Veterans Affairs needs help, not cuts: critics
Government looking for 'back-door' way to unload costs: NDP's Peter Stoffer
Last Updated: Monday, August 9, 2010
The NDP and several veterans groups are lashing out at the Conservative government over reports it is considering cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn shakes hands with veteran Bruce Bullock, 87, who served as a commander of the first division third artillery in the Second World War in Italy, during a cold and wet VE Day ceremony at the War Memorial in Ottawa in May. (Pawel Dwulit/Canadian Press)NDP veterans affairs critic Peter Stoffer said there are hundreds of thousands of modern-day Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and their spouses who need support, but are not eligible to receive assistance from the department.
There are currently just over 150,000 living veterans of the Second World War and Korean War.
Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn was quoted in an interview last week as saying his department will have to shrink as about 1,700 elderly war veterans are dying each month.
But Stoffer accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government of trying to find a "back-door" way to unload costs for veterans' care to the provinces.
"For the minister to say we have less veterans than before, it's simply wrong," he told reporters at a news conference on Monday in Ottawa alongside representatives from veterans groups, including Korean War veterans, RCMP veterans, and men and women currently deployed in the war in Afghanistan.
Ron Allaire, who fought in the Korean War, said his comrades are looking for a "champion" within the government to take up their cause after hearing the horror stories in dealing with the department, especially from the "phenomenal generation" of Second World War veterans.
"All you hear is, 'Well, I'm fighting DVA on such and such,'" Allaire told reporters. ""When you hear that they're cutting back on the services for these heroes, I hang my head."
Vets face 'maze' to get benefits
Nova Scotia NDP MP Peter Stoffer says the caseloads of Veterans Affairs staff is increasing. (CBC)
The NDP's Stoffer estimated there are currently as many as 700,000 military and RCMP veterans, as well as their families, who are eligible for services.
Meanwhile, he said, the department's staff is seeing their caseloads increase, especially the number of cases related to post-traumatic stress disorder.
Stoffer also hit out at the "mind-boggling" bureaucracy at the department, saying many aging veterans applying for disability benefits can't handle the "maze" they face.
"They find it so mind-boggling and confusing, they just give up," he said.
Blackburn told Postmedia News last Friday the government would not take sudden actions to shrink the department, but is considering a five-year plan to reduce Veterans Affairs' workforce through attrition and expected retirements.
"I'm just saying if we have less veterans, we should have less employees too," he said.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/08/09/veterans-affairs-.html#socialcomments#ixzz0w8r06PZs
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Will Harper or the Conservative Party R.I.P. over census?
The long form census has been scrapped. Don't blame Statistics Canada, blame the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister's office. Statistics Canada had to know which form it was going to be allowed to use to be able to inform the printer whose deadline falls on Mon. Aug. 9/10. In the end, they had to go with the short form because that one is not in dispute. Tomorrow, you will probably read the headline that Statistics Canada eliminated the long form census. Technically, this is not true but the only option they had to get it to the printer on time. There is no logical reason to eliminate the long form. The PMO makes the claim that the reason for the change is to protect the privacy of Canadians. There have only been 3 complaints about the census in the last 20 years according to the Privacy Commission of Canada. According to former Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier, the last time the census was taken he received thousands of email complaints from people who felt the form was an invasion of privacy. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada heard about this and asked M. Bernier why the Privacy Commissioner was not informed, as should have happened. She also asked to see turn them over to her office, however when M. Bernier left his position as a Minister those emails were destroyed. Based on this information, the PMO cannot claim he changed the form for the sake of privacy.
Boy, what a way to shoot yourself in the foot. When you have everybody from economists, religious organizations who don't agree with each other on anything, school boards, banks and every progressive organization you could probably think of using data from the long form census, you can see why they are a little upset. There will be no comparative information this time around.
Then there are the political implications. You already have one of the largest Francophone groups filing an injunction and a lawsuit to prevent the 2011 census from being used. The are making a Charter challenge under language rights which is directly stipulated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then the following scenario; they win the lawsuit and the 2011 census is invalidated. This means that the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Canada just wasted a couple million dollars on a census they cannot use. If the judge stipulates the government has to go back to the original forms where 20% of the population gets the long form and 80% gets the short form, that will mean the form that goes to print Aug. 9/10 will be of no value whether it has been put in the field or not. Also, Statistics Canada will be forced to produce the long form even after they said we are going to stop using it. In the meantime, all the progressive and religious organizations I mentioned above will probably attack the government.
This brings up an interesting political strategy question. Why make yourself so vulnerable to the many organizations that don't like you? They probably will come after either the political party or the government itself. The current polling numbers for the Conservative Party of Canada has them at 29%, one point ahead of the Liberals and this is before anyone started really attacking them over the census issue. With the exception of the Francophone Organization, we have only heard others express their displeasure with the idea of the change to the press. Since the census has actually been changed now, memo to the PMO, you better look out for an onslaught of offensive public relations ie TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads and the good old fashioned press conference decrying the census format. Then there is the always fickle press who will also go on the attack because they don't understand why the change was made and they are already being nit-picky because Mr. Harper will not respond to any questions about the census.
Boy, what a way to shoot yourself in the foot. When you have everybody from economists, religious organizations who don't agree with each other on anything, school boards, banks and every progressive organization you could probably think of using data from the long form census, you can see why they are a little upset. There will be no comparative information this time around.
Then there are the political implications. You already have one of the largest Francophone groups filing an injunction and a lawsuit to prevent the 2011 census from being used. The are making a Charter challenge under language rights which is directly stipulated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then the following scenario; they win the lawsuit and the 2011 census is invalidated. This means that the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Canada just wasted a couple million dollars on a census they cannot use. If the judge stipulates the government has to go back to the original forms where 20% of the population gets the long form and 80% gets the short form, that will mean the form that goes to print Aug. 9/10 will be of no value whether it has been put in the field or not. Also, Statistics Canada will be forced to produce the long form even after they said we are going to stop using it. In the meantime, all the progressive and religious organizations I mentioned above will probably attack the government.
This brings up an interesting political strategy question. Why make yourself so vulnerable to the many organizations that don't like you? They probably will come after either the political party or the government itself. The current polling numbers for the Conservative Party of Canada has them at 29%, one point ahead of the Liberals and this is before anyone started really attacking them over the census issue. With the exception of the Francophone Organization, we have only heard others express their displeasure with the idea of the change to the press. Since the census has actually been changed now, memo to the PMO, you better look out for an onslaught of offensive public relations ie TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads and the good old fashioned press conference decrying the census format. Then there is the always fickle press who will also go on the attack because they don't understand why the change was made and they are already being nit-picky because Mr. Harper will not respond to any questions about the census.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Harper burning bridges!
MONTREAL
A month spent chatting one’s way across central Canada ultimately yields few manifestations of a populist census fixation but plenty of evidence of an increasingly vocal unease with the Conservative government in general and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in particular.
That unease seeps right into Conservative ranks, where the continued absence of justification for the summary expulsion of former minister Helena Guergis from the government caucus last spring is raising private doubts as to the Prime Minister’s bullying approach to internal party discipline.
It is a rule of thumb that critics of a government are almost always more vocal than its allies but it is still never a good sign when the words to explain the actions of their party start to fail its supporters.
The above evidence is anecdotal but it is matched by the results of this week’s CBC-EKOS poll. Since Parliament rose for the summer, Ekos has registered a precipitous decline in Conservative fortunes and the attending disappearance of an 11-point lead on the Liberals.
With support below the 30% mark, Harper can no longer assume he would be re-elected with enough seats to lead a viable government.
With the House adjourned and the opposition deprived of its daily question period soap box, support for the government normally goes up over the summer months.
On that basis, it was not so long ago that some pundits were mapping out a winning fall election scenario for the government, one based on the expected afterglow of the Queen’s visit, the dual June summits and the judicious use of a two-month window for good-news announcements.
Instead, and for the second time in less than a year, having the stage to itself is proving detrimental to the government.
Even with a public disengaged from the minutiae of the long-form debate, the fact that the Conservatives have now spent weeks taking hits from all corners of Canada’s civil society over the census issue is registering with voters.
Government strategists argue that the modalities of the next census are not important enough to most voters to cause long-term damage to the party’s election prospects. But that was also the Conservative mantra about the culture cuts in the summer of 2008.
Prior to the cuts, the Conservatives had pulled ahead of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec looked like it was about to provide Harper with a majority. By election day, the party was lucky to hang on to most of the seats it already held.
In Quebec, the perceived Conservative attack on culture touched on a larger nerve. And Harper’s wilful blindness to its existence turned what could have been a small mishap into a game-changing event.
Harper never recouped the ground he lost in Quebec in the 2008 campaign. He currently leads the least popular federal government in the province’s modern history.
The status of culture in Quebec is unique in Canada but Ontario — the post-2008 focus of Harper’s efforts for a majority — also has its distinctive icons.
As the home of the national capital and the province that has traditionally most readily identified with the country’s institutions, Ontario is, by definition, the least predisposed to buy the current Conservative census narrative on the intrusiveness of big government.
If anything, Ontarians are the ultimate insiders of the federation. Framing the census debate as an overdue battle against an establishment that they have always tended to call their own is, at best, counter-intuitive.
Since he has become Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has burned more bridges than he has built and he is in the process of destroying his last best avenue to a governing majority.
A month spent chatting one’s way across central Canada ultimately yields few manifestations of a populist census fixation but plenty of evidence of an increasingly vocal unease with the Conservative government in general and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in particular.
That unease seeps right into Conservative ranks, where the continued absence of justification for the summary expulsion of former minister Helena Guergis from the government caucus last spring is raising private doubts as to the Prime Minister’s bullying approach to internal party discipline.
It is a rule of thumb that critics of a government are almost always more vocal than its allies but it is still never a good sign when the words to explain the actions of their party start to fail its supporters.
The above evidence is anecdotal but it is matched by the results of this week’s CBC-EKOS poll. Since Parliament rose for the summer, Ekos has registered a precipitous decline in Conservative fortunes and the attending disappearance of an 11-point lead on the Liberals.
With support below the 30% mark, Harper can no longer assume he would be re-elected with enough seats to lead a viable government.
With the House adjourned and the opposition deprived of its daily question period soap box, support for the government normally goes up over the summer months.
On that basis, it was not so long ago that some pundits were mapping out a winning fall election scenario for the government, one based on the expected afterglow of the Queen’s visit, the dual June summits and the judicious use of a two-month window for good-news announcements.
Instead, and for the second time in less than a year, having the stage to itself is proving detrimental to the government.
Even with a public disengaged from the minutiae of the long-form debate, the fact that the Conservatives have now spent weeks taking hits from all corners of Canada’s civil society over the census issue is registering with voters.
Government strategists argue that the modalities of the next census are not important enough to most voters to cause long-term damage to the party’s election prospects. But that was also the Conservative mantra about the culture cuts in the summer of 2008.
Prior to the cuts, the Conservatives had pulled ahead of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec looked like it was about to provide Harper with a majority. By election day, the party was lucky to hang on to most of the seats it already held.
In Quebec, the perceived Conservative attack on culture touched on a larger nerve. And Harper’s wilful blindness to its existence turned what could have been a small mishap into a game-changing event.
Harper never recouped the ground he lost in Quebec in the 2008 campaign. He currently leads the least popular federal government in the province’s modern history.
The status of culture in Quebec is unique in Canada but Ontario — the post-2008 focus of Harper’s efforts for a majority — also has its distinctive icons.
As the home of the national capital and the province that has traditionally most readily identified with the country’s institutions, Ontario is, by definition, the least predisposed to buy the current Conservative census narrative on the intrusiveness of big government.
If anything, Ontarians are the ultimate insiders of the federation. Framing the census debate as an overdue battle against an establishment that they have always tended to call their own is, at best, counter-intuitive.
Since he has become Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has burned more bridges than he has built and he is in the process of destroying his last best avenue to a governing majority.
Friday, August 6, 2010
$45M G20 class-action filed against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Attorney General of Canada.
$45M G20 class-action suit filed
Sherry Good is the representative plaintiff for more than 800 people involved in a class-action lawsuit brought against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Attorney General of Canada. (CBC) A woman who says she was in a crowd detained by police for hours at a Toronto intersection during a G20 protest has launched a $45-million class-action lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board and the federal attorney general.
Sherry Good is acting as the representative plaintiff for more than 800 people who claim they were wrongfully arrested during the G20 summit in late June.
She is among about 500 people who were hemmed in by hundreds of riot police at the intersection of Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue for several hours in the rain on June 27.
Good, who called herself an "ordinary person" not involved in organizing any protests, claims to have suffered a panic attack following the incident.
"But the biggest consequence of that weekend is that I have lost my trust in the police," she told a Friday morning news conference.
"Now I am nervous when I see a police car. I consistently look over my shoulder. Sadly, it will take a long time to regain that trust."
The Toronto Police Services Board is a civilian organization that oversees the force. It is being sued because "it is the legal entity charged with overseeing the majority of the police activity that took place that weekend," said Eric Gillespie, one of the lawyers representing Good.
The Attorney General of Canada has been named because "it is the legal representative of the RCMP, who also had a significant role, it appears, in the events that transpired at that time," he said.
The suit was filed Thursday at Ontario Superior Court, but the bid to certify the legal action — meaning it would proceed — will likely take several months, Gillespie said.
Around 1,000 people were arrested during the summit, which ran June 26-27 in downtown Toronto.
'No comment' from police
Meanwhile, Toronto police held a news conference to release pictures of five more people they are looking for in connection with vandalism during the protests.
"My message here today has nothing to do with the class-action suit," Det. Mike Carbone said when asked about Good's lawsuit.
"I have no comment about the class-action suit."
Police also displayed previously released images of six other people identified as people they believe may have been involved in some of the vandalism.
The news conference is the third in which police have released pictures in hopes the public can help identify potential suspects. Since the first news conference last month, 17 people have been arrested.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/06/g20-class-action546.html#socialcomments#ixzz0vrBBTqPh
Sherry Good is the representative plaintiff for more than 800 people involved in a class-action lawsuit brought against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Attorney General of Canada. (CBC) A woman who says she was in a crowd detained by police for hours at a Toronto intersection during a G20 protest has launched a $45-million class-action lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board and the federal attorney general.
Sherry Good is acting as the representative plaintiff for more than 800 people who claim they were wrongfully arrested during the G20 summit in late June.
She is among about 500 people who were hemmed in by hundreds of riot police at the intersection of Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue for several hours in the rain on June 27.
Good, who called herself an "ordinary person" not involved in organizing any protests, claims to have suffered a panic attack following the incident.
"But the biggest consequence of that weekend is that I have lost my trust in the police," she told a Friday morning news conference.
"Now I am nervous when I see a police car. I consistently look over my shoulder. Sadly, it will take a long time to regain that trust."
The Toronto Police Services Board is a civilian organization that oversees the force. It is being sued because "it is the legal entity charged with overseeing the majority of the police activity that took place that weekend," said Eric Gillespie, one of the lawyers representing Good.
The Attorney General of Canada has been named because "it is the legal representative of the RCMP, who also had a significant role, it appears, in the events that transpired at that time," he said.
The suit was filed Thursday at Ontario Superior Court, but the bid to certify the legal action — meaning it would proceed — will likely take several months, Gillespie said.
Around 1,000 people were arrested during the summit, which ran June 26-27 in downtown Toronto.
'No comment' from police
Meanwhile, Toronto police held a news conference to release pictures of five more people they are looking for in connection with vandalism during the protests.
"My message here today has nothing to do with the class-action suit," Det. Mike Carbone said when asked about Good's lawsuit.
"I have no comment about the class-action suit."
Police also displayed previously released images of six other people identified as people they believe may have been involved in some of the vandalism.
The news conference is the third in which police have released pictures in hopes the public can help identify potential suspects. Since the first news conference last month, 17 people have been arrested.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/06/g20-class-action546.html#socialcomments#ixzz0vrBBTqPh
Thursday, August 5, 2010
MPs get letters: Stockwell Day's pushback on census jumps.
MPs get letters: Stockwell Day's pushback on census jumps more than 200 per cent!!
Earlier this week, Treasury Board President Stockwell Day held a press conference where the subject of the census came up. Here's the transcript:
Mike De Souza (PostMedia): What kind of reaction have you been getting from your constituents and among caucus – within your colleagues on this decision over the summer? Can you describe what people are saying, what they’re saying to you?
Day: Well, I’ll give you just what I’m finding on the street and not just in my own constituency, in Vancouver where I’ve been having a number of days of meetings also in my constituency. I’ve got a fairly responsive constituency. People get in touch with me quite quickly when there’s issues that are upsetting to them. In all the meetings that I’ve been having, whether it’s one-on-one, whether it’s at the roundtables, in my constituency over the summer, and I’m out there a lot, I think I have heard directly from three people on this. In meetings, including roundtables in Vancouver on a variety of issues, it has come up twice. It came up once when I was in Kitimat and once in Prince Rupert. I’m not saying that’s the number of people who are concerned. You asked me what am I hearing and I’m telling you people are pretty responsive on issues that are bothering them and that’s what I’ve heard so —
De Souza: And those people, they are concerned about the decision?
Day: A couple of those were saying, yeah, how are we going to get certain types of information. They were raising from a point of concern about getting information and others were saying what is the stir all about here? So I’m just giving you the – now I’ve heard about a lot of other issues but that’s what I’ve heard on that one.
The Thompson family has responded to Day's comments and was kind enough to send a copy of them my way:
Dear Mr. Day,
While enjoying a day at the cottage today my family came across an article by Jane Taber which mentioned that that in a press conference today you have only heard from three complaints from Canadians over your governments decision to scrap the long-form census.
I would like to register an additional seven complaints from around our table (we are concerned there might be an issue with your e-mail - please let us know if you receive this if not I can send a hard copy).
Your governments decision to manufacture this issue is reckless and completely ideologically driven. I'm sure you have heard the many reasons that this is clearly an attack on reliable data that severely hurts minorities and those most vulnerable in our society. It also will make it much more difficult to create effective policy based on sound statistical evidence (but maybe that's not a big deal because your "sense" on crime rates and other things is probably better then the "census" that of our world-renowned statistics agency used to reliably produce). On top of all this despite your talking points which we have heard so much - no one has ever gone to jail for not filling out the census. Just thought I'd make sure you've heard that.
This is a serious issue and we would urge you to re-consider. This will have serious damaging effects on statistical reliability in Canada and there is simply no reason to implement this change. You know as well as everyone else that the outrage has been manufactured and even the polls are against you. Turn back this decision and protect fact based decision making in this country.
Sincerely,
Chris Thompson
Carolyn Thompson
Steven Thompson
David Thompson
Lynne Green
Susan Johnson
David Johnson
Earlier this week, Treasury Board President Stockwell Day held a press conference where the subject of the census came up. Here's the transcript:
Mike De Souza (PostMedia): What kind of reaction have you been getting from your constituents and among caucus – within your colleagues on this decision over the summer? Can you describe what people are saying, what they’re saying to you?
Day: Well, I’ll give you just what I’m finding on the street and not just in my own constituency, in Vancouver where I’ve been having a number of days of meetings also in my constituency. I’ve got a fairly responsive constituency. People get in touch with me quite quickly when there’s issues that are upsetting to them. In all the meetings that I’ve been having, whether it’s one-on-one, whether it’s at the roundtables, in my constituency over the summer, and I’m out there a lot, I think I have heard directly from three people on this. In meetings, including roundtables in Vancouver on a variety of issues, it has come up twice. It came up once when I was in Kitimat and once in Prince Rupert. I’m not saying that’s the number of people who are concerned. You asked me what am I hearing and I’m telling you people are pretty responsive on issues that are bothering them and that’s what I’ve heard so —
De Souza: And those people, they are concerned about the decision?
Day: A couple of those were saying, yeah, how are we going to get certain types of information. They were raising from a point of concern about getting information and others were saying what is the stir all about here? So I’m just giving you the – now I’ve heard about a lot of other issues but that’s what I’ve heard on that one.
The Thompson family has responded to Day's comments and was kind enough to send a copy of them my way:
Dear Mr. Day,
While enjoying a day at the cottage today my family came across an article by Jane Taber which mentioned that that in a press conference today you have only heard from three complaints from Canadians over your governments decision to scrap the long-form census.
I would like to register an additional seven complaints from around our table (we are concerned there might be an issue with your e-mail - please let us know if you receive this if not I can send a hard copy).
Your governments decision to manufacture this issue is reckless and completely ideologically driven. I'm sure you have heard the many reasons that this is clearly an attack on reliable data that severely hurts minorities and those most vulnerable in our society. It also will make it much more difficult to create effective policy based on sound statistical evidence (but maybe that's not a big deal because your "sense" on crime rates and other things is probably better then the "census" that of our world-renowned statistics agency used to reliably produce). On top of all this despite your talking points which we have heard so much - no one has ever gone to jail for not filling out the census. Just thought I'd make sure you've heard that.
This is a serious issue and we would urge you to re-consider. This will have serious damaging effects on statistical reliability in Canada and there is simply no reason to implement this change. You know as well as everyone else that the outrage has been manufactured and even the polls are against you. Turn back this decision and protect fact based decision making in this country.
Sincerely,
Chris Thompson
Carolyn Thompson
Steven Thompson
David Thompson
Lynne Green
Susan Johnson
David Johnson
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Can I find a donor list to political parties?.
Hello
Is there any public record of large donors such as companies to political parties? If you tell me to look at the Elections Canada webpage I have already been there. It looks like they have a database but I'm not sure how to use it. It is not the most intuitive database I have ever met. Although I am interested in all large contributions to political parties, at the moment I am interested in specifically finding out if there have been any large donations to the Conservative Party of Canada on behalf of the defence industry. I am mostly interested in Lockheed Martin as it may go to partly explain why they were the single source contract for the new fighter jets to replace the CF18's. If I recall correctly, there was a maintenance contract that was exclusively sourced to Boeing in 2006 to refurbish and upgrade the current CF18's. If that's true, why replace with new Lockheed equipment except for quid pro quo agreements? I need links and background.
Thanks
Send info to
msdogfood@hotmail.com
or this.
Is there any public record of large donors such as companies to political parties? If you tell me to look at the Elections Canada webpage I have already been there. It looks like they have a database but I'm not sure how to use it. It is not the most intuitive database I have ever met. Although I am interested in all large contributions to political parties, at the moment I am interested in specifically finding out if there have been any large donations to the Conservative Party of Canada on behalf of the defence industry. I am mostly interested in Lockheed Martin as it may go to partly explain why they were the single source contract for the new fighter jets to replace the CF18's. If I recall correctly, there was a maintenance contract that was exclusively sourced to Boeing in 2006 to refurbish and upgrade the current CF18's. If that's true, why replace with new Lockheed equipment except for quid pro quo agreements? I need links and background.
Thanks
Send info to
msdogfood@hotmail.com
or this.
Charter Challenge in Ontario : Alcohol ban for young drivers
20-year-old Conservative activist is challenging a controversial new provincial law that makes it illegal for young drivers to drink alcohol before getting behind the wheel.
Toronto’s Kevin Wiener, who tools around in a 1988 Cadillac he got from his grandfather, will file an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Wednesday.
The law that took effect Sunday requires drivers aged 21 and under to have a blood alcohol content of zero.
Wiener, a business student at the University of Western Ontario, said the law is unconstitutional because it discriminates solely on the basis of age.
“Talk to my friends, I’m actually the last person to do any risky behaviours or stuff like that,” he said Tuesday, emphasizing he does not approve of drunk driving.
“This law is discriminating on age and it should be based on years of experience (driving),” said Wiener, suggesting a fairer model is the Manitoba law that prevents all drivers from drinking for their first five years under that province’s graduated licensing system.
“The Charter (of Rights and Freedoms) prohibits discrimination based on age.”
While Wiener is a federal and provincial Conservative party member, he insisted the legal crusade is his alone and is not driven by partisan politics or a desire to embarrass Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals.
“Right now, I’m self-representing. I’m driving a 22-year-old car, so if I had $30,000 or $40,000 to burn, it wouldn’t be going to lawyers’ fees,” he said.
“This really isn’t a left-right issue. As a young person, I don’t feel it’s fair for the government (to do this). I’ve been driving for four years, I have a clean driving record, I have no demerit points ever and the government’s saying that because I’m 20, I can’t be trusted to have a glass of wine with dinner.”
Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said in an interview that she’s “comfortable” the new legislation can withstand any legal challenge.
“We’ve changed these rules based on evidence. We looked at the stats. We know that at the age of 22 the statistics start to change, so 19, 20, and 21 are really peak years for drinking and driving,” said Wynne.
“As a society, we’ve made a lot of decisions based on age,” she noted.
“Young people can’t get their licence till they’re 16, they can’t vote till they’re 18, they can’t drink till they’re 19. Every two years, anybody over 80 … has to do a written test and if there’s a problem, they have to take a driving test.”
Still, NDP MPP Peter Kormos (Welland) said the government may have a rocky road ahead.
“At first glance, the law clearly is discriminatory,” said Kormos, a lawyer and the New Democrats’ justice critic.
“Maybe it’s time for us in Canada to adopt a standard that’s prevalent in so many European countries of literal zero tolerance for drinking and driving,” he said.
“That makes it so much easier. You don’t have to try to guess your breathalyzer limit, you don’t have to play with some toy machine in a bar that costs you $2 to measure your breath with. Don’t drink and drive – it’s so easy.”
Under Ontario’s new law, drivers aged 21 or younger lose their licences for 24 hours if even trace amounts of alcohol are detected in the blood. A second offence could result in a 90-day suspension and a third violation could spell the loss of driving privileges.
McGuinty’s government amended its youth driving legislation after a campaign by Tim Mulcahy, whose son Tyler, 20, was killed in a July 2008 car crash after an afternoon of drinking at a Muskoka club.
Two of his friends also died when his high-powered Audi S4 crashed into a river.
Mulcahy took out full-page newspaper ads and lobbied politicians of all stripes to tighten the rules for young drivers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Challenges
Challenging a law as unconstitutional under the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires a legal journey that begins in a lower court.
In this province, the complainant applies to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have the law considered null and void.
When the court rules in favour of the applicant, the law is not usually struck down right away. Instead, the government is given a reasonable amount of time —perhaps six months to a year—to amend the legislation.
If the court rules in favour of the government, the applicant could take the case up the legal ladder to the Court of Appeal. (This avenue is also open to the government if it is ordered to amend a law.)
In Ontario, Court of Appeal rulings are binding unless overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.
That means either the government or the complainant could continue the legal battle to the highest court in the land.
When a law is challenged as unconstitutional, courts tend to expedite proceedings so that the entire process, in some cases, takes less than a year.
Toronto’s Kevin Wiener, who tools around in a 1988 Cadillac he got from his grandfather, will file an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Wednesday.
The law that took effect Sunday requires drivers aged 21 and under to have a blood alcohol content of zero.
Wiener, a business student at the University of Western Ontario, said the law is unconstitutional because it discriminates solely on the basis of age.
“Talk to my friends, I’m actually the last person to do any risky behaviours or stuff like that,” he said Tuesday, emphasizing he does not approve of drunk driving.
“This law is discriminating on age and it should be based on years of experience (driving),” said Wiener, suggesting a fairer model is the Manitoba law that prevents all drivers from drinking for their first five years under that province’s graduated licensing system.
“The Charter (of Rights and Freedoms) prohibits discrimination based on age.”
While Wiener is a federal and provincial Conservative party member, he insisted the legal crusade is his alone and is not driven by partisan politics or a desire to embarrass Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals.
“Right now, I’m self-representing. I’m driving a 22-year-old car, so if I had $30,000 or $40,000 to burn, it wouldn’t be going to lawyers’ fees,” he said.
“This really isn’t a left-right issue. As a young person, I don’t feel it’s fair for the government (to do this). I’ve been driving for four years, I have a clean driving record, I have no demerit points ever and the government’s saying that because I’m 20, I can’t be trusted to have a glass of wine with dinner.”
Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said in an interview that she’s “comfortable” the new legislation can withstand any legal challenge.
“We’ve changed these rules based on evidence. We looked at the stats. We know that at the age of 22 the statistics start to change, so 19, 20, and 21 are really peak years for drinking and driving,” said Wynne.
“As a society, we’ve made a lot of decisions based on age,” she noted.
“Young people can’t get their licence till they’re 16, they can’t vote till they’re 18, they can’t drink till they’re 19. Every two years, anybody over 80 … has to do a written test and if there’s a problem, they have to take a driving test.”
Still, NDP MPP Peter Kormos (Welland) said the government may have a rocky road ahead.
“At first glance, the law clearly is discriminatory,” said Kormos, a lawyer and the New Democrats’ justice critic.
“Maybe it’s time for us in Canada to adopt a standard that’s prevalent in so many European countries of literal zero tolerance for drinking and driving,” he said.
“That makes it so much easier. You don’t have to try to guess your breathalyzer limit, you don’t have to play with some toy machine in a bar that costs you $2 to measure your breath with. Don’t drink and drive – it’s so easy.”
Under Ontario’s new law, drivers aged 21 or younger lose their licences for 24 hours if even trace amounts of alcohol are detected in the blood. A second offence could result in a 90-day suspension and a third violation could spell the loss of driving privileges.
McGuinty’s government amended its youth driving legislation after a campaign by Tim Mulcahy, whose son Tyler, 20, was killed in a July 2008 car crash after an afternoon of drinking at a Muskoka club.
Two of his friends also died when his high-powered Audi S4 crashed into a river.
Mulcahy took out full-page newspaper ads and lobbied politicians of all stripes to tighten the rules for young drivers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Challenges
Challenging a law as unconstitutional under the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires a legal journey that begins in a lower court.
In this province, the complainant applies to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have the law considered null and void.
When the court rules in favour of the applicant, the law is not usually struck down right away. Instead, the government is given a reasonable amount of time —perhaps six months to a year—to amend the legislation.
If the court rules in favour of the government, the applicant could take the case up the legal ladder to the Court of Appeal. (This avenue is also open to the government if it is ordered to amend a law.)
In Ontario, Court of Appeal rulings are binding unless overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.
That means either the government or the complainant could continue the legal battle to the highest court in the land.
When a law is challenged as unconstitutional, courts tend to expedite proceedings so that the entire process, in some cases, takes less than a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)