Canada Charities in Politics
In the policies and practises there is a law stating that charities can’t be involved in politics. I have one question. Who is paying for Heather Crowe to do her public speaking work?
Canadian Anti-Smoking Advocates Following U.S. Counterparts and Making False or Unsubstantiated Secondhand Smoke Claims to Support Car Smoking Bans January 24, 2008 In an effort to promote a provincial ban on smoking in cars in which children are present, an Ontario legislator has claimed that secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease among young people. In a press release issued last month, Sault Ste. Marie MPP David Orazietti - the sponsor of the legislation - stated: "This bill is important because research shows young people are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of second hand smoke and as a result they are more likely to suffer from cancer, heart disease, asthma and a number of other respiratory problems." The claim in question here is that "young people ... are more likely to suffer from ... heart disease" as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. Also last month, the Canadian Cancer Society stated that secondhand smoke exposure among children is related to "childhood leukemia, lymphomas, and brain tumours." This statement was also made in support of legislation to ban smoking in cars with children present. The Rest of the Story The rest of the story is that the claim by Mr. Orazietti is false and that by the Canadian Cancer Society is premature - it is not yet conclusively demonstrated by the scientific data. To be sure, the first problem is far worse. The claim that secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease among children/young people is simply false. Even among heavy active smokers, heart disease does not generally develop until a person reaches their 40's. It generally takes at least 20 years of exposure before someone who starts smoking during childhood will develop heart disease. We almost never see cases of heart disease among young people that are due to tobacco smoke exposure, even among individuals who are active smokers who started smoking at a very early age. So it is factually inaccurate to state that young people are more likely to suffer from heart disease due to secondhand smoke exposure. While the second claim is not as bad because there is at least some suggestive evidence to support it, I believe that it is premature and unwarranted because the evidence is not yet sufficient to warrant a causal conclusion. Both the United States Surgeon General and the California Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the issue of the relationship between childhood secondhand smoke exposure and childhood leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors. Both concluded that while there is some evidence suggestive of a causal relationship, there is not enough evidence to conclude that a causal relationship exists. The Surgeon General concluded: "The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood cancer. ... The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood leukemias. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood lymphomas. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood brain tumors." In other words, the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that there is a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and childhood cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, or brain tumors. The California Environmental Protection Agency also concluded that the evidence linking secondhand smoke exposure and childhood leukemia, lymphoma, and brain cancer was suggestive, but not sufficient to conclude that there is a causal relationship. Of note, the report clearly stated that the link between secondhand smoke and childhood leukemia, even if causal, is due to pre-conceptual paternal smoking, not secondhand smoke exposure. Similarly, the report noted that even if causal, the relationship between tobacco smoke exposure and childhood brain tumors may be due to pre-conceptual sperm damage, rather than childhood secondhand smoke exposure. In the first case, I find the communication to be unethical and irresponsible, because I don't think it is appropriate to make false statements to the public in order to promote public policies. In the second case, I don't think it is an issue of ethics or responsibility; instead, I think it is more of a strategic mistake. If tobacco control groups are too quick to pull the trigger and communicate to the public that there is a causal relationship between secondhand smoke and a particular disease when there is only suggestive evidence, then it becomes much more difficult for these groups to convince the public that their conclusions are sound. Because their scientific reputations need to be beyond reproach, these groups should not disseminate to the public definitive causal conclusions until there is sufficient evidence to draw such causal conclusions. Finally, let me address the potential argument that I should not be criticizing either of these groups because while they were wrong or premature with their conclusions about one disease, they were correct with respect to other diseases. For example, it is true that childhood exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk for asthma and other respiratory problems. The problem is that this is like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. If an anti-smoking group is wrong about one disease, what reason does the public have to believe that they are right about a different disease? Once you have demonstrated that you are willing to make false statements of scientific fact to support your cause, the public may never believe anything you have to say ever again, even if it is on solid scientific ground. I don't know why the Canadian anti-smoking groups need to follow the U.S. groups' pattern of exaggerating and misrepresenting the scientific evidence. That's one thing I don't want to see us export to other countries.
posted by Michael Siegel
Simcoe : Two Anti-Smoking Demonstrations Cancelled Due To Opposition -ON2007/3/27 Two anti-tobacco demonstrations organized by students of Norfolk have been cancelled. 44 replica tombstones were to be erected tomorrow outside Simcoe Composite School and Holy Trinity, to act as a memorial to the number of people that die in Ontario every day from tobacco use. The Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit's Youth Action Alliance received complaints from both the schools and outside sources - because they felt it was tasteless, and another blow to area tobacco growers. Youth Advisor for the local Health Unit, Josh Daley, tells CD 98.9 they did not mean to offend or upset the tobacco community. Daley says the difficult struggle local tobacco farmers are having in their bid to secure an exit package may be making people extra sensitive, but emphasizes the demonstrations were not being directed against farmers. He says the Youth Action Alliance will be looking for a different location to hold the demonstration at a later date. Tomorrow morning with Kate Buick reaction from Holy Trinity Principal John Burroughs. Read
Liberal smoke and mirrors It is clear that Ontario Minister of Health Promotion Jim Watson, like the rest of his Liberal colleagues, just doesn't understand the importance of being honest with the people of Ontario. His letter to the Sun ("Watson takes on Tory," July 10), once again plays fast and loose with the truth. When the McGuinty Liberals spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money promoting their own policies, they should tell Ontarians they are doing so. In the case of the smoking ads, the only way taxpayers found out about this use of money was through a Toronto Sun article. I admire the continuing work by the Heart and Stroke Foundation and contrary to Mr. Watson's assertion, I've never criticized anything they've ever done. I am, however, critical of the McGuinty Liberals' inability to be straight with Ontarians. John Tory Leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Watson takes on Tory As Minister responsible for Ontario’s progressive anti-smoking legislation, I was saddened and angered when PC leader John Tory attacked the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation, a very reputable not-for-profit organization (“Grits blasted for funding heart-stroke ad campaign,” July 4). The Heart and Stroke Foundation produced the very effective ads featuring Heather Crowe and my ministry provided the funding to air the commercials. Tory alleges that these ads are in breach of the laws governing advertising, yet he offers not one shred of evidence to support that allegation. In his misguided attack, Mr. Tory also fails to mention that the McGuinty government passed a law banning the waste of millions of dollars spent on partisan and self congratulatory ads — such as ads that previous PC governments ran while they were in power. I commend the Heart and Stroke Foundation for their partnership with our ministry. We have equally effective partnerships with many other organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Lung Association, the Ontario Medical Association and many others champions in the fight against tobacco. And we will continue to work with these groups to see smoking rates fall — particularly among young people. I am proud to be a part of Premier McGuinty’s team and I was embarrassed for John Tory when only members of his party stood and proudly voted against the Smoke Free Ontario Act. Jim Watson, MPP Minister of Health Promotion (Tory said the ads, which clearly support your government’s policy, appear to skirt the ad law, not violate it) Read
Re: Letter of the Day (July 7) Jim Watson, minister of health promotion: Watson's attack on John Tory's legitimate complaint was outrageous. I understood that Mr. Tory was raising the issue that taxpayer dollars have been funnelled through the back door to promote the Liberal agenda. Does the fact Ms. Crowe is now deceased mean we cannot criticize the ads or who paid for them? I didn't notice any quote from Mr. Tory that cast aspersions on Ms. Crowe, and I find it insulting that Mr. Watson would claim that he did. I would love it if Mr. Watson could tell me why he will not promote the funding of cessation products? I believe it is because while they don't want to see us smoke, they are not willing to part with the billions smokers contribute to government. Crackheads are treated better than smokers and we can be sure they don't contribute the billions smokers do. Padi Hooper Carlsbad Springs (Do we detect a little exaggeration?) Read
Re: "Anti-smoking ads blow by auditor" (July 4) -ON Fri, July 7, 2006 John Tory's latest attack on our government's smoke-free Ontario initiative is proof that Mr. Tory will do or say anything to see his name in the news media. As minister responsible for Ontario's progressive anti-smoking legislation, I was saddened and angered when Mr. Tory attacked the Ontario Heart and Stroke Foundation, a reputable not-for-profit organization, and cast aspersions on the late Heather Crowe, an anti-smoking advocate who passed away recently as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke. Ms. Crowe volunteered to do one last commercial for the Heart and Stroke Foundation on the dangers of exposure to second-hand smoke, despite her constant pain and frail condition. The Heart and Stroke Foundation produced the very effective and thoughtful ads and my ministry provided the funding to air the commercials. Mr. Tory alleges that these ads are in breach of the laws governing advertising, yet he offers not one shred of evidence to support that allegation. Perhaps because there isn't any evidence to offer? Or, perhaps it's because he knows that the previous Tory government had the same partnership with the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. John Tory should be ashamed of himself for these kinds of unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks on the not-for-profit sector. I commend the Heart and Stroke Foundation for its partnership with our ministry in getting the message out. We have equally effective partnerships with many other organizations ... and we will continue to work with these groups to see smoking rates fall -- particularly among young people. Mr. Tory, you should apologize to the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the family of Heather Crowe for your attacks on their efforts to help save lives. Jim Watson Minister of Health Promotion (Politicians playing politics? Surely not!) Read
Grits blasted for funding Heart-Stroke ad campaign
July 4, 2006
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
The Dalton McGuinty Liberals have channelled millions of taxpayer dollars into the Heart and Stroke Foundation's media campaigns, which endorse the government's own smoking law.
The $3.17-million "Smoke-Free Ontario" campaigns were completely financed by provincial taxpayers but were exempted from Liberal legislation requiring government advertising be vetted by the provincial auditor to avoid partisan messaging.
The ads -- which featured the tagline "A Smoke-Free Ontario. It's about health. It's about time." -- ran throughout the period when the Liberal government's Smoke-Free Ontario Act was coming into effect this past spring.
Conservative Leader John Tory said the Liberal government was clearly searching for a "back door" to get around its own ban on partisan government advertising.
"It's a big loophole, a huge loophole through which they seemed to maybe have funnelled millions of dollars," Tory said. "And it just makes their whole policy a farce."
McGuinty was the harshest critic of the previous Conservative regime's penchant for self-congratulatory ad campaigns. As premier, he kept his election promise to bring in legislation requiring all government advertising be screened by the provincial auditor.
An official with the office of the auditor general confirmed the Heart and Stroke campaign is exempt from the provincial advertising law because the government did not approve or direct the content.
Young Um of the Heart and Stroke Foundation said provincial funds paid for the "public service ads" featuring anti-tobacco advocate and cancer victim Heather Crowe.
Um said no foundation donations were used.
Tory said he knows that the Heart and Stroke Foundation strongly supports the government smoking ban, but he believes any advertising using substantial amounts of tax dollars should be screened by the provincial auditor.
"It makes it appear as if the Heart and Stroke Foundation is spending its own donors' money to support government policy," Tory said.
Paul de Zara, a spokesman for Government Services Minister Gerry Phillips, said the province provided funding to the Heart and Stroke Foundation to help it achieve its goal of smoking cessation awareness. De Zara said the government had no control over the content of the ads. Read
Anti-smoking ads blow by auditor, irk Tories Read
Who you gonna believe
April 24, 2006 By FXR In reviewing the Heather Crowe WCB documents it becomes clear her diagnosis was likely a political statement much more than a learned opinion, or an attempt by a doctor not well schooled in Cancer diagnosis. This can be shown in a CDC investigation of a suspected Cancer cluster. The findings showed that no such cluster existed due to a single word explanation “Latency”. The latency period would be the time between exposure and the onset of disease. For smokers this has always been understood to be a period between 20 and 30 years following prior smoking habits. In fact this stands as the only excuse for the significant declines over the past 45 years in smoking prevalence not resulting in parallel declines in related diseases. Offerings to the public could be seen now to be mistaken unless Heather’s diagnosis was flawed or fraudulent both stories would have a hard time to co-exist in any sense of credibility. Cancers manifest in smokers in the vast majority in later years. Although there are exceptions, which are argumentative, for the most part this has always been the rule with the larger numbers in those later years elevation risk and strong associations could only decrease. What would be the effect of accepting a shortened latency period? Undoubtedly this would give evidence a lot less Cancers are caused by smoking than previously believed. Now we come to Ms Crow. Who in contracting a workplace injury with less than 5 years total exposure developed a smoker’s tumor? Total smoke ingested in her 5 years employment by calculation in the smokiest of conditions would amount to less than 2 packages of cigarettes smoked. The ban fans would jump for joy at this realization confirming the deadly attributes of the smoke however in comparison to a time in 1960 when everyone was exposed in daily life why did we not see lineups at the cancer wards? If indeed the smoke affected her, the thousands who contract cancer only in later years could not be as strongly associated with smoking as previously believed. For smokers, their spouses, Children and co workers cancer would have manifested much sooner in life. Lung Cancers could be more significantly associated to some other factor, which could in fact be seen as simply old age, a depreciated immune system not able to fight off one of many viruses responsible, as we know for at minimum 20% of total cancers. Lung cancers account for less than 1% of total mortality yet when we think of smoking we assume Lung cancer to be the most significant outcome. In SAMMEC research a smoker below 35 years of age has little significant mortality risk especially with males who traditionally smoke a lot more. Certainly in most research, risk varies significantly according to how much you smoke and for how long. Perhaps there is something to Heather’s case and as common sense would dictate smoking is not as deadly as we once believed. With a shorter latency period aligning with all other known toxins named in the smoke, air pollution can now be seen the most likely cause of a lot more shortened lives than we gave it credit for in the past. Latency proves Heather was not a great candidate for the poster girl in tobacco control. She did not work her entire life in this bar and only started after the age of 50 when the risk of cancer increases with age. If she were predisposed to Cancer this would be the time in her life it would most likely appear regardless of ETS in her life. The overall exposure, the amount of time between exposure and onset or Latency, along with a number of other entirely suspicious indicators connected with this story. I personally find it very difficult to accept what is offered is the basis for smoking bans around the globe protecting workers from smoke which can kill with such minor exposure indicates they are all already doomed. Heather may be the piece of the puzzle, which unmasks the advocates for who they really are and what it is they represent. As an action plan if we could organize a lot of questions regarding latency periods to start swamping Healthcare professionals Heather I would guess would finally be unmasked and her Doctor could be held to account for defrauding the WCB as justice would demand. Sidebar information from the 50 Year study of doctors who smoke.Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' Observations on male British doctors
Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham and Isabelle Sutherland About half of all persistent cigarette smokers are killed by
their habit—a quarter while still in middle age (35-69 years)
After a large increase in cigarette smoking by young people,
the full effects on national mortality rates can take more
than 50 years to mature
British men born in the first few decades of the 20th century could be the first population in the world in which
the full long term hazards of cigarette smoking, and the corresponding benefits of stopping, can be assessed directly Among the particular generation of men born around
1920, cigarette smoking tripled the age specific mortality
rates Among British men born 1900-1909, cigarette smoking
approximately doubled the age specific mortality rates in
both middle and old age
Longevity has been improving rapidly for non-smokers, but not for men who continued smoking cigarettes
Cessation at age 50 halved the hazard; cessation at 30 avoided almost all of it
On average, cigarette smokers die about 10 years younger
than non-smokers Stopping at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 gains, respectively, about 3,6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancyIt cannot be said any clearer than that by a source who cannot be associated to the Tobacco industry. At 30 after 14 years of smoking no significant risk compared to ETS which can have devastating effects in as little as 20 minutes according to ASH. At measured levels in the norm at 250 Milligrams per cubic meter of air a deadly risk more deadly than Benzene with a known safe level at 1 part per million or 360 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Personally I would prefer to take my chances with the second hand smoke or ETS, Benzene would worry me. If Government information was not so misleading, it should affect you the same way. I sincerely hope no one is injured while they sort this one out. Read
Canada Charities in Politics In the policies and practises there is a law stating that charities can’t be involved in politics. I have one question. Who is paying for Heather Crowe to do her public speaking work? I include the link to the policies pages of the revenue Canada website. Read I also include the one area that I am inquiring about.
Charitable organization
A registered charity is designated as a "charitable organization" if:
(a)it devotes its resources mainly to charitable activities carried on by itself;
(b)more than 50% of its directors/trustees deal with each other and with each of the other directors/trustees at arm's length (see definition of "arm's length"); and
(c)not more than 50% of the funds that the charity has received have come from one person or organization, or from a group of people or organizations that do not deal with each other at arm's length. However, some organizations are excepted, so that large gifts from them do not affect the charity's designation. The excepted organizations are:
* the federal government,
* a provincial government,
* a municipality,
* another registered charity that is not a "private foundation," or
* a club, society, or association that the Act treats as a non-profit organization.
How can a registered charity use its resources?
To qualify for and maintain its registered status under the Income Tax Act, a charity must be created for charitable purposes and devote substantially all its resources to charitable activities. Here are some specific areas of interest.
Ancillary and incidental non-partisan political activities
Under the Income Tax Act, a registered charity can undertake political activities as long as:
* it devotes substantially all its resources to charitable activities; and
* the political activities are non-partisan and help accomplish the charity's purposes.
For more information on political activities, see Information Circular 87-1, Registered Charities - Ancillary and Incidental Political Activities
They are not unbiased, and how does flying over to the UK help with their Canadian cause?
As with anything political you can't take the dictionary and paste it onto here. Here is the policy statement on political activities.
This is the area that pertains to the political activities:
In addition, a charity in this situation is also subject to the restrictions this guidance places on non-partisan political activity, public awareness campaigns and communications with an elected representative or public official.
Finally, a charity may provide information to its supporters or the public on how all the Members of Parliament or the legislature of a province, territory or municipal council voted on an issue connected with the charity's purpose. Found at: Read
I also include an article link to several areas that revolve around Heather Crowe. She is influencing (ort trying to) the way that the electorate works. She visited the AUPE (Alberta U nion of Public Employees) two weeks before the same city was voting on a smoking bylaw. Getting an emotional reaction to her story is one that would influence their views. The u nion has had a protection policy for several years. Why do they need to hear about the harms? Why is she speaking just before the same vote and telling the public how to vote? Who paid for her expenses to fly and stay at the area? Isn’t she affecting the vote with the fact that she is connected to a charity (paid by a charity) and writing in the Jasper booster that they should vote for a smoke free bylaw?
One more thing I notice is from the canoe website.
Smoke attack ANDREA SANDS, CITY HALL BUREAU Albertans must demand provincial anti-smoking legislation similar to rules that will soon protect Canadians in five other provinces and territories, says a coalition of 14 health groups. "Don't Albertans deserve the same protection?" said Les Hagen of Action on Smoking and Health. "Albertans do not have second-class lungs." Governments in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have all approved new smoking rules to protect workers from second-hand smoke, Hagen noted. And the Campaign for a Smoke-Free Alberta - a group of non-profit groups including the Alberta Cancer Board, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Alberta and the Alberta U nion of Provincial Employees - is urging Alberta voters to make this an election issue. The group vowed at a press conference yesterday to organize a provincial letter-writing campaign, run media advertisements, launch an online petition and run a high-profile campaign leading up to the November provincial election. Albertans must push their provincial representatives to protect all workers from second-hand smoke, including people working in bars, bingos and casinos, the group argued. AUPE boss Dan MacLennan noted such legislation would give staff in a bar the same right to clean air as workers now enjoy in provincial jails, which went smoke-free last week. "If it wasn't social engineering to bring in seat-belt legislation, it's not social engineering to bring in tobacco legislation" MacLennan reasoned. "I think a lot of MLAs, including Conservatives, support it." Bartender Justin Derush, 32, said he breathes easier now that Edmonton's city bylaw has forced his employer to go smoke-free. "When you're having a cigarette, you're done, then the person next to you lights up, and so it's like I'm having a continuous cigarette all night," he explained. And local songbird Amber Suchy - who fronts the popular band King Muskafa - said it was a pleasure to play in smoke-free Saskatoon two weeks ago. "It's great for my voice - I'm a powerhouse all night. I don't have this gross cough where people think I'm diseased all week long." The province is working to protect workers, and has introduced a tobacco-reduction strategy along with rules that make it an offence for anyone under 18 to possess tobacco, said a spokesman for Premier Ralph Klein. "We don't believe they have second-class lungs either, but the government's position has been and is that it's better left up to the municipalities to decide," said Marisa Etmanski. Read
Isn’t this trying to affect the way that the government runs? They are using the same public group that they spoke to earlier to speak for them to the public. Plus they are telling people how to vote on an issue. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me:
Health units using childrens signatures to lobby
TOBACCO CAMPAIGN Dec, 20 2005 - 11:20 PM A CAMPAIGN TO HOLD TOBACCO COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HEALTH-CARE COSTS OF SMOKING HAS BEEN LAUNCHED IN LOCAL HIGH SCHOOLS. IT'S CALLED 'TAKE CHARGE' 8 LOCAL HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS HAVE BEEN HIRED BY THE HEALTH UNIT -- TO PUSH A STRONG ANTI-SMOKING MESSAGES TO STUDENTS. TODAY, K-C-V-I HOSTED THE CAMPAIGN... WHICH ASKS STUDENTS TO SIGN POST-CARDS TO ONTARIO PREMIER DALTON MCGUINTY... ASKING HIM TO SUE TOBACCO PRODUCERS FOR THE PRICE OF INCREASED HEALTH CARE DUE TO CIGARETTES. 'TAKE CHARGE' VISITS LASALLE SECONDARY TOMORROW.... AND SYDENHAM HIGH SCHOOL ON THURSDAY. Read
Letter to politicans.I have to ask if this appropriate. The health units have hired 8 peers to pressure (sorry obtain) students signatures on postcards. They are asking Premier McGuinty to sue the tobacco companies for health related expenses. I don't think that the students should be used in this political campaign of lobbying through the back door, for the health units. Is this what my tax money for the health units are going towards? How many health units are doing this?
I realize that this tactic has been used to much success before with areas that directly affect teens. Although, this is an area that not many teens have even heard about. How many adult Ontarians even know the total legalities, and details of this case? What other side have the students been informed on? Did they get to hear from the tobacco companies, or lawyers or anyone on the other side of this issue? Did they hear from even anyone other then the health unit? How does this issue affect in the lives of these students?
In other words I don't agree with this "campaign" to use a captured audience; to get at politicians voices. This is using uninformed students ,which isn't appropriate. Especially when the subtleties of a court issue are involved. This isn't a clear cut case, or else there wouldn't be any political pressure needed!
I have included the news article for your perusal. I am sending this in the hopes that you realize the real source of this mass mailings in the coming weeks, as an inappropriate form of lobbying legislators from the health units, by not fully educated students, on this issue. I also disagree that gov't funding should be going towards putting political pressure on the same officials that gave them their funding on innocents in this situation.
Thank you
Lynda Duguay
|
