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.
Showing posts with label Tories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tories. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Your Bias is Showing
In an online editorial written today by CTV's Power Play host Don Martin, he argues that the Prime Minister needs to employ as much security forces as he can wield in order to protect himself and the standing of the Prime Ministerial office. This editorial penned by Martin is a rebuttal to a story first featured in The Globe and Mail about an incident where a canoeist was "frisked by police" after paddling too close to the Prime Minister and his barbeque.
Martin argues that in any circumstance, just like a canoeist with a lifejacket on paddling on the Credit River, the police has a duty to abruptly and harshly interrupt citizens if they even get within earshot of Stephen Harper. Granted, I'm not advocating that police don't exercise some protective measures. It's only logical to equip the Head of Government with security. But, to frisk a canoeist who -- most likely -- mistakenly portaged too close to the PM in the middle of his barbeque? Obviously, that's a little too much.
Martin then goes on to say that the tone of the article in The Globe and Mail denotes that it was a "police over-reaction" and something that overreached the gravity of the circumstance. If you read the original article, I think it does an adequate job of representing what actually occurred using mostly quotes from the canoeist itself. It balances out the harshness of the search procedure with the light jokes the police were making about the canoeist's shorts and mentioned that the police returned the knife the canoeist was carrying and told him to select another route. That's all that happened. The article was not a deep exposé into the atrocities of police brutality. Or, a writhing, scathing manifesto as to how the Harper government oversteps its boundaries and infringes on the rights of citizens. In fact, if you're looking for that, then you should continue reading the rest of Martin's editorial.
How Martin sets up the overreactions made by Harper is pretty astounding. He's indeed very casual and dismissive, as if the slight altercations aren't worthy of noting. This is straight from Martin's piece:
The editorial on CTVNews claims that more security measures are justified because "Canada has more enemies on the world stage than during the pre-911." That, I'm afraid, is undoubtedly true. It seems that we're losing more of our influence on the world stage and have culminated a sense of irrationality that has prompted other countries to feel alienated from Canada. An international poll done in 2010 suggested that only 67% of Americans, 54% of Chinese, and 62% of Brits consider Canada's influence as positive -- a staggering decline from the same poll conducted in 2008. So, what could be triggering this wave of unpopularity?
Well, our record on climate change, for one. In fact, that's a big one, since it was set amid the world stage at the Copenhagen Conference in 2010. And, our declining foreign aid spending -- which was recently slashed in the 2012 Budget.
The article is concluded with Martin saying that in our world composed of good guys and bad guys who want to take out our precious leaders, we need to reduce our security risks and frisk a few canoeists and cyclists now and then. An egregious statement if I ever saw one.
What Martin executed in his editorial piece here was not reporting or opining at the professional level. It was simply pandering and spreading Conservative bias onto the masses.
Martin argues that in any circumstance, just like a canoeist with a lifejacket on paddling on the Credit River, the police has a duty to abruptly and harshly interrupt citizens if they even get within earshot of Stephen Harper. Granted, I'm not advocating that police don't exercise some protective measures. It's only logical to equip the Head of Government with security. But, to frisk a canoeist who -- most likely -- mistakenly portaged too close to the PM in the middle of his barbeque? Obviously, that's a little too much.
Martin then goes on to say that the tone of the article in The Globe and Mail denotes that it was a "police over-reaction" and something that overreached the gravity of the circumstance. If you read the original article, I think it does an adequate job of representing what actually occurred using mostly quotes from the canoeist itself. It balances out the harshness of the search procedure with the light jokes the police were making about the canoeist's shorts and mentioned that the police returned the knife the canoeist was carrying and told him to select another route. That's all that happened. The article was not a deep exposé into the atrocities of police brutality. Or, a writhing, scathing manifesto as to how the Harper government oversteps its boundaries and infringes on the rights of citizens. In fact, if you're looking for that, then you should continue reading the rest of Martin's editorial.
How Martin sets up the overreactions made by Harper is pretty astounding. He's indeed very casual and dismissive, as if the slight altercations aren't worthy of noting. This is straight from Martin's piece:
His prime ministerial convoys seem to fluctuate in length depending on the circumstances -- three vehicles when he’s driving home for dinner, nine or more when he’s rushing around town in tandem with a visiting world leader.
And it’s true the $20-million-per-year tab for Harper’s protection detail has doubled since he became prime minister for a variety of reasons, particularly his busy travel agenda.But, hey! He is, after all, Prime Minister. According to the Toronto Sun, protecting Harper costs exactly $47 M, "almost 70 times the price tag for protecting his entire cabinet and other VIPs." Contrast that with the previous Prime Minster, Paul Martin, whose security costs peaked at around $700,000. Now, that's a very big leap.
The editorial on CTVNews claims that more security measures are justified because "Canada has more enemies on the world stage than during the pre-911." That, I'm afraid, is undoubtedly true. It seems that we're losing more of our influence on the world stage and have culminated a sense of irrationality that has prompted other countries to feel alienated from Canada. An international poll done in 2010 suggested that only 67% of Americans, 54% of Chinese, and 62% of Brits consider Canada's influence as positive -- a staggering decline from the same poll conducted in 2008. So, what could be triggering this wave of unpopularity?
Well, our record on climate change, for one. In fact, that's a big one, since it was set amid the world stage at the Copenhagen Conference in 2010. And, our declining foreign aid spending -- which was recently slashed in the 2012 Budget.
The article is concluded with Martin saying that in our world composed of good guys and bad guys who want to take out our precious leaders, we need to reduce our security risks and frisk a few canoeists and cyclists now and then. An egregious statement if I ever saw one.
What Martin executed in his editorial piece here was not reporting or opining at the professional level. It was simply pandering and spreading Conservative bias onto the masses.
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)