McGill Tribune

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced that he will make the elimination of federal subsidies to Canadian political parties a central component of his re-election campaign, which could come as soon as this spring. This inflammatory move has predictably raised the ire of opposition parties, who in 2008—the last time Harper tried to kill the subsidies—rallied to their defence, threatening to form a coalition to bring the Conservative government down. Fearing defeat, Harper changed his tune.

The opposition parties were right. Federal subsidies for political parties, though quite new, have become part of the Canadian system, ensuring it’s fair and not swamped by corporate money. It’s only natural that the Conservatives—one of the two major parties that enjoys the support of Canadian business—would want to eliminate that trickle of funds that smaller, less established political opponents receive. It’s natural for them to seek such self-serving changes, but far from democratic.

Party subsidies were introduced in a series of electoral finance reforms in 2003 that also saw political contributions from corporations and unions banned. The idea is that each party receives just under $2 for each vote it obtains in a federal election, in order to fund staffing and organizational costs for campaigns. The effect is to ensure that even relatively small political parties, like the Greens, can participate in the democratic process and influence the conversation even if they don’t have a serious chance of wielding power. The removal of these subsidies would hurt third parties and bolster the two party system that existed for much of Canadian history.

Elimination of party subsidies would also diminish the impact an individual Canadian can have with their vote. A Green Party sympathizer in an overwhelmingly Conservative riding has no practical incentive to vote for their chosen candidate unless that vote will send money, if only a small amount, to the federal Greens. Because that vote has the practical effect of sending $2 to an organization with whose political ideals the voter identifies, the vote is meaningful in a way it wouldn’t be otherwise.  

Harper’s plan would thus create an American-style two-party system in which only those with money and power could influence the behaviour of government. If that system exists de facto right now, such a change could make it even more entrenched.

Since the subsidies were introduced in light of new limitations on corporate donations, a Conservative attempt to scrap these subsidies could augur an attempt down the road to reintroduce corporate and labour donations. This would open the Canadian electoral system to the same corporate free-for-all the American system was opened to by the U.S. Supreme Court in last year’s Citizens United case. All Canadians should be seriously concerned.

McGill Tribune

This week, 26 McGill professors signed an open letter expressing support for the Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM)’s “UDrive” to unionize course lecturers, or contract academic staff, at McGill. On Thursday, the McGill Daily expressed its support for the drive and called for “university-wide solidarity.” As both the letter and the Daily editorial noted, the decision to unionize is ultimately one that course lecturers will have to make for themselves. Until then, we would like to add our voice in support of the unionization of course lecturers at McGill.

The reasons for unionization have been stated many times in many publications, but they bear repeating here. McGill’s course lecturers are the only ones who are not unionized in Quebec. This is not in itself an argument for their organization, until you look more closely at their working conditions. Despite a minimum pay increase this January and one scheduled to take effect next year, McGill’s course lecturers will still only earn $7,000 per course, just over 87 per cent of the provincial average and $600 less than the next stingiest employer. Incidentally, this most recent top-up was announced October 6, after the UDrive campaign was already in effect. Whether one believes AGSEM’s claim that the pay raise—which also comes with new, simplified contracts, improved access to campus facilities, and increased opportunities for career advancement—was in response to their efforts, or Provost Anthony Masi’s assertion that the changes are the result of a senate task force’s findings, contracted academics at McGill need a mouthpiece to ensure a continued say in improving their working conditions.

Course lecturers get no benefits to supplement their meagre pay. They’re on temporary contracts, often with little prospects for achieving tenure., although they do the same work as tenured and tenure-track staff (and constitute 50 per cent of Canadian university lecturers). They often teach large classes, since they are often put in charge of those courses which fulfill students’ degree requirements. They hold office hours, mark assignments, and are expected to publish their own research in order to keep their jobs and improve their position. While all careers have entry-level positions with relatively poor conditions, academics are starting work with up to 10 years of graduate studies already to their record. They have often studied with the best and brightest, and have already written full-length dissertations. They have spent years as teaching and research assistants. Most arrive in their late 20s or early 30s, and many are looking to start families. They have a highly specialized skillset that cannot be transferred easily. Entry-level academics may not be experienced professors, but they deserve to be treated better.

McGill’s duty to improve the lot of its contract staff—and to let them organize a useful union to speak on their behalf—is also a responsibility it owes to both its students and academia in general. To its students, it owes quality educators. While McGill enjoys its reputation, excellent academics may be willing to accept lousy conditions to teach at a prestigious institution in an exciting city for a short time. However, it is unlikely that the most talented lecturers can be enticed to work with low pay and tenuous job security for long. If McGill’s reputation slips, and it cannot attract quality teachers, its students will inevitably suffer.

Finally, academia itself suffers from disregard of its employees. Academia is already a labour of love; a profession that asks the best-educated minds to forsake incomes in law, medicine, or business for a life in university walls with the high goal of spreading knowledge. A professorship does not have to buy a yacht, but it should support a comfortable lifestyle. McGill and its lecturers cannot change trends throughout academia, but it should be acting in the service of all those involved. And a system in which our best and brightest decide that a lengthy PhD and years of unstable employment are not worth it is a system in which we all lose.

That is why we support course lecturer unionization, without anybody’s interference. Good luck.

Last winter, my friends and I were at a bar off St. Laurent when one announced his desire to get some fresh air. Upon return, he said he’d been standing on the corner and struck up a conversation with two McGill students. They asked who he was with inside the bar. He listed some names, including my own, to which one of the girls responded: “Ew, Ricky Kreitner? I hate him!” And the other: “He’s such an asshole!” They walked away. Back in the bar, my friend described their faces to me. I’d never met them before in my life.

Such are the joys of being a regular opinion columnist at a student newspaper like the McGill Tribune. I can think of a few other examples, either from my first year as a columnist for the Daily, or from my second, here at the Trib, of the reputational perils inherent in becoming that strange thing in the McGill community: a known entity. Now that I’m the faceless opinion editor of the Tribune, searching for someone to take over our sixth columnist spot, I thought I’d share some reflections about my own experience to give readers an idea of what it’s like and whether they might want to do it too.

Of course, filling a 600-word space every two weeks doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have enemies, nor that you will necessarily piss off your closest friends, nor that your erstwhile good name will be disparaged and your moral worth questioned by McGill students who can take comfort in the fact that their opinions are not subject to the public scrutiny that yours are. Whether or not one “achieves” such notoriety depends entirely on the character of the column and of the columnist. There is that judgment and reputation thing, but there is also plainly the recognition thing—which, albeit in a small way, even non-controversial writers are certain to encounter. Witness the occasional party question: “As in, the Ricky Kreitner?” You might be surprised how difficult it is to summon an answer to that existential question.

As for the upsides: to be not only engaged in the campus conversation but also in some small way to direct it; to actually stimulate in the minds of over 10,000 peers certain thoughts; to stir in them admiration, anger, contemplation, or some blend of the same; to become a semi-official observer of student life at this university, is to experience a rewarding sense of actually being at McGill, which, at this centre-less school, in this incredibly diffused campus community, is not easy to come by otherwise.

Become a columnist not to show off your writing, but to improve it. The process of being edited and of feeling compelled to put your best work before fellow McGillians, friends and foes alike, is one by which all aspiring writers or even mere armchair observers could profit. I can’t tell you how often I would read a particularly vicious response to one of my articles and realize the person was absolutely right. Yes, it felt crappy for a day or two, but the result, I’m convinced, was clearer thinking and better writing.

The writer Somerset Maugham once gave an excellent, though gendered, argument for writing: “Whenever [the writer] has anything on his mind, whether it be a harassing reflection, grief at the death of a friend, unrequited love, wounded pride, anger at the treachery of someone to whom he has shown kindness, in short any emotion or any perplexing thought, he has only to put it down in black and white, using it as the theme of a story or the decoration of an essay, to forget all about it. He is the only free man.”

When you have the power of the pen there is nothing you can’t confront, nothing you can’t neutralize. The Montreal winter is a little less biting because you can go inside and write about it. Scorn from a lover or a friend is a little less damaging because you can write about it. Your experience in life in general and at McGill in particular will be more meaningful if you can seize it, be aware of it, analyze it, and feed back into it that awareness, thereby enriching both your life and your writing in the process. Opinion-writing as self-help! I fail to see why you haven’t applied already.

To apply, send a brief cover letter, a CV, and two writing samples to [email protected], by Tuesday, January 25.

First, let me say, “You’re welcome.” Second, let me explain why. I’m quite sure I have figured out how to solve politics, or at least many of the problems that plague politics.

The answer is this: a term limit of one. I’m almost positive that a single term limit for every elected position could deal with a number of problems. Here’s why.

Many political issues can be traced to politicians’ concerns of being re-elected for a following term. An MP might not vote a certain way if she fears that it might alienate a certain demographic that would be key to winning her next election. Obviously, this fear would be eliminated if there were no possibility of running for another term in office.         

You might think there are actually more negatives than positives that could come from single-term limits. For instance, how would politicians be held accountable for their actions? As it stands now, we can tell our politicians whether or not we approve of their actions by voting for them again and again. Isn’t this a useful tool? Well, kind of. But here’s the remedy for this possible issue: a heightened implementation of impeachment. We should be impeaching more people if they’re doing a bad job. It would be so badass!

But what if someone’s doing a good job and we want him to keep governing? Well, this probably won’t happen because most politicians are idiots, but for the sake of argument assume it could happen. One option is to create a system wherein the most attractive replacement candidate will be forced to follow through on his predecessor’s actions. If the former was doing such a great job, voters will probably want to see the next ruler doing the same things. The other option would be to suspend all rules and create emperor-type rulers, like in Rome, and then just impeach them when they start screwing up (which they will, believe me). Problem solved.

Another issue is the question of who would actually want to run for office if they were only holding power for a short while. You could argue that some of those who run for office now only do so knowing they could spend a fair amount of time in that position and effect real change during that time. Well, you may have just provided my own argument for me. The people who run for office because they want power are not the kind of people I want running for office, anyway. Those are the kinds of people who make bad rulers. I may simply be being too idealistic and reading too much Plato, but I have faith that people exist who could be good rulers for the sake of the goodness of ruling and nothing else (notice, also, how I have started using the term “ruler” instead of “politician”). I think it’s quite possible that those who could make the best rulers simply don’t bother with politics because they know it’s a waste of time in its current state. But that will all change with the one-term limit.