Most Canadians have a friend or family member with a mental illness or addiction and believe the government should do more for people struggling with such problems, a new survey has found.

The Salvation Army report says most Canadians also believe there is a link between mental illness and poverty.

“In previous reports that we have released, we have seen a Canadian public that hasn’t always been sensitive to, or didn’t understand the needs of vulnerable people in our society,” commissioner Brian Peddle, territorial commander for the Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, said in a release about the report.

“Our latest report revealed an entirely different population, one that is extremely empathetic to those struggling with mental illness and addiction and hope for a better and brighter future for them.”

In the report, Canada Speaks 2012: Mental Health, Addictions and the Roots of Poverty, 80% of survey respondents said they know of someone with a mental illness or addiction.

As well, 87% said the government needs to make mental illness a higher priority, and 84% said there should be more services to help those with addictions.

Most Canadians said there is a link between mental health and addiction, with 71% agreeing “a lot of people with addictions have mental health problems.”

When it comes to mental illness and poverty, 80% said there is a link.

Peddle said the organization is interested in mental health and addiction because many of the people who come to it for help struggle with those problems.

He said the results of this year’s survey are “promising and reveal a population that recognizes the barriers and obstacles facing Canadians that suffer from either mental illness or addiction.”

The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll was conducted Feb. 23-24, and surveyed 1,011 Canadians in both French and English online. It is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

< http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/01/canadians-empathetic-to-those-with-mental-illness-addiction-report>

Transition houses are full of women whose health and well-being are threatened due to violence, addictions, poverty, compromised life skills and a host of other issues. The focus, though, of them and us, men vs. women, is a disturbing trend.

Can we not agree that “hurt people hurt people”? The ones who do damage are the ones who are damaged themselves. If energies and money focused on this, rather on alienating and criminalizing an entire gender, we may come closer to dealing with the real issue – hurt people hurt people.

I work in the field and have learned that the men who have offended have their horrific stories to tell, too. We either explode with our mismanaged feelings or we implode. All of society suffers, regardless of gender.

I want B.C. to be a safe place, not just for women, but for men, too. When a man is abusive to a woman, he is also harming himself because he carries what he has done within him. I want schools to teach ethical behaviour and the value of humanity in kindergarten. I want parents to teach the innate value and worth of human life in their homes. I want men to stop being violent toward women and I want women to find their power to live their lives without it, but I believe that will only happen when men and women alike feel safe and valued.

Doreen Stobbe, Campbell River

< http://www.timescolonist.com/Violence+problems+transcend+gender/6537423/story.html#ixzz1tRjad2ub >

It is absolutely critical that the cities of Ottawa and Toronto get on-board and support safe injection sites. Safe injection sites reduce the chances police officers will be exposed to HIV in the course of their work.

This fact is recognized by many police services in the United States. A case in point: the Atlantic City, New Jersey police in December 2008 supported that city’s then new needle exchange program primarily because it reduces the odds their members will be exposed to HIV infection in their work. For the record, in the U.S. all states now have needle exchange programs.

An important concern at hand for police services is the health and safety of their members. For police administrations and police unions, this should be a workplace safety issue. They must not put the health and safety of police officers at risk.

Those in the policing community who oppose these sites should reconsider the horrific consequences of their opposition to a proven, cost-effective, evidence-based program that reduces the harmful side effects of drug use, and in the process enhances the safety of police officers and other emergency workers. It should be noted that based on scientific evidence, the Vancouver Police Department supported the continuance of that city’s supervised injection site.

It is about time we start treating drug use and drug addiction for what it is, namely a public health problem. And when evidence-based research shows harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, are good for public health, everyone — politicians, police services, and other concerned organizations and individuals — should take note.

Emile Therien, Public Health & Safety Advocate, Ottawa

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1161575–injection-sites-should-be-supported >

Used needles littering a park or alley are — sadly — a fact of life in parts of Toronto, especially downtown. Addiction is a grim reality. But giving addicts a safer place to use drugs can help curb the health risks, public nuisance and other problems associated with addiction.

That’s the upshot of a comprehensive four-year study into the merits of setting up publicly funded “consumption facilities” — a.k.a. supervised injection sites — for illegal drugs in Toronto and Ottawa. It’s an idea whose time has come.

Toronto could use three such centres, according to the study’s authors. Ottawa could benefit from two. The feasibility study doesn’t recommend specific locations but does note that sites should be put in areas where addicts congregate, and within an existing organization serving them. A downtown hospital setting, for example, might work well. A residential neighbourhood, not so much.

Given that caveat, safe injection sites warrant city council approval and provincial funding, at least on a trial basis.

The issue is controversial, with police generally opposed and many Canadians uneasy about using tax dollars to accommodate illegal drug use. Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews reacted to the report on Wednesday by saying experts are divided, therefore: “We have no plans to pursue supervised sites at this time.” Not an encouraging response.

The meticulous study by researchers at the University of Toronto and St. Michael’s Hospital highlights the potential benefits of providing clean, safe centres for users of heroin or other injection drugs. Such sites reduce the risk of transmitting blood-borne diseases like hepatitis and HIV. They help prevent drug overdoses. And they put addicts in touch with professionals who can steer them toward treatment programs or social services.

“It’s a good investment,” said study co-author Dr. Ahmed Bayoumi. “We’ll have people living longer.”

Humanitarian concerns aside, there are practical benefits for city residents as fewer addicts “shoot up” in public places such as washrooms, alleys, parks, streets and stairwells, as many do now.

The report recommends three smaller, spread out sites for Toronto instead of a single, centrally located one.

Despite the solid case for helping people in the grip of addiction, Toronto seems to be headed the wrong way. A George St. men’s shelter called School House, for example, is on the verge of closing. It provides harm reduction by letting residents drink beer in a supervised setting. That’s better than drinking in the street.

Predictably, opponents of safe injection sites are calling for more study. But at some point that just serves to obstruct. This latest report is comprehensive and convincing. This is about harm mitigation, not social approval.

At Queen’s Park, Matthews notes that the province is “always prepared to listen to good advice” and makes its decisions “based on evidence.” If so, it should back the setting up of safe injection sites. The same goes for Toronto City Council. Much as we might wish otherwise, the need is there. Let’s deal with it.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1159950–toronto-and-ottawa-would-benefit-from-supervised-drug-injection-sites >

In her response to the release of a report that called for supervised drug-injection sites in Toronto and Ottawa on Wednesday, provincial Health Minister Deb Matthews said the McGuinty government was happy to receive good advice and that “we make our decisions based on evidence.”

The next sentence: “Experts continue to be divided on the value of the sites.”

Do they, now? Here’s the Canadian Medical Association: “the evidence shows that supervised injection reduces the spread of infectious diseases and the incidence of overdose and death.” Or the Canadian Public Health Association: “The results of more than 50 peer-reviewed scientific articles provide irrefutable evidence that [Insite, Vancouver’s supervised-injection facility] has a positive impact on the health of the people who use its services and a positive impact on the surrounding community.” And then there’s the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which said last fall of Insite: “Its benefits have been proven. There has been no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada during its eight years of operation.”

That the justices reached that conclusion after hearing evidence before the country’s top court about a year ago was not all that unexpected: when a lawyer representing the federal government, which had been trying to shut down Insite for years, was asked if it disputed the notion that “lives are being saved, diseases are being prevented,” the lawyer conceded that was a “fair observation.”

Which makes it hard to square the accuracy of Ms. Matthews’ statement about a division among experts. Asked by theNational Post on Thursday if the minister could provide an example of a study that found negative impacts after the opening of such a clinic, a spokeswoman for Ms. Matthews offered this explanation: “As the Minister said in her statement, experts continue to be divided on the value of the sites — these experts include police, medical experts and other community leaders.”

Well, yes. If one expands the definition of “expert” to include police and other community leaders, then indeed there is a noticeable division among them on the subject of supervised-injection sites. Ottawa’s mayor and police chief are resolutely against them. It’s not a big leap to imagine that Toronto’s mayor would be similarly disinclined to pursue one in his town. And if we include, say, newspaper columnists under the definition of community leader, then division abounds — just one Toronto Sun column alone on Wednesday referred to a supervised-injection site as a “free drug club” and “hedonism for lazy drug addicts” while warning that the clinics would be a “crazy party centre” that would attract drug tourists from all corners.

And it’s that type of blowback — reasoned and otherwise — that is surely driving the McGuinty government’s response to a report carried out by researchers at the University of Toronto and St. Michael’s Hospital and funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ontario HIV Treatment Network.

The report, which called for three supervised-injection sites in Toronto and two in Ottawa, could have been met by the Liberals in a number of ways. They could have taken tentative steps toward a pilot project, exploring whether there was community support in either city for such a trial run. They could have formed a committee or struck a task force. They could have just said they were going to give the report a serious mulling over. Instead, within moments of the thing being tabled, Ms. Matthews was out to squelch it. “We have no plans to pursue supervised sites at this time,” said her statement.

Is it a surprise that the Premier and his health minister, with a budget yet to pass, a deficit still to wrangle with and a minority government hanging in the balance, would take a pass on the messy business of shepherding the proposed injection sites into reality? It is not. Even the report’s authors noted that residents who were supportive of such a site in theory “did not necessarily want to see a supervised facility in their own neighbourhoods.” It’s easy to imagine a local controversy over an injection clinic blowing up into an election issue, too. Remember the Mississauga power plant?

But, “we make our decisions based on evidence”? Not in this case, they didn’t.

< http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/12/scott-stinson-on-supervised-injection-clinics-ontario-liberals-discover-a-convenient-divison/#more-74481 >

The order issued on Thursday took effect immediately, just hours before the bill abolishing the gun registry was given royal assent. The interim ruling will be enforced for a week, until further motions for an injunction can be argued next week.

In Ottawa, the Conservatives celebrated the demise of the registry, with one MP paraphrasing Martin Luther King to the cheers of his colleagues in the House of Commons.

“Free at last, free at last,” said New Brunswick MP John Williamson. “God almighty, Canadians are finally free at last [of the gun registry].”

The U.S. civil-rights leader was killed 44 years ago this week by a bullet from a long gun.

The Quebec government hopes to receive a temporary injunction to protect the data until a permanent ruling, which could take months, can be obtained.

“So for a week it [the gun registry] is still there. Of course it’s good news but it’s just a first step,” Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier said. “There is no destruction of the data. The registry is still in operation. We are going to go back in front of the judge in a week for another hearing and we’ll see what happens.”

In its brief to the court, Quebec argued that the registry helped reduce gun-related crimes, suicides and homicides. Police in Quebec consulted the registry an average of 700 times a day, the province argued, making the registry an instrumental tool in investigations.

The federal government made it clear from the outset that it would destroy the data as soon as it could in accordance with a provision in the newly passed law.

“As soon as the legislation is passed, there is a requirement to destroy the data. If there’s no legal impediment to destroying the data, that process continues,” said federal Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews.

In statement released by his office, Mr. Toews said that the court ruling was temporary and in no way “diminished our commitment to ending the long-gun registry once and for all.”

The minister expressed disappointment with the court decision, saying it went against the “will of Canadians and of Parliament.”

Rather than battling in court, Quebec urged Ottawa to help the province set up its own gun registry, using the data collected in Quebec since 1998.

“The federal government can still change its mind and accept to co-operate. The victims of firearms and their families are making the same request,” Mr. Fournier said.

Quebec was at the forefront of the movement to set up the gun registry after the deaths of 14 women during the 1989 shooting rampage at Montreal’s École Polytechnique.

Heidi Rathjen, a student at the École Polytechnique at the time, now heads a group that supports maintaining the gun registry in Quebec.

“The Conservatives in Ottawa want nothing to do with the gun registry. Our group appeared before the Senate committee last week. It was a real joke. It was nothing more than a political spectacle,” Ms. Rathjen said on Thursday.

She said that the registry works and it would be ridiculous for Ottawa to abolish the data and impede Quebec’s will to maintain it.

With a report from Carys Mills in Ottawa and The Canadian Press

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/superior-court-stops-destruction-of-quebecs-long-gun-registry-data/article2392983/ >

Canadians hope to grow into their old age happy, financially secure and relatively healthy. But for too many the reality of aging will be much darker. Indeed, it’s estimated that one in 10 Canadian seniors will suffer abuse.

Elder abuse can be physical. It can also involve overmedicating older people to make them docile or neglecting their physical and emotional needs. Some are isolated and stripped of their independence and financial savings. Whatever form the abuse takes, it usually comes at the hands of people in positions of trust: family, friends and caregivers.

The federal government has vowed to tackle the problem with its seemingly cure-all tactic — more justice legislation. Last week, the Conservatives introduced legislation they say would lead to tougher sentences for those convicted of elder abuse.

“Elder abuse is a serious issue and we must do whatever we can to fight it,” says Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. “We have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.”

He’s right about the need to protect vulnerable seniors. But it will take more than a tweaking of the Criminal Code to do it. Here’s an idea: let’s protect seniors by making them less physically and financially vulnerable, thereby preventing much of the abuse from ever occurring.

That would mean working with the provinces on a comprehensive strategy to tackle elder abuse. And, that, unfortunately, is something the Conservative government has shown little interest in.

Elderly Canadians need access to more home care services to increase their independence and more long-term care beds to properly care for them when needed. Family caregivers need more support and respite care to keep them from burning out. And poverty must be reduced, as well.

The roots of elder abuse often lie in poverty, lack of affordable housing, unsuitable living conditions and insufficient caregiver support. Far from improving the situation for seniors, the federal government has rebuffed calls from Ontario to negotiate a health-care accord focused on the needs of the elderly and it plans to trim Old Age Security benefits.

Punishing more severely the very few abusers who will ever be charged is all well and good (and supported by seniors’ advocacy groups) but it is a small piece of the overall need. Preventing abuse will always be preferable to punishing abusers.

That’s why advocates for seniors have long called for the development of a cohesive national strategy to tackle elder abuse. We’re fast running out of time to get this done. In a little over 20 years, one in four Canadians will be 65 and over.

With such a rapidly aging population, we cannot afford to ignore elder abuse — or pretend that stiffer sentences will make it go away.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1147823–protecting-seniors-from-elder-abuse-takes-more-than-justice-legislation >

Having seen its dominant share of Canadian immigration shrink over the past decade, Ontario is fighting back.

Ontario’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister Charles Sousa said Friday that federal immigration policies are hurting Canada’s largest province.

In response, Mr. Sousa announced the creation of Ontario’s first-ever immigration strategy, which he says will be crucial to the province’s economic future. He also called on the federal government to negotiate a new agreement on immigration with the province.

Speaking to the Metropolis conference on immigration research, Mr. Sousa said that although Ontario remains by far the largest recipient of new immigrants in Canada, it has suffered as a result of changes to immigration policy. The rapid growth of provincial nominee programs has drawn immigrants away from Ontario to the West and Atlantic Canada.

“In his speech to you yesterday, federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney confirmed what we’ve been saying for a long time: Federal immigration policies are hurting Ontario. Changes introduced by Ottawa over the last decade give a head start to others in this race at the expense of Ontario,” Mr. Sousa said.

In 2009, Ontario’s share of immigrant landings sank to its lowest level in nearly 30 years. Part of that may be related to its economic decline. But the province is laying part of the blame at the feet of the federal bureaucracy, which the Ontario government claims has tens of thousands of Ontario-bound applicants in its backlogs.

The biggest factor in Ontario’s diminished ability to attract newcomers was its late arrival to the provincial nominee program. Ontario was the last province to join and receives only 1,000 permits a year, a tiny portion of the more than 30,000 permits handed to other provinces.

As Ontario began to receive a smaller share of the immigration pie, the federal government decided to cut its funding for settlement services by nearly $70-million.

“It’s a priority for us to ensure that Ontario has fairness in the system. Right now things are happening at the expense of Ontario and I’m trying to change that,” Mr. Sousa said.

An expert roundtable was announced Friday to help inform Ontario’s immigration strategy. It will be chaired by former Toronto CivicAction Alliance CEO Julia Deans and includes TD Bank economist Craig Alexander, Ratna Omidvar of the Maytree Foundation and Debbie Douglas of the Ontario Coalition of Agencies Serving Immigrants. It will provide recommendations to government on how immigration can support economic development. Within six months, it is expected to produce a report that will shape the province’s immigration strategy.

 
New immigration policy will make it much tougher to use a sham marriage to get into Canada.Ottawa cracks down on marriage fraud

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced Friday a government crackdown on marriage fraudsters: people who marry and enter Canada under spousal sponsorship, only to abandon their partners shortly thereafter.

Starting this summer, those who are sponsored by their spouses to come to Canada will only be given temporary resident status for two years before they can gain permanent residency. If, during that period, the government discovers the marriage was one of convenience, the individual will be denied permanent residency. The new policy will include a provision to protect spousal abuse victims, who may be reluctant to end their marriages out of fear of jeopardizing their chances at gaining permanent resident status.

Sponsored spouses will also be restricted from sponsoring others for five years – a change effective immediately. This is meant to put an end to the “revolving door” of serial marriage, sponsorship and divorce, Mr. Kenney said.

“When a foreigner commits marriage fraud, it is not only the sponsor who suffers, but our taxpayer benefits such as health care are also affected by these people who cheat their way into Canada,” he said.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-goes-it-alone-on-immigration-says-ottawas-policy-hurts-province/article2357522/ >

As many as 500,000 Canadians are believed to suffer from some form of dementia — an umbrella term for a variety of degenerative neurological conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease. Primarily afflicting the elderly, Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia will be a major drain on Canada’s health-care system as the population rapidly ages over the next decade. Incidences of dementia are projected to rise 40% by 2020.

As a degenerative disorder, dementia slowly strips away the dignity and independence of its victims. But the process can be slow indeed, sometimes requiring many years before becoming serious enough to warrant hospitalization for full-time medical care. In the interim, it falls to relatives — often spouses who are elderly themselves — to care for and protect the afflicted.

And protection is often required. Those with dementia are not just benignly forgetful — they are often profoundly confused. It is not uncommon for senior citizens suffering from Alzheimer’s, for example, to wander out of their homes believing they’re on their way to work, or to retrieve their children from school.

This can happen at any time of the day or night and in any kind of weather. Sadly, such incidents sometimes end with the death of the disoriented sufferer. But even where tragedy is avoided, the need to be constantly on alert for such wandering puts enormous emotional and physical strains on caregivers.

That is why we welcome a new initiative by the Halifax Regional Police force, which is launching a trial program to affix GPS tracking bracelets — which look similar to digital wrist watches — to dementia patients at risk of wandering off. Such a program, once implemented, will allow the police to rapidly locate, and one hopes rescue, any dementia patient who is able to slip off unattended. The technology has the potential, not only to save resources required by a traditional search operation, but also to save lives.

This is not a perfect solution. GPS monitoring technology is more often associated with sex offenders than victims of a degenerative disease, so there exists a social stigma. And there are genuine concerns about the personal freedoms and privacy rights of dementia patients. There are also practical issues: The patient could remove the bracelet, the batteries might die, there’s a risk of false alarms, the systems are expensive are so on.

Some of these problems might be hashed out during the Halifax trial program. In the mean time, the tracking devices still reflect a significant step forward in protecting citizens left vulnerable by the ravages of a merciless disease. Should the Halifax program prove successful, as we very much hope it does, we would encourage other jurisdictions to consider similar programs.

While they wait, there are other steps that can be taken. Ontario is preparing to roll out a “Silver Advisory” program, modelled after the Amber Alert system, that will communicate critical information about missing seniors suffering from dementia within their local area. Peel Region, a municipality in the Greater Toronto Area, equips high-risk “wanderers” — typically Alzheimer’s patients, but the program is open to others with comparable neurological issues — with wrist-worn radio frequency transmitters, which broadcast a homing signal that Peel police can track within a two-kilometre radius.

In concert with emerging GPS tracking technologies, such initiatives may serve to make Canada a safer place for those suffering from dementia — and a more peaceful one for their weary caregivers.

< http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/national-post-editorial-board-innovative-ideas-for-protecting-dementia-patients/ >

PERHAPS the most widespread peril children face isn’t guns, swimming pools or speeding cars. Rather, scientists are suggesting that it may be “toxic stress” early in life, or even before birth.

This month, the American Academy of Pediatrics is issuing a landmark warning that this toxic stress can harm children for life. I’m as skeptical as anyone of headlines from new medical studies (Coffee is good for you! Coffee is bad for you!), but that’s not what this is.

Rather, this is a “policy statement” from the premier association of pediatricians, based on two decades of scientific research. This has revolutionary implications for medicine and for how we can more effectively chip away at poverty and crime.

Toxic stress might arise from parental abuse of alcohol or drugs. It could occur in a home where children are threatened and beaten. It might derive from chronic neglect — a child cries without being cuddled. Affection seems to defuse toxic stress — keep those hugs and lullabies coming! — suggesting that the stress emerges when a child senses persistent threats but no protector.

Cues of a hostile or indifferent environment flood an infant, or even a fetus, with stress hormones like cortisol in ways that can disrupt the body’s metabolism or the architecture of the brain.

The upshot is that children are sometimes permanently undermined. Even many years later, as adults, they are more likely to suffer heart disease, obesity, diabetes and other physical ailments. They are also more likely to struggle in school, have short tempers and tangle with the law.

The crucial period seems to be from conception through early childhood. After that, the brain is less pliable and has trouble being remolded.

“You can modify behavior later, but you can’t rewire disrupted brain circuits,” notes Jack P. Shonkoff, a Harvard pediatrician who has been a leader in this field. “We’re beginning to get a pretty compelling biological model of why kids who have experienced adversity have trouble learning.”

This new research addresses an uncomfortable truth: Poverty is difficult to overcome partly because of self-destructive behaviors. Children from poor homes often shine, but others may skip school, abuse narcotics, break the law, and have trouble settling down in a marriage and a job. Then their children may replicate this pattern.

Liberals sometimes ignore these self-destructive pathologies. Conservatives sometimes rely on them to blame poverty on the poor.

The research suggests that the roots of impairment and underachievement are biologically embedded, but preventable. “This is the biology of social class disparities,” Dr. Shonkoff said. “Early experiences are literally built into our bodies.”

The implication is that the most cost-effective window to bring about change isn’t high school or even kindergarten — although much greater efforts are needed in schools as well — but in the early years of life, or even before birth.

“Protecting young children from adversity is a promising, science-based strategy to address many of the most persistent and costly problems facing contemporary society, including limited educational achievement, diminished economic productivity, criminality, and disparities in health,” the pediatrics academy said in its policy statement.

One successful example of early intervention is home visitation by childcare experts, like those from the Nurse-Family Partnership. This organization sends nurses to visit poor, vulnerable women who are pregnant for the first time. The nurse warns against smoking and alcohol and drug abuse, and later encourages breast-feeding and good nutrition, while coaxing mothers to cuddle their children and read to them. This program continues until the child is 2.

At age 6, studies have found, these children are only one-third as likely to have behavioral or intellectual problems as others who weren’t enrolled. At age 15, the children are less than half as likely to have been arrested.

Evidence of the importance of early experiences has been mounting like snowflakes in a blizzard. For example, several studies examined Dutch men and women who had been in utero during a brief famine at the end of World War II. Decades later, those “famine babies” had more trouble concentrating and more heart disease than those born before or after.

Other scholars examined children who had been badly neglected in Romanian orphanages. Those who spent more time in the orphanages had shorter telomeres, a change in chromosomes that’s a marker of accelerated aging. Their brain scans also looked different.

The science is still accumulating. But a compelling message from biology is that if we want to chip away at poverty and improve educational and health outcomes, we have to start earlier. For many children, damage has been suffered before the first day of school.

As Frederick Douglass noted, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”

< http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-poverty-solution-that-starts-with-a-hug.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss >