Children from the community, including nearby child-care centres, will have an opportunity to learn, play and create with the Imagination Playground at the community centre.

“We’re very happy with Foresters’ generosity,” said Mayor Rob Ford. “Their donation will make a big difference to the many Flemingdon Park children who will have creative fun using the Imagination Playground.”

Foresters President and Chief Executive Officer George Mohacsi, who officially presented the playground to the City of Toronto today, said, “Foresters has a long history of helping to improve the quality of life for families in North America through our partnerships with a variety of community organizations. I’m delighted we’re able to not only enhance playtime for the children in Flemingdon Park, but also raise awareness of the value of play for families and communities.”

The Imagination Playground in a Box is a play space concept that encourages child-directed, unstructured free play. Children of any age enjoy it, constantly changing their environment and designing their own course of play.

Also present at this morning’s presentation at the community centre were Councillor John Parker (Ward 26 Don Valley West), local community leaders and many children of the Flemingdon Park neighbourhood.

Foresters is a life insurance provider that supports family well-being through quality products, unique member benefits and community activities. Founded in 1874, Foresters now shares its financial strength with more than 835,000 members in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. For more information, visit foresters.com. ForestersTM is the trade name and a trademark of The Independent Order of Foresters, a fraternal benefit society, Toronto, Canada M3C 1T9.

Webster was let go “without just cause” which means that he will be given two years of severance pay.

Andy Byford, the chief operating officer, with take over Webster’s position for the near future.

City Councillors Vincent Crisanti, Frank Di Giorgio, Norm Kelly, Denzil Minnan-Wong, and Cesar Palacio were the five votes that decided Webster’s fate. That fate may have been decided much earlier when Webster did not go along with Mayor Rob Ford’s subway plan.

Mayor Ford released a statement on the firing of Webster:

“I support the Commission’s decision on the departure of Mr. Webster.  Gary has served Toronto and the TTC well in his years of service.  He was an important element in the organization’s many successes to date and can proudly point to a list of accomplishments.

But, it’s time for the organization to look forward.  The Commissioners tell me this.  Councillors tell me this.  The general public – and subway, streetcar and bus passengers all tell me it’s time for change.

The TTC was once recognized worldwide as an example of public transit excellence.  It’s time for the TTC to modernize, to review its mission and mandate, to revisit its structure and move forward with a vision that will serve Toronto to the end of this century and sets an example for the world to follow.

It’s time for the TTC to focus on operational excellence and to become, once again, a world leader that connects people with their jobs, homes, families and recreation – rapidly, affordably, conveniently, comfortably, reliably and safely.  As it achieves this aim, customer satisfaction and cost-efficiency will grow rapidly.

It’s time for the TTC to become so good at what it does, that customers choose to spend their money on transit rather than drive their cars.

The timing is right for major change at the TTC.  We are beginning the process of renewing the structure of the Commission by introducing skills-based board members to augment the politicians directing the organization.  The TTC is entering a period of significant capital growth.  A major reassessment of customer service needs has begun.

The time is right for a new leader to take the reins at TTC and lead the organization through this period of major change.”

Former David Miller went to Twitter saying Webster was “exactly for the public needs” while MP Olivia Chow typed  “Shame on Ford.” City Councillor Joe Mihevc said on Facebook, “Gary Webster is one of the most competent public servants gracing city hall. This is so wrong.”

One of those who vote during the session not to fire Webster, Councillor Maria Augimeri said that the decision was “a clear demonstration of an abuse of power. You’re kicking success out the door.”

Councillor Karen Stintz also voted against firing Webster. Stintz is the chair for the TTC on the City Council.

Webster was due to retire in 2013.

TORONTO, Feb. 22, 2012 /CNW/ – The growth of Ontario food in our public institutions is inspiring. Today we celebrate those who change the food on plates in hospitals, long-term care facilities, and educational institutions. The Ontario’s Local Food Champions report recognizes five organizations from across the food value chains that exemplify leadership and provide solutions to incorporate more Ontario food on their menus.

“In just under a year we have seen outstanding growth in sales and volumes of Ontario food served in public institutions,” said Burkhard Mausberg, CEO, Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation. “This report recognizes a few of the many champions working to make local food the standard at our hospitals, schools and daycares.”

This year’s Ontario’s Local Food Champions represent the dynamic changes happening across foodservice. Here are the highlights:

School Food Action Coalition: Peel District School Board, Compass Group Canada (Chartwells), Peel Public Health and EcoSource

• Achieved designation as the first school board in Canada to implement a local food buying policy for secondary schools
• Educated students about benefits of Ontario food by inviting farmers’ to visit schools
• Hosted a culinary competition for students with the winning recipe used by Peel District School Board
• Created material with Compass Group Canada to identify locally sourced menu items at 200 schools

Nutrition Group at St. Joseph’s Health System, Group Purchasing Organization and My Sustainable Canada

• Sourced Ontario food for St. Joseph’s Health System, Group Purchasing Organization’s 28 health care facilities by including local food language in their Requests for Proposals
• Led to a 15 per cent increase in local food purchased, representing $670,000 in sales
• Created a guide to conducting origin of food audits with other health care facilities

Gordon Food Service Ontario

• Recognized as one of the largest broad line distributors in Canada, GFS assigned a team to implement a local food strategy
• Produced over 800 local products, all suitable for large institutions
• Expanded the availability of local products resulting in a 10 per cent sales boost in one year
• Established relationships with local farmers to help them adopt food safety practices and meet the packaging expectations of public institutions

Don’s Produce

• Provided local produce to eight hospitals, 22 long-term care facilities, 17 universities and schools and five child care centres across southwestern Ontario
• Developed a program to help chefs and foodservice buyers increase their purchase of local produce and monitor quarterly progress
• Provided a seasonal availability chart to help chefs and foodservice managers efficiently plan their menus to incorporate local produce

University of Guelph, Hospitality Services

• Created a department-wide Sustainability Plan to support local farmers and educate consumers on and off campus about the benefits of buying local
• Supported the local economy and the 75 farmers who sell at the Elmira Auction Co-operative by purchasing products for the University of Guelph
• Succeeded in elevating local produce purchases to 45 per cent
• Identified processing and preserving methods to ensure local stays on the menu beyond harvest

These five champions were among 20 nominations received to help select the 2012 Champions. An advisory committee reviewed the nominations and assisted in the selection process. The nominations represent the impressive amount of work and dedication going into bringing more local Ontario food into public institutions. To read the stories of other nominees visit www.Ontariofresh.ca.

“The McGuinty government is committed to working with farmers, food processors and distributors  to bring more Ontario food to our tables at home, in the school cafeteria, and in other public institutions,” says Ted McMeekin, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. “Supporting Ontario food contributes to healthy meals and a healthy economy.”

Ontario’s Local Food Champions is available online at www.greenbelt.ca and upon request by emailing info@greenbelt.ca.

Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation:
Ontario’s Greenbelt is over 1.8 million acres of green space, farmland, vibrant communities, forests, wetlands, and watersheds – all permanently protected by world-leading legislation. In return, the Greenbelt gives back much to Ontario, providing $5.4 billion to Ontario’s economy through farming and food production, and $2.6 billion in ecosystem services annually.

The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation is working to help farmers in the Greenbelt be more successful; to protect and enhance natural features; and to strengthen local economies. To learn more about the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, please visit www.greenbelt.ca.

With a commitment to building awareness and demand for Ontario food, the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation and its sister organization the Greenbelt Fund have received $6 million in funding from the Ontario government to help promote the good things that grow in Ontario and report on Ontario’s Local Food Champions.

The additional projects include:

• Ontariofresh.ca: A free website and online marketplace that will expand the market for buyers and sellers of Ontario food. Individuals can register and create a profile in advance of the site launch in late summer. Visit www.ontariofresh.ca to register and build a profile.
• Broader Public Sector Investment Fund (delivered through the Greenbelt Fund): Grants are being distributed to organizations to increase the amount of Ontario food served in daycares, schools, universities and colleges, hospitals and long-term care facilities.

The Ken and Marilyn Thomson Patient Care Centre will be the focal point of a $211-million Redevelopment of the TEGH site. This expansion will be one of the largest investments in infrastructure that east Toronto has seen in decades.

“We are profoundly grateful for this magnificent gift. Up to now, East General has been one of Toronto’s best-kept secrets,” said Michael Burns, Chair of the TEGH Foundation Board of Directors.  “Diana and Peter’s inspirational support will raise awareness of our hospital and send a powerful message to Toronto’s philanthropic and corporate communities about the importance of involvement in community hospitals, where 90% of health care issues are met.”

“Toronto East General Hospital is our local hospital, the place where our daughter was born, and a vital part of East Toronto’s diverse communities,” said Peter Thomson. “Diana and I are proud of the Hospital’s history and accomplishments. We are delighted to support its mission to care for and improve the lives of the families it serves.”

The Ken and Marilyn Patient Care Centre will accommodate the most advanced medical technology, the highest standards of infection control and superior privacy and comfort for patients and their families. It will also accommodate 280 new medical and surgical beds, and consolidate our dozens of outpatient programs into a single, convenient venue.

“This is the largest single gift to our Care Campaign,” added Rob Devitt, CEO of TEGH.  “It will enable a transformation in care for our patients and leave a lasting legacy for the health of our community. We are privileged, and proud, to dedicate our new Patient Care Centre in the Thomson name.”

The Toronto East General Hospital Foundation is undertaking a $60 million private sector campaign to support the hospital’s historic $211-million capital Redevelopment Project. To date, the Care Campaign has raised more than $45 million under the leadership of campaign chair, Michael Burns; and vice-chairs Michael MacMillan, co-founder and chairman of Samara; and Bill MacKinnon, former CEO of KPMG LLP.

In Charlotte Gill’s book Eating Dirt readers are drawn into the world of tree planters, a multicultural tribe of people who work tirelessly to replant what has been fallen.

Each day is much the same for those who dig, bend, plant for months on end to replenish the forests that have been taken away because of the need of big timber.

From our beginnings as humans we have sought the resources that lay inside of trees. From heating to shelter to clothing trees have provided the necessaries that we require to live. Modern man has found even more uses for the pulpy fibres including Twinkies.

Gill has been a tree planter for over two decades, beginning during her university days. Her yearly treks into the Canadian wild where few wander provides the setting of Eating Dirt.

In a man’s world Gill blends in. They share a bond that those who are not of their world do. They have to, their very lives are dependent on one another. If a tree falls, a truck crashes or another type of disaster tree planters are the ones that must patch one another up until help can arrive.

Tree planters share their bruises, their filth and the basics of themselves during the long days and nights alone as they work to replant the earth.

Eating Dirt is one of the five books on this year’s Charles Taylor Prize shortlist and the winner of the BC Achievement’s National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction.

In the previous article, I presented the Monty Hall Problem, a famous problem in elementary probability, based on “Let’s make a deal”, a television game show of years gone by. If you haven’t read that article, what follows is likely to make little sense. It would therefore probably be better to read that article before continuing to read this one. As a reminder, here is a video clip presenting the game and the problem:

The player has two options: switch to the other closed door or stay with her/his original choice. What should he/she do to maximize her/his chances of winning? There are three possible answers:

1. Switching increases the chances of winning
2. Staying with the original choice increases the chances of winning
3. It makes no difference at all

It turns out that most people think it is a silly question and that option 3, it makes no difference at all, is the correct answer common-sense dictates. If you have chosen this option, you have a lot of friends.

And, you know what? It is indeed the correct answer for some people. So far the good news for common sense.

And now the bad news: while it is the correct answer for some people, it is not the correct answer for you!

Now, think of it. How can this be? This makes no sense at all, does it?

You are left with two choices. One door hides a goat, the other hides a car. If you stay with your original choice, door 3, you will win either a car or a goat. That’s one chance in two of winning the car, yes?

Wrong.

Wrong.

As I said, this option is perfectly valid and the right choice for some people, but again, it is not the right choice for you.

Well then, what is the right choice for you?

It turns out that option 1, switching increases the chances of winning, is the right choice for you.

Is your head starting to spin? Take heart, what I said is perfectly true, it isn’t complicated and while it isn’t common sense, it does make perfect sense.

First of all, let’s see what happens if you switch in the example we started in the previous article. The player decides not to switch and stays with her/his first choice:

After confirming the player’s choice, the host opens the corresponding door:

Wrong choice. The player did not follow the advice, and lost. The car was behind door 2. See?

Of course, as you have probably guessed, there is more to the story than this. What about an explanation, for example? Who says I did not manipulate the conditions and the player to make it just so? The answer is, of course, that I did indeed manipulate the example to make the point as clearly as possible. However, this does not mean that the advice was wrong.

Let’s look at the previous game once more. Remember, first, there are three closed doors. Two conceal a goat, one conceals the coveted car:

The player, who wants to win the car, must now choose one of the three doors:

Hence, the player has one chance in three of choosing the door with the car. One way to look at this problem is to look, not only at the choice one makes, but also at the choices that one does not make:

By selecting door 3, the player also chooses not to select doors 1 and 2. This means that the player has two chances in three of losing the car, i.e. the probability of losing the car is twice as high as the probability of winning the car.

Another way of describing this situation, is that the probability that the car is behind one of the doors in the rectangle, is two in three, whereas the probability that the car is in the stand-alone square is one in three, or half the probability of the rectangle.

But now, the host magnanimously opens one of the two doors in the rectangle to reveal a goat:

Nothing has changed, except that one door which was previously closed, is now open. The likelihood that the car is behind one of the doors in the rectangle is still  two in three. The likelihood that the car is behind door 3 is also still one in three.

But, we now also know that door 1 does not hide the car. This means that the likelihood that the car is behind door 2 is now twice as high as the likelihood that it is behind door 3, since we can safely discard door 1.

In other words, switching is the advisable option, since that increases one’s chances from one in three to two in three. Winning is not guaranteed when switching, however. It is still possible to lose, but it is more likely that one will win.

Very few people are able to find out the correct solution. As I wrote before, the vast majority of people think that switching or staying makes no difference at all. They are wrong, but that is what common sense tells them.

Common sense helps us stay alive in nature, by helping us decide when to run from a lion who wants to eat us, and when not to waste energy running from a full-bellied lion who merely wants to sleep. In more complex situations however, common sense can easily lead us astray.

This problem is a very simple one, yet almost nobody solves it correctly, because it is so counter-intuitive. Welcome to the land of “conditional probabilities”. Here, the probability of an event is not only dependent on an existing situation, but also on what happened before.

This is why I wrote that, for some people, switching or not switching would make no difference at all. Who are these people? The people who walked into the room, only to see one open door and two doors closed and who were therefore unaware of what occurred before. For them, the probabilities of having the car behind door 2 or door 3 are equal.

After seeing the above explanation, many people still refuse to accept the solution. Maybe you are one of them (or not). While problems involving probabilities can often be very complex, the Monty Hall problem is not, and this has an advantage. It is actually possible to enumerate every single possible case for this problem.

Consider this: there are three starting possibilities. The car can be behind door 1, door 2 or door 3. Then, the player can select one of those three doors, leading to nine possibilities (three times three). Furthermore, the player can either stay with her/his choice or switch, two possibilities that lead to eighteen possible combinations in total (three times three times two):

If you only count nine lines, you are -of course- correct. However, don’t forget that there are two columns: nine switches and nine stays. That makes eighteen combinations in total.

Although it is probably more boring than watching paint dry, it may be interesting to study each of the 18 cases while they are being played out. To this end, please view the video I uploaded to YouTube:

Since the player cannot know whether he/she should switch or stay, the best strategy is to switch, as the table shows. Switching means that the probability of winning is twice the probability of winning when not switching.

It is really hard for humans to wrap their heads around the Monty Hall Problem. This is, however, not necessarily the case for other animals. Pigeons, for example, do a lot better [2].

Conclusion
I wrote this article as a warning.

The Monty Hall Problem shows us that common sense is not to be trusted. Yes, it can lead us to the correct solution when we face a problem. Unfortunately, it can also lead us to the wrong solution. In other words, it makes no sense to trust common sense or “instinct”, as the Monty Hall Problem very clearly demonstrates.

Another warning can be seen in the way I treated this problem: a good skeptic always investigates a problem. In spite of popular belief, skepticism is not about denying what others take at face value. Skepticism is about investigating whatever comes our way. Sometimes, this is very easy, such as for the Monty Hall Problem.

Sometimes, it gets a lot more complicated, but whatever the case may be, the skeptic does his utmost to look at a situation from all angles, to investigate all the possibilities and only then does he/she to come to a tentative conclusion that is itself always open for correction, modification or refutation.

The attitude of the skeptic is the attitude of the doubter, the scientist, not that of the quack or the religionist. As a result, the skeptic must be prepared to be ridiculed by the quack and the religionist, for they will use the skeptic’s doubts against her/him to fool the public into believing that the skeptic is an idiot, and many people will fall for this.

The skeptic has but one weapon against this: evidence. Quacks often like to compare themselves to Galileo or other famous scientists who were first ridiculed or even put to death for their seemingly preposterous theories. However, they forget one important element.

For Galileo to become world-famous and part of the bedrock of science, he needed one element the quack and the religionist do not have: the evidence to back up the claim, evidence that shows he or she is right.

Quacks and religionists are not interested in such sordid details as “evidence”, and that is why they are almost always wrong, often quite terribly so.

The Monty Hall Problem has a very interesting and controversial history. However interesting, the history of the problem is not really relevant to the problem per se and since Wikipedia [1] has an excellent page on this, I will not talk about it here.

Jeffrey S. Rosenthal is one of Canada’s best-known experts on probability and statistics. At the time of the fraud scandal at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming corporation, he was often in the news, because he was the expert called in to investigate the then-alleged fraud.

Not only has he written a hilarious and very interesting book, called Struck by Lightning: The Curious World of Probabilities, in which he talks about the Monty Hall Problem, he also has written an article [3] on the problem, which can be downloaded from his personal website.

References

The TPA engaged Jacobs to undertake a wide-ranging ambient noise study between 2008 and 2009.  To ensure the highest level of public participation, the TPA formed the Noise Management Study Advisory Group consisting of local residents and City of Toronto area Councillors. The TPA held public meetings in 2010 to discuss and gain feedback from the public on the recommendations of the report, focussing on the following key areas:

• Establishment of a permanent community advisory committee dealing with airport issues;
• Noise contour measurements that identify flight patterns around the BBTCA; and
• Noise management and mitigation recommendations.

Over the past 24 months, the TPA has pursued every available practical initiative with regards to reducing the impact of the airport on the neighbouring community. The permanent Community Liaison Committee has met 5 times since it was created in 2011. The impact of the 2009 Noise Contour Study, which led to an increase to 202 daily commercial airline slots, was mitigated by the 2010 decision of the TPA Board of Directors to grant no early morning or late evening slots during the 2010 and 2011 RFP processes that awarded additional commercial airline services.

The most recent initiative in response to community concerns and the recommendations put forward by the Jacobs Report is the installation of a six metre-high acoustic barrier at the airport’s north west end. Installation of the barrier is one of 16 commitments the TPA made last year to Toronto residents, and construction is currently underway following a lengthy environmental assessment, which delayed the project’s initial timeline.

“The noise barrier’s installation demonstrates the TPA’s on-going commitment to accountability and responsiveness to local residents’ concerns,” said TPA President and CEO Geoff Wilson. He noted that the annual update on the Jacobs Consultancy Report’s 16 recommendations would be issued in the coming weeks. Following installation, the TPA will work in partnership with the community to develop artwork for the city-facing side of the noise barrier.

In addition to implementing the recommendations of the 2010 Jacobs Report, the TPA’s community commitments include:

• Ongoing efforts with the City of Toronto on the creation of a new taxi staging area in the Canada Malting Lands adjacent to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The new taxi area will help reduce traffic congestion and noise near Little Norway park.
• Financial support to the Harbourfront Community Centre’s (HCC) expansion of its Room 13 program, an internationally known leadership program for at-risk youth aged 13-17 that builds entrepreneurial, management, and teamwork skills.
• Financial support for the 2012 Reel Artists Film Festival being held at the TIFF Bell Lightbox from February 22-26.
• Financial support for Harbourfront’s 2012 summer programming, following the TPA’s successful 2011 role as Harbourfront’s Lead Summer Partner.
• Support for the annual Disabled Sailing Association of Ontario regatta.
• Support for the World Wildlife Federation’s Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup.

The TPA has also created a comprehensive operational noise management program, implemented last spring, that includes a noise management office with dedicated staff, state of the art technology to track aircraft noise, and a monthly public reporting mechanism on the website. This model is based on a similar program in place at Pearson Airport.

In 2011, total complaints about aircraft activity were down 33 per cent from the previous year.  Of the total of 216 aircraft related complaints, fewer than one third were related to commercial activity, even though the total number of commercial aircraft movements grew in 2011.  A detailed report on the complaint system statistics and response time is expected later this month, and will be posted at www.torontoport.com.

Backgrounder

Noise Barriers

The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) will be constructing a noise barrier immediately east of Runway 15 adjacent to the Western Gap. It is anticipated that the barrier will be completed by spring 2012.

The six-metre-high, 82-metre-long barrier will be a rigid vinyl structure with a core comprising a mixture of new and recycled PVC with noise reduction properties. It is anticipated that the barrier will lead to a 10dB range of reduction  (perceived by the human ear as half the sound) from ground level up to five storeys.

The barrier is being erected to mitigate noise in response to community concerns and as a follow up to one of the 16 recommendations put forward by the Jacobs Report.

Released in early 2010, the Jacobs Report put forward, as one of its 16 recommendations, that the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) assess the potential of installing noise barriers at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

Following the report’s release the TPA conducted an environmental assessment to investigate the potential for noise mitigation. The assessment determined that barriers would mitigate noise aircraft noise from the airport and determined locations that would provide effective noise reduction. The assessment and subsequent barrier design were presented to the community in spring 2011.

The TPA will be measuring the barrier’s effectiveness following construction to determine noise reductions.

Jacobs Report

In February 2010, the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) released a report, prepared by Jacobs Consultancy, which looked at airport activities and related noise sources at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA).

The report, which is available on the TPA’s website, included recommendations on possible ways to lessen the impact of noise on the surrounding community.

The TPA commissioned the report in 2008 to assess and identify noise mitigation measures that could be implemented at the BBTCA. In a series of meetings with the community during the data analysis period, the TPA discussed noise measurements and potential mitigation measures with these considerations included in the report.

In spring 2010, the Toronto Port Authority’s Board of Directors accepted the report and directed TPA management to start working on the 16 recommendations outlined in the report. The TPA immediately established an implementation team, which in June 2010 issued draft terms of reference for an “Airport Community Consultation Committee”.

In October 2010, the Board approved the Terms of Reference, and the new Committee dubbed the ‘Community Liaison Committee’ held its inaugural meeting in March 2011. As of February 2012 the Committee, which meets quarterly, has held five meetings.

The Committee comprises several airport, resident and waterfront stakeholders who discuss issues ranging from the taxi congestion to the construction of noise barriers. Committee members included representatives from:

• Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association
• York Quay Neighbourhood Association
• City Councillor Adam Vaughan’s Office
• City Councillor Pam McConnell’s Office
• The Waterfront BIA
• Porter Airlines
• Air Canada
• Waterfront Toronto

The TPA also introduced a comprehensive Noise Management Programme in February 2011, in response to recommendations made in the Jacobs Consultancy Report and requests from the community. Consistent with best practices at other international airports, the TPA established a Noise Management Office with experienced noise management staff who are responsible for monitoring aircraft operations using a new state of the art flight tracking system that was introduced in early 2011.

In addition to tracking flights and monitoring curfew violations and Good Neighbour Policy infractions the Noise Management Office responds to noise complaints within five business days and publishes monthly reports, which are available on the TPA’s website (www.torontoport.com) within three weeks of the end of the previous month.

Now every resident of Ontario can pick up the phone, dial the easy-to-remember 2-1-1 number, and with the help of the real live person who answers, find their way to the services and programs that specifically meet their needs. In 2011, Ontario 211 received nearly 575,000 calls most often related to health issues, income and financial assistance, housing, food and meals, and legal and public safety. Visits to its website, 211ontario.ca, increased 40 per cent. And the service won the Highest Customer Satisfaction Award from SQM, which benchmarks more than 450 call centres in North America.

“Ontario 211′s expansion across the province will give all Ontarians instant telephone access to local social services information. Whether it is a family in crisis, a young person just starting out, a new Canadian family or a parent searching for local children’s services, the 211 service will make it easier and quicker to find the right services and supports,” said Bas Balkissoon, Parliamentary Assistant to Minister of Community and Social Services John Milloy.

Supported by the Province of Ontario, individual municipalities, United Ways, the Ontario Trillium Foundation, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ontario 211 Services Corporation is a non-profit designed to create the greatest impact with the dollars it receives.

“We’re about efficiency, making sure every dollar from every source goes its furthest, serving Ontarians in the most effective way,” says Bill Morris, Executive Director. “The use of cutting edge technology helps to achieve this. In addition, service record data and referral data gleaned from such technologies is helping to map needs and gaps in human services across the province.”

When a caller dials 211, an Information and Referral Specialist listens to the person’s plight and probes further until he or she fully understands the situation. Then, applying years of social services experience and specialized information and referral training, the I&R Specialist navigates through 211′s vast database and provides contact and background information of the services and programs most likely to help the caller.

For Sandra, calling 211 changed her life. At 53, Sandra Turney had endured years of struggle. A long-time sufferer of fibromyalgia, and the single mother of an autistic boy who in 2009, had been molested by a trusted, family friend, she knew that guilt and grief were consuming her – and that chronic pain and financial hardship were gnawing away at what was leftover. And so, like many people besieged by difficulties, she tried to reach out. She made countless calls, she searched the Internet, she asked friends and strangers for advice, but misinformation, lack of information or too much information defeated her. Instead of finding help, one afternoon in the middle of January, she found herself unable to get out of bed.

“I had my phone with me,” she recalls. “And I remember thinking, this will be my last call. ” She dialed 2-1-1.

A real person answered. Ekaterina, a 23-year-old Information and Referral Specialist, is fluent in English, French and Russian. She spends her days at the call-centre, navigating her way through their vast database, talking to folks from all walks of life, seeking all manner of help. The nature of requests varies daily and often changes with the time of the month or the time of year. Tax-time, Christmas holidays, the dreary months of winter, and so on each create a unique set of challenges. And while some callers are simply looking for a number, others are looking for a way out of their despair.

Ekaterina knew she had to get as much information as possible from Sandra in order to assist her properly. She asked questions, listened intently and responded compassionately. An hour-long conversation later, and Ekaterina was able to provide contact information for two agencies tailored to Sandra and her son’s needs.

“By encouraging people to let it all out, it helps them relieve some stress and gives me a better idea of what we were dealing with,” Ekaterina explains. “Getting them to share their story helps them and it helps me.”

For Sandra, the sourcing of appropriate numbers was in itself a great relief, but it was the human connection that had such an impact.

“She really listened to what I had to say, what I needed, how I felt. She told me she knew of others who had similar problems. Most importantly, she told me to be strong, that I was on the right path, that I could get through this.”

Today, Sandra is in the process of working with Child Advocacy and CAMH, the agencies the 211 I&R Specialist recommended. Although she and her son haven’t yet become fully immersed in their programs, just knowing things are in place fills her with optimism. Once an established singer and songwriter, Sandra’s illness, her son’s special needs, and the terrible thing that happened to him, have taken a toll on her career. But no longer her dreams. She is currently working from home, rediscovering her music, and through social media primarily, making contacts with those in the industry. People know her as Xenobia10.

Asked if she would recommend 211, she quickly answers yes.

211 helps people find the right community and social services and is available 24/7, 365 days a year. 211 can provide information in over 150 languages. The website www.211ontario.ca is available to everyone with Internet access.

Constable Wendy Drummond said that there are no descriptions at this time of the suspects that are responsible for killing Justin Waterman, 18, and Jerome Waterman, 22.

“The investigation so far points to this not being a random killing and that the brothers were the intended victims,” Drummond said.

It is unclear why the brothers were in the parking lot at the time of the crime. The area is not near where the young men lived.

Both brothers were both known to police according to Drummond.