fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

MORGAN: Alberta teachers union has proven it can’t police predators in its ranks

The ATA has a bad habit of giving relatively minor suspensions to teachers found sexually abusing students.

mm

Published

on

In a disturbing case, a Calgary teacher was accused of groping five students in his elementary school classes. After hearing from nine witnesses including students, a parent, and a teacher, a professional conduct committee of the Alberta Teacher’s Association (ATA) recommended a two-year teaching suspension for the offender. Thankfully, Education Minister Adriana LaGrange overruled the ATA in this case and has permanently banned the groper from teaching in Alberta.

People were appalled to hear of such a light punishment being offered by the ATA in light of what is such a serious offense. We entrust our children to the public education system and expect no less than a zero-tolerance approach to inappropriate sexual behaviour from teachers.

This is not the first case in Alberta where an education minister intervened in disciplinary matters which had been handled weakly by the ATA. In 2014, Education Minister Jeff Johnson overruled suspension recommendations of the ATA in three cases and banned teachers from practicing in Alberta. In one of those cases a teacher had had sex with a student. In another, a teacher had been having online sexual conversations with a student. In the third case, the teacher had assaulted a student. Apparently the ATA did not see these offenses as being serious enough to warrant permanent teaching bans.

The problem with having the ATA handle matters of professional conduct of teachers is that despite their trying to pretend to be a simple professional association, they are first and formost a union. The ATA collects mandatory dues, it negotiates contracts, and has the ability to go on strike. In a union, the protection of the interests of its members is paramount. That unfortunately makes the protection of the interests of the students secondary when it comes to matters of professional conduct, and it shows in the history of the ATA making flaccid recommendations when it comes to such serious matters of misconduct.

To have a union overseeing the professional conduct of an entire profession is a case of having a fox guarding a henhouse and it has to stop. The safety and interest of our children are far too important to leave in the hands of an association with such a stark conflict of interest in the matter.

In 2013, Alberta’s Minister of Education announced the formation of a Task Force for Teaching Excellence. The task force released its findings in May of 2014. Among the many conclusions in the document was the recommendation that the ATA no longer reviews the professional conduct of teachers and that the Ministry of Education should take over the role. The ATA predictably went to war over the recommendation and the Redford government of the day never got around to implementing the changes before falling in the spring of 2015. Notley’s NDP had even less interest than the Redford PCs in taking any sort of powers from the ATA.

Adriana LaGrange has suggested that a review of disciplinary actions over recent years could be necessary in light of the absurd ATA recommendation in the case of the groping teacher. Let’s hope that the review goes further and examines the very role of the ATA in handling matters of professional conduct.

Let the ATA drop the facade of being a professional association and embrace fully their true identity as a labor union. A big step in that direction will be to get the ATA out of the role of policing and ruling on matters of professional misconduct.

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: The leadership race about nothing

Fildebrandt writes that in contrast to the 2017 leadership race, the 2020 vote has little to do with real policy differences.

mm

Published

on

The 2020 Tory leadership race has shaped up to be a boring, pale reflection of the exciting contest that marked the party’s 2017 race.

In 2017, 14 candidates fought it out for the Conservative brass ring. The contenders – for the most part – represented different factions, and featured a battle between people with substantive policy differences.

Maxime Bernier the anti-establishment libertarian. Michael Chong the Green Tory. Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux the social conservatives. Kellie Leitch the Red Tory cum populist-nationalist. Lisa Raitt the socially progressive Red.

Kevin O’Leary ran less on policy, than the force of his considerable personality before bowing out.

Erin O’Toole and Andrew Scheer also ran light on policy, trying to position themselves as the centre-ish goldilocks candidates for down-ballot support. In Scheer’s case, his only noted policy was his fanatical defence of the supply-management dairy cartel.

The race was fought with a healthy number of debates held in almost every major region of the country, and the large number of candidates forced the contenders to stand out from the pack.

Contrast the 2017 race with the 2020 race, and the reflection is not flattering for the party.

By necessity, COVID-19 has nixed most of the debates and put a hard dampener on campaign tour events, but the virus cannot be blamed for most of the problems.

While packed stages with 14 candidates and large crowds are off the table, a camera pointed at four candidates on the stage were possible. The party held just a single one of these. True North News tried to hold a second, but it was effectively scuttled when Peter MacKay pulled out at the 11th hour. The result is that CPC members have hardly had any chance to see these candidates face off outside of duelling Facebook memes and news releases. This has added to the otherwise small contrast in ideas and styles between the two front runners, Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole.

And while the two “second-tier” candidates – Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan – have been a bit more policy heavy – they have received little attention from the media, and have little chance of an upset.

MacKay and O’Toole are the only two candidates with any realistic chance of winning, and the contrast between the two men is mostly rhetorical. Both support renamed carbon taxes on industry, like Alberta’s TIER. Both have not committed to any significant reduction in federal spending to balance the budget within a term in office. Both support the continuation of the supply management dairy cartel. Both will not commit to any specific on Equalization reform, or to reopen the constitution to address Western issues. Both have committed to upholding the status quo on abortion, although O’Toole has not shown the open distain that Peter MacKay has for the “stinking albatross” of social conservatives.

The differences between the two candidates largely boil down to their campaign rhetoric and style. MacKay is openly campaigning as the moderate successor to the Progressive Conservatives. O’Toole campaigned in the middle of the pack in 2017, but he smartly realized that there was no Bernier-style candidate in this race to carry the libertarian or more hardcore conservative banner in this race. As such, he has positioned himself as the “True Blue” choice.

The biggest difference between the two candidates, is largely who is supporting them. MacKay dominates the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, and in the absence of a Western candidate in the race, O’Toole is poised to win it. As with federal elections, the ultimate decision will boil down to Ontario.

Undoubtedly, federal Wexit activists are pining for a MacKay win. With very little support between Winnipeg and Vancouver, he will be easier to portray as an Eastern establishment politician with little regard for the West. While O’Toole’s Western policies may be similar to MacKay’s, he at least has allies in the neighbourhood.

O’Toole’s abstinence from attacking social conservatives will likely serve him well on down-ballot support. As Sloan and Lewis likely drop off in the first and second rounds, the smart money is on their next choices going disproportionately to O’Toole.

Lewis in particular has stepped out of obscurity in this race and will be well positioned for a front bench role if she manages to win a seat in the next election. Sloan may be doomed to suffer the fate of Brad Trost; thanked for his second-choice support, but shuffled off to the back benches, and potentially out of a nomination.

Candidates almost always run to the centre after capturing their party’s leadership or nomination. It’s the natural pull of political gravity, but on August 21st, CPC members are voting more for a brand, than a set of principles.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard and President of Wildrose Media Corp. dfildebrandt@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

LETTER: No social conservatives for next Tory leader

A reader says that Peter MacKay should be the next Tory leader because he is a social progressive.

mm

Published

on

Outgoing Conservative leader Andrew Scheer recently stated his belief that the PM can be “socially conservative” and that only the Trudeau Liberals “demonize such views”.

Wrong Mr Scheer, as a card carrying member of your party, I can tell you for a fact that we lost the last election precisely because you would not publicly support both existing abortion rights and LGBT equality. I am already convinced that the Trudeau Liberals will win the next election too, because all of your would be successors have stated that as PM, they would allow their backbencher MPs to bring forth anti-abortion legislation, although both MacKay and O’Toole have stated that they would not personally support such motions when they come up for a vote in Parliament.

We are never going to beat the Trudeau Liberals in this day and age, especially in the large cities & suburbs, until we finally make peace as a political party with existing abortion rights and LGBT equality.

MacKay may be marginally better than the rest of the pack in this sense. 

Frank Sweet
Brandon, Manitoba 

Continue Reading

Opinion

GRAFTON: Trudeau cannot lead a nation that he doesn’t believe in

“Distrust in government, a disproportional electoral system, mass immigration, and other factors are poised to meet at the polls next election in a perfect storm of disunity.”

mm

Published

on

In November 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave an interview to the New York Times. It was an historic interview, during which the Prime Minister signaled his disdain for Canada as a nation with any kind of unique cultural identity. He said that Canada has no core identity, and that it is “becoming a new kind of country, not defined by our history or European national origins, but by a pan-cultural heritage”. He went on to say that he sees Canada as the “first post-national state”. 

Almost six million Canadians – mostly east of Manitoba – supported his vision at the polls in 2019.

The critical take-away here is the clear statement of a “post-national” goal. Post-nationalism involves the global replacement of national identities and nation-states with multicultural supranational entities such as NATO, the UN, the EU, and multi-national corporations.

Disunity now threatens Confederation.

DART poll conducted on February 24th shows that an alarming sixty-nine percent of Canadians believe “Canada is broken”. Eighty-two percent of Canadians believe that politicians represent their own partisan interests rather than those of Canada. 

The Electoral Map resembles a cancerous MRI scan, vividly coloured tumours highlighting patches of tribal discontent from coast to coast. 

poll conducted for the Western Standard in May found that between 45 and 48 of Albertans back independence, depending on how the question was put. Soon after, Wexit Alberta and the Freedom Conservatives merged to form the Wildrose Independence Party, also with a credible leader in the original Wildrose’s first leader, Paul Hinman. 

The Bloc Quebecoise holds 32 seats in the House of Commons, giving it the balance of power on national legislation. 

What led to this great divide?

We could attribute it to a lack of national leadership, however blaming it all on Trudeau would be too easy. There are other causal and contributing factors.

One is the electoral system. The “plurality system”, also known as “first-past-the-post”, is responsible for the 2019 re-election of the Trudeau government, with only a third of the popular vote. More Canadians voted for Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives. This marginalized the West – which had voted solidly Conservative – and contributed immediately to the formation of the Wexit Party federally, the Wildrose Independence Party in Alberta, and the Buffalo Party in Saskatchewan. Trudeau had campaigned in 2015 on a platform promising electoral reform, but abandoned his promise after taking office. Of course, had he followed through with electoral reform, he would have lost to Scheer in 2019 and we would have a Conservative government in Ottawa, or at the very least, a Conservative plurality of seats. 

The reality of the first-past-the-post system is that Ontario (121 ridings) and Quebec (78 ridings) can  determine who wins an election. With 338 ridings across the country, a plurality of 199 seats invalidates the other eight provinces and three territories (with only 139 seats combined). The electoral system therefore sows disunity.

Another causal factor may be found in demographics. A 2019 poll conducted for CBC showed that while indigenous voters were abandoning the Liberals, immigrants overwhelmingly support Trudeau and the Liberals. According to the poll, “Forty-five per cent of new Canadians polled say they voted for the Liberals in 2015 and 39 per cent say they currently intend to vote for the party in 2019.” Under the Trudeau government, immigration levels have soared to record high levels, with the 2022 annual target set at 361,000 (comparable to adding a city the size of say London or Halifax every year). Using the CBC numbers, that represents an influx of 141,000 to 162,000 new Liberal voters annually to Canada. 

The 2011 National Household Survey revealed that most immigrants (86 per cent) are from non-European countries, and that 20 per cent of the population (6.8 million) were born outside of Canada. Almost all (95 per cent) move to Ontario, BC, Quebec, and Alberta; most (91 per cent) in large cities, and most of these in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Unfamiliar with Castor canadensis, new immigrants are a large voting block inhomogeneous with national voting trends. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver voted Liberal in 2019. Forty-five of fifty ridings in the GTA alone elected Liberal members. For comparison, there are only thirty-four ridings in all of Alberta. This trend will continue to marginalize the West.

Contributing to national disunity is an erosion of trust in the democratic process. Globally, voters are disengaging from mainstream politics and polarizing toward niche parties serving special-interests (Bloc Quebecoise, Green Party, and Wexit

Distrust in government, a disproportional electoral system, mass immigration, and other factors are poised to meet at the polls next election in a perfect storm of disunity.

 It may be a tipping point for Canada’s future.  

Canadians awoke on the morning of October 22nd, 2019 to a crisis of disunity. The prime minister cannot recognize a national crisis if he does not recognize the nation. 

Ken Grafton is a freelance columnist

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.