A rise in "double-bunking" to ease overcrowding could make Canada's prisons more dangerous, said the ombudsman for federal prisoners.
The number of federal inmates forced to share a cell has risen recently to 13 per cent of inmates from 10.7 per cent noted in a department report just last year, according to Corrections Canada, and could rise as high as 30 per cent before new planned facilities are available.
"We've already seen the number of violent incidents inside correctional centres begin to escalate," said Howard Sapers, Canada's correctional investigator, in an interview with CBC News.
Howard Sapers, Canada's correctional investigator, says putting two inmates in one cell risks increasing violence in Canada's overcrowded prisons. Canadian Press"We don't know to what extent these security incidents and violent incidents are directly related to double-bunking, but we do suspect that there is a correlation between the extent to which our correctional centres are crowded and the number of these incidents that we're seeing."
Sapers, whose office acts as an ombudsman for federal inmates, was so concerned about double-bunking that he flagged it in his recent annual report.
Eric Gottardi, a Vancouver-based criminal lawyer and a member of the Canadian Bar Association's criminal justice section, is also concerned about double-bunking, saying it can lead to the "Americanization" of Canada's prison system.
"One of my concerns is that we'll slowly march towards the type of crisis that we see in California and other states with these huge mega-prisons," he said. "And they become giant powder kegs where relationships deteriorate to the point where you have to keep them locked up 23 hours a day because to do otherwise would be to throw a match onto a carton of gasoline."
The union that represents guards has concerns for its members' safety.
"Double-bunking is one of the most dangerous things for correctional officers," said Lyle Stewart of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. "It raises the tensions in institutions where the tension levels are already very high. There's no question that it increases inmate-on-inmate violence, but it also increases the risk when correctional officers open the cell door. Often times that's when an inmate will choose to attack an officer, but now you've got two inmates in there. "
Despite these concerns, the Correctional Services of Canada will rely on the practice even more to deal with the over-crowding caused by the country's tougher crime laws, especially the so-called Truth in Sentencing Act. According to an internal document entitled "Infrastructure Renewal: Frequently Asked Questions," the correctional service is "conducting on-site investigations to determine the requirements for double-bunking and other short-term measures."
Correctional Services spokesperson Lori Pothier stresses the short-term nature of the initiatives to deal with the influx of inmates.
"In the medium term we are constructing additional living units at institutions across the country. That's going to give us 2,700 more bed spaces. Until those are built, we're going to rely more on double-bunking."
Inmate compatibility considered
Pothier said the correctional service has relied on doubling up inmates in one cell for many years.
Although the ideal is one inmate per cell, institutions have the flexibility to put two inmates in one cell when the situation warrants, as long as officials conduct a proper risk assessment to take into account factors such as the compatibility of the inmates.
Sapers has concerns about these assessments, pointing out that many are done poorly.
"These are not detailed and long reviews. In some cases, they're cursory reviews. But even at that, we're seeing that they're not being done at all, or they're being done so superficially that they might as well not be done."
The case of Jeremy Phillips
Jeremy Phillips was serving a sentence of six years and nine months in B.C.'s Mountain Institution when he was forced to share a cell with notorious serial killer Michael Wayne McGray. Both men objected to sharing a cell, but Phillips was especially afraid and pleaded with officials to move him.
Last November, Jeremy Phillips was found dead in his cell. McGray confessed and was formally charged in May. Now the family is suing Corrections Canada, which denies any wrong-doing in its statement of defence.
Wayne Fraser, Phillips's uncle, said the family is still grieving, especially because his troubled nephew was weeks away from a parole hearing and had talked about turning his life around and working with street youth.
"Everybody's supposed to have a second chance," Fraser told CBC News. "When they get to prison, they don't expect to die there. And in this case, Jeremy died there. He was double-bunked with this individual. As far as we're concerned, as a family, he was given the death sentence. It's very plain and simple."
'Short-term measure'
Although the Phillips death may be considered an extreme case, critics say it could be a sign of things to come if overcrowding becomes even worse.
Pothier said the increase in double-bunking is a short-term solution to deal with overcrowding while the new cells are being built over the next two-and-a-half years.
But she concedes that penitentiaries will always need to rely on double-bunking, which leads critics to suggest that the measure isn't as short-term as internal documents suggest.
"My concern is that it's going to become a long-term solution. It's going to become the status quo," said Eric Gottardi.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Only 15 percent of members of the Church of Sweden say they believe in Jesus, and an equal number claim to be atheists according to the results of a recent survey.
It's not very high," Jonas Bromander, an analyst with the Church of Sweden who was responsible for the study, told The Local in reference to the figure.
"It's not really a problem; rather, it’s a byproduct of the secularisation in Swedish society which has taken place over many years."
More than 10,000 members of the Swedish Church participated in a comprehensive membership survey carried out over the past year and dubbed "Member 2010" (Medlem 2010).
According to the survey, 15 percent of church members they are atheists, while a quarter of Swedish Church members identify themselves as agnostic.
The younger the members, the more likely they are to be atheists or agnostics.
Bromander pointed out that there is no requirement that church members believe in Jesus or any particular religious figure.
"Many are members, not for religious reasons, but because of the role the church plays in society, or because it serves as an organisation which maintains Swedish traditions," said Bromander.
"In fact, there are many members who would rather that we focus more on our social work in Sweden than on Sunday services."
Of the roughly 6.6 million members of the Church of Sweden, about 400,000 are active churchgoers, attending services at least once a month.
According to the survey, 90 percent of church members have a weak relationship with the Swedish Church, forcing the church to ponder whether or not it remains a relevant institution in Swedish society.
The purpose of the study was to learn more about what sort of expectations people have for the church and to see how the church "can be relevant to people's lives in contemporary society".
Most said they are members in the Swedish Church because they are "have a little faith, because the church does good work in society, and stands for important traditions, at the same time thinking that the church isn't especially relevant for them personally".
The study also revealed that members who have gone through the confirmation process are more likely to see church membership as relevant.
"Therefore, there is reason to take the continued drop in the number being confirmed with the utmost seriousnees."
Most members remain positive about the church, but the authors of the report note that those who have the greatest need for "hope, comfort, and open doors" don't appear to view the Swedish Church as giving them as much as it gives those who are happy with their lives.
According to the study, if the church succeeds in providing assistance to the poor, elderly, and other marginalised groups, it can expect its members to view belonging to the church as more valuable.
"For many the church is a religious organisation and they want it to be one, even if they don't believe in Jesus themselves," said Bromander, adding that members see their membership as a way to support what the church does.
Until 1996, Swedes automatically became members of the church at birth if at least one parent was a member.
Members are obliged to pay just under 1 percent of their annual income in church tax.
Until 2000, the Church of Sweden was an official state church.
Bromander said the figures indicate that the church may face a challenge in balancing the needs of faithful and secular members.
"That will be something for church officials to discuss," he said.
"There is a risk of an increasing divide between those who are more engaged and those who aren't engaged."
"It's not really a problem; rather, it’s a byproduct of the secularisation in Swedish society which has taken place over many years."
More than 10,000 members of the Swedish Church participated in a comprehensive membership survey carried out over the past year and dubbed "Member 2010" (Medlem 2010).
According to the survey, 15 percent of church members they are atheists, while a quarter of Swedish Church members identify themselves as agnostic.
The younger the members, the more likely they are to be atheists or agnostics.
Bromander pointed out that there is no requirement that church members believe in Jesus or any particular religious figure.
"Many are members, not for religious reasons, but because of the role the church plays in society, or because it serves as an organisation which maintains Swedish traditions," said Bromander.
"In fact, there are many members who would rather that we focus more on our social work in Sweden than on Sunday services."
Of the roughly 6.6 million members of the Church of Sweden, about 400,000 are active churchgoers, attending services at least once a month.
According to the survey, 90 percent of church members have a weak relationship with the Swedish Church, forcing the church to ponder whether or not it remains a relevant institution in Swedish society.
The purpose of the study was to learn more about what sort of expectations people have for the church and to see how the church "can be relevant to people's lives in contemporary society".
Most said they are members in the Swedish Church because they are "have a little faith, because the church does good work in society, and stands for important traditions, at the same time thinking that the church isn't especially relevant for them personally".
The study also revealed that members who have gone through the confirmation process are more likely to see church membership as relevant.
"Therefore, there is reason to take the continued drop in the number being confirmed with the utmost seriousnees."
Most members remain positive about the church, but the authors of the report note that those who have the greatest need for "hope, comfort, and open doors" don't appear to view the Swedish Church as giving them as much as it gives those who are happy with their lives.
According to the study, if the church succeeds in providing assistance to the poor, elderly, and other marginalised groups, it can expect its members to view belonging to the church as more valuable.
"For many the church is a religious organisation and they want it to be one, even if they don't believe in Jesus themselves," said Bromander, adding that members see their membership as a way to support what the church does.
Until 1996, Swedes automatically became members of the church at birth if at least one parent was a member.
Members are obliged to pay just under 1 percent of their annual income in church tax.
Until 2000, the Church of Sweden was an official state church.
Bromander said the figures indicate that the church may face a challenge in balancing the needs of faithful and secular members.
"That will be something for church officials to discuss," he said.
"There is a risk of an increasing divide between those who are more engaged and those who aren't engaged."
Saturday, June 18, 2011
First Nations people living on reserves will get the same human rights protections as other Canadians for the first time following the closing of a 30-year legislative gap But who will pay for cost to comply with act???.
First Nations people living on reserves will get the same human rights protections as other Canadians for the first time following the closing of a 30-year legislative gap.
The change means they will now be able to take action against First Nations governments as well as the Government of Canada if they experience discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which announced the change at a news conference in Ottawa Friday, is calling it "historic."
"The Canadian government has taken an important step toward correcting this historic injustice," said David Langtry, acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
"The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination for all people in Canada. The exclusion of people governed by the Indian Act from human rights law was discriminatory and contrary to democratic principles."
About 700,000 aboriginal people living on reserves were excluded from the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. At the time, the government argued they were governed by the Indian Act and it needed time to consult to determine how the two laws would mesh.
Finally, after international pressure, the federal government agreed three years ago to include aboriginal Canadians under the act but gave First Nations governments, as well as themselves, an adjustment period.
That ends Friday and the changes come into effect Saturday.
Observers have said there is much to complain about on reserves including living conditions — which have been described as deplorable for decades from the lack of proper housing and health care to social services and education.
David Langtry, acting chief commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission, announces Friday in Ottawa that aboriginal Canadians will be included under the human rights act. Adrian Wyld/Canadian PressIn one of her final reports, former auditor general Sheila Fraser recently highlighted the systemic funding problems on reserves to the point where half of aboriginal residents don't even have access to clean drinking water. On dozens of reserves across the country, they have to boil their water.
Years ago, former prime minister Paul Martin described living conditions on reserves as "Third World."
Impact unclear
At this point, it's unclear what the impact of the change will be in terms of challenges to the act, said Langtry.
"The reality is that the over 700,000 people affected by this have the right to have resources under the Canadian Human Rights Act as all other Canadians so the complaints that come forward will be dealt with — whether it's a complaint against the federal government or whether it's against the First Nations government — they should have the right to that access.
However, the sticking point may be who is responsible for fixing the problems that are brought forward," said CBC News reporter Julie Van Dusen, who was at the news conference.
"Will the buck be passed back and forth from between the federal and First Nations governments? For example, if you need wheelchair accessibility because you can't get into the local band council and you launch a complaint against the federal government because [it] provides funding on reserves, the federal government could argue, as one expects it might, that it is immune to the act when it comes to federal funding," said Van Dusen.
"So the band councils are saying, 'Look, we agree with the act, but where are we going to get the money to address these situations?'"
The Assembly of First Nations points out that many First Nations governments don't have the resources to comply with the act. For example, public buildings and housing owned by First Nations will now have to be accessible to people with physical disabilities, a cost that some communities won't be able to shoulder without help from the federal government, the AFN said.
"Clear commitments must be made in order for First Nations to be in a position to ensure respect for human rights," AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo said.
Langtry said the jurisdiction of who pays for what may actually have to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The change means they will now be able to take action against First Nations governments as well as the Government of Canada if they experience discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which announced the change at a news conference in Ottawa Friday, is calling it "historic."
"The Canadian government has taken an important step toward correcting this historic injustice," said David Langtry, acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
"The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination for all people in Canada. The exclusion of people governed by the Indian Act from human rights law was discriminatory and contrary to democratic principles."
About 700,000 aboriginal people living on reserves were excluded from the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. At the time, the government argued they were governed by the Indian Act and it needed time to consult to determine how the two laws would mesh.
Finally, after international pressure, the federal government agreed three years ago to include aboriginal Canadians under the act but gave First Nations governments, as well as themselves, an adjustment period.
That ends Friday and the changes come into effect Saturday.
Observers have said there is much to complain about on reserves including living conditions — which have been described as deplorable for decades from the lack of proper housing and health care to social services and education.
David Langtry, acting chief commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission, announces Friday in Ottawa that aboriginal Canadians will be included under the human rights act. Adrian Wyld/Canadian PressIn one of her final reports, former auditor general Sheila Fraser recently highlighted the systemic funding problems on reserves to the point where half of aboriginal residents don't even have access to clean drinking water. On dozens of reserves across the country, they have to boil their water.
Years ago, former prime minister Paul Martin described living conditions on reserves as "Third World."
Impact unclear
At this point, it's unclear what the impact of the change will be in terms of challenges to the act, said Langtry.
"The reality is that the over 700,000 people affected by this have the right to have resources under the Canadian Human Rights Act as all other Canadians so the complaints that come forward will be dealt with — whether it's a complaint against the federal government or whether it's against the First Nations government — they should have the right to that access.
However, the sticking point may be who is responsible for fixing the problems that are brought forward," said CBC News reporter Julie Van Dusen, who was at the news conference.
"Will the buck be passed back and forth from between the federal and First Nations governments? For example, if you need wheelchair accessibility because you can't get into the local band council and you launch a complaint against the federal government because [it] provides funding on reserves, the federal government could argue, as one expects it might, that it is immune to the act when it comes to federal funding," said Van Dusen.
"So the band councils are saying, 'Look, we agree with the act, but where are we going to get the money to address these situations?'"
The Assembly of First Nations points out that many First Nations governments don't have the resources to comply with the act. For example, public buildings and housing owned by First Nations will now have to be accessible to people with physical disabilities, a cost that some communities won't be able to shoulder without help from the federal government, the AFN said.
"Clear commitments must be made in order for First Nations to be in a position to ensure respect for human rights," AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo said.
Langtry said the jurisdiction of who pays for what may actually have to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Friday, June 17, 2011
This may Not be legal : Human smuggling bill makes a return
The federal government hopes to crack down on human smuggling by reintroducing a bill that was criticized by opposition parties last fall.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews held a news conference Thursday afternoon to announce the bill's reintroduction and said it contains the same measures as C-49 that was tabled in October.
Toews said Canada has one of the most generous refugee and immigration systems in the world and that it has "come under attack by human-smuggling networks."
He cited the arrivals of the Sun Sea and Ocean Lady ships in 2009 and 2010 that brought hundreds of refugee claimants as evidence that Canada's laws need strengthening in order to deter human-smuggling operations.
"Clearly we cannot sit and wait for the next incident. The time to act is now," said Toews.
Canadians want the borders to remain open to those who play by the rules and who are legitimate refugees, said Toews
"But Canadians have been clear that we must protect our borders against those who abuse our generosity for financial gain, threaten the integrity of our immigration system and pose a risk to our safety and security," he said.
When Bill C-49 was originally introduced in October 2010, it drew criticism from the opposition parties and other critics who said it punishes the victims of human smuggling, not the criminals. They also predicted that if the bill became law it would be subject to a court challenge.
Toews said the bill does not target legitimate refugees and that he's not worried about Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges.
"I'm confident that the measures are charter-compliant," he said.
The previous bill didn't get to a second reading in the last session of Parliament before the spring election was triggered. It's now among the first pieces of legislation the Conservatives have brought back since winning a majority government on May 2.
The bill proposes a number of controversial changes to existing laws. It creates a new designation for the arrival of a group of people as an "irregular arrival" and makes them subject to the human-smuggling laws. It imposes mandatory minimum prison sentences for those convicted of human smuggling and would allow prosecutors to go after ship owners and operators armed with greater penalties for involvement in smuggling.
The bill makes it mandatory to detain those deemed to have arrived in an irregular manner for up to one year or until a decision is rendered by the Immigration and Refugee Board, whichever comes first. It prevents people from applying for permanent resident status for five years if they successfully obtain refugee status and those people are also prevented from sponsoring family members for five years, according to the proposals.
The NDP's immigration critic, Don Davies, denounced the bill's reintroduction and said it is full of flaws and likely contravenes international refugee laws and Canadian laws.
He said it gives the public safety minister too much power and that it confuses human smugglers with legitimate refugees.
Davies said the NDP was hoping the government would have modified the bill given the criticism it faced earlier.
"We are disappointed that it looks like they have not done so," he said.
Toews said the proposed legislation does not unfairly target legitimate refugees and Kenney said its measures are needed to address both the supply and demand sides of the trafficking business.
"As long as someone is willing to pay upwards of $50,000 to be smuggled to Canada there will be people in the black market willing to provide the service," said Kenney. "What we need to do is reduce the demand side of the equation."
The bill's reintroduction comes days after arrests were made related to the Ocean Lady ship that brought 76 refugee claimants from Sri Lanka.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews held a news conference Thursday afternoon to announce the bill's reintroduction and said it contains the same measures as C-49 that was tabled in October.
Toews said Canada has one of the most generous refugee and immigration systems in the world and that it has "come under attack by human-smuggling networks."
He cited the arrivals of the Sun Sea and Ocean Lady ships in 2009 and 2010 that brought hundreds of refugee claimants as evidence that Canada's laws need strengthening in order to deter human-smuggling operations.
"Clearly we cannot sit and wait for the next incident. The time to act is now," said Toews.
Canadians want the borders to remain open to those who play by the rules and who are legitimate refugees, said Toews
"But Canadians have been clear that we must protect our borders against those who abuse our generosity for financial gain, threaten the integrity of our immigration system and pose a risk to our safety and security," he said.
When Bill C-49 was originally introduced in October 2010, it drew criticism from the opposition parties and other critics who said it punishes the victims of human smuggling, not the criminals. They also predicted that if the bill became law it would be subject to a court challenge.
Toews said the bill does not target legitimate refugees and that he's not worried about Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges.
"I'm confident that the measures are charter-compliant," he said.
The previous bill didn't get to a second reading in the last session of Parliament before the spring election was triggered. It's now among the first pieces of legislation the Conservatives have brought back since winning a majority government on May 2.
The bill proposes a number of controversial changes to existing laws. It creates a new designation for the arrival of a group of people as an "irregular arrival" and makes them subject to the human-smuggling laws. It imposes mandatory minimum prison sentences for those convicted of human smuggling and would allow prosecutors to go after ship owners and operators armed with greater penalties for involvement in smuggling.
The bill makes it mandatory to detain those deemed to have arrived in an irregular manner for up to one year or until a decision is rendered by the Immigration and Refugee Board, whichever comes first. It prevents people from applying for permanent resident status for five years if they successfully obtain refugee status and those people are also prevented from sponsoring family members for five years, according to the proposals.
The NDP's immigration critic, Don Davies, denounced the bill's reintroduction and said it is full of flaws and likely contravenes international refugee laws and Canadian laws.
He said it gives the public safety minister too much power and that it confuses human smugglers with legitimate refugees.
Davies said the NDP was hoping the government would have modified the bill given the criticism it faced earlier.
"We are disappointed that it looks like they have not done so," he said.
Toews said the proposed legislation does not unfairly target legitimate refugees and Kenney said its measures are needed to address both the supply and demand sides of the trafficking business.
"As long as someone is willing to pay upwards of $50,000 to be smuggled to Canada there will be people in the black market willing to provide the service," said Kenney. "What we need to do is reduce the demand side of the equation."
The bill's reintroduction comes days after arrests were made related to the Ocean Lady ship that brought 76 refugee claimants from Sri Lanka.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
UN visit aims to get Abdelrazik off terror watchlist Canadian has been on list since 2006 but The Sudanese government, the RCMP and CSIS have exonerated him of all accusations of terrorism, but he remains on the list..
A delegation representing a Canadian who is trying have his name removed from a United Nations terror watchlist will meet with the group's representatives in New York Thursday.
Abousfian Abdelrazik is the only Canadian on the UN's 1267 al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee blacklist. He spent six years in forced exile in Sudan, some of which was spent in prison where he said he was tortured.
His name was placed on the UN blacklist in 2006 because of allegations he was a possible al-Qaeda operative. He was allowed to return to Canada in 2009.
The Sudanese government, the RCMP and CSIS have exonerated him of all accusations of terrorism, but he remains on the list.
Abdelrazik said his life has been "frozen completely" because of this, as he is not allowed to travel outside of Canada, nor can he have a job or a bank account.
He said he is hopeful, however, that his name will eventually be removed from the list.
"I see myself [as an] innocent person," he said, adding that he wants to "live my life normally with my kids, like everybody else."
Dolores Chew, who is with the South Asian Women's Centre and is a member of the delegation travelling to the UN, said the goal is clear.
"We want to ask the 1267 regime to take Abousfian Abdelrazik off the list," she said. "That's a very basic demand, it's very clear to us it can be done and we want it to be done."
Chew said she is optimistic that they will succeed.
"With all the community support, the mainstream support from Canada's own intelligence agencies, we feel he needs to be taken off the list. There is absolutely no reason for him to be there," she said.
The delegation is made up of a wide range of support groups, including labour organizations, community groups and faith-based groups.
Abousfian Abdelrazik is the only Canadian on the UN's 1267 al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee blacklist. He spent six years in forced exile in Sudan, some of which was spent in prison where he said he was tortured.
His name was placed on the UN blacklist in 2006 because of allegations he was a possible al-Qaeda operative. He was allowed to return to Canada in 2009.
The Sudanese government, the RCMP and CSIS have exonerated him of all accusations of terrorism, but he remains on the list.
Abdelrazik said his life has been "frozen completely" because of this, as he is not allowed to travel outside of Canada, nor can he have a job or a bank account.
He said he is hopeful, however, that his name will eventually be removed from the list.
"I see myself [as an] innocent person," he said, adding that he wants to "live my life normally with my kids, like everybody else."
Dolores Chew, who is with the South Asian Women's Centre and is a member of the delegation travelling to the UN, said the goal is clear.
"We want to ask the 1267 regime to take Abousfian Abdelrazik off the list," she said. "That's a very basic demand, it's very clear to us it can be done and we want it to be done."
Chew said she is optimistic that they will succeed.
"With all the community support, the mainstream support from Canada's own intelligence agencies, we feel he needs to be taken off the list. There is absolutely no reason for him to be there," she said.
The delegation is made up of a wide range of support groups, including labour organizations, community groups and faith-based groups.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Good news The Conservative government now says it will not introduce new user fees to help kill the federal deficit.
OTTAWA — The Conservative government now says it will not introduce new user fees to help kill the federal deficit.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement says there are many ways to balance the budget without additional taxes.
Last week, Clement put user fees on the table in a speech to senior government executives charged with finding $4 billion a year in savings as part of Ottawa's deficit-elimination plan.
He told officials to develop a full range of options, including business consolidation and user fees.
Now Clement says the government does not believe Canadians should be "user-feed to death."
In the election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to eliminate the deficit in four years.
To accomplish the feat, Ottawa is counting on a combination of increased revenues from a growing economy and the most stringent spending controls since the cuts of the mid-1990s.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement says there are many ways to balance the budget without additional taxes.
Last week, Clement put user fees on the table in a speech to senior government executives charged with finding $4 billion a year in savings as part of Ottawa's deficit-elimination plan.
He told officials to develop a full range of options, including business consolidation and user fees.
Now Clement says the government does not believe Canadians should be "user-feed to death."
In the election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to eliminate the deficit in four years.
To accomplish the feat, Ottawa is counting on a combination of increased revenues from a growing economy and the most stringent spending controls since the cuts of the mid-1990s.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The Canadian government rejected advice from Health Canada that asbestos be added to a global list of hazardous materials in 2006, see UN treaty known as the Rotterdam Convention.
The Canadian government rejected advice from Health Canada that asbestos be added to a global list of hazardous materials in 2006, CBC News has learned.
According to documents obtained under Access to Information, a senior Health Canada bureaucrat wrote that the agency believed that chrysotile — a form of asbestos that has been linked to cancer — should be added to a UN treaty known as the Rotterdam Convention.
"[Health Canada's] preferred position would be to list — as this is consistent with controlled use — i.e. let people know about the substance so they have the information they need, through prior informed consent, to ensure they handle and use the substance correctly," wrote Paul Glover then director general of Health Canada's safe environments program, in 2006.
The 2006 Rotterdam Convention comprises a list of hazardous substances that require countries to disclose any restrictions imposed for health or environmental reasons by exporting countries. Importing countries would then decide whether to import the substance, ban it, or restrict it, something known as prior informed consent.
More than 50 countries ban the use of asbestos. But Canada, one of the leading exporters of the material, lobbied to keep asbestos off the Rotterdam list with the support of purchasing countries such as Iran, Zimbabwe and Russia. Ultimately, chrysotile asbestos did not make the list and remains off it.
Canada exports $90 million of asbestos, all of it from Quebec, every year.
While Glover noted in his email that Health Canada cannot say that chrysotile is safe, he said the agency does feel "there is science and evidence to support that chrysotile is less dangerous than other forms of asbestos."
"We also feel that the risks associated with chrysotile can be managed by using a controlled use approach — i.e. know the substance its properties and hazards, and handle and use it accordingly."
He also acknowledged that "the final decision will not be made on the basis of health alone."
In 2006, just prior to the Rotterdam Convention, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that "the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos related diseases is to stop using all types of asbestos." The agency also said that "more than 40 countries, including all members of the European Union have banned the use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile."
Canada’s Department of Natural Resources also supported keeping asbestos off the Rotterdam list. "Listing of chrysotile alongside the world’s most toxic substances will be perceived as encouraging a ban of the substance" it stated on its website.
It also says on the website that inclusion of chrysotile to the Rotterdam Convention "is inappropriate because it is widely recognized that chrysotile fibre can be used safely and responsibly."
Canadian officials have long held that Canada’s approach to asbestos is a responsible one. By pursuing a policy of controlled-use and working with developing countries to minimize exposure, officials have asserted that the risks associated with chrysotile can be minimized.
The Chrysotile Institute, which speaks for the industry, and has received millions in government funding, said there's no need to say anything about chrysotile before selling it, because it’s less harmful than other kinds of asbestos.
"The declared objective of the people who are pushing for inclusion on the convention is to ban the substance worldwide and this would be a move in that direction which is totally unwarranted," said institute spokesman Guy Versailles.
But for years, Canada has been scraping asbestos out of buildings, including those on Parliament Hill and at 24 Sussex Dr., the prime minister's residence.
Asked during the recent election campaign how Canada can justify the contrast, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said as long as countries are willing to buy it, he won’t stand in the way.
"This government will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted," Harper said.
But criticism of this policy has been fierce.
"Canada is the only Western democracy to have consistently opposed international efforts to regulate the global trade in asbestos. And the government of Canada has done so with shameful political manipulation of science," the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated in an editorial in 2008.
The Canadian Labour Congress has also accused the Canadian government of "ignoring expert advice indicating that chrysotile asbestos is not safe and is causally linked with various forms of cancer."
"The government has failed to consult with labour and other stakeholders on steps that Canada could take to comply with international conventions calling for a ban on asbestos," the congress has stated.
A decision by the International Labour Organization’s Committee on the Application of Standards last week demanded that the Canadian government adopt the “strictest standard limits for the protection of workers’ health as regards exposure to asbestos.”
It also asked Canada to “take into account the evolution of scientific studies, knowledge and technology … as well as the findings of WHO, the ILO and other recognized organizations concerning the dangers of the exposure to asbestos.”
"If you have any information about this story, or other investigative tips, please email investigations@cbc.ca"
Officials from the countries that agreed to the Rotterdam Convention will meet on June 20, but Canada remains undecided on its strategy.
Despite the fact that the government has had years to co-ordinate its position on this issue, an official from Environment Canada recently told CBC News that "Canada's position for the upcoming meeting is under consideration."
But Kathleen Ruff, the co-ordinator of the Rotterdam Convention Alliance which represents environmental and health organizations criticized this position.
"There’s no excuse for the government’s refusal to tell the public the position we as a country will take at the UN environmental conference in a few days. This is not transparency."
According to documents obtained under Access to Information, a senior Health Canada bureaucrat wrote that the agency believed that chrysotile — a form of asbestos that has been linked to cancer — should be added to a UN treaty known as the Rotterdam Convention.
"[Health Canada's] preferred position would be to list — as this is consistent with controlled use — i.e. let people know about the substance so they have the information they need, through prior informed consent, to ensure they handle and use the substance correctly," wrote Paul Glover then director general of Health Canada's safe environments program, in 2006.
The 2006 Rotterdam Convention comprises a list of hazardous substances that require countries to disclose any restrictions imposed for health or environmental reasons by exporting countries. Importing countries would then decide whether to import the substance, ban it, or restrict it, something known as prior informed consent.
More than 50 countries ban the use of asbestos. But Canada, one of the leading exporters of the material, lobbied to keep asbestos off the Rotterdam list with the support of purchasing countries such as Iran, Zimbabwe and Russia. Ultimately, chrysotile asbestos did not make the list and remains off it.
Canada exports $90 million of asbestos, all of it from Quebec, every year.
While Glover noted in his email that Health Canada cannot say that chrysotile is safe, he said the agency does feel "there is science and evidence to support that chrysotile is less dangerous than other forms of asbestos."
"We also feel that the risks associated with chrysotile can be managed by using a controlled use approach — i.e. know the substance its properties and hazards, and handle and use it accordingly."
He also acknowledged that "the final decision will not be made on the basis of health alone."
In 2006, just prior to the Rotterdam Convention, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that "the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos related diseases is to stop using all types of asbestos." The agency also said that "more than 40 countries, including all members of the European Union have banned the use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile."
Canada’s Department of Natural Resources also supported keeping asbestos off the Rotterdam list. "Listing of chrysotile alongside the world’s most toxic substances will be perceived as encouraging a ban of the substance" it stated on its website.
It also says on the website that inclusion of chrysotile to the Rotterdam Convention "is inappropriate because it is widely recognized that chrysotile fibre can be used safely and responsibly."
Canadian officials have long held that Canada’s approach to asbestos is a responsible one. By pursuing a policy of controlled-use and working with developing countries to minimize exposure, officials have asserted that the risks associated with chrysotile can be minimized.
The Chrysotile Institute, which speaks for the industry, and has received millions in government funding, said there's no need to say anything about chrysotile before selling it, because it’s less harmful than other kinds of asbestos.
"The declared objective of the people who are pushing for inclusion on the convention is to ban the substance worldwide and this would be a move in that direction which is totally unwarranted," said institute spokesman Guy Versailles.
But for years, Canada has been scraping asbestos out of buildings, including those on Parliament Hill and at 24 Sussex Dr., the prime minister's residence.
Asked during the recent election campaign how Canada can justify the contrast, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said as long as countries are willing to buy it, he won’t stand in the way.
"This government will not put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted," Harper said.
But criticism of this policy has been fierce.
"Canada is the only Western democracy to have consistently opposed international efforts to regulate the global trade in asbestos. And the government of Canada has done so with shameful political manipulation of science," the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated in an editorial in 2008.
The Canadian Labour Congress has also accused the Canadian government of "ignoring expert advice indicating that chrysotile asbestos is not safe and is causally linked with various forms of cancer."
"The government has failed to consult with labour and other stakeholders on steps that Canada could take to comply with international conventions calling for a ban on asbestos," the congress has stated.
A decision by the International Labour Organization’s Committee on the Application of Standards last week demanded that the Canadian government adopt the “strictest standard limits for the protection of workers’ health as regards exposure to asbestos.”
It also asked Canada to “take into account the evolution of scientific studies, knowledge and technology … as well as the findings of WHO, the ILO and other recognized organizations concerning the dangers of the exposure to asbestos.”
"If you have any information about this story, or other investigative tips, please email investigations@cbc.ca"
Officials from the countries that agreed to the Rotterdam Convention will meet on June 20, but Canada remains undecided on its strategy.
Despite the fact that the government has had years to co-ordinate its position on this issue, an official from Environment Canada recently told CBC News that "Canada's position for the upcoming meeting is under consideration."
But Kathleen Ruff, the co-ordinator of the Rotterdam Convention Alliance which represents environmental and health organizations criticized this position.
"There’s no excuse for the government’s refusal to tell the public the position we as a country will take at the UN environmental conference in a few days. This is not transparency."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)