Conservatives accused of ‘willfully ignoring’ contraception research

Globe and Mail

Jack Layton accused Stephen Harper today of adopting a “no-condoms-for-Africa strategy” for the government’s signature initiative at this summer’s G8 summit.

The NDP Leader said it was “incredible” that “the Foreign Minister is going around saying that contraception does not save lives.”

He added: “How can a program aimed at reducing maternal mortality not allow for any contraception as part of the program?”

Mr. Layton was raising concerns about comments made by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon yesterday that birth control will not be part of the “signature” G8 initiative on maternal health.

Mr. Cannon told a Commons committee the government’s plan is aimed at saving lives of mothers in poor countries and contraception doesn’t fit with that. But neither Mr. Cannon nor the Prime Minister, who were both in Question Period, responded.

Rather, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda fielded the questions, sticking closely to her script.

“This initiative is about saving the lives of mothers and children,” she said. “Far too many lives are being sacrificed when we can do something about it. This is the time we should act.”

Mr. Layton was not alone in demanding answers to the contraception issue, however.

Liberal health critic Carolyn Bennett, who is also a doctor, said Mr. Cannon had confirmed what Liberals were fearing – that the government’s commitment to maternal health ends when it comes to reproductive health.

“Unbelievably, the minister suggested that birth control has nothing to do with saving lives,” Dr. Bennett said, noting that United Nations says a “lack of adequate contraceptive services is responsible for 1.5 million deaths in developing countries every year.”

She said the government is “willfully ignoring the research.”

Again, Ms. Oda answered. Staying on message, she said the government has chosen to focus the world’s attention on saving the lives of women and children. She added that her G8 colleagues support the Conservative government’s initiative.

And, probably what Preston Manning found out the change in attitude of Canadian towards conservatism (socially; economically i’m a conservative) is the worst case scenario I’d expect my Canada to be:

(Article by Manning on Globe and Mail titled “The blueing and greening of the political centre“)
Respondents were given a series of “value statements” and asked whether they agreed or disagreed with them (strongly or weakly on a scale of 1 to 7). Those receiving majority levels of public support were:

• Nothing is more important than family (89 per cent);
• Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman (67 per cent);
• Abortion is morally wrong (60 per cent);
• Learn from what worked in the past to solve problems (54 per cent);
• Better to implement small changes than all at once (54 per cent).

What is significant is that all of the above value propositions are more strongly associated with conservative values and policies than with those of liberals or social democrats. This is not to say that values and positions more strongly espoused by liberals and social democrats are not supported but, as shown below, the levels of support are for the most part significantly lower:

• Tolerance and moderation are what it’s all about to be Canadian (50 per cent);
• People holding different values/beliefs make society richer (47 per cent);
• We have a responsibility to look after those less fortunate (43 per cent);
• Government action is the best way to solve economic problems (31 per cent).

A reader said earlier that this blog is so anti-Tories that it has become partisan. Well, I’d like to say that it’s the social conservatism ideology that I’m against. I think that’s central to my personal values and I won’t endorse politicians who are socially conservative. On the other hand, this does not mean I will automatically support the opposition party(ies). That’s not a logical deduction. If the Tories are willing to drop their social conservative “values” I’d be more than happy to support them too.

According to Hanson Lok, Senior Research Manager for Ipsos Reid in Vancouver, “Greater Vancouver in particular has seen a very rapid recovery in prices since the bottom of the market in the first quarter of 2009. While low mortgage rates have kept monthly payments within reach for first-time buyers and kept them in the market, escalating prices will push many potential first-time buyers back out.”

Another result of rising prices, British Columbians feel selling conditions have improved significantly as half (53%) say now is a “good time to sell a home”, up from one-in-ten (14%) who said the same a year ago. At the same time, seven-in-ten (68%) British Columbians say it is a “good time to buy a home”, tapering-off from a high of 76% seen in September of 2009.

Optimism about home prices remains high as British Columbians are forecasting a 4.6 percent increase in home prices in their community in a year. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) predict prices will be higher, while only one-in-ten (12%) predict they will be lower.

* Residents of the Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley foresee a small but significantly larger increase (5.4 percent on average) compared to what those in the rest of BC expect (3.5 percent on average).

With the Home Renovation Tax Credit (HRTC) deadline now passed, half (54%) of British Columbians who made a significant renovation in the past year indicate the HRTC made an impact on their decision to renovate. Approximately one-in-three (35%) of British Columbians made a significant home renovation in the past year – given the claimed impact of the HRTC, it seems likely that number would have been much lower without the benefit of the HRTC.

Look for more results about Home Buyers in Ipsos Reid’s BC Home Buyers Report. This comprehensive report is aimed to profile, track and measure the attitudes of homes buyers in the province, twice a year. Metrics include home purchase criteria/motivators, economic outlook/confidence, demographic and psychographic profiling as well as mortgage measures.

The results of this poll are based on a sample of 760 British Columbians where quota sampling and weighting are employed to balance demographics to ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the actual BC population according to Census data. Quota samples with weighting from the Ipsos online panel provide results that are intended to approximate a probability sample. Statistical margins of error are not applicable to online polls because they are based on samples drawn from opt-in online panels, not on random samples that mirror the population within a statistical probability ratio. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error. However, an unweighted probability sample of this size, with a 100% response rate, would have an estimated margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had the entire adult population in British Columbia been surveyed.

The RBC Housing Affordability measures for B.C. rose 1.0 percentage point for detached bungalows and 0.8 percentage points for standard townhouses. The measures eased slightly by 0.2 percentage points for standard two-storey homes and condominiums; however, this follows particularly large increases in the third quarter of 2009.

“Very strong home resale activity and significant price gains were particularly evident in B.C., supported by rising demand and the scarce supply of homes available for sale until recently,” said Robert Hogue, senior economist, RBC. “Poor affordability levels in the province became worse, suggesting that buyers are stretching their budgets thin, which may eventually threaten the market rally.”

The strong demand for housing in B.C. is expected to continue in the first half of 2010, further fuelled by some buyers likely rushing ‘to beat’ the implementation of the HST, which will boost home purchase transaction costs on July 1, 2010.

The Greater Vancouver Area is easily Canada’s hottest housing market, with resale activity in the area recently setting new all-time highs and prices now having almost fully reversed the slide experienced in 2008 and early 2009. With prices back around record-high levels in the area, already poor affordability has suffered further, particularly for bungalows, where RBC’s measures rose by an outsized 1.4 percentage points. The measures for townhouses and condominiums also moved higher by 0.5 and 0.4 percentage points respectively; however, two-storey homes improved marginally, decreasing 0.1 percentage point.

RBC’s Housing Affordability measure for a detached bungalow for Canada’s largest cities is as follows: Vancouver 69 per cent (up 1.4 percentage points), Toronto 49.1 per cent (up 0.1 percentage point), Ottawa 40.4 per cent (down 0.3 percentage points), Montreal 39.1 per cent (up 0.9 percentage points), Calgary 37.1 per cent (up 0.1 percentage point) and Edmonton 32.9 per cent (down 0.4 percentage points).

The RBC Housing Affordability measure, which has been compiled since 1985, is based on the costs of owning a detached bungalow, a reasonable property benchmark for the housing market. Alternative housing types are also presented including a standard two-storey home, a standard townhouse and a standard condominium. The higher the reading, the more costly it is to afford a home. For example, an affordability reading of 50 per cent means that homeownership costs, including mortgage payments, utilities and property taxes, take up 50 per cent of a typical household’s monthly pre-tax income.

From CBC

Why don’t I feel the same way this poll suggests? I’ve never felt such a strong sense of mutual racial dislike over my 26 years living in Canada. If the poll talks about “feelings” of racism of the respondents, then my “feelings” of racism has never been higher ever since the Tories took office. And also since then, I’ve never felt so un-Canadian this country has been (such strong feelings weren’t here even under the last Conservative government under Brian Mulroney… and I always wonder why… and the answer is always that the Tories in the current form is most ideologically driven than any previous government has been).

Aboriginal Peoples, Muslims face discrimination most: poll

CBC - One in three Canadians believe that Aboriginal Peoples and Muslims are the frequent targets of discrimination, a CBC-commissioned poll suggests.

About 28 per cent of the 2,000 surveyed by pollster Environics Research Group in February and March also said Pakistanis/East Indians often suffer from intolerance, while 20 per cent said blacks regularly faced it.

More than a tenth of Canadians surveyed said they thought Jews, Chinese and anglophones inside Quebec suffered from persistent discrimination, while francophones outside Quebec ranked the lowest at nine per cent.

But if many Canadians feel discrimination happens on a regular basis, they may not feel it has a “pervasive, negative effect” on the ethnic groups, according to Jeffrey Reitz, a University of Toronto professor who studies ethnic diversity.

“These groups are minorities and if you asked people, ‘Are blacks experiencing discrimination?’ They might shrug and say, ‘Yeah, probably,’ but you know it’s not something that concerns them directly. And so it’s treated as somebody else’s problem.”

Reitz also suggests that our perceptions of racism may be coloured by our pride in multiculturalism, a policy officially declared in 1971.

“Canadians have as part of their self-image the belief in being inclusive, open, multicultural, and Canadians are proud of that,” Reitz said. “It would be inconsistent to then believe that there’s pervasive discrimination.”

The study also found a substantial drop in Canadian’s perceptions of pervasive discrimination against blacks (12 per cent), and Muslims and Aboriginal Peoples (nine per cent) since a similar survey four years ago.

A Manitoban aboriginal advocacy group believes the decrease in perceived discrimination has little to do with reality.

“Daily experience would suggest otherwise,” said Grand Chief Morris J. Swan Shannacappo of the Southern Chiefs’ Organization.

“There still exists systemic discrimination against Aboriginal Peoples in the health-care, social-service and justice systems, particularly in the Prairies,” he said.

According to the poll, Prairie residents were most likely to perceive discrimination against Aboriginal Peoples, while residents of Toronto and Montreal believe blacks and Muslims are most often targeted.

Quebecers were more likely to say blacks, Chinese, Pakistanis/East Indians and Aboriginal Peoples never face discrimination.

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, questioned why Muslims constituted a category in the poll.

“Discrimination in this country is essentially a race issue,” he said. “If the Muslim is white, nobody has a problem. If the Muslim is black, people are petrified. So in the end it is a question about colour, not religion.”
Changing views of young Canadians

The poll also suggests Canadians aged 18 to 29 are more likely than any other age bracket to say discrimination is pervasive. But that age group also saw the highest level of improvement in perceived tolerance in the past four years, a rise some see as indicative of growing acceptance.

Alena Mondok, 13, of Toronto says race has never been an issue for her. Despite having a father with Slovak heritage and a mother of Jamaican descent, Alena only defines herself as Canadian.

“I feel that I’m Canadian because I’ve lived here all my life, and I don’t know anything else.”

The Mondok family says they’ve rarely experienced discrimination, recalling only one incident where a classmate called their then 10-year-old son “so black that he was like a Jamaican drug dealer,” said Alena’s mother, Karen.

“It’s largely a non-issue in our family and I don’t get the sense that our kids are really focused on that at all,” added her father, Brett.

A recent Statistics Canada report projects that about one-third of the population will be members of a visible minority by 2031, with whites becoming the minority in Toronto and Vancouver over the next few decades.

While there’s still disagreement over the severity of the problems of discrimination and inequality as Canada continues to grow in ethnic diversity, Reitz says, visible minorities still face challenges.

A royal commission charged with making an in-depth investigation into national issues is necessary to clear the air and find solutions, Reitz says.

Full story here.

Oh yeah, call me “ridiculously anti-Tories”. I don’t care any more.

Related reading: Vancouver’s visible minority population to double in 2031: StatCan

Talking about censorship… China? Small potato. This IS how western “democracy” works.

Climate-change scientists feel ‘muzzled’ by Ottawa: documents

Montreal Gazette — A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high-profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80%.”

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.

In many cases, the policy also required them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to the questions submitted by journalists before any interview, said the document, obtained in an investigation into the government’s views and policies on global-warming science that was conducted by Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental groups.

The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them.

“Many [federal climate change] scientists are recognized experts in their field, have received media training, and have successfully carried out media interviews for many years,” said the document, leaked by an Environment Canada employee who asked not to be named.

“Our scientists are very frustrated with the new process. They feel the intent of the policy is to prevent them from speaking to media.”

The Environment Canada analysis noted that four prominent scientists, who regularly spoke for the government on climate change science issues, appeared in only 12 newspaper clippings in the first nine months of 2008, compared with 99 clippings over the same period in 2007.

“There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been ‘muzzled’ by the media relations policy,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of this perception, which originated with a Canwest story in February 2008, is continuing, with at least 47 articles in Canadian newspapers to date.”

The document also noted that government scientists voiced their displeasure to communications officials about the policy during meetings in June 2008. A few months later, a couple of requests for interviews with scientists in the midst of the 2008 federal election campaign were never answered, including one request that was “denied” after it was forwarded to the office of former environment minister John Baird.

Andrew Cuddy, 21, who led the investigation by Climate Action Network, said that it reveals “troubling evidence” about the government’s approach to climate-science research, funding, appointments on science panels and communications.

“We’ve catalogued a host of evidence from different areas,” said Mr. Cuddy. “They kind of all point to the government trying to undermine climate science research. [It] goes against their public statements saying that they’re committed to research and that they believe the fundamentals of climate science.”

The coalition said that one of the biggest concerns is whether the government is adequately funding climate-science research at Environment Canada and other departments after refusing to offer new subsidies for an independent research organization, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, considered to be the lead agency for global warming research in Canada’s universities.

“It’s definitely a scandal,” said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was “muzzling scientists; they’re putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they’re reducing funding in key areas… It’s almost as though they’re making a conscious attempt to bury the truth.”

Environment Minister Jim Prentice told reporters last week that the government wasn’t trying to shut down the foundation but wanted it to report on how it spent previous grants of $110-million dating back to the year 2000.

“It’s appropriate I think at this point that we take stock of what we’ve achieved for those dollars,” Mr. Prentice said. “We’ll work together with the foundation to make sure that that happens. They’ve got the resources to do it and we’ll assess it from there.”

The foundation says it has funded nearly 200 research projects that have led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, transforming operations in the federal government and private companies. But it has described Prentice’s approach as a “nightmare scenario” since it no longer has money for new research.

In a statement e-mailed to Canwest News Service, Environment Canada said the new communications policy has allowed its scientists and experts to interact directly with the media on numerous occasions.

“The new policy merely assures that communications with the media are co-ordinated, to achieve the goals set out above — namely, quick, accurate and consistent responses across Canada,” said the statement.

It added that it responded to 254 climate change-related requests in 2008 and 428 climate change requests in 2009.

The department also said it has taken many steps to inform Canadians about the work done by government scientists, including partnerships with other departments, new content added to websites such as www.science.gc.ca and the publication of Envirozine, an Environment Canada newsletter, as well as publishing about 700 peer-reviewed articles per year.

A special beauty contest for chubby women held in Shenyang, China. 40 women participated. (Xinhua)

Latest release from Statistics Canada:

The visible minority population of the census metropolitan area (CMA) of Vancouver could more than double from 910,000 in 2006 to just over 2 million by 2031, according to new population projections.

The main factor would be immigration, as well as fertility.

During the same period, the rest of Vancouver’s population is expected to increase at a much more modest rate of roughly 12%.

These projections on Vancouver’s diversity are based on a ‘reference scenario’, that is, the medium assumptions of how the population might evolve as determined by analyzing recent demographic trends. Other available scenarios are a low-growth scenario that assumes low fertility, life expectancy and immigration, and a high-growth scenario that assumes high levels of each.

By 2031, visible minority groups could account for nearly 60% of Vancouver’s population. Of the 2 million visible minorities, one in three would be Canadian-born.

Counting both first generation and second-generation immigrants, 70% of the population of Vancouver would be either immigrants or children born in Canada of immigrant parents by 2031. This would be the second-highest proportion in Canada behind Toronto.

The largest visible minority group in Vancouver would be the Chinese, as it was in 2006. Their population could double from 396,000 to 809,000 over the next two decades. As a result, their share of Vancouver’s population would rise from 18% in 2006 to 23% in 2031.

The South Asian group, which ranked second in 2006, is likely to remain the second largest visible minority group. They would account for 14% of the population in 2031, up from 10% in 2006.

The share of Vancouver’s population having a non-Christian religion is projected to increase from 16% to roughly 21%. The proportion having a Christian religion is likely to decline from 50% to 47%.

The proportion of persons reporting no religion in Vancouver is likely to continue to be one of the highest of any metropolitan area in Canada, with this group accounting for nearly 33% of the population in 2031. This would be virtually unchanged from 2006. This situation is in part related to the high level of Chinese immigration in Vancouver. The population of Chinese origin has a high propensity to report no religion on the census.

One could only imagine how this ethnic mix would affect the already stringent race relations in Canada.

The last two points are both concerned with maximizing government efficiency and exercising fiscal restraint. As we follow our roadmap to return to a balanced budget, we need to take action to ensure that government lives within its means. All Canadians have had to make sacrifices over the past year. Families everywhere have had to take a look at their own expenses and set priorities. They expect their government to do the same, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We have recently announced that the operating budgets of federal departments will be frozen at the 2010-11 levels. Based on Budget 2010 forecasts, the freeze is expected to achieve savings totaling about $1.8 billion by 2012-13. Here, we are leading by example by freezing salaries for the Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, Senators and Ministers’ offices budgets.

What’s more, we have introduced a strategic review process whereby all federal programs must demonstrate that they are effective and efficient. They must show they are focused on Canadians’ priorities and meeting the changing needs of Canadians. The 2009 round of reviews reallocated up to $287 million to Budget priorities. In 2010-11, about $33 billion will be reviewed and in all, we anticipate savings of close to $1.7 billion.

In addition, we will also conduct a comprehensive review of administrative functions and overhead costs. Our goal is to eliminate any redundant spending and find savings wherever they may exist. The review will look at external and internal service operations, business processes, and administration.

And yesterday, as part of our plan to improve efficiency and governance across federal departments and agencies, I also announced the elimination of 245 federal appointment positions across government. In streamlining these organizations, the Government is ensuring its resources are put to the best possible use for Canadians.

A balanced budget over the long term is necessary for economic growth and job creation. As opposed to previous governments, we are not going to balance the budget by cutting transfer payments for health care and education or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians.

Under the leadership of Stephen Harper, Canada is in a good position to come through the global economic recession stronger than ever. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Economist Intelligence Unit all say we are now in the best position financially of the G-8 countries. Sound financial management always helps attract foreign investment and foreign investment spurs domestic economic growth.

There are encouraging signs of a global economic recovery. Although that recovery remains fragile, Canada is well placed to emerge from the recession stronger than ever. Our plan to see Canada through tough economic times is clearly working.

Stockwell Day
President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Recently my friend Rattan Mall of the Indo Canadian Voice phoned me up to ask me what kind of responses the Chinese community has over the lack of multicultural representation in the opening and closing ceremonies of the Winter Olympic.

I told him, other than what Mr Tung Chan of SUCCESS told the Vancouver Sun in this report, I have not heard any complaint from people around me, nor did I receive a single letter/email/fax to our newsroom that vent grievances about either ceremony.

Mr Mall was shocked, saying it’s the complete opposite to the Indo-Canadian community. His newsroom was flushed with emails/calls and radio phone-ins are flooded with angry voices. Their community is outraged of the lack of mention in the ceremonies about Indo-Canadian contribution to Canada and their history in Canada.

On the other hand, the topic is not hot at all in the Chinese Canadian community. I asked a few friends why and this is what I generally heard from them (far from representative of the views of the community I must add):

• it’s just a show, an entertainment; as long as it’s entertaining enough and interesting enough, it has completed its mission
• the way the First Nations were included in the opening ceremony was so fake… native people were still portrayed as primitive and backward as if they were too happy to open their arms when white colonists came to kill them; if that’s the mindset of the organizers of the ceremony, it’s better to not have us being included rather than having old stereotypoes being reinforced.
• not enough French? I thought there was too much French!
• I have not thought of the issue [lacking multicultural elements] before I read what Tung Chan said in Vancouver Sun; why would I feel sad? It was a boring show after all…
• I’m more concerned and feel embarrassed by the malfunction of one of the poles and the overly long torch trip of Wayne Gretzkey…

I’d like to add another point. The opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 included representation of each and every ethnic moniories of the country. But I found the token dressing-up stuff so fake and so propaganda-ish. I have the same feelings when I watched our opening ceremony in Vancouver. Why were all performers white? First Nations were included only as background dancers. Why weren’t they made a more central role of the main performance? I don’t want to see any dragon dancing if Chinese Canadians were there only because VANOC wanted the world to see Canada was inclusive when in daily life it’s more complicated than that… I don’t want to see that kind of comsetic playout. I’d rather see a pure entertaining show.

What do you think?