sure if you are registered to vote? Click here to check.

About Your Riding

There are nine ridings in the National Capital Region. See below to find the candidates from each party in your riding. Click their name to access their website and find out more about who you are voting for.

Carleton

Pierre Poilievre (Con)

Chris Rodgers (Lib)

KC Larocque (NDP)

Deborah Coyne (Green)

Kanata-Carleton

Walter Pamic (Con)

Karen McCrimmon (Lib)

John Hansen (NDP)

Andrew West (Green)

Nepean

Andy Wang (Con)

Chandra Arya (Lib)

Jean-Luc Cooke (Green)

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell

Pierre Lemieux (Con)

Francis Drouin (Lib)

Normand Laurin (NDP)

Ottawa Centre

Damian Konstantinakos (Con)

Catherine McKenna (Lib)

Paul Dewar (NDP)

Tom Milroy (Green)

Ottawa South

Dev Balkissoon (Con)

David McGuinty (Lib)

George Brown (NDP)

John Redins (Green)

Ottawa-Vanier

David Piccini (Con)

Mauril Bélanger (Lib)

Ottawa West-Nepean

Abdul Abdi (Con)

Anita Vandenbeld (Lib)

Orléans

Royal Galipeau (Con)

Andrew Leslie (Lib)

Nancy Tremblay (NDP)

A Plan for a Vibrant and Sustainable CBC

July 31, 2015 2:00 pm
reading-767919_1280

The Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has released a report on the future of the CBC. I was a part of that study, but I could not support the report. Some Conservative members of the committee spent too much time denouncing the CBC and not enough time on building a way forward. Regrettably, all we got was a lost opportunity. So I authored a Minority Report in response, A Plan for a Vibrant and Sustainable CBC/Radio Canada.

The CBC is facing significant challenges. There is the continued rise of the Internet and digital services like Netflix that are changing the broadcasting landscape. More and more content is consumed online. There are also long-standing challenges of competing against the U.S. entertainment giant to our south.

With these challenges in mind, here is what I propose. It is important to have a strong and vibrant CBC, to tell our stories, to entertain and inform us as Canadians. Polling suggests Canadians want it. The overwhelming majority of witnesses we heard from want a robust CBC.  They want it not only to fill gaps left by private broadcasters—as the committee suggested—but because, as one witness said, the “CBC is the only network that brings together all Canadians.”

Regrettably, the CBC’s ability to meet consumer demands is severely challenged.  Why is that the case? Simply put, the CBC is starved for cash. At $29/per capita, the CBC is well below the average of $82 per capita invested in public broadcasting in other industrialized countries.  The BBC in the UK, for example, receives three times more funding than the CBC.

To have an effective public broadcaster, the CBC needs strengthening. Not only should the government commit to stable and predictable funding over five year periods, adjusted to inflation, the government should also pledge to increase CBC’s per capita funding to at least $40 annually. This can be done by incrementally raising the parliamentary appropriation and exploring other funding models that could either enhance or eventually replace the parliamentary appropriation if sufficient funds are found. Other countries do this to great effect.

With increased funding, the CBC should get out of the commercial advertising business altogether leaving it to the private sector broadcasters. Not having advertising on radio has served the CBC well and would follow the highly successful model of the BBC in the UK or HBO on this continent that provides continuous uninterrupted programming that so many people enjoy.

As much more content continues to be consumed online, the CBC should launch a direct streaming service similar to Netflix. This should be a free service for Canadians so they can consume CBC’s content on the platform they desire.

On governance, the committee wants to leave appointments for the board of directors to the Prime Minister alone. I disagree. A new process is needed.  Either an arm’s length selection process or an all-party selection committee should be created to select the board. This would increase accountability, transparency and competence.  Once selected, the board would appoint the president and look for a person with proven expertise in business and the broadcasting industry.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with the committee recommendation that said, A portion of CBC’s funding should be reallocated to an external ‘superfund’ that would help finance the creation of Canadian content.”

Without increased funding, this would cripple an already cash strapped organization. Also, where would the money come from? If the goal is to create more Canadian dramas and comedies, then taking money away from those areas within the CBC doesn’t make sense – which means it would have to be taken from the other side of the CBC, the news.

This is not at all what we heard from witnesses who expressed how important CBC news is to our country. CBC news provides distinct local, regional, national and international perspectives and in-depth coverage, which contributes to a vigorous democracy.

The CBC is just as important now as when it was created. Canadians want and need a robust and durable public broadcaster to tell our stories, to inform and entertain and to nurture and convey our national identity.

official photo 2012By Art Eggleton

Art Eggleton is a Canadian Senator and former Mayor of Toronto and Member of Parliament. 

Recent Posts