CLICK HERE, for the Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee report.
2. Context Of Followup
In 2017, Professor Pyne released a research report on so-called “predatory publishing”. In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.
Although the report did not drop specific names, it was not well received by Thompson Rivers University. In a sense this was understandable, as it is not a topic that most people wish to address. Professor Pyne claims that this led to the atmosphere at the school changing, and to his eventual suspension.
Regardless of how touchy the topic may be, this was the wrong way to handle it. Truth should never be censored just because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.
This topic was originally covered early this year. However, since then the Committee investigating the case has ruled that Professor Pyne’s rights were violated.
3. From Ad Hoc Investigative Comm Report
Our investigation has found the following:
1. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, TRU appears to suffer a broad institutional weakness when it comes to understanding academic freedom beyond its narrow application to support faculty members’ freedom to pursue what they expect to be fruitful avenues of research and publish their results.
2. There were significant breaches of Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom with respect to the Administration’s responses to his intramural and extramural communications criticizing the School of Business and Economics, its programs, and its faculty. These breaches arose from the failure to properly consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom, which is encoded in the collective agreement governing his employment at TRU, in managing workplace complaints against Dr. Pyne.
3. The collective agreement between the University and its faculty association contains an article on academic freedom that creates a positive obligation on the parties to consider academic freedom in any case involving speech and other communications from faculty members. The failure to consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom in human resources processes has had the effect of denying Dr. Pyne access to procedural fairness, and hence the decision to suspend him was not made on a sound basis.
4. There is no evidence that any person at TRU attempted to interfere with Dr. Pyne as he carried out his study into publishing in predatory journals.
5. Dr. Pyne’s privacy was breached by both TRU and TRUFA on multiple occasions.
Point #3, the school was found to be lacking in having a strong understanding of its academic freedom obligations.
About point #4, that is true, though it doesn’t appear that the school knew what was happening as the research was being done. As no live subjects were used, no ethics approval was needed.
Point #5 concerned leaking of personal information which Professor Pyne believes was done deliberately.
There is a differentiation between open access publishing and so-called predatory publishing that is often over-looked. Open access publishing relies on the same processes as traditional publishing, including rigorous peer review, whereas predatory publishing does not and attempts to co-opt the open access model for financial gain. In an increasingly complex arena for publishing research, universities and academics grapple with assessing faculty members’ published research for tenure and promotion, and for various institutional benefits, including salary increases and research awards. Academic librarians have long provided their expertise in identifying scholarly resources and are now assisting researchers in identifying which constitute legitimate open access publishing and which do not. There is a clear need for universities to ensure the integrity of their academic decisions for tenure and promotion, in particular, by having policies that differentiate between legitimate and predatory publishing.
Dr. Pyne’s research on the rewards of publishing in predatory journals has raised questions about the way his own colleagues and institution are managing the complexity of publishing research at a time when there is a growing number of journals with questionable peer review practices. These questions go to the heart of the credibility of TRU, and one would expect them to be taken seriously by the university’s senior administration. Even if one wishes to critique Dr. Pyne’s published results – as would be expected as part of a robust scholarly discourse – it seems irresponsible for the Administration to ignore the issues his work raises for TRU, which include whether the fundamental academic judgments involved in tenure and promotion decisions are being made on a sound basis.
The only evidence the Committee has seen of any discussion of the issue of predatory journals is related to the TRU Senate discussion of a motion put forward by a faculty senator in April 2017 to refer the matter to the Senate Tenure and Promotion Committee, which is chaired by the Provost. The matter seems to be still with this Committee, which appears not to have made any reports to Senate since then.
It is the Committee’s opinion that the apparent failure of TRU’s Administration to consider seriously the issue of publishing in predatory journals and its potential impacts on TRU’s core academic decisions represents a profound failure of academic governance at the university
An interesting point is raised: even if one has issues with the topic being raised, the way it was handled was completely wrong.
Beyond that, the report on predatory publishing raises very valid concerns. Academics should be concerned about the quality of the screening that is done of their research. Predatory publishes may reward professors with money or more status for work that by all rights should have been rejected. Academia can be a vicious place. In fact, shedding light on this could be viewed as investigative journalism.
Finally, retaliation (no matter how subtle) creates a chilling effect for everyone. What topics are now off limits? Who will be next? Is this really where we want to go with free speech?
4. Comments From Professor Pyne
1/ What exactly did the ruling say?
-TRU and TRUFA violated academic freedom
-Committee tries not to attribute motives to people
-TRU lacks strong policies in academic freedom
-TRU violated privacy laws by leaking confidential information
-TRU should pay wages lost during suspension
2/ Can or will TRU appeal?
-TRU refused to participate in the process, so not likely
-There have been claims of defamation, even though people were not named in the paper
3/ What has changed since this case happened?
-I’ve had my office transferred elsewhere
-People were unhappy with some Facebook postings I made
-The issue still isn’t sitting well with people
4/ Do you think it will make a difference at TRU?
-No, it doesn’t seem to have
Committee has been hand picked by the President
-They say that they have not been provided with all the information, but won’t say what they don’t have
5/ What would you say to people concerned about academic freedom?
-It’s an important cause
-There are a lot of hoops to jump through
-Check out the Society for Academic Freedom
This is Part III of a story involving economics Professor, Derek Pyne. Pyne published a paper studying the economic impacts of “predatory publishing” in academic journals. This led to international attention.
Predatory Journals In Essence
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall
Pyne had been suspended in the fall of 2018. He cited several reasons, including this publication. In the interest of fairness, Thompson Rivers University was contacted for their side of the story.
While Professor Pyne agreed to an in person meeting, TRU answered questions by email. Due to privacy and legal concerns the answers were much more restricted than what Prof Pyne had disclosed. Here is that exchange.
1/ Professor Pyne’s paper on “Predatory Journals” must have been unexpected. What is TRU’s response to it?
It is important to understand that research is an independent activity undertaken by faculty and the university is not in the practice of monitoring the publishing activity of its faculty. Professor Pyne has the freedom to publish his research and talk about his research publicly.
2/ Does TRU believe the paper to be factually accurate, or a distortion of academic publishing?
TRU does not take a position on Professor Pyne’s research other than that it supports individual faculty member’s right to research and publish their research, and for this research to be openly debated among the academic community.
3/ Was his suspension in 2018 related to the paper he produced?
The action taken against Professor Pyne was not related to his specific research, the dissemination of his research, or the exercising of his right to academic freedom. The action was related to matters that TRU is unable to comment on due to both employment and privacy law.
4/ Have there been any changes to academic publishing as a result of this release? Reviews on how grants/tenure are awarded?
As previously indicated, research is an independent activity and subject to academic discourse. On the matter of tenure and promotion, any faculty member hired or promoted at TRU goes through a robust process, which involves a review of research activity and publishing credentials. This is a process led by peers, hence, any faculty member at TRU moving through the promotion and tenure process is doing so with the endorsement of their faculty colleagues provincially, nationally, and internationally. Additional information on promotion and tenure can be found on TRU’s website.
5/ Has any faculty research been given a “second look” as a result of the paper?
As indicated, TRU does not monitor the independent publishing activity of its faculty. However, there are processes built within the university system where such activity is reviewed. For example, at TRU, divisional peer review committees and a university committee of Senate review publishing credentials during the tenure and promotion process of faculty. In addition, each individual faculty council and department, with input from the university’s Senate, determine the criteria for tenure and promotion, which includes close scrutiny of publications. Faculty, chairs and deans are also involved in the hiring of any new faculty, and a review of publishing credentials would be part of that process.
6/ Professor Pyne told me he doesn’t believe the academic union is acting properly in the matter, and it has since gone to Labour Relations. Any comment on that?
See the previous article on the infamous paper by Thompson Rivers University Economic Professor, Derek Pyne.
For a simplified version of the story, Professor Pyne published a paper in April 2017 titled “Predatory publications”. It was a look into the academic publishing, and how fake journals were popping up. Given university professors’ duty to “publish or perish”, these seemed to be a way out.
This is a topic that has been reluctantly addressed by universities before. However, this paper took more of an economic view of the subject — rewards and benefits from publishing in such journals.
The paper has not been well received by Thompson Rivers University, especially since it seemed to implicate members of the faculty. Relations between Professor Pyne and the school have gone downhill.
In September 2018, almost a year and a half later, Professor Pyne was suspended from TRU. He is now back at work. He claims that the paper was one reason, but not the only, for the suspension.
Currently, a complaint has been filed under Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code, claiming the Union violated Section 12. Here is the actual text from the Labour Relations Code (of BC)
Duty of fair representation
A trade union or council of trade unions must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith
(a) in representing any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, or
(b) in the referral of persons to employment whether or not the employees or persons are members of the trade union or a constituent union of the council of trade unions.
(2) It is not a violation of subsection (1) for a trade union to enter into an agreement under which
(a) an employer is permitted to hire by name certain trade union members,
(b) a hiring preference is provided to trade union members resident in a particular geographic area, or
(c) an employer is permitted to hire by name persons to be engaged to perform supervisory duties.
(3) An employers’ organization must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in representing any of the employers in the group appropriate for collective bargaining.
. Procedure for fair representation complaint
13 (1) If a written complaint is made to the board that a trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization has contravened section 12, the following procedure must be followed:
(a) a panel of the board must determine whether or not it considers that the complaint discloses a case that the contravention has apparently occurred;
(b) if the panel considers that the complaint discloses sufficient evidence that the contravention has apparently occurred, it must
(i) serve a notice of the complaint on the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization against which the complaint is made and invite a reply to the complaint from the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization, and
(ii) dismiss the complaint or refer it to the board for a hearing.
(2) If the board is satisfied that the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization contravened section 12, the board may make an order or direction referred to in section 14 (4) (a), (b) or (d).
Canuck Law meeting Professor Pyne
The actual interview occurred on Thursday, January 24 at the University in Kamloops, BC. Note: Questions were prepared, but the replies shown are summaries of what was said.
1/ What did you think would happen publishing this?
-It was a new angle on the publishing industry
-This hadn’t been done before
-Expected a higher amount of support for academic freedom and inquiry
2/ Any support from colleagues?
-Some privately do offer support
-No one wants to be public about it
-This is considered an attack on academic freedom
3/ What actually triggered the suspension?
-Collective agreement allows for feedback for candidates
-I exercised that right. University called it defamatory and accusatory
4/ Why the 16 month delay in the suspension? (April 2017-Sept 2018)
-It took time for the backlash to happen
-Reporting by the New York Times really hurt
-American media interviews were given
-Comments made in online forums
5/ Why isn’t the TRU faculty union helping?
-164 page complaint was filed
-Academic unions don’t work the same way private sector unions do
-Lack of understanding by the union in matters like this
6/ What do you see Labour Relations doing?
-Little. They have a very low success rate
-Since 2016 (records shown), 0 or 1 cases successful each year
-Most “successes” come from informal negotiation between parties
7/ What would you like Labour Relations to do?
-Order the union to file a grievance
8/ How can universities screen for “predatory journals”? What are the warning signs?
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall
-There are 10,800 right now identified, another 955 suspected (all fields)
9/ Has this led to policy changes at TRU?
-Might have tipped people off as to what is happening?
10/ Was it difficult to get data for research?
-Manually searching profiles
-Research Ethics not needed (since no face-to-face interviews)
-Google Scholar quick source (academic publications)
-Checking academic profiles also an option
11/ Does this hurt academia?
-It can lower the trust people have in experts and authority figures
12/ Broadly speaking, how does peer review work?
-You need an idea of which journals to submit to
-You submit your research
-You may have to redo large sections of your paper
-Editor of publication often orders revise & resubmit
-Editor will find referees with similar publications to review yours
-Referees are usually volunteers, it’s more of an honour
-It can easily take a year or two to get published
(Duke Pesta in his critique of “Common Core” Education in America)
Not much I can add to this, but Heartland Institution was contacted for information. This is a fascinating, yet morbid review of the new Federal standards of education.
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
From Lennie Jarrett of Heartland Institute
I answered each question below it. Let me know if you need anything else.
This was in regards to some of the videos I had seen of Duke Pesta addressing education in the US. It was fascinating to watch in a morbid way.
1/ Regarding the introduction of Common Core and uniform standards across the states: do you view it as well intended/well meaning, or some malevolent purpose?
I view it as both. Many people had really good intentions but were very naïve in how Common Core (CCSS) would be implemented and managed by a self-serving bureaucracy. I know others wanted national standards so they could control education easily from a centralized bureaucracy. CCSS gave them the closest thing possible to that.
2/ This may be outside your scope, but if the public has never been consulted in any meaningful way, would there be any grounds to invalidate CC requirements?
Unfortunately, no, they could not be invalidated. This is a lesson for many parents, that there is no true local control of education. It’s been controlled by the states and federal interventions for decades.
3/ Could you explain the rationale for making mathematics more complex than needed? (Arithmetic shouldn’t look like introduction algebra)
The rationale is some believe they are making it easier by trying to teach different methods while claiming it is a higher method of learning. As a student of mathematics myself, the methods they are teaching are absurd. Math must be taught systematically starting at its foundation. Without a foundation, the higher learning becomes difficult at best leaving many students unprepared for future careers in the STEM fields.
4/ Why are people with no teaching experience being allowed to write CC or other cirriculum?
Much of the curriculum is created by those wanting to make money off their products. They use CCSS as a tool to try and build their market share regardless of the product’s effectiveness at teaching.
Secondly, there are examples of curriculum written by non-teachers that are excellent. It’s really a matter of subject matter mastery, not necessarily a matter of teaching experience.
5/ Could you offer any solutions to getting children out of this nonsense?
Universal education choice is the only solution. Parents must be fully enabled to find the education that best fits the needs of their child. The selection of schools by parents will drive the curriculum to be the best for the student instead of the bureaucracy driving the curriculum to what is best for them.
6/ Why would people like Bill Gates be supporting this? It seems designed to collapse a nation.
Gates needs STEM ready employees. He was not getting that from the public schools. He thought he could fix the system. He was wrong. He claims to learn from his mistakes, and while he does make changes into his direction, he has yet to realize it’s the system itself that is preventing any significant reform and success.
7/ Anything else you think concerned parents should know?
Stop thinking your school is great, while everyone else’s school is bad. The entire system is the problem. CCSS is just the latest fad with more coming each time one fails. Demand your right to have the money designated for your child to follow your child to the education opportunity of your choice. Simply put, fund children, not bureaucracy.
(Not surprising, the endless pandering about the “wage gap”)
1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption
CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted. CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media. CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas. CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada. CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial. CLICK HERE, for #7: how to do research, investigative journalism. CLICK HERE, for #8: Koch/Atlas on both sides of AB Bill 10 challenge.
The good part starts on page 40 of the Update. It has to do with “Support For Canadian Journalism”
Here is the problem that the Canadian Government identifies:
In recent years, changes in technology and in the way that Canadians consume news have made it difficult for many news outlets to find and maintain financially sustainable business models. At a time when people increasingly get their news online, and share news and other content through social media, many communities have also been left without local news outlets to tell their stories. Concerns have been expressed that, without government intervention, there may be a decline in the quantity and quality of journalism available to Canadians, including a significant loss of local news coverage.
In November 2018, the Prime Minister, together with other world leaders, committed to take action to support a strong and independent news sector in the digital age. The Government recognizes the vital role that local journalism plays in communities all across the country, and is committed to finding ways to help keep people, and communities, connected through local news providers
Yes, that is correct. The Government realizes that in modern times, the old format of news (large offices and staff), has become obsolete, and financially unviable. This is particularly true in the age where anyone with a laptop and a camera can post online and gain a substantial following.
CanuckLaw itself is run on a shoestring budget, with little expenses. So yes, it is easy to sympathise with those who have had a lengthy career in media.
However, this is the new reality. Media itself is reducing the barriers to entry where literally anyone can be a contributor online. Rather than maintaining a monopoly (or near monopoly) on news, major outlets are facing strong competition from a population who can drastically undercut it. Further, these people will have no loyalty to any political party or government. This is good for a free and open media.
However, the Federal Liberals have decided that propping up the media financially is a better idea.
Access to Charitable Tax Incentives for Eligible News Organizations
Budget 2018 announced that the Government would explore new models that would enable private giving and philanthropic support for trusted, professional, non-profit journalism, including local news. To that end, the Government intends to introduce a new category of qualified donee, for non-profit journalism organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. As qualified donees, eligible non-profit journalism organizations would be able to issue official donation receipts, which allows donors to benefit from tax incentives for charitable giving (including the Charitable Donations Tax Credit for individuals and deductions for corporations). As qualified donees, these organizations would also be eligible to receive funding from registered charities.
A New Refundable Tax Credit to Support News Organizations
To further support news journalism in Canada, the Government intends to introduce a new refundable tax credit for qualifying news organizations. This new measure will aim to support Canadian news organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. The refundable credit will support labour costs associated with producing original news content and will generally be available to both non-profit and for-profit news organizations. An independent panel will be established from the news and journalism community to define eligibility for this tax credit, as well as provide advice on other measures. Once established, the effective date of the refundable tax credit will be set for January 1, 2019.
A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media. In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019
Yes, the government will be spending about $595 million over 5 years, $119 million annually, to prop up dying media outlets.
The story is explained by Candice Malcolm, but in a nutshell, Unifor, the union which represents — among others — 13,000 media workers, is officially committing to opposing the Federal Conservative Party.
This of course raises a huge red flag. A union that will be taking $120 million/year to subsidise failing media outlets is officially opposing the government’s main opposition party.
In fact, this arguably violates the Conflict of Interest Act. A political party using their power to award public funds to an industry, namely media, who can promote their interests.
3. Conflict Of Interest
4 For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
5 Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.
6 (1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.
It sounds harsh. However, from the literal wording in the Conflict of Interest Act, the subsides and political allegiance do appear to violate it.
4. Interview With Howard Law Of Unifor
On Friday, November 23, Unifor representative Howard Law did return a phone call for an interview. Here is a summary of that interview.
(a) The subsidies are meant to keep jobs from being lost, and to prop up sections of the media that are becoming unviable with technology changes.
(b) There is no deal of any kind to provide favourable coverage to any political party.
(c) Unifor, the union, promotes progressive causes all the time. They do not oppose any party because of financial considerations like what people suggest here.
(d) The media workers will continue to operate objectively.
While Mr. Law’s comments are reasonable on the surface, there is still no question that this at least appears to be a form of bribery. Governments handing millions of dollars to a friendly media reeks of propaganda and corruption.
But for now we will wait and see what comes of this.
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
It would be nice to actually talk to a government M.P. Kelowna-Lake Country M.P. Stephen Fuhr is not too far from here. With the ongoing matters, particularly with the Canada Post legislation, he has been away from home. Anyway, this was done to gain information on 5 topics
(a) Bill C-71 (firearms)
(b) Bill C-75 (criminal code)
(c) Bill C-76 (elections)
(d) UN Global Migration Compact
(e) Supply Management
I did email him 5 questions. Questions are in regular text, answers are in bold/italics:
I had some some questions/concerns about some policies that were ongoing
(1) This Bill C-71, if what I read is right, it looks like re-establishing a gun registry. Is that the case?
With regards to your first question on Bill C-71, the government has been clear we would not re-instate the national long gun registry and have kept that commitment. C-71 fulfills our government’s campaign promise to address gun control and to take action to combat criminal gun and gang violence.
As a result Bill C-71 will make five important changes:
First, it will enhance background checks. It will remove a five-year limitation so an applicant’s full record is considered, helping ensure that those with history of violent or criminal behaviour, or mental illness associated with violence, can’t get a firearms licence.
Second, C-71 will require all sellers to confirm that a buyer’s licence is valid before the purchase of any firearm, including a rifle or shotgun. Oddly, that’s currently voluntary under the law, and only mandatory for restricted and prohibited firearms. While many still ask, by law retailers only need to have “no reason to believe” the buyer does not have a valid licence.
To be clear, it’s the buyer’s license, not the firearm, that’s being verified. This is not a long gun-registry: no information about the firearm is exchanged.
Third, the legislation will help police investigate gun-related crimes by requiring stores to maintain records of their sales, as was the case in Canada from 1979 until 1995 (and in the United States since 1968). Most already do so for safety and liability reasons, and because it affects their insurance.
Store records are private, not accessible to governments, but police would be able to gain access given reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization as appropriate. These records will help police trace guns discovered at a crime scene and detect trafficking.
Fourth, the bill will ensure the accurate and consistent classification of firearms by RCMP experts in accordance with the technical criteria in the Criminal Code. It repeals Cabinet’s existing authority to overrule RCMP determinations, taking political considerations out of the process.
Fifth, C-71 will bolster community safety in relation to the most dangerous firearms by requiring specific authorizations whenever restricted or prohibited guns (mostly handguns and assault weapons) are moved through the community—except between a residence and an approved shooting range. The rules for transporting non-restricted firearms (such as rifles and shotguns) will not change.
Separately, and in addition, the Government has also taken action to help combat criminal gun and gang violence committing up to $327.6 million over five years, and $100 million annually thereafter, to help support a variety of initiatives to help communities reduce criminal gun and gang crime.
(2) Bill C-75, making terrorism a summary offence? How can that be?
Bill C-75 is a substantive response to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) July 2016 decision in R v Jordan, which called on all those within the justice system to work together to address the issue of court delays.
As you may know, the failure of the judicial system to be able to provide justice in a timely manner has resulted in some serious cases being stayed, which many would argue does not make communities feel safer.
Following the decision in Jordan, federal-provincial-territorial ministers and officials collaborated to work on solutions to address delays in the criminal justice system. This bill is intended to bring about a culture shift within the criminal justice system, something the Supreme Court in the 2016 Jordan decision has stressed is required. As the criminal justice system is shared by all levels of government, accordingly, many of the reforms proposed in this legislation reflect collaborative efforts to address court delays, and have been identified as priorities by federal, provincial, and territorial Justice Ministers.
With regard to the legislation and certain offences, it is important for Canadians to know that in deeming certain offences as hybrid offences, the offence remains an indictable offence unless the Crown elects to proceed by way of summary conviction.
In undertaking the Government’s Criminal Justice System Review, the Minister of Justice and her Parliamentary Secretary held Canada-wide roundtable discussions in every province and territory with justice system partners and interested parties. Participants also included victim advocates, restorative justice proponents, representatives of front-line community support systems, and importantly, representatives from areas such as health and mental health, housing, and other social support systems. In these meetings, participants raised pressing issues about the criminal justice system.
With this legislation, our Government is taking an important step forward to act on what we heard and create a criminal justice system that is just, compassionate, and timely and reflects the needs and expectations of all Canadians
(3) Bill C-76, getting rid of voter ID requirements….? Again, hoping that I am reading this wrong
On the issue of voter identification and Bill C-76, the bill will reintroduce the Voter Information Card as a piece of identification someone can use when they vote. We encourage you read the following Baloney Meter article which provides more information on the importance of the Voter Identification Card: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/baloney-meter-is-voter-information-card-a-doorway-to-electoral-fraud-1.3933707 .
(4) Also, there is the UN global migration compact that I keep hearing about. Why the heck would we even consider giving our sovereignty to the UN?
With regards to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding this issue and we wish to dispel the myth that Canada’s borders are open; our borders are secure, ensuring an orderly migration system that protects the safety of Canadians while respecting our international obligations to legitimate asylum seekers.
In light of your concerns, we encourage you to read the following column written by our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Minister of International Development, and Canada’s UNHCR Representative: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-canada-will-lead-the-charge-on-the-uns-global-refugee-plan/ .
Canada has a longstanding history of welcoming refugees and people in need from around the world, including some of the world’s most vulnerable people trapped in often unsafe or violent situations in their home country that are outside of their control. As the number of displaced persons reaches unprecedented levels, the Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need.
(5) When NAFTA was getting renegociated, Trump made comments about how our dairy industry is rigged to prevent competition. Is this true, and doesn’t that violate the principle of free trade? It’s infuriating that my food costs twice what it should
Finally, with regard to your question about supply management and the cost of dairy products for Canadian consumers, our dairy industry sustains 221,000 Canadian jobs and contributes $19.9 billion to our GDP and for that reason the government remains committed to maintaining Canada’s supply management system. That being said, through Canada’s commitments under the WTO, CETA, CPTPP, and USMCA, Canadian farmers and processors maintain approximately 90% of the Canadian dairy market, while foreign dairy suppliers will have the opportunity to compete for a share of the Canadian market equivalent to approximately 10% of Canadian milk production. In this way we support our farmers and processors, maintain consumer confidence that the dairy products they consume are made in Canada, while giving consumers more choice through a more competitive market place.
Some clarity on these would be nice.
Thank you again for writing to Mr. Fuhr. We trust that this information will be useful in addressing your concerns.
The Office of Stephen Fuhr, CD, MP
Member of Parliament for Kelowna-Lake Country
Room 313 Justice Bldg.| Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0A6
Tel: 613.992.7006 | Fax: 613.992.7636
While Mr. Fuhr did send a lengthy email back, there were some positives and negatives. Regarding the UN Compact, I was directed an article the Immigration Minister submitted to Maclean’s magazine.
It is nice to get information straight from the source, but the article reads like a puff piece, that glosses over many legitimate questions about the compact. Indeed, for such a project to even be considered, a lot of details need to be worked out and then disclosed. Here is my followup email to Mr. Fuhr’s office (in italics).
Note: If and when a response ever comes, it will be posted in its entirety.
Yes, it was informative, in some sense. But with regards to the UN global migration pact, I actually found the content of the Macleans article to be more alarming.
(1) The immigration minister keeps referring to ”refugees”, yet the UN compact keeps referring to ”migrants”. This seems to be a blurring of the lines here. Are we taking refugees, or migrants? Further, how many do you plan to take?
(2) As with people coming across the border from New York and Minnesota, Hussan got offended at the notion these were ”economic migrants”, calling it ”divisive”. However, once you travel from one safe country to another, then they are in fact economic migrants. It is an accurate description.
(3) Europe, in particular, Germany and Angela Merkel, has had lots of problems with this issue since 2015. How would this be different?
(4) There seems to be little mention in the UN compact of assimilating to the host culture.
(5) There is no real mention in the UN compact of screening or background checks. Ibrahim Ali rings a bell.
(6) There is no mention of how the host country would meet these costs.
(7) While the Macleans article referenced work and entrepenuership, the UN compact makes little mention of work or self-sustaining. Would Canada expect they work, or is it welfare?
(8) The Macleans article promotes Middle East/Africa as locations. However, given treatment of women/LGBTQ, as well as FGM, honour killings, etc…. in those locations, how can we ensure the safety of Canadians?
(9) What health measures are in place to prevent any possible infectious diseases? There is always that risk from any foreign travel.
(10) As for sovereignty, are we in control of our country, or does the UN call the shots?
Far from being re-assuring, the lack of detail in the compact, and from the immigration minister make me wonder what exactly we are getting into. Does this not cause concern that we are signing over our sovereignty for something so vague?
At the time of publication, this followup had been sent to his office 5 days prior. Again, any response will be posted. And if he agrees to a telephone or in person meeting, the full content will be disclosed.