|
Children's Aid Society
backs First Nation child protection
|
by Michael Erskine
SUDBURY---The Children's Aid Society (CAS) of the Districts of
Sudbury and Manitoulin have issued a statement affirming their
support for a First Nation Children's Aid Society.
At the same special meeting of the CAS in which Manitoulin
representative Larry Killens was dropped from the board, the CAS
board unanimously passed a motion moved by Manitoulin's other
representative Ken Wessel which read: "That the CAS of the Districts
of Sudbury and Manitoulin is aware of the First Nations' strong
commitment and desire to administer their own child welfare services.
The CAS supports this goal and recommends that the Ministry of
Community, Family and Children's Services initiate the designation
process as prescribed, and pursuant to Part X of the Child and Family
Services Act, with First Nations on Manitoulin Island and their
agency, Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services."
The CAS is not a party to the designation process, noted David
Rivard, CAS executive director. "That is between the First Nations
and the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services.
Mr. Rivard noted that the process to accredit Kina Gbezhgomi Child
and Family Services was caught up in a moratoriium on new
designations.
"Historically we have always supported that goal," said Mr. Rivard.
Mr. Rivard noted the role the CAS might play in the process would be
limited to determining capacity.
Once the process begins to move forward again, Mr. Rivard noted, it
would likely be another, designated, First Nation agency which would
guide Kina Gbezhgomi.
In the meantime, Mr. Killens said he has received a shower of support
for his battle with CAS.
"I have received a lot of letters and phone calls," he said. "It is
very gratifying."
Mr. Killens has sent a letter of complaint to the Minister of
Community, Family and Child Services asking for an inquiry into his
termination from the board.
In his letter, Mr. Killens denies any knowledge of contravening the
CAS Oath of Confidentiality and states that he believes the board's
action was without reason, reasonable proof or probably grounds of
wrongdoing and that the action was taken without input from himself
and without notification to attend a hearing at which he could face
his accusers.
Mr. Killens said that at this time, he had not received an answer to
his questions from the CAS board or administration.
M'Chigeeng First Nation Chief Glen Hare said his full support is
behind Mr. Killens.
"It is a shame and an insult (the firing of Mr. Killens) but it is
the same old, same old," said Chief Hare. "Anyone who is trying to
address First Nation issues, anyone trying to speak on behalf of the
First Nations, they get turfed. Keep quiet, keep quiet! I have heard
that too long. Mr. Killens has the support of myself and my council."
|
|
The trial must go on |
GORE BAY - The trial must go on.
That was the decision made by Justice Patricia Hennessey when she
dismissed an application from the defense which suggested that the
privacy rights of Lung-Ki Chan and Chun Lee Cheung were violated
during an investigation which led to the arrest of the two men in
January of 2001.
The two men were arrested after an illegal marijuana grow operation
was discovered at Evergreen Resort in Ice Lake. Both men were charged
with possession and production of a controlled substance for the
purpose of trafficking. The seizure was valued at approximately $2.2
million. Over 2,200 cannabis plants in various stages of growth, 130
grow lights, and offence related equipment valued at $100,000 were
seized. The raid was the largest ever conducted on Manitoulin Island,
according to Ontario Provincial Police.
Last October, attorneys for the accused challenged the legitimacy of
the search warrant used in the discovery of evidence at Evergreen
Resort on the basis that their clients right to privacy had been
violated. They contended that the evidence to support the Crown's
case was gathered by trespassers on the resort property. Furthermore,
the defense contended that the police employed "judge shopping" in an
effort to acquire a valid search warrant. In hearings November 27 and
December 13, 2002 in Gore Bay, lawyers for Mr. Chan and Mr. Cheung
asked Justice Hennessey to exclude the evidence gathered on the
grounds that it was found by infringing upon individual rights to
privacy.
On January 15, in Gore Bay Superior Court, Justice Hennessey
dismissed the defense's application after considering the arguements
and legal precedent. She stated that, in her opinion, the alleged
trespassers on the property did so "without malicious intent." She
indicated she had determined that the police had followed proper
protocol in obtaining the warrants with "full, fair and frank
disclosure," acknowledging that the police "acted in good faith." She
concluded that there was no attempt to mislead or manipulate the
presiding Justice of the Peace, and therefore there was "no flagrant
violation of individual rights" in the gathering of evidence.
In dismissing the application, Justice Hennessey noted, "The public
would not be well served by the exclusion of this evidence."
The case has been put over to February 12. At this time, it is not
known how many days will be set aside for the case. |
Eves calls halt to Hydro One sale
|
by Michael Erskine
TORONTO---The sale of Hydro One is officially off, with an
announcement on Monday by Ontario Premier Ernie Eves that the
province now intends to retain 100 per cent ownership of the
utility.
The announcement followed an intensive search for a viable
partner to
take over 49 per cent of the utility.
"We want to bring private-sector discipline to Hydro One, but
not at
the expense of protecting consumers," said Premier Eves in
making the
announcement. "Last November I announced a plan to lower your
Hydro
bill and we are sticking to that plan."
Despite the announcement that Hydro One was now off the auction
block, the Premier emphasized that his government remains
committed
to its four original goals for the utility.
"Consumer protection remains paramount," said Mr. Eves. The
government will now look to other means to provide its private
sector
discipline to the province's electricity market, including its
new
board and a leaner, meaner management team.
The other two legs of the government's Hydro One goals,
including
rebuilding and modernizing the company's infrastructure and
continuing to pay down the old Ontario Hydro's debt, will remain
in
place.
The sale of Hydro One was touted only a little over a year ago
as the
largest initial public offering in Canadian history, with an
expected
sale price of $5.5 billion. A backlash against the plan began to
grow
to government-threatening proportions however, as residents in
key
Tory strongholds began to see the effects of privatization and
energy
shortages on their electricity bills in the wake of last
summer's
heat wave.
The Eves' government began to back off of its privatization
plans
last fall, with the announcement that the government would only
sell
off 49 per cent of the utility. Monday's announcement the
province
would now retain 100 per cent ownership completed that retreat.
NDP leader Howard Hampton called the retreat an election dodge,
saying the widely anticipated spring election is the real motive
behind the announcement.
"The campaign to preserve and strengthen our public power system
is
not over," said Mr. Hampton. "The Conservative still retain the
legislative ability to sell off all of Ontario Hydro."
Mr. Hampton led the battle against the privatization of
Ontario's
Hydro One assets, barnstorming through over 100 Ontario
communities
on his campaign-style public power bus.
"This is a small victory," said Mr. Hampton. "No one should be
lulled
into complacency over this."
Algoma-Manitoulin MPP Mike Brown was skeptical of the
government's
motives in making the announcement.
"Two words," he said. "Spring election. They did this for all of
the
wrong reasons, but they did it and I guess that in itself is a
good
thing."
Mr. Brown also had a caution for Ontario taxpayers.
"It is important that the people of Ontario retain the ownership
of
the transmission lines," he said. "That is the only way we will
avoid
the 407 experience."
Mr. Brown pointed out that the 407 Highway was sold for one
third of
its current value by the Conservative government. "Now, just
this
past December they raised the rates 12 per cent," he said. "It
is
important that they do not turn around and sell Hydro One off if
they
win the next election."
Win, lose or draw in the next election, current predictions are
that
if the province sees a dramatic period of high or low
temperatures in
the next 18 months, it will also see electricity shortages and
rolling blackouts.
A prediction which is a far cry from the assurances before the
de-regulation of Ontario's energy market by Chris Stockwell and
other
Tory proponents of privatization that Ontario had plenty of
power to
spare.
|
|
Social services need to rethink funding apportionment |
Editorial
The latest fuss over financing social services is a symptom of
something seriously wrong with the system.
Manitoulin's municipal councils and their District Social
Service
Administration Board (DSSAB) partners in the District of Sudbury
are
deciding this month on a formula for sharing the costs of social
services. Municipalities are pitted against each other, says
Killarney Mayor, Laurier Low. This will undoubtedly have the net
effect of, "sticking it to Killarney," in the words of Central
Manitoulin Reeve Mary Nelder who summarized the consequences of
changing the apportionment formula.
The arrangements for how to pay for social services and
education are
tangled up like a cat's cradle. Pull on one of the strings, and
things happen to all of the rest.
One reason that Killarney is strung up in the cat's cradle is
that it
happens to have two provincial parks. So far, the parks haven't
been
counted in the base for calculating Killarney's share of the
DSSAB
costs. But now the other municipalities are moving to take
advantage
of the fact that the province gives Killarney grants to make up
for
lost taxes on provincial property.
As a result, Killarney says its bill form the DSSAB will go up
by
more than 50 per cent. That is a staggering increase of more
than
$170,000 despite the fact that there are only a handful of
social
assistance cases among the 460 people of Killarney, which has
none of
the subsidized housing and daycare provided elsewhere by the
DSSAB.
The Association of the Municipalities of Ontario has protested
for
years that it is wrong to finance these services largely from
local
taxes based on property values. Provincial revenues from
progressive
income taxes should be used instead.
But several years ago the government of Ontario decided to
change the
way education was financed, so that schools in Toronto and
Ottawa
would not be better off than the others. They reduced school
taxes
collected by the municipalities, and substituted provincial
funding.
Manipulating the cat's cradle this way had some advantages. It
put
school boards on a more equal footing and made the province more
accountable for the quality and funding of education. Local
school
boards could no longer decide to increase taxes that municipal
councils had to collect for them. But it also gave school boards
very little elbow room to reflect local wishes. Optional courses
have dried up almost everywhere, and on Manitoulin, special
needs
students are considerably worse off than they used to be. The
province has revamped the curriculum. School boards are now
preoccupied with administrative housekeeping. They allocate the
budget the province allows them, deciding how much to pay staff
and
what to provide for students with what's left.
To make its books balance, the province pulled another string
and
took over revenue from local property taxes toward the cost of
social
services, such as social assistance, subsidized daycare, social
housing and ambulance service. The municipal councils who
collect
the property taxes have little or no say in how these social
services
are provided. The province sets the standards and unwieldy
regional
bodies (new DSSABs in Northern Ontario) handle the
administration.
They have power to pass along their costs much the way school
boards
used to.
A chain of accountability is broken when a local government has
to
raise taxes for social services it can't control. Councils are
best
held accountable for things that truly reflect local wishes,
such as
state of the roads, firefighting and recreation facilities. The
province is the best government to gather the taxes and be held
accountable for things where it makes the rules such as social
assistance and ambulance services.
Under the "realignment" the total taxes collected by
municipalities
weren't supposed to go up. On "average," we would still pay
about
the same amount, said the government. Just ask Killarney how
that
"average" worked out. It as if you were driving alone with Bill
Gates--the average personal wealth in the car would be in the
billions.
A major accounting firm hired by Sudbury found that many
municipalities in Ontario came out much worse than before. On a
per
capita basis, those in the District of Manitoulin came out worst
of
all.
Some of this was made up by provincial grants. The grants are
decided arbitrarily by anonymous bureaucrats. They keep their
formula secret, if they have one, and no one seems answerable
for
it. The grants are unpredictable, which makes it hard for local
councils to plan.
The DSSABS are too distant and too obscure to be held
accountable.
They are not as frugal as local councils, and pay big city
wages.
Regional bodies may make some sense in Southern Ontario, but in
the
North, it was more efficient for the province to operate
services
such as ambulance and to have others managed closer to the
people.
Most of the social services administration on Manitoulin was
tightened up many years ago, with common administration for all
of
our central and eastern townships. This was a much more
economical
operation than our present DSSAB.
Then there is the matter of how the municipalities in our DSSAB
area
divide up the costs. Initially, the DSSAB used a formula which
took
into account various factors. In addition to how much assessment
there was in a municipality, the formula reflected the
population of
a municipality and how many people in it were on social
assistance.
That formula was abandoned two years ago.
Killarney gets a triple whammy. Like other municipalities in the
District of Manitoulin, its tax bills shot up even more than
elsewhere to pay for "realignment." Killarney taxpayers were
hardest
hit. Killarney was also the biggest loser when the DSSAB
abandoned
its more balanced apportionment formula. And now it will hurt
again
as other municipalities make relatively small savings at huge
expense
to Killarney.
It is hard to blame the other municipal councils for wanting to
save
a few thousand dollars, given that they were already forced to
increase taxes to pay for the "realignment." It would take
exceptional statesmanship to restore a more balanced DSSAB
formula.
Killarney will no doubt ask the province to bail it out. Even if
the
province does, the people of Killarney are at the mercy of
unpredictable strangers. We will still have a system that is
hard to
respect.
Disrespect for government that doesn't seem answerable helps
fuel a
sense of alienation in Northern Ontario. We do not endorse calls
for
separating from Southern Ontario and forming a new province. We
do,
however, urge the provincial government to pause for thought and
appoint an independent inquiry into the organization and
financing of
social services in Northern Ontario.
|
|