Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - February 02, 2015, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A9 IDEAS �o ISSUES �o INSIGHTS THINK- TANK A 9 Winnipeg Free Press Monday, February 2, 2015 T HE University of Manitoba is implementing significant budget cuts over the next two years, yet university president David Barnard has not provided any compelling evidence as to why. Transparency ought to be the pillar of any public institution. On this front, Barnard and his administration have failed. Just look to Winnipeg City Hall for a snapshot of what happens when public transparency is eroded. The university administration is imposing four per cent cuts this coming fiscal year and proposing an additional four per cent in 2016- 17. People fear losing their jobs, services may be cut back and students face larger class sizes and far fewer academic options. We have absolutely no idea where these cuts will take place. Barnard says the university is strapped for cash, yet the administration has generated operating surpluses of $ 40 million or more each year since 2008, except for 2010. A non- profit entity, the university's " return on sales" in 2013 tripled Sobeys, overwhelmingly outpaced Hudson's Bay and fell just shy of Canadian Tire. The case for cuts rings hollow. The administration conducted a " strategic resource allocation" review in October, requesting each faculty inform the administration of where it can achieve four per cent cuts - requesting they not nibble but chew at their own hand. The results of these reviews were not disclosed to the campus community. Substantial cuts, forced mergers, increased class sizes and workloads of a stressed and bare- bones workforce have already taken place recently. The upcoming wave of cuts is more significant, particularly for departments that have zero room to manoeuvre. Internal sources say departmental planning has ground to a halt in anticipation of the unknown. The administration stopped publicly disclosing the breakdown of multimillion dollar transfers from the operating fund to their capital fund in 2009, preventing the community from having an accurate picture of where revenues are being allocated. The blame for this current mess must not solely be placed on the university administration. The NDP government has not upheld its promise of a five per cent operating- grant hike for university education. The government ought to uphold that pledge, but no NDP leadership candidate has revived that failed five per cent commitment. The party ought to deliver on its promises and has a chance to do so now. Back on campus, Barnard is playing hardball with the student population and workforce, sticking firmly to the four per cent target despite rapidly growing opposition. Heavily indebted students with full- and part- time jobs and heavy course loads are taking time to protest these cuts because they care deeply about their programs and the spirit of public education. These students are a daily inspiration. And so, we wait. People wait to see if they will lose their jobs. Students wait to see if they will lose courses they love and need. Prof. Brenda- Austin Smith warns of a Hunger Games mentality where departments are forced to compete for resources. The Latin origins of the word ' university' stem from ideas of a whole, an entirety, a sense of universality. This democratic spirit is not being upheld. Instead, we have a tight inner circle of administrators with salaries that bear no semblance to the rest of the community deciding matters for themselves. This is how Wall Street banks operate, not public institutions, which today at least have minimal democratic checks and balances that ought to be preserved and expanded. Barnard and the administration deem it wise to withhold basic financial information and plans from the public and campus community while they meddle with the future of postsecondary education. But the public, alumni, donors and campus community have a right to demand president Barnard open his books and be fully transparent about planned spending priorities. Alternative budgets and visions of post- secondary education can be developed together. Manitoba's universities are public institutions, and we all have a stake in their future. Matthew Brett is an organizer with the Canadian Federation of Students- Manitoba working alongside students, faculty and staff on the Stop the Cuts campaign: uofmstopthecuts. ca. U of M sidesteps transparency By Matthew Brett I N Our inconvenience, their way of life ( Jan. 29), Mary Agnes Welch summarizes the misery for many First Nations in Canada that have been living with boil- water advisories - or no running water at all - for years. Efforts to fix it have been derailed by new governments, indifference, even scandals. In 2005, then- prime minister Paul Martin asked the opposition to hold off on bringing down his government so he could sign the Kelowna accord, a fiveyear, $ 5- billion plan focused on improving education, jobs and living conditions - including clean water - for First Nations. The opposition obliged, but Martin still lost the election, and one of first things Stephen Harper did on taking office was to cancel the Kelowna accord. Though it had taken 18 months to negotiate, it was dismissed as a mere " press release." Some may wonder why First Nations don't just do it themselves. One of the fundamental problems of First Nations governments is they have the responsibilities and costs of several levels of government rolled into one: water, roads, schools and health care. However, unlike all other Canadians, First Nations have only one level of government responsible for funding them, not three. Despite rapidly growing populations, federal funding has been frozen or cut. In fact, governments spend more per capita on nonaboriginal Canadians than on First Nations people. In 2009, all three levels of government spent, on average, $ 18,000 per Canadian. When Jim Prentice was minister of Indian affairs in 2006, he tried to argue the federal government spent $ 16,000 per person on First Nations people. The real number is less: He padded the figures by including the one- time $ 1.9- billion residential schools settlement fund. The Harper government's last effort to address clean water on reserves involved a scandal so lurid people forget it had anything to do with First Nations at all. Despite a history of convictions and jail time for fraud, Bruce Carson worked in the Prime Minister's Office between 2006 and 2009 as Harper's chief policy analyst. As a former staffer, Carson was barred by law from lobbying for five years, but in 2011, APTN broke the news Carson had met with officials from Indian Affairs, trying to set up a deal for $ 300 million in water filters for First Nations communities. Even worse, Carson had allegedly arranged a 15 per cent commission on every sale - $ 20 million - for his fianc�e, a 22- year- old former escort. Carson has since been arrested on multiple charges by the RCMP, but there is no verdict yet in his case. That tawdry train wreck is the last time anyone attached to the Harper government has tried to address clean water on reserves. The real mystery is why the provincial government in Manitoba hasn't done anything. First Nations are, after all, still residents of the province in which they live. When Bob Rae was the NDP premier of Ontario, he was so appalled by the lack of running water on reserves the governments of Ontario and Canada struck a deal for the province to help pay for water hookups. When the PC government of Mike Harris came to power, they continued the program. In November 2011, former Manitoba Liberal leader Dr. Jon Gerrard asked NDP Premier Greg Selinger in the legislature whether his government would adopt a similar program. Selinger's response was if Gerrard was so concerned about the issue, he should have done something about it when he was a federal Liberal cabinet minister in the 1990s. For many years, the Manitoba government has taken a hard line that they will not spend a dime on what is clearly a federal jurisdiction, especially where First Nations are concerned. The province and federal government spent two years between 2003 and 2005 arguing over the medical expenses of a First Nations child named Jordan, who died at the age of five in a Winnipeg hospital when he could have been at home with family. The case was so shameful it established a new protocol, Jordan's Principle, to prevent it from happening again. This is not a two- way street: the province seldom objects, as Alberta or Quebec would, when the federal government " interferes" by spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction, like education, health or infrastructure. In fact, they often demand it. In negotiations over a new highway up the east side of Lake Winnipeg, where many communities can only be reached by air or ice road, the province demanded the feds pay the full $ 1- billion cost because the communities to be serviced were all First Nations. It's not just clean water we take for granted. Most Canadians have three levels of government providing services. First Nations often have three levels of government saying, " That's not my job." Dougald Lamont is a writer, designer and strategic communications consultant. He ran unsuccessfully for the leadership of the Manitoba Liberal Party in 2013. I F there was a single cow flop in the vast field of Canadian broadcasting, CBC managers would find a way to step in it. Those making the decisions have shown over the past six months they have an exceptional ability to take a bad situation and make it immediately worse. Their blunders have no doubt brought much joy to the hearts of those who have weathered being the subject of unflattering news stories. They've also managed to bring much embarrassment to their own employees. And they've given a top- up to the tanks of the anti- CBC machine. The hits just keep on coming. There was the Jian Ghomeshi disaster, which began with the routine CBC response: It knew nothing. That led to contradictions over who knew what when and whether anyone actually did anything about it. On a parallel track was the discovery that network " stars" were getting paid for speeches given to groups they covered and put on air. Those were topped by the revelations a TV host was working behind the scenes to sink an unfavourable story about a company from which she had received such payments. Oh, yes, at the time she also had a romantic relationship with one of the directors of that company. While the mismanagement and conflicts of interest were obvious, the CBC's response to all of them was the same tired, corporate dodge for which it routinely criticizes others. First deny, and, if that doesn't work, then introduce some small controls and, if that doesn't work, make another policy change or toss some flunky overboard. Rinse, repeat. Being open, honest and ethical doesn't appear to be on its checklist. The CBC talks a good game. It argues for transparency from governments and others it covers. Yet the corporation itself is about as transparent as a block of wood. In fact, it could have avoided much of its bumbling by simply following its own rhetoric, which it actually has written down. Its policies are clear: CBC/ Radio- Canada employees shall serve the public interest by: 3.1 Acting at all times with integrity and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law. 3.2 Never using their official roles to inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves or to advantage or disadvantage others. 3.3 Taking all possible steps to prevent and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and their private affairs in favour of the public interest. What person with a working cranium would think it acceptable based on these straightforward policies to take money for speeches from interests that are covered by CBC? This not- so- free- speech issue is important. This is the country's public broadcaster. We pay for it. We expect a higher standard from all its news employees, let alone the high- profile ones like Peter Mansbridge and Amanda Lang. They profited from the speech circuit, taking payments from oil and gas interests and big banks and other financial institutions. Then there was Rex Murphy, who used his soapbox on CBCTV ( and for- profit speeches) to denigrate those who disagreed with his denial of climate change. Lang, host of the business- boosting show The Exchange with Amanda Lang and the CBC's " senior business correspondent," was revealed to have been giving paid speeches to companies that appeared on her show. She also attacked a CBC investigative story about the Royal Bank of Canada's plans to replace Canadian employees with foreign workers. At the time, she was dating a member of the RBC board and had given paid speeches to events that, in part, were sponsored by RBC. She even wrote an op- ed in the Globe and Mail calling the CBC story a " sideshow." CBC managers danced on the head of a pin for weeks before deciding their steadfast defence was inoperable - such payments were now banned. The managers' conversion on the road to Damascus didn't seem quite as heartfelt as St. Paul's. One of the saddest results of these, other CBC misdeeds and the endless smokescreens generated by its sovereigns, is it casts a dark shadow over all the fine work done by the corporation. But that work is turned out ethically day by day by those not protected by star status or management titles. Had any of those at the bottom rung been involved in similar capers, those above wouldn't have rolled out the PR cannons or contorted themselves like pretzels to explain away their conduct. They would have dumped them without a backward glance. George Stephenson is a former journalist who once worked for the CBC. DOUGALD LAMONT GEORGE STEPHENSON Governments duck aboriginal water woes CBC talks a good game Broadcaster's stars don't live up to ethics demanded of others CHRIS YOUNG / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Workers scrape away the image of Jian Ghomeshi after his abrupt fall from grace. A_ 09_ Feb- 02- 15_ FP_ 01. indd A9 2/ 1/ 15 10: 11: 23 PM ;