progress

Thursday July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 30, 2020

The Kielburgers boys’ self-described ‘labyrinth’ organizational structure is still murky

July 24, 2020

WE Charity. ME to WE Foundation. ME to WE Social Enterprise. WEllbeing Foundation. Imagine1day. WE 365 LP, and at least two other entities that sound like the prototype numbers for do-gooder androids. There is such a long list of entities in the WE umbrella that the former chair of WE Charity’s board, Michelle Douglas, wasn’t confident enough to say how many.

The brothers clarified that they need to incorporate in every country where they operate. And under Canada Revenue Agency rules, charities can’t operate as businesses in the administration of “social enterprise,” said Craig. So they had to “build a labyrinth to adhere to Canadian laws and regulations.”

Marc later explained the two started the charity when they were children. He said it’s like building a house. “You add a wing, and add a skylight, and add a swimming pool for your kids,” he said. “This wasn’t out of malice.” A global consulting firm, Korn Ferry, has been hired to help streamline the structure.

July 11, 2020

The Kielburgers said the government was fully briefed on the fact they planned to use a separate nonprofit entity, the WE Charity Foundation—which had been set up to help limit liability—as a party to the contribution agreement. (In the agreement, WE agreed to full liability for participants in the program.)

Former board chair Michelle Douglas, in her testimony, described concerns around the executive team’s refusal to provide substantial financial records that would allow the board to fulfill its functions.

“I did not resign as a routine matter or as part of a planned board transition. I resigned because I could not do my job. I could not discharge my governance duties,” she said in an opening statement.

February 18, 2004

She described in March, the executive—including Marc and Craig—had not fulfilled requests for evidence, reports or data that could support their rationale for laying employees off during the pandemic. In a March 25 phone call, she alleged that Craig asked for her resignation. She gave it. Most of the rest of the board left the organization shortly thereafter, although Craig claimed in committee that this could be explained by an existing “renewal” process.

Douglas said she had also raised concerns, in early 2018, about the WE Charity Foundation. “The board was never satisfied that the operation of this foundation was in the best interests of the charity or its various stakeholders,” she said, adding her understanding at the time was that the organization was intended to hold property. In their testimony, the Kielburgers dismissed the real estate claim as an inaccuracy, saying there were “multitudes of purposes” for such an entity.

Although Douglas said nothing in the organization’s operations caused her “deep concern,” she described a climate characteristic of “founder-led” organizations: “We were always striving to get greater insight into the work.” (Maclean’s)



 

Tuesday March 19, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday March 19, 2019

Education changes are more and less than they seem

If you were among those who felt anxiety about the Ford government’s education reforms, you probably heaved a sigh of relief when they were finally rolled out last week.

March 13, 2019

The government made noises about changing or even killing all-day kindergarten, but ultimately ended up supporting it, at least so far. It didn’t mandate larger class sizes for early year students.

After vilifying and killing the previous government’s sex education curriculum, the government ended up restoring virtually all of the elements from the curriculum it professed to hate. The new-not-new curriculum covers most of the same ground, which is bound to make social conservatives angry, since they threw their support behind Ford’s PC party leadership in part because he pledged to kill sex-ed. But while that segment of Ford’s base must feel betrayed, students will be better served, and parents — most of whom supported the modern curriculum — will be happy with the outcome.

A “back to basics” math curriculum is also in the reforms. There are mixed opinions on that, but the fact is math scores were trending downward, so some changes are appropriate.

February 8, 2019

Then there’s the classroom cellphone ban, which is almost entirely symbolic since most school boards have local policies that are working. It’s also probably unenforceable, but if it does no real good, it also does no real harm.

Although maintaining current class size caps from kindergarten to Grade 3, Education Minister Lisa Thompson announced that an average of one student will be added to classes in Grades 4 to 8, which average high school class sizes increasing from 22 to 28. That sounds reasonable.

Not so fast. While Thompson said “Not one teacher — not one — will lose their job because of our class size strategy,” many education experts disagree. The government says any teacher reductions will be realized through retirement and attrition, but the fact remains that at the end of the rollout, there will be thousands fewer teachers in the system than there are today.

In fact, a Toronto District School Board document reveals the class sizes will mean the loss of approximately 800 high school teaching positions, along with 216 in Grades 4 through 8. The same report states that with the government’s earlier round of cuts — $25 million for special programs — 82 high school positions will disappear. Estimates are that total job losses through attrition will be between 16,000 and 18,000.

Then there’s the fact that class sizes aren’t what the seem. While the government funds for an average of 22 students, the reality is that classes often reach 30 or more to accommodate smaller specialized classes. Union officials are predicting these changes will mean class sizes of 40 in some cases.

Then there’s this. Arbitrarily increasing class sizes will lead to collective bargaining with teacher unions and boards getting off to a terrible start before negotiations even begin. In many cases local agreements include class size provisions, so unions will be fighting the provincial-controlled changes from the start.

These reforms may not be all bad, but they’re certainly not all good, and they open the door to stormy weather in our education system. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Saturday December 1, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday December 1, 2018

Doug Ford’s environmental plan falls woefully short

Some people argue quibbling over semantics — the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text — is trivial. Not always.

September 29, 2018

Consider the Ontario government’s just-announced plan to fight climate change. Environment Minister Rod Phillips says the plan doesn’t include a carbon tax.

Ontario’s environment watchdog — a position the government has announced is being cut — says the province’s plan will impose a carbon tax on industry despite government assurances it would not do so. She argues, credibly, that introducing mandatory standards on Ontario’s largest polluters does, in fact, put a price on carbon. Just not for everyone.

Environmental Commissioner Dianne Saxe is right, but don’t expect the government to admit that. Doug Ford will never admit to putting a price on carbon for industrial polluters, any more than he will admit his plan falls short of what is really needed. But both things are true.

October 12, 2016

No one is going to argue against tougher regulations for big polluters. But it’s worth remembering that all of the province’s worst polluters don’t produce as many harmful emissions as comes from buildings and transportation. And those sectors are not even noted in the plan.

Another key feature of the Ford plan offers incentives to the private sector to help Ontario meet its goals. How will those incentives be funded? By the public treasury, of course. So no matter how you slice it, taxpayers are funding industry that wants to become more energy efficient. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with that. But even the most staunch conservative cannot deny that this amounts to taxpayers investing in greenhouse gas reduction. As they would, say, with a carbon tax.

The Ford government says this plan means the province will meet GHG reduction targets agreed upon by world leaders in the Paris Accord. Under that international agreement, Canada has committed to reducing emissions by 30 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030. Thanks to the efforts of the previous government in eliminating coal-fired generation, Ontario has already reduced emissions by 22 per cent. So if this plan could achieve an additional eight per cent reduction, Ford and friends could fairly claim Ontario has done its part, although in large part due to the previous Liberal government.

May 16, 2015

Here’s the rub for Ontario taxpayers. Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is not impressed. She called the Ford plan “backwards” and suggested Ottawa will push ahead with plans to enforce a carbon tax.

Ford still insists he and other conservative premiers will fight the federal tax, even though constitutional legal experts say there is no chance they can win in court. Meanwhile, Ottawa has plans to send rebates to individual Ontario taxpayers drawn from carbon tax revenue, a move polling suggests will lesson or even defeat public resistance to the new tax.

So Ford spends $300 million on a no-win court battle. Ontarians get a carbon tax in addition to industry incentives, which taxpayers are also paying for. And don’t forget that Ford’s killing of the cap-and-trade program has cost, so far, $3.5 billion in public investment for infrastructure like schools.

Ford says he will ensure Trudeau is defeated in the next election. But the leader doing the most damage to the province and its taxpayers right now isn’t Trudeau. It’s Ford himself. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Thursday May 19, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday May 19, 2016 Some Conservatives now ready to support bill on transgender rights When C-279, the private member's bill that would have added gender identity to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, came before the House of Commons for a vote in 2013, Conservative MPs Rona Ambrose and Tony Clement voted against it. This time around, Ambrose and Clement say they will be voting in favour when the Liberal government's bill to add gender identity to the human rights act and the code, C-16, comes before the House for a vote. Neither vote is likely to be crucial to the bill's success: with Liberal and NDP support, the bill should pass the House of Commons comfortably. But they could mark a change of opinion that might still be significant. Clement pointed to the influence he takes from his three children. "I have three children, ages 24, 22 and 18. They span the political spectrum but in their generation this is a foregone issue," he said. "They don't even understand why this would be debated.Ó He also says it makes sense that transgender Canadians should be included among those who have their rights acknowledged. While Liberals, New Democrats and 18 Conservatives supported the bill tabled by NDP Randall Garrison, Conservatives accounted for all of the 137 votes opposed. Clement says that in 2013, the advice to Conservatives from the Justice Department was that the bill was unnecessary because gender identity was already covered by the law. Ambrose and Clement follow Conservative MP David Tilson who told CBC News on Monday that his view had changed since voting against C-279 in 2013. That change of opinion is not unanimous. Conservative Senator Don Plett, who opposed C-279 and moved amendments that excluded areas such as bathrooms from the bill's provisions, told reporters on Tuesday that his position has not changed. "You know my feeling on transgender rights," he said. "They hav

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday May 19, 2016

Some Conservatives now ready to support bill on transgender rights

When C-279, the private member’s bill that would have added gender identity to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, came before the House of Commons for a vote in 2013, Conservative MPs Rona Ambrose and Tony Clement voted against it.

This time around, Ambrose and Clement say they will be voting in favour when the Liberal government’s bill to add gender identity to the human rights act and the code, C-16, comes before the House for a vote.

Neither vote is likely to be crucial to the bill’s success: with Liberal and NDP support, the bill should pass the House of Commons comfortably. But they could mark a change of opinion that might still be significant.

 

[slideshow_deploy id=’1787’]

 

Clement pointed to the influence he takes from his three children. “I have three children, ages 24, 22 and 18. They span the political spectrum but in their generation this is a foregone issue,” he said. “They don’t even understand why this would be debated.”

He also says it makes sense that transgender Canadians should be included among those who have their rights acknowledged.

While Liberals, New Democrats and 18 Conservatives supported the bill tabled by NDP Randall Garrison, Conservatives accounted for all of the 137 votes opposed. Clement says that in 2013, the advice to Conservatives from the Justice Department was that the bill was unnecessary because gender identity was already covered by the law.

Ambrose and Clement follow Conservative MP David Tilson who told CBC News on Monday that his view had changed since voting against C-279 in 2013.

That change of opinion is not unanimous.

Conservative Senator Don Plett, who opposed C-279 and moved amendments that excluded areas such as bathrooms from the bill’s provisions, told reporters on Tuesday that his position has not changed. “You know my feeling on transgender rights,” he said. “They haven’t changed since the last time I spoke about it … They probably will not change.”

Two Conservative senators who supported Plett’s amendments, Denise Batters and Paul McIntyre, said Tuesday that they would be reviewing the legislation.

Those votes may matter more so. Plett is still a member of the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee and while the Liberals have a majority in the House, Conservatives have a plurality in the Senate. (Source: CBC News)