Some young people who have grown up in a mix of broken families, foster homes and group homes deliver a report to the Ontario legislature Monday. Their lives often don’t turn out as well as those of other youth. They think legislators should know that.

About 15 years ago, I received money from a youth charity to give to a youth charity of my choice. I might have given it to groups I had already worked with or knew. But this was a chance again to ask the most basic question: Given all the kids who have needs, who needs help the most?

I asked the advice of people in foundations and other community groups. The most “disadvantaged” of the “disadvantaged,” they agreed, were kids from foster homes and group homes. What these kids needed was a chance, in their words, to “break the cycle” of a family history of poverty and abuse that often went back generations. Their best chance to do this? To go to university or college.

We’ve given out more than 140 scholarships in the years since.

Even when you know these young people’s stories, they strike you with surprise. Not so much the details of parents who have mental illness, alcoholism or drug abuse, but what the day-after-day, year-after-year implications of living with someone with those problems feels like. Yet many of these youth somehow — almost never without big setbacks — reach their last year of high school. Now they are thinking, hoping, dreaming, of university and a future that never was to be. This is their one-way ticket out.

We talk a lot now about the cost of post-secondary education. Imagine as a student trying to meet that challenge if your parents can’t help you out. If they aren’t around to use their contacts to get you a summer job. If there’s no home to return to in the summer even if it’s only not to have four additional months of room and board to pay for. But these youth find a way — big student loans, scholarships — because to them if they’ve made it this far, they’re not not going to go to college or university! This is their chance.

But for them things take longer. Switching foster homes and schools eight times in three years sets them back a year. To pay for college, they need to work a part-time job 20 hours a week, not 10. So they take one fewer course — this year, and next year too. They take a year off to work to save money. Their mother has a relapse. Even though their mother has brought to them little more than misery, she’s the only mother they have. So they leave school for a term to take care of her.

For these youth, without much beneath them to brace their fall when things go wrong — and they do in every kid’s life — the slide is farther, steeper and harder. If gap years and changing majors have made 25 the new 21 for many youth, real life has made it this way for them.

This is what their report speaks of. But first they had to go through some process. They decided if no one else was going to hold hearings for them, they would hold them for themselves, and tell their own story — and they did: for two days last November in the Ontario legislature. In doing so, they were supported by the office of the provincial advocate for children and youth. Their report rarely sounds overdramatized, almost always authentic — exactly what any legislator needs to make the right decisions.

Perhaps most remarkable are the group’s recommendations; or more accurately, their recommendation. In-care youth experience things at a young age things that many others never do until they’re much older, if at all. They make decisions for themselves — about what to eat, what to buy, when to go to bed — that only adults usually make. Yet the big decisions in their life — whether they need to stay with their parents or be put into care; who their foster parents will be; or when they are ready to fly on their own, finally and forever — none of these decisions they make themselves. They’re all made by others.

So their recommendation:

The Province of Ontario should recognize that the current system needs to fundamentally change to better prepare young people in care to succeed. [It] should work with young people in and from care and other stakeholders to complete an ACTION PLAN FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE by November 2012 that addresses our concerns and goals.

The six other “In the meantime” recommendations, as they put it, are all written in smaller print. They talk, among other things, of raising the age for which youth receive extended care and maintenance from 21 to 25, and allowing youth to stay in foster care until they decide themselves when they’re ready to leave. I don’t know if these have merit, or their counter-arguments, or the best way to achieve the goals that need to be achieved. But I do know that the first recommendation, the only one written in big print, is right. Sometimes, it’s not just what you do, but howyou do it.

These youth created their own hearings, wrote their own report, and told their own story better than anyone else could. Now they need to be part of a working group that includes parliamentarians to write an action plan for their future. It’s theirlife.

Ken Dryden served as federal minister of social development under prime minister Paul Martin from July 2004 to February 2006.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1177432–mpps-should-heed-advice-from-youth-who-survived-the-care-system >

Ontario’s child welfare system needs fundamental change to address the isolation, vulnerability and abandonment experienced by too many children in foster care and group homes, says a groundbreaking report written by youth about their plight.

The report, based on unprecedented legislative hearings last fall by youth from the child welfare system, calls on the province and others to work with them to produce an action plan by November.

The goal is to make Ontario a better parent to roughly 8,300 children and youth in its care and make their transition to adulthood more secure.

The report being released Monday at Queen’s Park, says the government should act immediately to raise the age of financial and emotional support from 21 to 25; allow youth to stay in foster care beyond age 18; and declare a “Youth in Care Day” to raise awareness and reduce stigma.

The province should also develop ongoing health and education plans for every child and youth in care; collect and publish information on their experiences during and after they leave care; and create an online clearing house of information and resources for them, the report says.

“Every child and youth deserves to feel and know that we are loved and cared for,” says the report, based on almost 200 submissions from young people during two days of hearings last November. “We are vulnerable youth and need more than a system of policies for this to happen.”

The hearings arose from the youth’s need for “our parent — the province — to listen and to understand the struggles around leaving care.”

The trauma of their young lives, coupled with frequent moves in foster care leave too many ill-equipped for adulthood.

Just 44 per cent complete high school. As adults they are more likely to experience poverty and homelessness, suffer mental health problems and become involved with the criminal justice system.

Youth are counting on Ontarians to listen and act, said Wendy, 20, one of the hearing’s four youth leaders.

Her support from Durham Region Children’s Aid ends in August when she turns 21.

(As with the legislative hearings, only first names are being used to protect the youth and respect the often harrowing nature of their experiences.)

“I think people who read the report will begin to understand what the struggles are and how it can get better,” Wendy said in an interview.

“We were focused on the issue of leaving care (at age 18 and 21), but there are a lot of things that happen during care that affect what happens to you after,” she said. “It really starts from the day we enter care.”

Wendy, who was removed from her substance-abusing parents when she was 13, said she was “lucky.” She was only moved twice and is still living with her current foster parents who treat her like a daughter. Unlike most youth who leave the system at age 18 or 21 with no permanent family, she knows the love of her foster parents is unconditional and forever.

“I have not moved out, nor will I have to when I turn 21,” she said. “When I do move out, I always have them as a safety net to go back to if times get rough, or just to spend the night on the holidays.

“We need to look at how I got here,” she added. “For me it was a stroke of luck. But we can’t rely on a stroke of luck.”

The report, entitled My REAL Life Book, reflects six main themes of youth who addressed the hearings, including feelings of vulnerability, isolation and being “left out” of decision-making about their lives. The unpredictability of foster care and group home arrangements, the struggle when care ends, and the lack of one meaningful adult relationship to carry them into adulthood are also highlighted.

Lindsay, 20, who entered foster care with her younger sister in New Liskeard, Ont. when she was 14, said she is often overwhelmed by loneliness and isolation.

Initially, she thought life away from her addicted and abusive single mother would be better. And in many ways it was: Her foster parents provided love, stability and the expectation that she would go to university and become a successful adult.

But she said it felt odd to be excluded from her foster family’s vacations. And restrictions such as needing her Children’s Aid approval to go on sleepovers or ride in a car driven by adults other than her foster parents, always reminded her of her Crown ward status.

Like most youth in care, Lindsay moved out on the day she turned 18 when the province’s legal responsibility for her ended and her foster parents no longer received funding to support her.

“On my 18th birthday I woke up in my foster home and that night I went home to a completely different place,” she recalled of the student rooming house where she rented a room with the help of a modest monthly allowance from Children’s Aid.

Suddenly she was living on her own and juggling a part-time job while trying to complete Grade 12. Her grades slipped and she didn’t graduate that year. Her delayed transition to college wasn’t any easier and she dropped out after first semester. Although she is back in college now, her shaky start means she may not finish by next May when she turns 21 and loses all financial and emotional support from Children’s Aid.

Lindsay, one of seven youth who wrote the report, longs to go to university after college, but doesn’t know how she will manage unless the government acts on the report’s recommendation to raise the age of support to age 25.

As she says in the report: “All we’re asking for is for four more years. Four more years of care to find people who matter to us, who don’t fall into the circle of the unhealthy lifestyle we’ve been born into.”

Ontario’s Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Irwin Elman, released a research report earlier this year that showed the $26 million annual price tag to extend support to age 25 for youth in the child welfare system would be more than recouped through reduced jail and social assistance costs and increased tax revenue as they are better able to complete their education and get good jobs.

Over 40 years, the return on this investment would amount to $132 million in current dollars, the report said.

Elman says Monday’s report is an opportunity for the province to “do right by its kids.”

“We can move when we want to. I don’t think 60 days to appoint a panel and another 60 or 70 days to create a blueprint is too much to ask,” he said.

In a statement, Minister of Children and Youth Services, Eric Hoskins, called the hearings and the report “without precedent,” “groundbreaking” and “brave.” He will respond formally on behalf of the government Monday.

* Almost 17,000 of Ontario’s 3.1 million children are in the care of Children’s Aid Societies

* Of these children, the province is legal guardian to more than 8,300 Crown wards who have been permanently removed from their parents due to abuse or neglect.

* The average annual cost of maintaining a child in foster care is $45,000

* Just 44 per cent of youth in care graduate from high school

* 81 per cent of all Ontario youth graduate from high school

* 43 per cent of homeless youth have been involved with the child welfare system

* 68 per cent of homeless youth come from foster homes or group homes

* 82 per cent of children in child welfare have diagnosed special needs

Source: My REAL Life Book, Report from the Youth Leaving Care Hearings

< http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1177881–ontario-s-youth-leaving-care-hearings-call-for-fundamental-change-to-child-welfare-system >

Ontario is shaping up for a fight with the federal government over the now defunct long-gun registry after Premier Dalton McGuinty said Friday that he wanted stores to keep records of who buys firearms, despite objections in Ottawa.

The defiant statement came on the same day RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson warned all chief firearms officers in the country that they must not to create any semblance of a long-gun registry in their jurisdictions.

“The coming into force of the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act leaves no doubt that Parliament has sought to eliminate any form of a long-gun registry,” Paulson wrote in a letter.

But Ontario has a different interpretation of the Firearms Act, and it will be up to the federal government to introduce legislation to counter the record-keeping practice, said McGuinty.

“We’re not going to adopt a long-gun registry here in Ontario,” McGuinty said after touring a local website development company.

“But we will maintain a practice that’s been in place since 1978.”

At the same time, Quebec has mounted a legal challenge preventing the destruction of federal long-gun records.

“Let’s not have an exchange between the RCMP expert in this area and the provincial experts in this area,” McGuinty added.

“Let’s turn it back to the feds and say if your intention was to not only eliminate the long-gun registry but a pre-existing practice, I think you need to make that clear.

“Right now there’s obviously some uncertainty.”

Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews sent a letter Tuesday to all provincial chief firearms officers, telling them the collection of point-of-sale data is no longer authorized under the Firearms Act.

He asked the RCMP to notify him “immediately” if they learn that chief firearms officers are engaged in “unauthorized data collection.”

Toews’ letter to Paulson added that the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms Program were to provide “no assistance or direction” to any province that may be undertaking measures to create a provincial long-gun registry.

Officials with the Chief Firearms Office of the Ontario Provincial Police have previously said the OPP would continue to maintain records of all firearms sales and who bought them.

While they have insisted this is not an attempt to create a provincial long-gun registry, some observers have complained that Ontario police are flouting the will of Parliament, and creating a new provincial gun registry “by the backdoor.”

Toews said the collection of point-of-sale data is no longer authorized under the Firearms Act.

Paulson reiterated this point in his letter.

“I instruct all Chief Firearms Officers to ensure that the licensing conditions you impose on business records pursuant to the Firearms Act do not facilitate the creation of long-gun registries in your jurisdictions,” he said.

Ontario Community Safety Minister Madeleine Meilleur has written Toews to clarify the province’s position on the issue.

Meilleur says recent media attention created confusion, so she wanted Ottawa to know Ontario does not want a provincial gun registry and will “comply fully” with the requirements of Bill C-19, which killed the federal long-gun registry.

But in an interview, Meilleur said Ontario retailers will continue to take down names and address of anyone purchasing a gun as part of the permit process.

She said the chief firearms officer of the Ontario Provincial Police interprets section 58 of the Firearms Act as giving him the power to impose that requirement.

With files from Postmedia News and The Canadian Press

< http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/11/rcmp-boss-warns-provinces-against-backdoor-long-gun-registries/ >

Every generation updates and renews the values that make us who we are. I once found it hard to truly understand what those in my grandfather’s generation meant when they spoke of making the ultimate sacrifice in wartime to allow their loved ones back home to live in a democracy.

Until, that is, I myself almost lost it all in a remote village in Afghanistan on behalf of the values that make us Canadian, values that I now see as under threat not by a foreign force, but by a domestic one.

Compared with others who did make the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, like my friend Bill Turner, who took my place in the field, my story has been well publicized.

On March 4, 2006, I was part of the 1st Battalion PPCLI battle group in the tiny village of Shinkay, when during a meeting with local elders to discuss their needs for water, housing and education, an insurgent sneaked up behind our group and buried a crude axe in my skull.

Unconscious, I was taken to the base hospital in Kandahar, where I was stabilized for the flight to a U.S.-run hospital in Germany. Fast forward through 10 hospitals and today I am back living in Canada with the goal of proving wrong those doctors who said that I’d never walk again.

Every morning, I also wake up and count my blessings, as we all should, that I get to spend another day with loved ones. My wife Debbie has stood beside me like a rock, and my young daughter keeps giving me that jolt of energy that only kids can give their parents, and I need it more than most. We now have a son on the way.

Frequently, however, the newspapers bring clouds to my day. The Canada I went overseas to fight for was a tolerant and open society, always striving to do the right thing, and to bring to the world a sense that tomorrow can be better than today.

Today, though, the government in Ottawa seems to want to throw all that out the window. Stephen Harper’s vision of Canada seems to begin, and end, in the tarsands, and everything else be damned. Tolerance is redefined as applying only to anyone who agrees with that vision. Everyone else is “radical,” an “extremist,” or even included in his government’s new program battling terrorism.

This is an insult to those of us who have fought, and sacrificed for our country, against real radicals, real extremists and real terrorists.

When I read about ministers of the Crown attacking and smearing heroes like David Suzuki, who are trying to put us on a more sustainable pathway, I wonder what’s happened to Canada. I fear for the kind of world my daughter and son stand to inherit should we cave in to this oil-driven agenda. Not a good one, I am certain.

If my own story gives inspiration to others, and I hope it does, then it’s about exactly that — hope. I was given little chance of surviving, let alone thriving, and I’ve already half proven that wrong.

With determination, we can overcome all manner of adversity, and reclaim who we are both as individuals and as a people. We face this challenge now with Ottawa, with a government that is taking our country in the wrong direction, undermining the values that make us who we are. I am loath to have to admit to my children that the irreversible degradation of their planet continued on my watch.

Capt. (ret’d) Trevor Greene now lives in Nanaimo, BC with his wife Debbie and daughter Grace. They are expecting a son in June. The Greenes run a foundation to educate Afghan girls as teachers.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1177442–trevor-greene-from-one-battlefield-to-another >

Five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin suffered such abuse and deprivation he weighed just 21 pounds when he died. Randal Dooley was beaten to death, literally. The seven-year-old boy had 13 broken ribs, a brain injury, a lacerated liver and a tooth in his stomach. Three-year-old Kasandra Shepherd died after a severe blow to her head.

After all the child welfare lessons that should have been learned from those horrific abuse cases, we would have thought that another inquest into the death of a child at the hands of troubled caregivers under the watch of a children’s aid society would never be needed.

Yet the murder of seven-year-old Katelynn Sampson and the apparent blindness on the part of so many adults in her life to the abuse she was suffering shows that is not the case. At the end, there were no fewer than 70 wounds on her little body.

“Alarm bells were ringing and no one was responding,” Superior Court Justice John McMahon said Wednesday when he sentenced Katelynn’s legal guardians to life imprisonment.

A coroner’s inquest is certainly needed and it must have the broadest scope possible to identify every person and procedure that failed this little girl. With all that we know about the vulnerability of children, how on earth can two children’s aid agencies let a little girl fall through the cracks of their paper-shuffling bureaucracy? How can school officials not do more to follow up when a little girl covered in bruises and burns stops coming to school altogether? Did the neighbours not see or hear anything?

But an inquest is not enough. There is no point in simply recommending more rules if they are either unworkable or will be ignored. Years of court cases, inquests, pediatric death review committee reports and internal children’s aid reviews have led to an increasing number of laws, rules and procedures to follow. Yet, somehow, children like Katelynn are still dying.

That’s why Children’s Minister Eric Hoskins cannot sit back and think that his ministry has done all it can. Yes, the government did fix the terrible law that allowed Katelynn’s mother to hand her off to a crack-addicted friend with a record of violent offences. That, as we now know, was just the first thing that went wrong.

Kenn Richard, executive director of Native Child and Family Services, says that after “extensive investigation and internal reflection” he is satisfied that his staff did “everything that’s required under our charter as a Children’s Aid Society.”

If that’s the case the system is even more broken that people imagine. Following the rules but still allowing the child to die is a system in desperate need of an overhaul. The minister must read every word of the internal reviews conducted by Toronto children’s aid and Native Child and Family Services.

This government saw fit to appoint a commission to make child welfare more cost effective. How about a commission with a mandate to make it better? The system that failed Katelynn, Jeffrey, Randal and Kasandra can fail the next little boy or girl, too.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1172014–we-re-failing-at-risk-kids >

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 >

Ottawa will strip thousands of refugees of health-care coverage starting in July unless their conditions pose a threat to public health.

Critics called the move “mean-spirited” and warned that denial of health care could lead to unnecessary deaths.

“If this is what they are doing, there is no question that the application of this will result in people dying,” said lawyer Rick Goldman of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Currently, all refugees are covered by the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides basic health coverage, sometimes with supplementary services such as pharmaceutical care, dentistry, vision care and devices such as walkers and wheelchairs, if required.

As part of an overhaul of the asylum system that takes effects in July, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney will establish a “safe country” list and expedite the processing of claims from these countries.

The plan announced Wednesday stipulates that rejected claimants and refugees from designated countries won’t be eligible for health care unless their conditions put the public at risk. All refugees will also be stripped of supplemental health coverage.

Although Kenney has not revealed the safe country list, Mexico and Hungary, which are likely to be designated, accounted for more than 5,000 asylum claims in Canada last year.

“These reforms allow us to protect public health and safety, ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and defend the integrity of our immigration system all at the same time,” Kenney said in a statement.

Ottawa spent $84.6 million on the refugee health program in 2011. The changes will save the government $100 million over five years.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1168118–ottawa-to-cut-health-care-for-some-refugees >

The federal government is delivering on a promise to crime victims by doubling and making mandatory the surcharge convicts are required to pay upon sentencing.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced legislation Tuesday that, if passed, would require convicts to pay an additional 30% on any fine imposed by the courts.

If no fine is imposed, they will automatically be charged $100 for a summary conviction or $200 for an indictable offence.

The fines are generally collected and retained by provincial and territorial governments to help cover the cost of programs and services for victims of crime.

Sentencing judges are currently able to waive the surcharge should an offender demonstrate it would cause undue hardship — the new bill will also put an end to that.

Those who can’t pay will instead be able to participate in provincial programs that allow offenders to earn credits for work performed in the region where the crime was committed in lieu of financial penalties.

The bill makes good on a Conservative election promise and also responds to a request by Canada’s federal ombudsman for victims of crime, who called for a doubling of the surcharge in a February report.

< http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/24/tories-to-double-make-mandatory-100-200-surcharge-for-convicted-criminals/ >

Nothing demonstrates the impact of the 30-year-old Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the court decisions that have sprung from it. Among the highlights:

• If you are a woman, you have an unrestricted right to an abortion. The Supreme Court struck down an unfair law in 1988, and Parliament failed to agree on another law to replace it.

• If you are homosexual, you can marry and divorce someone of the same sex. You are also eligible for the same spousal or child support payments as opposite-sex spouses.

• There’s almost no chance your country could bring back thedeath penalty, now that the Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty is contrary to principles of fundamental justice.

• If you’re arrested, police must advise you of your right to a lawyer, and give you a reasonable opportunity to consult one before questioning you. But you cannot insist on the lawyer of your choice, nor do you have a constitutional right to legal aid. You have a right to silence, and your refusal to answer questions can’t be taken as a sign of guilt.

• Police can pull you over in a RIDE program and ask if you have been drinking. But your roadside statements can’t be used to incriminate you. If you’re asked to blow into a breathalyzer, you must be informed of your right to speak with a lawyer.

• If you’re charged with a crime, you have a right to see all relevant evidence in your case; police and prosecution cannot withhold information that could potentially work in your favour.

• Police can’t search your home without a warrant, but they’re free to go through your garbage if it’s on your property line. If you’ve thrown a tissue in a garbage can, police can take it for DNA testing.

• Elementary or high-school officials can search student backpacks or lockers for illegal drugs, without a warrant.

• You cannot help another person commit suicide.

• You can watch a film in Ontario without having it censored by a bureaucrat.

• You have limited freedom to spank children. Off limits: Kids under 2 and teenagers. Hitting children in the head and using objects. Acceptable: Mild, fleeting force to correct behaviour.

• You have a right to negotiate pay and work conditions with an employer, but no constitutional right to collective bargainingand, if you’re an Ontario farm worker, no right to join a union. During labour disputes, you can picket your place of business and other secondary sites.

• If you are the complainant in a sex assault case and request a ban on publication of your identity, a court will automatically grant it. A defense lawyer has no automatic right to cross-examine you about your sexual history or to embark on a fishing expedition through your medical or counseling records.

• If you live in Quebec, you can buy private health insuranceand the commercial outdoor signs don’t have to be in French only.

• You cannot smoke marijuana in the privacy of your home without committing a crime.

• If you’re an inmate, you can vote in federal elections.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1165520–key-decisions-involving-the-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms >