Category: Election

Posted on

Ah, the niqab thing

Once again, another news story comes out where the majority of Canadians believe that members of the public service should not wear a niqab at work. The study states that 64 percent of Canadians call for a ban on “Muslim women from front-line federal public service jobs if they wear Islamic veils.”

Further, 74 percent say they disagree with wearing a niqab during a citizenship ceremony, although two Federal Courts have ruled that such a prohibition is illegal.

My response to this is two words in length: so what? The freedom of religion and expression called for in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the wearing of religious symbols. And, there are some who say the niqab is cultural rather than religious in nature. However, it is called for in some branches of Islam and the differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims is substantially greater than the differences between some Christian sects, such the difference between Catholics and Amish. If you see some Muslin women not wearing one, or a hijab instead, this is a reflection of these differences, not that it isn’t a religious piece of apparel.

Equally important to consider in this is that we have a charter to protect minority rights, not the majority opinion. Further, the fact that we have a court system that actually enforces a charter that states such things as everyone is equal in front of the law is something you should be proud of, regardless of the fact that you may not agree with every one of those decisions.

And, if you’re against public servants wearing a niqab, although there are no federal public servants who do so, ask yourself, “Why?” How does it affect you in any way? Will that public servant process your form more slowly, or not be able to do her job.

If you don’t have a practical, functional answer, other than personal opinion or wanting them to adopt your culture, you’re the problem in this issue, not the woman wearing a niqab.

Remember, we have a proud and long history of not requiring cultural assimilation of immigrants. If we had required it, public servants may only speak Cree…

Posted on

For sale: one vote

We have an election coming up, namely, the municipal election for the city of Whitehorse. Voting day is October 18th. Elected will be a mayor and six councilors. There is no incumbent running for the mayor’s position and four incumbents running for council seats.

This means I have less than two weeks to figure out who gets my vote (actually, multiple votes as you check off one vote for mayor and up to six for council. There are 5 mayoralty candidates and 22 running for council). In the 21 years I’ve lived here, I’ve voted for a possible mayor every time but have yet to actually cast six  council votes in any election.

Checking out the list of candidates this time around, I don’t see much hopes of finding six to vote for again. It was only shortly before the deadline for nominations that I could see a choice for mayor that didn’t include “none of the above.”

So here are some hints for those who want to get voted in. Note that this probably applies for all elections. A political campaign is a job interview of sorts and the electorate’s only way to choose the right person for the job is the platform put forward by the candidate. So, when expressing your platform:

1. If you intend to deal with an issue, explain how you intend to fix it in detail. Everyone loves kittens, rainbows and unicorns, but general campaign promises without details are usually best moved to the field with a backhoe to make next year’s crop grow that much better. If you cannot provide details, it means you know nothing about the subject other than what to call it.  Honestly, we have enough elected representatives who know nothing. We don’t need more.

2. Prove you have an understanding of jurisdictional responsibility. Each level of government has its responsibilities. If you’re running for one, don’t make promises about things that come under another level of government. This only indicates that you have no clue about the position you aspire to, and probably indicates your level of qualification for it.

3. If you promise something, be prepared to vote that way when the time comes. There is no excuse for supporting something you said you would not support or vice versa. The common story is “after studying the issue,…” or words to that effect. If it was a promise made in your campaign, it meant that you already studied the issue, or should have. Changing your mind in this manner means you either knew nothing about your stand on the issue, or you simply meant to lie your way into office. Unfortunately, we have too many of those cases, too.

4. Have some idea of how financing works. While governments and businesses run through two completely different models and experience in one has no relevance to the other, the general rules of finance are still the same. You can only spend what comes in. Whether through transfers, taxation or borrowing, this income is the maximum you have to provide vital services. And, unlike a business, you simply can’t close the plant and move to somewhere offering lower operating costs. Explain (in detail, again), how you intend to meet your promises and still afford to provide those services.

5. Be honest. Admit it when you don’t know something. Take responsibility for those times when your ideas don’t work. Sometimes you’re going to have to make unpopular decisions (some of the decisions the current council have been decried for are some I heartily approved of). People aren’t going to be happy with everything you do, but will be far more willing to accept it, grudgingly, if you can show you honestly and sincerely feel this is the best choice. The only way to do this is have a long history of being honest and sincere and it doesn’t take much to indicate that these are characteristics you don’t have.

So, there’s my pitch. These aren’t that much in the way of demands for buying my vote. I know it seems a lot, but you’ll probably find that the same price will purchase far more votes than mine…

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…

Posted on

The Yukon University Question, Part 1

One of the most poorly considered campaign platform ideas recently reared its head this when the Yukon Party announced its desire to create the first university in the north in Yukon. I have no problem with the general idea; however, practical application of this raises substantial questions. And, since no cost estimates were attached to the promise, I have to wonder if any planning whatsoever went into this announcement.

The first consideration: what client group is a university intended to serve? If it is aimed to provide an alternative for Yukon students, which of those students will be the target group? What programs will you offer, and which departments and their various specializations will be offered. For example, if you choose to offer a Bachelor of Science degree, which departments will be offered? This list could include Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Geology, Psychology, etc. And, should you choose to offer Geology, what specializations within the discipline will you teach? These could include geochemistry, seismology, physical geology, geomorphology, etc.

These questions must be answered early in the game since their answers will dictate how many faculty members, what faculty members, what lab facilities and analytical equipment, how many lab technicians and what expansions to the library will be required. The university departmentsI’ve been in, including one of geology and several of archaeology, usually had a faculty of 20 or more, earning approximately $150,000 plus benefits at the current levels of pay in Canadian universities for a full professor, or approximately $120,000 plus benefits for an Assistant Professor.

Lab resources, such as analytical equipment, are also expensive. Sticking with geology, an ICP-MS for analyzing mineral contents, a basic high precision analysis tool, is over $700,000 to purchase. The technician running the last one I worked with had a PhD and earned a very good salary. A scanning electron microscope costs several hundred thousand dollars and uses $50,000 of argon as part of its function each semester.  Lab equipment, as you may have deduced, is incredibly expensive. This will also need separate labs in which to run them and increased specialized staffing for their function and the capital costs for setting these facilities would involve an incredible amount of money.

Keep in mind that to be credible, a university could not just offer one department so these costs will be multiplied for, say, chemistry and biology departments as well. Analytical equipment for either of these disciplines is equally expensive to buy and to use.

Are we doing this to provide an alternative for Yukon students? This is an important philosophical question, as it points to what we will be subsidizing. Remember that tuitions do not cover the entire cost of running a postsecondary institution. For example, Yukon College tuitions last year amounted to approximately 4% of income. Granted, most universities raise more of their income through tuitions and fees but do so through having substantially higher costs. Tuition at most universities in Canada run approximately $6,000 per year for a full time student, compared to about $3,200 for full time tuition the College presently charges.

It’s also been a while since I’ve seen the number of Yukoners who actually leave the territory to go to university outside. The Department of Education did maintain a watch on this number. The last time I saw it, there were fewer than 300 potential university students. And, having been young myself and having had the opportunity to leave home rather than attend local postsecondary institutions, I was one of the “couldn’t wait to leave” group. It is reasonable to assume for just the “exotic” reason alone, not all of the potential students would attend a Yukon university. You must also remember the range of subjects available and many potential students would be taking programs not offered locally.

The alternative is to offer programs in hopes to attract students from outside. This opens a contentious issue. Do we want to subsidize the education of large numbers of non-Yukon students? When you are potentially making the Department of Education one of the largest budget items for the territorial government, should this be consciously done for the benefit of people outside your tax base? Any government considering do so should be prepared for a fair amount of fiery rhetoric on this topic alone.

I’ll move on to more reasons in Part 2 sometime tomorrow. Keep in mind that, other than some practical issues, I have nothing against the concept of a new university here, other than the minor problem that it just won’t work in practical application…

Posted on

An inauspicious start

This evening marks the first of the all party fora. This one concerns the environment, an important consideration as the land use planning study for the Peel River is a major concern in this election. However, all but one of the party leaders will appear tonight. Darrell Pasloski, the Premier, will not appear at this evening’s forum. His reason for doing so is that, given that four environmental organizations are jointly organizing the forum and that they are anti-mining, his party will be unfairly criticized.

This is rather disturbing for several reasons. First, the general concept of these fora are to allow the voters to see the various party’s platforms on a specific topic. When one leader refuses to debate a specific issue with the others, it seems to indicate that the leader in question either has a policy he or she knows will not be supported by the majority of the electorate and intends to implement it anyway or that their knowledge of the topic is so minimal that they are afraid to be shown as having little competence with the issue in question. Failing to show with good reason (note that I tend to differentiate between reasons and excuses) suggests that the party requires a leadership review before the election.

Next, I’m somewhat curious about the given reason for not appearing. The complaint that the environmental forum is organized by environmental organizations is just… odd. Who else would organize the forum, sports groups? Many environmental organizations are anti-mining, so if you are not willing to defend your party’s support of the mining industry, an industry that the Yukon Party, Liberals and NDP also support, why do you support that industry? Is it real support for mining or simply a desire to ensure that one of your largest sources of party donations does not dry up? My assumption is that, if you are not willing to defend your views on the issue, you are far more interest in campaign donations than the industry involved.

My last big worry is that, although the party leader refuses to appear, the party will be sending a “suprise” representative, according the Jonas Smith, the Yukon Party Campaign Manager. This indicates my largest concern. The Premier seems to be unwilling to face a possibly unfriendly audience, yet is more than willing to sacrifice some other member to the same fate. Sadly, the degree that this indicates positive leadership is definitely lacking.

My suggestion is that the Premier should bite the bullet and appear at tonight’s environmental forum. Defend your principles or simply demonstrate that you don’t have any seems to be the only two choices here. And, fire whatever campaign worker who advised you that this was a good choice…

Posted on

What to do with McIntyre Creek?

One of the parties has commented on a somewhat contentious issue in the upcoming election. This is on the disposition of the area around McIntrye Creek. For those not familiar, the creek enters the Yukon River in the Mountainview Drive area and runs behind the College and back, through a number of interconnections, across the Alaska Highway and is fed by Fish Lake.

The Liberal Party, in August, called for the preservation of McIntyre Creek as a wildlife corridor. It is home to and the only direct passage from the Yukon River wetlands to the opposite side of the highway, for moose, bear and other animals. As a wetland, it is a home for migratory wildfowl and has recently returned to becoming a viable salmon spawning stream. The City of Whitehorse is planning to construct a major subdivision in the area straddling the creek.

I’ll toss in my bias here. I spent almost ten years identifying, excavating, and analyzing archaeological sites in the McIntyre Creek area. The creek served as a “highway” between the Yukon River and Fish Lake for at least 6,000 years, once more reinforcing the concept that places that are attractive to us now were probably attractive places to live over long periods of time. There are sites located from the mouth to near the highway and not all of the region has been thoroughly surveyed. These are protected under the territorial Heritage Resources Act and can not be developed, considering mitigation costs of excavating the site would be far more than the value of the land and would take a substantial period of time. About five years ago, Greg Hare of Archaeology Branch and I delineated the known site areas and that part of the land that is unable to be developed.

Other than the City, there are other parties involved. The Friends of McIntyre Creek, a local preservation group, have called to have the area turned into parkland. Some of the land is vested in the Ta’an Kwäch’än First Nation as part of their land claim. Interestingly, in one week, a number of years ago, one Yukon Party minister said it should be used for housing, one said it should be turned into a park, and the third reminded people that there is a prior committment to that land.

In the mid-1980s, much of the land in question was earmarked and promised by the government of the day as potential endowment lands for Yukon College. Negotiations for the transfer of these lands have been spotty at best over the last almost 30 years and there would have to be a number of amendments to the College Act to complete the transfer. For example, the college is not allowed to own land and the Department of Education is the actually owner of the existing college property and buildings. And, while this promise has failed over successive governments to come to fruition, a government committment (to the point that there are maps of the lands to be transferred) should take some precedence over newer concepts. For example, the City intends to put about 360 residential lots in the area, despite the fact the the new Whistle Bend subdivision is supposed to accommodate an additional 8,000 residents (we only have a population of slightly over 20,000 so this should take care of all of the growth we should expect in the relative future.) Another 360 lots is probably unnecessary, and it’s time we push goverment into keeping their promises for a change, particularly when it’s a promise that has come from governments run by each of the three major parties…

Posted on

A first for an election priority

The election has been called for a week now and I have to admit that the professed priority of three of the parties encourages me. A poll done before the election indicated that the major issue resonating with Yukoners is housing.

We have a huge shortage of housing, particularly attainable housing, in the territory. There is little incentive to rent and the vacancy rate in the territory is about 1.2%. Supply and demand has led to extremely high housing prices (the average home sale in Whitehorse from the Statistics Department in the last quarter was about $425,000). Home sale numbers are slow and new construction has concentrated on condos, selling at about $400/sq.ft. With an average income, finding a house you can actually afford is difficult (remember that most banks use a maximum of 38% Total Debt to Service Ratio, which means that you won’t get mortgage unless you have enough income that your mortgage payment is 38% or less of your income. To buy a $450,000 house over 25 years means you need a combined family income of about $7,500 per month. Needless to say, if you work at Tim Horton’s or in a daycare, odds are you will never own a house. Given the rental rates, you may find that you simply don’t have a roof over your head at all and this explains why many people live in wall tents in the woods on the other side of the river.

Calls for improvement to the situation first came from the Territorial NDP party that held a meeting on dealing with the situation two months before the election was called. They have pushed for having Crown Land within the city turned into low income housing development. They and the Liberal Party support this, as well as  Northern City Supportive Housing Coalition’s $1.8-million plan to build 20 units of housing for homeless people in the city. The Yukon Party has also approached the housing problem with proposing to increase the number of beds at the Salvation Army,  and create a new youth shelter and designating Crown Land for affordable housing. However, considering that the previous Yukon Party government received about $18 million in two years in federal Northern Housing Trust and did not spend it and transferred other low income housing money to a First Nation to be used to buy hotels owned by a cabinet minister, I’m afraid I don’t hold much hopes for any of the Yukon Party’s housing promises coming to fruition.

That being said, it is safe to hope that someone, unless we have a return of government, will deal with a serious problem. Homelessness here is not reserved for people without jobs. And, quite frankly, any candidate running who doesn’t believe that safe housing is a human right, should not be permitted to run. Ask your candidates when they come to your door what they believe on this issue and then, be prepared to hold them to it. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, any society that does not make it its first priority to defend its weakest citizens does not deserve to exist…

Posted on

I’m Going to Trademark the Expression ‘Unite the Left’

This is the last of my CBC Your Take blog entries. Thanks to the CBC for the opportunity to write them and I hope you’ve enjoyed reading them over the election.

Unite the Left is probably going to be a phrase you hear reasonably frequently in the near future. This is due to the Liberal Party being devastated in last night’s election, and this result was also seen in the Yukon.

Larry Bagnell, the Liberal incumbent who has held the seat since 2000 lost (by a rather narrow margin of less than 1% of the total vote) to Conservative Ryan Leef. Larry received 5,290 votes to 5,422 votes. In 2008, the Conservative candidate, Darrell Pasloski, won 4,788 votes and 32.66% of the vote. Ryan Leef won 634 votes  more than the CPC won last time when it was running a very popular local businessman.

What happened in this election? Larry Bagnell garnered 1,425 fewer votes this time. This is important in that about 1,330 more people voted in this election than in 2008. The population, using estimates, increased by about 2,000 people over that time.

Where did Larry’s votes go? I think much of the answer can be seen in that John Streicker, the Green Party candidate, received more than 1,150 votes more than he did in the 2008 campaign and Kevin Barr, the NDP candidate, received more than 1,030 more votes than the NDP representative did last time.

This was a bit of a suprise, since many people thought that either Larry or John were a shoe-in for the seat and last week, the local polling firm placed Larry as receiving about 44% of the vote. Ryan Leef was supposed to garner 24% of the vote (a result that, once again, reaffirms my belief in the correlation between polling and witchcraft).

How similar will these numbers will be when the official results are released? It will be interesting to see if the increased number of voters reflects an increase in the youth vote or not.

So, I’m looking forward to seeing how this works out. And, I’m also looking forward to seeing how many people want to use my new trademarked phrase… for, of course, the appropriate fee.

Posted on

Local Election Coverage

Just a quick note on election coverage here in the Yukon. CBC Yukon will be airing coverage after the polls close at 7 pm PDT and will also be airing comments posted to their Facebook page (@cbcyukonforum).

Don’t forget that desseminating election results using social media before all of the polls in the country are closed is an offence under the Canada Elections Act.

My assumption is that everyone has their code phrases down… e.g., the trout flies at midnight or Egg Management Fee!