A paradigm now exists where people think that “the economy” is the most pressing subject in politics, a reality that is regularly reflected in polling. A CBC poll found that for 36 per cent of Canadians, the most important issue in this election is the economy – substantially ahead of the second most popular topic, the environment, at 11 per cent.

What does it mean to be concerned about the economy? In economics classes, we are told that the economy is the management of resources and scarce goods. A debate about the economy at the state level should involve talk about jobs and unemployment, deficits and surpluses, investment in public goods and social services, and taxation. These all seem like legitimate areas of concern for the political left and right. As a subject of debate, “the economy” could produce informative and substantive discussion. Unfortunately, informative and substantive discussion is not part of the political program of capitalist ideologues.

Unfortunately, informative and substantive discussion is not part of the political program of capitalist ideologues.

Politicians adhering to the right-wing ideology of neoliberalism began coming to power in the late 1970s – Ronald Reagan in the U.S., Margaret Thatcher in the UK, and Brian Mulroney in Canada. They brought with them an economic program that became known as “trickle-down economics.” According to this economic theory, which underpins neoliberalism, if a country’s economic output grows as a whole – usually equated with the increase of an indicator like the GDP – then people from every income bracket will benefit. Enacted in policy, though, neoliberalism has meant the destruction of unions and social services, and the emergence of massive inequality.

Environmental lawyer James Gustave Speth, a former student at Yale and Oxford universities, is a critic of the neoliberal economic paradigm. In an October 2013 blog post, Speth wrote that “the focus on GDP growth deflects efforts from growing the many things that do need to grow. […] We need to grow the number of good jobs and the incomes of poor and working Americans. We need growth in investment in public infrastructure and in environmental protection […] and growth in international assistance for sustainable, people-centered development for the world’s poor.”

Somehow the “growth of the economy” has become superior in value to the growth of all those other things – which are, in fact, also part of the economy. Instead, the economy has become tantamount to GDP growth, a divine measure of the well-being of the state. But if the paradigm of the debate is that growing the economy will solve all of the public’s problems, then it is a race to the bottom: who can lower the most taxes, who can cut the most social services, and who can violate workers’ rights most violently. Debate about how to “grow the economy” replaces debate about providing essential services to the citizens; it serves to confound the public about the issues affecting them.

It comes as no surprise, then, that contemporary political debates are reminiscent of those between religious scholars of the 15th century, mocked by humanist scholar Erasmus for their vacuousness. “It affords likewise a pleasant scene of laughter to listen to these divines in their hotly managed disputations, to see how proud they are of talking such hard gibberish,” Erasmus wrote. Indeed, when the old boys of Canadian politics – Thomas Mulcair, Stephen Harper, and Justin Trudeau (not Elizabeth May, of course) – met for a debate about the economy on September 17, it appeared more like a pious celebration of contemporary capitalist orthodoxy than an appeal to the rationality of voters in deciding on the best candidate to represent their interests. The spectacle was complete with incantations, spells, and curses.

The spectacle was complete with incantations, spells, and curses.

Trudeau immediately positioned himself as the most knowledgeable in the field of incantations. He repeated magical turns of phrase referring to the desired consequence of the Liberal economic plan. He claimed he would invest in the middle class, invest in Canadians, invest in your future, invest in Canada, invest in the future of our country, with an approximate total of twenty variations on metaphorical uses of “investment.”

Both Trudeau and Mulcair were guilty of using the lurid expression “kickstart the economy.” Of course, neither cared to indicate its meaning. Mulcair’s interventions did seem less vacuous because he had some policies to propose – however tepid – but he certainly indulged in the same paradigm of a vaguely defined “economy” with all its ambiguous connotations. For example, in choir, Mulcair and Harper cast the curse of the deficit on Trudeau, implying that running a deficit is an unspeakable act of indulgence instead of a normal economic occurrence.

Harper attempted to portray the Conservative Party as the party of order in a turbulent economic environment. In a one-minute intervention toward the beginning of the debate, he managed to conjure up some great menace to the economy three times, and to mention twice that the Conservative Party would “protect the economy.”

Unfortunately, Harper provided no description of the lurking beast that could strike the economy at any moment. Here is the depth of his analysis: “We are living in a very challenged global economy. We have enormous economic instability out there.” Somehow this is meant to justify widespread cuts to vital social services and the reduction of taxes for corporations.

The emptiness of the federal leaders’ debate on the economy is symptomatic of the neoliberal ideological hijacking of the word “economy.” This hideous political outgrowth of narrow self-interest has established a paradigm where “growing the economy” is the only accepted discourse on the subject for politicians. Formerly, “the economy” had a meaning unconnected to political sect or ideological adherence. Today, much of the meaning of the word is negated. As Orwell writes, “words and meaning have almost parted company.”

Gavin Boutroy is a U3 Philosophy and Political Science student. To contact him, email gavin.boutroy@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post The meaning of “the economy” appeared first on The McGill Daily.

This legal action follows in the wake of the death of Eddie Snowshoe, an Indigenous man who committed suicide after 162 days in solitary confinement, and a jury’s ruling of ‘homicide’ in the self-inflicted death of Ashley Smith, who had mental health issues and was also in solitary confinement.

Snowshoe and Smith’s fates are but two examples that vividly portray the current state of solitary confinement in Canada, and around the world. This form of punishment epitomizes the problems with the Canadian prison system; it’s violent, vindictive, and discriminatory. Canadians should heed the call for an end to this repugnant practice.

[Solitary confinement] epitomizes the problems with the Canadian prison system; it’s violent, vindictive, and discriminatory.

Solitary confinement secludes inmates in small cells, with dimensions “roughly equivalent to those of a Volkswagen Beetle,” according to the Globe and Mail. The cells are without windows, and there is minimal human contact.

On January 27, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) filed a constitutional challenge to solitary confinement with the Ontario Superior Court. The notice of application refers to a widely-held definition of solitary confinement, which adds precision to the idea of minimal human contact: “the reduction in stimuli is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The available stimuli and the occasional social contacts are seldom freely chosen, are generally monotonous and are often not empathetic.” From this definition we can deduce that the evils of solitary confinement go far beyond broad physical and emotional damage. It tears deep into the fibres that make us human.

The lawsuit filed by the BCCLA and the John Howard Society, and the constitutional challenge filed by the CCLA and CAEFS, were certainly in part provoked by the two recent deaths in Canada’s solitary cells.

An inquiry into Snowshoe’s death concludes that none of the prison staff were aware of how long he had been in solitary confinement, even though, according to CBC, that information was readily available. Snowshoe had already attempted suicide three times in prison, yet the prison guards claim they did not know this either. Correctional Service of Canada, commonly called Corrections Canada, was ‘reprimanded’ with non-binding recommendations.

Smith’s death also resulted in non-binding recommendations. She suffered from borderline personality disorder, a mental health condition that caused her to regularly choke herself. One day, after she choked herself for twenty minutes under the watchful eye of prison guards, she died.

The evils of solitary confinement go far beyond broad physical and emotional damage. It tears deep into the fibres that make us human.

Originally, four Corrections Canada staff were charged with criminal negligence causing death. The charges were dropped when the Crown and the police learned that guards were acting on orders not to enter Smith’s cell.

The Globe and Mail’s lengthy examination of Snowshoe’s case concludes by saying, “The cell Mr. Snowshoe has endured for 162 days proves too cramped for the personnel necessary to save his life; they drag him into the hallway. […] For all the faults that preceded this desperate moment, there is no questioning the guards’ resolve to save the young inmate that night.”

The same can probably be said about Smith’s guards. But this just makes the case against solitary confinement stronger. The guards’ moral instincts appear in total contrast to what the prison system demanded of them. The instances in which people attribute morally wrong actions to loyal servitude are generally those where the flaws of the institution they serve are most pronounced.

Both Snowshoe and Smith’s deaths have lead to inquests and inquiries. These have led to recommendations, yet the Conservative government has consistently done nothing to curb the use of solitary confinement.

The instances in which people attribute morally wrong actions to loyal servitude are generally those where the flaws of the institution they serve are most pronounced.

The impossibility of drawing lines of accountability in Snowshoe and Smith’s deaths is unnerving. People are being pushed to their death, yet nobody can be held accountable. It seems obvious that when everyone is systematically absolved in these horrific deaths, it’s the incarceration system itself that must be questioned.

The stated purpose of solitary confinement in Canada is “to contribute to the safety of staff and inmates and to the security of the institution by providing a safe and humane administrative segregation process.” The problem is that this is clearly unrelated to reality. The arbitrary, unsupervised, and vindictive use of solitary confinement leads to an increase in mental health conditions, which lead to violence, which, in turn, leads to more solitary confinement. This vicious cycle is actually making prisons less safe.

Unfortunately, the use of solitary confinement is on the rise in Canada. One in four prisoners have been subjected to solitary confinement. What’s more, people with mental health issues and Indigenous people are targeted the most. The Canadian prison system continues to function exactly per its design: perpetuating harm and discrimination.

A 2013 Amnesty International report about solitary confinement in the U.S. estimated that “between 30 to 50 per cent of all inmates in solitary confinement are mentally ill or cognitively disabled and 20 per cent of this number are severely mentally ill.”

The arbitrary, unsupervised, and vindictive use of solitary confinement leads to an increase in mental health conditions, which lead to violence, which, in turn, leads to more solitary confinement. This vicious cycle is actually making prisons less safe.

No such data is available for Canada, but the CCLA echoes Amnesty International: “Documented cases show a pattern of using segregation as a response to mental health problems, a practice which the Office of the Correctional Investigator has called ‘[n]either safe, nor humane.’”

So much for helping those in need of care. It’s well-known too that Indigenous people, like Snowshoe, are vastly overrepresented in Canadian jails. 25 per cent of male and 41 per cent of female prisoners are Indigenous. An Aboriginal Multi-Media Society article, titled “Solitary confinement crammed with Aboriginal inmates,” states that 31 per cent of prisoners kept in solitary confinement are Indigenous, and on average, Indigenous people spend nearly 16 per cent longer in solitary than non-Indigenous prisoners.

As a practice then, solitary confinement is easy to criticize. All the shortcomings of the whole system are intensified in it, like the sufferings of the prisoners in their steel closets. Discrimination against marginalized communities inside is rife, and the harm this causes is lasting. However, one has to remember the practice is a manifestation of something more serious. Canada’s correctional services are fatally flawed.

The post Isolated and left to die appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The recent shootings in Paris, notably at a kosher supermarket and at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, bear witness to the violence and disorder that are apparently attempting to lay siege to Western values. “I’m horrified by the barbaric attacks in France. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families,” wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Twitter, on January 7, the day of the attack.

On its own, Harper’s tweet is quite righteous and reasonable. This said, it is reflective of the Conservative discourse toward peoples who are not part of the mythical ‘Western world.’ Originating in ancient Greek, the word ‘barbaric’ implies foreignness. In modern usage, the term ‘barbarian’ generally implies ‘uncivilized’ in a most radical sense. It is this sort of word that Harper regularly uses to designate non-Western atrocities.

The notion of ‘civilization’ in conflict with barbarians is a powerful tool to encourage xenophobia, and to facilitate violent foreign interventions in the so-called barbaric regions of the world.

The notion of ‘civilization’ in conflict with barbarians is a powerful tool to encourage xenophobia, and to facilitate violent foreign interventions in the so-called barbaric regions of the world.

A more obscene manifestation of this xenophobic behaviour was tabled in the House of Commons on November 3, 2014, hideously baptized the “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.” The act would prevent immigrants who are members of polygamous or forced marriages from migrating to Canada. Those immigrants already in the country who are somehow involved in these sorts of marriages, genital mutilations, and/or honour killings would face deportation.

Canada is already legally equipped to deal with the crimes listed above. The act is simply token anti-immigrant babble. This stance is more than surprising for a country like Canada, where colonists decimated the original inhabitants of the country. As the 2011 census reports, the designated ethnic origin “First Nations” corresponds to only about one-thirtieth of the Canadian population. This affords people from this denomination the ninth place in the ethnic composition of Canada, behind “Canadian,” “English,” “French,” “Scottish,” “Irish,” “German,” “Italian,” and “Chinese.”

The importance of immigration is growing. In a report on population growth in Canada from 1851 to 2061, Statistics Canada notes, “As a result [of a decreasing fertility rates, and rising number of deaths], the numbers of births and deaths have converged since the end of the baby boom in Canada, and migratory increase has taken on an increasingly important role in recent Canadian population growth.” With that in mind, one could argue that obviously, Canada has no economic interest in generally isolationist policies.

This Barbaric Cultural Practices Act implies the moral ‘superiority’ of Western culture in contrast with the ‘inferiority’ of immigrants, and the few who have already infiltrated the country. Western culture supposedly claims such moral superiority in, for example, its treatment of less conventional sexual practices. Of course, recent revelations about the systematic problems with sexual assault in Canada, ironically in the very buildings where the act was written, pale in comparison to the immigrants’ ‘barbaric practices.’

That said, the discourse of ‘civilization’ versus ‘the uncivilized’ does not only limit itself to the sphere of violence. It can also be observed in the area of humanitarian aid.

The act is simply token anti-immigrant babble. This stance is more than surprising for a country like Canada, where colonists decimated the original inhabitants of the country.

Ebola. The name itself strikes fear in hearts and minds all over the world. Since March, an outbreak of the decidedly awful disease has killed more than 5,000 people in a small region of Africa. The Conservative government jumped into action: visa applications from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea were suspended.

Travellers, humanitarian workers, and healthcare providers alike travelling from the region will be submitted to stringent evaluations upon their arrival in Canada. Travellers will face mandatory quarantine, while humanitarian workers and healthcare providers will be evaluated by an obscure case-by-case method.

“These measures are not backed by current scientific evidence and serve instead to undermine public health and humanitarian efforts, and stigmatize the countries and individuals most affected,” report Malika Sharma, Ross Upshur, and James Orbinski in a Globe and Mail article titled “Canada’s response to Ebola driven by fear, not evidence.”

These policies are irrational and xenophobic. Indeed, xenophobia appears to have become one of the principles guiding the foreign affairs of the Canadian government.

It would not be cynical to question whether it is really fear driving Ebola policy. Could those stoic ministers in Ottawa be making policies based on their naive irrational reactions to the outbreak of a disease they do not understand?

The fear that is driving policy is the fear of the population, rather than the fear the politicians feel. A Sun News piece by Lorne Gunter was titled “Travel ban our best line of Ebola defence.” It reiterated the irrational position taken by the Canadian government, arguing that, “A ban is so obvious it’s hard to believe anyone with a lick of sense (let alone an advanced degree or two) would hesitate.”

These policies are irrational and xenophobic. Indeed, xenophobia appears to have become one of the principles guiding the foreign affairs of the Canadian government.

An attempt is being made to mislead the population through alarmist media reports and demagoguery, stemming from the Conservative party and its followers. The Conservative party, which is driving Canada, seems more and more attractive as the waters churn with more and more violence – but the government is churning its own waters.

An article by Sam Hersh, published in the McGill International Review, brilliantly resolves the Conservatives’ version of the Ebola crisis:

“Needless to say, the politics of fear are alive and well in Canada. If politicians in the Western world really want to solve the Ebola crisis, the answer is not isolation, fear and ignorance, but the opposite: unity and solutions based on scientific and medical facts. Rather than focusing all resources on travel bans and quarantines which hurt the already impoverished countries, resources should be used to help these underfunded systems. Stopping the disease at its source is the answer.”

Stigmatizing citizens and immigrants from West Africa also serves to further alienate those people who are already residing in Canada, but are originally from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. To be totally incoherent, the government has decided that the Canadian humanitarian workers and healthcare providers, who visit these regions, are apparently responsible, intelligent, and honest enough to avoid automatic quarantine and reintegrate into Canadian society. However, the inhabitants of the affected regions are certainly not! They mustn’t be allowed into Canada.

Sharma, Upshur, and Orbinski are unequivocal in their criticism: “Canada vehemently opposed a travel advisory during the SARS outbreak in 2003, but seems to have a double standard when the tables are turned.”

Canada finds itself governed by people who would like to intervene as little as possible in humanitarian crisis, who would like to put limitations on immigrants with a certain cultural background, but who are happy to unleash the military at the first occasion. Aversion to ‘cultures’ has become a cheap front for racism. Conservative discourse has pitted so-called ‘civilization’ against foreigners. With a federal election on the horizon, will the sagacity of Canadians see through this xenophobic populism?

Gavin Boutroy is a U2 Political Science and Philosophy student. To contact the writer, please email commentary@mcgilldaily.com.

The post X is for xenophobia appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Québec solidaire (QS) organized the panel in light of the Liberal government’s budget cuts to education, which have been hard-hitting for both school boards and universities.

Each of the four panelists – author, student, and former Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ) co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois; QS militant Wilfried Cordeau; Commission scolaire de Montréal (CSDM) representative Jacques Dionne; and Véronique Laflamme, community organizer with the Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain (FRAPRU), a housing rights coalition – gave a presentation on a particular angle of austerity’s effects on education.

Cordeau presented QS’ position, notably saying that “we can observe a partisan dimension to these compressions [of education budgets].” Educational institutions, he said, have suffered cuts to infrastructure, library, and service budgets, while “on the other hand, we have money for Smart Boards.”

Nadeau-Dubois focused on austerity’s effect on CEGEPs, calling it “the most dangerous and most imminent threat to post-secondary studies.” He denounced the effects of austerity on the quality of the services provided by CEGEPs, and more importantly on the content of the classes. Cuts in the humanities are “an attack on citizenship,” he said.

Laflamme spoke about a campaign of the Coalition opposée à la tarification et à la privatisation des services publics titled “10 milliards $ de solutions,” or “$10 billion of solutions.” The coalition provides 19 fiscal alternatives to austerity that would balance budgets with minimal effects on the non-financial classes. The unnecessary character of austerity was Laflamme’s focus as she presented the most intuitive of these 19 solutions.

“I will concentrate on another aspect, that of the money which is missing [from the budget],” said Laflamme. “I will look at the revenue column and where we can go get the money which is missing to fund these services like education.”

The room was then opened to questions; the crowd was largely in agreement with the panelists, prodding them to further explain the negative effects of austerity. The shadow of mobilization loomed over the conference, with repeated calls to mobilization from both the panel and the audience.

Stating in French that she is a mother and citizen, Pascale Chémy said, “What I found most interesting and will retain is that education has to become a political issue again.”

Although QS organized the event, it attracted people from outside the party, such as École Polytechnique de Montréal student Antoine Bourdon, who told The Daily in French that he had no political allegiance and attended the event “out of curiosity.”

All of the panelists stressed the importance of a cohesive movement against austerity. In an interview in French after the conference, Laflamme emphasized the importance of solidarity between students and administration in the face of these cuts, which negatively affects them both.

“Currently, the discourse of the government blames the administrative levels […] when the problem is not with the direction of universities, but with the government itself who has imposed compressions which are impossible to put into effect,” said Laflamme.

Nadeau-Dubois, in an interview after the conference, was less optimistic. “Unfortunately, rectors have more often shown themselves allies of the neoliberal agenda,” he said in French.

Nadeau-Dubois concluded the conference with a diatribe against neoliberalism, which was among the strongest moments of the evening. The room remained quiet as he spoke, only breaking its silence with loud applause to bring the night to an end.

The post Québec solidaire hosts conference on austerity in education appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The students, who attended a rural teaching school known for its revolutionary politics, disappeared after being attacked in September by local police suspected to be affiliated with criminal networks. The attack left six dead and 43 missing; a motive for the attack remains undetermined. Last weekend, a mass grave was discovered with at least 28 badly disfigured bodies, feared to be the missing students.

The tragedy has sparked nationwide and global protests. Many have pointed to the incident as evidence of endemic corruption, lawlessness, and the Mexican state’s failure to protect its citizens.

“I think it’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s a small sample of what is happening in Mexico,” Dagoberto Acevedo Hernandez, a Mexican studying in Montreal, told The Daily in French.

“The situation in Mexico is impossible… it’s truly terrorism,” Leticia Vera, a Mexican attendee at the vigil who has been living in Montreal for eight years, told The Daily in French. “Everything is out of control… it’s just organized crime and narco-politique.”

The crowd formed a circle outside of the entrance of the consulate, chanting, singing, and listening to speakers, who mostly spoke in Spanish. The mood was sombre, but angry. Later in the event, attendees joined hands in a moment of silence to commemorate the missing students, some holding Mexican flags and others handwritten signs.

“We will not forget,” a woman standing toward the side of the crowd called to the others in Spanish. Attendees later chanted together, remembering the victims and calling for justice.

Tealights and candles lined the outside wall of the building alongside photo printouts of the missing students. A banner hung overhead, reading “stop the terrorism of the Mexican state,” in French.

“It’s very obvious that there’s no longer any rights, that justice is no longer respected in Mexico,” Patricia Vejar, a Mexican student at the Université de Montréal who helped organize the event, told The Daily in Spanish.

Approximately 70,000 Mexicans have died over the past few years in the drug wars, according to estimates. The Mexican government has been ineffective in the combat against the cartels and criminal networks terrorizing the country. State agents – such as the army and municipal police forces – are plagued by corruption and often complicit in the violence.

Vejar called for action, not only on the part of the Mexican government, but also other states, particularly Canada and the U.S.. “Why won’t they help Mexico?” she asked. “They go there to exploit natural resources, but they won’t help people.”

She also spoke to the importance of seeking justice for the missing students and protesting the Mexican government, even from afar. “I love my country, I love my homeland,” she said. “Even though I’m here, I’m still thinking of my homeland – I’m still Mexican.”

[flickr id=”72157648160468157″]

The post Montrealers gather in show of solidarity with missing Mexican students appeared first on The McGill Daily.

And while such things are reprehensible, Harper has made it all a hell of a lot more sinister. The prime minister’s office is now more controlling than anything Canada has seen before. There is a disdain for Canadian law, which plays second fiddle to the will of the prime minister. In a certain undemocratic period of German history, a word was invented to identify this behaviour: Führerprinzip.

Führerprinzip, which translates loosely as ‘leader principle,’ was the word used to describe Adolf Hitler’s authoritarian grip on the Nazi party and over Germany. In the first case, one can take the “Night of the Long Knives” as an example. Hitler and his acolytes assassinated the leadership of the Sturmabteilung, commonly known as the SA, a powerful paramilitary group whose leader had a political view that differed from the ‘best’ Nazi practices – best in this case meaning the policies supported by industrial backers of the Nazi party. This death grip quickly clasped the whole nation. Führerprinzip came to describe the power scheme where the leader governs by his word, and his word is above law.

 The prime minister’s office is now more controlling than anything Canada has seen before. There is a disdain for Canadian law, which plays second fiddle to the will of the prime minister.

Modern Canada is not Nazi Germany, but the way Harper runs it falls in line with Führerprinzip. In March 2013, the Globe and Mail described Harper’s relationship with dissenting party members as “a brewing revolt […] concerning the grip his office exerts on their conduct, a rebellion that was triggered by Mr. Harper’s refusal to allow a vote on a member of parliament (MP) from British Columbia’s motion condemning sex-selective abortions and then escalated into a bigger fight over how much autonomy Tory members of Parliament should have in the Commons.” Since then, Harper’s relationship with his MPs has not changed; he’s as authoritarian as ever.

The signing of a new bilateral trade agreement between China and Canada, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), due to come into force on October 1, is another example that illustrates how aggressively Harper wields his power.

The agreement has all the hallmarks of politics under the Harper regime: redacted in utter secrecy, and signed hastily on a Friday afternoon, away from the gaze of the press.

Harper has darted around the constitution: Führerprinzip in action.

Cabinet signed FIPA behind closed doors, and the agreement submits Canadian law to Chinese capitalist caprice. It authorizes Chinese companies to take Canada to “arbitration” when Canadian law favours Canadian companies, or simply when Canadian law is deemed bad for profit. FIPA, in effect, allows trade tribunals to operate without being subject to Parliament. Harper has darted around the constitution: Führerprinzip in action.

In this particular case, democracy will be mourned because the agreement was ratified by Cabinet with barely a token effort to put it up for discussion in Parliament. The Canadian executive has the right to sign trade deals of its own accord, but barely even introducing FIPA to MPs completely neglects the principle that constituents should be aware of what their government is doing, or be aware of the consequences of the government’s actions. Even if introduced, the treaty would probably have been ratified, but opposition parties could still have spoken out about it, and citizens could have used their representatives in Parliament to influence the debate.

Despite the many opponents to FIPA, and Harper’s other authoritarian actions, there is no outlet to make opposition a political reality. Economists, lawyers, and professors have decried its duration (Canada is locked into the harmful treaty for 31 years), while Gus Van Harten, a law professor at the Osgoode Hall law school, has vehemently opposed the agreement with a searing open letter in the Tyee. This is without considering dissenters who aren’t from elite groups, those who are ideologically opposed to the current state of Canadian politics – an alliance between business and an authoritarian, exploitative state. Of course, in accordance with the Führerprinzip, the leader’s ideology is the only one that can be heard.

Whether Harper runs or not in the next election, he will have left an indelible stain on Canadian politics.

Harper’s autocratic tendencies were also revealed in 2011, when voters received automated phone calls falsely informing them that their polling stations had changed location. An investigation by Elections Canada and the RCMP found that Conservative party staffers were the culprits, and Harper’s government was fined $52,000. Harper also tried to change electoral rules with the Fair Elections Act in 2014, a controversial bill would have restricted voting conditions, and was widely interpreted as favourable to the Tories. He is the first prime minister to blatantly try to modify electoral rules in a manner that would suit him. Luckily, opposition caused the Conservatives to back away from the most troubling aspects of the Fair Elections Act.

One constant here is the fact that impartial observers are avoided at all costs: law professors in the case of FIPA, and Elections Canada during the 2011 federal elections; not to mention the flagrant disregard for popular opinion. Harper’s government reflexively rejects informed criticism, especially when this criticism is at odds with Harper’s ideological outlook.

Canadian citizens are all faced with this Führerprinzip. It’s more than a little disconcerting that his manner of running the country and his party can be so easily compared to totalitarianism. Whether Harper runs or not in the next election, he will have left an indelible stain on Canadian politics. Under Harper, the law is dictated from above.

Gavin Boutroy is a U2 Political Science and Philosophy student. To contact the writer, please email commentary@mcgilldaily.com.

The post The Harper method appeared first on The McGill Daily.

After a period of uncertainty about its future, the Off Campus Fellow Program (OCF) was renewed for the 2014-15 school year, having undergone restructuring and cuts to its funding. The program, created in 2010, offers events, information, and support to first-year students living off campus.

For the last four years, OCF has been run under Rez Life by Student Housing and Hospitality Services (SHHS). This spring, however, there was much uncertainty about the future of the program.

“It wasn’t apparent to me that the program was still going to happen until I was offered the job I’m currently in,” said Alice Feldman, who was an off-campus fellow last year and became the program coordinator this year, in an interview with The Daily.

Feldman explained that it was established that OCF fit neither under SHHS nor Rez Life, and other affiliation options were considered. According to Feldman, Campus Life & Engagement would have been willing to integrate OCF into its services, but had already allocated all of its budget.

OCF was finally allowed to remain under Rez Life for one more year, but suffered budget cuts that caused a reduction in staff this year from four off-campus fellows to two.

“[McGill] settled on the lowest budget that this program could possibly feasibly exist on,” said Feldman.

While Feldman was hired for the student program coordinator position, the supervisor position was left vacant over the summer. The vacancy created a difficult situation, as the program coordinator only had limited administrative access.

Feldman identified the loss of simple administrative access as a serious obstacle.

“It’s quite impossible for me to do this job,” Feldman told The Daily in an interview. “They placed me in a very tricky position where I don’t have the administrative access I need in order to do this job effectively. I do not have access to our funding because I’m only a student coordinator, I’m not the supervisor of the program; I don’t have access to any of the institutional memory.”

A supervisor was hired at the end of September, only after what Feldman identified as a crucial period for the program. “It’s really during the first three weeks [that] students have the most difficulty adjusting,” said Feldman.

Prior to the hiring of the supervisor, OCF events were organized and run by only three staffers, including the Off-Campus Fest, which is a day-long event that takes place during Orientation Week and is attended by 1,000 students. The hiring of a supervisor should remedy future administrative issues, but will not alleviate the workload of the off-campus fellows, according to Feldman.

“We have two fellows for a group of thirty students; last year we would always have four,” said Feldman. “It is just unfair to the students; we don’t have the manpower to actively engage with them.”

In an interview with The Daily, off-campus fellow Adam Li also identified inadequate staffing as a source of concern, noting that off-campus fellows are meant to be resources to the student body rather than administrators.

“It hasn’t been too bad – it’s just been a staffing issue,” said Li.

Teo Baranga, a U1 Science student, expressed appreciation for the off-campus fellows’ work in an email to The Daily.

“The Off-Campus Fest was awesome and it was a great way to meet new people,” said Baranga. “I also loved the pub crawl that they organized recently.”

Baranga also noted the importance of the program for building community among off-campus students and as a resource. “I was actually looking for a barbershop, so I went on OCF’s Facebook page and somebody was looking for the same thing, and people were really helpful and suggested a bunch of places,” Baranga said.

Yet, according to Feldman, the administration is reticent to support the program. “The University has not made an effort to actively integrate this program into their structure,” she said.

“I think that McGill is going to try to make an effort in the future to promote commuter student life and engagement in the community. They’re just not sure if this program is the most successful way of doing that,” added Feldman. “I get the impression they’re trying to weed it out in order to let something bigger emerge.”

Whatever McGill’s future plans for the program, it prominently advertised Off-Campus Fest as the off-campus alternative to Rez Fest. “If you click on the Orientation Week website, five things will pop up at you: Discover McGill, Frosh, Rez Fest, Off-Campus Fest, Engage McGill,” noted Feldman. The event quickly reached its capacity of 1,000 attendees – more than double last year’s attendance of 450.

Feldman highlighted the important role that OCF plays in student life.

“We really try to have as many relationships with the students as floor fellows have [in residence]. We are trained: sensitivity training, depression training, the whole shebang,” said Feldman. “[Off-campus students also] need a supporting shoulder, someone to hear them out.”

Executive Director of Student Services Jana Luker and Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Ollivier Dyens could not be reached for comment by press time.

A previous version of this article stated that the Off Campus Fellows Program was now classified under the general umbrella of Student Services. In fact, the program remains classified under the Rez Life department of Student Housing and Hospitality Services. The Daily regrets the error.

The post Off Campus Fellow Program sees budget cuts appeared first on The McGill Daily.