Omar Khadr fires his lawyers, cancelling Guantanamo pre-trial hearings

Friday, July 9, 2010
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

Omar Khadr’s decision to fire his lawyers days before his next court appearance effectively cancels what was supposed to be a final round of pre-trial hearings for the only Canadian detainee in Guantanamo Bay, and could kill his defence team’s last efforts to suppress evidence they allege was obtained through torture.

Mr. Khadr, whose charges include murder and supporting terrorism, was supposed to begin his trial next month. Now it’s not clear when that will go forward and whether Mr. Khadr, who was 15 when prosecutors allege he threw a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in an Afghan firefight, will be tried in Guantanamo without any real defence counsel.

It also means the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr will make a rare appearance speaking on his own behalf on Monday – unless he decides to boycott proceedings, which he did earlier this year.

Continue reading

The high-achieving pair accused of a deadly plan

Friday, June 25, 2010 – Globe and Mail
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

TORONTO — Byron Sonne and Kristen Peterson are life partners leading very different lives.

Mr. Sonne is a computer expert whose job is to delve deep into the realm of complex electronic security networks; in his spare time, he frequents “hackerspaces” and derides the way people are monitored in their everyday lives.

Ms. Peterson’s world is more creative: A visual artist with multiple degrees under her belt, she has become known for creating multimedia installations that make normal structures – a wall, a doorway – seem like what they’re not.

If he’s the daredevil hacker, she’s the one neighbours see gardening, who ensures he comes home on time. Now both are accused of planning potentially deadly attacks.

Continue reading

Failure to tap into immigrants’ skills costs billions

Thursday, June 10, 2010
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

In Nigeria, he helped design the athletes village for Abuja’s All-Africa Games.

But three years after moving to Canada in 2007 with a pregnant wife and big dreams, Yisola Taiwo has yet to land his first architecture job. His wife, Bunmi Sofoluwe-Taiwo, still hasn’t been able to find work after leaving her career with the Lagos government.

“Last year was terrible,” Mr. Taiwo said. An internship ended; he spent more than a year on employment insurance and working for no pay at a Toronto architecture firm.

In May, he started a two-month contract at the Diebold Company of Canada, working with architectural drawings to design building security systems in Mississauga. It’s not a bad gig, but he longs for something in his field.

The Toronto region has long boasted about its role as Canada’s diversity hub. But Toronto is doing a worse job of integrating immigrants than it was two decades ago, and it’s costing the economy estimated billions of dollars a year, according to a report being released Thursday by the city’s Board of Trade.

Continue reading

Almost home: Toronto’s Regent Park at a crossroads

Saturday, May 29, 2010 – Globe and Mail
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

TORONTO — Yasin Khawaja and his family know they’re almost home. The 22-year-old, his parents and two sisters are set to move into their apartment in Regent Park’s brand-new reincarnation.

They just don’t know when.

At first it was August. But earlier this month they were told to expect delays. Now the family waits on tenterhooks, a September reunion in Bangladesh facing postponement, until they find out their fate. “The whole thing has been kind of a mess,” he says.

But the tone in the Khawajas’ Shuter Street townhouse is one of excited, nervous anticipation when they talk about the upcoming move – a new building (with a balcony, he notes with pride), a new neighbourhood in the works and, maybe, a new way of providing social housing.

“They gave us choices, they gave us floor plans. … Whenever someone asks, ‘Where do you live?’ and I say, ‘Regent Park,’ they’re like, ‘Ohh, are you serious?’

“I’m hoping it’s better.”

Continue reading

Pot of gold: Will California resort to high finance?

Saturday, May 29, 2010 – Globe and Mail
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

SAN FRANCISCO — Pot is in the air here on the shores of San Francisco Bay. Not in the smoke that drifts between the cafés, second-hand shops and indie music stores of legendary Haight-Ashbury. But in the headlines of local newspapers, the posters plastered on phone booths and the ads now airing on the radio.

It has been two months since a proposal to legalize marijuana was added to California’s fall referendum ballot, and the debate on the subject is in full swing. A similar vote crashed and burned in the 1970s, but proponents feel that this time they could win. Last week, councillors across the water made Oakland the state’s first city to formally endorse the move, and the latest polls show public opinion is almost evenly divided.

The proposed legislation is fairly conservative. It would allow growing, selling and consuming cannabis, but local governments could opt out, smoking in public would remain illegal, cultivation would be limited to a small plot and vendors would face severe penalties for selling to anyone under 21.

But a bigger motivation is something profoundly practical: The state needs the cash. Badly.

In the wake of a brutal recession, California is heavily in debt – a $70-billion hole that is making governments at all levels rethink their spending on just about everything.

The proposed law would put a $50-an-ounce tax on all marijuana sales, which translates into an estimated $1.4-billion a year, according to the State Board of Equalization.

“It’s basically the first time it’s been so attractive – because of the economic times,” says Richard Lee, a driving force behind the $1-million campaign to collect more than 530,000 signatures (well over the 433,971 required) to get the issue on the ballot.

He says his desire to legalize marijuana stems from a 1991 carjacking when police took 40 minutes to respond, a delay he attributed to time wasted on less pressing criminal matters.

Three years ago, Mr. Lee, who also runs a marijuana dispensary, helped to create Oaksterdam University, which is named for the Oakland district often compared to Amsterdam and cheekily calls itself “America’s first cannabis college.”

The school teaches aspiring green thumbs the history, politics, economics, legalities and, of course, the horticultural fine points of marijuana. But Mr. Lee also sees it as the birthplace of legal pot in North America. “We have made it a political issue this year … a victory in and of itself,” he says.

“But we do plan on winning. We have labour unions and other groups that never endorsed us before that are coming aboard. … Things are reaching that tipping point.”

CANNABIS AND CLASSROOMS

There certainly are growing signs of tolerance. Last week, on the same day that Oakland endorsed the proposal, the stately New York Times published a lengthy ode to “haute stoner cuisine” that explored the impact of marijuana on the food scene and, in the process, underscoring how casual use of the drug has become.

Even without the West Coast’s cultural stereotypes, California is a logical choice to make pot legal simply because it already has a thriving marijuana trade.

Since receiving the green light in 1996, the medical use of marijuana has grown into a billion-dollar industry. Los Angeles now has more marijuana dispensaries than public schools – estimated at more than 500, although that number is expected to drop precipitously when more stringent legislation comes into place in June.

Pot is now so prevalent that Oakland city attorney John Russo argued in an opinion piece for a local newspaper last week that anyone trying to enforce the current law is living in a “fairy tale” – and an expensive one at that.

In an interview, he explains that, considering the fiscal pressure on governments and “looking at how much money has gone into the prohibition against marijuana, … I just don’t think we can afford to continue to pretend the so-called war on drugs has any hope of eradicating marijuana use.

“Common sense dictates we start treating marijuana like alcohol: Tax it, license it.”

Others who back the initiative include Jim Gray, a retired Republican judge who wrote a 2001 book entitled Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, and a former Los Angeles sheriff, Jeff Studdard, who lent his voice to the first radio ad for the Tax Cannabis Campaign.

Even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told reporters this month that he doesn’t support the bill personally, but because of “all those ideas of creating extra revenues, I’m always for an open debate on it.

“We ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana. What effect did it have on those countries? Are they happy with the decision?”

Even so, the measure will not pass in November without a fight. The recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California shows 49 per cent of respondents in favour and 48 per cent against – hardly a commanding lead – and the campaign to raise millions to get out the vote has so far brought in little more than $200,000.

“It’s a deeply flawed initiative. … What were these people smoking when they wrote this?” asks Sacramento lawyer John Lovell, who represents some of the more vehement opponents – the state’s police chiefs and narcotics officers.

He contends that even people in favour in principle will oppose the bill on other grounds, including what he claims is too lax a position on pot in the workplace.

“If I come to work and you smell alcohol on my breath, you can send me home, you can discipline me, you can terminate me,” he says. “If I come to work and my clothing smells of marijuana, I even test positive, I get to go to work that day.”

There’s also the more basic argument of whether it’s wise, from a policy perspective, to make marijuana more easily accessible. Proponents say it’s no worse than alcohol, but many critics (including Canada’s federal government) still consider pot a “gateway drug” that can lead to far more harmful substances.

“I think ordinary people understand it is not a positive social good for people to get high,” Mr. Lovell says. “Because when they get high, when they get intoxicated, when their five senses are compromised, they make bad decisions.”

Californians also must bear in mind what happened in Alaska, which became the first state to legalize pot in 1975, when it voted to allow possession of a small amount for personal use, only to reverse its decision 15 years later.

Even some of the big players in the state’s medical-marijuana industry oppose legalization, which they fear would drive down prices and disrupt the virtual monopoly they enjoy.

It also would launch a state-wide experiment in behavioural psychology, Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach says. Making the drug cheaper and easier to obtain may well cause usage to skyrocket, whereas taxing it too highly risks creating a black market for contraband pot much like the one for cigarettes.

Enforcement would probably remain a problem, especially if many local governments opt out, but Prof. Auerbach says it wouldn’t be the first time a government has had to find a way to impose a new sin tax. “The world didn’t end when we adopted state lotteries,” he explains.

POT TOURS AHEAD

Looking ahead to November, Mr. Russo, the Oakland solicitor, remains optimistic. “I think California may lead the way on this one,” he says.

If so, it will certainly catch Canada going in the other direction. Ottawa is striving to counter its reputation for lax enforcement by cracking down on illicit drug use, and last week Vancouver’s self-styled “Prince of Pot,” Marc Emery, was finally extradited to the U.S. and jailed for five years after pleading guilty to having shipped marijuana seeds to growers across the border.

Kirk Tousaw, who is his lawyer and executive director of the Beyond Prohibition Foundation, says a positive vote in California would show how to legalize marijuana “in a rational, evidence-based way.”

“It certainly provides further impetus for our position, which is: Cannabis is a commodity that is in great demand on both sides of the border and lots and lots of people use it responsibly.”

Oaksterdam U’s Mr. Lee says he imagines a day when California is a major destination for marijuana tourism, with foreigners spending more on hotels and bike tours of the Golden Gate Bridge than in pot-vending coffee shops.

He says his school is a case in point: It brings in $2-million a year in tuition and “over half of our students now are from out of state. They come into Oakland and they book hotel rooms and buy food while they’re here.”

And what about the pot-smoking and its impact on society?

“It’s already happening,” he concludes.

“It’s not like the world changes that much.”

Anna Mehler Paperny is a Globe and Mail reporter.

Moving Mecca: The holy city will have three million residents and eight million pilgrims a year by 2030. When it comes to transit, a fleet of buses won’t cut it

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 – Globe and Mail
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

A site regarded as one of the holiest on the planet is gearing up for a 21st-century transit makeover.

Mecca, birthplace of Mohammed, is aiming to create a massive, multimodal public transit network to accommodate the millions of Muslim pilgrims who flock there. And Canadian transportation engineers are among those helping them.

Mecca is no stranger to Olympic-sized crowds: For centuries, it’s been the home of the world’s largest pilgrimage – the hajj, which brings about 2.5 million people each year. That number is expected to grow to four million, even as the city itself doubles in size. A fleet of buses just doesn’t cut it any more.

Continue reading

Power plant in the Greenbelt

Tuesday, April 6, 2010
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

TORONTO — The province is selling out vaunted green space that Premier Dalton McGuinty vowed to protect, argues a community taking on a proposed gas-fired power plant in the middle of Ontario’s Greenbelt.

And tiny King township is using the province’s own Greenbelt legislation in a last-ditch attempt to fight the generator.

“I find it completely ironic that we’re having to defend provincial legislation and provincial rules and regulations against another provincial ministry,” said Jamie Reaume, head of the Holland Marsh Growers Association.

He represents farmers in Holland Marsh – the bowl-like flood plain, vegetable patch of Ontario and what he calls one of the most heavily regulated pieces of land in the province.

It’s also 500 metres away from the proposed 350-megawatt gas-fired power plant the Ontario Power Authority wants to see completed by 2014. That peak power is needed – immediately – to satisfy a growing, energy-thirsty population in northern York Region, the power authority argues.

But the plant would also be the first in Ontario’s Greenbelt, whose fifth anniversary the province celebrated this year. And its vocal opponents argue the province isn’t following its own strict rules designed to preserve that increasingly rare green space. So they have to.

A hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board, a provincial mediator that normally settles development disputes between local governments and third parties, starts today. The board will determine whether the power plant’s site plan should go ahead and, more crucially, whether the plans contravene the province’s own Greenbelt legislation.

The OPA argues that there’s nowhere else to put what they say is a much-needed “peaker” generator.

The relatively clean gas-fired technology is becoming increasingly popular as the province tries to make good on its vow to eliminate coal-fired generators. .They’re also a significant part of the Green Energy Act.

King township’s mayor Margaret Black argues that the plant won’t help her residents and could indeed go elsewhere. Moreover, she argues the proposal would violate the province’s own Greenbelt plan, which has strict criteria for the kind of infrastructure development allowed to encroach on the protected rural and agricultural areas.

But environmental lawyer David Donnelly says whether or not the plant violates the law of Ontario’s Greenbelt, it violates the principle of keeping a small part of southern Ontario wild.

“Every time you nibble at the footprint of the Greenbelt, you undermine its integrity. This plant won’t destroy the Greenbelt, but it undermines the sacred principle that we preserve outright a very small part of southern Ontario called the Greenbelt. And this violates that. And, worse, it’s unnecessary.”

King Township has been opposed to the very idea of building in the Greenbelt since the province put out a request for proposals in January, 2008.

Ontario Power Authority spokesman Ben Chin said the only thing standing in the way of construction is the building permit the city has refused to grant.

The provincial Greenbelt plan stipulates that any infrastructure built in a designated area must serve the local community and economy, minimize negative effects and must be without viable alternatives.

Ms. Black said that’s not the case now: If the region needs a power plant that badly, she argues, it should be in an existing industrial area.

But Mr. Chin said the northern York Region’s population is growing faster than the rest of the province, and the power authority has no leeway when it comes to picking a location.

“The northern York Region is below international standards in terms of system security or reliability in terms of their transmission lines. … When you have a local area that’s not stable it puts the entire area around it at risk,” he said.

Challenges to restrictive Greenbelt legislation aren’t new, either. But this case is different, Mr. Donnelly said: In those cases, the province stepped in to defend the preserved parkland.

“If you can put a gas-fired plant in the Greenbelt, then what about a waste transfer station? What about an EMS emergency station? It emboldens future regimes that might not be as sympathetic to the Greenbelt to point to this as an instance where people were willing to compromise something the public certainly felt was untouchable.”

A neighbourhood without children

Saturday, March 20, 2010 – Globe and Mail
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY

Carol Finlay’s friends and family think she’s crazy. A neglectful would-be mother. An urban masochist.

Her audacious proposal? To move downtown to raise a family.

“[They say,] ‘You can’t raise a family. … That would be neglectful to children … it’s not enough space to raise children, it’s dangerous.’ ”

Ms. Finlay, 29, and her husband Charlie are moving in August from North York to a loft near the corner of Queen and Dovercourt, which they hope to convert into a three-bedroom condo. “Ninety per cent of our friends are going in the opposite direction.

“[But] our life is in Toronto and it didn’t make sense to us to spend so much of our time commuting,” Ms. Finlay says. “In North York we weren’t part of the community there as much as we would like to be. … We would like to start a family and that becomes even more important to us.”

And the city of Toronto wishes there were thousands more like them.

Surging demand for prized downtown real estate in a white-hot market has buyers snapping up new condos as fast as developers can build them – 951 high-rise units sold in January of this year, compared with 184 the year before and 508 during the market’s last peak in 2008.

For the most part, the city is on board with the onset of a hyper-dense metropolis of vertical neighbourhoods. But the people buying those $600,000 condos are young singles and couples and, to a lesser extent, retirees. This migration upward coincides with an exodus of families from the downtown core. In the 2006 census, children under 15 made up only 8.4 per cent of Trinity-Spadina’s population, compared with 16.3 per cent in the rest of Toronto.

The city is trying to change that. For months, Councillor Adam Vaughan has been working with developers on a social engineering project: to lure families into gleaming condominium boxes in the sky.

The to-do list is deceptively simple – families need space and services with an affordable price tag attached. Achieving that in one of the priciest real-estate markets in Canada is another story altogether.

It has been done elsewhere – notably Vancouver, which has seen its population of downtown children more than quintuple since 1986.

But developers shy away from the drastic measures and the minimum three-bedroom requirement Mr. Vaughan would like to see – they are skeptical as to whether this social-planning ploy will work.

If you build a kid-friendly condo, will families buy it?

Planning and growth

The city’s official plan to house more people in the downtown core calls for increasing density to take eco-conscious advantage of scarce urban space. But if Toronto’s downtown neighbourhoods are going vertical, argues Mr. Vaughan, those 30-storey elevators should have kids inside.

“You can’t sustain a city with a monoculture; you can’t segregate singles from families and seniors from young people. What we need when we build these buildings is to build vertical neighbourhoods, and that means we need to sustain economic diversity and social diversity.”

In November, the city’s planning and growth committee proposed requiring large developments to devote at least 10 per cent of their units to three-bedroom condos. The report was branded as unrealistic and restrictive by the development community. So industry representatives and the city have spent the past four months trying to hammer out a compromise.

Mr. Vaughan has high hopes for the finished product, which goes before committee next month. As well, he’d like to see more high-rises with family-oriented services such as daycares.

Ed Sonshine remembers Mr. Vaughan pestering him to include family-friendly units in summer of 2008, when Mr. Sonshine was designing a property with Tribute Homes at the corner of Queen and Portland. And the RioCan chief executive officer did – about 10 per cent of the 90 condos on sale have three bedrooms.

But there’s a catch: Less than 18 months before opening, “we haven’t sold any yet.”

“They’re a little bigger, so as a result they’re more expensive,” he says. The three-bedroom units start at $600,000. “And, you know, I’m not sure that people necessarily have it in their heads yet here that bringing up kids in a downtown environment is a good thing to do.”

The other 81 units, on the other hand, are almost all spoken for.

It’s not that Mr. Sonshine thinks the push to move families back into the downtown core is a bad one. “I’m just not sure it’ll work.”

For success stories, the city need look no further than Vancouver, which two decades ago began a push for family-friendly downtown condos: The city stipulated that all new developments had to be at least 25 per cent two-bedroom units or larger, and allowed them to build taller in exchange for parks, playgrounds and daycare facilities.

The result? The peninsula’s under-18 population soared to more than 7,000 in 2009 from 1,365 in 1986.

“It was a deliberate part of the vision from day one,” said city planning director Brent Toderian. He says Vancouver is the only North American city opening new elementary schools in its downtown core.

“Don’t give up on families downtown. They do want to live downtown, and our surveys have shown that if you design it well, they will choose the downtown over other options.”

affordability IS key

The catch is affordability: Vancouver’s Yaletown townhouses and False Creek condos aren’t cheap – and the families buying them can afford the higher price point. Mr. Toderian admits financial accessibility is something the city is still grappling with. If Toronto wants to make its downtown condos accessible to those that can’t afford half-a-million dollars, the city has its work cut out for it, says Stephen Deveaux, vice-president of land development for Tribute Communities. Mr. Deveaux has been working with the city on a family condo policy. It’s not crazy to try to move families downtown, he says. But it’s not easy.

“Affordability is the main issue, and if that could somehow be solved, perhaps we could find more of a market,” he said.

“What we build is market-driven. And if there were a market for three-bedroom units, we could deliver.”

Mr. Vaughan would love to see third parties help to make the homes more affordable – pension funds, for example, that would come in and take out second mortgages on units to help lower the purchasing cost for would-be inhabitants.

‘Close living’

David Michael Lamb considers himself a profoundly urban person: He works in the city. When he goes on vacations, he visits cities. As a CBC radio reporter and producer, he covers Canada’s largest. And living with his wife and daughter in a condo in west-end Liberty Village was an almost perfect fit.

But it was a very, very snug one: The storage locker quickly filled with baby clothes; they had to shop for small furniture that didn’t turn their tiny condo into a cramped cave.

“It’s close living,” Mr. Lamb said, but they made it work – until they were getting ready for a second child. Another, larger condo – one with a second storage locker, a third bedroom and a park nearby – would have been ideal. But they found nothing remotely suitable or affordable. The small Roncesvalles house where they’re living now is nice, he says, but he believes the city should take it upon itself to diversify a denser downtown core.

“If the city doesn’t somehow make sure that families can live downtown, then they will move out. And it’s not a healthy city when only one kind of person lives there.”

Ms. Finlay and her husband lucked out: As a saxophone player, he got a coveted loft at an Artscape development. The initiative provides affordable work and living space for the city’s artists. Five years from now, Ms. Finlay sees herself living in walking distance from parks, school and summer camps, and with a short commute. She’d rather not be the only one.

“I’d like to see less of our friends move away because they thought [it] was their only option.”

‘Everything is destroyed’ in Chilean coastal town

Monday, March 1, 2010 – Globe and Mail
ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY
With a report from Agence France-Presse

Josselin Benavides doesn’t recognize her home any more.

The 14-year-old has been watching the searing images – waterlogged streets, splintered power lines toppled in front of crumbled buildings; residents drowned in their beds; a fishing boat looking bizarrely huge in the middle of an otherwise razed public square.

But nowhere in the destruction-heavy footage does she see Constitucion, the picturesque coastal town where she grew up and where emergency workers found more than 350 dead in the wake of one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded.

“Of course I remember the city,” she said from Santiago, the Chilean capital, where she now lives and had been scouring the Internet for information. “But now, I look at the news and I recognize nothing – everything is destroyed.”

Continue reading

A deafening roar, then chaos in Chile

Anna Mehler Paperny and Eva Salinas
From Sunday’s Globe and Mail
Saturday, February 27, 2010

Toronto and Santiago — The building pitched. The windows rattled. Items flew off the shelves and the air was filled with the sounds of rumbling buildings and heaving earth.

Thrown from her bed at 3:34 a.m. by one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded, Claire Buré ran to a door frame in her Santiago apartment and held on for dear life.

“It was panic.”
Continue reading