Papineau, Que MP Justin Trudeau is officially running for the leadership position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Although he did not formally announce it himself nor will he do so during the caucus retreat, Warren Kinsella broke the news on his website in August. On September 26, the Liberal Party tactfully leaked the announcement to Radio-Canada where Trudeau would make the bid official a week later in his riding. Remarkably, Trudeau's staff will only comprise of people under the age of 40. Trudeau, who is the Liberal Critic of Youth, Recreation, and Sport, has been rumoured to run for Liberal leader for a while now, ever since Bob Rae broke the news that he wasn't going for the top bid. In many ways, Trudeau is everything the Liberal Party could ask for in a leader: he's young, energetic, and is popular among Canadians. Like his father before him, Trudeau is charismatic and candid.
As many newspapers are wont to point out, Trudeau stands alone in this race and it is his and his alone to win. However, if the Liberals are going to make Trudeau shoulder all of the party's burdens, then they can forget about reclaiming the government on their own. For the sake of the Liberal Party, they simply cannot re-enter another phase of Trudeaumania, especially when it's all style and no substance. They tried to make saviours out of leaders twice already and both times ended up in abysmal failures. If the Liberal Party wants any chance at defeating the Tories come 2015, they need to form a coalition with the NDP (duh). Much to the left's chagrin, it's hard to believe this will happen anytime soon.
Now, for Trudeau as leader, his bid is an interesting one. First, it will be especially hard for the Tories or even the NDP to define Trudeau through their attack ads since Trudeau has done an adequate job of doing that himself. You can look no further to his bout with Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau as proof. Although for charity, the match probably meant more to Liberals than anything they accomplished in Parliament. For the first time in a long time, people were rooting for a Liberal and they were excited for a Liberal and a Liberal delivered even when expectations were low. It drove momentum oddly enough, and guaranteed Trudeau as a star within Canadian politics. Even though he has done fairly little as an MP in his 4-year career, he still had the political courage and mettle to win and hold his riding in Papineau, a riding that was held by the Bloc Quebecois and was easily susceptible to the Orange Crush in 2011. And of course, he probably said what we were all thinking to Conservative MP and Environment Minister Peter Kent during Question Period.
Second, Trudeau does have alternance by his side. Thought of as an antiquated and weak unwritten norm, alternance now is anything but with the Liberals completely wiped out of Quebec. In the Federal Level, the incumbent Liberal MPs were unseated by new and inexperienced NDP MPs. In the Provincial Level, the Liberal Party is embroiled in scandal and draconian measures as well as incompetent leadership. Therefore, when April rolls around and the Liberals head to the polls, they're probably going to feel more inclined to select a Francophone -- especially a popular Francophone like Trudeau -- to reestablish the party once again in Quebec.
But, what do we know about Trudeau, really? We know that he thinks calling honour killing 'barbaric' is wrong. And, we know that he thinks Environment Minister is a piece of shit. And, we know that he was once an actor and had facial hair once that was met with the displeasure of many Canadians, oddly enough. What his campaign can do is flesh and unpack his positions on issues that affect the country.
While I'll admit that the press has covered Trudeau abundantly, his entry is still something that Canadians need to reconsider. Will a fresh face mean a fresh, bold attitude for the Liberal Party? Will his youth propel the party to take more leftist ideologies? Where does Trudeau even stand on national security, the economy, and foreign policy? Canadians are already willing to give the Liberals a victory if it means Trudeau is at the helm even though we don't know how he feels about any of those things. Granted, there is still lots of time for us to find out.
Showing posts with label Canadian Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
Ban She: Rona Ambrose on M312
I'm going to do two things with this post, one will be brief and the other will be more in-depth.
First, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth's motion calling for a debate on the commencement of life was defeated in House of Commons on Wednesday night 203-91. Woodworth himself didn't think that the motion would get much support and he was right. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself voted against the motion. And, we all know where the Opposition stands.
Second, the vote that really encountered a whirlwind of vitriol, alarm, and overall frenzy was that of Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose who voted in favour of the motion. NDP MP Libby Davis rightfully called for her resignation. In fact, in the House of Commons the next day, when Ambrose answered a question from the Opposition, she brought up the point that it had been the first time in over the year that she was questioned about her role as Minister of Status of Women. She claims it's because she was doing a good job. The Opposition responded with, "you're useless." And, the NDP is right. Harper has rendered the Minister of Status of Women as a meaningless position, one so small that it can be held alongside another, more "important" position like public works. Reputable women's group has decried this government's actions on women's equality and rights and that's because it is, as I detailed in this post here.
Ambrose is entitled to believe what she wants but she should really consider what her position entails. As Minister of Status of Women, she is more than just the embodiment of a decorum position, occupying space in photo-ops and tweeting about her experiences. She is supposed to be the minister who is in charge of advancing women's rights in Canada. And, as far as I can tell, she hasn't, in fact, been doing a good job. It's only made worse when you have Conservative-sympathizers at the National Post critiquing the Ambrose's critics.
To isolate that National Post article, it left me absolutely stunned. That article is not a defense of Ambrose's feminism or feminism in general in any way shape or form. It simply is not. Want proof? The columnist said Ambrose is "a better kind of feminist" than the women who rightfully critique her for voting in favour of the committee. That notion is completely and utterly regressive and flat-out dumb. It shows feminism as a type of skill or challenge that some are more capable of doing than others: "these women here are bad at feminism, and these women here are good at feminism." She is absolutely divisive and counter-intuitive when discussing feminism which is supposed to be about the empowerment of all women. The wonderful, wonderful Canadian feminist blog GenderFocus offers a great rebuttal to the backlash of the backlash.
By limiting the options of women, Ambrose does not do justice to her position. To call for her resignation, however, would be futile and just standard Parliamentary procedure. But, she needs to be held account for what her vote entailed and what it meant to the current Canadian psyche regarding feminism and reproductive rights. The popular claim pushed by the Conservatives is that Ambrose was spreading advocacy over sex-selection abortion, a practice that occurs around the world and in Canada among immigrants.
As a feminist, I believe sex-selection abortion is wrong (duh). The solution, then, wouldn't necessarily be to put bans on abortion and infusing it with more inaccessibility. That would hurt many women, mostly young, low-income, minority women. The solution would be to foster more empowerment among women all over the world -- starting with Canada. Canada should be a country that would set the example for more countries to follow when it comes to treatment of women. Canada should be the country that helps more women in countries where they normally would be subjugated to abuse and oppression.
But, we're not. We have an ample amount of opportunity to grow and prosper, here. But, we're not the country we should be -- or could be -- when it comes to protecting women's rights. And one of the biggest barriers seems to be the Minister for the Status of Women herself.
First, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth's motion calling for a debate on the commencement of life was defeated in House of Commons on Wednesday night 203-91. Woodworth himself didn't think that the motion would get much support and he was right. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself voted against the motion. And, we all know where the Opposition stands.
Second, the vote that really encountered a whirlwind of vitriol, alarm, and overall frenzy was that of Minister for the Status of Women Rona Ambrose who voted in favour of the motion. NDP MP Libby Davis rightfully called for her resignation. In fact, in the House of Commons the next day, when Ambrose answered a question from the Opposition, she brought up the point that it had been the first time in over the year that she was questioned about her role as Minister of Status of Women. She claims it's because she was doing a good job. The Opposition responded with, "you're useless." And, the NDP is right. Harper has rendered the Minister of Status of Women as a meaningless position, one so small that it can be held alongside another, more "important" position like public works. Reputable women's group has decried this government's actions on women's equality and rights and that's because it is, as I detailed in this post here.
Ambrose is entitled to believe what she wants but she should really consider what her position entails. As Minister of Status of Women, she is more than just the embodiment of a decorum position, occupying space in photo-ops and tweeting about her experiences. She is supposed to be the minister who is in charge of advancing women's rights in Canada. And, as far as I can tell, she hasn't, in fact, been doing a good job. It's only made worse when you have Conservative-sympathizers at the National Post critiquing the Ambrose's critics.
To isolate that National Post article, it left me absolutely stunned. That article is not a defense of Ambrose's feminism or feminism in general in any way shape or form. It simply is not. Want proof? The columnist said Ambrose is "a better kind of feminist" than the women who rightfully critique her for voting in favour of the committee. That notion is completely and utterly regressive and flat-out dumb. It shows feminism as a type of skill or challenge that some are more capable of doing than others: "these women here are bad at feminism, and these women here are good at feminism." She is absolutely divisive and counter-intuitive when discussing feminism which is supposed to be about the empowerment of all women. The wonderful, wonderful Canadian feminist blog GenderFocus offers a great rebuttal to the backlash of the backlash.
By limiting the options of women, Ambrose does not do justice to her position. To call for her resignation, however, would be futile and just standard Parliamentary procedure. But, she needs to be held account for what her vote entailed and what it meant to the current Canadian psyche regarding feminism and reproductive rights. The popular claim pushed by the Conservatives is that Ambrose was spreading advocacy over sex-selection abortion, a practice that occurs around the world and in Canada among immigrants.
As a feminist, I believe sex-selection abortion is wrong (duh). The solution, then, wouldn't necessarily be to put bans on abortion and infusing it with more inaccessibility. That would hurt many women, mostly young, low-income, minority women. The solution would be to foster more empowerment among women all over the world -- starting with Canada. Canada should be a country that would set the example for more countries to follow when it comes to treatment of women. Canada should be the country that helps more women in countries where they normally would be subjugated to abuse and oppression.
But, we're not. We have an ample amount of opportunity to grow and prosper, here. But, we're not the country we should be -- or could be -- when it comes to protecting women's rights. And one of the biggest barriers seems to be the Minister for the Status of Women herself.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Teachers and Unions and Unions and Teachers
So, the Liberals defy the nay-sayers and go against the union who provided the bulk of their support for over a decade all in the hopes of keeping the Ontario economy afloat. Earlier last week, the Liberals passed Bill 115, legislation that would make it illegal for Ontario teachers to strike and collectively bargain. This, of course, is completely incredulous and resembles Conservative tactic in the Mike Harris days -- although, I concede that Harris was much, much worse. What Dalton McGuinty is doing is playing roughshod politics with a faction group he does not want to spar with. The Ontario teachers union has developed into a pretty powerful organization who has the crutch of citing the interests of the student whenever they're faced with some opposition. But, sometimes they do the exact opposite. Right now, the teachers abruptly halted any voluntary after-school activities they head as retaliation. Students, then, are the pawns in the middle of their feud. Interestingly enough, the students are the ones protesting and taking up the activist cause as exemplified by students at Sir Robert Borden in Ottawa. Now, as of Saturday, the teachers' unions have started to voice their concerns through public demonstrations.
As pro-union, I am firmly against the Liberals' move to nullify the teachers' ability to strike. This is, after all, their constitutional right. However, thanks to the Liberals, teachers' wages have increased exponentially due to his consistent support and Ontario teachers are revered across the nation for their livable and equitable benefits. Case in point, when BC teachers went on strike, they often cited Ontario teachers for the model they would like to have implemented in their own province. But, by openly criticizing the Liberals, the teachers' union are left with a precarious situation in which they could see the majority of their members heading straight for an alternative. An alternative in this case be the next party in line: the Tim Hudak Conservatives. This was something that happened before in Ontario, when NDP Leader Bob Rae was Premier and imposed a series of "Rae Days," or unpaid vacation days. This blogger does an excellent job of contextualizing the issue by comparing the austerity measures during Harris with austerity under McGuinty. The two do not compare, concludes the blogger, and that by turning their back on the Liberals, the teachers face an even greater risk: a Conservative government.
But, instead of actually reflecting on the travesty that was the Harris Common Sense Revolution, teachers are already decrying Bill 115 and McGuinty as "worse than Mike Harris." Hopefully, this one source doesn't speak on behalf of the teachers' union because this notion could not be more wrong.
Instead of puffing their chests and lashing out, the teachers should wake up from their political amnesia and grit and bear it for a while, lest they open the doors for a swift interception by Hudak. Teachers in Ontario get paid -- on average -- $86, 865, the second highest among teachers' unions in Canada, according to their 2011 Collective Agreement. Ontario teachers make almost $10,000 more than teachers in Saskatchewan and almost $20,000 more than their counterparts in P.E.I. Whether teachers deserve that money is whole other question. They've put in the hours in completing their education and obviously the effort to creating a lesson plan for their students. Although, it's true that there are some bad teachers out there who don't make the material engaging or interesting but aren't penalized because they're protected by the union. That's a problem, but a fair solution shouldn't be to demonize the entire union which conservatives are wont to do, but to adapt better evaluative procedures to weed out the ineffective teachers.
Anyways, teachers have consistently been making more and more money ever since McGuinty came into power in 2000, something that Anna Maria Tremonti pointed out to a representative of the teachers union as a cause of Ontario's deficit. The Liberals also implemented better benefits for the teachers to enjoy, most notably their pension plan which gives them a comfortable retirement after their teaching career. As the self-proclaimed "Education Premier," McGuinty has concentrated his efforts on securing higher performance rates for elementary and high-school students, which he has successfully accomplished, generally speaking. The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers comfortable lifestyle, better than most people in Ontario since we're suffering from a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Most people in Ontario can't empathize with the teachers' unions mostly due to their cozy relationship with the Liberals in all these years. They have a good pay, secured benefits, and a comfortable -- albeit not that generous -- pension. Irregardless, the pension is better than most working-class people in Ontario. When discussing the robbery of the right to strike, well, it seems like most people in Ontario face that same problem. Nurses can't strike and they're arguably faced with stressful working conditions. Ontario used to rely on manufacturing for their economy, but now, the majority of employment seems to be in retail or temporary work and most of those people can't strike. Moreover, it certainly doesn't help matters when you have an Ontario MP calling for the start of 'voluntary' unions.
As I've said before, in no way do I support the Liberals' disempowerment of the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargain. If the teachers are being mismanaged and handled unfairly while putting in the hours to educate and coach, then striking is the only reasonable action if negotiation breaks down. But, the fact is, the teachers aren't in that position in this province. As I've said, they make a good wage with equally good benefits with good vacation time. Of course, the job is never easy. But, what job is these days? Teachers have to deal with mountains of marking, individual needs of the students, and any voluntary positions they hold to make the year enjoyable. However, most teachers don't have to live paycheque to paycheque. Most teachers don't have to feel that they have to make a choice between rent or food. But I stress: this does not mean that their right to bargain should be suspended, even for a short period of time.
The Liberals -- at least the McGuinty liberals -- have duped themselves in betraying their key support group this time around. If they don't see public approval angling their way, they only have themselves to blame. The past by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo is emblematic enough of how weary people are of giving the Liberals a majority, especially when they're not even trying too hard. The winner, the NDP's Catherine Fife, single-handedly got to know her constituents and ran a great campaign. Since McGuinty permanently severed ties with the teachers, this means that the teachers can look to the NDP to be their party since the NDP are the party of unions. This means that -- potentially -- the NDP could land a victory and score a mandate in Ontario once again. And as for the Ontario PCs? Well, their only support is confined with the rural areas of Ontario.
McGuinty may have lost the teachers indefinitely but it's up to the teachers to realize who are and who aren't their allies.
As pro-union, I am firmly against the Liberals' move to nullify the teachers' ability to strike. This is, after all, their constitutional right. However, thanks to the Liberals, teachers' wages have increased exponentially due to his consistent support and Ontario teachers are revered across the nation for their livable and equitable benefits. Case in point, when BC teachers went on strike, they often cited Ontario teachers for the model they would like to have implemented in their own province. But, by openly criticizing the Liberals, the teachers' union are left with a precarious situation in which they could see the majority of their members heading straight for an alternative. An alternative in this case be the next party in line: the Tim Hudak Conservatives. This was something that happened before in Ontario, when NDP Leader Bob Rae was Premier and imposed a series of "Rae Days," or unpaid vacation days. This blogger does an excellent job of contextualizing the issue by comparing the austerity measures during Harris with austerity under McGuinty. The two do not compare, concludes the blogger, and that by turning their back on the Liberals, the teachers face an even greater risk: a Conservative government.
But, instead of actually reflecting on the travesty that was the Harris Common Sense Revolution, teachers are already decrying Bill 115 and McGuinty as "worse than Mike Harris." Hopefully, this one source doesn't speak on behalf of the teachers' union because this notion could not be more wrong.
Instead of puffing their chests and lashing out, the teachers should wake up from their political amnesia and grit and bear it for a while, lest they open the doors for a swift interception by Hudak. Teachers in Ontario get paid -- on average -- $86, 865, the second highest among teachers' unions in Canada, according to their 2011 Collective Agreement. Ontario teachers make almost $10,000 more than teachers in Saskatchewan and almost $20,000 more than their counterparts in P.E.I. Whether teachers deserve that money is whole other question. They've put in the hours in completing their education and obviously the effort to creating a lesson plan for their students. Although, it's true that there are some bad teachers out there who don't make the material engaging or interesting but aren't penalized because they're protected by the union. That's a problem, but a fair solution shouldn't be to demonize the entire union which conservatives are wont to do, but to adapt better evaluative procedures to weed out the ineffective teachers.
Anyways, teachers have consistently been making more and more money ever since McGuinty came into power in 2000, something that Anna Maria Tremonti pointed out to a representative of the teachers union as a cause of Ontario's deficit. The Liberals also implemented better benefits for the teachers to enjoy, most notably their pension plan which gives them a comfortable retirement after their teaching career. As the self-proclaimed "Education Premier," McGuinty has concentrated his efforts on securing higher performance rates for elementary and high-school students, which he has successfully accomplished, generally speaking. The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers comfortable lifestyle, better than most people in Ontario since we're suffering from a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Most people in Ontario can't empathize with the teachers' unions mostly due to their cozy relationship with the Liberals in all these years. They have a good pay, secured benefits, and a comfortable -- albeit not that generous -- pension. Irregardless, the pension is better than most working-class people in Ontario. When discussing the robbery of the right to strike, well, it seems like most people in Ontario face that same problem. Nurses can't strike and they're arguably faced with stressful working conditions. Ontario used to rely on manufacturing for their economy, but now, the majority of employment seems to be in retail or temporary work and most of those people can't strike. Moreover, it certainly doesn't help matters when you have an Ontario MP calling for the start of 'voluntary' unions.
As I've said before, in no way do I support the Liberals' disempowerment of the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargain. If the teachers are being mismanaged and handled unfairly while putting in the hours to educate and coach, then striking is the only reasonable action if negotiation breaks down. But, the fact is, the teachers aren't in that position in this province. As I've said, they make a good wage with equally good benefits with good vacation time. Of course, the job is never easy. But, what job is these days? Teachers have to deal with mountains of marking, individual needs of the students, and any voluntary positions they hold to make the year enjoyable. However, most teachers don't have to live paycheque to paycheque. Most teachers don't have to feel that they have to make a choice between rent or food. But I stress: this does not mean that their right to bargain should be suspended, even for a short period of time.
The Liberals -- at least the McGuinty liberals -- have duped themselves in betraying their key support group this time around. If they don't see public approval angling their way, they only have themselves to blame. The past by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo is emblematic enough of how weary people are of giving the Liberals a majority, especially when they're not even trying too hard. The winner, the NDP's Catherine Fife, single-handedly got to know her constituents and ran a great campaign. Since McGuinty permanently severed ties with the teachers, this means that the teachers can look to the NDP to be their party since the NDP are the party of unions. This means that -- potentially -- the NDP could land a victory and score a mandate in Ontario once again. And as for the Ontario PCs? Well, their only support is confined with the rural areas of Ontario.
McGuinty may have lost the teachers indefinitely but it's up to the teachers to realize who are and who aren't their allies.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Riddell Revealed
As I stated what seems so long ago, new developments of the Clayton Riddell Political Management School were sure to follow. Today, August 28, Carleton University has officially rewritten the contract between the university and Riddell, the founder of the program, so that Riddell doesn't have the final word on the hiring process of educators and curriculum. However, Carleton has stated in the past that Riddell doesn't have the authority to confirm hiring of educators in their press release. But, those statements didn't exactly line up to the actual agreement which, obviously, stated that Riddell does have that privilege.
This change in direction comes after the school was caught under fire by the Canadian Association of University Teachers decrying the deal, labelling it as a "damage to our reputation." Article after article was released in various newspapers following the developments of the contract and the school. I for one was interested in the story as a student at Carleton and as someone who has interest in insulating universities away from private donors.
This announcement comes at the one-year anniversary of the Political Management school at Carleton. The 20-25 students in the program will graduate and attend their convocation ceremony late in the fall. Carleton University has indeed released the revised clause for the public's viewing. This clause revision doesn't really change anything. The committee still gets to oversee the overall "direction" of the school and to see if the funds of the donor are being distributed fairly and evenly. To me, and probably to most people, that still implies that the five-man Tory operative is still powerful and still under the bidding of Riddell.
The statements made by Carleton University President Roseann Runte are dubious and spotty, at best. She claims that there were certain areas in the donor agreement that were "confusing." The donor agreement basically dismantles the power held by the five-person committee (that were mostly composed of Conservative sympathizers) and will give the authority to hiring back to the university.
The details are a bit muddled and I still don't exactly trust Carleton on this. Clayton Riddell and Preston Manning (who is on the committee) still wield the money and influence to determine the path of the the school. The rewritten documents doesn't mention how students are selected which we all know are hand-picked by the program's administration.
There is no way this program can be trusted. Although they promote their program as being "cross-partisan," it would be naive to believe that assertion. This is a wealthy oilman we're talking about who has interests in securing his wealth and furthering his own financial gains at the expense of others. And, this is the former leader of the Canadian Alliance: an absurdly, right-wing party that propagated damaging ideas that infringed on the basic rights of citizens. I'm talking in reference, of course, of gays and lesbians. The Manning Centre for Democracy is not a centre promoting democratic values. That would imply a diversity of opinions shared among students and faculty. What it does accomplish, however, is the advancement of Conservative ideas for a new generation of Canadians so that they can one day seize the government.
Students should be compelled to mobilize and take action over what's going on under their very noses. This is something that affects them since it could be the beginning of private interests seeping in Carleton University and misinforming students on the truth. Carleton has taken a step in the right direction by announcing the limitations to Riddell's announcements even though Carleton is clearly a few steps back.
This change in direction comes after the school was caught under fire by the Canadian Association of University Teachers decrying the deal, labelling it as a "damage to our reputation." Article after article was released in various newspapers following the developments of the contract and the school. I for one was interested in the story as a student at Carleton and as someone who has interest in insulating universities away from private donors.
This announcement comes at the one-year anniversary of the Political Management school at Carleton. The 20-25 students in the program will graduate and attend their convocation ceremony late in the fall. Carleton University has indeed released the revised clause for the public's viewing. This clause revision doesn't really change anything. The committee still gets to oversee the overall "direction" of the school and to see if the funds of the donor are being distributed fairly and evenly. To me, and probably to most people, that still implies that the five-man Tory operative is still powerful and still under the bidding of Riddell.
The statements made by Carleton University President Roseann Runte are dubious and spotty, at best. She claims that there were certain areas in the donor agreement that were "confusing." The donor agreement basically dismantles the power held by the five-person committee (that were mostly composed of Conservative sympathizers) and will give the authority to hiring back to the university.
The details are a bit muddled and I still don't exactly trust Carleton on this. Clayton Riddell and Preston Manning (who is on the committee) still wield the money and influence to determine the path of the the school. The rewritten documents doesn't mention how students are selected which we all know are hand-picked by the program's administration.
There is no way this program can be trusted. Although they promote their program as being "cross-partisan," it would be naive to believe that assertion. This is a wealthy oilman we're talking about who has interests in securing his wealth and furthering his own financial gains at the expense of others. And, this is the former leader of the Canadian Alliance: an absurdly, right-wing party that propagated damaging ideas that infringed on the basic rights of citizens. I'm talking in reference, of course, of gays and lesbians. The Manning Centre for Democracy is not a centre promoting democratic values. That would imply a diversity of opinions shared among students and faculty. What it does accomplish, however, is the advancement of Conservative ideas for a new generation of Canadians so that they can one day seize the government.
Students should be compelled to mobilize and take action over what's going on under their very noses. This is something that affects them since it could be the beginning of private interests seeping in Carleton University and misinforming students on the truth. Carleton has taken a step in the right direction by announcing the limitations to Riddell's announcements even though Carleton is clearly a few steps back.
Monday, August 20, 2012
'Don't Let Them Tell You It Can't Be Done': Humanizing Jack Layton
On August 22nd, Canadians everywhere will most likely be confronted with the news of the one year anniversary of Jack Layton's death. The out pour of emotion will not be as strong as it was, nor will Canadians of all political stripes converge in the public quorums and spaces in their community to celebrate a man they probably never knew. When happened in the wake of his death was probably a testament to Layton's likeability factor and eagerness on the campaign trail to fix the 'big problems' of government and to fight for the everyday man or woman. These were undoubtedly ideas that resonated with people. Well, enough people to grant Layton and his party, the NDP, Official Opposition status in the Canadian government. Although his political achievements are worthy of observance and appraisal -- most notably, fighting for gay rights, establishing greener infrastructure complete with a sound emphasis on cycling lanes in Toronto, putting homelessness on the map, and passing a motion calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops in Afghanistan -- his work outside the political realm are just as bold and just as noble.*
But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.
What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper. (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.
But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.
Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.
Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.
One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.
In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.
Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.
The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.
Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.
I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:
*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).
But, before I get to that, I'll make one thing clear about Layton, something that I think gets overlooked when discussing his legacy, especially among NDP supporters: Jack Layton was a politician.
What this means is that sometimes he did things that only served his political interests. I'm referring specifically to the time Layton worked with current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take down then-Liberal Prime Minster Paul Martin in 2005. However, to say that Layton effectively caused the Tories to take power in 2006 is a complete mistruth and myopic understanding of the ideas at hand. Of course, he didn't cause it. Canadians had a choice and they "chose" Harper. (Note: 'Chose' is enclosed with quotations because the Conservatives only won approximately 40% of the seats when only close to 67% of Canadians voted.) But, Layton made a strictly political move in that election since taking down the Liberals meant the possibility for more NDP seats -- which then became a reality when the NDP jumped from 18 seats to 29, right below the Bloc Québecois. And, having more seats -- along with his alliance with the PM -- meant that more NDP-supported initiatives, like the National Child Care program and the Kelowna Accord were finally up for discussion.
But, as I pointed out in my last post, the National Child Care program was eliminated by Harper. The Kelowna Accord, which would provide funding to education, youth services, health care, housing, and other initiatives to Aboriginal Communities, was gutted.
Obviously, by siding with the Tories, Layton made a political move to gain more seats so that he and his party could make more of an impact in the House of Commons. Consequently, he would produce more vocal changes for "hard-working Canadian families." Or, so he thought. That said, I have to stress this point, Layton did not get the Tories elected. He simply made a shrewd political choice in order to further his own standing. And, that happens routinely in politics. A shrewd political choice doesn't necessarily sour the entire legacy of a political leader, but it's certainly worthy of discussion and may render that political leader back to "humanly" state after widespread belief of that leader as an infallible Demi-god.
Jack Layton was not a Demi-god. In fact, he was far from it. He was a man with strong ideals and principles with a genuine belief in the goodness of society, and he displayed those beliefs with such exuberance that it was hard not to like him.
One of his greatest accomplishments, I think -- and one that is certainly overlooked when reflecting on his life-- is his work for the eradication of violence against women.
In 1991, Layton with the help of a determined group of men comprised of members like Michael Kaufman and Ron Sluser, helped start the White Ribbon Campaign. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the charitable initiative, the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the most prominent NGO run by men whose aim is to end violence against women all over the world. What started as a makeshift office in Layton's son's bedroom grew into a full-fledged organization making a difference in over 55 countries. Layton and the rest of the WRC were inspired to start the campaign after being confronted by the tragedy of the 1989 Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal where 14 women were killed by a deranged gunman. The gunman, when he entered in the classroom, requested that the women be separated by the men and then let the men go unharmed. The women, of course, who were studying to be engineers, were shot at point-blank. The aftermath prompted discussion after discussion on Canada's gun control laws and mental health assessments. Of course, the notion of what it means to be masculine in Canada came up and instead of cowering away from the public eye, Layton and his colleagues stood up and created the WRC on behalf of all men everywhere to assist and protect women, Canadian and otherwise.
Layton believed in the campaign with such passion and enthusiasm that he put his own house on collateral to finance the charity and move it out of Mike Layton's bedroom.
The WRC is certainly a powerful movement, educating young men and boys on the importance of respecting women and by ending the silence among men on their attitudes towards violence against women. The WRC was a game-changer. It proved that men care about this issue and fight for this issue. That's not to say that the work of other groups formed by women are less important because they are not. In any way. However, it showed that Canadian men -- and men around the world involved with the campaign -- were committed in challenging the preconceived notions of a monolithic definition of masculinity. The WRC is a vibrant example that women's issues are also everyone's issues: family issues, safety issues, and societal issues that everyone should respect.
Sadly, Layton never got a chance to confront Harper about the decline of women's rights in Canada under his tenure as Leader of the Official Opposition. There's reason to believe that Layton would've been aghast at Harper's record as it is the antithesis of everything Layton believes in. In order to truly observe, revere, and celebrate Layton and his legacy, the NDP must remember to keep fighting for Canadian women, either by increasing the funding toward the Status of Women or by making a plan to narrow and eventually eliminate the pay gap between men and women.
I'll conclude with something that Layton himself said about advancing the role of women in Canada from his book Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians:
Instead of just one ministry dedicated to keeping an eye on issues of particular concern for women (which frankly could be rendered powerless), think of the impact women's perspectives would have if they were completely integrated into the decision-making of all institutions, whether the House of Commons, government departments, or major corporations. Imagine what society would look like if the decisions about priority spending and program design, for example, all had to run through the filter of "How will this affect women?" Then the systemic discrimination that women face would begin to get the attention needed for real change to happen.**
*Regarding Layton's achievements, I actually could go on...
**Layton Jack, Speaking Out Louder: Ideas That Work for Canadians, (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2006).
Thursday, August 16, 2012
No She Can't: The Harper Government and REAL Women of Canada
This past primary season generated a lot vitriol towards women and women's issues, predominantly abortion and birth control. Commentators, pundits, and politicians alike have decried the Right for waging a War on Women. Some critics even suggested that the current mindset of the modern-day Republican Party lies within the Middle Ages -- enter Rick Santorum.
In Canada, we've had our own flirtation with regression when it came to women's rights. This Spring, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth proposed re-opening the debate on abortion and the right to life. Of course, a heavy stream of opposition headed his way and rightfully so. Since 1988, Canadian women have the right to terminate their pregnancy as part of their Charter right to security of the person. This was probably one of the most significant and famous Supreme Court rulings in recent history as it not only shows the potency of the newly-entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the progression of Canada as a whole.
Woodworth encountered the frustration and disapproval from women's groups who held demonstrations and protests in cities across Canada. Women took to social media by storm, flooding Woodworth’s Facebook and Twitter accounts with details of their reproductive health. Despite all of this dissent, the story is far from being over. A recent article in The Globe and Mail states that doctors who are members of the Canadian Medical Association want to squash any "backdoor" deals made by Woodworth to table his proposal. Although part of his caucus, Stephen Harper himself didn't back the motion -- M312 -- but stated that MPs are allowed to propose legislation pieces.
So, this brings me to a question: How has the Harper government contributed to the progression of women and women’s rights in Canada?
In Canada, we've had our own flirtation with regression when it came to women's rights. This Spring, Conservative MP Steven Woodworth proposed re-opening the debate on abortion and the right to life. Of course, a heavy stream of opposition headed his way and rightfully so. Since 1988, Canadian women have the right to terminate their pregnancy as part of their Charter right to security of the person. This was probably one of the most significant and famous Supreme Court rulings in recent history as it not only shows the potency of the newly-entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the progression of Canada as a whole.
Woodworth encountered the frustration and disapproval from women's groups who held demonstrations and protests in cities across Canada. Women took to social media by storm, flooding Woodworth’s Facebook and Twitter accounts with details of their reproductive health. Despite all of this dissent, the story is far from being over. A recent article in The Globe and Mail states that doctors who are members of the Canadian Medical Association want to squash any "backdoor" deals made by Woodworth to table his proposal. Although part of his caucus, Stephen Harper himself didn't back the motion -- M312 -- but stated that MPs are allowed to propose legislation pieces.
So, this brings me to a question: How has the Harper government contributed to the progression of women and women’s rights in Canada?
First, it's important to assess the amount of women MPs currently holding seats in the House of Commons.
The election in 2011 saw an unprecedented amount of women elected into office -- out of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, 76 are occupied by female MPs. Most noteworthy is Elizabeth May, the leader of the Federal Green Party, who finally secured a seat after years of working in politics. Despite having one seat, her presence has been most influential considering her role in the Budget Amendments. Moreover, most of the female MPs were from the NDP, now the Official Opposition mostly due to Jack Layton's performance in Quebec. Out of the 102 NDP MPs elected in the 2011 election, 40 of them are women.
The record-breaking number of women MPs -- from all political stripes -- is indeed encouraging. But, we still have a long way to go. According to Equal Voice, an organization committed to bridging the gender gap in the political process, Canada ranks 40th in Inter-Parliamentary Union. However, the NDP has demonstrated a commitment to encourage more women to run for pubic office. Two women -- MPs Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash -- were contenders for the leadership position for the NDP this past Spring. And, NDP leadership candidate and current MP for Ottawa Centre Paul Dewar proposed his strategy to advance women's involvement in politics and entreprise during his campaign. You can read the whole plan here, wonderfully titled, "A Woman's Place: At the Heart of Our Democracy, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Future."
As noble and progressive this plan is, it's difficult to assess as to whether it would actually work and operate successfully. Nonetheless, it's more than the Tories can say.
Speaking of which, out of the 167-member Conservative caucus that currently holds the majority, only 28 of them are women. Harper's Cabinet, which is composed of 37 other Members of Parliament, only nine are women. Nine! Contrast that with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's Shadow Cabinet where 17 female MPs are poised to be a part of the cabinet, if given a majority.
In terms of what Harper has done to advance women's rights in Canada, the results are very disappointing. As soon as Harper took office, he made significant drawbacks to programs and facilities that help Canadian women in several, several ways. To wit:
- Effectively eliminating the $1B National Child Care program, bolstering evidence that Canada is one of the most regressive countries when it comes to early children's education.
- Moreover, maternal care is at a dangerous level for Canada right now as more and more women die while giving birth. In fact, a woman giving birth in Bosnia and Herzegovina has a better chance at surviving than in Canada.
- Halting funding for the Sisters in Spirit database for Aboriginal Women in Canada who are missing
- Closing 12 out of 16 offices for the Status of Women Canada
- Cutting $1M for a research fund sponsored by the Status of Women Canada
- Didn't improve pay equity for women despite making it one of his campaign promises
- Increasing the age of retirement and cutting back on OAS when approximately 17% of senior women are living below the poverty line
- Slashing public sector jobs which has proven to offer more equitable pay rates for women than private sector jobs
You can read more detailed descriptions of the cuts and how they impact the lives of Canadian girls and women here, here, and here.
Probably one of the most telling and harrowing outcomes of major blowbacks to social assistance programs for women is an inability for them to reach out to their community and seek for help. Especially if they're in dire need like an abusive relationship, for example. In the early to mid nineties, when Ontario was under Conservative rule with PC Premier Mike Harris, a 1996 report issued by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses suggested that 66% of women stayed in an abusive relationship simply because they did not have enough access to social assistance.* That's just across a province. Imagine the entire country, devoid of any assistance programs to help and protect its own citizens.
However, there is a group of women who are fiercely and proudly Conservative. In fact, they are REAL Women of Canada -- whatever that's supposed to mean. According to their official website, their view runs counter to that of "established feminist groups" and seeks to emphasize that the "family is the most important unit in society." Although this NGO -- which claims to be non-partisan, by the way -- wants to progress women in the workplace, its real goal is to focus the debate back on the woman's role as the primary care provider for children and the family. In fact, they call themselves "pro-family."
I'm not too sure what constitutes as "anti-family." Working? Common-law relationships? Same-sex relationships? Abortion?
Well, REAL Women seem to oppose a woman's right to choose, believing that a woman should care for each member of her family, born or unborn. Using anti-feminist rhetoric, REAL Women claim that it is feminists themselves who are the oppressors in this issue, not the other way around.
On Same-Sex Unions, REAL Women are not in favour of them, arguing that they are not a real relationship because the union could never spawn children. I have to say, most of what's reported in this newsletter on same-sex relationships is pretty disgraceful. I mean, suggesting that homosexual couples are inherently unfaithful, unwilling to commit, and are just plain not real, is insulting to a significant amount of women, approximately 3 472 married couples**, who this organization supposedly represents.
And REAL Women do not support common-law relationships, at all. Again, in their newsletter, REAL Women argue that common-law relationships are "not a safe place to be in, physically, financially, or emotionally." Of course, it's indisputable that there are tax benefits for the married, but to suggest that common-law relationships are noxious, especially when an increasing number of women, approximately half of all Canadian women between the ages of 20 to 29, decided to choose an alternative to marriage.
Lastly, REAL Women have a rather peculiar approach to equal pay for equal work and I feel that I should leave it to their own statement. From their position paper on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value:
So, we have a completely disastrous record from the Harper government and an equally absurd women's group who supports this government. Both of these issues are compounded by the fact that the Conservatives are not big fans of dissent -- at any level, and certainly not when it comes to women's rights. The Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives*** have called the Conservatives and their assault on basic rights to free speech as "unprecedented in Canadian history" as women's services are defunded thereby limiting their right to speak out. Moreover, by tabling legislation like Public Sector Equitable Act, wages are determined by the "market demand" meaning women are competitively stacked up against men who are paid more anyways, sticking with discriminatory policies of the past. But, by eliminating the Court Challenges option, it's not like these women can oppose these antiquated payment policies.
Canadian women have certainly come a long way, making impact after impact with each turning decade. Prime Minsters, of course, have helped paved the way for all Canadian women seeking to achieve equality under the workplace and within their own lives. In 1993, Canada made history when PC Leader Kim Campbell became Prime Minster all for a mere four months. So, the seemingly impenetrable glass-ceiling that is still a burden to the United States has almost become chards for Canada.
But, not quite.
As mentioned before, we still have a long way to go. However, it doesn't seem like Harper and the REAL Women of Canada are helping us make any significant progress.
*Gordon Laird, Slumming It at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1998), 151.
**According to CBC, there are 7, 500 married same-sex couples in Canada, with 46.3% of them being marriage between two women. So, simple math was done to acquire that number.
***This piece in the CCPA is suggested reading.
The record-breaking number of women MPs -- from all political stripes -- is indeed encouraging. But, we still have a long way to go. According to Equal Voice, an organization committed to bridging the gender gap in the political process, Canada ranks 40th in Inter-Parliamentary Union. However, the NDP has demonstrated a commitment to encourage more women to run for pubic office. Two women -- MPs Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash -- were contenders for the leadership position for the NDP this past Spring. And, NDP leadership candidate and current MP for Ottawa Centre Paul Dewar proposed his strategy to advance women's involvement in politics and entreprise during his campaign. You can read the whole plan here, wonderfully titled, "A Woman's Place: At the Heart of Our Democracy, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Future."
As noble and progressive this plan is, it's difficult to assess as to whether it would actually work and operate successfully. Nonetheless, it's more than the Tories can say.
Speaking of which, out of the 167-member Conservative caucus that currently holds the majority, only 28 of them are women. Harper's Cabinet, which is composed of 37 other Members of Parliament, only nine are women. Nine! Contrast that with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's Shadow Cabinet where 17 female MPs are poised to be a part of the cabinet, if given a majority.
In terms of what Harper has done to advance women's rights in Canada, the results are very disappointing. As soon as Harper took office, he made significant drawbacks to programs and facilities that help Canadian women in several, several ways. To wit:
- Effectively eliminating the $1B National Child Care program, bolstering evidence that Canada is one of the most regressive countries when it comes to early children's education.
- Moreover, maternal care is at a dangerous level for Canada right now as more and more women die while giving birth. In fact, a woman giving birth in Bosnia and Herzegovina has a better chance at surviving than in Canada.
- Halting funding for the Sisters in Spirit database for Aboriginal Women in Canada who are missing
- Closing 12 out of 16 offices for the Status of Women Canada
- Cutting $1M for a research fund sponsored by the Status of Women Canada
- Didn't improve pay equity for women despite making it one of his campaign promises
- Increasing the age of retirement and cutting back on OAS when approximately 17% of senior women are living below the poverty line
- Slashing public sector jobs which has proven to offer more equitable pay rates for women than private sector jobs
You can read more detailed descriptions of the cuts and how they impact the lives of Canadian girls and women here, here, and here.
Probably one of the most telling and harrowing outcomes of major blowbacks to social assistance programs for women is an inability for them to reach out to their community and seek for help. Especially if they're in dire need like an abusive relationship, for example. In the early to mid nineties, when Ontario was under Conservative rule with PC Premier Mike Harris, a 1996 report issued by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses suggested that 66% of women stayed in an abusive relationship simply because they did not have enough access to social assistance.* That's just across a province. Imagine the entire country, devoid of any assistance programs to help and protect its own citizens.
However, there is a group of women who are fiercely and proudly Conservative. In fact, they are REAL Women of Canada -- whatever that's supposed to mean. According to their official website, their view runs counter to that of "established feminist groups" and seeks to emphasize that the "family is the most important unit in society." Although this NGO -- which claims to be non-partisan, by the way -- wants to progress women in the workplace, its real goal is to focus the debate back on the woman's role as the primary care provider for children and the family. In fact, they call themselves "pro-family."
I'm not too sure what constitutes as "anti-family." Working? Common-law relationships? Same-sex relationships? Abortion?
Well, REAL Women seem to oppose a woman's right to choose, believing that a woman should care for each member of her family, born or unborn. Using anti-feminist rhetoric, REAL Women claim that it is feminists themselves who are the oppressors in this issue, not the other way around.
On Same-Sex Unions, REAL Women are not in favour of them, arguing that they are not a real relationship because the union could never spawn children. I have to say, most of what's reported in this newsletter on same-sex relationships is pretty disgraceful. I mean, suggesting that homosexual couples are inherently unfaithful, unwilling to commit, and are just plain not real, is insulting to a significant amount of women, approximately 3 472 married couples**, who this organization supposedly represents.
And REAL Women do not support common-law relationships, at all. Again, in their newsletter, REAL Women argue that common-law relationships are "not a safe place to be in, physically, financially, or emotionally." Of course, it's indisputable that there are tax benefits for the married, but to suggest that common-law relationships are noxious, especially when an increasing number of women, approximately half of all Canadian women between the ages of 20 to 29, decided to choose an alternative to marriage.
Lastly, REAL Women have a rather peculiar approach to equal pay for equal work and I feel that I should leave it to their own statement. From their position paper on Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value:
We oppose, however, the new different concept of equal pay for work of equal value, which is a comparison of different jobs for several reasons...The equal value concept means government wage control, since the government bureaucracy is required to oversee and enforce the program -- rather than having wages reflect the forces of supply and demand -- in the marketplace, regulated by laws that ensure fairness to all.So, REAL Women of Canada are essentially against their own interests with matters other than the family. Instead of fighting issues that would advance women -- like working, pay equity, abortion, common-law relationships -- they do the exact opposite and pine for a 1950s reality where women were routinely oppressed and discriminated against. When Harper released his budget in 2007, REAL Women of Canada championed the cuts, calling them a "good start." They claim that all the cuts inhibit the actions of feminists who do not represent the interests of real Canadian women. One of the main duties for the Status of Women in Canada is to fund and assist rape crisis facilities. But, remember, according to REAL Women of Canada, cutting these services is a good start.
So, we have a completely disastrous record from the Harper government and an equally absurd women's group who supports this government. Both of these issues are compounded by the fact that the Conservatives are not big fans of dissent -- at any level, and certainly not when it comes to women's rights. The Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives*** have called the Conservatives and their assault on basic rights to free speech as "unprecedented in Canadian history" as women's services are defunded thereby limiting their right to speak out. Moreover, by tabling legislation like Public Sector Equitable Act, wages are determined by the "market demand" meaning women are competitively stacked up against men who are paid more anyways, sticking with discriminatory policies of the past. But, by eliminating the Court Challenges option, it's not like these women can oppose these antiquated payment policies.
Canadian women have certainly come a long way, making impact after impact with each turning decade. Prime Minsters, of course, have helped paved the way for all Canadian women seeking to achieve equality under the workplace and within their own lives. In 1993, Canada made history when PC Leader Kim Campbell became Prime Minster all for a mere four months. So, the seemingly impenetrable glass-ceiling that is still a burden to the United States has almost become chards for Canada.
But, not quite.
As mentioned before, we still have a long way to go. However, it doesn't seem like Harper and the REAL Women of Canada are helping us make any significant progress.
*Gordon Laird, Slumming It at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1998), 151.
**According to CBC, there are 7, 500 married same-sex couples in Canada, with 46.3% of them being marriage between two women. So, simple math was done to acquire that number.
***This piece in the CCPA is suggested reading.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Canadian Media: 'Churnalistic' By Choice
Today, in the refreshing and tolerable Toronto Star, columnist Susan Delacourt argued that current Canadian political reporting is suffering from 'churnalism.' For those unfamiliar with the term, 'churnalism' refers to political coverage merely spouting or 'churning' press release statements issued by the Communications department for politicians and political parties.
She begins by citing a poll from the United States suggesting that an impressive 78% of Americans have an unfavourable view of the political coverage in the media. I find this an especially interesting statistic considering that even the floundering cable-news network CNN effectively holds politicians accountable for spreading mistruth to the American public.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is Anderson Cooper sparring with Former Speaker Newt Gingrich on a Romney ad attacking Obama on welfare. Suffice it to say, Cooper is pretty impressive here: he doesn't interrupt Newt Gingrich but still makes him look absolutely ridiculous, stumbling around, taking back what he previously said about the ad, and admitting that the ad was not, in fact, bolstered by any evidence at all. Cooper's performance is probably one of the most professional interviews I've seen on a news network as most anchors/journalists have been shouting matches between parties. As much as I like Lawrence O'Donnell, his interview with former presidential candidate Herman Cain stepped out of bounds for a couple of reasons (ie., invoking the Vietnam War, civil rights with the sole goal of humiliating Cain on national television).
But, back to Delacourt. She claims that a similar poll could be conducted here in Canada showing similar results. She hits right on the head when she argues that "the public buys the idea, frequently put forward by the Conservatives and their allies, that the media is little more than a delivery system for the “spin” the politicians like to spout."
The Harper Government's record with the media in this country is, to put it lightly, less than favourable. My favourite part of this article -- and there is much to like about it -- is when she brings up a telling quote from a Conservative MP during an interview with Delacourt herself. The MP says, "It's not like [Harper] hates the media, it's that he has no respect for them."
And clearly, no respect for the Canadian public who -- presumably -- rely on media as their envoy to the government. By being secretive and guarded to the media, Harper is obviously being secretive and guarded to the same people who elected him to a majority government. A very telling example of this secretiveness, an impressive majority of students in my Political Science course did not know that the Harper government had to bail out the banks. Political Science students were unaware of a very significant action made by the government. Of course, this has to do with Harper's tight-lip strategy, but it also has to do with a failure on the media's part to report and discuss the issue as much as possible in order to reflect the magnitude of the situation.
Of course, Harper isn't the first PM to have a distaste for the media. Pierre Trudeau wasn't fond of the media either. And Jean Chretien probably initiated the most severe cuts to the CBC in recent history, even more than Brian Mulroney and Harper.
Harper's lack of media appearance and interviews have obviously made it hard for journalists to cover him, forcing them instead to rely solely on PR statements issued by his Communications team. But, there's more to this than just 'churnalism.' There is also a complete unwillingness for Canadian media to investigate further into situations, to delve deeper into the background and connections Harper and other politicians have. Essentially, I believe that there is a sincere lack of investigative journalism in Canada, especially in print media.
Right now, the situation has been exacerbated by the lack of different voices and perspectives in today's print media. As previously mentioned, the Toronto Star is a refreshing periodical since it showcases more Left editorial and opinion pieces more than any other newspaper in Canada. Papers owned by super-conglomerates like Postmedia and CanWest produce Conservative commentary in order to appease the interests of the readers and the stock holders who are, of course, Conservative themselves. And, then there's Sun News...
All of these print publications all rely on the same churned out versions of press release statements. There has been a serious and disconcerting de-emphasis on investigative journalism in Canadian print media. I mean, thank goodness for Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, the journalists who cracked the Robocalls Scandal, but obviously, we're in dire need of more stories like this because they are definitely out there. Despite what you may have heard, this not the most transparent government we've ever had. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you don't believe me, then look up the 'Heritage Foundation' and the connections and alliances they've had in the past. Look up 'GEO Group Inc.' Here are two stories that are worthy of attention.
If you're interested in reading the full article by Susan Delacourt, it is available right here.
She begins by citing a poll from the United States suggesting that an impressive 78% of Americans have an unfavourable view of the political coverage in the media. I find this an especially interesting statistic considering that even the floundering cable-news network CNN effectively holds politicians accountable for spreading mistruth to the American public.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is Anderson Cooper sparring with Former Speaker Newt Gingrich on a Romney ad attacking Obama on welfare. Suffice it to say, Cooper is pretty impressive here: he doesn't interrupt Newt Gingrich but still makes him look absolutely ridiculous, stumbling around, taking back what he previously said about the ad, and admitting that the ad was not, in fact, bolstered by any evidence at all. Cooper's performance is probably one of the most professional interviews I've seen on a news network as most anchors/journalists have been shouting matches between parties. As much as I like Lawrence O'Donnell, his interview with former presidential candidate Herman Cain stepped out of bounds for a couple of reasons (ie., invoking the Vietnam War, civil rights with the sole goal of humiliating Cain on national television).
But, back to Delacourt. She claims that a similar poll could be conducted here in Canada showing similar results. She hits right on the head when she argues that "the public buys the idea, frequently put forward by the Conservatives and their allies, that the media is little more than a delivery system for the “spin” the politicians like to spout."
The Harper Government's record with the media in this country is, to put it lightly, less than favourable. My favourite part of this article -- and there is much to like about it -- is when she brings up a telling quote from a Conservative MP during an interview with Delacourt herself. The MP says, "It's not like [Harper] hates the media, it's that he has no respect for them."
And clearly, no respect for the Canadian public who -- presumably -- rely on media as their envoy to the government. By being secretive and guarded to the media, Harper is obviously being secretive and guarded to the same people who elected him to a majority government. A very telling example of this secretiveness, an impressive majority of students in my Political Science course did not know that the Harper government had to bail out the banks. Political Science students were unaware of a very significant action made by the government. Of course, this has to do with Harper's tight-lip strategy, but it also has to do with a failure on the media's part to report and discuss the issue as much as possible in order to reflect the magnitude of the situation.
Of course, Harper isn't the first PM to have a distaste for the media. Pierre Trudeau wasn't fond of the media either. And Jean Chretien probably initiated the most severe cuts to the CBC in recent history, even more than Brian Mulroney and Harper.
Harper's lack of media appearance and interviews have obviously made it hard for journalists to cover him, forcing them instead to rely solely on PR statements issued by his Communications team. But, there's more to this than just 'churnalism.' There is also a complete unwillingness for Canadian media to investigate further into situations, to delve deeper into the background and connections Harper and other politicians have. Essentially, I believe that there is a sincere lack of investigative journalism in Canada, especially in print media.
Right now, the situation has been exacerbated by the lack of different voices and perspectives in today's print media. As previously mentioned, the Toronto Star is a refreshing periodical since it showcases more Left editorial and opinion pieces more than any other newspaper in Canada. Papers owned by super-conglomerates like Postmedia and CanWest produce Conservative commentary in order to appease the interests of the readers and the stock holders who are, of course, Conservative themselves. And, then there's Sun News...
All of these print publications all rely on the same churned out versions of press release statements. There has been a serious and disconcerting de-emphasis on investigative journalism in Canadian print media. I mean, thank goodness for Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, the journalists who cracked the Robocalls Scandal, but obviously, we're in dire need of more stories like this because they are definitely out there. Despite what you may have heard, this not the most transparent government we've ever had. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you don't believe me, then look up the 'Heritage Foundation' and the connections and alliances they've had in the past. Look up 'GEO Group Inc.' Here are two stories that are worthy of attention.
If you're interested in reading the full article by Susan Delacourt, it is available right here.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Released in Full
After wandering around in Carleton's new River Building where the Clayton Riddell Graduate Program is housed, to find out that the administration was on vacation, to returning to Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs, only to be told that I need to send an e-mail to the President's Office, to having my e-mail redirected to the University's Communications Department, I finally obtained a copy of the donor agreement between Clayton Riddell and Carleton University that was first released on June 29, 2012. I've uploaded the document here.
As current news stories show, there are numerous inconsistencies in the Press Release issued by Carleton University and the actual document itself, particularly the hiring process. According to the Press Release, the donor has no say as to who is hired and who is not. But, according to the donor agreement, it seems that Riddell does have agency to determine who can or can't join the teaching staff. Since Riddell will be contributing donations for coming years, he is authorized to assess whether the school is meeting his standards. His standards most likely aligning with his and his associates' political affiliations.* Moreover, the size of the donation has generated some backlash among the teaching staff at Carleton University who have decried Clayton Riddell's contribution as "irresponsible."
There are some other issues that need to be fleshed. For instance, the Graduate Program comprises of 25 hand-picked students. As I detailed in my last post, a vocal majority of the students happen to have blatant Tory leanings. So, not only does Clayton Riddell get to decide who teaches at the School, he also indirectly gets to decide who is admitted. Therefore, it's likely that the students who are accepted into the school already have Conservative loyalties that can be further enhanced by the education they'll receive from -- mostly -- ex-Conservative/Reform strategists and supporters.
As I mentioned in my last post, this story is far from being over. Developments are sure to follow.
As current news stories show, there are numerous inconsistencies in the Press Release issued by Carleton University and the actual document itself, particularly the hiring process. According to the Press Release, the donor has no say as to who is hired and who is not. But, according to the donor agreement, it seems that Riddell does have agency to determine who can or can't join the teaching staff. Since Riddell will be contributing donations for coming years, he is authorized to assess whether the school is meeting his standards. His standards most likely aligning with his and his associates' political affiliations.* Moreover, the size of the donation has generated some backlash among the teaching staff at Carleton University who have decried Clayton Riddell's contribution as "irresponsible."
There are some other issues that need to be fleshed. For instance, the Graduate Program comprises of 25 hand-picked students. As I detailed in my last post, a vocal majority of the students happen to have blatant Tory leanings. So, not only does Clayton Riddell get to decide who teaches at the School, he also indirectly gets to decide who is admitted. Therefore, it's likely that the students who are accepted into the school already have Conservative loyalties that can be further enhanced by the education they'll receive from -- mostly -- ex-Conservative/Reform strategists and supporters.
As I mentioned in my last post, this story is far from being over. Developments are sure to follow.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Quite the Riddell: An Analysis on the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate Program of Political Management
For my inaugural blog post, I thought it would be
appropriate if I looked no further than my own school as a wellspring of
information and insight. Recently, Carleton University has made the news due to
their newly established Political Management School for Graduate students.
By giving $15M, Carleton’s biggest donation to date, Riddell established the program in the hopes of impacting Canada's political culture.
[1] For some background on the Athabasca Oil Sands, to wit: according to the David Suzuki Foundation, the Athabasca Oil Sands has increased the number of carcinogens in the environment therefore affecting the cancer rates of Alberta, which used to be lower than the Atlantic Provinces. However, a study by the Alberta Health Services in 2009 concluded that there was an increase in cancer rates among residents in the Fort Chipewyan region between 1995-2006.(2) Oil sands operations have also shown to be responsible for deadly toxins in the nearby Athabasca River. Toxins, like mercury and arsenic, which heavily affect the fish population in Alberta. (3)
The school, named the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate School for
Political Management, came under fire last year for failing to release documents
regarding donor information to the Canadian Press. When Carleton University
requested a nine-week extension for the documents, it was declined by the Information Commissioner. What resulted were heavily redacted documents in which key elements,
such as the conditions Carleton University is subjected to as part of an
agreement to house the program, are blacked out. (1) However, it's only a matter of time before the censored portions become open to the public.
According to an article in Carleton University’s student newspaper, Beth Gorham, the manager of Public Affairs at Carleton, claimed the
redacted portions only blacked out “confidential and personal information.”
By giving $15M, Carleton’s biggest donation to date, Riddell established the program in the hopes of impacting Canada's political culture.
Riddell is the CEO of Paramount Resources Ltd., a
corporation he established in 1978 in his home province of Alberta. One of
Paramount’s most significant activities, I think, involves the Athabasca Oil
Sands. [1]
As the footnote below illustrates, the Athabasca Oil Sands operations – and the
entire industry itself – severely alter our environment in a negative way
(duh).
So, it was entirely fitting that the University of Manitoba offer a program named the Clayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources. Riddell, of course, made a hefty donation of $10M inFebruary of 2004 to University of Manitoba in order to start the institute. Not to mention, it makes complete sense for Carleton University, an institution that prides itself over its budding Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering program and its annual Green Energy Symposium, to accept the financial support of a wealthy oil man.
As a corporate head and as a heavy proponent for the oil industry, Riddell has a questionable agenda for setting up a Political Management school in the nation’s capital...
So, it was entirely fitting that the University of Manitoba offer a program named the Clayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources. Riddell, of course, made a hefty donation of $10M inFebruary of 2004 to University of Manitoba in order to start the institute. Not to mention, it makes complete sense for Carleton University, an institution that prides itself over its budding Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering program and its annual Green Energy Symposium, to accept the financial support of a wealthy oil man.
As a corporate head and as a heavy proponent for the oil industry, Riddell has a questionable agenda for setting up a Political Management school in the nation’s capital...
...as does the rest of the program’s faculty.
This blogger outlines brief biographies of some of the most prominent staff on board. The author concludes that “almost
50% of the faculty [listed] have connections to the former Reform party, and
the current Conservative party.”
Moreover, the School has the vocal support of Preston Manning, the current President and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. However, he is most famous for founding two of Canada's most right-wing parties: the Reform Party and the Canadian Reform Canadian Alliance. In brief, this is what Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform Party, said about homosexuality and the advancement of Gay Rights: "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society" (4).
Moreover, the School has the vocal support of Preston Manning, the current President and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. However, he is most famous for founding two of Canada's most right-wing parties: the Reform Party and the Canadian Reform Canadian Alliance. In brief, this is what Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform Party, said about homosexuality and the advancement of Gay Rights: "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society" (4).
For information on the course outlines, the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate Program has provided most of their syllabi on their official website. The courses, by and large, seem fairly neutral and display a lack of partisanship, notwithstanding a few concerning issues. First, the course on for Political Campaigns, POLM 5011, has this as one of their topics:
"Voter Contact and Getting Out the Vote: Voter Contact. Voter identification vs. voter persuasion. Phone banking: types of calls, scripts, systems. Information management. Using voters’ lists. Alternative voting methods and their impact on the campaign. Getting out the vote (GOTV)."
This seems to correlate with the Robocalls scandal and the use of automated calling systems during political campaigns.
Second, the Political Advocacy class, POLM 5012, "explores the knowledge, mechanics, and skills necessary to succeed in the practice of political advocacy in Canada." Judging from the course outline, this course primarily teaches how to seize power and to maintain it as long as possible.
Third, the first part of the Political Management Course, POLM 5005, has a lecture devoted to the Access of Information Act, which recently turned 30 years old last week. Surely, the lecture will revolve around spinning the media and ways to handle the Access of Information Act in a "politically sensitive" way. Essentially, how to get around the Act for political gain.
On their official website, MacOdrum Library (Carleton University's library) lists all the books that are held on reserve for summer Political Management courses. Of course, the literature used in courses is only meaningful if we know how exactly they're being used. A quick glance at the book titles show that Tom Flanagan and Marc Lalonde are among the authors studied in the Political Management. But, like I said, having these authors doesn't guarantee that the course will take a right-wing slant, especially in a Graduate program where critical thinking, discussion, and debate is highly encouraged and expected.
"Voter Contact and Getting Out the Vote: Voter Contact. Voter identification vs. voter persuasion. Phone banking: types of calls, scripts, systems. Information management. Using voters’ lists. Alternative voting methods and their impact on the campaign. Getting out the vote (GOTV)."
This seems to correlate with the Robocalls scandal and the use of automated calling systems during political campaigns.
Second, the Political Advocacy class, POLM 5012, "explores the knowledge, mechanics, and skills necessary to succeed in the practice of political advocacy in Canada." Judging from the course outline, this course primarily teaches how to seize power and to maintain it as long as possible.
Third, the first part of the Political Management Course, POLM 5005, has a lecture devoted to the Access of Information Act, which recently turned 30 years old last week. Surely, the lecture will revolve around spinning the media and ways to handle the Access of Information Act in a "politically sensitive" way. Essentially, how to get around the Act for political gain.
On their official website, MacOdrum Library (Carleton University's library) lists all the books that are held on reserve for summer Political Management courses. Of course, the literature used in courses is only meaningful if we know how exactly they're being used. A quick glance at the book titles show that Tom Flanagan and Marc Lalonde are among the authors studied in the Political Management. But, like I said, having these authors doesn't guarantee that the course will take a right-wing slant, especially in a Graduate program where critical thinking, discussion, and debate is highly encouraged and expected.
What is especially compelling are the testimonials of former
students, the former students being the class of 2011. According to Carleton’s
official testimonial video, the school emphasizes “diversity” and “sharing of opinions.”
I conducted a search to inquire about the students via their LinkedIn pages and
found some telling results:
Matthew Burbidge, the creator of the Political Management Graduate Program group on LinkedIn, is currently the Special Assistant at the PMO (Prime Minister's Office.) He's also worked in the office for the Conservative MP Laurie Hawn. Here are some of Burbidge's tweets (which are available for public viewing) if you aren't entirely convinced of his Tory loyalties:
The tweets speak for themselves as they're evident Conservative propaganda. Although, there are some noteworthy things to point out: 1) The website Burbidge links in the first tweet is none other than EthicalOil.ca; 2) There are, in fact, bad jobs regardless of what Jim Flaherty says otherwise; and 3) The link that Burbidge adds to his third tweet is from the National Post. Specifically, an editorial that lambasts the criticism made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu regarding the Alberta Oil Sands. The National Post, of course, has very close ties with Oil Corporations and have adopted a "sales-pitch" style when writing articles about the Oil Sands.
Sebastien Togneri is among the 20 or so students who took POLM 5010. Some of you may recognize him as the former Conservative aide who resigned after the RCMP investigated into his interference in an access-to-information request which is against the law. However, Rona Amrbose, the Minister of Public Works, dropped the investigation in August 2011. Three lobby groups -- the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Newspapers Canada, and the B.C. Freedom of Information Privacy Association -- have since criticized Togneri and rightfully so. (5) Togneri is mandated to take POLM 5005, a course that was discussed earlier in this post. Although Togneri's enrollment in the class isn't causal of the course devoting a week to analyzing the Access of Information Act, it certainly is telling.
Dan White, a self-proclaimed CPC and PC activist, has served for three Tory MPs -- Eve Adams, Gary Schellenberger, and Peter Braid -- as an assistant. Like Burbidge, he opines about current affairs while dishing out Tory rhetoric and propaganda. Here are some of his most noteworthy tweets:
Ian Kaufman, who is featured in the testimonial video for the Graduate School, is currently an intern analyst for MacPhie & Company. According to their official website, MacPhie & Company "offers strategic planning services in the public, private and non-profit sectors." On their 'Our Experience,' they claim their job is to help clients "influence opinions." In essence, the firm handles Communications services and "business strategy." As you can see in the profile picture on his LinkedIn, that's him on the left, all atingle, right next to Stephen Harper.
Andrew McGrath is currently the Communications Assistant for the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Ottawa and also takes to his Twitter page to communicate his opinions that are, according to him, "my own." Like his colleagues, he supports Danielle Smith, trash-talks the NDP and Thomas Mulcair, specifically his correct assertion that the country is suffering from Dutch Disease, and complains about the Quebec Protests, dismissing the protesters in a hashtag as "damn kids." Although this hashtag is mostly in jest, it's still very telling and is aligned with Conservative popular thought on the general protests on Quebec's austerity measures.
The two other students featured in the testimonial video, Jackie DaSilva and Dan Murray, offer little information about their respective positions as either an Intern for an MP or Research Analyst for the Federal Government. Judging from DaSilva's twitter page, however, we can deduce that she is not a Tory as her Profile Picture is draped with the 'Blackout Speakout' Twibbon. She has tweeted about Occupy Wall Street, Elizabeth May, and Sierra Club as well as dished out criticism on Bill C-38 and the Oil Sands.
Likewise, judging from Dan Murphy's tweets and following list, it's natural to assume he's a Grit, through and through.
Moreover, another student, Tyler Sommers, is a Coordinator for the organization Democracy Watch. Kevin Geiger is currently the Deputy Finance Director for Democratic Senator, Maria Cantwell.
So, what does this tell us?
Nothing, really. Students are both Tories and Grits/NDPs. In fact, guest speakers have included noted left-wingers such as Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Liberal MPP for Ottawa Centre Yasir Naqvi. That said, it's hard to say what will occur in the next 5, 10, or 15 years as more students enroll and as more noted academics or politicians are invited to join the School's faculty. Will the School allow a more diversified staff or will the Riddell and Manning connections influence who teaches?
Whatever the reasons Clayton Riddell had for establishing the school, you have to admit that it was pretty tactical and shrewd. Carleton University is renowned nation-wide for their prestigious Journalism, International Relations, and Public Affairs programs. Now, some of the most talented students in any of these fields interested in a career in public service would not have to look further than Carleton to study Political Management. To drive this point home, in their annual university rankings, Maclean's Magazine once called Carleton University "the route to government" since most Carleton University grads often find work in the public sector.
What I find the most interesting in this whole debacle is the fact that Carleton University, one of Canada's most Left-wing universities (as student testimonials will tell you), is now the institution that houses a Graduate program like the Clayton H. Riddell School of Political Management. A school with a very prominent GLBTQ society now associates itself with Preston Manning.
A school that has this on one of its murals...
...now associates itself with the same Tories they would normally say do a half-ass job.
Matthew Burbidge, the creator of the Political Management Graduate Program group on LinkedIn, is currently the Special Assistant at the PMO (Prime Minister's Office.) He's also worked in the office for the Conservative MP Laurie Hawn. Here are some of Burbidge's tweets (which are available for public viewing) if you aren't entirely convinced of his Tory loyalties:
Thomas Mulcair can’t see the difference between Canada and Nigeria shar.es/q16WJ
— Matthew Burbidge(@MBurbidge) May 18, 2012
There are no bad jobs soc.li/CFmzNxE
— Matthew Burbidge(@MBurbidge) May 15, 2012
Enough hypocrisy!You can’t excuse yourself from the energy equation! lnkd.in/A4bZtV
— Matthew Burbidge(@MBurbidge) December 5, 2011
The tweets speak for themselves as they're evident Conservative propaganda. Although, there are some noteworthy things to point out: 1) The website Burbidge links in the first tweet is none other than EthicalOil.ca; 2) There are, in fact, bad jobs regardless of what Jim Flaherty says otherwise; and 3) The link that Burbidge adds to his third tweet is from the National Post. Specifically, an editorial that lambasts the criticism made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu regarding the Alberta Oil Sands. The National Post, of course, has very close ties with Oil Corporations and have adopted a "sales-pitch" style when writing articles about the Oil Sands.
Sebastien Togneri is among the 20 or so students who took POLM 5010. Some of you may recognize him as the former Conservative aide who resigned after the RCMP investigated into his interference in an access-to-information request which is against the law. However, Rona Amrbose, the Minister of Public Works, dropped the investigation in August 2011. Three lobby groups -- the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Newspapers Canada, and the B.C. Freedom of Information Privacy Association -- have since criticized Togneri and rightfully so. (5) Togneri is mandated to take POLM 5005, a course that was discussed earlier in this post. Although Togneri's enrollment in the class isn't causal of the course devoting a week to analyzing the Access of Information Act, it certainly is telling.
Dan White, a self-proclaimed CPC and PC activist, has served for three Tory MPs -- Eve Adams, Gary Schellenberger, and Peter Braid -- as an assistant. Like Burbidge, he opines about current affairs while dishing out Tory rhetoric and propaganda. Here are some of his most noteworthy tweets:
Todays White Paper from @timhudak stands up for the freedom of workers #onpoli
— Dan White (@DanAHWhite) June 27, 2012
One year of our strong stable national majority Conservative government #cpc #cdnpoli
— Dan White (@DanAHWhite) May 2, 2012
Only @ElectDanielle can lead Alberta back to surplus, she needs to be the next Premier of Alberta #abvote #cdnpoli
— Dan White (@DanAHWhite) April 14, 2012
I am proud to call @ElectDanielle one of my political heroes, her professionalism showed this week is an example politicians should follow
— Dan White (@DanAHWhite) April 1, 2012
And the next leader of the 4th party following the next election is... #NDPldr #NotToppLike Burbidge's tweets, I can't really provide any commentary on this...they speak for themselves.
— Dan White (@DanAHWhite) March 25, 2012
Ian Kaufman, who is featured in the testimonial video for the Graduate School, is currently an intern analyst for MacPhie & Company. According to their official website, MacPhie & Company "offers strategic planning services in the public, private and non-profit sectors." On their 'Our Experience,' they claim their job is to help clients "influence opinions." In essence, the firm handles Communications services and "business strategy." As you can see in the profile picture on his LinkedIn, that's him on the left, all atingle, right next to Stephen Harper.
Andrew McGrath is currently the Communications Assistant for the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Ottawa and also takes to his Twitter page to communicate his opinions that are, according to him, "my own." Like his colleagues, he supports Danielle Smith, trash-talks the NDP and Thomas Mulcair, specifically his correct assertion that the country is suffering from Dutch Disease, and complains about the Quebec Protests, dismissing the protesters in a hashtag as "damn kids." Although this hashtag is mostly in jest, it's still very telling and is aligned with Conservative popular thought on the general protests on Quebec's austerity measures.
The two other students featured in the testimonial video, Jackie DaSilva and Dan Murray, offer little information about their respective positions as either an Intern for an MP or Research Analyst for the Federal Government. Judging from DaSilva's twitter page, however, we can deduce that she is not a Tory as her Profile Picture is draped with the 'Blackout Speakout' Twibbon. She has tweeted about Occupy Wall Street, Elizabeth May, and Sierra Club as well as dished out criticism on Bill C-38 and the Oil Sands.
Likewise, judging from Dan Murphy's tweets and following list, it's natural to assume he's a Grit, through and through.
Moreover, another student, Tyler Sommers, is a Coordinator for the organization Democracy Watch. Kevin Geiger is currently the Deputy Finance Director for Democratic Senator, Maria Cantwell.
So, what does this tell us?
Nothing, really. Students are both Tories and Grits/NDPs. In fact, guest speakers have included noted left-wingers such as Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Liberal MPP for Ottawa Centre Yasir Naqvi. That said, it's hard to say what will occur in the next 5, 10, or 15 years as more students enroll and as more noted academics or politicians are invited to join the School's faculty. Will the School allow a more diversified staff or will the Riddell and Manning connections influence who teaches?
Whatever the reasons Clayton Riddell had for establishing the school, you have to admit that it was pretty tactical and shrewd. Carleton University is renowned nation-wide for their prestigious Journalism, International Relations, and Public Affairs programs. Now, some of the most talented students in any of these fields interested in a career in public service would not have to look further than Carleton to study Political Management. To drive this point home, in their annual university rankings, Maclean's Magazine once called Carleton University "the route to government" since most Carleton University grads often find work in the public sector.
What I find the most interesting in this whole debacle is the fact that Carleton University, one of Canada's most Left-wing universities (as student testimonials will tell you), is now the institution that houses a Graduate program like the Clayton H. Riddell School of Political Management. A school with a very prominent GLBTQ society now associates itself with Preston Manning.
A school that has this on one of its murals...
...now associates itself with the same Tories they would normally say do a half-ass job.
[1] For some background on the Athabasca Oil Sands, to wit: according to the David Suzuki Foundation, the Athabasca Oil Sands has increased the number of carcinogens in the environment therefore affecting the cancer rates of Alberta, which used to be lower than the Atlantic Provinces. However, a study by the Alberta Health Services in 2009 concluded that there was an increase in cancer rates among residents in the Fort Chipewyan region between 1995-2006.(2) Oil sands operations have also shown to be responsible for deadly toxins in the nearby Athabasca River. Toxins, like mercury and arsenic, which heavily affect the fish population in Alberta. (3)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)