MPP Jama moves forward representing Hamilton-Centre as an independent, vowed to sue Premier Ford for libel, fight censure in the legislature

On Tuesday Nov. 14, Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama opened her independent office, resuming in person hours and case work for the first time since her recent removal from the New Democratic Party caucus.

During her speech at the opening of the office, Jama outlined her goals moving forward as an independent and her plans to address her current censure in the provincial legislature. 

Jama’s removal from the NDP party on Oct. 23 came two weeks after she released a statement on Oct. 10 calling for a ceasefire by Israel in Gaza. She also called for Canada to call for a ceasefire, for Israel to stop restricting water, food and humanitarian aid from entering Gaza and for an “end to all occupation of Palestinian land.” 

Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles stated that Jama’s removal was due to some of the actions she undertook following her statements on the Israel-Hamas conflict having “contributed to an unsafe work environment for staff.” 

On the same day as her removal from the NDP, the Ontario legislature passed the Ford government's motion to censure Jama. As a result, Jama cannot be recognized by the Speaker to partake in discussion in the parliament. At her speech at the opening of her independent office, she stated that the Ford government would cease her censure if she removed her initial statements and apologize and that she would not concede to these demands.

While speaking, Jama also revealed that she did not learn of her removal from the NDP from party leader Stiles directly, but through a general email that was sent out to all party members informing them of her removal. 

I found out at the same time everyone else did, as I was rolling into my seat.

Sarah Jama, MPP, Hamilton Centre

Jama addressed questions regarding her ability to represent her Hamilton Centre constituents as a result of being barred from speaking in parliament, in which she made clear that she is currently pursuing legal action against her censure. 

“I have no intention of sitting there censured. I'll be doing everything I can to prove that it was an illegal censure,” said Jama.

I have no intention of sitting there censured. I'll be doing everything I can to prove that it was an illegal censure.

Sarah Jama, MPP, Hamilton Centre

Furthermore, Jama affirmed that she would be pursuing legal action against Premier Ford for libel, in response to his accusations of antisemitism against her. 

Jama emphasized that moving forward from her party removal and censure, she is focusing on representing the people of Hamilton Centre and working for the issues which she has always been committed to. Jama stated that she is presently concerned with addressing the rising cost of living, accessibility for disabled individuals especially in the midst of the recent transit strike and childhood poverty in Hamilton. 

My priority is to focus on Hamilton Centre and the people here who need support.

Sarah Jama, MPP, Hamilton Centre

Jama stated her independent office is now open to the public from 9am to 4pm every day other than Wednesday for her constituents to come in and voice their concerns.

Social media statement made by CUPE 3906 regarding Hamas attacks in Israel has sparked responses from McMaster and community members

cw: discussion of ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict

Cover photo taken during 2022 CUPE 3906 strike and used for illustrative purposes only.

Following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, statements have been issued by CUPE Local 3906 and McMaster University representatives. CUPE Local 3906 is the largest union on campus, representing 3,500 McMaster employees, including teaching assistants, sessional faculty and postdoctoral fellows.  

On Oct. 7, CUPE 3906 publicly expressed their support for Palestine on social media platform X, formerly Twitter, sparking controversy in the community. 

CUPE Ontario President Fred Hahn doubled down on this messaging on his personal social media, tweeting support for Palestinian resistance and anti-Israel sentiments.  

Some members of the McMaster and Hamilton community have voiced concerns regarding Hahn’s comments, expressing that the union does not represent their beliefs.  

CUPE 3906’s Instagram and X statements were taken down due to the backlash.  

Soon after on Oct. 7, McMaster issued a statement entitled “Violence is never a solution,” denouncing CUPE’s recent comments on the conflict. A McMaster Daily News article also released that day stated that the university was “shocked and disappointed” with CUPE’s comments.

"While CUPE Local 3906, which represents Teaching Assistants, Research Assistants in lieu, Sessional Faculty and Post-Doctoral Fellows, is an independent group with the right to express its views, the university is in disagreement with any statement condoning violence," read an excerpt from the Oct. 7 Daily News article. 

Provincial and federal government representatives, including Premier Doug Ford and federal Labour Minister Seamous O’Regan, also publicly condemned Hahn’s comments.  

"This is not a reflection of Canada's labour movement and we cannot let it take away from the outpouring of support union leaders have expressed for Israel," said O'Regan, regarding Hahn’s comments. 

Other representatives, including Ontario NDP MPP Sarah Jama, echoed similar statements to Hahn. In response to the war declared in Israel, Jama released a statement on X calling for an end to apartheid and the occupation of Palestinian land.  

Like Hahn, Jama’s statement also drew criticism from government officials. Jama and NDP Leader Marit Stiles released apologies and Jama later amended her original statement to also condemn violence by Hamas on Jewish people.  

Despite the overwhelming backlash, as of Oct. 18, CUPE Local 3906 has not retracted from their stance. On Oct. 10, a new statement was issued on CUPE 3906’s website, further explaining their initial stance in support of Palestinian liberation. 

McMaster President David Farrar, the Office of the Provost and many McMaster faculties have acknowledged this is an incredibly difficult and mournful time for many student communities and offered support resources.  

“As always, the physical and psychological safety of our community is paramount, and we are committed to making sure everyone feels safe and respected in our teaching, learning, working, living, and research environments,” read an excerpt from an email statement from McMaster President David Farrar shared on Oct. 13.  

This is an on-going story.

For more information on accessing mental health and support resources, visit the newly formed McMaster community support resource page. This resource includes links and contact information for the Student Wellness Centre, Student Accessibility Services, the Spiritual Care and Learning Centre and several other McMaster services.  

C/O Mac Titov, Unsplash

Expanding highways only offer marginal benefits towards solving congestion 

By: Mitchell Tam, Contributor 

Anyone who has had to drive on the 403, 401 or QEW during rush hour can attest to just how congested our roads can be. Indeed, growing up in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, I think we can all remember seeing pictures of near standstill traffic during the morning news.  

The Ford government’s idea of building Highway 413 is a good one in theory. By increasing capacity, we can ease congestion and encourage economic development in areas beyond the city. However, upon closer inspection, this is a short-sighted solution to a much larger problem regarding Ontario’s roads. 

By building more highways, we are investing massive amounts of economic resources on a false assumption. That assumption is that highways will improve economic productivity by decreasing commuting time and encouraging businesses to be located close to the highway to improve convenience of their commuting employees.  

Already, we have at least one problem: the pandemic has shown remote working to be an effective form of employment that will likely continue to grow even after the pandemic ends.  

The other problem with this assumption is the belief that roads create economic growth. However, that isn’t the case. According to many urban planners at the University of Bath, there are no clear indications that highways lead to notable economic impacts. Rather, the researchers found that while development could be encouraged by highway extensions, there was no noteworthy economic benefit to the government.   

Additionally, even if the highway immediately reduces congestion on Southern Ontario’s roads, it is at best an extremely short-sighted solution. This is because Canada’s population is continuing to grow considerably.  

Canada’s population is expected to grow anywhere from 44.4 million to 70.2 million by 2068. In fact, it’s expected that the population in the GTHA is projected to grow by an approximate three million by 2046.  

It’s likely that population growth will mean more cars on this province’s roads and even more congestion. Even if the 413 was built, the growth in population and car ownership will eliminate any benefit and force the government to expand the highways again, which would still leave the problem of congestion unsolved. 

So, if highways do not work, how can we solve congestion on the province’s roads and highways? The answer to this is simple: public, high quality mass transit.  

Simply put, mass transit systems such as trains and buses are cheap, effective and scalable methods of moving millions of people around the GTHA and getting them out of their cars. This leaves space on the highway for vehicles that need to use them such as trucks. 

In fact, we have already done this before. It’s how GO transit was created. Yes, it’s true! GO transit was created in 1965 to remove commuter traffic from Ontario’s highways to ease congestion — and it worked. The rail service has surpassed its own ridership goals earlier than it had anticipated.  

Rather than spending on highways that will likely be obsolete by the time they are completed, we should instead focus on expanding and upgrading GO services in the GTHA and beyond.  

By investing in better rail and bus service to connect major population centers in the province, we will be setting ourselves up for success. The growing population of Ontario will have alternatives to driving, eliminating our congestion problem and leaving the highways clear for those who need them.  

This is relevant to McMaster community as a significant portion of its student body is comprised of commuters who rely on both GO transit and the highway system to come to campus. A stronger investment in transit as a solution to Ontario’s traffic problems would benefit students at McMaster by shortening commute times and increasing the quality of service for students coming to campus.  

As we go to the polls later this year for provincial elections, we must remember it will likely be the next provincial government that makes major infrastructure decisions that will impact us all for decades to come. 

C/O Yoohyun Park

What does the announcement of a minimum wage increase mean for the McMaster Community? 

In 2017, Kathleen Wynne, previous premier of Ontario, stated that she wanted Ontario’s minimum wage to rise to $15 per hour by 2019. However, when the current Conservative government won in 2018, they promptly put a pause on this idea. Until now, approximately four years later, this idea finally became a reality. 

On Nov. 2, the Ontario government formally announced Bill 43, Build Ontario Act (Budget Measures) 202.

Effective as of Jan. 1, 2022, the minimum wage will officially rise to $15 per hour, which will be accompanied by other changes. 

It was also announced that the minimum wage would continue to increase in correlation with inflation once effective. The bill is currently going through the first reading, as stated on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website.

"For many Ontarians wages haven't kept up with the increasing cost of living, making it harder than ever to make ends meet . . . I've always said, workers deserve to have more money in their pockets because they have worked hard and put in long hours. The least the government can do is ensure we're making life more affordable for them,” said Doug Ford, current premier of Ontario, at a news conference in Milton.

In early October, minimum wage had gone from $14.25 per hour to $14.35 per hour. That introduction came with a lot of criticism as people felt that the 10 cent increase was not meaningful. In addition, given the state of the COVID-19 pandemic, many claimed this change was disrespectful to essential workers and those struggling to make ends meet. 

This history of a minimum wage in Ontario is extensive and complex. From the years of 1995 to 2003 minimum wage had been frozen at $6.85 per hour. From there it has increased for several reasons, whether that be political or to simply follow inflation. As it continues to increase, the political parties, researchers and people of Canada continue to debate their own views on the topic.

In 2014, the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development sought to identify the demographics of those earning minimum wage. At the time they found that one in three adults will be making minimum wage at the prime of their working career. This statistic includes the adults of McMaster University, especially those who work under the Student Work Program offered by McMaster.

Clara Rakovac, a second-year commerce student at McMaster, works at Mill’s Memorial Library as part of the SWP. She shared how she is assigned shifts that cap at 10 hours a week, where each hour she is paid $14.35. The idea of a minimum wage increase was good news to her. 

Enisi Krasnica, a second-year biology student, works at the Health Sciences Library as part of the SWP. Krasnica explained how she also works at around a weekly 10 hour cap and is paid $15 an hour, which is one of the highest-paying SWP library jobs on campus. Though she is appreciative of the minimum wage increase, she also explained her reservations.

“Minimum wage isn't a living wage . . . A lot of [students] are on their own and have to pay for everything themselves. If you have a job you can’t really pay and live off of like $14 an hour, [or] even $15 an hour,”

Enise Krasnica

Students employed within the McMaster Student Union, the largest form of representation for undergraduate students, are also expected to be affected by the possible increase of minimum wage. John McGowan, the General Manager for MSU, explained how this increase would impact their operations. In this case, all part-time staff of MSU would notice an increase in wage.

“Historically, upon approval of the executive board, whatever the increase is to minimum wage — so I think this time it is 4.5% for non-food and beverage staff — we would take that increase and take it to the whole part-time staff wages grid. Not only do entry level positions receive the benefit, but so do other part-time staff members,” said McGowan.

As the announcement of an increased minimum wage comes forth, students are excited but critical of the new changes. The changes find their own ways to impact the McMaster community, students and administration alike. New discussions will surely emerge from the implementation of this new minimum wage, as happens whenever decisions impacting people’s entire lives are made.

September 2019 marked the first of possibly many registration periods in which students could opt-out of student union fees deemed non-essential. This change, instituted by the Government of Ontario in January 2019, is part of the widely criticised Student Choice Initiative. In the past, McMaster’s student union fees for all clubs and services have been mandatory. Non-essential fees range from a few dollars, like the $1 fee for Mac Farmstands or $2 for Horizons, to $13.72 for CFMU 93.3FM or $17.50 for Campus Events. As early as  January, student groups have feared the worst and prepared for the inevitable cuts.

Nearly two months after the SCI was introduced, the impact on students and the MSU isn’t entirely clear. Despite other universities having already released comprehensive opt-out rates to their university’s student unions, McMaster’s registrar’s office still hasn’t released final numbers. According to Alex Johnston, the MSU’s vice-president (finance), an official breakdown won’t be released until registration is finalized. The final registration numbers have yet to be disclosed by the university. 

As a result of the Student Choice Initiative, many aspects of what the MSU offers to students will become financially optional between September. 12-20. The MSU encourages students to #ChooseStudentLife. Learn more about how your money is spent at: https://t.co/GdcabjjSMF. pic.twitter.com/EOvrhnB3bY

— McMaster Students Union (MSU) (@MSU_McMaster) September 10, 2019

What we do know is that students opted out of services at a rate of roughly 32 per cent of across non-essential fees. These fees include services such as campus events, Shinerama and Mac Farmstand. How this 32 per cent rate translates into absolute dollar losses for the MSU is unclear, and Johnston says it’s difficult to speculate. Throughout the opt-out period, Johnston states that the MSU prioritized transparency. For example, the MSU created a “Choose Student Life” page to encourage undergraduate students to learn about the MSU services and fee breakdown before opting out.

“We did communicate that this could lead to the potential for a pay-for-service model or a reduction of overall services or just reduction in service operations. So those are things we did communicate. Where we actually end up going right now, again I think it’s a little too soon to tell,” said Johnston.

Despite the MSU’s focus on transparency, some felt that the MSU could have done more. 

Ed, a part-time manager of a student service deemed non-essential that asked not to be identified, said that they were displeased with the MSU’s communication leading up to and throughout the SCI implementation.

“Communication has been fraught. Everytime I would bring it up I would receive a ‘we don’t know for sure yet’. And then no follow ups,” said Ed.

Daniel, another PTM who asked not to be identified, felt that work they had previously done to improve their service’s finances hadn’t been taken into consideration. They felt that the MSU should have encourage more discussion about SCI leading before the opt-out period. 

“I knew for the majority of my role finances are important … which is why I made a lot of changes … I don’t want to say they weren’t willing to have that conversation really early, but I kind of wish we had that conversation early,” said Daniel.

As for faculty societies, whose fees were also deemed non-essential, the SCI’s impact is unclear.

Madeleine Raad, the McMaster social sciences society president, said that the society is being careful about spending, although the alumni society has stepped up to fill their funding gaps. 

“From my understanding, the social sciences opt-out was not as high per say maybe other faculties I might have heard of. However our fee is one of the lower fees, our fee is $16,” said Raad.

Although it may be too soon to see the long term impact of the SCI, changes are already being made to non-essential services. 

To prepare for the possibility of high opt-out rates, all MSU services were asked by the executive board to make pre-emptive cuts to their operating budgets for the 2019-2020 school year

“[We] cut back on things most companies cut back on which is promotions … The last thing you want to cut back on are salaries and wages and actual staffing positions,” said Sandeep Bhandari, the campus radio station’s administrative director.  

In the Oct. 20, 2019 SRA meeting, Johnston gave a report on audited statements from the MSU’s 2018-2019 fiscal year. While optimistic, the numbers reflected deficits across the MSU. Johnson mentioned that the Underground, the Silhouette, and 1280 bar and grill all had large deficits and outlined plans for improving finances going forward. Johnston also said that the MSU is soliciting proposals from an external consultant to assist with financial changes the MSU will need to make going forward as the SCI becomes an annual affair. 

“If we continue the way we’re going, we’re going to deplete our operating funds in two years. So that’s obviously not sustainable so we need to make some changes going forward,” said Johnston.

Johnston also reported that the MSU’s executive board, comprised of full-time staff and SRA members, had also made decisions that impact part-time services. The Executive Board has decided to push back the hiring of PTMs for Macycle and Farmstand into 2020, although they are traditionally hired in the fall. Johnston said this decision was made to buy the MSU more time to figure out a financial plan going forward. While this is a temporary push-back, there are still worries that the PTMs will be expected to participate in the hiring process after their terms without pay or be cut out of the important process it entirely. 

“This is a discussion that happened in close session … but we did decide to delay the hiring for Farmstand and Macycle. Typically those part time managers are hired … but due to the fact that we don’t have final opt-in numbers yet we did decide to delay their hiring so we could re-evaluate then move onwards,” said Johnston.

The executive board also made the decision to pause all operations for the Creating Leadership Amongst Youth conference for the 2020 year. Typically CLAY happens in May, but this year will be the exception. 

“We did decide to put a hold on operations for CLAY 2020 just because we couldn’t delay the hiring and then have the part-time manager start later because the conference just couldn’t function,” said Johnston.

Johnston says these decisions are a part of the MSU’s efforts to develop a strategy to make the union more sustainable going forward. The long term impacts of the SCI are unclear, but the MSU is doing what it can to adapt, including expanding The Grind in an attempt to alleviate 1280’s running deficit and hiring a full complement of staff for the Underground so it can operate at full capacity.

A big concern for most non-essential service employees was job security. 

James Tennant, CFMU program director, and Bhandari stressed the importance of student radio, especially for student staff who can’t get these unique experiential learning opportunities elsewhere. 

“We do have a very small staff compared to some other services on campus. But it’s definitely a concern, and it’s the last thing we would want to do … Because they’re valuable to us and the experience they get in the positions is valuable to the students,” said Tennant.

Bhandari said, “It’s been said for many years it’s giving a voice to those who don’t otherwise have access to the airways. And that is the nature of campus community radio across the country.”

Daniel also reflected on the SCI. He expressed dismay that his efforts to improve his service’s financials weren’t headed leading up to the SCI implementation, despite clearly outlining ways the service could improve financially going forward in the wake of the SCI. 

Ed wished that there had been a bigger push over the months leading up to the opt-out period, not just during it. 

“SCI’s really bad but the MSU’s attitude of not talking about it makes everything worse,” said Ed.

Ed also had hoped for solidarity amongst all MSU services, not just advocacy from the ones impacted. He felt like nearly enough people weren’t talking about it. 

Indeed, when Sandy Shaw, MPP for Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, visited campus in February 2019 to talk about the provincial policies impacting students, the MSU gave her a tour of the PCC, Maccess and WGEN—three services deemed essential and therefore not at risk of being impacted by the SCI.

Despite criticism of the SCI’s rollout and MSU advocacy efforts, many PTMs are are just worried for the future of their services. 

Daniel said, “Thats been the biggest impact of SCI: emotionally. The worry for the future of the service.”

Ed said, “If my service doesn’t run its going to affect the people who volunteer for me and it’s going to affect all those people who use my service regularly.”

“I’m sad because I don’t want my service to die,” said Ed.

With the SCI mandated for the next two years, with possibility for renewal, the long-term implications could be dire. Without a clear path forward, part-time student staff, volunteers and services users are left to worry for what is to come. MSU advocacy may have mitigated what could have been worse opt-out numbers, but future efforts will be essential to keep services afloat. 

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Photo c/o the Associated Press 

By Nicholas Marshall, Contributor

Grits. Reds. Libs. We need to talk. Let us consider Justin Trudeau’s domination in the 2015 federal elections. Here, Trudeau, the son of the heavenly father of our Constitution, descended from the lofty peaks of Canadian society to liberate our wretched souls from the clutches of Harper’s conservative austerity. I take it you were feeling pretty confident this time around. Trudeau was a media darling, beloved on the world stage and, in contrast with our neighbors to the south, a head of government that was hoping to unite our diverse population with Canada’s virtues of multiculturalism and equality. 

But then, the scandals started rolling in. They began as relatively innocuous misdemeanours; his trip to India donning garb of another culture may have seemed like a substantial embarrassment, but it was only foreshadowing whats to come.

Things started to get more serious when the Liberal government approved the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Trans Mountain pipeline is poised to carve a path straight through the Liberal rhetoric on climate change, and undermine every word that spilled out of Trudeau’s mouth about protecting future generations.

Nothing could have prepared us for the big fish: the SNC-Lavalin scandal was a disaster for public confidence in our prime minister. A private corporation lobbying the government to change the law in their favour so that they could escape conviction was and is an international scandal. But to also pressure and demote your attorney general and then lead a coverup inside your own cabinet demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the political process and the rule of law. In fact, according to the ethics commissioner, the sitting prime minister had broken the law. At least things couldn’t get any worse, right? 

We soon learned that the prime minister was “two-faced” in more ways than one.

So, where do we go from here? Justin Trudeau has been involved in scandal after scandal, while Andrew Scheer, the Conservative party leader, is climbing in the polls. Scheer, the leader who pinky promises that his personal opinions about gay people won’t inform his policy decisions.

So what do we do?

The truth is, most people like how the Liberals brand themselves, but in practice they don’t like watching their feminist darling sell war machines to Saudi Arabia. So, perhaps it’s time to wake up to the fact that Liberals campaign themselves as New Democrats and govern themselves as Conservatives, especially when they know no one is looking. 

This election, it’s time we build our image of the Liberal party based on actions and not on words. We should recognise that the policies the Liberals win on are the actual policies of the NDPs and the policies they sneak in behind our backs are Conservative. 

And, we must keep in mind that when Canadians don’t have the appetite for a scandal-ridden Liberal, voting Conservative is a counterproductive exercise in masochism (see Doug Ford). When your sheep start to bite, you don’t start shearing wolves. 

This election has only just begun, so now is the time to get to know your candidates and evaluate them based on what they offer you as a citizen. Take nothing at face value, and remember that these people may not be exactly what you expected. But if you give it time, I’m sure they will all reveal their true colours to you.

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

Photo by Hannah Walters-Vida / Editor-In-Chief

By Nathan Todd, Contributor

This year, Ontario has seen significant and damaging cuts to funding for students, student associations, universities and the public employees who keep universities and communities running. 

Many of you may have already felt the impact of these changes — there are already reports of students who are no longer able to attend university because of the elimination of some Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) grants. In addition, the Student Choice Initiative left student and graduate associations scrambling over the summer in attempts to prepare for and minimize the funding cuts that the SCI would bring.

Teaching assistants who are often students are not immune to these negative effects. As students, we are affected by the cuts to OSAP, and as members of either the McMaster Students Union or the Graduate Students Association, we are also members of associations facing considerable budget cuts. On top of this, our ongoing rounds of bargaining with McMaster University for a new employment contract, among other things, threatens to leave us in an even more precarious situation. 

As public employees, we are also now facing Bill 124, a proposed piece of legislation which would mandate that our wage increases do not exceed one per cent, an amount that does not keep up with the cost of inflation. In other words, Bill 124 effectively mandates that we take pay cuts over the next three years.

To put this in a better context, graduate TAs who work 260 hours (which is usually the most a TA can work at Mac) earn less than $11,500 for the year, and undergraduate TAs earn considerably less than that. This is not enough to balance the tuition we need to pay in order to have access to the job in the first place. Given these circumstances, increases to our wages and benefits are always a priority for us in bargaining. Unfortunately, McMaster is not willing to entertain an agreement that wouldn’t conform to Bill 124 should the bill become law. Therefore, meaningful wage increases seem to be a non-starter for the university.

Beyond Bill 124, McMaster is also looking to roll back the amount of hours TAs are entitled to work, making our ability to pay for tuition and keep up with the cost of living even more difficult. 

Wage increases are not our only priority. One of the top priorities we identified before heading into bargaining was paid job-specific and anti-oppressive training for TAs. As it stands, there is no training for TAs. This means that they are learning how to run labs, teach tutorials, mentor and grade on the job! In asking for paid training, we are not asking for anything you wouldn’t expect from working in an office, a high school or a McDonald’s.

McMaster, however, is unsure if paid TA training is feasible. Let me repeat that: A university isn’t sure if it is feasible to teach people how to teach.

As a TA of about five years, I think we do a good job. But running tutorials and grading the assignments that go on to impact the lives of undergraduates is serious, professional work. As TAs, we recognize that. This is why we are asking for professional training to ensure that undergraduates are getting the highest quality teaching possible. Not only would paid training help TAs financially, but it would also benefit us professionally and it would benefit the students who rely on us.

If our bargaining continues to stall, there is a chance you will get messages from McMaster or members in the community about TAs being difficult or that what we are asking for is unreasonable. If this happens, please keep in mind that we are asking for things that any reasonable professional ought to — the ability to keep up with the cost of inflation and the proper training to do our jobs.

Given the attacks that university members have seen through the cuts to OSAP, the Student Choice Initiative and the looming Bill 124, it is more important than ever that we collectively resist attacks on the most vulnerable. McMaster claims it is committed to making a “Brighter World” – TAs and students deserve to be part of it.

Nathan Todd is the President of CUPE 3906

 

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

 

When I was 16 years old, I told my parents that I wanted to be a journalist.

They hated that, obviously, and I don’t blame them. Why would they want their kid to go into a (their words) dying field? Especially one that has been at a low point for the past ten years.

Over the past decade, the number of jobs in newsrooms have dropped by 45 per cent. In the past month alone, major news companies have laid off major portions of their staff. BuzzFeed’s recent layoffs amounted to 15 per cent of its total staff, equating to about 1,100 employees around the world, Vice recently announced that it would lay off 10 per cent of their workforce and Verizon announced that it would cut 7 per cent of its headcount, around 800 people, from its media unit, which includes HuffPost, Yahoo and AOL.

Many have blamed these cuts on the shift to digital media, and while there is incredible opportunity with moving a news product online, the fight for advertising revenue is the biggest culprit in this. At the beginning of February, Facebook reported that it had made $16.6 billion in ad sales in the fourth quarter of 2018.

We all fell for high-quality video work, online exclusive articles and more recently, sponsored articles, to get ahead of cuts like this. However, if a company like BuzzFeed, who literally created a platform exclusively for online content, couldn’t keep up with the digital shift, then who can?

These numbers alone feel like enough to convince young journalists to steer away from pursuing their dream jobs, but to make matters worse, the Ontario Progressive Conservative party’s recent move to make ancillary fees optional can also be taken as a major attack on student publications.

As many post-secondary schools in Ontario are without a journalism program, student news rooms are most students’ first, if not only, taste at journalism. These cuts are devastating, and ultimately signal an end of an extremely long era.

If these cuts signal anything, it’s that the future of journalism is feeling more bleak than ever, especially to those who are just entering the field.

 

Photos by Kyle West

By: Anastasia Gaykalova

On Nov. 14, students and other members of the McMaster community met at TwelvEighty to join McMaster Students Union president Ikram Farah, McMaster University president Patrick Deane and associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) Arig al Shaibah in a discussion about how the university is responding to Ontario premier Doug Ford’s free-speech policy directive.

The mandate was promised during Ford’s campaign and calls on post-secondary institutions across Ontario to establish a “free-speech policy” that includes a definition of free speech and embodies principles based on the University of Chicago “Statement on Principles of Free Expression,” which states that schools should not “shield students from ideas or opinions that they disagree with or find offensive.”

According to Ford, if universities do not comply with the directive, they will face funding cuts.

[spacer height="20px"]Nevertheless, most of the MSU’s town hall event focused on the topic of free speech more broadly, not the nuances of Ford’s recently promised directive.

According to Deane, the university is seeking to ensure that it is a healthy place for disagreement. He cited the Socrates Project as an example of a project that exemplifies the university’s commitment to free expression.

Deane explained at Ford’s directive does not ask universities to include the freedom to protest in their free speech policies, which to Deane makes the directive incomplete. Deane affirmed that the university needs to comply with the government while staying true to the beliefs of the university, which recognizes the right to protest.  

Deane says the university’s own “free expression guidelines” serve this function.

At the event, Shaibah stressed the importance of dissent. Some attendees were concerned with how the university will ensure the safety of participants and speakers in the event of protest at events. Deane explained that a large part of it will lie in the actions undertaken prior to an event.

[spacer height="20px"]For instance, it is the responsibility of the organizers of a particular event to recognize how controversial the speaker they are inviting is and make accommodations, such as the addition of a mediator, accordingly. He explained that the use of force should be a last resort.

Deane said that protesters are allowed to disagree, but they cannot strip rights from others, particularly speakers. He stressed the need balance rights and ensure that force is not the answer.

Some attendees also brought up Jordan Peterson, whose lecture at McMaster in March 2017 was disrupted by campus activists. These students asked how safety will be maintained should the university host a controversial figure like Peterson again.

According to Farah, students on both sides were harmed and threatened by Peterson then, creating an even larger issue than the protest of the event itself.

Deane said students wishing to protest are encouraged to look at the guidance document, which ensures protest is peaceful and allows for debate.

This conversation turned into a discussion about the de-platforming of speakers. Some attendees argued that expression of opinion is a right but being granted a platform is not. According to Deane, the university will only engage in de-platforming if the opinions voiced violate the law.

Overall, McMaster will aim to comply with Ford’s policy, but also seek to preserve students’ right to “acceptable” forms of protest. The university will be submitting a statement on the recognition of the right to protest to the province.

[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party’s attacks on social services have been leaving a resounding effect on our city with every cut, threat or announcement that comes to.

From announcing their plan to reduce planned increases in rates from the province’s largest social programs or cancelling Ontario’s basic income pilot project, which was meant to provide money to 4,000 low-income people in three cities, including Hamilton, a majority of social programs that have been cut have a direct impact on Hamilton’s population.

Compared to Ontario, a significantly higher portion of the Hamilton’s population live below the low income cut-off. As of December 2017, there were 20,291 households receiving assistance in Hamilton. That’s up from 18,719 in December 2014.

This city deserves a hell of a lot better than this. Turning a blind eye on a city that relies heavily on social services and assistance from its government is incredibly irresponsible on a provincial level.

There is work being done. Hamilton mayor Fred Eisenberger and other Ontario mayors asking the federal government to assumer oversight of the basic income pilot and city council has voted in favour of officially denouncing the decision to cancel the pilot project, but there is still so much more work left to do.

McMaster is a great safety net. It lets you experience Hamilton from a moderate distance while keeping you in a closely knit bubble. Unless you’re active within the community, you may not necessarily have to engage with the unique issues that the city of Hamilton is facing.

At the end of the day, however, this is still your city. Regardless of whether you’ll be here for the next four to six years or the next thirty, your city is suffering at the hands of our provincial government. It’s worth considering how your neighbour’s livelihood is being affected by these cuts, even if yours isn’t.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

Subscribe to our Mailing List

© 2024 The Silhouette. All Rights Reserved. McMaster University's Student Newspaper.
magnifiercrossmenu