Latest news with #TaskForce
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
London Task Force proposes full-time councillor role, higher pay to match workload
London's Council Resourcing Review Task Force says the role of city councillor has evolved, and it's time for expectations and compensation to catch up. Martin Horak, Chair of the task force explained, 'We are going to recommend adding a section to the council role description that clearly states this is a full-time public service. Councillors are expected to make this their primary occupation while in office.' The task force also emphasized that compensation should reflect the increasing demands and complexity of the job. Currently, London councillors earn 24–31 per cent less than those in comparable Ontario cities like Hamilton and Windsor, with a base salary of roughly $65,000. 'We are considering a significant increase in base income,' Horak said. 'While we don't have a specific number yet, we want compensation to be based on incomes Londoners make.' Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis said he is not surprised by the draft recommendations. 'London's actually at the bottom of the barrel. If we want councillors fully focused on the city's well-being, we have to compensate them adequately,' he said. A recent city survey revealed that eight of the 14 councillors who responded work an average of 52 hours per week and agree the role should be full-time. Deputy Mayor Lewis added, 'I'm still working through the 412-page planning committee agenda for Monday that I just received yesterday. The workload keeps growing. We need to recognize this is a full-time commitment for those elected to serve.' The task force is also recommending that councillors serve on 1–2 standing committees and 3 external boards. Committee chairs would receive extra compensation, and the current additional 12.5 per cent pay for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chief would be maintained. Lewis noted, 'This makes sense and balances the fact that some councillors currently serve on seven committees while others serve on only one. Everyone needs to carry their fair share of the workload.' At present, councillors set their own performance expectations, with few rules governing attendance, constituent communication or participation on boards and commissions. Former city councillor and current task force member Jared Zaifman suggested ward boundaries should also be reviewed. 'If we are looking at higher compensation, it may be reasonable to consider reducing the number of wards so that each councillor serves a number of residents more in line with their pay.' The task force's recommendations are expected to be submitted to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for council consideration by October.
BBC News
3 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Heckmondwike and Marsden gum problem targeted by £26k grant
Efforts to tackle the problem of chewing gum stuck to pavements in two West Yorkshire towns have been boosted with the award of a £26,450 clean-up money from the Chewing Gum Task Force would be spent on a one-off deep clean in Heckmondwike and Marsden town centres, according to Kirklees task force was established by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and is run by the Keep Britain Tidy charity, but is funded by chewing gum manufacturers. Last year, a total of 16,503 pieces of gum litter were removed from streets in Huddersfield and Dewsbury following a £25,500 investment from the task force. Kirklees Council is one of 52 local authorities across the country which successfully applied for a grant this year to help efforts to clean chewing gum off pavements. 'Think twice' Councillor Tyler Hawkins, cabinet member for highways and waste, said: "We are delighted to have been awarded further funding to help us tackle the problem of gum litter across our towns and villages in Kirklees."Removing chewing gum litter will get these areas looking their best and complement our ongoing programme of regeneration work within our town centres. "With this clean-up and new signage, we hope it will make potential litterbugs think twice and help keep our home tidy."According to Keep Britain Tidy, about 77% of England's streets and 99% of retail sites are stained with gum, while estimates have suggested the annual cost to UK councils of cleaning up chewing gum litter is about £ Ogden-Newton, Keep Britain Tidy's chief executive, said: "People need to remember that disposing irresponsibly of their gum causes harm to our environment as it takes years to decompose naturally – and, ultimately, costs the public purse to clean it up."Figures from Behaviour Change – a not-for-profit social enterprise – have shown that in areas which benefited from the first and second year of Chewing Gum Task Force funding, gum littering dropped by up to 80% in the first two months, the Local Democracy Reporting Service reductions were still being observed six months after targeted street cleansing and the installation of specially designed signage to encourage people to bin their gum. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Illegal migration from Bangladesh has been a problem for decades. Why did no one act?
The Government of India has finally woken up to the problem of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. There are reports from different states about local police identifying the Bangladeshis and deporting them. In Delhi, during the last six months, at least 770 immigrants have been deported; some were airlifted to Tripura and the rest sent by the surface route. In Assam, the state government is systematically tracking down individuals declared illegal foreigners by the Foreigners' Tribunals and pushing them back into the no man's land between India and Bangladesh. It is reported that 30,000 people who had been declared foreign nationals by the Tribunals in Assam have just disappeared. There are reports of deportations from Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana. Whatever action is being taken, however, amounts to a trickle compared to the very large number of Bangladeshis settled in India. In the wake of Partition in 1947, many Hindus crossed over to India from East Pakistan to the adjoining states of Assam, West Bengal, and Tripura. Later, however, when the Pakistan Army started persecuting the Bengalis, a large number of Muslims also crossed over to India. After the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, it was expected that the new regime would maintain communal harmony. However, that did not happen, and Bangladeshis continued to pour into India, partly due to religious discrimination but mostly for economic opportunity and in search of a better life. According to the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, nearly 3.5 million people 'disappeared' from East Pakistan between 1951 and 1961 and another 1.5 million between 1961 and 1974. Some Bangladesh intellectuals justified the mass migration of people to India as lebensraum – the legitimate movement of people from high-density to low-density areas. The Government of India's response was half-hearted. Migration slowed down only after India started fencing the 40967.7 km long border with Bangladesh. The Task Force on Border Management, headed by Madhav Godbole, in its report submitted in August 2000, said that 'there is an all-round failure in India to come to grips with the problem of illegal immigration'. The report went on to say that 'facts are well known, opinions are firmed up, and the operating system is in position, but the tragedy is that despite this, nothing substantial happens due to catharsis of deciding in this regard due to sharp division of interest among the political class'. The Task Force estimated that there were about 15 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country and that about 3 lakh Bangladeshi nationals were entering India illegally every year. The Task Force report was never placed in the public domain because it was brutally honest. The very next year, in February 2001, the Group of Ministers, in their recommendations on national security, while taking care of Bangladesh's sensitivity in the matter, reiterated that 'the massive illegal immigration poses a grave danger to our security, social harmony and economic well-being'. The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), observed that 'there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing 'external aggression and internal disturbance' on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals' and that therefore, it is 'the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution'. All these warnings by the Task Force, the Group of Ministers and the Supreme Court remained unheeded. There was no plan of action to deal with the problem. Now that our relations with Bangladesh have soured, the Government of India has started deporting the Bangladeshi illegal immigrants. The total number of illegal immigrants deported so far would be a couple of thousand only. The drive must continue — with greater vigour — whether the Bangladesh government cooperates or not. It is relevant that the US is deporting all illegal immigrants from different parts of the world. Even Pakistan has repatriated 1.3 million Afghanistan nationals back to their country. There is no reason why India should be hesitant or have any reservations about acting against illegal immigrants from any country. Meanwhile, the chief minister of Assam has given a new angle to our relations with Bangladesh when he said that Bangladesh has 'two of its own chicken necks'. One is from Dakshin Dinajpur to South-West Garo Hills, and the other is the Chittagong Corridor from South Tripura to the Bay of Bengal. The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) inhabited by the Chakma tribes, who are mostly Buddhists, are in a state of turbulence. There are serious problems of ethnic identity, land rights, and cultural preservation of the indigenous tribes. Thousands of Chakmas have fled to India and have been settled in the north-eastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura and Mizoram. Was Himanta Biswa Sarma speaking on his own, or was he acting as the Centre's mouthpiece? In any case, there is food for thought. The writer is a former Member of the National Security Advisory Board and Director General, BSF
Fox News
4 days ago
- Health
- Fox News
BEN CARSON: After COVID confusion, how can we rebuild trust in public health leaders?
Just over five years ago, our nation faced a moment that felt more like fiction than reality—a global pandemic and a national emergency, brought on by a virus we had never seen before. Faced with fear and uncertainty, Americans turned to our frontline healthcare workers, public health leaders, and scientists to help guide us through. And we trusted them—because historically, we've had good reason to. But as the weeks turned into months, something began to shift. Decisions that lacked consistency and transparency started to erode that trust. Schools were closed to protect children—yet we later learned how deeply it harmed them. Mask mandates changed repeatedly. Beaches were shut down, while large political gatherings were permitted. These contradictions did more than confuse people—they undermined confidence in those charged with guiding us through the crisis. Many Americans endured great sacrifices—missing weddings, funerals, and final goodbyes with loved ones—while some officials appeared to operate by a different set of rules. The phrase "trust the science" was too often wielded as a shield against legitimate questions and concerns. As a member of President Trump's White House Coronavirus Task Force, I witnessed firsthand the difference of opinion among health experts. But rather than welcome those scientific debates, some dismissed them outright—labeling thoughtful disagreement as "anti-science." That kind of dismissiveness damages the very credibility that public institutions depend upon. Today, we are seeing the consequences of that breakdown in trust. Perhaps nowhere is it more evident than in the growing skepticism around vaccinations. For decades, immunizations have been one of modern medicine's greatest achievements—eliminating diseases and saving millions of lives. But now, after years of mixed messaging and politicized public health decisions, we're watching long-held confidence in vaccines waver. This isn't hypothetical. We are now facing the largest measles outbreak in the U.S. in a generation—spanning 31 states, resulting in over a thousand infections and the tragic loss of life. In several of the hardest-hit areas, vaccination rates are dangerously low. This mistrust has even begun to shape legislation, with several states considering laws that would further weaken immunization efforts. We must not allow the missteps of recent years to unravel the decades of progress made through sound immunization practices. The established guidelines for routine vaccinations have long provided a foundation of safe and effective protection against serious diseases. While that trust must be restored, it must go hand in hand with a renewed respect for parental choice and individual responsibility. Confidence in vaccines grows when people are engaged and provided with clear information and empowered to make informed decisions in consultation with trusted providers. Trust is not built through mandates—it's earned through transparency, consistency, and respect for personal responsibility. It is time for a reset. We need to move past the confusion and division of the COVID era. We must acknowledge what went wrong—not to assign blame, but to rebuild what's been lost: trust. President Donald Trump's team at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration now has the opportunity to lead with clarity, competence, and a renewed focus on serving the American people. We recently saw very significant personnel changes at ACIP – a panel central to vaccine policy. This committee plays a vital role in protecting families and guiding national readiness. It's important in our quest for change that we pursue reform that's thoughtful, apolitical and fair. Safeguarding credibility is key to advancing the President's broader mission. Let us remember that public health is not just about data—it's about people. It's about protecting families, preserving life, and earning trust through honesty and integrity. We've all learned important lessons from a difficult time. Let's carry those lessons forward—and finally close the chapter on the COVID era.
CBC
5 days ago
- Health
- CBC
Major overhaul ordered for group that sets Canada's cancer screening guidelines
Social Sharing A major overhaul is expected of the national body that issues Canada's cancer screening guidelines. The changes were ordered by the federal health minister, following an external review of the Task Force on Preventive Health Care. The task force is an arm's-length panel set up by the federal government to publish national guidelines for family doctors, advising them on when to send their patients for routine screenings of various illnesses, including common cancers. But the panel has been criticized for years for failing to fully take in expert advice, using outdated research and being too slow to update its guidelines. Many of the task force's recommendations are over a decade old. "Those cancer screenings translate into survival," said Dr. Anna Wilkinson, an Ottawa family physician who helps care for cancer patients. "We know that technology and medical science changes so rapidly," she said. "We're not keeping pace and that's impacting people's health." The health minister suspended the task force's work last year and ordered the review, after it came under mounting scrutiny for continuing to recommend routine breast cancer screening only start at 50 years of age. That guideline flew in the face of evidence that screening should start at 40 — advice supported by the Canadian Cancer Society and already implemented in several provincial breast screening programs. The cancer most commonly diagnosed in Canadians aged 30 to 49 is now breast cancer. "We know that we're seeing more and more early-age onset of breast cancer," Wilkinson said. "We need to have guidelines that are in line with those changes." A 'pressing need' The review calls on the task force to be more accountable and transparent, streamline and speed up its guideline updates and ensure experts are consulted, citing a "pressing need to modernize its approach." The task force has been criticized for other recommendations, including cervical, prostate and lung cancer screening. Its guidelines on cervical cancer, for example, haven't been updated since 2013, and recommend against screening for HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer. The U.K. and Australia replaced Pap tests with HPV screening in 2016 and 2017, respectively, because HPV can be detected much sooner. Wilkinson said she's hopeful the major changes to how the task force operates will save lives, especially since many primary care physicians are trained to use those guidelines when deciding to refer their patients for tests. Her own research found Canadian women who lived in provinces where breast cancer screening started at 40 had a better chance of surviving than those who were screened in their 50s. Early screening would have changed the life of Carolyn Holland. At 43, she discovered lumps in her breasts. By that point, the cancer had spread so aggressively that she needed chemotherapy, radiation and a double mastectomy. A mammogram could have caught her cancer sooner, but she had never had one. Her family physician was following the task force guidelines that said she didn't need a routine screening until 50. "Had my cancer been caught earlier with mammography at 40, my treatment and outcome would have been drastically different," Holland said. In a statement, the task force said it looks forward to helping bring about the changes, which will "bolster the task force's credibility," adding that its work is "internationally known for its rigorous evidence-based guidelines." "The recommendations in this report are not only about modernizing the approach but about ensuring that preventive health care remains responsive to evolving scientific evidence, inclusive of diverse perspectives, adaptable to real-world delivery settings and to local public health priorities," the statement reads.
