Not any more

Archive for the ‘Law & Order’ Category

What else can you say…Why Rob Ford Why?

In Law & Order, Rob Ford, The Environmental Session, Toronto on August 14, 2012 at 22:02

Just a tad…

Cell phone use while driving.  Driving through a stopped streetcar.  Heck a middle finger to boot.  Now reading while you drive on a highway.  I’m a TORONTO tax payer and I give up Rob Ford.  You win.

MT @injurydr Mayor Ford, I invite u to visit our trauma unit & c the result of distracted driving bit.ly/RMA072 @tomayorford #TOpoli

— Marco Ricciardi (@TPS_Marco) August 14, 2012

OCC

Advertisements

Yup, Rob Ford IS A LIAR

In Have to Laugh, Law & Order, Media, The CBC, Toronto, YouTube on October 26, 2011 at 21:23

Just a tad…

Say it ain’t so Rob…

At least you have SunTV to save your bacon Robbie…

And the National Post’s Kelly McParland puts up here dukes…

“Lots of people are mad at [Ford], since he’s not the most polished guy in the world and he hasn’t exactly been diplomatic while pursuing his promise to chop the massive city budget and eliminate a spending gap measured in the hundreds of millions. The local papers treat him like some lame-brained buffoon who stumbled into city hall while trying to avoid a Pride parade.

So maybe he did in fact realize his attacker was just an actor and he wasn’t really under threat, and maybe he just didn’t feel like going along. Mary Walsh has unleashed her Marg character on lots of other politicians, though generally during the work day when they’re on their political rounds, not on the front lawn at 8 a.m. They usually react in one of two ways: they either spot the character and play along, making it all very jolly and a bit boring, or they don’t get the joke and are a bit cool. People must like it, because they’ve been doing it for years.

Either way, Ford wasn’t up for the gag. Can’t really say I blame him. Politicians aren’t game animals; you can’t just hide in the woods and fire at will.”

Fine just watch it here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150884269610321

OCC

Cop Shows aren’t Canadian Enough

In Canada, Celeb, Coppers, Law & Order, Media, Money, South of the boarder, YouTube on July 23, 2010 at 16:55

Just a tad…

When is US TV cop drama not a US TV cop drama?  When it’s shot in Toronto.

You guys should have bought CBC’s The Border when you had the chance.

OCC

You can read Alex Beam’s full article in Boston Globe here

“It all started a couple of seasons ago, when CBS picked up “Flashpoint,’’ a series about a Toronto police SWAT team that was popular in Canada. “Flashpoint’’ celebrates everything the Canadians say they hate about us Americans: It’s gratuitously violent and stupid, with the Kevlar-vested lads in blue armed to the teeth with the latest weaponry. They cruise the world in caravans of gas-guzzling, black Chevy Suburbans, just like Canada’s favorite son, Kiefer Sutherland, in “24.’’ They even use the phrase “set up a hard perimeter,’’ which I thought had been trademarked by the lazy writers on “24.’’…

…Yes and no. In 2008, 41 American police officers were killed in the line of duty. In Canada, zero. Per capita, there are more than twice the number of homicides in the United States compared with Canada, where handguns are tightly restricted. I’m saying this is a good thing. I just don’t see why Canada has to pimp itself out as Dodge City North to earn some simoleons south of the border…”

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Since debuting June 24, ABC’s “Rookie Blue” has captured between 6.2 million and 7.2 million viewers — hardly the breakout hit of the season. Even canceled programs such as “FlashForward,” “Three Rivers” and “Ghost Whisperer” have turned in better performances against hardier competition. Yet “Rookie Blue” is being renewed for a second season, and the network is touting the workmanlike police drama the Los Angeles Times called “modest and plain” as a hot commodity.  Shows such as “Rookie Blue” are becoming more common, and the broadcast networks want more of it despite the middle-of-the-road ratings…

You can read Brian Steinberg’s full article in Advertising Age here

Where to Find a Summer Hit on U.S. TV? Canada

“There are opportunities at all levels in the U.S., because the networks are sort of more open” to the idea of picking up programming crafted for an international viewership, said John Morayniss, one of the executive producers of “Rookie Blue” and also CEO of E1 Television, one of the show’s production companies. Produced in Toronto, the drama is “going to be really heavily financed through Canadian licensees and other incentives and subsidies in Canada,” he said.

More scripted fare with a decidedly northern exposure appears to be on the way. The CW network recently announced it would air Canadian comedy series “18 to Life” starting in August. CBS recently began airing episodes of another Canadian police drama, “The Bridge.”

As for “Rookie Blue,” ABC is touting it as the breakout hit of the summer. This despite the fact that the recent episode of Discovery’s “Deadliest Catch,” highlighting the death of the show’s hero, Capt. Phil Harris, delivered 8.5 million viewers. And even though “Rookie Blue” is airing in the ABC time slot normally reserved for powerhouse medical drama “Grey’s Anatomy,” this newbie isn’t coming close to delivering that hit show’s average of nearly 14.8 million viewers, according to Nielsen…”

Letters From: and To:Tony

In Business, Canada, Customer Service, From Coast to Coast to Coast, Government, Law & Order, People that Matter, Politico, This Means WAR on July 22, 2010 at 16:44

Just a tad…

It’s letter writing week.  I guess a few people had to let of some steam.

OCC

This the statement sent out by Tony last night


I acknowledge with regret the resignation of Munir A. Sheikh the Chief Statistician of Canada.

There has been considerable commentary about the federal government’s decision to replace the 2011 mandatory census long form with the voluntary National Household Survey.

The Government took this decision because we do not believe Canadians should be forced, under threat of fines, jail, or both, to divulge extensive private and personal information. We believe it is not appropriate to compel citizens to divulge how many bedrooms they have in their houses, or what time they leave for work in the morning. The Government’s approach is about finding a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

As I have noted previously, Statistics Canada’s preferred approach would have been to maintain the mandatory long form census. However, after the Government’s decision to replace the mandatory long form census Statistics Canada was asked to provide options for conducting a voluntary survey of households. One of the options provided – the voluntary National Household Survey – was chosen.

A voluntary long form survey offers challenges that do not exist in the case of a census that uses coercion to compel completion. Nonetheless, by working together with the professionals at Statistics Canada I believe we can compensate for these challenges and offer data-users high quality and accurate information.

I have relied throughout this process on the frank and open advice of Statistics Canada and the Chief Statistician. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all employees of Statistics Canada for the hard work and dedication that has made Statistics Canada one of the best national statistical organizations in the world.

Until a permanent successor can be found Wayne Smith, Assistant Chief Statistician, Business and Trade Statistics, will act on an interim basis.

Now from the PMO’s office

From: “Alerte-Info-Alert” <Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010

To: Alerte-Info-Alert<Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>

Subject:

Resignation of the Chief Statisti cian / Démission d u statisticien en chef

Resignation of the Chief Statistician

Today, Minister Clement acknowledged, with regret, the resignation of Munir Sheikh, the Chief Statistician of Canada.

Our reasons for replacing the mandatory census long form with a voluntary national survey are clear:

We do not believe Canadians should be forced, under threat of fines, jail, or both, to divulge extensive private and personal information. It is not appropriate to compel citizens to divulge how many bedrooms they have in their houses, or what time they leave for work in the morning.

Our approach is about finding a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. It is unfortunate that Mr. Sheikh did not share these objectives.

Until a permanent successor to Mr. Sheikh is chosen, Wayne Smith, Assistant Chief Statistician, Business and Trade Statistics, will act on an interim basis.

We are confident that Statistics Canada’s employees will continue the hard work and dedication that has made Statistics Canada one of the best national statistical organizations in the world.

And finally a statement from National Statistics Council

34720711-National-Statistics-Council-Statement-on-the-Resignation-of-Dr-Sheikh

ACMLA Letter to Tony Clement concerning the 2011 decision to cancel the mandatory Long-Form Questionnaire

(with permission from Andrew Nicholson, president ACMLA)

The Honorable Tony Clement, MP Minister of Industry House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6

Dear Minister Clement

As President of the Association of Canadian Map Libraries and Archives (ACMLA) (http://www.acmla.org/), I am writing to you to express the surprise and disappointment of our membership in the Government’s decision to cancel the mandatory Long-Form Questionnaire for the 2011 Census. The information gathered from the Long-Form census has contributed greatly to the education and research activities of Canadians over many decades. Its replacement by a voluntary National Household Survey raises many concerns from our membership.

We are an active Association with over 70 members from across Canada who play a pivotal role as geographical information providers and educators. We find the information provided by the Long-Form census is vital for providing a greater understanding of Canada and its diverse regions to our users. For example, determining accurate levels of income or immigration patterns is possible with data collected from the Long-Form Census questionnaire. Moreover, as geographical information professionals, we map and visualize the data, and provide mapping/visualization capabilities to our researchers so they are able to analyze the data for research purposes. The results and impact of such research are then carried forward into other public and private endeavours for the benefit of all Canadians.

Part of the value of the Long-Form Census was its mandatory requirement that 20% of the population complete it. While this may have seemed an onerous task for a few participants, most gladly participated knowing that everyone else selected in the 20% sample is equally obligated to fill out the Long-Form as part of their civic duty. Moreover, the value and long term benefit for the whole population, including educators and policy makers, has been immense. Replacing the mandatory Long-Form with a voluntary National Household Survey form just raises more issues especially concerning the validity and value of the data collected. For example, will many people take the time to voluntarily fill in a 50+ question form? If there is a low participation rate, how can anyone really rely on the data as being an accurate snapshot of the Canadian population? Though it has also been argued that the Long-Form is intrusive and raises issues of confidentially, this is completely untrue as Statistics Canada has been meticulous in anonymizing census data to protect the confidentially of all participants. This has worked very well in the past for both Census participants and the users of Census data.

As geographic information professionals and providers/curators of geospatial information, we are also concerned by the lack of information pertaining to the future dissemination of Census and National Household Survey data at smaller geographic levels such as Census Tracts and Dissemination Areas. On Statistics Canada’s website, it states that the National Household Survey “will conduct and release the results of this survey applying the same methods and standards used for all of its surveys”. Most of Statistics Canada’s other survey data is only available at a provincial or Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) at best. This will not be acceptable for users who rely on such data at a neighbourhood level to conduct research or make important decisions and recommendations. Mapping employment numbers at a provincial or CMA level will be especially limiting for educational and research purposes.

The mandatory Long-Form questionnaire has been a cornerstone of census data collection for decades and its value should not be discounted. The rich datasets that have been produced have been vital components in almost every area and activity of Canadian society. The decision to abolish it and replace it with a voluntary survey has simply not been well thought out and will only hinder decision-makers at all levels of government, not to mention the research and innovation pursuits of our students and academics.
We respectfully recommend that you reconsider this decision and implement the mandatory Census Long-Form Questionnaire in time for the 2011 Census.

Sincerely,
Andrew Nicholson, President, ACMLA
GIS/Data Librarian
Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre
University of Toronto Mississauga
3359 Mississauga Road North
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA
L5L 1C6
Phone:(905)828-3886
andrew.nicholson@utoronto.ca

This is the text of a letter sent to Industry Minister Tony Clement on behalf of the Executive Council of the Canadian Economics Association.

Michael R. Veall
Department of Economics, McMaster University
Hamilton ON L8S 4M4

July 6, 2010

The Honourable Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry
House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6
minister.industry@ic.gc.ca

Dear Minister Clement,

The Executive Council of the Canadian Economics Association has asked me to write to you to express its concerns at reports that you have decided to replace the mandatory long form in the Census with a voluntary survey.

Important and reliable data have been collected by the Census long form for over a century: for example occupation and school attendance were first collected in 1871, wages and salaries in 1901, working weeks in 1911 and highest level of schooling and the number of rooms in dwellings in 1941. The Census is thus a precious record of our progress as a nation. The proposed change jeopardizes this legacy by risking the quality of the data. For example, it may be impossible to determine whether a new trend in the 2011 data is the consequence of real change or just the different method of collection. The 2011 Census could be costly failure.

We understand that this is a complex issue given the participation resistance from some individuals. (We address this in the attached memo.) But the purpose of the Census is to ensure that public policy is based on the best possible knowledge. Many firms also depend upon the reliable, detailed, small area data provided by the census long form. Therefore, we ask that there be an opportunity for consultation, open to both users and the general public. The discussions would seek to balance the benefits of the data with privacy concerns. If there is inadequate time for such consultation, our view is that the risk of losing the embedded value in the Census is too great, and that the change should be delayed. A number of intermediate measures are possible, including running the new survey in parallel on a smaller sample as a test.

Making this change without consultation will damage Statistics Canada’s currently outstanding reputation inside and outside of Canada and will leave Canada with a Census that is significantly less useful than those of the countries that Canada compares itself against. Please provide an opportunity for consultation. The Canadian Economics Association would be pleased to assist in any way it can.
Sincerely yours,

Michael R. Veall, President-Elect, Canadian Economics Association

cc/ Office of the Prime Minister,
Dr. Munir Sheikh, Chief Statistician of Canada

Here is the text of the memo referred to in the letter:

Eliminating the Mandatory Census Long Form: Why It is Important to Consult
Canadian Economics Association Executive Council, July, 2010

1. We understand that the reason for the elimination of the mandatory long form was objection from those who did not wish to participate. Some such objections are principled (although there are principled objections to many requirements of modern society, such as paying taxes). But we are concerned that some resistance has been fuelled by untruths that Statistics Canada does not respect data confidentiality and that serious penalties for nonparticipation are widespread. Indeed, perhaps the potential fine should be reduced and the possibility of a jail sentence should be eliminated given that these just give targets for those who wish to register protest. Perhaps also the penalties for confidentiality breech could be increased.

2. One reason to keep the Census completely mandatory is that it provides Statistics Canada with the internal mandate to ensure everyone is included. Without the mandatory provision, data for the lower and higher income groups in particular tend to become unreliable, as there is often significant underreporting*. This is a huge information gap. If we miss the top end, we won’t know much about those who pay the most taxes and make some of the most important contributions to our society. But perhaps missing the bottom end of the income distribution is even more important. This includes some of the most vulnerable. They tend to have disproportionate interaction with government: with the health care system, the criminal justice system, the immigration system and the social assistance system. How can we know how policies are working if we do not have a data tool for use in assessment? Crucially, the long form also provides fine geographical detail for local policy analysis including things like city, school and hospital planning, as well as for private sector use. This is at risk.

3. Estimates from Statistics Canada surveys such as the Labour Force Survey depend upon information from the Census. The data quality issues are broader than just the Census.

4. We understand the privacy concerns. But much of the information is already reported to various levels of government (e.g. local property tax assessors, the Canada Revenue Agency). However, the Census collects the data consistently and at once, so that it is possible to examine relationships between variables such as education and income.

5. A consultation would allow the costs and benefits of potential changes to be considered. As our letter emphasizes, the current Census data is an asset of tremendous value because it allows long-term analysis of Canadian trends and can be compared internationally to the Census of the United States and to those of other countries. If this change goes through, it is possible much of the value will be lost. Certainly if this change is made without consultation, the damage to Statistics Canada’s reputation nationally and internationally will be significant: the perception will be that there was no weight given to data quality in the decision making process.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 13, 2010

Broad coalition calls on government to reverse census decision

Representatives from business and finance, health and social services and other levels of government say the long form is vital to the country’s health and wellbeing

TORONTO—A surprising coalition of diverse voices came together today and called on the federal government to maintain the long form census. The group was comprised of representatives from a number of organizations — from Canadian banks to community-based organizations — as well as policy think tanks and other concerned groups.

Don Drummond, former Chief Economist of TD Bank, urged the government to keep the long form database, which is essential to ensuring decisions made by policy makers, businesses and all levels of government are well-informed and based on evidence.

“This is a key tool for tracking how Canadians are doing over time,” Drummond said.

“Scrapping the long form means we will no longer have a reliable picture of the makeup of our country — and will waste years of data tracking important trends related to the health and wellbeing of Canadians.”

Today’s call follows an announcement that the government will eliminate the long form census in 2011, which contains comprehensive information about Canadians like education level, income, employment, ethnicity and language.

“We simply could not plan vital public health services — like our H1N1 response strategy — without understanding our city at a neighbourhood level,” said Carol Timmings, the Director of Planning and Policy at Toronto Public Health.

The significance of having reliable census data at a local level was echoed by Gillian Mason, Senior Vice President of Strategic Initiatives and Community Partnerships at United Way Toronto. “Information obtained from the long form census is imperative to United Way’s work in the community,” Mason said. “Without this detailed information we will not be able to adequately identify and respond to the needs of our community.”

Mel Cappe with the Institute for Research on Public Policy called on the government to reconsider its position in the interest of sound public policy, saying the decision will make Canada a poorer country — unable to understand who we are, what our problems are and what policies are necessary to make Canada a better place.

“This government has demonstrated a willingness to listen and change their mind when it’s in the best interests of the country,” Cappe said. “I urge the government to reconsider — there is so much at stake.”

A Letter to Tony from the masses ~ An Open Letter From

Craig Alexander – President, Canadian Association for Business Economics and Chief Economist, TD Bank

Rachel Bard – CEO, Canadian Nurses Association

Ken Battle – President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy

Marni Cappe – President, Canadian Institute of Planners

Mel Cappe – President and CEO, Institute for Research onPublic Policy, and former Clerk of the Privy Council

Debbie Douglas – Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants

Don Drummond – Donald Matthews Fellow and Distinguished Visiting Scholar, School of PolicyStudies, Queen’s University, former Chief Economist of the TD Bankand former ADM of Finance

Nicholas Gazzard – Executive Director, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada

Ken Georgetti – President, Canadian Labour Congress

Roger Gibbins – President and CEO, Canada West Foundation

Al Hatton – President and CEO,United Way of Canada –Centraide Canada

Alex Himelfarb – Director, Glendon School of Public and International Affairs, and former Clerk of the Privy Council

Dr. Matthew Hodge – President,National Specialty Society for Community Medicine

Jan Kestle – President, Environics Analytics

Frances Lankin – President and CEO, United Way Toronto

Roger Martin – Dean, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto

Nik Nanos – President and CEO, Nanos Research

Dr. Cordell Neudorf – Chair, Canadian Public Health Association

Mark Stabile – Director, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto

Penni Stewart – President, Canadian Association of University Teachers

Peggy Taillon – Executive Director, Canadian Council on Social Development

Mike Veall – President Elect,Canadian Economic Association

Carol Wilding – President andCEO, Toronto Board of Trade

… these are PDF’s so just click on the hyperlink

34551711-Census A Census letter from James Rajotte, MP from Edmonton-Leduc

Clement Census Letter ~ Charles Stolte Chair, Canadian Urban Transit Association

keeping_canadians_in_the_dark ~ Charles Stolte Chair, Canadian Urban Transit Association

Tech Tuesday: Canada is Suing Facebook… Yeah!

In Business, Canada, Customer Service, Law & Order, Tech, YouTube on July 20, 2010 at 15:49

Just a tad…

Finally!  When can we get our money?  I know this is old news now but this is what you need to know about this lawsuit:  The likelihood of you getting any money is probably very small.  At best, as long as your Canadian and have been on Facebook as of November 2009, you can split whatever is leftover from the Merchant Law Group.  I’m betting at least $5 if the win.  For more information on the suit go to http://www.merchantlaw.com/.

OCC

@JesseBrown from TVO’s Search Engine Twittered about his encounter with Tony Merchant last week.

Jul 13, 2010 5:16 PM
JesseBrown: Just intvw’d Tony Merchant, lawyer behind the class action lawsuit against Facebook. YOUR lawyer. All Cndns are automatically plaintiffs.
Jul 13, 2010 5:16 PM
JesseBrown: Tony Merchant says if you don’t want to sue Facebook, you have to OPT-OUT of his class action lawsuit. Not sure he sees the irony in this…
Jul 13, 2010 5:33 PM
JesseBrown: Tony Merchant says signups for anti-FB lawsuit are welcome. But only 500 Cndns have signed up so far. I suggested he advertise it on FB.
Jul 13, 2010 5:33 PM
JesseBrown: Clarification:only Cndns on FB as of 11/09 are automatically plaintiffs in Tony Merchant’s class action lawsuit. So, 40% of us or so…
Jul 13, 2010 5:33 PM
You can listen to Jesse Brown’s full interview of TVO’s Search Engine.  Click on the image below and listen to podcast number 1.

You can read Caroline McCarthy’s full article in the social on CNET here

Toronto law firm preps Facebook privacy suit

“…The suit additionally alleges that Facebook “intentionally or negligently designs its privacy policies, as disseminated to users in such fashion as to mislead and induce users into putting their personal information and privacy at further risk,” that these policies mean that user data can be unwittingly exposed to the harms of data mining, identity theft, harassment, and plain old embarrassment, and that Facebook has unjustly profited off of this member information.

It’s seeking damages equivalent to the total amount of money that Facebook has made through the use of that member information.

But pursuing Facebook’s privacy policies is just a single case in a massive portfolio of suits for which Merchant has sought class action status–chasing a virtual ambulance, if you will. Merchant Law Group specializes in these suits, and its Web site lists ongoing class action litigation against numerous pharmaceutical companies, toy manufacturers, telecommunications companies that charged for 911 emergency calls, and “chocolate producers (who) conspired to keep chocolate prices in Canada artificially high…”

“Meet Me in the Basement”

In Canada, Film, G8 & G20, Law & Order, Media, The Social, The World Comes To Toronto, Toronto on July 16, 2010 at 12:12

Just a tad…

Just watch the new Broken Social Scene video here, and enjoy.  I don’t often watch music video anymore (though I use them a lot on this blog) but this one caught my eye.  Special cameo from the City of Toronto G20 streetfest!

OCC

You can read Ryan Dombal’s full article in Pitchfolk here

Political New Broken Social Scene Video

The Political New Broken Social Scene Videofan-made, band-approved, found-footage video for Forgiveness Rock Record‘s epic “Meet Me in the Basement” looks like a visual analog for his worldview. Made as a response to the recent riot-filled G20 Summit in the band’s hometown of Toronto, the clip slices together storm-trooper footage from that event along with a flashes of what could be interpreted as “distractions”: Justin Bieber, violent video games, Lady Gaga, Obama girl. It’s pretty intense.

According to the band, “This video was sent to us by a lover of our music who wants to remain anonymous. We are very proud to share this mash-up with you.”

Tech Tuesday: Cory Doctorow explains why copyright sucks in Canada

In Business, Canada, Law & Order, Politico, Tech, UK on July 13, 2010 at 13:38

Just a tad…

Does anyone really understand Canada’s Copyright Law?  Anyone?

OCC

You can read more articles from Cory Doctorow at guardian.co.uk here

Canada’s copyright laws show Britain’s digital legislation is no exception

A few months ago, Britain’s archivists, educators, independent artists and technologists were up in arms over the digital economy bill, a dreadful piece of legislation that ignored all the independent experts’ views on how to improve Britain’s digital economy; instead, it further rewarded the slow-moving entertainment companies that refused to adapt to the changing marketplace and diverted even more public enforcement resources to shoring up their business-models.

The bill was passed despite enormous public outcry, without real parliamentary debate, in a largely empty house, hours before parliament dissolved for the election. Despite reassuring promises to their constituents, huge numbers of MPs just didn’t bother to show up for work that day, allowing the bill to slip through (my own MP, Meg Hillier, sent me a letter to tell me that she was “concerned” that the bill was up for a vote without debate, but she voted for it anyway).

Well, here’s some good news for Britons: you’re not the only country whose laws are for sale to oligarchs from the entertainment industry. In my native Canada, a farce worthy of the worst moments of the Digital Economy Act is playing out even as I type these words.

Some background: there have been two recent attempts to reform Canadian copyright law. Both failed, due in large part to an unwillingness on the part of lawmakers to conduct public review or consultation on their proposals (though they were happy to have closed-door meetings with lobbyists representing offshore entertainment giants). The minority Tory government is now fielding a third attempt, called Bill C32 (Canadian bills have much less interesting names than their UK counterparts; here, we’d probably call it The Enhancement of Digital Life Through Extreme Punishments for Naughty Pirates Bill of 2010).

C32 follows the widest-ever public consultation on Canadian copyright. More than 8,300 Canadians filed comments in the consultation, and they spoke with near unanimity: “We don’t want a US-style copyright regime.”

The US’s copyright law was last reformed in 1998, with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which provided for near-total protection for “digital locks” (also called “DRM,” “TPM,” “copy prevention,” “copy protection” – this explosion of names being the legacy of two decades’ worth of attempts to rebrand an unpopular idea in the hopes of making it stick). In the US version of the law, breaking a digital lock is itself a crime – even if you’re breaking it for a perfectly legitimate reason.

For example, Apple uses digital locks to make sure that the only programs you can run on your iPad and iPhone come from its own App Store. The App Store has lots of conditions on it that are ripe for competitive challenge – it scoops a hefty 30% commission from software creators, and imposes prudish conditions on the presentation of “adult” content (previously, Apple has rejected an ebook reader because it could be used to call up the Kama Sutra, a dictionary because it contained “naughty” words, the Pulitzer-winning political cartoons of Mark Fiore because they “ridiculed public figures” and a comic book adaptation of Joyce’s Ulysses because you could see the characters’ willies – in each case, they reversed themselves after public outcry).

But breaking the digital locks on your iPad so that you can buy apps from someone other than Apple is against the law – even though there is no copyright infringement taking place. Quite the contrary: marketplaces where creators exchange their works for money is the kind of thing you’d expect copyright law to encourage, rather than prohibit.

Nearly all of the respondents to the Canadian copyright consultation said that they didn’t want to repeat America’s 12-year-old mistake. Yes, they said, let us have protection for digital locks, but only if you’re breaking them in order to commit an act of actual copyright infringement. Protecting the locks themselves is bad policy.

I was one of those Canadians. As a Canadian author (my latest novel, For the Win, is presently on the Canadian bestseller lists), I believe that I should have the major say in the destiny of my copyrighted works.

If I want to authorise a reader to break a digital lock to move her copies of my books from a Kindle to a competing ebook reader, that should be my call. Certainly, the mere act of putting my works into a digital locker shouldn’t give a company the right to usurp my copyright: copyright protects authorship, not assembling electronics in Pacific Rim sweatshops.

Only 46 of the 8,306 commenters thought otherwise. These 46 commenters advocated replicating America’s failed experiment in Canada; everyone else thought the idea was daft. You’d think that with numbers like 46:8260, the government would go with the majority, right? Wrong.

When minister of industry Tony Clement, and minister of heritage James Moore, published the text of their long-awaited copyright bill, Canadians were floored to discover that the ministers had replicated the American approach to digital locks. Actually, they made it worse – the Americans conduct triennial hearings on proposed exemptions to the rule; Moore and Clement didn’t bother with even this tiny safeguard.

The ministers have been incapable of explaining the discrepancy. When confronted on it, they inevitably point to the fact that their bill also establishes numerous “user rights” for everyday Canadians (for example, the right to record a TV show in order to watch it later), and suggest that this is the “balance” that Canadians asked for. When critics say, “Yes, you’ve created some user rights, but if a digital lock prevents their exercise, it’s against the law to break the lock, right?” the ministers squirm and change the subject.

It’s enough to leave you wondering whether the ministers understand their own bill. Indeed, Clement recently appeared on the public broadcaster TVOntario show Search Engine and promised that his law allows journalists to break a digital lock for the purposes of investigative reporting (according to lawyers, scholars and everyone else who’s read the bill, he’s wrong).

If they don’t understand their bill, perhaps it’s because they weren’t really in charge of what went into it. According to the former head of staff for minister of foreign affairs Maxime Bernier: “The prime minister’s office’s position was, move quickly, satisfy the US; we don’t care what you do, as long as the US is satisfied.”

It’s clear the US government has made a top priority out of ensuring other countries cut their throats just as stupidly as America did with the DMCA’s digital locks rules. Last week, the Obama administration’s newly minted IP enforcement czar, Victoria Espinel, reiterated America’s priority to use its trade muscle to force countries into adopting US-style copyright rules.

American industry is pleased by this. A shadowy new Canadian “citizens’ group”, Balanced Copyright For Canada, looks to be the work of the big-four labels, with a membership composed of employees and executives of the labels’ Canadian subsidiaries (the membership lists were taken offline hastily after this was publicised).

Moore seems to be cracking under the strain of supporting the unsupportable. He has publicly denounced opponents of his bill as “radical extremists” (these “extremists” include the Canadian Bookseller Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Library Association, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and MPs from all the other parties). He then denied having made the remarks, blocked voters from following him on Twitter when they asked him about it, and has remained silent on the subject since videos of him making the remarks surfaced.

So, Britain, rejoice. It’s not just our government that can be bullied into voting against the public interest by big content’s power-brokers – Canada’s just as weak and pitiful.

The July 1st Vs July 4th sing-a-long

In Canada, Coppers, Government, Have to Laugh, Hockey, Law & Order, South of the boarder on July 12, 2010 at 19:39

Just a tad..

I’m going to file this one under “Wild and Wacky Americans”  To the author Andrew Malcolm, I usually take little samples of newspaper articles, but I just had to rip the full text.  It was to good to leave behind.  If you need me to tailor it down just leave me a post.  And now I bring you the Anthem Wars!

OCC

The whole article is here but you can read more of Andrew Malcolm’s work at the Los Angeles Times here

Americans and Canadians go to war over anthems

Now that both the United States and Canada have celebrated their respective national summer holidays, there comes news out of Florida of a simmering dispute over their respective national anthems. With the result that both got banned.

Canada celebrated the oddly named Canada Day on July 1 with much playing of “O Canada,” the national anthem that became official in 1980. This being Canada, it has two versions, one in French and one in English. The versions actually have different lyrics, but that’s another story.

Each summer, July 1 is about the time many eager Canadian families up in North America’s attic begin laying out the planks for their backyard ice rinks.

The peaceful Canadian holiday that roughly coincides with the start of that country’s pro football season marks the hasty 1867 formation of a separate Canada by a Britain that lost its Civil War bet on the Confederacy. Then, it watched the United States buy Alaska from Russia and figured the disgruntled Yanks might try a grab for the British colony in between.

Canada Day comes just three days before the July 4 holiday that marks another one of those rowdy American moments that mixes alcohol and explosives, celebrating the Declaration of Independence and the violent ensuing and elongated break with Britain and its goofy fat king.

OK, back to Florida, which neighboring (or neighbouring) Canadians believe they have a birthright to visit anytime. Especially in winter. You can easily spot Canadians because they’re always putting “eh?” at the end of declaratory sentences to make a question seeking friendly affirmation from listeners. And Canadians are the folks making awful faces when they sip the lame stuff Americans call beer.

Americans are generally gentle with the visitors, even letting them watch the hockey playoffs on the bar TVs. And no one is yet demanding that the Obama administration get off the golf course and get busy building a fence along the world’s longest undefended border between the two countries.

In Florida’s Sarasota County, our news colleagues at Sun-Sentinel.com report that there’s an array of trailers named La Casa Mobile Home Park. Almost 10% of the people occupying the 900 trailers are Canadian, eh?

When the community has events such as dances or other affairs with music, it has become customary to close the evening by playing the “Star-Spangled Banner” and sometimes, in deference to the Canadians, “O Canada.”

However, in the interests of equal-opportunity xenophobia, it seems a number of La Casa’s American residents have now complained to authorities about playing the Canadian song on U.S. soil.

As a result, the community’s activity board has just announced a new end-of-evening music policy: No more national anthems for any country.

Instead, as a crude compromise, the musicians have now been instructed to play “God Bless America.”

Now, some might say, “Huh?” eh?

The board’s thinking is that since both the United States and the much larger Canada are part of America, as in North America, no one will be offended. They hope.

Also, they hope, by evening’s end no one will be in shape to try singing the Irving Berlin lyrics because they’d have to alter the words a little:

“God bless America, Land(s) that I (we) love,

“Stand beside her (them) and guide her (them) Through the night with a light from above”

Of course, Mexico is also generally considered part of North America. But that’s another story.

This story started right here.  You can read Tom Lyons’ full article in the Herald Tribune here

What’s next:  No flags on the Fourth?

Clint Van Tassell made a surprising announcement at his mobile home neighborhood a few days ago.
Could his timing have been worse, asks irked fellow resident Jean Liebig?
Probably not. Could there be a worse time than before the Fourth of July weekend to announce a ban on the national anthem?
If you could ever find a good reason for a ban like that ever, I mean.
“It’s crazy,” Liebig told me.
When she read Van Tassell’s words in the mobile home park’s newsletter, they seemed more appropriate for April Fools Day.

The G20 numbers game

In Canada, From Coast to Coast to Coast, G8 & G20, Government, Law & Order, The World Comes To Toronto, Toronto on June 28, 2010 at 13:22

Just a tad…

So we may never know how much this whole thing cost Canadian Tax Payers and with over 900 people detained in one form or another and more to come; a 3 metre tall fencing, stretching around the downtown core being taken down; and store fronts being cleaned up, the fat lady hasn’t come out to sing this event to a close just yet.  The G20 communique covers the basics of what was agreed or not agreed on.  49 points with 3 different Annex points.  It’s a long read, but it may give you a glimpse of just where and why you spent $1.1 billion on this event.

OCC

You can read the full Reuters article here

Factbox: Winners and losers at the G20 summit
TORONTO
Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:26am EDT
(Reuters) – The Group of 20 ended a summit on Sunday saying its top priority was strengthening the shaky economic recovery and pledging to clean up debt-burdened public finances without stunting growth.

Factbox: Winners and losers at the G20 summitTORONTOMon Jun 28, 2010 8:26am EDT(Reuters) – The Group of 20 ended a summit on Sunday saying its top priority was strengthening the shaky economic recovery and pledging to clean up debt-burdened public finances without stunting growth.

CANADA – DRAW

Host country Canada, arguing that its banks survived the world financial crisis without government bailouts, was a vocal lobbyist against a global tax on banks to fund future rescue packages, and a big winner when the G20 simply mentioned the idea of a tax as one option countries could adopt. Canada also saw the G20 endorse its push for specific deficit and debt reduction targets.

But the summit played poorly at home, where images of protesters torching police cars often overshadowed the political and financial discussions in the meeting itself.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper also came under fire for a $1 billion security bill and for the costly “fake lake” inside the media center. Billed as a way for visiting reporters to experience the lakeside landscape where the G8 summit took place, it turned out to be a small, square pool of water.

UNITED STATES – LOSE

U.S. President Barack Obama arrived at the summit on what White House officials hoped would be a triumphant note after House and Senate negotiators reached a final compromise on a bill that would bring about the most sweeping overhaul of financial rules since the 1930s.

But he left having achieved little on the fiscal issues that dominated the summit.

The United States was forced to give ground on European demands for a new emphasis on budget austerity, which it had warned threatened to torpedo the fragile economic recovery.

Obama also told G20 leaders that existing proposals in the Doha world trade talks did not meet U.S. needs and would have to change significantly.

You can download the full PDF at the G20-Summit Website here

June 26 – 27, 2010
Preamble

1. In Toronto, we held our first Summit of the G-20 in its new capacity as the premier forum for our international economic cooperation.

2. Building on our achievements in addressing the global economic crisis, we have agreed on the next steps we should take to ensure a full return to growth with quality jobs, to reform and strengthen financial systems, and to create strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.

3. Our efforts to date have borne good results. Unprecedented and globally coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus is playing a major role in helping to restore private demand and lending. We are taking strong steps toward increasing the stability and strength of our financial systems. Significantly increased resources for international financial institutions are helping stabilise and address the impact of the crisis on the world’s most vulnerable. Ongoing governance and management reforms, which must be completed, will also enhance the effectiveness and relevance of these institutions. We have successfully maintained our strong commitment to resist protectionism.

4. But serious challenges remain. While growth is returning, the recovery is uneven and fragile, unemployment in many countries remains at unacceptable levels, and the social impact of the crisis is still widely felt. Strengthening the recovery is key. To sustain recovery, we need to follow through on delivering existing stimulus plans, while working to create the conditions for robust private demand. At the same time, recent events highlight the importance of sustainable public finances and the need for our countries to put in place credible, properly phased and growth-friendly plans to deliver fiscal sustainability, differentiated for and tailored to national circumstances. Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation. This should be combined with efforts to rebalance global demand to help ensure global growth continues on a sustainable path. Further progress is also required on financial repair and reform to increase the transparency and strengthen the balance sheets of our financial institutions, and support credit availability and rapid growth, including in the real economy. We took new steps to build a better regulated and more resilient financial system that serves the needs of our citizens. There is also a pressing need to complete the reforms of the international financial institutions.

5. Recognizing the importance of achieving strong job growth and providing social protection to our citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, we welcome the recommendations of our Labour and Employment Ministers, who met in April 2010, and the training strategy prepared by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in collaboration with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

6. We are determined to be accountable for the commitments we have made, and have instructed our Ministers and officials to take all necessary steps to implement them fully within agreed timelines.

The Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth

7. The G-20’s highest priority is to safeguard and strengthen the recovery and lay the foundation for strong, sustainable and balanced growth, and strengthen our financial systems against risks. We therefore welcome the actions taken and commitments made by a number of G-20 countries to boost demand and rebalance growth, strengthen our public finances, and make our financial systems stronger and more transparent. These measures represent substantial contributions to our collective well-being and build on previous actions. We will continue to co-operate and undertake appropriate actions to bolster economic growth and foster a strong and lasting recovery.

8. The Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth that we launched in Pittsburgh is the means to achieving our shared objectives, by assessing the collective consistency of policy actions and strengthening policy frameworks.

9. We have completed the first stage of our Mutual Assessment Process and we concluded that we can do much better. The IMF and World Bank estimate that if we choose a more ambitious path of reforms, over the medium term:

  • global output would be higher by almost $4 trillion;
  • tens of millions more jobs would be created;
  • even more people would be lifted out of poverty; and
  • global imbalances would be significantly reduced.

Increasing global growth on a sustainable basis is the most important step we can take in improving the lives of all of our citizens, including those in the poorest countries.

10. We are committed to taking concerted actions to sustain the recovery, create jobs and to achieve stronger, more sustainable and more balanced growth. These will be differentiated and tailored to national circumstances. We agreed today on:

  • Following through on fiscal stimulus and communicating “growth friendly” fiscal consolidation plans in advanced countries that will be implemented going forward. Sound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery, provide flexibility to respond to new shocks, ensure the capacity to meet the challenges of aging populations, and avoid leaving future generations with a legacy of deficits and debt. The path of adjustment must be carefully calibrated to sustain the recovery in private demand. There is a risk that synchronized fiscal adjustment across several major economies could adversely impact the recovery. There is also a risk that the failure to implement consolidation where necessary would undermine confidence and hamper growth. Reflecting this balance, advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilize or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016. Recognizing the circumstances of Japan, we welcome the Japanese government’s fiscal consolidation plan announced recently with their growth strategy. Those with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation. Fiscal consolidation plans will be credible, clearly communicated, differentiated to national circumstances, and focused on measures to foster economic growth.
  • Strengthening social safety nets, enhancing corporate governance reform, financial market development, infrastructure spending, and greater exchange rate flexibility in some emerging markets;
  • Pursuing structural reforms across the entire G-20 membership to increase and sustain our growth prospects; and
  • Making more progress on rebalancing global demand.

Monetary policy will continue to be appropriate to achieve price stability and thereby contribute to the recovery.

11. Advanced deficit countries should take actions to boost national savings while maintaining open markets and enhancing export competitiveness.

12. Surplus economies will undertake reforms to reduce their reliance on external demand and focus more on domestic sources of growth.

13. We are committed to narrowing the development gap and that we must consider the impact of our policy actions on low-income countries. We will continue to support development financing, including through new approaches that encourage development financing from both public and private sources.

14. We recognize that these measures will need to be implemented at the national level and will need to be tailored to individual country circumstances. To facilitate this process, we have agreed that the second stage of our country-led and consultative mutual assessment will be conducted at the country and European level and that we will each identify additional measures, as necessary, that we will take toward achieving strong, sustainable, and balanced growth.

Financial Sector Reform

15. We are building a more resilient financial system that serves the needs of our economies, reduces moral hazard, limits the build up of systemic risk, and supports strong and stable economic growth. We have strengthened the global financial system by fortifying prudential oversight, improving risk management, promoting transparency, and reinforcing international cooperation. A great deal has been accomplished. We welcome the full implementation of the European Stabilization Mechanism and Facility, the EU decision to publicly release the results of ongoing tests on European banks, and the recent US financial reform bill.

16. But more work is required. Accordingly, we pledge to act together to achieve the commitments to reform the financial sector made at the Washington, London and Pittsburgh Summits by the agreed or accelerated timeframes. The transition to new standards will take into account the cumulative macroeconomic impact of the reforms in advanced and emerging economies. We are committed to international assessment and peer review to ensure that all our decisions are fully implemented.

17. Our reform agenda rests on four pillars.

18. The first pillar is a strong regulatory framework. We took stock of the progress of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) towards a new global regime for bank capital and liquidity and we welcome and support its work. Substantial progress has been made on reforms that will materially raise levels of resilience of our banking systems. The amount of capital will be significantly higher and the quality of capital will be significantly improved when the new reforms are fully implemented. This will enable banks to withstand – without extraordinary government support – stresses of a magnitude associated with the recent financial crisis. We support reaching agreement at the time of the Seoul Summit on the new capital framework. We agreed that all members will adopt the new standards and these will be phased in over a timeframe that is consistent with sustained recovery and limits market disruption, with the aim of implementation by end-2012, and a transition horizon informed by the macroeconomic impact assessment of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and BCBS. Phase-in arrangements will reflect different national starting points and circumstances, with initial variance around the new standards narrowing over time as countries converge to the new global standard.

19. We agreed to strengthen financial market infrastructure by accelerating the implementation of strong measures to improve transparency and regulatory oversight of hedge funds, credit rating agencies and over-the-counter derivatives in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way. We re-emphasized the importance of achieving a single set of high quality improved global accounting standards and the implementation of the FSB’s standards for sound compensation.

20. The second pillar is effective supervision. We agreed that new, stronger rules must be complemented with more effective oversight and supervision. We tasked the FSB, in consultation with the IMF, to report to our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in October 2010 on recommendations to strengthen oversight and supervision, specifically relating to the mandate, capacity and resourcing of supervisors and specific powers which should be adopted to proactively identify and address risks, including early intervention.

21. The third pillar is resolution and addressing systemic institutions. We are committed to design and implement a system where we have the powers and tools to restructure or resolve all types of financial institutions in crisis, without taxpayers ultimately bearing the burden, and adopted principles that will guide implementation. We called upon the FSB to consider and develop concrete policy recommendations to effectively address problems associated with, and resolve, systemically important financial institutions by the Seoul Summit. To reduce moral hazard risks, there is a need to have a policy framework including effective resolution tools, strengthened prudential and supervisory requirements, and core financial market infrastructures. We agreed the financial sector should make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions, where they occur, to repair the financial system or fund resolution, and reduce risks from the financial system. We recognized that there are a range of policy approaches to this end. Some countries are pursuing a financial levy. Other countries are pursuing different approaches.

22. The fourth pillar is transparent international assessment and peer review. We have strengthened our commitment to the IMF/World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) and pledge to support robust and transparent peer review through the FSB. We are addressing non-cooperative jurisdictions based on comprehensive, consistent, and transparent assessment with respect to tax havens, the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and the adherence to prudential standards.

International Financial Institutions and Development

23. The International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have been a central part of the global response to the financial and economic crisis, mobilizing critical financing, including $750 billion by the IMF and $235 billion by the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). This has underscored the value of these institutions as platforms for our global cooperation.

24. We commit to strengthening the legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of the IFIs to make them even stronger partners for us in the future.

25. Towards this end, we have fulfilled our Pittsburgh Summit commitment on the MDBs. This includes $350 billion in capital increases for the MDBs, allowing them to nearly double their lending. This new capital is joined to ongoing and important reforms to make these institutions more transparent, accountable and effective, and to strengthen their focus on lifting the lives of the poor, underwriting growth, and addressing climate change and food security.

26. We will fulfill our commitment to ensure an ambitious replenishment for the concessional lending facilities of the MDBs, especially the International Development Association and the African Development Fund.

27. We have endorsed the important voice reforms agreed by shareholders at the World Bank, which will increase the voting power of developing and transition countries by 4.59% since 2008.

28. We underscore our resolve to ensure ratification of the 2008 IMF Quota and Voice Reforms and expansion of the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB).

29. We called for an acceleration of the substantial work still needed for the IMF to complete the quota reform by the Seoul Summit and in parallel deliver on other governance reforms, in line with commitments made in Pittsburgh.

30. Today we build on our earlier commitment to open, transparent and merit-based selection processes for the heads and senior leadership of all the IFIs. We will strengthen the selection processes in the lead up to the Seoul Summit in the context of broader reform.

31. We agreed to task our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to prepare policy options to strengthen global financial safety nets for our consideration at the Seoul Summit. Our goal is to build a more stable and resilient international monetary system.

32. We stand united with the people of Haiti and are providing much-needed reconstruction assistance, including the full cancellation of all of Haiti’s IFI debt. We welcome the launching of the Haiti Reconstruction Fund.

33. We have launched the SME Finance Challenge and commit to mobilizing funding for implementation of winning proposals, including through the strong support of the MDBs. We have developed a set of principles for innovative financial inclusion.

34. We welcome the launch of the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program in fulfillment of our Pittsburgh commitment on food security, an important step to further implement the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security, and invite further contributions. Looking ahead, we commit to exploring innovative, results-based mechanisms to harness the private sector for agricultural innovation. We call for the full implementation of the L’Aquila Initiative and the application of its principles.

Fighting Protectionism and Promoting Trade and Investment

35. While the global economic crisis led to the sharpest decline of trade in more than seventy years, G-20 countries chose to keep markets open to the opportunities that trade and investment offer. It was the right choice.

36. As such, we renew for a further three years, until the end of 2013, our commitment to refrain from raising barriers or imposing new barriers to investment or trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO)-inconsistent measures to stimulate exports, and commit to rectify such measures as they arise. We will minimize any negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions, including fiscal policy and action to support the financial sector. We ask the WTO, OECD and UNCTAD to continue to monitor the situation within their respective mandates, reporting publicly on these commitments on a quarterly basis.

37. Open markets play a pivotal role in supporting growth and job creation, and in achieving our goals under the G-20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth. We ask the OECD, the ILO, World Bank, and the WTO to report on the benefits of trade liberalization for employment and growth at the Seoul Summit.

38. We therefore reiterate our support for bringing the WTO Doha Development Round to a balanced and ambitious conclusion as soon as possible, consistent with its mandate and based on the progress already made. We direct our representatives, using all negotiating avenues, to pursue this objective, and to report on progress at our next meeting in Seoul, where we will discuss the status of the negotiations and the way forward.

39. We commit to maintain momentum for Aid for Trade. We also ask international agencies, including the World Bank and other Multilateral Development Banks to step up their capacity and support trade facilitation which will boost world trade.

Other Issues and Forward Agenda

40. We agree that corruption threatens the integrity of markets, undermines fair competition, distorts resource allocation, destroys public trust and undermines the rule of law. We call for the ratification and full implementation by all G-20 members of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and encourage others to do the same. We will fully implement the reviews in accordance with the provisions of UNCAC. Building on the progress made since Pittsburgh to address corruption, we agree to establish a Working Group to make comprehensive recommendations for consideration by Leaders in Korea on how the G-20 could continue to make practical and valuable contributions to international efforts to combat corruption and lead by example, in key areas that include, but are not limited to, adopting and enforcing strong and effective anti-bribery rules, fighting corruption in the public and private sectors, preventing access of corrupt persons to global financial systems, cooperation in visa denial, extradition and asset recovery, and protecting whistleblowers who stand-up against corruption.

41. We reiterate our commitment to a green recovery and to sustainable global growth. Those of us who have associated with the Copenhagen Accord reaffirm our support for it and its implementation and call on others to associate with it. We are committed to engage in negotiations under the UNFCCC on the basis of its objective provisions and principles including common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and are determined to ensure a successful outcome through an inclusive process at the Cancun Conferences. We thank Mexico for undertaking to host the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 16) in Cancun from November 29 to December 20, 2010 and express our appreciation for its efforts to facilitate negotiations. We look forward to the outcome of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing which is, inter alia, exploring innovative finance.

42. We note with appreciation the report on energy subsidies from the International Energy Agency (IEA), Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), OECD and World Bank. We welcome the work of Finance and Energy Ministers in delivering implementation strategies and timeframes, based on national circumstances, for the rationalization and phase out over the medium term of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, taking into account vulnerable groups and their development needs. We also encourage continued and full implementation of country-specific strategies and will continue to review progress towards this commitment at upcoming summits.

43. Following the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico we recognize the need to share best practices to protect the marine environment, prevent accidents related to offshore exploration and development, as well as transportation, and deal with their consequences.

44. We recognize that 2010 marks an important year for development issues. The September 2010 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) High Level Plenary will be a crucial opportunity to reaffirm the global development agenda and global partnership, to agree on actions for all to achieve the MDGs by 2015, and to reaffirm our respective commitments to assist the poorest countries.

45. In this regard it is important to work with Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to make them active participants in and beneficiaries of the global economic system. Accordingly we thank Turkey for its decision to host the 4th United Nations Conference on the LDCs in June 2011.

46. We welcome the Global Pulse Initiative interim report and look forward to an update.

47. Narrowing the development gap and reducing poverty are integral to our broader objective of achieving strong, sustainable and balanced growth and ensuring a more robust and resilient global economy for all. In this regard, we agree to establish a Working Group on Development and mandate it to elaborate, consistent with the G-20’s focus on measures to promote economic growth and resilience, a development agenda and multi-year action plans to be adopted at the Seoul Summit.

48. We will meet next in Seoul, Korea, on November 11-12, 2010. We will convene in November 2011 under the Chairmanship of France and in 2012 under the Chairmanship of Mexico.

49. We thank Canada for hosting the successful Toronto Summit.

ANNEX I

The Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth

1. As a result of the extraordinary and highly coordinated policy actions agreed to at the Washington, London and Pittsburgh G-20 Summits, the global economy is recovering faster than was expected. Our decisive and unprecedented actions over the past two years have limited the downturn and spurred recovery.

2. Yet risks remain. Unemployment remains unacceptably high in many G-20 economies. The recovery is uneven across G-20 members both across advanced economies and between advanced and emerging economies. This poses risks to the continued economic expansion. There is a risk that global current account imbalances will widen again, absent further policy action. While considerable progress has been made in moving ahead on our financial sector repair and reform agenda, financial markets remain fragile and credit flows restrained. Concerns over large fiscal deficits and rising debt levels in some countries have also become a source of uncertainty and financial market volatility.

3. The G-20’s highest priority is to safeguard and strengthen the recovery and lay the foundation for strong, sustainable and balanced growth, including strengthening our financial systems against risks. We therefore welcome the actions taken and commitments made by a number of G-20 countries. Among more recent measures, we particularly welcome the full implementation of the European Financial Stability Mechanism and Facility; the EU decision to publicly release the results of ongoing tests on European banks; and the recent announcements of fiscal consolidation plans and targets by a number of G-20 countries. These represent substantial contributions to our collective well-being and build on our previous actions. We will continue to cooperate and undertake appropriate actions to bolster economic growth and foster a strong and lasting recovery.

4. The Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth we launched in Pittsburgh is the means to achieving our shared objectives. G-20 members have a responsibility to the community of nations to assure the overall health of the global economy. We committed to assess the collective consistency of our policy actions and to strengthen our policy frameworks in order to meet our common objectives. Through our collective policy action, we will ensure growth is sustained, more balanced, shared across all countries and regions of the world, and consistent with our development goals.

5. We have completed the first stage of our Mutual Assessment Process. As we requested in Pittsburgh, G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, with the support of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, ILO and other international organisations, have assessed the collective consistency of our individual policy frameworks and global prospects under alternative policy scenarios.

6. The assessment is that in the absence of a coordinated policy response: global output is likely to remain below its pre-crisis trend; unemployment remains above pre-crisis levels in most countries; fiscal deficits and debt in some advanced economies reach unacceptably high levels; and, global current account imbalances, which narrowed during the crisis, widen again. Moreover, this outlook is subject to considerable downside risks.

7. We concluded that we can do much better. The IMF and World Bank estimate that if we choose a more ambitious path of reforms, over the medium term, we could:

  • raise global output by up to $4 trillion;
  • create an estimated 52 million jobs;
  • lift up to 90 million people out of poverty; and
  • significantly reduce global current account balances.

If we act in a coordinated manner, all regions are better off, now and in the future. Moreover, increasing global growth on a sustainable basis is the most important step we can take in improving the lives of all, including those in the poorest countries.

8. We are committed to taking concerted actions to sustain the recovery, create jobs and to achieve stronger, more sustainable and more balanced growth. These will be differentiated and tailored to national circumstances. We agreed today on:

  • Following through on fiscal stimulus and communicating “growth-friendly” fiscal consolidation plans in advanced countries and that will be implemented going forward;
  • strengthening social safety nets, enhancing corporate governance reform, financial market development, infrastructure spending, and increasing exchange rate flexibility in some emerging markets;
  • pursuing structural reforms across the entire G-20 membership to increase and sustain our growth prospects; and
  • Making further progress on rebalancing global demand.

Monetary policy will continue to be appropriate to achieve price stability and thereby contribute to the recovery.

9. We agreed to follow through on fiscal stimulus and communicating “growth friendly” fiscal consolidation plans in advanced countries that will be implemented going forward. Sound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery, provide flexibility to respond to new shocks, ensure the capacity to meet the challenges of aging populations, and avoid leaving future generations with a legacy of deficits and debt. The path of adjustment must be carefully calibrated to sustain the recovery in private demand. There is a risk that synchronized fiscal adjustment across several major economies could adversely impact the recovery. There is also a risk that the failure to implement consolidation where necessary would undermine confidence and hamper growth. Reflecting this balance, advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilize or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016. Recognizing the circumstances of Japan, we welcome the Japanese government’s fiscal consolidation plan announced recently with their growth strategy. Those with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation. Fiscal consolidation plans will be credible, clearly communicated, differentiated to national circumstances, and focused on measures to foster economic growth.

10. We have agreed on a set of principles to guide these fiscal consolidation plans by advanced economies:

  • Fiscal consolidation plans will be credible. They will be based on prudent assumptions with respect to economic growth and our respective fiscal positions, and they will identify specific measures to achieve a target path that ensures fiscal sustainability. Strengthened budgetary frameworks and institutions can help underpin the credibility of consolidation strategies.
  • The time to communicate our medium-term fiscal plans is now. We will elaborate clear and credible plans that put our fiscal finances on a sustainable footing. The speed and timing of withdrawing fiscal stimulus and reducing deficits and debt will be differentiated for and tailored to national circumstances, and the needs of the global economy. However, it is clear that consolidation will need to begin in advanced economies in 2011, and earlier for countries experiencing significant fiscal challenges at present.
  • Fiscal consolidation will focus on measures that will foster economic growth. We will look at ways to use our fiscal resources more efficiently, to help reduce the overall cost of our interventions while targeting resources to where they are most needed. In addition, we will focus on structural reforms that will promote long-term growth.

11. Advanced deficit countries should take actions to boost national savings while maintaining open markets and enhancing export competitiveness.

12. Surplus economies will undertake reforms to reduce their reliance on the external demand and focus more on domestic sources of growth. This will help strengthen their resilience to external shocks and promote more stable growth. To do this, advanced surplus economies will focus on structural reforms that support increased domestic demand. Emerging surplus economies will undertake reforms tailored to country circumstances to:

  • Strengthen social safety nets (such as public health care and pension plans), corporate governance and financial market development to help reduce precautionary savings and stimulate private spending;
  • Increase infrastructure spending to help boost productive capacity and reduce supply bottlenecks; and
  • Enhance exchange rate flexibility to reflect underlying economic fundamentals. Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates can have adverse implications for economic and financial stability. Market-oriented exchange rates that reflect underlying economic fundamentals contribute to global economic stability.

13. Across all G-20 members, we recognise that structural reforms can have a substantial impact on economic growth and global welfare. We will implement measures that will enhance the growth potential of our economies in a manner that pays particular attention to the most vulnerable. Reforms could support the broadly-shared expansion of demand if wages grow in line with productivity. It will be important to strike the right balance between policies that support greater market competition and economic growth and policies that preserve social safety nets consistent with national circumstances. Together these measures will also help unlock demand. These include:

  • Product, service and labour market reforms in advanced economies, particularly those economies that may have lost some productive capacity during the crisis. Labour market reforms might include: better targeted unemployment benefits and more effective active labour market policies (such as job retraining, job search and skills development programs, and raising labour mobility). It might also include putting in place the right conditions for wage bargaining systems to support employment. Product and service market reforms might include strengthening competition in the service sector; reducing barriers to competition in network industries, professional services and retail sectors, encouraging innovation and further reducing the barriers to foreign competition.
  • Reducing restrictions on labour mobility, enhancing foreign investment opportunities and simplifying product market regulation in emerging market economies.
  • Avoiding new protectionist measures.
  • Completing the Doha Round to accelerate global growth through trade flows. Open trade will yield significant benefits for all and can facilitate global rebalancing.
  • Actions to accelerate financial repair and reform. Weaknesses in financial sector regulation and supervision in advanced economies led to the recent crisis. We will implement the G-20 financial reform agenda and ensure a stronger financial system serves the needs of the real economy. While not at the centre of the crisis, financial sectors in some emerging economies need to be developed further so that they can provide the depth and breadth of services required to promote and sustain high rates of economic growth and development. It is important that financial reforms in advanced economies take into account any adverse effects on financial flows to emerging and developing economies. Vigilance is also needed to ensure open capital markets and avoid financial protectionism.

14. We welcome the recommendations of our Labour and Employment Ministers, who met in April 2010, on the employment impacts of the global economic crisis. We reaffirm our commitment to achieving strong job growth and providing social protection to our most vulnerable citizens. An effective employment policy should place quality jobs at the heart of the recovery. We appreciate the work done by the International Labour Organization in collaboration with the OECD on a training strategy that will help equip the workforce with the skills required for the jobs of today and those of tomorrow.

15. We are committed to narrowing the development gap and that we must consider the impact of our policy actions on low-income countries. We will continue support development financing, including through new approaches that encourage development financing from both public and private sources. The crisis will have long lasting impact on the development trajectories of poor countries in every region of the world. Among these effects, developing countries are likely to face increased challenges in securing financing from both public and private sources. Many of us have already taken steps to help address this shortfall by implementing innovative approaches to financing, such as advance market commitments, the SME challenge and recent progress with respect to financial inclusion. Low-income countries have the potential to contribute to stronger and more balanced global growth, and should be viewed as markets for investment.

16. These measures need to be implemented at the national level and tailored to individual country circumstances. We welcome additional measures announced by some G-20 members aimed at meeting our shared objectives.

17. To facilitate this process, the second stage of our country-led, consultative mutual assessment will be conducted at the country and European level. Each G-20 member will identify the measures it is taking to implement the policies we have agreed upon today to ensure stronger, more sustainable and balanced growth. We ask our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to elaborate on these measures and report on them when we next meet. We will continue to draw on the expertise of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, ILO and other international organisations, as necessary. These measures will form the basis of our comprehensive action plan that will be announced in the Seoul Summit. As we pursue strong, sustainable and more balanced growth, we continue to encourage work on measurement methods to take into account social and environmental dimensions of economic development.

18. The policy commitments we are making today, along with the significant policy measures we have already taken, will allow us to reach our objective of strong, sustainable and balanced growth, the benefits of which will be felt both within the G-20 and across the globe.

ANNEX II

Financial Sector Reform

1. The financial crisis has imposed huge costs. This must not be allowed to happen again. The recent financial volatility has strengthened our resolve to work together to complete financial repair and reform. We need to build a more resilient financial system that serves the needs of our economies, reduces moral hazard, limits the build-up of systemic risk and supports strong and stable economic growth.

2. Collectively we have made considerable progress toward strengthening the global financial system by fortifying prudential oversight, improving risk management, promoting transparency and continuously reinforcing international cooperation. We welcome the strong financial regulatory reform bill in the United States.

3. But there is more to be done. Further repair to the financial sector is critical to achieving sustainable global economic recovery. More work is required to restore the soundness and enhance the transparency of banks’ balance sheets and markets; and improve the corporate governance and risk management of financial firms in order to strengthen the global financial system and restore the credit needed to fuel sustainable economic growth. We welcome the decision of EU leaders to publish the results of ongoing tests on European banks to reassure markets of the resilience and transparency of the European banking system.

4. We pledge to act together to achieve the commitments to reform the financial sector made at the Washington, London and Pittsburgh Summits by the agreed or accelerated timeframes. Transition horizons will take into account the cumulative macroeconomic impact of the reforms in advanced and emerging economies

Capital and Liquidity

5. We agreed that the core of the financial sector reform agenda rests on improving the strength of capital and liquidity and discouraging excessive leverage. We agreed to increase the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital, to strengthen liquidity standards, to discourage excessive leverage and risk taking, and reduce procyclicality.

6. We took stock of the progress of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) towards a new global regime for bank capital and liquidity and we welcome and support its work. Substantial progress has been made on reforms that will materially raise levels of resilience of our banking systems.

  • The amount of capital will be significantly higher when the new reforms are fully implemented.
  • The quality of capital will be significantly improved to reinforce banks’ ability to absorb losses.

7. We support reaching agreement, at the time of the Seoul Summit, on a new capital framework that would raise capital requirements by:

  • establishing a new requirement that each bank hold in Tier 1 capital, at a minimum, an increasing share of common equity, after deductions, measured as a percentage of risk-weighted assets, that enables them to withstand with going concern fully-loss-absorbing capital – without extraordinary government support – stresses of a magnitude associated with the recent financial crisis.
  • moving to a globally consistent and transparent set of conservative deductions generally applied at the level of common equity, or its equivalent in the case of non-joint stock companies, over a suitable globally-consistent transition period.

8. Based on our agreement at the Pittsburgh Summit that Basel II will be adopted in all major centers by 2011, we agreed that all members will adopt the new standards and these will be phased in over a timeframe that is consistent with sustained recovery and limits market disruption, with the aim of implementation by end-2012, and a transition horizon informed by the macroeconomic impact assessment of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and BCBS.

9. Phase-in arrangements will reflect different national starting points and circumstances, with initial variance around the new standards narrowing over time as countries converge to the new global standard. Existing public sector capital injections will be grandfathered for the extent of the transition.

10. We reiterated support for the introduction of a leverage ratio as a supplementary measure to the Basel II risk-based framework with a view to migrating to Pillar I treatment after an appropriate transition period based on appropriate review and calibration. To ensure comparability, the details of the leverage ratio will be harmonized internationally, fully adjusting for differences in accounting.

11. We acknowledged the importance of the quantitative impact study currently being conducted by the BCBS that measures the potential impact of the new Basel standards and will ensure that the new capital and liquidity standards are of high quality and adequately calibrated. The BCBS- FSB macroeconomic impact study will inform the development of the phase-in period of the new standards.

12. We welcomed the BCBS agreement on a coordinated start date not later than 31 December 2011 for all elements of the revised trading book rules.

13. We support the BCBS’ work to consider the role of contingent capital in strengthening market discipline and helping to bring about a financial system where the private sector fully bears the losses on their investments. Consideration of contingent capital should be included as part of the 2010 reform package.

14. We called upon the FSB and the BCBS to report on progress of the full package of reform measures by the Seoul Summit. We recognize the critical role of the financial sector in driving a robust economy. We are committed to design a financial system which is resilient, stable and ensures the continued availability of credit.

More Intensive Supervision

15. We agreed that new, stronger rules must be complemented with more effective oversight and supervision. We are committed to the Basel Committee’s Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision and tasked the FSB, in consultation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to report to our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in October 2010 on recommendations to strengthen oversight and supervision, specifically relating to the mandate, capacity and resourcing of supervisors and specific powers which should be adopted to proactively identify and address risks, including early intervention.

Resolution of Financial Institutions

16. We are following through on our commitment to reduce moral hazard in the financial system. We are committed to design and implement a system where we have the powers and tools to restructure or resolve all types of financial institutions in crisis, without taxpayers ultimately bearing the burden. These powers should facilitate “going concern” capital and liquidity restructuring as well as “gone concern” restructuring and wind-down measures. We endorsed and have committed to implement our domestic resolution powers and tools in a manner that preserves financial stability and are committed to implement the ten key recommendations on cross-border bank resolution issued by the BCBS in March 2010. In this regard, we support changes to national resolution and insolvency processes and laws where needed to provide the relevant national authorities with the capacity to cooperate and coordinate resolution actions across borders.

17. We agree that resolution regimes should provide for:

  • Proper allocation of losses to reduce moral hazard and protect taxpayers;
  • Continuity of critical financial services, including uninterrupted service for insured depositors;
  • Credibility of the resolution regime in the market;
  • Minimization of contagion;
  • Advanced planning for orderly resolution and transfer of contractual relationships; and,
  • Effective cooperation and information exchange domestically and among jurisdictions in the event of a failure of a cross-border institution.

Addressing Systemically Important Financial Institutions

18. We welcomed the FSB’s interim report on reducing the moral hazard risks posed by systemically important financial institutions. We recognized that more must be done to address these risks. Prudential requirements for such firms should be commensurate with the cost of their failure. We called upon the FSB to consider and develop concrete policy recommendations to effectively address problems associated with and resolve systemically important financial institutions by the Seoul Summit. This should include more intensive supervision along with consideration of financial instruments and mechanisms to encourage market discipline, including contingent capital, bail-in options, surcharges, levies, structural constraints, and methods to haircut unsecured creditors.

19. We welcomed the substantial progress that has been made regarding the development of supervisory colleges and crisis management groups for the major complex financial institutions identified by the FSB.

20. We continue to work together to develop robust agreed-upon institution-specific recovery and rapid resolution plans for major cross-border institutions by the end of 2010. We further committed to continue working on ensuring cooperation among jurisdictions in financial institution resolution proceedings.

Financial Sector Responsibility

21. We agreed the financial sector should make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions, where they occur, to repair the financial system or fund resolution.

22. To that end, we recognized that there is a range of policy approaches. Some countries are pursuing a financial levy. Other countries are pursuing different approaches. We agreed the range of approaches would follow these principles:

  • Protect taxpayers;
  • Reduce risks from the financial system;
  • Protect the flow of credit in good times and bad times;
  • Take into account individual countries’ circumstances and options; and,
  • Help promote a level playing field.

23. We thanked the IMF for its work in this area.

Financial Market Infrastructure and Scope of Regulation

24. We agreed on the need to strengthen financial market infrastructure in order to reduce systemic risk, improve market efficiency, transparency and integrity. Global action is important to minimize regulatory arbitrage, promote a level playing field, and foster the widespread application of the principles of propriety, integrity, and transparency.

25. We pledged to work in a coordinated manner to accelerate the implementation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives regulation and supervision and to increase transparency and standardization. We reaffirm our commitment to trade all standardized OTC derivatives contracts on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, and clear through central counterparties (CCPs) by end-2012 at the latest. OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories (TRs). We will work towards the establishment of CCPs and TRs in line with global standards and ensure that national regulators and supervisors have access to all relevant information. In addition we agreed to pursue policy measures with respect to haircut-setting and margining practices for securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions that will reduce procyclicality and enhance financial market resilience. We recognized that much work has been done in this area. We will continue to support further progress in implementing these measures.

26. We committed to accelerate the implementation of strong measures to improve transparency and regulatory oversight of hedge funds, credit rating agencies and over-the-counter derivatives in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way. We also committed to improve the functioning and transparency of commodities markets. We call on credit rating agencies to increase transparency and improve quality and avoid conflicts of interest, and on national supervisors to continue to focus on these issues in conducting their oversight.

27. We committed to reduce reliance on external ratings in rules and regulations. We acknowledged the work underway at the BCBS to address adverse incentives arising from the use of external ratings in the regulatory capital framework, and at the FSB to develop general principles to reduce authorities’ and financial institutions’ reliance on external ratings. We called on them to report to our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in October 2010.

28. We acknowledged the significant work of the International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO) to facilitate the exchange of information amongst regulators and supervisors, as well as IOSCO’s principles regarding the oversight of hedge funds aimed at addressing related regulatory and systemic risks.

29. We called on the FSB to review national and regional implementation of prior G-20 commitments in these areas and promote global policy cohesion and to assess and report to our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in October 2010 if further work is required.

Accounting Standards

30. We re-emphasized the importance we place on achieving a single set of high quality improved global accounting standards. We urged the International Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Accounting Standards Board to increase their efforts to complete their convergence project by the end of 2011.

31. We encouraged the International Accounting Standards Board to further improve the involvement of stakeholders, including outreach to emerging market economies, within the framework of the independent accounting standard setting process.

Assessment and Peer Review

32. We pledged to support robust and transparent independent international assessment and peer review of our financial systems through the IMF and World Bank’s Financial Sector Assessment Program and the FSB peer review process. The mutual dependence and integrated nature of our financial system requires that we all live up to our commitments. Weak financial systems in some countries pose a threat to the stability of the international financial system. International assessment and peer review are fundamental in making the financial sector safer for all.

33. We reaffirmed the FSB’s principal role in the elaboration of international financial sector supervisory and regulatory policies and standards, co-ordination across various standard-setting bodies, and ensuring accountability for the reform agenda by conducting thematic and country peer reviews and fostering a level playing field through coherent implementation across sectors and jurisdictions. To that end, we encourage the FSB to look at ways to strengthen its capacity to keep pace with growing demands.

34. We called upon the FSB to expand upon and formalize its outreach activities beyond the membership of the G-20 to reflect the global nature of our financial system. We recognized the prominent role of the FSB, along with other important organizations including, the IMF and World Bank. These organizations, along with other international standard setters and supervisory authorities, play a central role to the health and well-being of our financial system.

35. We fully support the FSB’s thematic peer reviews as a means of fostering consistent cross-country implementation of financial and regulatory policies and to assess their effectiveness in achieving their intended results. We welcomed the FSB’s first thematic peer review report on compensation, which showed progress in the implementation of the FSB’s standards for sound compensation, but full implementation is far from complete. We encouraged all countries and financial institutions to fully implement the FSB principles and standards by year-end. We call on the FSB to undertake ongoing monitoring in this area and conduct a second thorough peer review in the second quarter of 2011. We also look forward to the results of the FSB’s thematic review of risk disclosures.

36. We acknowledged the significant progress in the FSB’s country review program. These reviews are an important complement to the IMF/World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program and provide a forum for peer learning and dialogue to address challenges. Three reviews will be completed this year.

Other International Standards and Non-cooperative Jurisdictions

37. We agreed to consider measures and mechanisms to address non-cooperative jurisdictions based on comprehensive, consistent and transparent assessment, and encourage adherence, including by providing technical support, with the support of the international financial institutions (IFIs).

38. We fully support the work of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, and welcomed progress on their peer review process, and the development of a multilateral mechanism for information exchange which will be open to all interested countries. Since our meeting in London in April 2009, the number of signed tax information agreements has increased by almost 500. We encourage the Global Forum to report to Leaders by November 2011 on progress countries have made in addressing the legal framework required to achieve an effective exchange of information. We also welcome progress on the Stolen Asset Recovery Program, and support its efforts to monitor progress to recover the proceeds of corruption. We stand ready to use countermeasures against tax havens.

39. We fully support the work of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and FATF-Style Regional Bodies in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and regular updates of a public list on jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies. We also encourage the FATF to continue monitoring and enhancing global compliance with the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing international standards.

40. We welcomed the implementation of the FSB’s evaluation process on the adherence to prudential information exchange and international cooperation standards in all jurisdictions.

ANNEX III

Enhancing the Legitimacy, Credibility and Effectiveness of the IFIs and

Further Supporting the Needs of the Most Vulnerable

1. The global economic and financial crisis has demonstrated the value of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) as instruments for coordinating multilateral action. These institutions were on the front-line in responding to the crisis, mobilizing $985 billion in critical financing. In addition, the international community and the IFIs mobilized over $250 billion in trade finance.

2. The crisis also demonstrated the importance of delivering further reforms. As key platforms for our cooperation, we are committed to strengthening the legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of the IFIs, to ensure that they are capable of helping us maintain global financial and economic stability and supporting the growth and development of all their members.

3. To enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of the IFIs, we committed in London and Pittsburgh to support new open, transparent and merit-based selection processes for the heads and senior leadership of all International Financial Institutions. We will strengthen these processes in the lead up to the Seoul Summit in the context of broader reform.

MDB Financing

4. Since the start of the global financial crisis, the MDBs have been playing an important role in the global response by exceeding our London commitment, in providing $235 billion in lending, more than half of which has come from the World Bank Group. At a time when private sector sources of finance were diminished, this lending was critical to global stabilization. Now more than ever, the MDBs are key development partners for many countries.

5. We have fulfilled our commitment to ensure that the MDBs have appropriate resources through capital increases for the major MDBs, including the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World Bank Group, notably the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). As major shareholders at these institutions, we have worked together with other members to increase their capital base by 85%, or approximately $350 billion. Overall, their total lending to developing countries will grow from $37 billion per year to $71 billion per year. This will improve their ability to address the increasing demand in the short and medium terms and to have enough resources to support their members. We support efforts to implement these agreements as quickly as possible.

MDB Capital Increase Pre-Crisis Annual Lendinga New Annual Lendingb
AfDB 200% increase $1.8 B $6 B
AsDB 200% increase $5.8 B $10 B
EBRDc 50% increase $5.3 B $11 B
IADBd 70% increase $6.7 B $12 B
IBRD 30% increase $12.1 B $15 B
IFC $200M selective capital increase $5.4 B $17 B
Total 85% increase in MDB capital $37 B $71 B

*All dollar figures USD
a 2000-2008. b 2012-2020. c mostly callable, of a temporary nature, for CRR4; dIncludes agreement to relieve Haiti’s debt to the IADB

6. We recognize the acute development needs in Africa, the region the furthest behind on the Millennium Development Goals. For this reason, the African Development Bank will be capitalized for substantial growth, with a 200% increase in its capital and corresponding tripling of its annual lending levels, to strengthen capacity to support the region’s long-term growth and development.

7. To ensure that the IFC has the resources necessary for its continued growth, we will consider a long-term hybrid instrument to shareholders and earnings retention, to complement the recent selective capital increase linked to voice reforms.

8. In order to support low income countries, given their need to borrow at more concessional terms, we will fulfill our commitment to ensure an ambitious replenishment for the concessional lending facilities of the MDBs, especially the International Development Association (IDA) and the African Development Fund, which are undergoing financial replenishments this year. We welcome the fact that many G-20 members have taken important steps to join as donors to these institutions. We reiterated our support for fairer and wider burden sharing.

MDB Reforms

9. We have also fulfilled our commitment to ensure that these capital increases are joined to ongoing and important institutional reforms to make the MDBs more effective, efficient and accountable. These include:

  • Commitments to further support the poorest countries in a financially prudent way, including by transferring resources, where feasible, from MDB net income to their respective lending facilities for low income countries and increasing their investment activities in low income countries and frontier regions. This will ensure that the new capital resources benefit both low income and middle income countries.
  • Specific actions for greater transparency, stronger accountability, improved institutional governance deeper country ownership, more decentralization and use of country systems where appropriate, and enhanced procurement guidelines, new ways of managing and tracking results and financial contributions, strengthen knowledge management, ensuring the right human resources with appropriate diversity, better implementing environmental and social safeguards, sound risk management, and ensuring financial sustainability with pricing linked to expenses, and a commitment to continue to reduce administrative expenses and make them more transparent.
  • Deeper support for private sector development, including through more private sector operations and investment, as a vital component of sustainable and inclusive development.
  • Recommitting to their core development mandates and taking up a greater role in the provision of global solutions to transnational problems, such as climate change and food security.

10. With these reform commitments, we are building not just bigger MDBs, but better MDBs, with more strategic focus on lifting the lives of the poor, underwriting growth, promoting security, and addressing the global challenges of climate change and food security. Implementation of these reforms has already begun, and we will continue to ensure that this work is completed and that further reforms are undertaken where necessary.

World Bank Group Voice Reforms

11. We welcomed the agreement on the World Bank’s voice reform to increase the voting power of developing and transition countries by 3.13% consistent with the agreement at the Pittsburgh Summit. When combined with the 1.46% increase agreed in the previous phase of the reforms, this will provide a total shift of 4.59% to DTCs, bringing their overall voting power to 47.19%. We committed to continue moving over time towards equitable voting power, while protecting the smallest nations, by arriving at a dynamic formula which primarily reflects countries’ evolving economic weight and the World Bank’s development mission. We also endorsed voice reforms at the IFC which will provide a total shift of 6.07%, to bring DTC voting power to 39.48%.

Debt Relief for Haiti

12. We stand united with the people of Haiti as they struggle to recover from the devastation wrought by the earthquake in January, and we join other donors in providing assistance in this difficult time, including through the Haiti Reconstruction Fund set up by the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the United Nations. To ensure that Haiti’s recovery efforts can focus on its reconstruction action plan, rather than the debt obligations of its past, our Finance Ministers agreed last April to support full cancellation of Haiti’s debts to all IFIs, including through burden sharing of the associated costs, where necessary. We are pleased that an agreement on a framework for cancelling such debt has been reached at the IMF; the World Bank, the International Fund for Agriculture Development, and soon at the Inter-American Development Bank. We will contribute our fair shares of the associated costs as soon as possible. We will report on progress at the Seoul Summit.

IMF Reforms

13. We are committed to strengthening the legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of the IMF to ensure it succeeds in carrying out its mandate. Important actions have been taken by the G-20 and the international community since the onset of the crisis, including the mobilization of $750 billion to support IMF members’ needs for crisis financing. The IMF raised $250 billion in new resources through immediate bilateral loans and note purchase agreements, to be subsequently incorporated into a $500 billion expansion of the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). The IMF also implemented a $250 billion new general allocation of SDRs to bolster the foreign exchange reserves of all members. Along with important surveillance and lending reforms, including a new early-warning exercise and the creation of new precautionary instruments such as the Flexible Credit Line, these actions have significantly increased the IMF’s crisis response capacity. However, important work remains to be completed to fully reform the IMF.

14. We called for an acceleration of the substantial work still needed for the IMF to complete the quota reform by the Seoul Summit and in parallel deliver on other governance reforms, in line with commitments made in Pittsburgh. Modernizing the IMF’s governance is a core element of our effort to improve the IMF’s credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness. We recognize that the IMF should remain a quota-based organization and that the distribution of quotas should reflect the relative weights of its members in the world economy, which have changed substantially in view of the strong growth in dynamic emerging market and developing countries. To this end, we are committed to a shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries of at least five percent from over-represented to under-represented countries using the current IMF quota formula as the basis to work from. We are also committed to protecting the voting share of the poorest in the IMF. As part of this process, we agree that a number of other critical issues will need to be addressed, including: the size of any increase in IMF quotas, which will have a bearing on the ability to facilitate change in quota shares; the size and composition of the Executive Board; ways of enhancing the Board’s effectiveness; and the Fund Governors’ involvement in the strategic oversight of the IMF. Staff diversity should be enhanced.

15. We underscored our resolve to ensure the IMF has the resources it needs so that it can play its important role in the world economy. The majority of G-20 members have ratified the 2008 IMF Quota and Voice Reforms, fulfilling an important commitment made in London. Those members who have yet to ratify commit to doing so by the Seoul Summit. This action will not just enhance the legitimacy of the IMF by increasing the voice and participation of developing countries, it will also provide the IMF with $30 billion in new quota resources. We call on all IMF members to ratify the agreement this year.

16. A number of G-20 members have already formally accepted the recently agreed reforms to the expanded NAB, which will provide a significant back-stop to IMF quota resources, consolidating over $500 billion for IMF lending to countries in crisis. Other participating G-20 members will complete the acceptance process by the next meeting of G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. We call on all existing and new NAB participants to do the same.

17. G-20 members committed to ensure that the IMF’s concessional financing for the poorest countries be expanded by $6 billion through the proceeds from the agreed sale of IMF gold, consistent with the IMF’s new income model, and the employment of internal and other resources. We are delivering. Some G-20 members have supported this commitment with additional loan and subsidy resources for the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) and some others plan to contribute in the coming months.

18. We acknowledged a need for national, regional and international efforts to deal with capital flow volatility, financial fragility, and prevent crisis contagion. We task our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to prepare policy options, based on sound incentives, to strengthen global financial safety nets for our consideration at the Seoul Summit. In line with these efforts, we also call on the IMF to make rapid progress in reviewing its lending instruments, with a view to further reforming them as appropriate. In parallel, IMF surveillance should be enhanced to focus on systemic risks and vulnerabilities wherever they may lie. Our goal is to build a more stable and resilient international monetary system.

Further Supporting the Needs of the Most Vulnerable

19. We have made significant progress in supporting the poorest countries during the crisis and must continue to take measures to assist the most vulnerable and must ensure that the poorest countries benefit from our efforts to restore global growth. We recognize the urgency of this, and are committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and will reinforce our efforts to this end, including through the use of Official Development Assistance.

20. We have made concrete progress on our commitment to improving access to financial services for the poor and to increasing financing available to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries.

21. Adequately financed small and medium-sized businesses are vital to job creation and a growing economy, particularly in emerging economies. We have launched the SME Finance Challenge aimed at finding the most promising models for public-private partnerships that catalyze finance for SMEs. We are committed to mobilizing the funding needed to implement winning proposals, including through the strong support of the MDBs. We welcome the strong support of the MDBs for scalable and sustainable SME financing proposals, including those from the Challenge in partnership with the private sector. We look forward to announcing the winning proposals of the SME Finance Challenge and to receiving recommendations to scale-up successful SME finance models at the Seoul Summit.

22. We have developed a set of principles for innovative financial inclusion, which will form the basis of a concrete and pragmatic action plan for improving access to financial services amongst the poor. This action plan will be released at the Seoul Summit.

23. At the Pittsburgh Summit, we recognised the importance of sustained funding and targeted investments to improve long-term food security in low income countries. We welcome the launch of the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which will provide predictable financing for low income countries to improve agricultural productivity, raise rural incomes, and build sustainable agricultural systems. We are particularly pleased that the fund has approved inaugural grants totalling $224 million for Bangladesh, Rwanda, Haiti, Togo, and Sierra Leone. We also support the development of the private sector window of the GAFSP, which will increase private sector investments to support small and medium sized agri-businesses and farmers in poor countries. We welcome the support already received, and encourage additional donor contributions to both the public and private sector windows of the GAFSP.

24. There is still an urgency to accelerate research and development to close agricultural productivity gaps, including through regional and South-South cooperation, amidst growing demands and mounting environmental stresses, particularly in Africa. The private sector will be critical in the development and deployment of innovative solutions that provide concrete results on the ground. We commit to exploring the potential of innovative, results-based mechanisms such as advance market commitments to harness the creativity and resources of the private sector in achieving breakthrough innovations in food security and agriculture development in poor countries. We will report on progress at the Seoul Summit.

The G20 is done…Now What?!?

In Canada, G8 & G20, Government, Law & Order, The World Comes To Toronto, Toronto on June 27, 2010 at 19:29

Just a tad…

In less than four days Toronto the good has turned into Toronto the battered.  Toronto maybe a world class city, but it wasn’t able to show off it’s best side.  10 feet fences, out of control protesters, Toronto was turned into a police state.  The people that needed their voices heard were drowned out by the  opportunistic few.  The question remains, was this the best venue for this meeting? Did spending a billion plus dollars worth it?  Does having the G8 and G20 meeting matter anymore?  Over the next few days, I’m sure Toronto; Canada and the World will figure it out.

OCC

Since I couldn’t get a full copy of the leaked G20 Communique TVO’s Steve Paikin will do just fine to give us the low down.  Yo can follow Steve at http://twitter.com/spaikin

spaikin: pm harper begins final news conference.
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: final communique is out.
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: firm targets on debt rdxn 50% by 2013
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: may still need some stimulus in short run
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: “strong sustainable balanced growth”
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: “commitment to accelerate financial reform by south korea.
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: no new tariffs or trade barriers for 3 yrs
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: EU has already agreed to financial targets. market pressure & peer pressure, sez pm harper
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: sarkoczy says these argets are voluntary. a crack in the unified front of the g20?
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: PM: thr markets are waching our actions. we have to mee hese targets for debt & deficit reduction
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: do we still need the G8? PM says yes, it still has advantages. similar economies, like minded on broad range of issues (dev, democ, peace)
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: “we obviously deplore the actions of a few thugs. but these summits atract his element. explains security costs” – PM
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: “cdn jobs inimately linked to what goes on here. canno be effective unless we work closely with other partners arnd world. simple reality”
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: just heard from julian falconer, civil rights lawyer. guardian reporter jesse rosenfeld has been found
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: falconer expects to have rosenfelt out of jail by 11 pm. no word yet on his condition
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: no word on chinese currency in final declaration. harper says didnt want to single anyone out
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: pm harper finished. 15 mins and done.
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)
spaikin: ppl not making the distinction betw thugs and peaceful demonstrators who were also arrested
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: update from kate holloway: “they have no record of either a Samuel Wright or a Sarah Rose Sylvester up there.
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: kate fears having to tell rose’s mom who’s in the US that her daughter has disappeared without a trace
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: jesse rosenfeld’s dad: “We hear he is ok but upset that he has been treated the way he has”.
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: sam’s dad:”worries that because of the protest activity and lockdown in front of the detention centre, the kids aren’t getting processed.
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: obama opens with kudos to his canadian friend and host pm harper
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: pulled ourselves back from the brink, sez obama
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: agreed to coord efforts to create jobs. moving in same direction. US cant buy way to prosperity
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: BO wants to double US exports over next 5 yrs
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: US aims to cut deficit in half by 2013
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: finalize std for banks. strong oversight. excessive risk taking prevented. avoid repeat of fin crisis
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: american reporters stood up when pres obama walked in. no one else did. 2 diff traditions
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: china has determined to be more flexible on exchg rates. we think thats a positive thing – obama
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: didnt expect 20% re-evaluation in one week. we do expect given china’s surpluses, the reminbi will go up significantly
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)
spaikin: obama just admonished a reporter who tried to get a follow up: “we’re not going to have a colloquy here.”
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: obama says afghanistan will need natl assistance for a long time. no necessarily troops
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: all the reporters called on so far are american at obama newser
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: a japanese reporter from kyoto just got a question in.
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: mike miner tweets from eastern av: police have moved on crowd with batons. crowd fleeing.
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: obama says the choice on afghanistan isn’t immed departure or be there forever.
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: miner sez these aren’t protesters, they’re “riot tourists”
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: obama: 3 yr discretionary spending freeze. top line number needs to stay firm.
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)
spaikin: obama done. me too.

spaikin: pm harper begins final news conference.—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: final communique is out.—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: firm targets on debt rdxn 50% by 2013—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: may still need some stimulus in short run—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: “strong sustainable balanced growth”—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: “commitment to accelerate financial reform by south korea.—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: no new tariffs or trade barriers for 3 yrs—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: EU has already agreed to financial targets. market pressure & peer pressure, sez pm harper—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: sarkoczy says these argets are voluntary. a crack in the unified front of the g20?—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: PM: thr markets are waching our actions. we have to mee hese targets for debt & deficit reduction—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: do we still need the G8? PM says yes, it still has advantages. similar economies, like minded on broad range of issues (dev, democ, peace)—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: “we obviously deplore the actions of a few thugs. but these summits atract his element. explains security costs” – PM—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: “cdn jobs inimately linked to what goes on here. canno be effective unless we work closely with other partners arnd world. simple reality”—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: just heard from julian falconer, civil rights lawyer. guardian reporter jesse rosenfeld has been found—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: falconer expects to have rosenfelt out of jail by 11 pm. no word yet on his condition—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: no word on chinese currency in final declaration. harper says didnt want to single anyone out—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: pm harper finished. 15 mins and done.—
5:41 PM (1 hour ago)spaikin: ppl not making the distinction betw thugs and peaceful demonstrators who were also arrested—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: update from kate holloway: “they have no record of either a Samuel Wright or a Sarah Rose Sylvester up there.—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: kate fears having to tell rose’s mom who’s in the US that her daughter has disappeared without a trace—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: jesse rosenfeld’s dad: “We hear he is ok but upset that he has been treated the way he has”.—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: sam’s dad:”worries that because of the protest activity and lockdown in front of the detention centre, the kids aren’t getting processed.—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: obama opens with kudos to his canadian friend and host pm harper—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: pulled ourselves back from the brink, sez obama—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: agreed to coord efforts to create jobs. moving in same direction. US cant buy way to prosperity—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: BO wants to double US exports over next 5 yrs—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: US aims to cut deficit in half by 2013—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: finalize std for banks. strong oversight. excessive risk taking prevented. avoid repeat of fin crisis—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: american reporters stood up when pres obama walked in. no one else did. 2 diff traditions—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: china has determined to be more flexible on exchg rates. we think thats a positive thing – obama—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: didnt expect 20% re-evaluation in one week. we do expect given china’s surpluses, the reminbi will go up significantly—
6:22 PM (54 minutes ago)spaikin: obama just admonished a reporter who tried to get a follow up: “we’re not going to have a colloquy here.”—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: obama says afghanistan will need natl assistance for a long time. no necessarily troops—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: all the reporters called on so far are american at obama newser—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: a japanese reporter from kyoto just got a question in.—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: mike miner tweets from eastern av: police have moved on crowd with batons. crowd fleeing.—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: obama says the choice on afghanistan isn’t immed departure or be there forever.—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: miner sez these aren’t protesters, they’re “riot tourists”—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: obama: 3 yr discretionary spending freeze. top line number needs to stay firm.—
7:15 PM (1 minute ago)spaikin: obama done. me too.

You can read Paul Vieira and David Pett’s full article in the Financial Post  here

TORONTO — Group of 20 countries have reached a deal to halve their respective deficits by 2013 and to stabilize debt levels in what would be a big policy win for Prime Minister Stephen Harper from this controversial summit.

Mr. Harper went into the meeting keen to get an agreement that advanced economies move to bring down deficits by 50% within the next three years and put their debt-to-GDP ratios on a downward trend starting in 2016. And he got it, as the final communiqué, obtained by the National Post, spells out that advanced economies among the G20 have committed to meet those targets.

“Sound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery, provide flexibility to respond to new shocks, ensure the capacity to meet the challenges of aging populations, and avoid leaving future generations with a legacy of deficits and debt,” the communiqué said.

Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, told Reuters that this was “more than I expected. This is very ambitious. That all industrial countries have accepted this goal is a success.”

At a media conference, Mr. Harper acknowledged the targets are voluntary. Nevertheless, he let it be known he expects his peers to live up to their word.

“I am confident that all countries that made these commitments will fulfill them — and we need to fulfill them. And there will be peer pressure, and market pressure.”