Review-Mirror

OPINION PAGE Publisher/Editor– Howie Crichton hcrichton@review-mirror.com Advertising Sales – Bill Ritchie advertising@review-mirror.com Office – Louise Haughton lhaughton@review-mirror.com Reporter-Photographer - Margaret Brand mbrand@review-mirror.com 4 – November 9, 2017 The Review-Mirror 43 Bedford St. P.O. Box 130,Westport, Ont. K0G 1X0 Ph. 613-273-8000 • 1-800-387-0796 • Fax 273-8001 editor @ review-mirror.com • www.review-mirror.com • PAP Registration No. 01601 • Printed in Smiths Falls, Ontario • The Review-Mirror is published Thursdays. Subscriptions: $33.84 online; $44.50 locally; $55.00 elsewhere in Canada; $150 sin the U.S. We acknowledge the support of the Government of Canada. Publishers ONTARIO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION CANADIAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION 1893-1897 — H. E. Bywater 1897-1916 — W. B. Adams 1916- — Arthur Niblock -1967 — Jim Niblock 1967-1987 — F. Lea and Phyllis Hutchinson 1987-1988 — Bob & Sandy Runciman 1988-1993 — Phil Rutherford 1993- — Howie Crichton CANADIAN MEDIA CIRCULATION AUDIT Mirror The Review I'm sure that there are no Canadi- ans, not even new arrivals to Canada, that don't know the significance of Remembrance Day. With the indul- gence of the editor I would like to put my history teacher hat back on after almost 20 years of retirement. When I taught Canadian History to Grade 10 students, the course started around 1900. It was about this time that there were rumblings in Europe as nations like Germany, France, Russia and Austria-Hungary were arguing over territory and which nation was going to control the continent. Most nations had agreements and alliances that kicked in when one nation attacked or threatened another. When the arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, the "Balkan Powder Keg" exploded and in a short time the world was at war. I always wondered if the students really understood what it was like for a country to go to war. In Canada, which was at war because Britain was, men lined up to join the Canadian forces. The big concern was that the war would be over before Christmas and if you didn't enlist early the fighting would be over before you got to enjoy some of "the fun". It was the machine gun that led to trench warfare. Early machine guns could discharge 60 bullets per minute and men were mowed down like "rows of corn". Men, on both sides, were killed by the thousands and a huge "stalemate" resulted in the digging of trenches that ran almost across Europe. The war that was supposed to be over by Christmas dragged on. One side would gain some territory one day only to lose it the next. Life in the trenches, for both sides, was horrible. With the help of readings, slides and video I struggled to be sure the stu- dents really understood that there was nothing glorious or honourable about war. Husbands, fathers and sons were being killed and what was really being accomplished? Commanding officers, on both sides, coldly calculated the number of troops - their own men - that would be lost to an advance led by a "creeping barrage" of artillery. As the students read and listened, it became clear from their questions that they were picking up on the idea that war was not an adventure. As friends were killed or horribly maimed from artillery shells it became apparent that the important thing about the war was survival. Let's figure out how to avoid the enemy rather than confront him. Students were amused when the air- plane first took part in the war. Pilots from both sides waved at each other as they flew over enemy territory. It was- n't long until a pilot from one side brought a gun with him and shot at the other pilot. From there planes devel- oped. Guns were synchronized with the plane propellers and "dog fights" were on. On the ground "tanks were devel- oped, and had the battlefields not been so terribly dug up from trenches and artillery, might have played a bigger role. Poison gas was introduced and men choked as their lungs were scorched from the gas. Many were also blinded. The students, with help, picked up on the fact man had no limit to his ingenuity when it came to devel- oping weapons to kill the enemy. A student once asked what kind of progress the world might make if all the intelligence used to create weapons had been directed to solving some of the major diseases man was wrestling with. Four years later, after millions of deaths, cities destroyed, and the col- lective wisdom of almost an entire generation of men wiped out, cooler heads prevailed and on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month an armistice was agreed to by all sides. The armistice stopped the fighting. In the fullness of time a peace conference was organized and the question was how to deal with Germany, the country seen as the aggressor. There was a chance for the Allies to be magnani- mous but they chose to inflict a harsh peace on Germany. At this point the students, unprompted, were asking about how to deal with the conquered? Do the victors squash the defeated or do they show some humanity and help rebuild the defeated country? I would like to think that my class- es really knew how terrible it was and what a huge sacrifice was made in the name of freedom by many Canadians. For my students Remembrance Day meant something. I believe the stu- dents had some sense of the price that was paid and the absolute futility of it all. November 11 is an opportunity for all Canadians to say a quiet, thought- ful, thank you to those who made the supreme sacrifice in order that those of us here today can have the individual freedom and liberty we enjoy. All Canadians should have some basic knowledge of the sacrifice that was made in all the wars the country has been involved in. Wear the poppy proudly and never forget. Mike McIntyre joymikechloe@gmail.com November 11 an opportunity to say a quiet, thoughtful, thank you A leaked presentation from the Ministry of Health revealed by CBC Monday indicates that the government is planning some sort of public home care agency for personal support work in the home. The Ontario Health Coali- tion has been advocating for public home care since the 1990s and reacted with cautious optimism to the news. "The devil is in the details," said Ross Suther- land, R.N., M.A., chair- person of the Ontario Health Coalition. "If the government is planning public home care, this is great news. If they are planning to somehow have a public agency compete with the private corpora- tions in home care, it will not help." The Coalition has called for a streamlined public non-profit home care system based on pub- lic interest principles, with better democratic input and stronger accountabili- ty, a cultural change to reflect the values and pri- orities of Ontarians, and stronger standards to improve care, based on a province-wide consulta- tion on home care here: http://www.ontariohealth- coalition.ca/index.php/ont ario-home-care-in-disar- ray-unable-to-keep-up- heath-coalition-proposes- reform-based-on-princi- ples-of-public-medicare/ Despite the claims of the vested interests in the home care sector reported in the media this morning, the promise of a public home care system is that it would eliminate hundreds of redundant company administrations, profit tak- ing, duplicate systems and poor communication and coordination. In fact, every province in Canada has a more public home care system than Ontario does. The data from the Spe- cial Audit of home care conducted by Ontario's Auditor General in 2015 supports this contention: •Ontario has more than 260 contracts with approx- imately 160 home care companies to provide nursing, therapies and per- sonal support. According to the Auditor, a 2013 review by the Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres found that there are 14,000 contracted rates over 94 different service categories in these con- tracts. All of these redun- dant structures and sys- tems must be funded by the public purse, along with profit-taking. All of this was created to bring in privatized for-profit home care. A stream- lined public home care system would direct hun- dreds of millions to care from existing budgets. •Of $2.4 billion in pub- lic funding for CCACs, 62 per cent is given to private companies contracted to provide home care ser- vices, amounting to approximately $1.5 billion per year. Of this, accord- ing to the companies themselves, 82 per cent is spent on front-line staff. This means that 18 per cent is taken for profit and administration. This amounts to $267.8 million a year paid to the 160 duplicate home care com- panies across 14 CCACs for their profits and over- head. This is an extremely conservative assessment, in fact: •Although the $1.5 bil- lion in money spent by contracted home care companies comes from Ontarians through our taxes, the Auditor has no power to audit the compa- nies' financial records to verify their numbers. In fact, according to the Auditor, the private com- panies report billing CCACs' (public purse) rates for nurses ranging from $58.20 to $70.60 and rates for PSWs ranging from $29.50 to $48.98 per hour. Yet home care nurses are often actually paid about $30 per hour and PSWs often make around $15. If this funding were to go to front-line staff rather than corporate profits and administra- tions, key issues could be addressed including: shortages of staff that mean care visits are fre- quently missed; high turnover of staff that com- promises continuity and quality of care. As such, the unaudited claim made to the Auditor General that the companies are spend- ing 82 per cent of their funding on direct care is highly questionable. These numbers indicate that much less is actually making it to the front- lines. Ontarians cannot access financial informa- tion and contracts from these companies as they are excluded from Access to Information Legisla- tion. "Ontario's home care system is impossibly com- plex and bureaucratic, mainly as a result of the structures that were set up almost two decades ago to privatize the system," noted Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition. "Profit taking, duplicate administrations of compa- nies, refusal to share infor- mation -- these are all hall- marks of that system, set up to bring in the for-prof- it chain companies to take over home care in the early 2000s. While gov- ernments have tinkered with the structures, they have never had the princi- ples nor the political will to fundamentally reform home care. A public home care system would be a great leap forward: a huge benefit to Ontarians. It is, without question, in the public interest. We are try- ing to find more details about the Ontario govern- ment's plan and will give our response once we know more." The Ontario Health Coali- tion includes seniors' groups; patients' organizations; unions; nurses and health pro- fessionals' organizations; physicians; non-profit commu- nity agencies; student groups; ethnic and cultural organiza- tions; poverty and equality- seeking groups; women's orga- nizations, and others. Public home care would benefit Ontarians despite claims of for-profit home care companies: Ontario Health Coalition

• Cover