Rosario Marchese, MPP of Trinity-Spadina (a downtown riding often proposed as a location for the casino), started the evening off with some arguments against a putting a casino so close to residential neighbourhoods.  Residents of Liberty Village are worried that a casino at the Ex would “suck the life out” of the area.  While Casinos themselves are often vibrant, businesses around them do not remain so.  Over ...]]> There was a large and lively crowd on Monday to hear a strong discussion about the Toronto Casino proposal.

Rosario Marchese, MPP of Trinity-Spadina (a downtown riding often proposed as a location for the casino), started the evening off with some arguments against a putting a casino so close to residential neighbourhoods.  Residents of Liberty Village are worried that a casino at the Ex would “suck the life out” of the area.  While Casinos themselves are often vibrant, businesses around them do not remain so.  Over the last year, $700M was lost by the government in gaming so this will be a net tax on citizens.  Rosario doesn’t believe the casino will add value to the neighbourhood he represents.

Mike Yorke, president of the Carpenter’s Union, argued that the jobs created by the casino are well worth it.  The project will cost $2-3B to build and since it’s a private sector project, taxpayers are not on the hook.  Yorke estimates 6000 construction jobs will come from the casino.  This is about 4-5 times the number of jobs from the Bridgepoint hospital project. Toronto is now the 4^th largest city in North America but barely comes in the top 30 for conventions.  If we had a better convention complex, hundreds of lanyard wearing people would be frequenting local restaurants and businesses during trade shows and conventions.

Adam Vaughan, councillor of Ward 20 adjacent to the proposed casino site is also against the idea.  Vaughan argues that every slot machine requires 13.6 car movements per day to turn a profit.  The 5000 slot machines at the proposed casino would therefore require 11,000 parking spots.  MGM is currently calling for 12,000 parking spots.  Vaughan argues that because of the difficulties of waterfront construction, each parking spot would cost $50,000.  The first $1B of this project will be sunk into building adequate parking to feed the complex.  Toronto doesn’t need 7.5 football fields worth of slots and card tables.  Vaughan’s suspicions of the numbers put forth by casino proponents were raised by 2 facts. 1) $2-$4 billion is a very big swing for a company that claims to have done a detailed business case.  2) MGM lost $1.8 billion last year.  If they can’t manage their existing business, how well would they manage new investments?  No casino should be contemplated without a third party doing due diligence.

Paul Burns, vice president of the Canadian Gaming Association, tried to deconstruct Vaughan’s arguments.  In reality, the casino itself would take up only 10% of the complex’s floor space.  The other 90% will be used for restaurants, convention space, and other amenities.  The average industry job pays $50,000 per year.  MGM averages $60,000 per year for their workers and many are unionized positions.  Oxford is proposing 4000 parking spots because it recognizes that gaming isn’t a 9-5 industry that competes with commuters but it’s a 24 hour industry that attracts patrons around the clock.  Gaming could make Toronto a destination much like Vegas.  Moreover, a gaming facility in Toronto could help retain money in the local economy as well as attract tourism.  Currently, 275,000 passengers leave Toronto for Las Vegas every year.  Creating an iconic resort could keep a lot of dollars flowing locally.

Questions from the floor generated much heated debate.  At one point, the wisdom of investing in a casino was challenged when Ontario has so many poverty issues to deal with.  Mike Yorke pointed out that this isn’t an either or situation.  Because the casino is funded with private, not public dollars, it would have no impact on the government’s ability to invest in impoverished communities.

Vaughan pointed out that casino workers are routinely fired before the 4 year mark when they would be eligible for certain pension benefits.  The fact that 30% of workers will be part time is also concerning since they receive the lowest pay and the least benefits.  Burns pointed out that many people choose to work part time for flexibility and people who choose only part time work should not be denigrated.

Given the parking requirements, one audience member pointed out that a place like Square One in Mississauga would be logical (since it’s already a very large parking lot).  Why is that not considered?  Vaughan quickly pointed out that most GTA municipalities had already said ‘no’ to the casino.

Another audience member challenged Burns on the name of his organization.  Why is it called the “gaming” association when it is in fact a “gambling” association? Taking heat, Burns defended the name. They have never hidden what they represent.

Vaughan reiterated why the industry projections can’t be trusted. Assumptions are made that are often not true.  Melbourne had banked on attracting Asian tourists to their casino.  That dream never came to fruition because shortly after Melbourne’s casino was built, Macau quickly built itself up as the Las Vegas of Asia.  There are only so many gambling dollars to be shared. It’s a simple equation of supply and demand. Demand projections were based on statistics when supply was low. Supply of gambling is now plentiful and those assumptions should be validated.

Note: None of the facts provided by the speakers have been verified.

Rosario Marchese’s Opening Remarks

Mike Yorke’s Opening Remarks

Adam Vaughan’s Opening Remarks

Paul Burn’s Opening Remarks

Peter Russell began by extolling the virtues of our parliamentary democracy. Older than our country, the government has been run in this style since 1848. It purports that the state be run by elected officials. He points out, however, that ...]]> On Monday February 25 2013, WSIC ecstatically hosted three distinguished speakers on the topic of democratic reform. Peter Russell (a constitutional scholar), Wayne Smith (executive director of Fair Vote Canada), and Borys Wrzesnewkyi (former MP) touched on different aspects of the realities of our democratic system.

Peter Russell began by extolling the virtues of our parliamentary democracy. Older than our country, the government has been run in this style since 1848. It purports that the state be run by elected officials. He points out, however, that in modern times it is effectively impossible to get a majority of the population to vote for one party and hence he advocates for coalition governments. He also described how the Canadian government took major steps to defining its “brand” first under PM Trudeau, and that because this corporatization of government people today have to empower themselves by forming their own groups to discuss issues relevant to governance. The driver of a good democratic system is the idea that our parliamentary democracy should be fundamentally driven by discussion rather than fiat.

Wayne Smith has taken an activist approach, encouraging people to change the way we vote. The group the represents (Fair Vote Canada) advocates for a proportional voting system. They believe this would go a long way toward addressing issues people have with today’s political system, namely that seats tend to be decided by a minority of swing voters; the current system seems to discriminate against minorities by encouraging the status quo; most ridings rarely change parties; Canadians have tended to vote in geographic blocks; and there is a lack of accountability because parties can target key regions without trying to work for everyone’s vote. Wayne pointed out that such voting systems are perhaps new to Canada, but common elsewhere such as New Zealand and Germany. By giving people more of a sense that their vote counts he hopes not only to empower the disenfranchised, but also improve representation of the peoples’ wishes.

Borys Wrzesnewkyi showed us that Canadian democracy is no less susceptible to subterfuge than anywhere else in the world. He explained how ballot stuffing, and intimidation techniques were used during the last election. Seniors were verbally intimidated and voter registration certificates were used that were later on shown to come from address or people not from his riding. He also notably pointed out that statistics can be applied to voting patterns to determine instances of fraud. These mathematical tools are often used in the developing world, and it is good to see them being applied here too. For example, he found that in a few key apartment buildings, the fraction of voters increased by 50% and the fraction of conservatives by 60+%. These anomalies do not happen randomly and therefore indicate voter fraud. Perhaps we should learn from the Obama campaign and have volunteers simply stand at polling stations. This was a successful technique used to protect voters from those few who try to disenfranchise those who want to vote.

In Borys’ opinion, PM Harper is fundamentally changing the course of our democracy through a centralization of power. The House is becoming similar to the Senate where nothing is decided and everything flows from the PM’s office. Is this a structural flaw in the current system? One that can be manipulated for the gain of a few?

Civics education, compulsory voting, and the topic of coalition governments came up several times throughout the evening.  There is definitely a sense that coalitions were demonized by those in power in order to maintain it.  Someone pointed out that Harper himself had proposed a coalition government during Martin’s troubled years before he became Prime Minister and demonized Dion’s efforts as “undemocratic”.  In reality, this is how many parliamentary democracies around the world operate.  Parties are forced to work with each other and no one has an absolute majority.  The message resonated because of a lack of understanding about how the parliamentary system works.  Russell gave Michael Chong an acknowledgement for his private member’s bill on decorum and rules for the house of Commons.  Reducing the power of the leader is an important first step towards creating a more transparent democratic system.

There were plenty of ideas about what to do ranging from teaching better courses on civics in schools, to petitioning the government on changing the way we vote, to coming together in groups like WSIC and voicing our opinion, hopes, and ideas about our country.  People can join Fair Vote Canada’s efforts and help push Canadians towards accepting a better electoral system. The active participation of as many of us as possible in discussion and exchanges of ideas, statistics, and feelings is a powerful, and effective way to define what it means to be Canadian.

You can catch the opening speeches from our speakers below.

The two speakers come from different backgrounds and so provided complimentary aspects to the discussion. Leslie focused more on implementation and ...]]> Canadians are not being  bold, therefore nothing is getting done. Specifically, the pace of progress related to transit in the GTA is glacial. On Monday January 21 2013, Leslie Woo (VP Policy, Planning and Innovation for Metrolinx) and John Tory (broadcaster and former MPP) held the floor at a packed WSIC event as we engaged with them on the topic of transit in the GTA.

The two speakers come from different backgrounds and so provided complimentary aspects to the discussion. Leslie focused more on implementation and current plans, while John spoke more about the bigger picture such as quality of life and the politics surrounding infrastructure.

First some facts to set the stage: With four LRT projects currently underway, and the subway extension past York to Vaughan the transit situation in Toronto looks like it is improving. The city’s population is increasing by 100 000 per year. Congestion is currently estimated to cost 26 000 jobs. Family’s spend considerable amount of time apart traveling from job to home, or home to store. The situation outside of Toronto proper is that the public transit there does not conveniently and effectively support the needs of the community; there is often one car per person per household leading to high costs and pollution.

I will break it down by region. There’s Toronto, and the suburbs. Being a Torontonian, I’ll start there. The four LRT lines (parts of which will be underground) will be great for the city. The plan will connect the-stub-of-a-line along Sheppard with the (newly rebuilt) Scarborough LRT. The plan will put a cross town line along the middle north part of the city at Eglington, and another one in the north west
along Finch. All great! There is a lot of discussion about whether or not a subway line is justified in each region vs. and LRT and this is all based on projected ridership. I personally ask: do we really need to be jammed in like sardines (and still the TTC can’t seem to make money!?) for a line to be viable? Maybe I ask too much. And yet, as John Tory said: built it and they will come. I say, with 100 grand of
people coming every year, they are coming with or without “it”.

Onto the suburbs. Leslie spoke about changing GO transit’s role from commuter rail to regional transit. Mississauga is currently building a Bus Rapid Transit, but as Canada’s six largest city, it too is demanding a dedicated train (LRT) service. Then there are places like Brampton, Markham, Pickering, and so on that have budding bus systems, but continue to be lower priority.

One might envision a seamless, multimodal transportation system. The question we were left with is how do we (the people) make this happen. John mentioned that politicians respond to what people tell them, so we should contact our local representatives and tell them that we support transit expansion. The second aspect is who pays for this? Public funds come from taxes, but private funds need to be repaid with interest.

As with the pension discussion, this is about money. In both cases where is it going to come from? Are we willing to sacrifice something (namely disposable income) for this service? People are notoriously bad at making long term decision with positive benefits if the short term involves pain. At then end of the day, maybe we just have to make a decision and move on? Be bold GTA’ers!

http://your32.com/what-you-can-do/
http://www.metrolinx.com

No matter what your take on the issue, our governments are trying to encourage us to save on our own for retirement rather than expecting our employer, or future governments to pick up the tab. The federal government has been floating the idea of Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs).

At WSIC’s November 19th meeting at the Duke of York, pension ...]]> Money. We love it. We hate it. We need it. Planning on growing old? You’re definitely going to need it. How much? Some say about $2 million.

No matter what your take on the issue, our governments are trying to encourage us to save on our own for retirement rather than expecting our employer, or future governments to pick up the tab. The federal government has been floating the idea of Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs).

At WSIC’s November 19th meeting at the Duke of York, pension lawyer James Pierlot and Ontario NDP MPP Michael Prue lead a discussion of some 40 to 50 people on some of the issues surrounding pensions, proposed changes, conceptions, and misconceptions. Pierlot made recent waves when he co-authored a paper published by the C.D. Howe Institute claiming that PRPPs should be avoided by many low- to middle-income Canadians, and Prue is a member of Ontario’s Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Pierlot started the evening off defining pensions as a guaranteed income stream in perpetuity, rather than a pool of money from which one draws until it runs dry. This led to the crux of his issues with PRPPs; they are not real pensions. Rather, they are a tax-incentivized form of savings account, with potentially negative tax consequences for lower income workers. This means they will not equalize post-career financial security between the 25 per cent of us who have defined benefit (DB) plans, and the 75 per cent who do not.

Pierlot pointed out that, because the total in the PRPP account at retirement depends on the investment performance during the lifetime of the account, the future pensioner does not gain the security of knowledge it comes from DB plans, in which payments are (close to) guaranteed. Worse, a consequence of individuals managing their own accounts is to effectively turn everyone into an investment professional rather than have them focus on what they do best: their current job.

Further, Pierlot’s paper shows that the tax implications of the PRPPs upon withdrawal are such that these rates are “significantly higher than the refundable rates that apply to contributions.” Because of the complexity and newness of these financial instruments, potential members may not be aware of, or understand, the implications of what they are signing up for. This may be part of the reason why current federal rules prohibit any plan from calling itself a pension plan unless it is a DB plan (PRPPs not withstanding).

Pierlot’s solution? A blanket vehicle for everyone, with a $2-million lifetime cap. Anything beyond that cap will not be tax sheltered. This figure was chosen because it is just slightly higher than the pension benefit the average teacher accrues over a career.

Prue agreed with Pierlot that the pension system was in trouble, but focused more on the social implications of policy decisions that will need to be made. He spoke about the idea of raising the retirement age to 67, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has proposed. He pointed out that when the pension age was set at 65 (by Otto Von Bismark in the 1880s), the average expected lifetime was only about 65.

Simply raising the retirement age did not seem like a good solution to Prue, because it ignores the purpose of having a pension. In old age, we should have the security of having our basic needs met. Both Prue and Pierlot suggested that retirement age could perhaps be career dependent, as those involved in physical labour will not be able to work as long as those with office jobs.

Prue also described Tim Hudak’s recent proposal to disallow new hires in Ontario from DB plans as problematic, since the current DB plans depend on contributions from younger members to remain funded. He asked how the current young DB plan members were going to get paid if there are no incoming members—as there would be no incoming money once they reached retirement.

Pierlot brought up New Brunswick’s new shared-risk retirement savings plan, which he favours. Under this plan, risk is shared among stakeholders—unlike DB or DC plans, which puts all the risk on either the employer or employee respectively. Prue believes we must favour immigration by those who will bolster the economy. By letting in more young, educated immigrants, we bolster our workforce, since they will contribute income over their lifetimes. If we let in more seniors, they will be a net drain, as they will necessarily require greater support from the healthcare system, plus old age security, and will therefore place a larger financial burden on the younger generation.

Both speakers agreed that pooling funds and having them managed as one large unit decreases costs for individuals and therefore brings financial benefits to plan members. As examples they listed large public pensions, such as teachers and nurses pension plans, and the CPP/QPP.

As debate topics go, pension rules and their tax implications can seems a little dry. But they’re an important part of our modern social fabric.  We would also like to welcome different points of view on this important topic. Will Canadians carry out the social contract so boldly set out by previous generations? Why Should I Care is doing its part to ensure they do. So can you.

We look forward to seeing and hearing from you at the next event in January. Until then, Happy Holidays!

The federal government has proposed a new pension scheme: pooled registered pension plans (PRPPs). In a paper published by the C.D. Howe Institute, in August, James Pierlot explained why this scheme will do little for the middle class and in fact could put many Canadians in a worse financial position.

With ...]]> Pension coverage is shrinking. It’s an open secret that today’s young people are looking at retirements less prosperous than their parents enjoyed. The have and have-nots of tomorrow will be defined by who does and doesn’t have a pension.

The federal government has proposed a new pension scheme: pooled registered pension plans (PRPPs). In a paper published by the C.D. Howe Institute, in August, James Pierlot explained why this scheme will do little for the middle class and in fact could put many Canadians in a worse financial position.

With the current pension system failing youth, the middle class and lower-income workers, and the government’s new PRPP scheme all but dead,  since the public scrutiny of the scheme. What can these people expect when it comes time for them to retire? What can be done? As WSIC’s latest guest speaker, Pierlot will discuss his ideas for new retirement vehicles–vehicles that will benefit today’s workforce, tomorrow.  Joining James is MPP Michael Prue, a member of Ontario’s Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.  Join us on Monday November 19th.

Please RSVP to let us know if you can join us at http://wsicnov2012.eventbrite.com.  Doors open 7:00, discussion starts at 7:30.  We’ll be at the Duke of York Pub. 39 Prince Arthur Avenue.

Food.

What’s really in the food we eat? And why do Canadians, living in one of the most well regulated countries in the world, still feel the need to ask this? WSIC’s guest speaker, Ken Whitehurst, executive director of the Consumer Council of Canada, had some opinions about that, and so did our audience.

“Do you see any positive movement toward better labeling of genetically modified foods?” asked one ...]]> Last Monday’s WSIC meeting focused on something near and dear to all our hearts—and even nearer to our stomachs:

Food.

What’s really in the food we eat? And why do Canadians, living in one of the most well regulated countries in the world, still feel the need to ask this? WSIC’s guest speaker, Ken Whitehurst, executive director of the Consumer Council of Canada, had some opinions about that, and so did our audience.

“Do you see any positive movement toward better labeling of genetically modified foods?” asked one listener. The answer to that isn’t simple, Whitehurst explained. The government has trouble determining a threshold for what constitutes genetic modification. Even if that threshold was clear enough domestically, we have no system for determining low-level genetic modification in foods we import. Nevertheless, interest from the public about this issue remains high, and it will not go away.

Predictably, there was a lot of talk about the XL Foods situation out west. Is the industry being relied upon too heavily to self-regulate? Whitehurst said no. There were government inspectors onsite in this case, he said. The fact that the problem was caught is proof that the system is working. Could the contamination have been caught faster? Perhaps. But our food-chain is massive, and it is not always possible to identify problems as quickly as we’d like.

(This might, however, give us pause to ask about how and why we import food from the places we do, says WSIC director, Terri Chu.)

There were questions about the wording of food labeling. Are all the ingredients in the foods we eat actually listed on the labels? Whitehurst suggested a bigger problem: labels written in such a complex way that even informed consumers don’t read them—or can’t understand them when they do. One of the major concerns right now is the increased population of people with serious food allergies, for whom thorough and clearly-worded food labels are crucially important. While improvements have been made in this area, more need to happen.

‘Organic’: does the word mean anything? There’s not a lot of law or regulation behind the use of that term, said Whitehurst. It’s defined by commercial associations. But it’s worth remembering that, if we were to ban all foods containing any trace of genetically modified ingredients, we’d lose two-thirds of the food on grocery store shelves. So what can be done? Whitehurst wasn’t sure, and the audience seemed frustrated by this.

An evening devoted to one topic turned out to be a discussion about many. We should not have been surprised: when it comes to the food we eat, we take things personally. And in a country like ours, with so many people to feed and so much food grown, imported and processed every day, there will be many issues to talk about. Monday night was a good start.

If you’ve got food-specific allergies or dietary restrictions, you probably know the answer. Too often, vague label descriptors like “natural flavour” disguise ingredients we try to avoid. Unfamiliar words like “casein” replace commonplace ones like “milk.” Making an informed decision about what we eat is harder than it needs to be.

On the evening of Monday, ...]]> Many processed foods contain ingredients certain people can’t eat. But those ingredients must be listed right on the package. Does that mean we have the knowledge we need to protect ourselves?

If you’ve got food-specific allergies or dietary restrictions, you probably know the answer. Too often, vague label descriptors like “natural flavour” disguise ingredients we try to avoid. Unfamiliar words like “casein” replace commonplace ones like “milk.” Making an informed decision about what we eat is harder than it needs to be.

On the evening of Monday, October 15, Why Should I Care welcomes guest speaker, Ken Whitehurst, executive director of the Consumer Council of Canada, to discuss food labeling in this country, and how it can be improved.

Following his prepared remarks, Whitehurst will take questions from the audience. You can participate if you wish, or just listen and share a pint with good company.

This WSIC event takes place at the Duke of York, 39 Prince Arthur Ave., and is free.

Please RSVP to let us know if you can join us at http://wsicoct2012.eventbrite.com. Doors open 7:00 pm, discussion starts at 7:30.

[googlemap lat="43.6695" lng="-79.3973" align="undefined" width="300px" height="150px" zoom="15" type="G_NORMAL_MAP"]Duke of York[/googlemap]

WSIC doesn’t take sides, but our speakers always do. They argue their cases based on experience and expertise. But in doing so, they also present facts and clear up misconceptions: helping you to make your own decision, even if you disagree.

Our first speaker, Dr. Barbara Falk, used most of her opening remarks to restate the details of the case itself—so lost have ...]]> Monday night’s WSIC crowd was smaller than normal, but it was a vocal one. That’s to be expected when your subject is Omar Khadr.

WSIC doesn’t take sides, but our speakers always do. They argue their cases based on experience and expertise. But in doing so, they also present facts and clear up misconceptions: helping you to make your own decision, even if you disagree.

Our first speaker, Dr. Barbara Falk, used most of her opening remarks to restate the details of the case itself—so lost have they become in politics and fabrication, rumour and rhetoric. Dr. Falk knows the case well. A political scientist and instructor at Canadian Forces College, she has lectured and written on it for years. And in the end, she said, the facts aren’t all that complex.

Omar Khadr was born in Toronto and moved with his family to Afghanistan when he was 10-years old, prior to the war there. His father had links to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. At 15, while visiting neighbours with his father, the 15-year-old Omar was badly wounded by a U.S. and Afghan attack on the family’s compound. After an airstrike, the ground forces moved in and recovered four bodies, along with Omar. The boy spent about a year in Afghanistan after that, then nearly nine years in Guantanamo Bay, prior to pleading guilty to a range of offences that included the killing of a U.S. serviceman during the attack in which he was captured.

Beyond these facts, we know very little about Omar Khadr himself, Dr. Falk explained. When it comes to the circumstances of his alleged crime, we have little hard evidence. Psychologists disagree about his mental state and capacity to inflict harm. Many of those convinced of his guilt (or his innocence) lack a basic understanding of how the case unfolded.

In Dr. Falk’s opinion, those incensed at Omar Khadr are really incensed at his family. They, more than Omar, have been controversial figures in the media, and it is Omar’s father that had contacts with Al-Qaeda, not the young Khadr. But regardless of what Khadr or may not have done, Dr. Falk stressed that most of the evidence against him would not stand up to a Charter challenge in a Canadian court—having been extracted under duress and, frequently, torture.

Our second speaker was WSIC board member, Gavin Magrath. Magrath practices private international law in Toronto with Magrath O’Connor, and co-authored the Lawyers’ Right’s Watch Canada shadow report on Canada to the Committee Against Torture, established under the Torture Convention.

Magrath spoke passionately about what he sees as serious breaches by the Canadian Government of both the Charter and Criminal Code in this case, as well our international human rights obligations. He pointed out that those calling Khadr a convicted war criminal are ignoring the illegality of the tribunal that convicted him.

In fact, he went on, there were three illegalities for which the Canadian Government had direct responsibility: Obtaining evidence by torture; then turning it over to United States government; then concealing it from Khadr—the very man it was being used to convict. No matter the crime, Magrath said, everyone has the right to a fair trial and to know the evidence against them. Khadr was denied the fundamental benefits of the rule of law.

The audience had many follow-up questions—so many that WSIC founder, Terri Chu, extended the evening by 30 minutes.

While the room was predominantly pro-Khadr, there were also vocal dissenters. To them, Magrath restated his point about due process: he believes the convicted man, in this case, has not received his due. Dr. Falk answered many questions about the details of the trial itself, and why, in her opinion, the political situation surrounding it evolved as it did.

She also urged a balanced view. Those who in engage in military exercises overseas do so according to a strict set of rules, she said—rules by which their enemies do not abide. It is difficult work, with few clear-cut answers. She also warned against viewing America as a monolith: reminding us that many Americans worked hard on Khadr’s behalf. They failed, but their efforts should not be ignored.

The only question our speakers couldn’t answer was the last one: “How will the Omar Khadr case impact the Charter rights of all Canadians?” Khadr is, after all, a Canadian citizen. “It isn’t clear yet,” Magrath noted, although both speakers described a slow chipping away of respect for citizenship and the rule of law. Indeed, we shall see.

Canadian officials not only helped violate Khadr´s Charter rights; they made it possible for those violations to be made against any of us. Canadian law has changed significantly since 9/11, making the average citizen far more vulnerable to abuses of power than before.

On the evening of Monday, September 17, Why Should I Care welcomes guest speaker, Dr. Barbara J. ...]]> Many Canadians consider Omar Khadr´s treatment by American and Canadian authorities to be immoral, and even illegal. But few understand the legal precedent set by his plight.

Canadian officials not only helped violate Khadr´s Charter rights; they made it possible for those violations to be made against any of us. Canadian law has changed significantly since 9/11, making the average citizen far more vulnerable to abuses of power than before.

On the evening of Monday, September 17, Why Should I Care welcomes guest speaker, Dr. Barbara J. Falk, to discuss this important issue. Falk, an instructor at the Canadian Forces College, has not only written on the Khadr case-she has also taught some of the most powerful figures in the Canadian military.

Following her prepared remarks, Dr. Falk will take questions from the audience. You can participate if you wish, or just listen and share a pint with good company. This WSIC event takes place at the Duke of York, 39 Prince Arthur Ave., and is free.

Please RSVP to let us know if you can join us at http://wsicsept2012.eventbrite.com/

Doors open 7:00 pm, discussion starts at 7:30.

[googlemap lat="43.6695" lng="-79.3973" align="undefined" width="300px" height="150px" zoom="15" type="G_NORMAL_MAP"]Duke of York[/googlemap]