Reform the Senate
Mike Duffy, Mac Harb, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau. A year ago, only the most politically knowledgeable Canadians would have been able tell who these four people were, let alone what they had in common. Now, being involved in what is commonly called the Canadian Senate expenses scandal, they are rapidly becoming household names.
Former Senator Harb is perhaps the least known out of this group, as he both quickly resigned from his position and repaid outstanding money to the Senate. The remaining three, however, are determined to fight the accusations that they wrongfully claimed over a quarter of a million dollars collectively. While unrelated, it is noteworthy that Senator Brazeau has already been barred from the Senate due to a criminal arrest in an unrelated matter.
This scandal has erupted into a political brawl in Ottawa. A faction led by Senate government leader Claude Carignan — and heavily influenced by prime minister Stephen Harper — called for the three Senators to be suspended without pay. Another faction claimed this act tantamount to declaring the three guilty without due process. Harper responded to this, stating that he wants them off the public payroll. He justified the suspensions to the radio station Newstalk 1010 on October 25, stating “if you did that in your work, your boss wouldn’t wait for you to be convicted of a crime.”
It is time for some serious Senate reform The Senate polices itself. The House of Commons has no legal ramifications on it.
One of the biggest problems with the entire situation is the fact that the Senate is responsible to no one. While representatives in the House of Commons are responsible to Canadian voters, who can refuse to vote for them if they fail in their responsibilities, members of the Senate of Canada are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the sitting prime minister, and may serve until the age of 75. Effectively, therefore, the Senate polices itself. No raging debate in the House of Commons can have any legal ramifications on it.
It is ridiculous that Canada, as one of the oldest democratic nations on the planet, has a branch of government that is both not elected by its people and has access to their money. It is just as ridiculous that these three accused of taking over a quarter of a million dollars from the Canadian people are still on the taxpayers’ payroll. It is time for some serious Senate reform. Canadians apparently agree with this: a recent poll from Angus Reid suggests about 40 per cent of Canadians favour Senate reform, with about 36 per cent favouring abolition.
So why can’t it get done? The Harper government, elected with a promise to reform the Senate, recently introduced Bill C-7, proposing limiting senators to nine-year terms and having provinces hold Senatorial elections. The Supreme Court will hear this bill next month, but the provincial government of Quebec already made noise, pointing out that such reform requires the approval of seven provinces with half the country’s population. Such support seems unlikely, as our provinces already find it difficult to agree on anything.
It looks like we’ll be stuck with appointed senators for the foreseeable future. As for the current scandal, those involved need to stop the mud-slinging, accept their punishment, and allow a proper investigation to occur. Accusing the prime minister of a conspiracy to destroy your reputation is not doing anything to help it, and I believe I speak for all Canadians in saying that we want to see this episode behind us. We want to see our government get back to governing the country, not dealing with a few senators who couldn’t keep their hands out of the proverbial cookie jar.
What the Frack?
Hydraulic fracturing, known by its nickname fracking, is a controversial method by which natural gas is extracted from the Earth. This technology is relatively new, and has been known to cause some major ecological problems, including groundwater contamination, the release of thousands of tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) into the air, and minor earthquakes in areas where it is conducted.
Nevertheless, fracking is widely regarded as a viable solution to the environmental degradation that is normally associated with methods of oil and gas extraction. So, let’s break down the positive and negative aspects of fracking.
So what exactly is fracking? It’s the process by which water is pumped into the Earth with extreme pressure in order to fracture rocks within the Earth’s surface. This releases previously trapped natural gas. In order to increase effectiveness, the water used in fracking is usually infused with chemicals. It takes anywhere from 1 to 8 million gallons of water in order to complete an average fracking job.
There are some environmental scientists who believe that this type of shale gas extraction is much better than the alternative. Before this type of technology was available, thousands of hectares of forests were regularly dug up in order to get at this resource; in comparison, fracking is less destructive of the environments in which it takes place. However, the process also carries considerable risks, whose impacts are only beginning to be felt in Canada’s ecosystem.
The amount of water being used for fracking is a very significant problem, as this water is often taken directly from aquifers and could lead to drought for many communities by depriving them of their own water sources. Also, due to the chemicals used in this process — including formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, methanol, radium, uranium, lead, and mercury — waste water from hydraulic fracturing is highly toxic. Without proper care, this waste water also has the potential to contaminate our drinking water.
Waste water also poses a danger to animals in their natural habitats, and fracking water left in tailing ponds can evaporate and release pollutant VOCs into the air. It is estimated that 20–80 per cent of the waste water is left in the ground after the fracking is over, which could mean bad news for Canada’s animal populations. In addition, the pressure associated with pumping these liquids into the ground, accompanied by the breakdown of integrity in the bedrock, has been known to cause minor seismic activity.
There are serious dangers involved with fracking, ones that should not go unnoticed by Canadians.
Given all these factors, it is interesting that the provincial and federal governments seem so keen on these types of practices. Here is my question: What kinds of costs are being weighed here, and for whose benefit? The shale gas industry in BC alone pumps an estimated 100 billion dollars into our economy each year, and billions more into Canada’s — but is this worth the human and environmental costs of such risky business?
It is also important to consider who is reaping the rewards of this economic boom. One could argue the poorest factions of our society are not the ones benefiting. These fracking practices also come at a time when the federal government is culling water regulations. This is dangerous, as it jeopardizes the longevity of our natural resources; the ones that have the potential to provide Canadians with the basic necessities of life, such as food and drinking water.
By examining these policies, it becomes quite clear that our government values the economy much more than it values the environment.
Which brings us to the events of the past month. In New Brunswick, widespread anti-fracking protests have been receiving national attention. The now-viral picture of an Elsipogtog First Nations woman on her knees before the police, holding up a single feather, brings to mind the same sort of visceral imagery as the sole protester standing up to a tank in China’s Tiananmen Square. And here is the rub: the county council in this region voted almost unanimously to ban fracking in their community.
This begs the question: since when does the need to pump money into the Canadian economy override our democratic rights, and to what extent is the rest of the Canadian public willing to stand idly by while this happens? Fracking may be a viable way to extract resources from the Earth, and it obviously comes with some serious economic benefits. However, there are also serious dangers involved in this process, ones that should not go unnoticed by Canadians or the world at large.
If we are not able to weigh the costs and benefits of fracking and decide for ourselves the appropriate course of action, what does that mean for our democracy?
BC students relaunch No Means No
Wednesday Oct. 16, BC student unions across the province relaunched No Means No, a campaign that aims to end rape on post-secondary campuses.
The No Means No Campaign was developed by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) over 20 years ago to combat issues of sexual assault, acquaintance rape, and dating violence across Canadian campuses. The campaign consists of materials which highlight research into incidences of sexual assault in Canada.
“Women continue to face disproportionately high levels of sexualized and gender-based violence on our campuses and in our communities,” said Madeline Keller-MacLoed, women’s student liaison of the CFS-BC, according to Digital Journal.
Keller-MacLoed said that the relaunch is a reaction to the recent instances of pro-rape chants at different Canadian institutions. “Given the recent instances of pro-rape chants at the University of British Columbia and Saint Mary’s University, more students are now challenging rape culture on campus via this campaign,” she stated.
“Failure to recognize assault in all of it’s forms empowers the offenders and punishes the survivors.”
Elizabeth Sheehy, professor, University of Ottawa
The “No Means No” campaign has been an initiative of university and college campuses across Canada since October 1989, when it emerged at Queen’s University during a campus-wide debate around sexism and violence against women on Canadian campuses.
Media reports followed the campaign, as male students across campus posted offensive anti-slogans such as “No Means Harder,” “No Means More Beer,” and “No Means Down on Your Knees, Bitch,” on their residence halls and windows.
In response to the incident, and the campus’ tolerance of the men’s behaviour, a 24-hour protest sit-in was staged by members of the “Radical Obnoxious Fucking Feminists” group. Fifty masked women read a list of demands from then president David Smith’s office. With the resulting media attention, and loss of alumni gifts, the school’s board of trustees was forced to follow the group’s demands.
Months later, another campus made media headlines, on Dec. 6, 1989. A deranged gunman at Montreal’s École Polytechnique, singled out and massacred the 14 female members of the then male-dominated engineering faculty. Two years later, in 1991, the Canadian government recognized Dec. 6 as National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
Although the level of harassment has gone down since the events of 1989, many experts believe there’s still a long way to go. Elizabeth Sheehy, professor of law at the University of Ottawa, spoke to this at last year’s National Research Day 2012 Conference.
“There is a 64 per cent unfounded rate of sexual assault cases [across the country],” said Sheehy, “a rate which is higher than any other assault rate in Canada . . . failure to recognize assault in all of it’s forms empowers the offenders and punishes the survivors.”
Caiti Barendregt-Brown, a sex educator in London, Ont., said when she finishes her high school sessions, she is still approached with questions from bewildered boys, according to The Globe and Mail. “I’m really confused,” one told her, “if a girl wears a short skirt and a low-cut top to a party, it looks like she wants sex.”
“Women continue to face disproportionately high levels of sexualized . . . violence on our campuses.”
– Madeline Keller-MacLoed, women’s student liaison, CFS-BC
In remembrance of these events, and the growing concern that sexual assault and discrimination has been growing again in today’s “rape culture” the No Means No campaign has resurfaced. Using, posters, buttons, and stickers, the student driven initiative has spread all across Canada, from the University of Toronto, to the Camosun College in Victoria. SFU however, did not take part in the relaunch, having severed ties with the Canadian Federation of Students in an out of court settlement in 2011.
The separation followed a campus-wide referendum in 2008 where over 92 per cent of student voters were reported to have cast ballots against SFU’s membership in the CFS. This referendum was subjected to concerns about process accuracy and fairness, but facing a potential court hearing, both parties settled on December 23, 2011.
Clan swept aside by Div. I opponents
Gonzaga University entered this year’s NCAA March Madness Tournament as a No. 1 seed, featuring the 13th-overall draft pick in the 2013 NBA draft, Kelly Olynyk, as well as the son of NBA Hall-of-Famer John Stockton.
The Bulldogs are an elite, Division I organization. And the Clan visited them last week.
It was the first exhibition game of the men’s basketball team’s new season, and it started off how you’d expect: Gonzaga roared out to a 15–3 lead, and held the Clan to 1-of-17 shooting to start the game. Another three-pointer from SFU’s senior guard Dillon Hamilton would bring the lead to 15–6; the nine-point differential would be the Clan’s smallest deficit of the game.
At the half, the Bulldogs had nearly doubled the SFU’s scoring output, sporting a 52–28 lead. The Clan refused to roll over though.
SFU’s David Gebru named a Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) preseason all-star, finished with 14 points to lead the Clan, and two newcomers, Justin Cole and Sango Niang, also hit double digits in points. And though the final score wasn’t close, it was closer than you may have expected, with SFU dropping the contest 103–68.
“This game was an unbelievable experience for our team,” said SFU head coach James Blake. “Our guards played tough defence and really challenged their perimeter players. They are just so big and we really struggled on the boards.”
“I wanted to play the hardest teams in our preseason schedule and we are. These games will prepare us for an unbelievably tough GNAC schedule,” he added.
His team played another one of “those games” last Saturday, against another Division I opponent, the University of Montana Grizzlies, who won the Big Sky Conference championship last year.
The game started off similarly to the game against Gonzaga: the Clan fell behind 10–0 before getting their first points. Unlike the Bulldogs, the Grizzlies defence completely stifled the Clan attack, and Montana had a commanding 46–19 lead at the half, a deficit that would only increase in a 102–49 loss.
“We came out flat against the defending Big Sky champion,” said Blake after the game. “Montana took us out of our offence early and we never got into a good flow . . .”
“Unfortunately we just ran out of steam playing against good Division I teams back-to-back.”
The good news is, the competition won’t get any tougher for SFU. There were no expectations on the Clan to win these two games, instead it was more of an opportunity to see how some of the best college basketball teams in the world operate.
The Clan are far from that recognition, but have a shot this year to bounce back and be one of the best teams in their conference. And after playing two Div. I schools, it’s only going to get easier.
Clan women crack the win column
After months of unsuccessful attempts, the Simon Fraser University women’s soccer team finally has a win in the books, defeating the Northwest Nazarene Crusaders 2–1 in overtime at home. In their first meeting earlier this season the two teams had tied in a 0-0 draw; As they took to Terry Fox Field for the rematch both teams were looking to take the season series.
The Crusaders struck first in the first half, and the first 45 ended with NNU up one. But the Clan were not ready to go down without a fight, pressuring the visitors relentlessly until freshman Sophie D’Souza was able to even the score.
The game then went to overtime and it looked like it could end with a similar result to their first meeting, but the Clan continued to press. This time, after a scramble in the box, freshman Kate Pearsall netted the go-ahead goal for the Clan, and the lead would stand without much contention from the Crusaders over the rest of the period. Keeper Simone Tessler also had six saves in the team’s first win of the season.
It was an exciting game for a team that has shown heart and moments of brilliance throughout the season, but struggled to capitalize and produce results.
Unfortunately, the Clan were unable to build a win streak as two days later at their seniors game they fell to the Montana State University Billings Yellowjackets 3–0. The two-game split brings their conference record to 1–11–2 on the season.
Before the game, seniors Abbey Vogt, Marissa Di Lorenzo, Yva Rodriguez and Jenna Piovesan were honoured for their contributions to the Clan as they played in their final home game.
The team also received off-the-field accolades this past week as three team members were named to the Great Northwest Athletic Conference All-Academic team. Di Lorenzo, honoured for her third consecutive year, was, joined by juniors Ali Trenter in her second time honoured and Aja Choy-Halo, a first time honouree. To be eligible for the GNAC academic team, student-athletes must be a letter winner, have a minimum grade point average of 3.20 and be in at least their second year of competition at their university.
The women’s squad will now turn their attention to their final games of the season hitting the road to close their conference schedule with the intensity and heart shown in their first win of the season.
Clan defeat defending champs
Simon Fraser’s first meeting of the season with the Selkirk College Saints was more than just another regular season contest: it was a statement game in every sense of the phrase. SFU was looking to make their championship aspirations known by knocking off their bitter rivals, and the reigning BCIHL champions, from Castelgar.
Selkirk, playing the role of the visitors, flew out of the gate, outskating SFU and drawing two penalties. SFU killed off both powerplays, but the man advantages gave Selkirk the momentum and the visitors eventually opened the scoring on a Darnell Dyck sharp-angled shot.
Selkirk, however, gave the momentum right back to SFU with a lazy hooking penalty from Connor McLaughlin two hundred feet from his own net. SFU’s number-one powerplay in the BCIHL continued its torrid pace as Nick Sandor muscled in the puck off a scramble in front of Selkirk’s goal.
After Sandor’s tally, the ice had clearly started to tilt in SFU’s favour. Josh McKissock added to SFU’s total with a cheeky backhand that floated over Saints’ goaltender James Prigione’s glove. Jesse Mysiorek tipped in the home team’s third goal of the first period, giving SFU a 3-1 lead after one.
SFU’s forecheck and special teams were key in the victory and the Clan continued to find success off each in the second period. Late in the middle frame, a solid forecheck drew another Selkirk hooking penalty, putting the Clan back on the power play with an opportunity to pad their lead.
On the ensuing powerplay, the Clan’s leading scorer Jono Ceci finished off a slick cross ice pass from Sandor for the team’s fourth goal. After finding themselves down three goals, Selkirk showed their championship mettle by battling back and scoring a late power play goal heading into the third.
Goaltender Graeme Gordon was the sole reason SFU did not relinquish the lead in the third period. Although the Clan played solid defense, Selkirk’s skill was on full display as Saint’s forewards threw everything they had at the SFU goalie.
Gordon’s best save, and a save-of-the-year candidate, came off a Scott Swiston partial breakaway. Swiston faked the forehand shot, freezing Gordon, and pulled the puck back across the net with one hand. The net was wide open, except for Gordon’s flailing arm, which he used to turn away Swiston’s backhanded attempt.
SFU’s top line rewarded their goaltender’s effort as Sandor rushed the puck along the left wing and fed it cross crease to Ceci for the tap in.
Selkirk would add a late goal in the third but it was not enough, and SFU won their biggest game so far this season 5–3. It is apparent SFU’s mantra is to forecheck heavily and to draw penalties while doing so — A strategy that has worked to perfection so far.
Next on the schedule is a visit from the University of Victoria Vikes before the Clan hit the road for stops at Eastern Washington and a rematch with the Selkirk Saints.
SFU volleyball earns first win streak in three years
Against the Montana State University-Billings Yellowjackets, SFU women’s volleyball was able to do something they haven’t done since preseason — and haven’t done in conference play in years: win a second straight game.
In what was the closest game of the season, the Clan needed all five sets to steal the victory, their second straight after defeating Alaska Fairbanks. SFU won the first, third, and fifth sets by scores of 25–20, 25–22, and 16–14, respectively, and lost the second and fourth sets both by 25–21 scores.
Junior Kelsey Robinson, one of the team’s captains, shone on offence, registering 24 kills, far and away the team lead. Fellow junior Amanda Renkema was second with 13. Robinson also had 18 digs on the day, good for second on the team, seven behind junior libero Alanna Chan.
“We knew we had to keep our heads in the game and to focus on the next play,” said Renkema of the back-and-forth affair. “We just needed to get the job done. We wanted to win really bad and everyone knew what they had to do and we really came together to get the victory.”
You’d have to go all the way back to the 2010 season to find the last time the Clan won back-to-back games within the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) — then it was against MSUB and Saint Martin’s. The win only brought SFU’s record to 4–5 within the conference, but is a testament to the vast improvement the team has showed in 2013 under new head coach Gina Schmidt.
Unfortunately, the Clan couldn’t keep the momentum going, dropping their next game in four sets to Seattle Pacific on Oct. 26. It was another relatively tight game, with SPU and SFU splitting the first two sets 25–19 and 25–21, respectively, before the Clan dropped the next two 25–23 and 25–17.
Despite the loss, it was another strong effort from SFU. Robinson again lead the team in kills, with 21, while sophomore Tamara Nipp led the Clan with 21 assists.
Their record dropped to 4–6 within the GNAC, and the Clan aren’t satisfied in simply finding positives in losses anymore. They’re showing signs of life, but will need another win streak to do it.
The cost of Rent is too high
Written by Tom Pankratz, Drama Teacher
Listen, I know you guys were all jazzed about doing Rent this year but we just can’t afford to put in on. I don’t want you to take this as an insult to your acting abilities — I know you could pull it off beautifully — but our budget just won’t allow it this year.
I mean, god, the sets alone would put us in the red with all those different Lower East Side murals we’d have to paint not to mention buying all those drag queen costumes. I know we could just do it using some of the backdrops we already own but I don’t want to do anything that isn’t authentic.
Some of you might remember in 2009 when we did Grease using our 19th century revolution-torn France Miserables sets . . . quite frankly, it was a disaster. I don’t want to do that again this year, especially with a musical that deals with material as serious as Rent does, so I say we should just do Phantom again.
Yeah, I know we just did it last year but we already have all the sets made, we already invested in the sheet music and we already spent a shit load of money on that goddamn half-face ceramic mask.
Come on though, it’ll be great. We could really nail it this year.
Sure it was good last year but with a whole other year to rehearse we can make it perfect!
Rent is overrated anyways, Phantom is a classic. We can even switch up a few of the roles to shake it up and maybe adapt the story to make it fresh.
We could even write in that the phantom has HIV if you guys are really so hell-bent on this Rent thing.
So it’s settled. Rent is out and were doing Phantom again. Maybe with a couple more lesbians and anarchists than the original. Everyone good with that?
I’m really sorry for all you guys who already learned all the songs for Rent . . . I really would’ve let you guys do it if we could afford it. The drama department sure is underfunded. I can’t think of any bigger problem in our province right now that the crazy prices of putting on musicals!
Is there anything that’s more unfeasible than the price of Rent: The Musical?
