The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

th ei fp .c a Th e IF P -H al to n H ill s | T hu rs da y, A pr il 12 ,2 01 8 | 6 The Georgetown Independent & Free Press, published every Thursday, is a division of the Metroland Media Group Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Torstar Corpora- tion. The Metroland family of newspapers is comprised of more than 80 community publications across Ontario. The Independent & Free Press is a member of the National NewsMedia Council. Complainants are urged to bring their concerns to the attention of the newspaper and, if not satisfied, write The National NewsMedia Council, Suite 200, 890 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4W 2H2. Phone: 416-340-1981 Web: www.mediacouncil.ca newsroom@theifp.ca IndependentAndFreePress @IFP_11 ABOUT US The Independent & Free Press 280 Guelph Street, Unit 77 Georgetown, ON L7G 4B1 Phone: 905-873-0301 Classifieds: 905-234-1016 Fax: 905-873-0398 Letters to the editor All letters must be fewer than 200 words and include your name and telephone number for verification purposes. We reserve the right to edit, condense or reject letters. Delivery For all delivery inquiries, please e-mail lpolar@miltoncanadiancham- pion.com or call 905-234-1019. CONTACT US VP, Regional Publisher Kelly Montague General Manager Steve Foreman Retail Advertising Manager Cindi Campbell Regional Managing Editor Chris Vernon Regional Managing Digital Editor Robyn Wilkinson Distribution Representative Iouliana Polar Classified/Real Estate Kristie Pells Regional Production Manager Manuel Garcia Production Shelli Harrison WHO WE ARE OPINION • EDITORIAL • • LETTERS & COMMENTARY • When it comes to intimate partner violence, Canada's laws are behind reality. The result is too often that abuse victims are re-victimized by their abusers and the sys- tem. Cases move too slowly to be effective. In too many areas, the law simply doesn't reflect what is really hap- pening. So it is good news that the federal government is moving assertively to update the law, under the auspices of Bill C-75, introduced to Parliament recently. Here's a key example of how the changes will better reflect reality. It is common knowledge that accused abusers, if they are granted bail, reoffend at a much higher rate than people charged with other crimes. Court-imposed restraining orders are often ineffective. There is ample research to back this up. So the new law will levy a reverse onus on repeat abusers - they will have to make a successful case as to why they should be released, instead of the Crown making the case for why they should not be released on bail. Another example: The proposed amendment would recognize that strangulation is more serious than com- mon assault, and would recognize it alongside assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon. Re- search suggests that choking is often a sign of escalating violence; according to an American study, women who are choked are four times more likely to be killed than those who were not choked. Another change would update language in the legisla- tion to more accurately reflect current circumstances. The terms "spouse" and "common-law partner" are now most commonly used. But according to Statistics Cana- da data, more than half of all domestic-violence courts cases between 2005 and 2011 involved dating partners. They made up 54 per cent of all cases, while spousal violence made up for 46 per cent. So the amended legis- lation will use the term intimate partner violence to better reflect today's reality. Bill C-75 covers more than intimate partner violence. It also reforms the justice system by getting rid of pe- remptory challenges of jurors and changing the way juries are selected. It restricts the use of preliminary inquiries to serious offences and changes the way courts now handle offences such as failing to appear or breach- ing release conditions. Overall, it is the most sweeping legal reform intro- duced in recent memory. In some areas it is being widely hailed, in others not so much. But on the profoundly important subject of intimate partner violence, these changes move in the right direction and send a strong and welcome signal. Ottawa's strong signal on partner violence How does mayor justify a pay raise? Dear Mayor Bonnette and council, I just finished reading last week's article in re- gards to how you and the Halton Hills council decid- ed to vote yourselves 10 per cent raises. Let me get this straight. You commissioned ML Con- sulting to compare your sal- aries to those of "neighbour- ing" municipalities and you found out that you were get- ting paid less. How much did that study cost the taxpayers of Halton Hills? Why couldn't you just pick up a phone and a calcu- lator and do the compari- sons yourself ? The salaries of public of- ficials are made public. What where the neigh- bouring municipalities you compared? Guelph, Or- angeville and Rockwood, or did you compare your sala- ries to Brampton, Missis- sauga and Toronto? Of course the staff of larger municipalities are paid more. They have much more responsibilities. They deal with larger issues in regards to transportation, waste management and zoning issues. They also have a much larger taxpay- er base from which to pay salaries. When you were hired for your job here in Halton Hills you were aware of your salary, so how can you just decide that now you should be paid more? How do you justify giv- ing yourselves 10 per cent raises? Have your duties and responsibilities in- creased from last year? Also, when do you and the council start receiving this raise? Is it retroactive or does it start when Bill C-44 (the one-third tax ex- empt allowance) is removed on Jan. 1, 2019? As a taxpaying citizen of Halton Hills I would appre- ciate your response to these questions. Matthew Andrews Different rules for politicians I would like to express my concern for the raises that the mayor and council- lors have voted for them- selves, with council's salary going from $31,555 to 39,668. The mayor's pay is going from $90,563 to $114,783. Looks like the provincial government has taken away the one-third tax exemption on the salary that they cur- rently receive, so council has decided to vote them- selves a raise. Why are they entitled to such a large tax break for working for the municipality, which they are well paid? This does not seem fair to me and they should not be allowed to give them- selves a salary increase. One set of rules for tax- payers - different rules for politicians Since 2018 is an election year, why don't we see what the Halton Hills taxpayers have to say by having a ref- erendum. Steve Prentice l GET CONNECTED Visit theifp.ca/letters to see other opinions from the local community.