• Getting to the root of Ontario’s family law mess

    … Ontario’s family law system is utterly broken… How is it that these courts remain the expensive, convoluted, soul-crushing places they have become and how is that the players have allowed it to become normalized? … the lawyers involved, who have a duty to act in the best interests of the child and so often don’t. And judges ostensibly have control of their courtrooms; why won’t they exert it?

  • Policy-makers should pay attention to world happiness rankings

    That’s the whole purpose of the happiness report. To raise the awareness that there are these scientifically replicable measures of the quality of life that don’t give you the same answers as GDP and don’t invite the same policies that maximizing GDP would mean… If these numbers are taken seriously, it’s to raise the level of policy awareness and discussion.”

  • Canada Without Poverty, the UN and Human Rights

    In March-April 2017, Canada will be reviewed for its compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Canada ratified the Convention in 2010 which makes this the first review cycle that applies to Canada… The first step is to provide a written submission to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. For NGOs, the written submission details ongoing issues and concerns about the state’s human rights record.

  • A portable housing benefit could ease our homeless crisis

    Here are five reasons why the portable housing benefit is a smart idea: 1. It is the most efficient way to help households in need and address homelessness… 2. It will reduce homelessness… 3. It will reduce poverty… 4. Its portability means it is tied to an individual, rather than a housing unit, giving people choice [and] … 5. It is already working.

  • Who pays when native children fall between the cracks?

    Yes, indigenous children must receive medical and social services equal to other Canadians. A tribunal can define those rights, but the precise details of where the money comes from, and where it goes, must largely be left to negotiations among Ottawa, the provinces and First Nations.

  • Ottawa hasn’t earned trust on indigenous child welfare

    The government should do as it promised and, as the tribunal’s legally binding order demands, immediately close the funding gap… Ottawa’s slow response has been a persistent source of shame, particularly for a government that so often touts its lofty promises on indigenous issues… energy would be better spent protecting the health and safety of indigenous children than pushing back at the tribunal.

  • Preliminary inquiries: Let judges make the call

    The intelligent compromise is this: since they have limited residual utility, there should be no preliminary inquiries unless whoever wants one first convinces a judge it is necessary in the interests of justice, following which it cannot be taken away. Judges know best when their courtroom is used well or poorly. Given the chance, judges will manage courtroom time effectively.

  • Increase funding for a national child care program

    Experts say Ottawa is planning to spend $500 million a year for the next 10 years to build a child care network across the country. As much as that is, it’s far from the 1 per cent of GDP experts say is necessary to build a quality system… while three-quarters of mothers of young children are in the workforce, there are licensed spots available for less than a quarter of children under 5. And those that are available are incredibly expensive.

  • Tribunal can’t enforce Indigenous child-welfare ruling, Ottawa says

    The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal does not have the power to ensure its rulings are followed or to dictate how public money is spent, the federal government has argued in response to accusations it has not met a tribunal demand to end the discriminatory underfunding of Indigenous child welfare… “the tribunal does not have the statutory authority to enforce its own orders.”

  • The public interest in binding arbitration for doctors

    … it has been argued… that government should not agree to arbitration for physicians, because this would result in unwarranted and unreasonable compensation increases for physicians… contrary to this bald assertion, the experience in provinces where binding interest arbitration for physician compensation is in place… is that, where physicians are treated fairly and respectfully, they have proven themselves to be more than willing and responsible partners in working with government to improve the health care system.