Our sidewalk became an obstacle course this morning after a snow plow left a berm across the path.
Dear Councillor Robinson, Mayor Tory, and 311,
We have been living here for almost 10 years now. We have been through many snow storms in that time. The most memorable was a couple of years ago when even TTC buses were abandoned. It took a solid week to clear the snow with crews working overnight.
The snow removal on the sidewalk last night was the worst that I’d ever experienced. I don’t know if they brought the wrong equipment or didn’t have enough equipment. The plow would travel along the sidewalk and stop, lift the blade, drive on, and start plowing again further down the road. Usually, but not always, the stop was in front of an electrical pole. Because we had so much snow yesterday, these breaks in plowing resulted in large berms of snow on the sidewalk. The combination of these berms and tire tracks resulted in a formidable obstacle course on the sidewalk. This morning, my daughter and I were walking on Lawrence Avenue East. Each time we had to clamber over one of these berms, we yelled, “Parkour!”
Walking would have been easier if no plowing occurred. I’m sorry to say that when service is this poor, it’s not worth having. We are looking at a sizable property tax increase, which I don’t have a problem with, but I do have an issue with worsening service for no good reason.
No action is required on your part for our home. We are relatively young and relatively able-bodied. We were able to clear the mess in front of our house. I have attached photos and a video. Please ensure that we go back to the old standard of service. Thank you.
Image of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Source: Government of Canada
When I was a teenager, I had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on my bedroom wall. It had pride of place right next to pinups of Duran Duran and Corey Hart. As an immigrant and racialized person, it appealed to me. The idealism of everyone being equal and having the same rights made sense to my analytical mind and stood in contrast to the baffling prejudices I experienced in my daily life.
Although Canada was founded in 1867, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was patriated only in 1982. It was authored by the first ministers– the Prime Ministers and Premiers of the ten provinces. Of course, the final deal was determined by a group of white men ensconced in a room. In this case, the room where it happened was the kitchen of a conference centre.
The Prime Minister in 1982 was Pierre Trudeau, father of our current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.
A key part of the deal was the inclusion of Section 33, the notwithstanding clause, which allows parliament, provincial or territorial legislature to declare a law to be exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was added because provinces did not want their authority diminished. As envisioned, Section 33 would be used only in exceptional circumstances after fulsome debate about the trade offs between group and individual rights. It was a compromise– not ideal, but it got the job done. I’m confident that Charter would not have passed without it.
Yesterday, the Ontario government passed legislation to prevent a labour union from going on strike. As I wrote previously, Bill 28 preemptively invokes the notwithstanding clause. In other words, the government knew that the law violates the rights in Sections 3, 7, and 15 of the Charter, and they were going to do it anyways.
The Section 2 rights being infringed were “freedom of peaceful assembly” and “freedom of association.” Section 7 provides legal rights and “…the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Section 15 provides equality rights, and the protected categories are: race, national or ethnic origin; colour; religion; sex; age or mental or physical disability.
The bill was rushed through in less than a week. There was no court challenge. There was no public debate. They hadn’t even exhausted all of the mechanisms for bargaining with a union. It was just bullying. The government has crossed a line in the sand.
So you can see why a kid who was enamoured with the Charter had to show up to protest. Normally, labour negotiations are messy. If the answer was clear, the dispute would be resolved before there’s any coverage in the media. But the invocation of the notwithstanding clause changed the calculus of the dispute. Whereas percentage wage increases are negotiable, charter rights are fundamental.
If Charter Rights and Freedoms can be taken away when they are inconvenient for a government, then no one is safe.
Today’s protest included parents, children, and representatives from many unions, including 5 unions that endorsed the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in the last election in the spring. The atmosphere was festive– there was music, an African drum circle, a conga line, and an activity tent for kids. There was a picket line around Queen’s Park and eventually traffic was stopped entirely on Queen’s Park Crescent. I saw Fred Hahn and got to talk to Laura Walton.
Forty years later, the Charter does show its age. For example, the opening sentence is: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…” If we were writing the Charter today, we probably wouldn’t use this language.
More significantly, we collectively have changed. Politics is less collaborative, and more about scoring points. Disputes were more genteel in the 1980s and 1990s. It felt like parties across the political spectrum were working towards a common goal of a better Canada. We might disagree on how to get there, but at least we agreed on the project. When a right-of-centre party was elected, it didn’t feel like an existential threat. It felt like letting another member of the family choose what we were having for dinner. It sounds quaint now.
I don’t even know how to charitably describe right-of-centre parties today. It’s not just that they have different ideas about fiscal policy or the speed of social change, but rather we are living in different worlds with alternative facts, personal attacks rather than policy proposals, and different bounds of good behaviour. To be clear, I’m talking about only Canada in the current article. But this fracturing is playing out all over the world.
We probably wouldn’t be able patriate a Charter of Rights and Freedoms today. Or even amend it to remove the British monarchy as the head of state, to add protections for sexual orientation, or to remove the notwithstanding clause.
This dispute will play out in the coming days. The union called the gather today a political protest and not a strike. No one has been charged under the new law. Prime Minister Trudeau has expressed his disapproval of the law. It may be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. Separately, a transit union has called a strike for Monday. The hashtag #generalstrike was trending on Twitter. Stay tuned.
Last month, we saw Liz Truss go over a glass cliff. She was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for a tumultuous 45 days.
A glass cliff is tendency to promote women into a leadership role during a time of crisis when there is a high risk of failure. This promotion is typically followed by spectacular and public failure.
Research on the glass cliff has focused on women, and that bias is present in this article. The findings are likely applicable to gender non-conforming individuals and members of other underrepresented groups. For instance, Truss’s successor, Rishi Sunak, is the first British Asian Prime Minister and he might be headed over the same glass cliff. In addition, an individual who is at the intersection of multiple underrepresented groups may experience a geometric increase in challenges.
Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam were the first to characterize the glass cliff. They found that women were more likely to be promoted during a crisis for multiple reasons.
There was strong association between female management and failing companies.
There is a perception that women have better “soft skills” which are needed during a downturn, which is a kind of benevolent sexism.
Women have fewer advancement opportunities and are more likely to accept a position with a high risk of failure.
Men protect other men from high risk positions, a phenomenon called “in-group favoritism.”
Women are viewed as more expendable.
Appointing a woman leader can signal that drastic action is being taken.
Ryan and Haslam found that 52% of men questioned the existence of a glass cliff, while only 5% of women expressed doubts.
Looking specifically at large cap tech companies, Douglas Branson wrote in his 2018 book about eight women CEOs who got the job during a crisis or downturn. (There were only an additional 4 women tech CEOs in his study who were not glass cliff hires.) As the list below shows, some women do succeed despite being hired during a crisis or downturn.
Carleton Fiorina, HP, 1999-2005. Fiorina’s time included acquisitions, layoffs, operating losses, and falling stock prices. At the end, she was forced to resign by the board.
Safra Catz, Oracle, 1999-present. During Catz’s tenure, Oracle’s market share went from over 40% to 0.41% for cloud services.
Anne Mulcahy, Xerox, 2001-2009. Mulcahy oversaw thirteen consecutive quarters of losses and a stock price drop from $10.05 to $6.82. Mulcahy was named CEO of the Year before her retirement.
Patricia Russo, Lucent Technnologies (later Alcatel), 2002-2008. Russo returned Lucent to profitability in 2004 after three years of losses and subsequently took the helm at the post-merger Lucent/Alcatel.
Carol Bartz, Yahoo!, 2009-2011. Despite making cuts to the work force, reducing costs, and restructuring the organization, Bartz wasn’t able stop the losses and take Yahoo! in a positive direction. She was removed from the role by the board.
Meg Whitman, HP, 2011-2017. After three years of losses, layoffs, and a 62% decline in stock price, Whitman broke up the iconic company.
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo!, 2012-2017. Every move that Mayer made as CEO was under the microscope, and there was a lot of second guessing in the media coverage. When she wasn’t able to turn around the Internet giant, she was dismissed by the board, following a sale to Verizon for $4.8 billion, a fraction of its peak value of $125 billion
Virginia Rometty, IBM, 2012-2020. Rometty oversaw five years of quarterly revenue declines before she retired.
Today, among Fortune 500 companies, 32 (6.4%) are women and 1 transgender woman (Sue Nabi of Coty). This group includes five in tech: Safra Catz (Oracle), Shar Dubey (Match Group), Christine Leahy (CDW), Lisa Su (AMD), and Jayshree Ullal (Arista Networks).
But in the four years since Branson’s study, I haven’t seen anything that would suggest a decrease in glass cliff promotions. The technology sector has largely been on an upswing. In the last six months, many tech companies have laid off staff and tightened budgets. We are now entering an era when tech companies are contracting, and one might occur.
Glass cliff promotions are not limited to the C-suite. To my knowledge, I’ve not had the opportunity to be a glass cliff promotion. But I have seen a woman head a death march project.
How about you? Have you experienced a glass cliff promotion? How did you cope? How did it turn out?
The Ontario Legislature is currently debating Bill 28, Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022. The purpose of the bill is to prevent education workers from going on strike and imposing a settlement on them. The worst parts of this bill are 1) preemptively invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution and 2) circumventing the Ontario Human Rights Code. This is no way to run a government. It’s not how the notwithstanding clause was meant to be used and human rights aren’t limited to when it’s convenient.
If you want to learn more about the labour conflict, there’s lots of material. If the government wants to put children first, the solution is easy: pay fair wages, so schools can hire and retain qualified people. Of course the government should be responsible holders of the public purse. So that means staying at the bargaining table and making reasonable offers. Not by fast-tracking legislation that a priori takes away rights.
Why shouldn’t we use the notwithstanding clause?
Section 33 of the Canadian constitution allows governments to exempt laws from the Bill of Rights. Since Sections 2 and 7-15 of the charter protects individual rights, it was felt that some kind of mechanism was needed to supersede individual rights in an exceptional circumstance after careful consideration. The Province of Québec has been a heavy user to shield their language laws. The constitution probably would not have ratified without it
Rather than ranting on social media, here are a few actions you can take. Actions at the top of the list tend to be more effective and less effort. Do one or more than one. It’s up to you.
Option 1: Contact Premier Ford, Minister Lecce and your MPP
Call Premier Ford: 416-325-1941 Call Minister Lecce: 416-325-2600
You can email too, but call is better. Premier Ford pays attention to the feedback that comes in each day and his phone is answered 24/7.
If you are just as stunned by @fordnation & @Sflecce‘s use of the Notwithstanding Clause to trample education workers’ rights, don’t just tweet. Call them.
Ford: 📞416-325-1941 Lecce: 📞416-325-2600
I am a parent. I want my child in class as much as anyone else. Not like this.” — Danyaal Raza (@DanyaalRaza) October 31, 2022
When you call, make your points and be polite. The people on the phone are just doing their jobs.
Here’s what I said.
“I’m concerned about Bill 28, Keeping Students in Class Act. It uses the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution and sets aside the Ontario Human Rights Code. This is not a good law. The government should get back to the bargaining table and give education workers a fair deal. Their wages should keep up with inflation and schools should be able to hire qualified people to do the work.”
You can also contact your MPP by phone or email. You can find your MPP by using your address. If your MPP is not a Conservative, it’s less effective, but still worth doing.
I emailed using basically the same words as I did over the phone.
Option 2: Write to Prime Minister Trudeau and your MP
The federal government can disallow a law passed by a provincial government. It hasn’t been used for many years, but in the past it was used a lot. Bill 28, if it’s passed, would set a bad precedent and it’s worthwhile putting up a fight.
The Ministry of Education has a one-time program to give parents $200 per child ($250 for a special needs child) to help them “catch up” on learning gaps that came about as a result of the COVID pandemic. The program cost $365 million. As an individual parent, I can’t move the needle on three years of pandemic schooling with $200. But imagine what a teacher could do with $5400 or what an entire school could do with $140,000.
I suggest CUPE, as they will be facing fines and legal fees. Email for Interac is info@osbcu.ca. You could also donate it to an opposition party. Or your favourite teacher.
Voter turnout in the two most recent elections in Toronto reached historic lows. In the provincial election on June 2, 2022, the turnout was 48.2%, the lowest ever recorded for a provincial election. In the municipal election on October 24, 2022, the turnout was 29%, another lowest rate ever. So what’s going on here? Is it simple voter apathy, that the electorate is disengaged with politics? Or is there something else going on?
As is often the case, the answer is nuanced. Turnout was down, but it wasn’t down uniformly across candidates. Voters for incumbents came out, but voters for the other candidates stayed home. I was a campaign manager for both elections in the riding of Don Valley West/ Ward 15, and one of the key reasons that electors stayed home they didn’t feel like their voted mattered.
The graph shows the change from 2018 to 2022 in percentage points of voters for winners vs. voters for the other candidates. For the provincial election, there was a change in candidate, but the incumbent party won. In the municipal election, the incumbent candidate also won.
This decline suggests a certain fatalism among voters for non-winners. Since March 2020, we have been in survival mode. Isolation, social and physical distancing, uncertainty, and anxiety have affected our mental health. We are not sleeping well, are less patient with each other, doom scrolling through social media, binging on videos, and have less capacity for empathy. On the campaign trail, we found that people were tired, worn out by the worry of living through pandemic. Asking them to engage in big issues, such as decarbonization and disability benefit rates, was a lot when they were trying to get through the day. These electors just didn’t have in them to show up on election day and vote for a candidate who was probably going to lose.
It would be inaccurate to say that electors didn’t care. While canvassing, people definitely had their issues, such as funding for health and education, unwanted high rises in Leaside, and an unwanted rail yard in Thorncliffe Park. In the provincial election, we heard from people that would be voting strategically. They wanted their vote to make a difference in the outcome.
Now it’s your turn. Did you stay home on election day? What was your situation?
