The District School Board of Niagara (DSBN) has announced the opening of a school to which it would transport low-income students, exclusively, from the regiong to attend. The school would, "provide breakfast and lunch as well as offer after-school programs, in addition to preparing students to be the first in their family to attend college or university." DSBN says it's doing this because "the current system wasn't serving poor children well."
A controversial idea to be sure and one that was bound to stir up debate. As it should. That debate, however, was effectively neuteured by NDP MPP Peter Kormos when he described the plan as "education apartheid." Nice. He might next consider comparing the minister of education to Hitler. It would be just as apt and useful to the public discourse.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Recommended Reading
It's gone far too unnoticed, but former Clerk of the Privy Council, Alex Himelfarb, is blogging in his new capacity as Director of the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs at York University. The blog is here: http://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/alex/
This is noteworthy not only because Himelfarb is incredibly smart (he was an academic and wrote books in a former life), not just because he's raising interesting questions in a reasonable way ("Are Canadians becoming more conservative?" for example), but because it is remarkable to find a former clerk putting his thoughts on political and policy questions so far into a public space.
Keep an eye on this and on Himelfarb.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Uh, This Isn't Going To Be Good For Anyone
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/10/cidas-haiti-earthquake-relief-fund-millions-raised-nothing-spent/
Without comment...
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Steve Paikin Is A Hero
I wonder what would happen if the Parliamentary press corps tried this when one or more politicians who were *ahem* messing them about.
A nice job from Steve Paikin and an equally crappy one from Glen Murray and Pam Taylor.
A Fundamental Difference, Perhaps
Days like today I often find myself thinking wistfully about our public life in Canada. "Days like today" often referring to days after a particularly interesting event in the US. And so it is today.
Yesterday President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I'm conscious of the fact that we don't have many moments like this Canada, but I'll point you to Paul Wells' thoughts on this over here as they are, you know, better. With no disrespect intended to the 200,000 members of anti-prorogation group on Facebook and several tens of thousands who were out on a cold January day (a Saturday) to protest the same (and a similar number who were out for anti-coalition rallies just over a year ago), I would say that Canadians rarely respond to their politics with the same fervor that our American counsins do. None of these are more than superficial differences between our peoples in my mind, however. Then I came across this comment in a discussion of the State of the Union speech in the Politico Arena by an attorney, Eric Jaffe, who I believe to be a Republican:
"Which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of the speech for me – the notion that we have a “deficit of trust” in government...My objection is that it champions the erroneous and extremely dangerous notion that we SHOULD trust our government. America does not have a deficit of trust, it has a surfeit.The whole point of our constitutional democracy is that a national government – and the various regimes that occasionally control it – is dangerous...Americans should be suspicious of, cynical about, and lack blind faith in government precisely because politicians of all parties are likely to aggrandize their own power and attempt to create a majority faction that is a danger to liberty regardless which party is in control."
This paragraph graphically demonstrates what I think is one fundamental difference between our two countries - I don't think that many (I won't say there are none) Canadians feel this way about government. Even among Canadian conservatives, of whom I admit to only knowing a few personally, this particular streak of libertarianism doesn't run strong. Some Canadians may not like government, but most conservatives I've ever heard talk of smaller government talk about a dislike for wasteful, overreaching government full of "national projects" and little adherence to the constitution, not fear. Over at the Western Standard, where they certainly try to uphold some sense of conservative libertarian values, a recent blog post laments the absence of these in the current Conservative government. The post, "To Whom Does This Parliament Belong?" makes a case for a libertarian perspective on Canada's politics, but goes nowhere near the notion that a citizen should not trust his or her government or that it's dangerous. It says only that said government should be limited and answer to the people who put it in place.
I don't know how widely held Eric Jaffe's views are by others in the US, nor do I think that Canadians of any stripe are all particularly excited or impressed by their governments, but the difference in attitude seems vast and important to me. The chasm between fear of your government and seeking to put proper limits on its power allows for a higher level of state intervention. While Canadian "conservatives" often blame "liberals" for the size of the state in Canada it would be interesting to know how much of it is permitted by the different attitude that they take toward government than American conservatives do.
Yesterday President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I'm conscious of the fact that we don't have many moments like this Canada, but I'll point you to Paul Wells' thoughts on this over here as they are, you know, better. With no disrespect intended to the 200,000 members of anti-prorogation group on Facebook and several tens of thousands who were out on a cold January day (a Saturday) to protest the same (and a similar number who were out for anti-coalition rallies just over a year ago), I would say that Canadians rarely respond to their politics with the same fervor that our American counsins do. None of these are more than superficial differences between our peoples in my mind, however. Then I came across this comment in a discussion of the State of the Union speech in the Politico Arena by an attorney, Eric Jaffe, who I believe to be a Republican:
"Which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of the speech for me – the notion that we have a “deficit of trust” in government...My objection is that it champions the erroneous and extremely dangerous notion that we SHOULD trust our government. America does not have a deficit of trust, it has a surfeit.The whole point of our constitutional democracy is that a national government – and the various regimes that occasionally control it – is dangerous...Americans should be suspicious of, cynical about, and lack blind faith in government precisely because politicians of all parties are likely to aggrandize their own power and attempt to create a majority faction that is a danger to liberty regardless which party is in control."
This paragraph graphically demonstrates what I think is one fundamental difference between our two countries - I don't think that many (I won't say there are none) Canadians feel this way about government. Even among Canadian conservatives, of whom I admit to only knowing a few personally, this particular streak of libertarianism doesn't run strong. Some Canadians may not like government, but most conservatives I've ever heard talk of smaller government talk about a dislike for wasteful, overreaching government full of "national projects" and little adherence to the constitution, not fear. Over at the Western Standard, where they certainly try to uphold some sense of conservative libertarian values, a recent blog post laments the absence of these in the current Conservative government. The post, "To Whom Does This Parliament Belong?" makes a case for a libertarian perspective on Canada's politics, but goes nowhere near the notion that a citizen should not trust his or her government or that it's dangerous. It says only that said government should be limited and answer to the people who put it in place.
I don't know how widely held Eric Jaffe's views are by others in the US, nor do I think that Canadians of any stripe are all particularly excited or impressed by their governments, but the difference in attitude seems vast and important to me. The chasm between fear of your government and seeking to put proper limits on its power allows for a higher level of state intervention. While Canadian "conservatives" often blame "liberals" for the size of the state in Canada it would be interesting to know how much of it is permitted by the different attitude that they take toward government than American conservatives do.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Despondent Political Observers Of The World Unite!
It is rare that I find myself in agreement with Andrew Coyne about politics in Canada, although I do (sadly for me, I guess) find him to be one of our better political writers. Maybe the best. And I do not know Andrew Coyne personally, although we have met a few times and I now have a quite hilarious story that goes along with one of those encounters. Yet, occassionally, I seriously worry for the man because he seems to get rather depressed when he thinks too much about the way in which the Conservatives' are governing our country.
The latest examples are here, here and here. I hope someone in the Rogers/Macleans world is checking in on Mr. Coyne regularly because his usual cynicism seems to be venturing near the deep waters of depression.
I will say this, however, from my own limited experience that I too am shocked and a little depressed by the way this government manages its business. It's not so much the cynicism of their behaviour, as Coyne seems to worry most about, but rather the incompetance, depravity and vidictiveness that seems to characterize their outlook on the world and response to events. They seem to continue to behave as though they never won an election and power might slip away at any second (depending on whether they are reading polls on Monday or Wednesday one can imagine how this aspect at least would be prone to a certain type of manic reaction). This seems to lead to a constant state of message control, domination and bullying of those people and agencies that are within their grasp. This is true whether it's the PBO, Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, assinine comments from Ministers caught on tape, the information commissioner or any number of things. Perhaps it's just that they had very little collective experience governing prior to winning and so they feel the need to squeeze every second from the experience, but they handle themselves almost without a modicum of grace. Worse still perhaps, they seem quite alright with such an existence. It seems to me that they cannot see the carrot for the stick.
How could they possibly see a tree, let alone the forrest?
The latest examples are here, here and here. I hope someone in the Rogers/Macleans world is checking in on Mr. Coyne regularly because his usual cynicism seems to be venturing near the deep waters of depression.
I will say this, however, from my own limited experience that I too am shocked and a little depressed by the way this government manages its business. It's not so much the cynicism of their behaviour, as Coyne seems to worry most about, but rather the incompetance, depravity and vidictiveness that seems to characterize their outlook on the world and response to events. They seem to continue to behave as though they never won an election and power might slip away at any second (depending on whether they are reading polls on Monday or Wednesday one can imagine how this aspect at least would be prone to a certain type of manic reaction). This seems to lead to a constant state of message control, domination and bullying of those people and agencies that are within their grasp. This is true whether it's the PBO, Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, assinine comments from Ministers caught on tape, the information commissioner or any number of things. Perhaps it's just that they had very little collective experience governing prior to winning and so they feel the need to squeeze every second from the experience, but they handle themselves almost without a modicum of grace. Worse still perhaps, they seem quite alright with such an existence. It seems to me that they cannot see the carrot for the stick.
How could they possibly see a tree, let alone the forrest?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Message From Europe
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/05/04/equitable-access-to-pse-in-europe/
I believe, on the heels of Obama's ambitious goals for higher education, that this constitutes a pretty serious challenge to be heeded globally. In essence, the members of the European Higher Education Area have said, "who's got next?" in terms of committing to deeper more meaningful access to higher education for all citizens and the idea that the student population in higher education institutions should be more diverse and reflective of the societies outside their walls.
Let me also just take a second to address a debate that is sure to ensue, because it does every time "Europe" manages to do something constructive on higher ed, this is no way some sort of indictment of our federation. Yes, Europe has (seemingly) successfully integrated many states with often competing, sometimes converging interests to act (or propose to act) on higher education issues. The primary feature of their efforts, however, is the recognition that action requires compromise and cooperation. It also allows individual states the freedom to act independently in their own jurisdiction, both in terms of pace of reform and the form those changes will take. None of this is precluded in our constitution. Let's repeat, the constitution is not an impediment to action on higher education reform in Canada.
If I could write a single speech for the Prime Minister today (and have him believe in what it said) it would contain the following sentences:
"That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete [post-secondary education] and meet a new goal: by 2020, [Canada] willonce again have the highest proportion of [post-secondary education] graduates in the world. The federal government will lead the way on this goal, but we will accomplish it in partnership with all provincial and territorial governments who we know understand the importance of expanding and profoundly deepening access and success for young Canadians."
Now let's go do this thing.
(H/T to Dale Kirby at Macleans)
I believe, on the heels of Obama's ambitious goals for higher education, that this constitutes a pretty serious challenge to be heeded globally. In essence, the members of the European Higher Education Area have said, "who's got next?" in terms of committing to deeper more meaningful access to higher education for all citizens and the idea that the student population in higher education institutions should be more diverse and reflective of the societies outside their walls.
Let me also just take a second to address a debate that is sure to ensue, because it does every time "Europe" manages to do something constructive on higher ed, this is no way some sort of indictment of our federation. Yes, Europe has (seemingly) successfully integrated many states with often competing, sometimes converging interests to act (or propose to act) on higher education issues. The primary feature of their efforts, however, is the recognition that action requires compromise and cooperation. It also allows individual states the freedom to act independently in their own jurisdiction, both in terms of pace of reform and the form those changes will take. None of this is precluded in our constitution. Let's repeat, the constitution is not an impediment to action on higher education reform in Canada.
If I could write a single speech for the Prime Minister today (and have him believe in what it said) it would contain the following sentences:
"That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete [post-secondary education] and meet a new goal: by 2020, [Canada] will
Now let's go do this thing.
(H/T to Dale Kirby at Macleans)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Really?!
Kory Teneycke, the Prime Minister's communications director, says this
about politics in Canada:
"I think if you're going to step into the ring, you've got to be able to take the punch...This is the House of Commons. This is Politics."
about politics in Canada:
"I think if you're going to step into the ring, you've got to be able to take the punch...This is the House of Commons. This is Politics."
It sounds more like Thunderdome.
And these are currently the ones in GOVERNMENT. It's going to be a dark few years yet, my friends.
Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I Ask Myself All The Time
Every time I read things like this I ask the same question that Krugman is asking of his own country today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)