Author: Doug Rutherford

Posted on

Where Rick’s Rant is wrong

By now, many of you have probably seen Rick Mercer’s rant from last Tuesday evening. It dealt with how bullying led a gay Ottawa teen to commit suicide and has gone viral, being shared on a variety of social media sites and seen around the world. As of today, it has been viewed almost one-quarter million times on YouTube alone.

While I certainly agree with his message generally, I disagree with one of his key points. Rick calls for all gay people in public life to come out to provide a role model to gay teens. I’m not sure that’s actually the message we need to put forward. Why should the only good role model for a gay teen be a gay public figure? Maybe, a tolerant, straight person who is a decent human being would be a better role model than a crooked, gay politician who isn’t stunning example of humanity. I don’t think a gay role model is any more necessary for gay teens that a male role model would better for a male student. In fact, this kind of restrictive, exclusionary thinking may have been what got us in the sorry state we’re in now.

Let’s be honest here. If, for example, John Baird is gay and he did come out of the closet, how many gay students are likely to say, “He’s gay, so it must be alright?” I don’t think he’d provide the most comforting example. 

Maybe, he should have ended his rant with the following message. People in public life should starting being a bit on the tolerant side. Maybe politicians should exercise a bit of restraint during Question Period. Maybe professional athletes should concentrate on being as good off the field as they think they are on the field. And maybe, those of us not in the public eye… you know, the vast majority of us… should just treat everyone properly and try to be a person that anyone would want to emulate. It might not hurt, you know…

Posted on

OK. It is over.

I got a phone call last night from Bylaw. They inspected the property and found no evidence of hazardous wastes on the site across the street. So, with the property mostly cleaned, the hazardous wastes removed and the neighbour moved out, I guess all that’s left is to see what new tenants move in. After 2 years with a recycling company/junk dealer, followed by a crack house, followed by 2 1/2 years with another recycling company, I don’t have high hopes but am willing to be pleasantly surprised.

After all of this, I have two notes. I must admit that Bylaw went out of their way to help while YTG, to the level of the Premier, weren’t interested in doing anything at all. I have a sneaking suspicion that the neighbour being a friend of a senior Yukon Party official might be related as my late next door neighbour suggested. The second point is that the Maintenance and Zoning bylaws are a mess and need serious revision to make them enforceable. I think, after I feel a bit better, I’ll go back to council and see if they’re willing to consider this. In their shoes, I would. After all, if there are all of these legal impediments to enforcing these bylaws, there are probably as many in enforcing the Property Tax bylaw…

Posted on

I think it’s over, more or less

After more than two years, our neighbour has finally cleaned his lot. It’s not totally done, as there are still two junker cars left; however, these are sitting at the very back of the property and hard to see.

And, an even better note: there were several people there today with a pickup moving furniture from the house. Most of us on the street seem to consider this a good sign.

However, it’s now time to see if the Environment Department will inspect and clear the property, as well as rescinding the permit to store hazardous wastes. Not that I expect them to actually do their job, but, I’m allowed to be optimistic…

Posted on

An open letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner, Conflict of Interest and Ethics

14 October 2011

Mary Dawson, Parliamentary Commissioner
Conflict of Interest and Ethics
Parliament of Canada
Centre Block, P.O. Box 16
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

By E-Mail (ciec-ccie@parl.gc.ca)

Dear Ms. Dawson:

I am writing to file a request regarding the current plan of the Minister of Labour to table back to work legislation in the event of a strike by Air Canada flight attendants. My request is due to the fact that I find some aspects of recent policy quite disturbing and feel that your intervention in this matter may be required to ensure that such legislation is dealt with in an honest and responsible matter.

In a point of background, the minister has suggested that the legislation is required to protect the function of an “essential service.” Personally, I find it difficult to rationalize how a private corporation that has competition for both domestic and international service can be seen as essential. Contrast this with the plan to eliminate the Coast Guard Search and Rescue station in St. John’s, NL. The argument for doing so as a budget cutting measure is that, despite the fact that it will require dispatching rescue services from as far away as CFB Shearwater, outside Halifax, NS, and adding approximately two hours to providing rescue services, this station is seen by the government as non-essential.

Unfortunately, this incongruity could be perceived as being the result of ulterior motives other than ideological ones. My request is, therefore, as follows. Could you please consult with the members of the House to determine which MPs hold shares in Air Canada or its subsidiaries and suggest to those members, regardless of party affiliation, that voting on this legislation could represent a perceived conflict of interest? Also, if permissible under privacy legislation, etc., could the list of MPs who are Air Canada or subsidiary shareholders be made public to ensure the openness and integrity of the voting on such legislation?

Yours truly

Douglas Rutherford

Posted on

Cleanup commences

Success! The city was going to send the Public Works crew to clean the property across the street but they may not have to. A neighbour has been hired to clean the property for the renter. He’s already booked a tow truck to get all the vehicles and remove them. The neighbour has been gone somewhere for months and his boarders who were staying there left when the power was cut off a few weeks ago so the place has been deserted. Now, at least it will be a bit better to look at, although God knows what’s been spilled on the property. I think we’ll ask the Department of the Environment to rescind the hazardous waste storage permit based on the fact he’s abandoned the property and get an inspection done.

Gee. It’s only taken two and a half years…

Posted on

I officially need a new wardrobe

A few things are new in the last couple of days. The big thing is that, for the first time since the last week of August, I wore pants! Real pants! I’ve been wearing pajamas or jogging pants since surgery, except in the hospital where I wore one of those “moon suit” gowns… named more for what you did wearing it rather than where you were going to wear it.

Waistlines were an issue for me since my incision, which was rather tender and still draining, runs up and perpendicular to my waist. In most cases, I’d actually pull up the joggies or jammies quite high, above the incision. Now, I can wear one of my elastic waist pants I found at Mark’s that have many pockets and were quite comfortable. However, there is now an issue. They used to fit perfectly, when I was three waist sizes larger. Forty pounds later, they don’t look as clean fitting as they used to. In fact, my pant legs closely resemble elephant legs, although more for their bagginess than their size. I won’t even describe how my shirts fit. I guess I have to go shopping. Soon.

A few other things came up yesterday. Since my incision isn’t draining, I no longer have to pack the incision and can now change my own dressings. Home care doesn’t have to come every day and I don’t see a nurse again until Tuesday, just to check. I also don’t have to change the dressing every day and every two days is fine. I also got a letter in the mail. The date for my scope is set at November 18th. Surgery is to be one to two weeks afterwards. In short, my summer from Hell is almost over. The summer part is long over, I realize. The Hell part is destined to end up shortly too. I guess the light at the end of the tunnel is not a train, after all…

Posted on

Milestones (note the plural)

One milestone down and one coming up. The home care nurse decided that my incision no longer needs packing. Several weeks ago, the surgeon reopened part of it as it was infected and not draining properly. To keep it from healing too quickly (I haven’t figured out why this is a bad thing, personally), she packed the reopening so it would wick the yucky stuff out of the infected pocket and properly drain.

However, the pocket has slowly been healing and there’s been almost no drainage at all. There’s a wee bit on the top, where it mostly drained on the bottom, but that’s not much more than a dribble. No, I’m not posting pictures. The nurses think it’s because I’m becoming more active and say this is good. However, my nurse this morning actually couldn’t get any packing in it at all, even after cutting it in half. Therefore, she said, “That’s it. No packing for you,” albeit without the Seinfeld-ish accent. In short, the infection appears to have run its course and my incision is healing. It has been five weeks since the last surgery and six weeks is the magic cutoff point for worrying about an instant incisional hernia (not a good thing, by the way).

Milestone #2 is coming on Tuesday. I’m going to start back to work for the first time since the beginning of June. I’m looking forward to it. It’ll only be part time, especially at the beginning.

But, to get back to work, I do have to make two huge adaptations. First, I have to start to getting into a sleeping rythym that will allow me to get up in time. My hours are based on chaos theory at the moment so I have to shift myself to a more linear paradigm. That will be a bit difficult, but isn’t the biggest problem. In order to go back to work in October, I have to readapt to wearing socks again. That one, I’m not looking forward to…

Posted on

The Yukon University Question, Part 3

In my last post, I mentioned that there are two criteria for de facto accreditation for universities in Canada. Institutional membership in AUCC is one, while legislation permitting the conferring of degrees by the province or territory is the other. While the first is largely out of reach, pending several things happening, the second already exists.

Three years ago, the Yukon College Act was amended to meet several of the other criteria that AUCC called for in case they would be willing to drop the two criteria of 500 university FTEs and the more than 50% university program rules. At this time, YTG granted Yukon College the right to grant degrees.

Also, Yukon College students actually can receive one of several degrees, although these are not granted by the college itself, but rather, through reciprocal agreements with other universities. For example, a Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Social Work degree has been available through the college, conferred by the University of Regina in both cases. A Bachelor of Circumpolar Studies is available, conferred through the University of the Arctic, a consortium of universities and colleges in North America and Europe. A Bachelor of Science in Environmental and Conservation Sciences is conferred through the University of Alberta, and, a Masters of Public Administration degree can be received through the University of Alaska Southeast.

The degree alternatives are provided at a reasonable tuition and are popular choices for students. And, since these are overseen through existing, accredited universities, a recognized degree is the outcome for students who complete the program, a possibility that may not exist for students of a new Yukon university. No, these choices may not match the requirements of everyone; however, is meeting everyone’s needs actually possible for a reasonable investment?

Also, remember that a university degree is not the only outcome in postsecondary education. This is where the College provides a valuable resource. Programs in technologies, trades, practical nursing, upgrading, etc., meet the requirement of the majority of students who are not seeking a university degree as the result of their education. Many graduates are currently employed in good jobs here at home. Setting up a funding-competitive institution, or worse, allowing a funding-competitive institution to overwhelm the existing College for the glory of issuing degrees will simply put a poorly considered campaign promise over the needs of the majority of Yukoners.

In conclusion (yes, it took me a bit to get here), I personally would like to have a university here. I am an academic, and if I didn’t, it would be more than a little odd, after all. However, the costs and the potential results could be both financially and educationally disastrous, leaving us a legacy we may well do without…

Posted on

The Yukon University Question, Part 2

This second consideration does have some relationship to part one. Let’s consider the question of cost from another perspective: is it better to redefine Yukon College to become a university or to start a completely different institution and what are the ramifications? Most of us quickly appreciate the first ramification, namely, a far greater cost to build a new university infrastructure. However, for a specific and important reason, it is probably better to build a new university rather than changing the College.

To appreciate this, put yourself in the shoes of a university student. You’ve just spent $60-80,000 for a four-year degree program and have been handed a piece of paper for your efforts. What is that piece of paper worth?

We can all accept that a degree from one institution carries more weight that from others. Having an engineering degree from, say MIT, is certainly more prestigious than one from a smaller, lesser known school. Reputation alone is not the only factor. Is the university that issued your degree actually even accredited? In short, did the piece of paper you received have any other value than the snazzy bond paper it’s printed on?

In Canada, there is no formal accreditation program for universities; however, there is a de facto standard. This is provincial/territorial legislation granting the institution the ability to confer degrees and institutional membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). Membership is based on a broad range of criteria, including experience and credentials of your faculty, quality of programs, library and other reference holdings, facilities, etc. However, another membership criterion is that the institution must offer a full program or programs of undergraduate and/or graduate studies. Offering a limited number of degree specializations, such as offering only the suggested concentration of a degree in climate change, means that the institution would never be accredited and that their degrees would largely be seen as having little more credibility than those issued by diploma mills that sell you a diploma for a fee: no class work or assignments, but no real degree, either.

Another important criterion is that the institution must have had 500 full time students or their equivalent (FTE) in university programs for the last two years. Yukon College has a bit over 500 FTEs, but only a small number are in university programs. These would be students in the Northern Studies Diploma and existing degree programs. One former requirement that AUCC required, and it is difficult to determine if it still exists, is that more than 50% of your programs must be university ones. This was in place two years ago when the then president unsuccessfully discussed membership with AUCC. Also, it means that the institution must open and accept students with the proviso that they will be committing the first two years of their education to an unaccredited university. If it fails to get accredited for one reason or another until after you finish your degree, you have a piece of paper for your efforts and maybe not much more.

Given the broad range of programs covered by the college, the 50% rule would mean having a slightly more than equitable increase in the number of university programs offered. In my last posting, I discussed the costs associated with offering a broad range of degrees and specializations. For accreditation purposes, these expensive options would be a necessity. However, starting from scratch and not having to have more university than non-university programs may make membership easier than expanding the role of the College. It will, however, require a substantial infrastructure investment to create a new institution and doing so could easily fall into the $150-250 million bracket.

Opening another institution has other implications though. The college has university transfer courses that allow students to do up to the first two years of their degree locally and finish at another institution (the College motto is “Start here, go anywhere,” after all). Given the amount of competition for students, it would probably be safe to assume that much of what happened in Prince George would probably occur here. Since the university course option existed with the formation of the University of Northern BC, the College of New Caledonia stopped offering university transfer courses as a cost reduction strategy. Doing so here would mean that the lower cost tuition option students have of doing courses at Yukon College would probably be removed at some point. Given the heavy subsidization from the government that two separate institutions would require, it is a good guess that YTG would probably act very quickly to set this in place.

Part 3, and probably the last one, to follow…