VCSJC: 2015

Quebec austerity, what's the issue? Consensus-building in a divisive time.

08:09 Anonymous 0 Comments Category : Canadian

In recent weeks Quebec has seen a surge in civil unrest—a sign that our democracy is healthy, sort of. For the most part, this revolves around the Quebec government’s, formed by the Quebec Liberal Party’s (QLP), 2015-2016 budget. The alleged austerity measures has caused a raucous: student expulsions and suspensions, protests with ensuing police brutality, coercive student boycotts, threats from the Minister of Education, François Blais, and a rowdy occupation… This doesn’t even address the budget itself.

What’s the matter?

With respect to the actual budget, critics claim the budget and those who shape it (namely Finance Minister Carlos Leitão and President of the Treasury Martin Coiteux) suffer from presentism: a fixation on current-day problems followed by short-term planning while disregarding long-term effects. They argue this violates the rights of future citizens.

In addition to this, this "fast-track" to lowering Quebec’s debt will supposedly cripple many vital services, not to mention it has the potential to damage Quebec’s economy—according to Pierre Fortin, professor of economics at UQAM and columnist at L’actualité. For example, the budget is cutting $40 million dollars from the budget of cegeps. For Vanier this represents a cut of $1.133 million in its spending. Vanier’s Board of Directors officially opposes the cuts for fear it won’t be able to provide first-rate education, but plans on cooperating.

In an attempt to understand the conflict, this author read through twenty-somewhat articles, french and english, from more than a dozen different sources (newspapers, textbooks, blog-pages, the CBC, etc), and one thing is abundantly clear: public discourse has derailed from its main course of discussion, that is, how the government should be raising and spending revenues. What’s more, misinformation and lack of understanding seem to be spreading—which digs an even deeper ditch for us to climb out of.

Not everyone’s an economist, so before getting into the government’s budget, let’s go into how this even works (click here for a reference).

Fiscal policy and public debt

What’s important about this? Well, every year when governments (municipal, provincial and federal) organize their services and operations, they must first look at how to finance this with a budget. In short, fiscal policy refers to how government raises money (taxes) and how it spends this income. This can be put into a simple equation:

Budget=Taxes-Spending

This brings us to differentiating "deficit" and "debt". It’s important to highlight this difference because these terms are being swapped like bartered goods in a pre-modern market.

Deficit: When, in a given year, the government spends more than it is able to raise. When this happens the public debt grows. It’s important to note that government may deliberately do this to breath new life into an economy or to save it from collapse (for example after the ’08 recession).

Debt: The amount of money a government owes by dint of accumulated deficits. What’s key to remember is this results from years and years of not being able to meet expenses—it grows with the economy and the more this grows, the heavier the burden we leave to future generations. Notwithstanding, it is completely normal for a government to hold debt: as it needs to borrow money, private companies in the financial sector take advantage of the investment opportunity by "buying" parts of the debt with interest. If this gets too big, government risks paying huge sums in interest to lenders—this is why we have to keep our debt to a minimum.

Finally, we’re left with looking at the two financial directions a government can take: "austerity" and "expansionary". These too, are important to clarify, since they seem to be a source of confusion.

Austerity policy: When government either increases taxes or decreases spending with the objective of avoiding deficit (which we saw contributes to public debt).

Expansionary policy: When a government lowers taxes or increases spending. The bottom-line in this case is to boost a weakened economy, as we’ve experienced in ’08.

Quebec’s finances, getting into it

First and foremost, it’s misleading to simply cite Quebec’s debt as a matter of numbers. Reason being this debt is supported by an economy, whose strength is measured through gross domestic product, or GDP. When we do this, we get a ratio: debt as a percentage of GDP. The debt-GDP indicator let’s us see how our debt is growing compared to our economy (see graph for Quebec’s record in the past 40 years).

You’ll notice that our current situation isn’t even the direst to date. In the mid ‘90s, the debt-GDP ratio climbed to 61%, compared to today’s near 55% (54.9% specifically). Therefore, if we compare the government’s action at the time, led by the Parti Québécois, with those of today’s government, it’s clear the proposed measures aren’t the most austere we’ve seen. However this comparison doesn’t justify the proposed measures; it puts them into perspective.

We could analyze the specific cuts in programs and social services anticipated in the proposed budget, but the fundamental problem rests with how the government chooses to achieve the set goal of reaching a 45% ratio by 2026—as prescribed by law in the Act to reduce the debt and establish the Generations Fund (see section 1.6 on Debt Reduction in the submitted budget). As Pierre Fortin outlines, the current route would lower the ratio to 50% by 2019, reaching the halfway mark four years into the eleven-year stretch we have to meet the goal. In other words, the proposed austerity measures are needed to some degree, but are being implemented more quickly than needed. It can be argued this is done in view of the 2018 elections—getting ahead to look fiscally responsible for campaign time.

Political motives aside, Pierre Fortin, a former president of the Société canadienne-française de science économique (SCSE) and of the Canadian Economics Association (CEA), cautions that the proposed cuts could plunge the province into recession—promptly removing nearly $4 billion from an economy is likely to have damaging effects. As mentioned above, a weakened economy would require government to take on "expansionary policies" (see above)—an irony of government’s intentions and ensuing results.

Prejudices aside, please

In the final analysis, in Quebec we have the bitter-sweet tendency to become uproarious when it comes to our politics. On the one hand, we carefully watch our opponents’ moves, and, on the other hand, we forget we’re working together in building Quebec society; we may not choose the citizens we live with, but at some point, we have to put prejudices and feuds aside for the sake of civic life.

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, a student-activist largely present in the 2012 Maple Spring, put into question the reigning attitudes media have regarding police violence aimed at student-protesters. Similarly, David Gray-Donald wrote for Media Co-op on how English media are downplaying resistance efforts in Quebec. Fair enough. However, when Gray-Donald argues the anti-austerity movement is going strong, he writes "police came onto […] UQAM, and arrested people for enforcing strike mandates voted on at general assemblies." Let’s put aside the fact that those—whether they were all students is uncertain—who "enforced" the strike mandate were masked and intimidating classrooms in-session, and question whether such a mandate truly embodies the will of students given the means needed for implementation. Let’s not pretend that some student associations and resistance groups don’t carry with them an antigovernment bias, or act in purely peaceful manners. A cause isn’t worthy because it’s fought for; it’s worthiness is based on the injustice it seeks to set right and the just means used to this end.

Having said that, we shouldn’t be stigmatizing students for taking on a cause—civic engagement is something to be moulded, not scolded. Likewise, we shouldn’t be stereotyping all militant students into a single, unchangeable category; some groups are respectful in their efforts. For example, l’association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ) organized an exemplary mass protest April 2.

In his final letter to Canadians in 2011, Quebecer Jack Layton echoed the very remedy needed in Quebec at this time; a wish he hoped would guide Canadians at times of dispute, that, ultimately, "we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done." No one enjoys seeing protests go awry; no one enjoys seeing their country in a divisive state. Lest we forget this divisiveness emerged out of conflict over public finances, not out of mutual hatred.

May 1st, a date to look out for

Multiple groups on protest: https://grevecontrelausterite.wordpress.com/mandats-de-greve/

Suggested readings

On the QLP’s broken electoral promises (in french): http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e6b635c7-bf6a-4062-8119-610d4131b648%7C.QXq4qnuuLTQ.html
For short video explaining Pierre Fortin’s analysis (in french): http://www.lactualite.com/actualites/politique/les-3-questions-a-se-poser-au-sujet-de-la-dette-du-quebec/
For the most recently submitted copy of the 2015-2016 budget: http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/budget/2015-2016/en/documents/BudgetPlan.pdf
For a copy of the 1999-2000 budget (for comparison purposes): http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/budget/1999-2000/fr/PDF/plan-fr.pdf

Bill C-51, Environmental Justice & Human Rights: Freedom Comes with Responsiblities

16:25 Anonymous 0 Comments Category : Canadian

When the executive director of Sierra Club, a prominent environmental advocacy group originating from California, USA, wrote in support for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, I was surprised to see disapproval in the commentary section of his FaceBook post.

Protesters take to the streets in the uproar for the "Black Lives Matter" movement.

"Why is the Sierra Club commenting on this case? So disappointed. This is not your mission. WTH? There goes my renewal. Bye", one commented.

"This is not what you're all about. What you do is important. And making it about something else takes away from your basic mission. Shame on you. And shame on you for using a picture of Dr. King", wrote another.

What Michael Brune, the executive director in question, was calling for was increased cooperation and solidarity among different movements: "how can we enlist the support of millions of people who are forced to live with irrefutable injustice if we turn our backs on their suffering?" Brune makes a compelling case for solidarity, but there’s another link between human rights and the environment. That is, when a human rights abuse occurs over a land conflict.

For those in Sustainability Studies or the ilk, there is the concept of "environmental justice", defined by UL, an independent safety science firm, as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in an affected community, regardless of race, colour, gender, national origin, or income, in considering investments and developments that affect the environment." In other words—and there seems to be growing consensus—we cannot detract human welfare from environmental welfare, and vice-versa.

The primary goal of Vanier’s Social Justice Committee is to break the silence on issues of social justice. In a time where complacency can be widespread, we hope to provide the space for discussion on human rights, whether domestic or abroad. In light of this, we too, cannot dislodge the connection between environmental protection and human rights.

Consider the current anti-terrorism bill, officially known as Bill C-51, undergoing the legislative process. This sort of bill is timely, as we witness the growth of a sophisticatedly organized terrorist group in the Islamic State. This bill has provoked criticism, as all proposed bills do, but this time four former PM’s, along with 18 other former governmental officials (Supreme Court of Canada justices, ministers of justice and public safety, etc). The overarching criticism was that the proposed bill lacked oversight, which would have for effect the erosion of human rights at home.

But let’s put this aside and look at another flaw, one outlined by VICE, one that hints at environmental protection and human rights.

Basically, an RCMP (2014) report leaked on the "criminal threats to the petroleum industry" (see VICE article for attached document). One finding claims "there is a growing, highly organized and well-financed, anti-Canadian petroleum movement". This is dismaying for a Prime Minister who once proclaimed, in an address to the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce, Canada to be "an emerging energy ‘superpower’", one that "[his] government intend[ed] to build."

To matters briefly, the 2014 report combined with the language in the new anti-terror bill has the potential to criminalize one of the pillars of democracy: civil disobedience. As confirmed to VICE by Justice Minister Peter Mackay, anti-pipeline or petroleum protests and blockades could be criminal, as it interferes with Canada’s "critical infrastructure".

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Most+Canadians+support+anti+Kinder+Morgan+protesters+online+poll/10665104/story.html#__federated=1

Protesters disrupt the work of Kinder Morgan in Burnaby Mountain last November. With the introduction of Bill C-51, this could be illegal.

By the same token, aboriginal groups often protest for their right to be consulted on any project affecting their land, a right guaranteed to aboriginal populations of the world in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The point being made here is simply that C-51, while it seems to be a response to rising concerns for terrorism, also would provide grounds to quell the anti-petroleum movement. Not too farfetched for a government that has built its reputation on developing itself "as a global energy powerhouse" (same address as previously mentioned).

All things considered, Canadians shouldn’t be overly concerned about the threat of terrorism because, as Scott Gilmore writes, "in Canada, only two people have died in terrorism attacks in the last decade." Clearly it isn’t necessary to take drastic measures—yet. In the meantime, let’s not be shaken by the Conservative government’s politics of fear, especially if it has a hidden agenda in the energy sector.

What does this mean for citizens? Briefly, your engagement can be threefold. First, stay alert and informed with avail of news media and experts, and spread the information—break the silence. Second, write to your member of Parliament. Third, let your voice be heard in the upcoming election, to be held this year.

When all is said and done, recall the words of Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience, "Must the citizen ever [...] resign [their] conscience to the legislator?" In every democracy, the time between elections is not lost at the hands of those elected, and we must remember this.

I am Muslim. Do you trust me? Give me a Hug

14:48 Unknown 0 Comments Category : Canadian , Gallery , Vanier Student Articles

No Fun & Games at Qatar World Cup

15:03 Anonymous 0 Comments Category : International , Vanier Student Articles , World News

By Liem Dam, Vanier College student and committee member.

The FIFA World Cup is a quadrennial event that unites the various nations of the Earth in a bid to pit the world’s best competitive soccer players against one another, in a colourful spectacle of cheer and celebration. Yet there is nothing to celebrate about the abysmal working conditions plaguing the host of the future 2022 World Cup, Qatar.

Much like the Olympics, the World Cup host is decided by an internal vote by FIFA’s executive members years before it actually takes place, to allow the winner to prepare for the games. In 2010, Qatar was announced as the winner of the 2022 bids – beating out the United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea and the UK, among other countries. The decision to award Qatar with the privilege of hosting the World Cup was a strange one: an independent commission hired by FIFA itself assessed all the candidates for viability and risk - Qatar was the only one labelled "high risk". The tournament takes place during the summer months, and Qatar’s desert climate makes it extremely unsuitable for a sport of such intensity. Furthermore, much of the infrastructure needed for an event of such magnitude – stadiums, public transit, airports, housing and accommodations – are simply not present in Qatar. There have been widespread allegations of corruption (which is not particularly new to FIFA). Indeed, the president of FIFA himself, Joseph Blatter, has even admitted that awarding Qatar the contract was “a mistake”.

Accusations of vote-rigging notwithstanding, it is within FIFA’s right to select a less developed country to host their games. Such a decision can even be extremely beneficial to the local economy, providing billions in investments into infrastructure and generating tourism revenue that will last long after the World Cup has run its course. However, these countries also often lack the social development and laws needed to prevent abuses stemming from the execution of such an ambitious project. In some cases, the institutions in place to prevent injustices and corruption lack the experience, scope and budget required to properly do their jobs; in others, they are simply absent. It thus becomes essential to have appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure that systematic exploitation does not occur. This has not been the case with Qatar.

Qatar is a small country, but relatively rich due to its large amounts of oil resources. Like many middle-eastern countries, it has begun, in recent years, a large degree of urban expansion in order to support its increasingly affluent population. The large amount of construction work it needs requires it to rely on foreign labour to meet demand. Foreign workers account for nearly 90% of Qatar’s 2.2 million people and that proportion is only growing because of the astronomical scope of the World Cup project.

Qatar uses a kafala (sponsorship) worker system which allows foreign workers to come into the country provided they are sponsored by an employer. Although the system is intended to be beneficial for both parties, the workers – many of Nepalese and Filipino origin – are regularly exploited. Their patrons confiscate their passports, making them unable to leave the country until completing their contract – essentially reducing them to indentured servitude. The working conditions are horrendous, with manyworking 12 hours a day in scorching temperatures that can reach up to 50°C. Many have no access to basic facilities like toilets and drinking water. The result is a death toll that has climbed to 1,000 in 2 years, and with work only ramping up in order to be able to complete all the construction work on time, it’s estimated that the World Cup will kill over 4,000 workers. The Qatari government has acknowledged the abuse and has promised to take steps to stop and prevent it, but as Amnesty International notes, there has yet to be any substantial change.

What can be done? We can pressure our government to persuade Qatar to improve its migrant worker conditions. The best option, however, might be to raise awareness and convince others of joining the cause. The situation behind an event scheduled 7 years from now simply isn’t a priority to the general population or to the media. In our capitalist society, we have the option of voting with our wallets. We can choose to boycott FIFA products, including the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Although FIFA is a private, non-profit organization, it has significant political clout and its influence can have a huge impact on improving the situation. If enough people pressure FIFA, then we might see a first step to change.

Women's rights at home: 'Mirror mirror, who's the fairest of them all?'

07:40 Anonymous 0 Comments Category : Canadian , World News

Much can be said of Canada’s history of women’s rights and gender equality, since much has been done to bridge the gender gap. The emerging generations bear the fruit of past efforts as they witness two of Canada’s thirteen largest provincial/territory legislatures headed by women (the number was three until Marois was booted in the 2014 Quebec elections): Kathleen Wynne for Ontario and Christy Clark for British Columbia. It might be said that this number should be higher, but keeping in mind that the right to hold public office was won by women less than a hundred years ago, it is a remarkable achievement in the grand scheme of things.

Likewise, Canadian women earn other prestigious titles as well. For example, astronaut and recently appointed director of the National Bank of Canada, Julie Payette, or former Governor-General of Canada and current Secretary-General of La Francophonie, Michaëlle Jean. With this in mind, it’s safe to say Canada has made leaps and bounds since the days women were legally and financially dependant of their husbands.

However, it’s important that we, as a nation, not bask in former glory. This is not to say that we’ve become silent on women’s issues, but we certainly haven’t taken them as seriously as we should have. Aside from the progress in providing equal legal status to women and equalizing access to important opportunities such as education and political participation, the numbers still show that women have yet to be on par with men in some major areas. What’s more, Canadian society is still, while acknowledging progress made, plagued by rape-culture and violence against women.

Firstly, Canada has stagnated in its efforts to balance representation in traditionally male-dominated fields. Take politics and business for example. From 1980 to 1993, the number of elected women in Parliament improved by 13% in 13 years (5% to 18%), but, afterwards, from 1993 to 2011 this number grew a mere 6% in 18 years (18% to 24%)—which is to say women have yet to represent a quarter of our elected federal officials despite accounting for slightly more than half of the nation’s population (see page 199 in The Canadian Regime, by Malcolmson and Meyers for the numbers on representation). Moreover, in the business sector, as the The Economist notes, women in Canada make up a meager 5% of its chief executives. This is not the complete picture, but it’s worth noting the underrepresentation of women in key decision-making roles of society.

Secondly—and this is the point worth stressing most—we’ve entered an age in which rape-culture and violence against women are the pressing yet taboo issues in Canada. Often times Canadians hear about the harm done to women in other parts of the world, all while thinking the matter is much better at home—hence the subtlety of rape-culture. Consider a few key statistics released by StatCan (also see this study and this report for homicide data):

6% of sexual assault incidents are reported to the police;
1-2% of "date-rape" sexual assaults are reported to police;
Only 2-4% of all sexual assaults reported are false reports;
Over 80% of sexual assaults are committed against women;
50% of the sex offenders are married or in long-term partnerships;
Of 68 "intimate partner homicides" in 2013, 82% of the victims were female;
Aboriginal women make up 4.3% of the population, while accounting for 16% of homicide victims and 11.3% of missing women.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/ex-cbc-radio-host-jian-ghomeshi-arrested-sexual-assault-charges-n256916

To illustrate how this might play out in reality, we can take the recent Jian Ghomeshi incident, which has ignited public discourse. Ghomeshi now faces seven counts of sexual assault and one choking charge. At the public’s dismay, we’ve learnt that the assailant has been able to commit these acts over the course of his lifetime, therefore, as Maclean’s writes, Ghomeshi serves as "a case study of systemic failure to address sexual assault and abuse". This said, it’s important for Canadians to continue this conversation about rape-culture and sexual assault; to do otherwise is to sweep the matter under the rug.

By the same token, the University of Dalhousie has been put under the spotlight as university officials deliberate the fate of a group of male dentistry students who exchanged misogynistic comments about fellow female students on FaceBook. Dalhousie president Florizone commented, as Vice News notes, that "[they] are committed to significant consequences, but those consequences must be based on a just process." The article notes that many are dissatisfied with the university’s response, criticizing it as insufficient and lenient.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/national-inquiry-into-missing-and-murdered-aboriginal-women/

The above cases are presented with the intention of showing a side of Canada many are not accustom to seeing. This doesn’t mean Canada is an oppressive country, nor that its members are idle in the face of evil. Rather, the point being made is that we need to reflect and regroup on what sort of society we wish to work for. In this sense, it doesn’t help when political leaders are reluctant; take the movement calling for a national inquiry on the shockingly disproportionate level of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Many studies show this also reflects a systemic flaw, and a national inquiry would provide policy options to remedy the issue, but the Harper government staunchly refuses.

And if all this seems a bit too distant from reality for readers in the Montreal area, specifically from the Vanier College or West Island community, we must painfully recall the incident of a former Vanier student and West Islander, Sherri Thomas, who was murdered by her abusive domestic partner in late 2013. It’s an issue each and every Canadian must face and, ultimately, come together to put an end to these injustices.

Here are a few petitions related to above issues