A Novel Defence

The devil, they say, is in the details, but here in Ontario, the devil apparently is in the Ontario government.

Outside of this province, I'm not certain how well known the tale of bureaucrat Sanjay Madan is, so here is a quick summary:

Madan was the $176,608-a-year IT boss on the computer application for Support for Families, which gave parents $200 per child under age 12, and $250 per child and youth under 21 with special needs for educational expenses.

In Ontario Superior Court filings, the province alleges that “some or all of” Madan, his spouse, Shalini Madan, their two adult sons, Chinmaya and Ujjawal, and associate, Vidhan Singh, funneled millions in such payments to thousands of BMO, TD, RBC, Tangerine, and ICICI bank accounts last spring.

Madan's wife and two sons, no longer employed by the government, are currently engaged in separate lawsuits against the Ontario government, denying any knowledge of Madan's activities, despite the fact that he used his sons' bank accounts to funnel some of the ill-gotten gains. 

Moreover, in a novel defence, Madan is blaming the victim for all of this unwarranted fuss. In his own

January testimony in civil court [he said] that he “thought there may be an opportunity to take the funds out … it looked like easy money for me,” so he “relaxed” some security provisions to allow more payments to be made into the same bank accounts.

“The (government) knew, or ought to have known, that unscrupulous individuals, including potentially its own employees, might try to exploit weaknesses in its security measures to take money, and having anticipated such threats, ought to have taken steps to prevent them or reduce any losses arising from them,” his statement says.

“By failing to do so, the (province) has failed to mitigate its loss and is largely the author of its own misfortune,” it continues.

Madan is additionally implicated in a computer contract kickback scheme, where he allegedly received secret commissions in awarding the contracts to bidders.  The unrepentant Sanjay's response?

“The (government) not only suffered no loss arising from the alleged “kickback scheme,” but in fact saved money by selecting the highest score bidder in an open bidding contest,”... 

One of the definitions of chutzpah is shameless audacity. In addition to the many millions he is alleged to have pilfered, it is obvious that Sanjay Madan has vast reserves of it.

 

Lethal Legacy - Part 2

In Part 1, I wrote about the lethal consequences for many who have worked at GE Peterborough. A toxic workplace that has resulted in crippling disease or death for many is not the kind of legacy these men and women anticipated.

To compound the tragedy of the situation, Ontario's Workplace Insurance and Safety Board has been strangely reluctant to find a relationship between that workplace and the diseases that are killing far too many former employees, accepting only 280 compensation claims from over 660 applications.

Today, I try to understand that reluctance, as well as look at a bill working its way through the Ontario legislature that will potentially make the workplace even more hazardous.

In exploring this issue, the role of the Ontario government must also be considered, given its apparent indifference to workplace health and safety:

A report produced for the WSIB in 2010 determined that the province had “no effective reporting or surveillance of occupational disease or exposures” and no central repository of data on the subject.

Six years later, that status quo remains.

The WSIB itself seems to share that indifference:

The WSIB has a registry for “unplanned exposure incidents,” but it is voluntary, does not record information about the severity of the exposure, does not collect medical information from workers or health-care providers and looks only at individual cases rather than populations at risk. There is no dedicated funding for the program. ... [and] the Ministry of Labour does not receive data from the registry.

Why this strange shared inertia between a government-appointed board and the government itself? Is it possible that the miasma of neoliberalism has infiltrated both? And if so, how can that be, given that the WISB directors themselves, as I pointed out in the previous post, come from diverse backgrounds?

Is there, in fact, an institutional bias at work here?

“There’s a systemic barrier to actually looking at what’s happening to these blue-collar workers behind factory walls,” says Dr. Jim Brophy, an expert in occupational disease whose research into breast cancer in the workplace won him an award from the American Public Health Association in 2013.

“If compensation boards recognize these cases then the onus is on the government to go do something about them. We’re caught in this vicious cycle.”

Are those appointed to the Board, and by extension, those who work for the Board, trying in some measure, even unconsciously, to protect the government from that onus? The fact is that Board approves just over 40% of all claims for compensation, having set standards of proof almost impossibly high for many.

As well, approving too many claims could prove costly for employers.

The Canadian workers’ compensation model is based on an important compromise: employers agree to fund the system through insurance premiums, sharing the liability for workplace injuries.

We all know what happens if we ever make a claim, for example, on our house insurance. Rates rise, sometimes steeply. The same would hold true of employer premiums to the WSIB.

And where is the Ontario government in all of this? While it is demonstrably infected by the virus of neoliberalism (consider, as one example, the sale of 60% of Hydro One in order "to broaden ownership," in the words of Premier Kathleen Wynne), there is further evidence that the disease is progressing:

... new legislation — Bill 70 — is moving ahead and will quietly scale back routine health and safety inspections in favour of employer self-compliance.

UNIFOR is not impressed by the bill:

Health and safety advocates reviewing Bill 70 have serious concerns. The perverse irony this Bill bears the same number as the Bill which birthed Ontario’s original OHSA [Occupational Health & Safety Act] almost 40 years ago is not lost on worker health and safety advocates. Chief among their concerns is the Bill’s intent to allow the government to privatize the processes for setting and approving standards for health and safety training courses...

Equally troubling, in announcing these amendments to OHSA, Ministry of Labour senior staff indicated employers accredited through this possibly self-regulated scheme would be exempt from proactive enforcement by health and safety inspectors and other “routine burdens.”

We have all seen where these efforts at government deregulation to make industry more competitive and self-regulated have led. Walkerton and Maple Leaf Foods are but two examples of what can happen when standards are relaxed.

John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council and himself a survivor of occupational cancer, calls the proposal “a horrific mistake.”

“This is a failed policy practice that has been an absolute ideological cover for deregulation resulting in increased harm to workers,” says Bob DeMatteo, an occupational disease expert and former director of health and safety for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

The tragedies experienced by GE workers are, for the most part, irremediable. We honour their losses by reading about them. But our larger responsibility involves making sure that the horrors they have experienced are not repeated, ad nauseam, in the future.

Special Note: In my two posts on this subject, I have only focused on a small part of the Star report. For much more insight into this sad collusion between industry and government, I strongly recommend that you read the entire report here.

Lethal Legacy: A Province' s Version Of Neoliberalism

The Toronto Star has run a heartbreaking series, very well-worth reading, on the fate of many of the employees of Peterborough's GE plant, whose lives were either cut short by, or are riddled with, disease thanks to exposure to a toxic brew of chemicals during their working lives.

Entitled Lethal Legacy, it is a story not only about the workers' tragedies but also Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, which has been quite reluctant to award compensation to the victims and their survivors. It all occurs within the context of an Ontario Liberal government that, through a pending bill, will make workplaces even more precarious venues than they already are.

First, a short profile from the series:

Despite working at the plant since he was 16, Ed Condon carried himself with a gentleness factory life didn’t afford him — never swearing, smoking or drinking. Retirement, his family hoped, would finally heal the bone-deep cracks in his hands, stop the nosebleeds he stubbornly brushed off. There would be more twilight drives down River Rd. with his wife, more rambles in the woods with his three grandchildren.

But Ed Condon always believed the chemicals would kill him first.
In the end, his family says, he was right.

“He had such amazing integrity and honour. And he was such an honest man,” says his daughter Cindy Crossley, who lost her father to an inoperable brain tumour in 2012.

Condon was certain his glioblastoma was caused by exposure to a toxic mix of chemicals:

In his final months, he took to carefully documenting the chemicals he worked with. The final list was 42 items long and included some of the world’s most deadly substances: arsenic; cyanide; vinyl chloride; asbestos; lead; benzene; DDT; epoxy resins; silica and cadmium.

Despite a workplace well-documented for its poisons, Condon and hundreds of other claimants to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board were denied compensation. Indeed, of the

660 compensation claims made to [the Board, only]... 280 have been accepted; more than half have been withdrawn, abandoned or rejected because of apparently insufficient evidence that the conditions were work related.

Survivors and those currently fighting disease have not given up their fight, but it appears to be much more of an uphill battle than it should be. While it is not easy matter to prove a causal relationship between exposure and illness,
a 2016 Supreme Court decision ruled that workers’ compensation

boards cannot demand definitive proof that an illness is work-related, especially since existing scientific research on occupational disease is sometimes inconclusive.

Instead, the Supreme Court said compensation boards must consider all available evidence and decide on the balance of probabilities whether a workplace contributed to a claimant’s illness. If so, workers are entitled to compensation. In borderline cases, the court said workers must be given the benefit of the doubt.

But the WISB, despite its poor record on approving claims, says

its “existing adjudication principles are consistent” with the Supreme Court decision and have not changed in response to it.

So how is their recalcitrance to be explained? The Ontario government appoints the board's directors, and it is led by former Conservative cabinet minister Elizabeth Witmer. The research I have done on the directors suggests members come from diverse backgrounds that do not suggest a preponderant corporate bias. As well, if one checks out this job posting on the WISB website, the requirements for, and the duties of, Advanced Practice Nurse suggests a real thoroughness in the discharge of duties there.

My next post will attempt to look more closely at board decisions as well as a pending Ontario bill that will make it harder to enforce health standards within the workplace.

On Nestle's Unslakeable Thirst

I have written previously about the deplorable government 'stewardship' of our natural resources that allows rapacious companies like Nestle to take Ontario's groundwater for literally pennies as it makes obscene profits on bottle water.

Unfortunately, the story keeps getting worse.

Corporate giant Nestlé continued its privatization creep on Thursday as it won approval to take over another Canadian community's water supply, claiming it needed the well to ensure "future business growth."

Nestlé purchased the well near Elora, Ontario from Middlebrook Water Company last month after making a conditional offer in 2015, the Canadian Press reports.

In August, the Township of Centre Wellington made an offer to purchase the Middlebrook well site to protect access to the water for the community. Consequently, the multinational—which claimed it had no idea the community was its competitor—waived all its conditions and matched the township's offer in order to snag the well for itself.

Happily, this is not going unnoticed by the Council of Canadians, which has proposed a boycott of the company, one that I encourage everyone to sign. Part of the boycott reads,

"Groundwater resources will not be sufficient for our future needs due to drought, climate change, and over-extraction. Wasting our limited groundwater on frivolous and consumptive uses such as bottled water is madness. We must not allow groundwater reserves to be depleted for corporate profit."

For her part the extraordinarily unpopular Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, who has often acted as if she is surprised by Nestle's pillaging, is now sounding a cautious note.

“As we look at the water bottling industry, that has to be a question because we’re talking about what we could argue is our most precious resource,” she said.

“There is much pressure on our water, so as we have this discussion about our water, the status of and the treatment of water bottling companies, that needs to be taken into consideration.”

Hardly a stinging rebuke.

For its part, Nestle has this to say:

Nestle, which has 2,500 employees in Ontario, has said it is prepared to pay more if rates were increased, but only if all companies with water-taking permits face the higher fees.

The fact that this multinational company feels free to stipulate conditions on government decisions tells you all you need to know about who is really running the show, doesn't it?

Pathetic Political Posturing

Yesterday, I posted about the outrageous pillaging of our groundwater made possible by a government that seems oblivious to anything but its corporate clientele. It is a sad situation which I and many others have known about for a long time; it is the same knowledge that Premier Wynne has long been in possession of, since it is the system of permits her government grants that makes this kind of aquatic depredation possible. Yet to hear her political posturing, it is almost as if it is a revelation to her:

There is a difference between taking water for agricultural or industrial use and taking it to sell bottled water, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Wednesday. Some of the conditions of the permits for bottled water use are outdated, she said.

"There's the issue of the quantity of water that's taken, there's the issue of the cost of that water," Wynne said.

Actually, that is not the issue for a lot of people, Ms. Wynne. The real issue, which you are studiously ignoring, is why your government issues such permits in the first place, given that it is yet another sop to your corporate friends and, as the saying goes, a licence to print money.

Environmental group Wellington Water Watchers is urging Ontario not to renew a permit for Nestle Waters in Aberfoyle, Ont., that expired on July 31. It's upset that the company has been allowed to keep extracting water from a local well in the midst of a severe drought in the province.

A water-taking permit remains in force if a renewal application is made at least 90 days before it expires.

Wynne continued with her pathetic political posturing:

"Thirty years ago, we wouldn't have envisioned an industry that took water and put it in plastic bottles so that people could carry it around," Wynne said.

"I mean, we didn't drink water from plastic bottles 30 years ago. We turned on the tap and the fact is our tap water in Ontario is among the best in the world."

If you have the stomach for it, you can watch the following news report that only underscores the political prostitution taking place at Queen's Park.

UPDATED: Where Is The Outrage?

Buy land, they're not making it anymore.
-Mark Twain

The above quote, attributed to Mark Twain, is self-evident. What doesn't appear to be self-evident is that the same applies to all the water that exists in the world. Water is not, as some seem to believe, a self-replenishing resource; it is merely one that gets shifted about, due to increasingly volatile storms, droughts, evaporation, etc. And yet the government of Ontario operates as if it were ignorant of these facts.

Consider its disdainful treatment of this precious resource.

In the middle of a severe drought in southern Ontario, the bottled water giant Nestle is buying up more groundwater sources and now has permits from the Ontario government to remove a total of over 20 million litres of water per day!

To compound the ignominy of this flagrant commercialization of something that all citizens have a right to,

Ontario charges companies $3.71 for every million litres of water they extract- a total of less than $75 per day for their total permits of 20,000,000 litres of groundwater.

That Nestle feels emboldened to continue with its depredations is not really the fault of the company. After all, it is doing what companies always do: maximizing its profits, consequences be damned. This imperative, of course, is made possible by the fact that governments do little to protect this resource, even in drought-stricken California.

And yet, as you will see in the following report from Global News, Nestle considers itself a responsible steward of the environment and a sterling corporate entity:



What bothers me about the above report is the insistence that, if governments charged more for the water, it could be classed as a commodity under NAFTA. While I am not a lawyer or trade specialist, my question would be that even in charging the paltry sums that governments currently do, isn't water already being treated as a commodity?

As well, despite the comparative statistic showing that Nestle only takes 1% of the water, its commercialization is distinct from the fact that almost all other permit holders in Ontario are municipalities drawing water for their citizens to drink. Hardly equivalent to what Nestle is doing.

In the best of all possible worlds, we could stop companies from taking our water by not purchasing their bottled water. Since that is never going to happen, the only thing concerned citizens (and we should all be concerned) can do is make their displeasure known to the provincial government. Kathleen Wynne already has her eye on the next election, and if this issue incites public discontent, as it well should, she is far less likely to take direction from our corporate overlords and start listening to those who ultimately hold her electoral fate in their hands.

UPDATE: Thanks to The Mound of Sound, who reminded me of this chilling message from the Chairman of Nestle:

The Shape Of Things To Come?

Over the past several years, I have become a bit of an aficionado of bourbon. Given that most of my life I have never cared for the taste of straight liquor, how I came to fancy it is something of a mystery, but it is now my hobby that whenever I see a new listing in the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), if it is within my price point, I will buy it. The other frequent purchase is red wine.

My imbibing habits are really not the subject of this post; rather, it is a disturbing trend I have noticed upon visits for the past several weeks. Product prices are rising, not by ten or twenty cents, but by dollars. For example, a bottle of Barefoot Merlot, a California wine, was retailing about six weeks ago at $9.95. It then went up to $10.05, and quickly jumped thereafter to $10.95. A bottle of Eagle Rare bourbon, (a rare purchase for me, given its price) jumped from about $49 to $54.65. I could give numerous other examples, but I think you get the picture.

Given the relative stability, even upward trend of the Canadian dollar, these increases on American products cannot be attributed to currency fluctuations nor simply a cash grab by the province. I believe there is something more insidious at work.

I believe that the Ontario Liberal government, should it win re-election in 2018. is planning to privatize the LCBO, surely one of our crown jewels, given the huge profits that go into the provincial treasure each year. Indeed, in fiscal 2013-2014, it made a record profit of $1.74 billion, more than our formerly wholly-publicly-owned Hydro One.

What is my evidence, other than the rising prices that would make the LCBO's sale even more attractive to private investors? Consider the pattern:

Before privatizing Hydro One, the government engaged in a series of price increases for electricity, culminating in the current peak rate (weekdays 11 a.m.-5 p.m.) of 18 cents per kilowatt hour. One of the reasons cited is that Ontarians' conservation efforts reduced Hydro One's revenues. Left unsaid is the fact that lower profits would have also resulted in a lower IPO when the first 15% of Hydro One was sold off.

But wait. There's more.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has made a big play to offer a wider distribution of beer, which will ultimately be available, but only in six-packs, in 400 grocery stores. Prior to that, she had expressed public outrage over the virtual monopoly enjoyed by the privately-owned Beer Store, whose proprietors are multinationals: Molson-Coors, Labatt (owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev) and Sleeman (owned by Japan’s Sapporo). At the time, she suggested a licensing fee would be imposed on that monopoly. Needless to say, that never happened, but the fact that beer is now allowed, albeit in limited distribution and quantity in grocery stores, suggests an effort to change the public perception about the virtues of privatization.

Next, there is the recently-announced LCBO delivery service. Finance Minister Charles Sousa said,

the creation of LCBO.com shows the government-owned liquor agency's commitment to evolve and modernize, and will provide greater convenience for consumers.

"The virtual shelf space now available to small wineries and breweries is fantastic," said Sousa.

The online sales site will be a huge boost to Ontario wineries, breweries and cider producers, predicted LCBO president and CEO George Soleas.

As well as a boost to their already fat bottom line, no doubt, thereby enhancing its attractiveness to future private investors.

Consider as well the recent hiring of Bonnie Brooks as the LCBO's new Chair. Known as a turnaround-queen, she joined Hudson Bay in 2008, becoming

its first female president and CEO. Brooks is known for engineering a turnaround for the retailer, dropping its moribund apparel brands and bringing in mid-to-high end fashion products.

Brooks was set to retire from her role as vice-chairman before agreeing to take on LCBO role. She said this new opportunity would allow her to help “build on the great work that has already been done, and to take this exciting retail powerhouse to the next level,” with its expansion online and its new role as wholesaler to grocers.

Cynics like me would suggest that she has really been hired to complete the transformation of the LCBO prior to the start of privatization.

Expect no mention of these plans before the next election. Just as the privatization of the very profitable Hydro One came out of the blue, a cowardly and costly way to avoid tax increases while bringing in her balanced budget in time for the next election, my prediction is that Kathleen Wynne will once more betray the people of Ontario should she win another majority mandate

It is a sad thing when a citizen comes to look upon his government with suspicion and loathing. Yet it is an odium that the premier and her tired regime have justly earned.

Measuring Democracy

One of the concerns that has motivated me throughout the years I have written this blog is public accountability. Far too often, whether examining politics at the federal, provincial or local level, it is evident that public accountability, when it occurs, is often an afterthought, not a prime mover of our overlords. It is safe to say, I think, that ours is not a particularly healthy democracy, given that secrecy, obfuscation and misdirection far too often seem to prevail.

This proclivity seems to be the default position of those who govern us, and unfortunately, like the metaphorical disease that it is, it spreads and infects an array of institutions. This is egregiously evident when one looks at policing.

I have written extensively about the abuses of police power on this blog, and despite the fact that it happens with alarming regularity, there is little evidence that the police culture of secrecy is changing, given that it is aided and abetted here in Ontario by both Kathleen Wynne's government and the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which is called in every time a police action results in either injury or death.

Because there are limits to even what I can endure psychologically, I have refrained from writing about the situation of Andrew Loku, a mentally ill man who was shot dead by police less than a year ago for allegedly wielding a hammer at his housing complex. The SIU report, as per tradition, remains a secret, even to the family of the deceased. All we are allowed to know is that the investigation exonerated the police from any wrongdoing.

Given the reactive nature of the Ontario government, a topic about which I wrote yesterday, it tried to placate public fury over the killing and subsequent secrecy by releasing part of the SIU report, a move that satisfied no one. It was truncated and heavily redacted.

The following letters from Star readers are ample testament to both the inadequacy of the report and the failings of our democracy:

Censored report raises more questions, April 30

Some 74 per cent of this report is secret. This abuses the very basic platform of transparency. The 26 per cent transparency shows how little respect for the voter the government really has. When public trust is bankrupt, remediation is needed.

I suggest that all such reports be made public within three months of receipt, the timetable verified by the Ombudsman’s Office. The report will contain no redactions that have not been approved by an independent council of legal experts and voters and shall be housed at arms-length in the Office of the Attorney General.

It is a sad day when I pick up the Star to learn that once again I’ve been blindsided by politicians “committed” to transparency. It’s a vote of no confidence by the politicians of the people. Public trust has never been so … redacted.

Don Graves, Burlington

The abbreviated Special Investigations Unit report into the death of Andrew Loku is surely in its current form an insult to the intelligence of the people of Ontario. Here we have the attorney-general’s office hiding behind the convenient excuse that deletions are “a result of privacy and safety constraints as well as legal requirements,” delivering what is essentially a “nothing report” and no doubt keeping fingers crossed that the public will accept the whitewash.

Well, it is high time this government learned that we have had enough and that we want, no, we demand, answers. Too many men have died at the hands of police and it is time to put an end to the SIU charade that presents itself as the arbiter of an impartial judicial report.

So, what is going on? Is it Queen’s Park or the police union that is preventing us from learning what really happens when shootings occur? Or (perish the thought) are these two bodies in on the act together?

It is difficult to think of any other group that would seek to keep SIU reports confidential and it is long past time for decisive action. In such crucial issues the public has a right to know exactly what is going on.

Are you listening, Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Liberal government?

Eric Balkind, Ontario

The release of the SIU report into the death of Andrew Loku provides very little information that we don’t already know thanks to the daily reporting by the Star. The hiding of 34 pages of the report simply indicates that nothing has changed. We are left in the dark on key issues surrounding Loku’s death.

I continue to be amazed as to why a political party that has just won an election all of a sudden forgets that it should be reflecting what the vast majority of the people want and deserve. Instead, these Liberals ignore legitimate requests as is the case is here.

There is a strong need to know exactly how, why and by whom a man’s life was taken. This should not be a secret society. Who can possibly be against shining a light on terrible events?

Al Truscott, Collingwood

Once again the dysfunction of our democracy to police the Toronto police is clearly demonstrated. The systemic problem of our democracy is evident when the civilian elected officials and appointees are co-opted by the secret system of policing to preserve its bad practices.

It’s not enough for the Star to demonstrate in its pages regularly the secrecy concealing the truth about one case – the problematic shooting of Andrew Loku and its subsequent cover-up.

Citizens, who are the many, who won’t or can’t administer their police, who are the few, have no right to claim that they are a democracy. Shame on us.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

Not An Obsession

Looking at the sidebar that lists the tags on my blog posts, I see I have written well over 100 entries on the police, most of them dealing with their abuse of authority; some of those abuses include the murder of unarmed or barely armed people, others the senseless beating of people. All of them attest to a constabulary, whether Canadian or American, out of control and contemptuous of any efforts to bring them to accountability of justice.

Some might say I am obsessed with the topic, but they would be wrong. What I think I am obsessed with is the desire for fairness and justice and an utter and complete contempt for those who abuse their power and authority.

Here in Ontario, that abuse is rampant, and true accountability is rare. The responsibility for such a sad state of affairs resides largely with the provincial government.

Governments seem loathe to incur the ill-will of those sworn to protect and serve us. With their 'us against them mentality,' the police have proven to be formidable forces to fear when politicians and other prominent people incur their wrath.

Legislators are failing us, and it has to change.

Consider, for example, the secrecy that surrounds SIU investigations of police actions. When their investigations are complete and they exonerate, as they almost always do, police officers who have either beaten, shot or killed a person, the public is not allowed to know the basis for exoneration, the names of the officers involved, or anything else that might provide an inkling of how the investigatory body reached its conclusion. What I didn't know until the other day is that such secrecy is not mandated under the Police Services Act.

As revealed in The Star,

the report prepared by the director of the SIU, the agency that probes deaths, serious injuries and allegations of sexual assault involving police in Ontario, goes straight to the desk of the Attorney General — and nowhere else.

The Police Services Act, the law that governs the SIU, says the watchdog’s director must report the results of investigations to the Attorney General. It doesn’t state the reports cannot be sent elsewhere or made public.

So what is stopping a wider release of SIU reports?

The spokesperson for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur [says] the reports contain information protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, “including information relating to affected persons (e.g. persons seriously injured), witnesses and officers under investigation.”

According to Brian Beamish, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, this is a bit of an evasion:

“While the name of a police officer who has been the subject of an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) would likely be personal information, there may be circumstances of significant public interest where the SIU may disclose the name or other information associated with its completed investigations for the purposes of fostering accountability and public confidence in police services, and ensuring transparency in its operations,” Beamish told the Star in a statement.

While public consultations will soon be announced by the Wynne government into Ontario's police oversight mechanisms, there really is nothing that exists in current legislation to either encourage or prevent much greater public accountability and scrutiny right now.

The bright light of public scrutiny is something the police themselves seem to fear, and while our political 'leaders' allow themselves to be bullied by our public 'protectors,' horrible situations like the killing of Rodrigo Gonzalez at the hands of police will continue:



Clearly, the dire situation demands strong, unambiguous and immediate remediation.

Breaking News! No Relief In Sight For Unpaid Internships!

Like the proverbial hot potato being passed around as rapidly as possible, the Ontario Government, true to their corporate puppet masters, has vowed to do nothing about the growing problem of unpaid internships, preferring instead to palm the problem off to the education industry.

As reported in a followup story in today's Star, critics of this egregious exploitation are calling on government to review current labour laws; in its beneficent wisdom, Ontario is declining this opportunity to remediate the situation:

In a statement Tuesday, Labour Minister Yasir Naqvi had this to say:

“While most workers are covered by the Employment Standards Act, there is a narrow exemption that exists for co-op students. It allows for accredited university and college programs to give their students valuable workplace experience while pursuing their degree,” he said.

It is, Naqvi added, the responsibility of the colleges and universities that administer the programs [to provide] a rewarding educational experience.

If the Labour Minister won't soil his hands with this issue, perhaps the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Brad Duguid, might be moved to intervene?

There are no plans to review Ontario’s academic internships, said Emily Hedges, press secretary to Brad Duguid.

So the abuse continues, corporate profits given that extra boost that only serfdom can provide.

In a related story, The Star has taken 12 readers' comments on the issue from its website. Here are two of them:

For my degree, we had to do a nine-month internship. My degree is not related to the hospitality field; instead I am in the healthcare field. I picked a place that was related to my degree and I thought I would learn a lot. Before accepting me as an “intern student,” they knew what was required and what the purpose of me being there was. Not two weeks after starting, instead of teaching me anything, they had me doing dishes (for 80+ people a day) and cleaning. I am somewhat ashamed I continued with that day in and day out. Nine months of free work and the only thing I learned in the process is we are so vulnerable to being taken advantage of by these companies. jess.polloa

Well said! . . . Scrubbing floors and toilets should be part of an internship, perhaps, paid or unpaid. But businesses who hire interns strictly to make them slaves isn’t right either. Many post-secondary interns, once they get to the work-related parts of their programs, have already slaved away in numerous part-time, summer jobs since high school and know what it’s like to mow grass, clean toilets, etc. Assuming that they have a sense of entitlement is just that — assuming. I’m sure some do, but (I) would put my faith in the fact that the majority do not. bjax1977

As in so many other issues, I suspect it is going to take a critical mass of outrage before this, or any other government, is prepared to actually govern on behalf of the people.

Sometimes You Just Have To Hold Your Nose

I always try to be completely honest in everything that I write for this blog. If I see reason for praise, I acknowledge it, sadly a rare occurrence. Most commonly I am extremely critical of the issues and people that I write about. One of my most frequent targets has been Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.

My contempt for the Premier arose out of the role he played in the G20 police-violence perpetrated against peaceful protestors last year in Toronto. As I have written previously and extensively, the McGuinty government was responsible for withholding crucial information from the public about the non-existence of expanded police powers, most notably the fiction that the authorities had the right to stop, question, and even arrest people who came within five meters of the security fence that had been erected to protect our visiting political 'masters.' I was, and I remain convinced, that that fictitious regulation emboldened the police to far exceed their authority, resulting in the mostly baseless arrest of over 1100 people, the vast majority of whom were later released without charge.

The other person I hold directly responsible is Chief Bill Blair, who, like the Premier, waited until the Summit was over before revealing the truth. The fact of collusion between the two is obvious, and the refusal of McGuinty to call an inquiry has allowed an ongoing distrust, cynicism and disillusionment to continue to fester, not a healthy situation for a democracy. And I remain convinced that Chief Blair should resign.

So what is my point here? Sadly, despite my publicly-stated repudiation of the McGuinty government and my resolve not to vote for them in this election, I have come to the onerous conclusion that I must go back on my word.

The are two reasons for my reversal: Tim Hudak, and the fact that the recent Star poll breakdown of ridings show that in mine, the Liberal and the PC candidates are virtually tied, with the NDP not even within shouting distance.

Having lived through the years of his mentor and predecessor Mike Harris, I know the emptiness of the recycled rhetoric which Hudak is fond of spouting: finding efficiencies, cutting taxes but not services, etc. etc., concepts that may find a ready audience with the simple-minded, but deeply insulting to the critical thinker. As well, the recent antics and attempts at dismantling Toronto by Mayor Rob/Doug Ford and their acolytes offer an effective preview of what is in store for the rest of the province should Mr. Hudak and his band gain entry to the Premier's office.

I find much to fault in Ontario's Liberal government, yet sadly at this juncture, I am preparing to hold my nose and vote for it, clearly the lesser of two evils from my perspective.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

Dalton McGuinty and The Smoking Gun

I have written extensively about my long-standing suspicions of Premier McGuinty's weak explanations for his failure to reveal the truth about the 'secret law' (the regulatory change under the Public Works Protection Act) which permitted police to violate the Charter Rights of thousands of peaceful protesters during the G20 Summit in Toronto. Today, the Toronto Star reports that the Marin Investigation uncovered emails revealing a concious decision not to inform the public that the '5-meter rule' did not, in fact, exist:

On June 25 — the day before the weekend summit of world leaders at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre — the Starreported ministers had quietly designated areas within the G20 security zone a “public work.”

Blair led people to believe that his officers had been granted the authority to arrest anyone who failed to provide identification or agree to be searched within five metres of the secure conference site.

Later on June 25, Bartolucci’s ministry drafted a press release outlining the changes under the Public Works Protection Act that specifically said “it does not authorize police officers to require individuals to submit to searches on roads and sidewalks outside the zone.”

But the news release was never distributed because, according to Marin, “by the end of the day, the ministry had decided to scrap the idea of going public altogether” since there was only one media call on the five-metre rule.

Now more than ever, it is imperative that a full and independent inquiry into the entire sad episode be held. For the government to do anything less is to demonstrate complete disdain for the sanctity of our Charter Rights as Canadians.

The Ombudsman's Report on the G20

I just read the newspaper account of Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin's report on the 'secret security law' that was passed by the McGuinty Liberals before the G20 Summit in Toronto, a report that calls the law illegal and likely unconstitutional, and "almost certainly beyond the authority of the government to enact.”

While his report is described as scorching, condemning the law's lack of transparency and its anti-democratic nature, one glaring omission seems to be any criticism of the fact that both Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair and Premier McGuinty lied to the public. Neither did anything to correct the erroneous assertion both had made about the extent of the law, waiting until after the G20 was over before revealing that the law allowing authorities to search, question, and even arrest those who came within five metres of the perimeter fence did not, in fact, exist.

It is wholly inadequate for the provincial government to simply admit that it could have done a better job in communicating the truth. Such a stance reveals a deep contempt, not only for the citizens of Ontario, but also for their Charter Rights.

Nothing short of a full and complete inquiry into the provincially-sanctioned totalitarian tactics of the police is acceptable.

Dalton McGuinty

In his column in today's Toronto Star, Jim Coyle has an interesting view of Premier McGuinty's decisions to venture into online gambling and permitting Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) in Ontario. While I tend to see the two as cynical moves based on a need to raise provincial revenue regardless of the detrimental effects, Coyle sees them as evidence of progressive and canny leadership, at the same time observing contrasts in both style and substance with Conservative Leader Tim Hudak.

Well worth reading.

Adam Radwanski's Column

In today's Globe, Adam Radwanski offers an interesting perspective on the decision of the McGuinty government to get into online gambling.

I will reproduce a small part of it where he discusses an aspect of it that did not occur to me. The italics are mine:

Assuming Ontario can avoid a fiasco like the one in British Columbia, where the new online casino had to go offline because of privacy breaches, it will lend legitimacy to an industry that until now has been murky. That will lead Ontarians who’ve shied away from online gambling to give it a shot. If some wind up hooked, and take their business elsewhere after getting booted from OLG's site, the government will have inadvertently lured vulnerable people to what it refers to as “the grey market.”