shawn taylor

former Pulaski County employee says he was discriminated against on the job. He is now suing the county.

Shawn Taylor worked for the Pulaski County Public Service Authority as a trash collector for more than seven years. He says a former co-worker refused to work with black people.

Taylor filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court last year. He was fired this year. In the lawsuit, Taylor accuses county employees of race discrimination and retaliation.

Pulaski County Administrator Peter Huber, also named in the lawsuit, said he cannot discuss personnel matters. But he did issue this statement: "With regard to the litigation, Pulaski County stands by its answer to the complaint which denies Mr. Taylor's claims
Stéphane Dion is hardly the person you'd expect to be exaggerating bad news. Surely he's got more than enough to go around already. So why is he exaggerating the number of poor children in Canada?

In his recent response to the Speech from the Throne, Dion claimed that: "Today in Canada, more than one million children live in poverty." This big number was meant as evidence to support the claim that Stephen Harper's government is ignoring social issues in this country. And Dion is not alone in asserting that over one million Canadian kids are poor. The factoid can be found in hundreds of Web sites, reports, documents and speeches.

For instance, Campaign 2000, a union-backed group committed to eliminating child poverty in Canada, prominently features the line that "more than one million children" live in poverty in Canada--plus the related claim that this is "nearly one child in six" -- on its home page at www.campaign2000.ca. Politicians and groups who repeat these two figures over and over obviously intend them to provoke sensitive Canadians into action. "More than one million poor kids? Why that's outrageous -- something must be done!" But what do we know about these big numbers?

Statistics Canada's most current figures on Canadian income do indeed reveal that there are 1,132,000 Canadians under the age of 18 living below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), which represents about one child in six. That's not the whole story, however.

First, let's set aside the debate over whether LICO really constitutes a poverty line, given that it is calculated on a relative basis -- and so measures income inequality, not the relationship between an individual's income and his needs. For now, we'll assume that LICO is a useful measure of poverty in this country. What is important to understand is that Statistics Canada publishes two different measures for LICO. And only one of them is appropriate for determining the number of poor kids in Canada.

LICO statistics come in before-tax and after-tax varieties. We would expect before-tax income to be higher than after-tax income for obvious reasons. But the relative gap in the after-tax incomes of rich and poor Canadians is considerably muted by the progressive nature of our tax system. Because of this, before-tax LICO figures inevitably understate the income of poor Canadians in relation to everyone else. This will have the effect of overstating poverty. Also, since people can buy things only with aftertax dollars, this is the only calculation that makes sense if you are interested in understanding peoples' economic well-being.

Statistics Canada recognizes this problem and cautions users in its most recent income report that it "prefers the use of the after-tax LICOs. The before-tax rates only partly reflect the entire redistributive impact of Canada's tax/transfer system." It seems a clear enough warning. But guess which figures Dion and Campaign 2000 prefer?

The 1.1 million children statistic comes from the inappropriate before-tax LICO tables. And the only reason to pick before-tax over after-tax LICO figures, in the face of Statistics Canada's own disclaimer, is that the before-tax numbers make the problem of child poverty look bigger than it really is. Purveyors of before-tax LICO rates are deliberately ignoring the real evidence on poverty. It is a clear and purposeful exaggeration.

For anyone interested in the truth, the data show that 788,000 children in Canada are living under the after-tax LICO line. That works out to one child in 8.5. Using the proper figures in no way diminishes the plight of Canadian children currently living in low income. And one could still argue it's too many. But it seems this number is smaller than Dion and Campaign 2000 find convenient.

TORONTO ― A comprehensive bill passed by the Ontario legislature will modernize the justice system and improve access to justice, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced today.

"The McGuinty government is working hard to ensure Ontarians get enhanced access to justice," said Bryant. "The Access to Justice Act will make the justice system more effective and accessible, benefiting all Ontarians."

The Access to Justice Act, 2006 will regulate paralegals and reform the justice of the peace system. It will also update the Provincial Offences Act, the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Courts of Justice Act. A new act, the Legislation Act, will be created to update the rules for the use, publication and interpretation of Ontario's laws.

The Access to Justice Act will provide for paralegal regulation in order to give consumers a choice in qualified legal services while protecting people who get legal advice from non-lawyers. For the first time in Canada's history, paralegals will be required to receive training, carry liability insurance and report to a public body that can investigate complaints.

"Today, paralegals joined the ranks of doctors, lawyers and teachers as a regulated profession in Ontario," said Bryant. "We are really witnessing the birth of a new profession."

Under the act, the Law Society of Upper Canada, which has the experience and ability to regulate professionals providing legal services, will regulate paralegals. A paralegal standing committee, with a non-lawyer majority, chaired by a paralegal, will take the lead in implementing paralegal regulation for the Law Society.

"The Law Society will play an important role in regulating paralegals," said Gavin MacKenzie, Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada. "We will ensure that consumers who use legal services, whether through lawyers or paralegals, are properly protected. We welcome this legislation as a means to safeguard consumers."

"By regulating paralegals, the government has strengthened the role of paralegals in Ontario. This legislation will recognize and enhance the value that licensed paralegals provide to the public," said paralegal Margaret Louter. "Paralegals will have a prominent role in the governance of the Law Society and in particular over the regulation of paralegals."........

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What that means in practical terms is that paralegals are prohibited from acting in family law cases and issues of child support. Poor have to earn, beg or steal enough money to feed themselves and and pay their high price lawyer before they can afford to feed their own children. If anybody claims that there is a legal aid they fool themselves as these money come from our taxes and they coud be used to feed poor children and skip lawyers and family courts.

BTW this law is written in such a way that anybody who is not a